CCR Resolutions Database

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

Res.: 17 , May 1998
Whereas:
  1. In June of 1996, in response to the U.S. INS detention of Canada-bound refugee claimants and the subsequent processing of said claimants for deportation, the CCR passed a resolution urging CIC to cease turning refugee claimants back to the U.S.;
  2. INS detentions of Canada-bound refugee claimants have continued and, in fact, broadened in 1998 to include detentions in the Niagara Region, Blackpool and Minnesota;
  3. INS has continued to detain certain refugee claimants, even after such claimants have received Canadian eligibility determinations, thereby denying these claimants the opportunity to pursue their refugee claims in Canada;
  4. In an April 29, 1998 letter to the President of the CCR, the Acting Director General of the Enforcement Branch, CIC NHQ, stated, "...it is our policy that no person will be returned to the United States where there is reason to believe that they will be removed from the U.S. before the scheduled eligibility determination or would otherwise be unavailable because of detention. We are reviewing our procedures manual to ensure that this is clearly understood";
  5. Despite the above-cited policy, CIC in the Niagara Region has continued to direct refugee claimants back to the United States to await eligibility determinations, which has resulted in the detention of a troubling number of people;
  6. CIC's practice at certain border crossings of closing the border to refugee claimants on certain days of the week or at certain times of the year has also led to U.S. detentions of Canada-bound refugees awaiting Canadian processing;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge CIC to:

  1. Process refugee claimants immediately upon their arrival at the border, rather than closing the border to refugee claimants on certain days of the week or at certain times of the year.
  2. Discontinue the practice of directing refugee claimants back to the United States.
  3. In cases where Canada-bound refugee claimants have been detained by the INS, request that INS release such individuals to Canada to proceed with Canadian refugee claims.
Res.: 5 , May 1998
Whereas:
  1. The CCR adopted Resolution 3 in November 1997 concerning changes from AAP to RAP and has not received a satisfactory response;
  2. There has been no consultation about the changes to services with the organizations that deliver the services, let alone with the refugees receiving the services;
  3. CIC is committed to promoting through its services greater independence in government-assisted refugees;
  4. CIC is continuing to impose a quantitative approach (defining the numbers of hours of service to be delivered, and the period within which they are to be delivered);
  5. The changes appear to mean, at least in some regions, significant cutbacks in services for government-assisted refugees;
  6. In some areas the role of reception centres is being called into question, but without open discussion and consultation;
  7. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is developing national standards for services to arriving refugees, again without consultations;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Reaffirm its call for RAP services to be contracted on a "global" basis - both temporary accommodation and services -  while maintaining the financial contribution to existing reception centres at the 1997-98 level;
  2. Note that "independence" for resettled refugees is best achieved through timely, holistic, effective and appropriate services;
  3. Call on Citizenship and Immigration Canada i) to review the proposed RAP implementation and develop national standards, in consultation with NGOs delivering the services and with resettled refugees, and ii) to hold a national meeting for this consultation.
Res.: 3 , May 1998
Whereas:

There is a need to share information on services for refugee claimants and to explore how the work can be improved and better communication networks established across the country;

Therefore be it resolved:

That the Executive of the CCR give priority consideration to establishing an ad hoc joint committee (Settlement/Protection) to deal with the issues of services to refugee claimants.

Res.: 8 , May 1998
Whereas:
  1. Human rights violations in Guatemala have increased significantly since the April 1998 assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi Conedera two days after he presented the report of the Interdiocesan Project to Recover the Historical Memory (REMHI) which named some of the perpetrators involved in torture, killings, massacres and disappearances;
  2. The REMHI report not only documents 55,021 cases of victims, holding the Guatemalan Army and paramilitary squads responsible for 85.4% of the crimes and the insurgency responsible for 9.3% of those crimes, but also exposes the way the repressive apparatus operates allowing powerful perpetrators of human rights violations to continue to act with impunity;
  3. Luis Yat, indigenous mayor of El Quiche was assassinated in front of his wife and children last May 6 and numerous members of indigenous, women's and human rights organizations continue to be threatened and intimidated;
  4. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States (OAS) requested the Guatemalan State to provide protective measures for 110 members of REMHI and workers at the Human Rights Office of the Catholic Archdiocese who are at risk;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask that the number of government-assisted refugees from Guatemala be increased and that she direct her department to take note of the worsening human rights situation in Guatemala when considering risk assessments, humanitarian and compassionate applications and deferring removals.
  2. Write to the government of Guatemala to demand that they protect the 110 members of REMHI and workers at the Human Rights Office of the Catholic Archdiocese.
  3. Write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking him to protest to the Guatemalan government at the murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi Conedera and to pressure the Guatemalan government to protect the REMHI members and Human Rights Office workers.
Res.: 11 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The IRB (CRDD) currently allows documents from its Documentation Centres to be entered into evidence at hearings despite the absence of the name of the source of the document;
  2. This practice contravenes the principles of fairness;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge the IRB to ensure that any document supplied by the IRB's documentation centre contain proper identification and naming of sources of any information in that document when that document is entered into evidence at a hearing.

Res.: 5 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The Focus Humanitarian Program focuses only on Ismaili refugees and other Afghan refugees do not have access to it;
  2. Local Canadian language training programs in Pakistan for Afghan refugees are exclusively for members of the Ismaili Community;
  3. Other requests for language training preparation for Afghan refugees have been rejected on the basis of the presence of the Focus Humanitarian language training program;
  4. The situation of refugees and displaced Afghans particularly women has deteriorated as previously noted in Resolution 12 of November 1996;
  5. Most humanitarian aid programs to Afghan refugees have been cut back;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Call on the Canadian Government to expand its language training program in Pakistan for refugee women coming to Canada so that they are not limited to refugees admitted under the Focus Humanitarian Program;
  2. Remind the Government of Canada of its Resolution 7 of November 1995 and urge CIDA to assist Afghan refugee women in Pakistan by establishing income generating projects;
  3. Remind Citizenship and Immigration of its Resolution 12 of November 1996 and the need to respond to the situation of Afghan refugee women through expedited processing.
Res.: 10 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The IRB Chairperson has issued guidelines on unaccompanied minors;
  2. There is nothing in the guidelines to encourage expedited hearings, nor avoiding full hearings, nor on recognizing the principle of family reunification;
  3. There are often compelling reasons to expedite unaccompanied minors and very little difference between their claims and the claims of their parents, siblings or relatives whose claims have already been adjudicated positively;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to the IRB Chairperson to recommend that:

  1. Expedited hearings be generously used for such children;
  2. The IRB develop substantive guidelines for children which will include family reunification as one of its principles.
Res.: 15 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. Canada has taken a laudable leadership role within the Commonwealth in the initiative to condemn the Nigerian government for its extensive violation of human rights;
  2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has declared that human rights should be an important consideration in Canadian foreign policy;
  3. Canada has suspended diplomatic relations with Nigeria and closed its embassy in Lagos;
  4. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has still not made a decision to suspend deportations to Nigeria, thus creating a contradiction in policy between two Ministers of the same government;
  5. This policy may put Nigerian nationals deported back to their country at special risk of harassment and retaliation and persecution;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requesting an immediate suspension of deportations to Nigeria;
  2. Write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking for his intervention in this matter;
  3. Distribute copies of the above letters to all members of the CCR requesting them to also send similar letters;
  4. Publicize our position in a communiqué issued to the media and other relevant organizations.
Res.: 3 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. Agencies experienced in providing AAP services are the most knowledgeable as to how to meet client needs;
  2. Inclusive, integrated, and related services should not be arbitrarily limited or required (e.g. number of hours, weeks or service) but should be discretionary and based on client need;
  3. Services must include, but not be limited to, finding of permanent accommodation and sufficient funding to provide initial temporary accommodation and counselling;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge that:

  1. Government funding for AAP services be based on delivery of needed services without arbitrary parameters and funding be contracted on a "Global" basis for agreed services;
  2. Meaningful dialogue and consultation between service delivery NGOs and CIC take place before final approval of RAP regulations.
Res.: 8 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The CCR is aware of numerous cases in which CIC's information-gathering practices have jeopardized the security of refugee claimants and their families;
  2. The CCR is not aware of the existence of any adequate CIC guidelines on information-gathering practices;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR call upon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to:

  1. Draft and implement guidelines for the gathering of information concerning Convention refugee claimants;
  2. Ensure the Guidelines so developed are similar in nature and intent to the IRB's Guidelines with respect to the gathering of claimant-specific information and include the assurance that the security of the refugee claimant and his/her family will be paramount and that notice is given to claimants of proposed information searches with an opportunity for the claimant and his/her counsel to respond;
  3. Ensure that such Guidelines are binding on any government agency involved in the gathering of information concerning refugee claimants, including but not limited to the RCMP and CSIS.
Res.: 13 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. Many claimants from the former Zaire, now the DRC, are being refused by the IRB;
  2. Many of the decisions appear to be based on inadequate country information;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write:

  1. The chair of the IRB urging that a training session regarding current country conditions in Zaire/DRC be organized on an urgent basis, and that lawyers and NGOs be invited to participate;
  2. The Refugee Branch requesting the same for PCDOs.
Res.: 1 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which guarantees education for children;
  2. Education is fundamental to child development;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Adopt the policy that education is a right of all minors regardless of immigration status;
  2. Write to appropriate Provincial Ministers of Education urging that they adopt the above policy, and, for those provinces where this is already required by law, urging that they comply with their own legislation;
  3. Write to CIC urging that in the interim letters of no objection be issued to the children of refugee claimants without delay prior to determination of eligibility.
Res.: 6 , Nov 1997
Whereas:

CIC has often expressed interest in a blended sponsorship program;

Therefore be it resolved:

That:

  1. The CCR call on CIC to form an Adhoc Committee to begin the process of developing a Canadian resettlement program blending the assistance of CIC, private groups and settlement services;
  2. The Adhoc Committee include a) the NGO-Government Committee on the Private Sponsorship of Refugees; b) representatives selected by the CCR Working Groups on Overseas Protection and Sponsorship and representatives selected by the CCR Working Group on Settlement; as well as c) other possible resource people and stakeholders.
Res.: 16 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. CIC has a list of countries to which it does not at present deport nationals from those countries, but has not made this list available in writing;
  2. The recommendations made to the Minister by the Advisory Committee on Country Conditions for Removal are not made public;
  3. Neither the Minister's decisions to suspend nor to resume deportations are communicated to the public;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requesting a written confirmation of the list to which Canada does not presently deport nationals of these countries;
  2. Request that the Minister direct the Immigration department to automatically make public in writing any further decisions regarding either suspensions or resumptions of deportations.
Res.: 4 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada has undertaken a consultative process with relevant stakeholders with a view to developing sponsorship programs that will include partnerships and blended roles and responsibilities;
  2. In some regions, as of April 1st 1998, the AAP/RAP allocations will be limited to the major urban centres in each region thus excluding the possibility of blended programs in smaller urban centres and rural communities where AAP/RAP will no longer be administered;
  3. A significant portion of current and past blended programs such as the Joint Assistance Sponsorship Program, the Women at Risk Program and the Special 3/9 Program for refugees from the former Yugoslavia have been undertaken successfully in smaller urban centres and rural communities;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge CIC to seek ways to ensure that AAP/RAP allocations are made available and can be administered in all communities where sponsorship groups wish to assist refugees to resettle under Joint Assistance Programs and other blended programs.

Res.: 9 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The Ports of Entry at the US border have not in the past allowed unaccompanied minors to enter Canada to make refugee claims without a guardian to receive them;
  2. Due to the work of VIVE Buffalo and CIC P.O.E. at Niagara, an agreement has been reached to allow unaccompanied minors to enter Canada rather than be returned to the US;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request that the Department implement a National Policy allowing entry of unaccompanied minors on the same basis as the Buffalo/Niagara agreement.

Res.: 14 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. Arbitrary arrests and gross violations of human rights have been the most significant characteristic of the Islamic Republic of Iran policy;
  2. Tyranny and religious intolerance by the authorities have claimed thousands of lives in Iran;
  3. Detention of ex-political prisoners has become a nightmare for prisoners and their families;
  4. Women in Iran are treated as second class citizens and face persecution and stoning to death as Amnesty International has reported;
  5. Iranian refugees do not wish to face again their torturers who appear as government agents at embassies;
  6. In order to process an application for travel documents the Iranian embassy demands personal information of refugees including the way they escaped Iran;
  7. Due to the prevailing situation in Iran, deporting rejected refugee claimants and refugees accused of criminal offenses to that country would certainly jeopardize their lives, putting them at risk of torture or death;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration urging her to direct immigration officials reviewing H&C applications to exercise their discretion pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Immigration Regulations to exempt refused Iranian refugees from the requirement to have a passport and to accept satisfactory alternative identity documents.

Res.: 2 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The federal government has allocated additional dollars for settlement in various provinces over a three year period;
  2. This money has not been spent on settlement services in some provinces;
  3. The need to spend significant amounts of settlement funds in a short time period will not facilitate the most effective use of such dollars;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Request these dollars be used in all provinces for the purposes for which they were released, i.e. settlement services;
  2. Contact the Minister of Immigration to urge her to request that Treasury Board regulations be relaxed to allow the settlement funds allocated for 1997/98 fiscal year as a surplus to be spent on 1998/99 fiscal year.
Res.: 7 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. The Sponsorship Agreement notes as Principle #3 the ability of the Sponsorship Agreement Holder (SAH) to submit undertakings for refugees referred by the sponsor and further to this, Appendix 3 describes the roles and responsibility of this undertaking in Joint Assistance Sponsorships;
  2. The ability to refer refugees for resettlement to Canada has been of longstanding importance to sponsors and to the CCR and it has been the practice of some sponsors to refer refugees for consideration under the Joint Assistance Program;
  3. The new regulations require a sponsor to sign a CR3 undertaking at the front-end of a referral of a refugee for consideration as a CR5, thus negating the need for the visa post to give due consideration to the eligibility for the CR5 programs and obliging the sponsor to fulfil their undertaking for full support as a CR3;
  4. Citizenship and Immigration Canada commits in the Sponsorship Agreement (page 6 - j) to make "best efforts to give notice of any change in policy, regulations or legislation that is likely to affect this Sponsorship Agreement": and this notice was not made;
  5. There is no mechanism available to sponsors to make referrals under the Joint Assistance Program other than by signing the undertaking as a CR3;
  6. NGOs overseas have the ability to refer refugees to the visa post for consideration as CR5s;
  7. CIC has indicated that it is difficult to identify enough refugees for resettlement in order to meet its annual targets;
  8. Joint Assistance Sponsorship cases may have community links in the destination community who will enhance the potential for successful establishment of otherwise difficult cases;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urge Citizenship and Immigration: (i)to allow private sponsors in Canada to retain their ability to identify and refer refugees for consideration for resettlement to Canada as CR5s under the Joint Assistance and Women at Risk Programs; (ii)not to oblige private sponsors, in making the referral, to provide a CR3 undertaking at the time of referral as is described in the Operations Memorandum "Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program: in Canada": and to revise the Operations Memorandum to reflect this, especially in Sections 8.4, 9.2.1 and 9.2.2;
  2. Request the NGO-Government Committee on the Private Sponsorship of Refugees to support this resolution;
  3. Request that CIC enter into consultation with private sponsors and other stakeholders to seek ways to address the issues of concern currently hampering the referral of named refugees under the CR5 Program.
Res.: 12 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. CIC has responsibility for enforcement of the Immigration Act including, among other things, interdiction, the assessment of eligibility of refugee claimants, the opposing of refugee claims in certain instances and the removal of unsuccessful refugee claimants from Canada;
  2. The employment by the IRB (CRDD) of RCO's previously or presently employees of Canada Immigration gives rise to an appearance of bias and is inconsistent with the non-adversarial model of refugee determination;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR express its opposition to the recruitment of previous or present CIC employees for the role of RCO.

Res.: 17 , Nov 1997
Whereas:
  1. There is an interdepartmental committee of CIC considering new measures to speed up family reunification for refugees;
  2. The CCR supports a policy which would allow the dependants of refugees who are overseas to come into Canada and be processed within for landing;
  3. The CCR has recommended measures promoting speedy family reunification in Res. 13, November 1995;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to CIC in support of measures allowing dependants abroad to be processed in Canada and requesting that CCR be consulted and allowed to make representations on such changes.

Res.: 10 , Jun 1997
Whereas:
  1. The Immigration and Refugee Board has been handling all claims to Convention refugee status from Chileans, Mexicans and other nationalities as if all such claims were manifestly unfounded claims (MUCs);
  2. This practice of the IRB denies the individuality of claims and goes against the policy of case by case determination;
  3. This practice by the IRB may lead to the rejection of valid claims;
  4. This practice of the IRB may be applied to refugee claimants from other countries;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR demand that the IRB take steps to stop the practice of treating all claims from particular countries as if they were all manifestly unfounded.

Res.: 8 , Jun 1997
Whereas:
  1. The CCR has adopted a resolution strongly opposing any Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Safe Third Country Agreement (STC) between the United States and Canada;
  2. The United States government has recently passed regressive immigration legislation;
  3. This legislation has resulted in the summary removal of approximately 4,000 people from the US between April 1 and May 13, 1997, as a result of lack of identity documents;
  4. Some of the people who have been summarily removed have been en route to Canada to make refugee claims;
  5. These summary removals provide conclusive evidence that the United States is not meeting standards of protection articulated in the Geneva Convention;
  6. The Québec Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration has publicly supported the implementation of the MOA/STC agreement;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Condemn this shift in US immigration policy and procedure and reiterate its strong opposition to the negotiation of any MOA or STC agreement;
  2. Write to the Québec Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration explaining our position on this issue and urging him to withdraw his support for the MOA/STC agreement.
Res.: 6 , Jun 1997
Whereas:
  1. Section 44 of the Immigration Act prevents a person from making a claim if they have been issued an exclusion order;
  2. Senior Immigration Officers were given the power to issue exclusion orders under the former Bill C-86;
  3. Some Senior Immigration Officers (SIOs) have not been ensuring that persons concerned are aware that they must claim refugee status or they are ineligible and barred from later making a refugee claim;
  4. Many refugees believe wrongly that they must be admitted to Canada before they can make a refugee claim;
  5. Due to poor interpretation, inadequate or poor explanation or undue pressure persons at risk have been removed or detained;
  6. There have been many incidents such as the recent case of stowaways in Halifax where the SIO appears to have failed to ensure that the applicants knew of their right to claim refugee status;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Write the Minister and explain how Section 44 is being abused by SIOs and request an amendment to ensure that a person may be able to make a refugee claim even if an exclusion order has been issued;
  2. Write to the Director General of Enforcement, CIC, and demand that he issue guidelines to SIOs that ensure that refugee claimants are cautioned that they must make their claim before they issue an exclusion order and that they make sure that the person concerned has a full and fair opportunity to make an informed decision.

 

Res.: 9 , Jun 1997
Whereas:
  1. The IRB in Montreal has adopted a new policy on scheduling refugee claims and as a result will be hearing a large percentage of more recently arrived refugee claimants ahead of claims that have been waiting for a longer time;
  2. This policy will increase the hardship of many refugee claimants who have already been suffering the effects of long delays;
  3. Administrative needs should not be put ahead of the rights of refugees to a just and speedy hearing of their claims;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Is opposed to the implementation of the new IRB policy, which will put recent claims ahead of pre-existing claims for their own administrative purposes;
  2. Express to the IRB our deep concerns and opposition to this policy.

Pages