Resolutions adopted May 2004

4. Eligibility for HRSDC programming

Whereas:
  1. The government of Canada has repeatedly expressed concern for the under- employment of skilled newcomers.
  2. Many highly trained newcomers must work at survival jobs in order to support their families.
  3. People who work more than 20 hours a week are excluded from Employment Assistance programs funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC).
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to the Minister of HRSDC urging that under-employed newcomers be eligible for employment services regardless of the number of hours’ work per week if they are working outside of their sphere of expertise.

9. Resettlement, durable solutions and signatory countries

Whereas:
  1. The CCR adopted Resolution 5, Dec. 1999 drawing CIC’s attention to the inconsistency of interpretation of ‘durable solution’ and calling for an interpretation that specified that temporary protection and eligibility for future refugee determination do not constitute a ‘durable solution’.
  2. CIC’s manual chapter OP5 fails to provide clarity to the interpretation of ‘durable solution’, and continues to blend the concepts of ‘signatory countries’ and ‘fair and effective protection regimes’.
  3. The language used in OP5 does not conform to the regulatory provisions in IRPA.
  4. CIC created the policy in OP5 of ‘signatory countries’ as a limitation to access the Canadian resettlement stream even though IRPA provides no such limitation.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urge CIC to abandon the use of concepts of ‘signatory countries’ and ‘fair and effective protection regimes’ and focus its attention on the availability of a durable solution for the individual applicant.
  2. Urge that OP5 be amended to conform to IRPA and to set out that there is no reasonable prospect of a durable solution in all those situations where it has been improperly applied, and in particular, those situations where: a)    a refugee claim has been made in the country where the person is located and rejected.

     

     b)    the determination of a refugee claim in the country where the person is located is subject to undue delays.

     

     c)    a refugee claim is pending in the country where the person is located and likely to be rejected for the reason that the concept of protection is applied more narrowly by that country than by Canada.

     

     d)    the person has been denied access to the local refugee determination regime because of the person’s own prior irrevocable waiver of the right to access the refugee determination system.
  3. Request that CIC:
    a) make it clear to sponsors and the applicant when CIC believes that applicants are in a country where local integration may represent a durable solution.
    b) indicate concretely what the proposed durable solution is.

     

     
    c) allow the sponsors and the applicant to rebut that presumption.
  4. Urge its members to litigate failed resettlement cases where ‘signatory country’ was the issue.

10. Slow processing times

Whereas:
  1. There is a long, 2-3 year backlog of privately sponsored refugee applications.
  2. CCR adopted Res. 13, May 02 on long processing times.
  3. All government-assisted refugees (GARs) are now referred by the UNHCR (other than in source countries) and CCR has repeatedly been told that there are limited visa office resources.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge CIC to simplify the overseas refugee determination process, and to eliminate the perennial backlog by not re-interviewing UNHCR referred GARs, and through temporary staff re-deployments.