CCR Resolutions Database

Search here for CCR resolutions. You can also consult resolutions by date of adoption.

Res.: 2 , Nov 2013
Whereas:
  1. Family  reunification is a central objective of the immigration programs of Canada and Quebec;
  2. Canada has signed and ratified international conventions which affirm the principle of family unity and that the family is entitled to protection by society and the state;
  3. These positions are affirmed in CCR’s Family reunification Resolution of June 1997, Increased commitment to family reunification Resolution of November 2011 and several other CCR resolutions;
  4. Proof of minimum income requirement is already exempted for certain family members such as spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner or dependent child;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call on the governments of Canada and Quebec to abolish the minimum income requirement for all classes of family class sponsorship.

Res.: 3 , Nov 2013
Whereas:
  1. CIC stops processing a permanent resident application upon the death of the applicant, and stops processing a sponsorship application upon the death of the sponsor;
  2. Stopping the process affects family members who are included as dependants in the application;
  3. Canada has an obligation to consider the best interests of affected children and act in accordance with humanitarian and compassionate principles.
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call on CIC, in the case of the death of the sponsor or principal applicant, to ensure that:

  1. The permanent residence application is processed to completion taking into account the best interests of the child and other humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
  2. If the persons concerned are in Canada this processing be completed prior to potential removal.
Res.: 1 , Nov 2013
Whereas:
  1. Canada as a nation has yet to fully respect the Indigenous nations and honour their inherent rights as acknowledged by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and provided for by the many subsequent Treaties.
  2. Injustices and harms have been – and continue to be – perpetrated upon Indigenous peoples as a result of the colonization of the First Peoples and the racist policies of the governments in Canada.
  3. Despite Canada's economic prosperity, First Peoples continue to experience a disproportionate level of poverty and related disparities as compared to the rest of the population.
  4. As Treaty peoples, we share a vision for Canada which promises fairness, respect, justice, equality and prosperity for everyone on these lands and territories.
  5. We believe that the first critical step towards realizing that vision is the rebuilding and renewing of the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples of Canada through a process of reconciliation that fully honours our respective roles as Treaty peoples.
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR honour all the Treaties upon which this country is founded and which bind all of us as Treaty peoples.

Res.: 4 , Nov 2013
Whereas:
  1. For refugees from countries such as Syria and Afghanistan, and urban refugees in many countries, there is no possibility of receiving timely or any refugee status determination by UNHCR or a host country.
  2. The requirement of host country or UNHCR recognition as refugees in order to be considered as eligible for sponsorship by a Group of 5 or by a Community Sponsor is a de facto limit on the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program that discriminates against refugees who do not have timely or any access to status determination.
  3. The CCR has adopted many resolutions over the years in support of non-discrimination in access to refugee resettlement and of family reunification.
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call upon the government to remove the requirement of refugee status determination for G-5 and Community Sponsors.

Res.: 3 , 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. 

Res.: 1 , Jun 2013
Whereas:
  1. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has outlined forthcoming changes to Canada’s Refugee Resettlement Program that use both protection and immigration criteria and, among other changes, call for a limiting of the numbers of refugees resettled who have high needs for services and support to achieve integration; furthermore these changes will unfairly disadvantage women refugees, the elderly and other vulnerable groups;
  2. The changes include criteria for selection based on Canada’s foreign or economic interests and ministerial interests;
  3. Recent changes to Canada’s Immigration Program will ensure that more immigrants will arrive with skills and expertise that will reduce the needs for settlement and integration services and supports;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate that:

  1. Resettlement of refugees is first and foremost a tool of protection which must be the main motivation for Canada’s refugee resettlement program;
  2. Foreign policy interests and other political or economic interests have no place in a humanitarian program;
  3. The criteria defining the ability to successfully establish in Canada have no place in an humanitarian program that focuses on protection and should be eliminated entirely from the Refugee Resettlement Regulations;
  4. Federal and provincial governments increase resources for programs and services to facilitate better integration outcomes especially when the refugee has high needs and may require different levels of support over a longer period of time.
Res.: 2 , Jun 2013
Whereas:

The Government of Canada is proposing to reduce the maximum age of dependants in the Immigration and Refuge Protection Regulations from under 22 years of age to under 19 years of age;

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate that the criteria of dependency for children remain as they currently appear in the regulations (age under 22 years, full-time students and children with a disability).

Res.: 1 , Dec 2012
Whereas:
  1. The CCR’s 2003 resolution calls on its members to sensitize themselves on the issues facing First Nations communities and explore ways of having meaningful dialogue with these communities;
  2. The CCR needs to further this position by taking concrete action to strengthen relationships with indigenous communities;
  3. The CCR also must incorporate awareness of the history and present realities of indigenous peoples in our activities and our work;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR Consultation and summer and winter Working Group meetings acknowledge the Indigenous territory on which they take place, and where appropriate invite and involve indigenous community members.

Res.: 2 , Dec 2012
Whereas:
  1. It has become clear over the last decades that many corporations are complicit in human rights violations that contribute to forced displacement;
  2. Many governments increasingly support these corporate activities through their economic development policies, further undermining protection of vulnerable populations;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR oppose corporate activities that contribute, directly or indirectly, to forced displacement.

Res.: 5 , Jun 2012
Whereas:

conditions imposed on individuals to be released from detention by the Immigration Division and conditions imposed for a stay of a deportation order by the Immigration Appeal Division do not always take into consideration difficulties of compliance for people with serious mental health issues.

Therefore be it resolved:

that CCR advocate that the IRB develop a policy for decision makers that requires that all conditions of release and stay take into account the ability of the person to comply with the conditions in light of their mental health status.

Res.: 3 , Jun 2012
Whereas:
  1. It is estimated that the backlog of refugee claims at the IRB will be approximately 38,000 at the time Bill C 31 comes into effect,
  2. This backlog will severely hamper the functioning of the new system,
  3. These individuals will be denied access to the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and to consideration on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds solely due to delays in processing their claims at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and
  4. Canada and other jurisdictions have implemented regularization programs to eliminate backlogs prior to changes in the refugee determination system
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate for the establishment of an “earned regularization program” for refugee claimants whose claims have not been determined by the date of the coming into force of Bill C-31 and that participation in the program be voluntary and not result in the cancellation of the refugee protection claim.

Res.: 4 , Jun 2012
Whereas:
  1. Proceedings at the IRB involving refugees and refugee claimants are held in private by operation of law;
  2. Disclosure of information regarding refugees can place applicants, their family members and associates at risk;
  3. The information contained in judicial review records routinely includes protected private information;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call on the Federal Court to adopt a practice of identifying refugee claimants by initials only and to take other appropriate measures to preserve confidentiality of private information for applicants seeking leave for judicial review of all immigration matters concerning risk to persons, including decisions by the Refugee Protection Division, Refugee Appeal Decision, the Immigration Division, and Minister’s delegates.

Res.: 1 , Jun 2012
Whereas:
  1. Anyone who resides in Canada should be entitled to an acceptable level of healthcare;
  2. The Canada Health Act enshrines the principle of universality;
  3. Preventative healthcare is both more humane and more economical than curative healthcare; and
  4. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that everyone has the right to “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” and that States have a duty of non-discrimination in the realization of that right.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR oppose the reductions to the IFHP announced in April 2012 and advocate:

  1. For the cancellation of the announced reductions,
  2. Against any other reductions in IFHP coverage, and
  3. Against any differentiation in coverage based on category of refugee or claimant, or stage of processing (e.g. claimant, accepted refugee, refused refugee, government-assisted refugees, privately-sponsored refugees).
Res.: 5 , Jun 2012
Whereas:

individuals with mental health issues, who have had no involvement with the criminal justice system, are detained in provincial criminal institutions,

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate that CBSA cease this practice, provide individuals with accommodations that respect their dignity, and provide access to appropriate services.

Res.: 5 , Jun 2012
Whereas:

there are numerous gaps in services for immigrants and refugees with mental health issues and serious problems with the legal framework

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate in favour of:

  1. The right to State-funded counsel for persons with mental health issues.
  2. Access to mental health services for persons in detention, including assessment, counselling, and treatment.
  3. Training on mental health issues for all CBSA officers, IRB members, designated representatives and other stakeholders.
  4. Guidelines to provide for flexibility to enable PIF or BOC amendments without consequences for refugee claimants and
  5. Relaxed timelines for all vulnerable persons.
  6. Repeal IRPA sections 64 (2) (no appeal for a person with a sentence of 2 years or more) and 68 (a) (automatic termination of stays of removal in the event of subsequent conviction.
Res.: 2 , Jun 2012
Whereas:

The federal government announced reductions to the Interim Federal Health Program in April 2012 and these changes are slated to come into effect on June 30th, 2012.

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR calls upon the provinces and territories:

  1. To urge the federal government to stop the changes to the Interim Federal Health Program.
  2. To consult and work with affected communities and those that work with those communities to ensure all persons affected by the announced IFHP reductions receive the health care they need.
Res.: 6 , Jun 2012
Whereas:

individuals with on-going processes with CIC, CBSA, and/or the IRB are required to provide separate address notification to each,

Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate in favour of a centralized notification of change of address to avoid incidents of unnecessary detention and/or abandonment or dismissal of claims.

Res.: 4 , Nov 2011
Whereas:
  1. The live-in caregiver program currently requires workers to live in the employer’s home;
  2. Living in the employer’s home creates a greater possibility for sexual and labour exploitation;
  3. The program does not allow family members to accompany the worker until they fulfill their required hours, thereby leading to family separation for a minimum period of 2 years;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR request that:

  1. The "live-in” requirement be removed from the conditions of the program;
  2. Caregivers’ families be allowed to accompany them or join them in Canada at any point during their participation in the program.
Res.: 2 , Nov 2011
Whereas:
  1. Family  reunification is a central objective of Canada's immigration programs
  2. The CCR has called on the government to eliminate barriers to family reunification;
  3. Extended families including parents and grandparents are important to social and economic wellbeing of families, including those of refugees and immigrants;
  4. The sponsorship of parents and grandparents have had a lower overall priority in family reunification applications for the last few years;
  5. The moratorium on these applications will close the door to some of these family members;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call on the government of Canada, through CIC, to demonstrate its commitment to family reunification by:

A) rebalancing immigration levels so that families make up at least 40% of the total;

B) expanding the definition of families to reflect the realities of diverse cultural communities;

C) removing barriers to reunification by allocating the resources needed to process applications in a timely manner.

Res.: 3 , Nov 2011
Whereas:
  1. The government is introducing multiple entry visas of up to 10 years to allow parents and grandparents to visit family here as a way to address long family separations caused by processing delays;
  2. The visitors are required to purchase medical insurance in order to qualify for the visa;
  3. Canada imposes visa requirements only on some countries, mostly in the global south and those with a majority racialized population;
  4. Racialized Canadians are over-represented among those who would be most affected;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR demand that the government of Canada remove proof of purchase of medical insurance on the multiple ten year visas for parents and grandparents.

Res.: 1 , Nov 2011
Whereas:
  1. Canadians, many private and public stakeholders and governments agree that Canada needs immigrants to sustain its current prosperity;
  2. Canada has received immigrants in excess of 1% of the population in several previous years and has become stronger as a result;
  3. Immigration has strengthened Canada's multicultural and multifaith fabric;
  4. Canada is attempting to fill its demographic needs through temporary rather than permanent immigration;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR demand that the government of Canada set immigration levels at a minimum of 1% of the population and invest the resources needed for successful settlement and integration.

Res.: 1 , May 2011
Whereas:
  1. The government of Canada is proposing to introduce a specified period of conditional permanent residence for some sponsored spouses and partners;
  2. Making permanent residence for the sponsored partner conditional puts all the power into the hands of sponsor, who may use the precarity of the partner’s status as a tool for manipulation;
  3. The proposed conditional permanent residency would represent a major step backwards in Canadian immigration policy, increase inequalities in relationships between spouses, and put women in particular at heightened risk of violence and exploitation;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR oppose conditional permanent residence for sponsored spouses and partners.

Res.: 4 , May 2011
Whereas:
  1. Permanent residents who are found to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or organized crime are denied access to the Immigration Appeal Division;
  2. Convention refugees in Canada can be removed for reasons of serious criminality if there is a danger opinion against them;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR call for refugees and permanent residents facing removal on the basis of serious criminality or organized crime to have access to the IAD for consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors.

Res.: 2 , May 2011
Whereas:
  1. The international community issued a call for action following the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa and the Government of Canada presented Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism in 2005;
  2. Examples of concerns include significant delays in the processing of cases in Sub Saharan African countries. Applicants face some of the longest waiting times and one of the highest rate of refusals, and the total quota of refugees accepted from the region is far lower than the extent of need identified by the UNHCR and NGOs. The recent announcement of a quota system for Quebec will reduce only the number of arrivals from Africa;
  3. This is clear evidence of systemic racism experienced by individuals of African origin across all categories of refugee protection and immigration.
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR call on the government of Canada to take specific steps to address systemic racism evident in policy and practice in refugee protection and processing of immigration files of Sub-Saharan Africans, and reiterate the request made to the Government of Canada in resolution 7 of May 2007 and Resolution 1 of June 2010 (page 21).

Res.: 3 , May 2011
Whereas:
  1. The Canadian people through their faith and ethnocultural organizations wish to welcome and protect refugees;
  2. The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program allows Canadians to welcome and protect refugees;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR:

  1. Reaffirm our support of the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program to allow Canadians to protect and welcome refugees;
  2. Oppose any government limit or ceilings on the PSR program.

Pages