1. Complementary Pathways

Nov 2019
Whereas:
  1. The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), which was affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018, recognizes the expansion of resettlement and complementary pathways as one of the four objectives of the GCR;
  2. In that regard, UNHCR has developed a three-year Strategy (2019 – 2021) on resettlement and complementary pathways with the goal of increasing the number of resettlement spaces envisaged by the GCR;
  3. This Strategy envisions the admission by 2028 of 2 million refugees through complementary pathways, which are defined as safe and regulated avenues for refugees that complement resettlement by providing lawful stay in a third country where their international protection needs are met;
  4. The CCR welcomes the expansion of third country solutions through complementary pathways to address the huge gap in securing adequate resettlement spaces for the refugees globally;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call for the following principles to be respected in the development of complementary pathways:

  1. Complementary pathways must offer a durable solution to refugees.  
  2. Complementary pathways must aim to keep families together and respect the fundamental right to family reunification.
  3. The development of complementary pathways must not lead to a decrease in commitment to traditional resettlement.
  4. The development of complementary pathways must include meaningful refugee participation and leadership.
  5. Effort should be made to ensure complementary pathways are broadly available to diverse refugee populations.
  6. Complementary pathways should offer the same level of integration support as traditional refugee pathways offer.

3. Refugee Resettlement Numbers

Jun 2013
Whereas:

CCR has numerous resolutions on refugee resettlement targets and levels, including Resolution 14 of November 2003 on “Refugee Resettlement Targets”;

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR urge the Government of Canada to resettle annually a minimum of 10% of the refugees resettled globally. 

5. Referral to services post-eligibility

Nov 2010
Whereas:
  1. Bill C-11 will create very tight timelines;
  2. Claimants will need assistance in understanding and preparing for the process;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR call on CIC and CBSA to adopt as a standard operating procedure the referral of claimants to appropriate and willing community agencies, such as an immigrant serving agency or legal aid, in a city or area of choice of the claimant, immediately after eligibility has been determined.

Working Group:

6. Canada’s global resettlement program

Nov 2007
Whereas:

Canada is directing resources to its group processing initiatives at the expense of its global program for refugees seeking protection through resettlement;

Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge the Canadian government to commit to maintain global access to resettlement and increase the resources to make that access effective.

9. Resettlement, durable solutions and signatory countries

May 2004
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.

12. Statelessness

Nov 2003
Whereas:
  1. Stateless people are in a vulnerable situation because they have no protection from a state;
  2. IRPA does not specify stateless persons as a group needing protection or eligible for landing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Strongly urge the Minister to amend IRPA to include statelessness as a ground for protection (both in Canada and for resettlement).
  2. In the alternative, use the authority of subsection 25(1) to establish "protection of stateless persons" as a public policy category for permanent residence and amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to include statelessness as a ground for resettlement to Canada.
  3. As an interim measure urge CIC to amend the Immigration Manual, Chapter IP5, to include statelessness as a factor for landing in H&C applications. ID requirements and establishment requirements should be waived in view of the special hardships faced by stateless persons.

9. Cost recovery mechanisms for referrals

May 2003
Whereas:
  1. CCR Resolution 39, June 1994 condemned cost recovery fees for Convention refugees and their dependants and requested that processing fees be eliminated for refugees and CCR Resolution 12, May 1995, called the Right of Landing Fee discriminatory, exclusionary and racist and called for the repeal of the Right of Landing Fee for all newcomers to Canada while recognizing the particular burden the head tax laid on refugees;
  2. CIC is likely to implement a "user pay" cost recovery fee to pay organizations abroad who are contracted to refer and/or process refugees for resettlement to Canada. The cost recovery mechanism will create additional debt burdens for refugees resettled to Canada;
  3. The cost recovery mechanism creates a two-tier system for refugees seeking resettlement because neither sponsors nor UNHCR charge fees to refugees for referral;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Reiterate its condemnation of the charging of application and/or processing fees and oppose the application of any new charges to refugees resettled to Canada, based on the resettlement referral;
  2. Call on CIC to ensure that sufficient funds are available through its own program budget funding to facilitate the applications, referrals and processing of all refugees abroad accepted for permanent residence.

10. Referral organizations

Nov 2002
Whereas:
  1. The Canadian Government has enacted new regulations for managing access to the refugee resettlement program;
  2. The new provisions require refugees seeking resettlement to obtain a private sponsorship, or a referral from UNHCR or a designated referral organization;
  3. No referral organizations have been designated to date, other than UNHCR, and none is likely be designated before the end of 2003;
  4. Refugee referrals to the refugee resettlement programme will be insufficient to meet the targets for 2003;
  5. There is a limited exception for direct access for refugee referrals in certain geographic regions which the Minister designates;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge the Canadian Government to:

  1. Enhance the ability of UNHCR to refer cases for resettlement until other viable referral mechanisms are put into place;
  2. Make greater use of its authority in S. 150 of IRPR to allow direct access for refugees seeking resettlement.

18. Referral Agents as Access Control Mechanisms for Refugee Resettlement

May 2002
Whereas:
  1. CIC is committed to implementing a model for referral agencies as one of the access control mechanisms for identifying refugees for resettlement to Canada;
  2. CCR has expressed some concerns with how the potential models will be designed and implemented particularly with respect to controlling the ability of refugees to access resettlement as a means of protection and as a durable solution and with the impact and implications of these models for the referral partner agencies;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request that CIC identity and implement a process for dialogue with CCR and CIC's resettlement partners in Canada and abroad as it moves forward with development of effective, fair and accessible models for referral agencies.

6. Orphans of war

Dec 2000
Whereas:
  1. There are minor orphans of war or civil strife or in other refugee-like situations whose future is limited without resettlement;
  2. Current procedures for the sponsorship of orphaned minors are inadequate;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to expand Canada's ability to provide private and government sponsorships of refugee orphaned minors.

 

5. Resettlement from signatory states

Dec 1999
Whereas:
  1. Countries interpret the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees on the basis of widely differing standards and criteria;
  2. CIC is inconsistent in its policy in interpreting what constitutes a durable solution;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Affirm that persons in signatory states, including states with refugee determination systems, should continue to be eligible for consideration for refugee resettlement to Canada, regardless of the status or result of the refugee application;
  2. Write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and request that the Regulations be amended to specify that temporary protection and eligibility for future refugee determination do not constitute a durable solution and that a policy directive be issued in the interim stating that "durable solution" be interpreted in this way.

11. Women at Risk

Nov 1995
Whereas:
  1. Some refugee women in need of resettlement fit the special criteria of the Women at Risk Programme (in general women in urgent need of resettlement (Stream A) or women who require longer term settlement assistance (Stream B));
  2. The CCR has called for the expeditious processing of Stream A cases;
  3. The CCR has affirmed the use of the Joint Assistance Initiative (formerly Joint Assistance Programme) for Stream B cases;
  4. Citizenship and Immigration officials have indicated that refugee women fitting the Stream A of the Women at Risk Programme have been processed as government-assisted refugees (CR1) because CR1 refugees can be processed more quickly than Women at Risk cases;
  5. When Stream A Women at Risk cases are processed as CR1s they are not counted in Women at Risk Programme statistics;
  6. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has not followed up on its review of the Women at Risk Programme nor responded to the recommendations adopted by the CCR in November 1994;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR:

  1. Express to Citizenship and Immigration Canada its deep disappointment at the lack of attention to reform of the Women at Risk programme.
  2. Call on the Department to:

            a) Distinguish in its Women at Risk statistics between Stream A and Stream B cases;

            b) Continue to process expeditiously women with urgent protection needs through CR1 channels, but categorize them as Women at Risk Stream A for the purpose of statistics, where they meet the Women at Risk definition;

            c) Continue to process Women at Risk Stream B cases as a subset of the Joint Assistance Initiative, categorized for statistical purposes as Women at Risk Stream B;

  1. Reaffirm its former Women at Risk resolutions, with a particular emphasis on the call to negotiate the use of Reception Centres for the initial reception and (for CR5) matching of Women at Risk.

10. Resettlement Consultations

Nov 1995
Whereas:
  1. Consultations on resettlement policy and practices have been launched by the UNHCR;
  2. EXCOM Conclusion 19(p) of October 1995 states "The Executive Committee reiterates the continued importance of resettlement as an instrument of protection and its use as a durable solution to refugee problems in specific circumstances; welcomes the initiative in commissioning an evaluation study and the UNHCR consultation on resettlement; and encourages UNHCR to continue the process of dialogue with interested Governments and non-governmental organizations to strengthen its activities in this connection, and to provide regular reports to the Executive Committee";
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR:

  1. Endorse EXCOM Conclusion 19(p);
  2. Invite American NGOs involved in resettlement and the UNHCR for a regional meeting to prepare for the upcoming international tripartite (NGO, government, UNHCR) resettlement consultation to be held in Geneva;
  3. Seek government support to enable Canadian NGO participation at this tripartite consultation.