CCR Resolutions Database

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

Res.: 6 , Jun 2005
Whereas:
  1. It is the intention of the Atlantic provincial and municipal governments to attract and encourage immigrants and refugees to move to and remain in the region;
  2. There is already a deficiency of educational resources available;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR advocate on behalf of the Atlantic Region for the required resources to support the educational needs of newcomer youth.

Res.: 11 , Jun 2005
Whereas:
  1. Current limits on the numbers of immigrants and refugees who can come to Canada each year and the unequal division of these numbers between economic and humanitarian classes of immigrants have resulted in long waiting periods for the re-unification of families and the admission of sponsored refugees;
  2. The limits on and division of immigrant and refugee numbers appear to be arbitrary and to have been set without public consultation;
  3. It is widely recognized that family reunification is taking too long and the delays in the processing are causing great hardship;
  4. The group with the most pressing need for family re-unification is refugees;
Therefore be it resolved:

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

  1. Commit to an increase in immigration levels.
  2. Commit to a full and transparent review of immigration levels which review will have a meaningful consultation with NGO stakeholders at all stages of review. Among the topics which should be examined in the review are the benefits of increasing the number of immigrants and refugees admitted to Canada each year; and whether the division of admissions between economic and humanitarian classes is fair or necessary.
  3. Pending the review of immigration levels, increase the number of persons admitted to Canada each year by a sufficient number to allow for overseas family members included in inland applicants to be admitted immediately for processing in Canada.
Res.: 4 , Jun 2005
Whereas:

The Settlement Allocation Model has proven problematic with regards to smaller centres with high proportions of refugees, and centres receiving substantial secondary migration, and grossly inequitable for larger centres;

Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Communicate with CIC requesting that new funding for the settlement sector be allocated on the basis of the following principles:

    a)that small centres, particularly those with a high proportion of refugees to their total immigration, receive sufficient funding to maintain the capacity to meet the demand;b)centres experiencing substantial secondary migration arrivals need to receive sufficient funding to meet the resulting service demands;c)that the current 2-tiered (large region/small region) model be discontinued.

  2. Request an opportunity to hold consultations between CIC and the sector with regards to reforming/replacing the Settlement Allocation Model.
Res.: 9 , Jun 2005
Whereas:
  1. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention exempts refugees from being punished because of their illegal entry or presence;
  2. UNHCR’s Revised Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers states that “[a]s a general rule, asylum seekers should not be detained”, and that “the use of detention, in many instances, is contrary to the norms and principles of international law.”
  3. There are 68 refugee claimants from Ethiopia and Eritrea who are detained in Israel for prolonged periods amounting to 18 months and without obtaining adequate assistance from any party except for the African Refugees Development Centre(ARDC);
  4. The detention practices are inconsistent with established human rights standards;
  5. The Israeli authorities, after long discussion and debate, have agreed to release these detainees on an estimated bail of between $8,500-10,000 CAD for two months if there is tangible evidence of a sponsorship application to Canada and for 12months if an invitation for an interview at the Canadian Embassy is extended;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urge the UNHCR to demand compliance that Israel comply with the 1951Convention and the 1967Protocol, and adhere to UNHCR’s standards on detention regarding refugees.
  2. Urge the UNHCR to intervene in accordance with the above-mentioned UNHCR Guidelines on the Detention of Asylum Seekers so that the illegally detained refugees are released and obtain fair procedures for timely review.
  3. Urge CIC to request its visa post in Tel Aviv to fulfill the following:a)process each application and make determination in a fair manner consistent with the IRPA guidelines;b)process the private sponsorship of these refugees in an expedited and consistent manner.
  4. Work with the African Refugees Development Center (ARDC) on all issues regarding African refugees and asylum seekers residing in Israel with an intention/process to immigrate/resettle in Canada.
Res.: 14 , Jun 2005
Whereas:
  1. The IRB will not conduct any refugee determination hearings until claimants have received security clearances;
  2. IRPA requires that hearings be held expeditiously;

Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request the IRB to set a strict 6 month time limit for delaying a hearing to allow for the security clearance, so that refugee claimants who are ready to proceed can have their hearings in a timely manner as required by IRPA.

Res.: 15 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. There is considerable discontent with the current decision-making process with regards to humanitarian and compassionate considerations inside Canada and the lack of respect for fundamental family rights or significant establishment in Canada;
  2. There is great concern that the criteria of the best interest of the child is not being applied in a liberal and just fashion in humanitarian decisions by CIC decision-makers.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request that:

  1. The criteria for deciding on humanitarian and compassionate requests in the IP-5 Manual be modified to read “unusual and undeserved hardship” with the addition of “or sufficient family ties.”
  2. The departmental police and guidelines be modified so that, in the absence of significant countervailing factors, the following categories will benefit from a favourable presumption in analysis of humanitarian applications:
    a) Married couples with a valid relationship will not be separated by removal during the processing of the permanent residence.
    b) Applicants with Canadian children will be generally accepted for permanent residence in Canada.
    c) Applicants with over five years in Canada of continuous presence are generally allowed to stay in Canada.
    d) Applicants with children who have become culturally acclimated to Canada and have over three years Canadian schooling should generally be accepted for residence.> e) Applicants whose removal would create significant disruption to a Canadian employer or to other Canadian employees should warrant humanitarian considerations.
    f) Torture or rape victims should not normally be sent back to the country where they suffered rape or torture. Serious risk of re-traumatisation must be an important humanitarian concern.
Res.: 3 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. CIC changes the terms and conditions of temporary work permit programs every year;
  2. This information is not made available to NGOs or others that try to assist individuals on temporary work permits.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR demand that CIC to make any change in terms and conditions publicly available as soon as such changes are made.

Res.: 8 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. UNHCR’s stated mandate is to facilitate and support the voluntary repatriation of refugees in safety and dignity to their home countries when conditions within the country are sufficiently stable to sustain their return.
  2. The international community has strong interest involuntary repatriation as a durable solution for refugees
  3. The international community are donors of UNHCR and financially support its efforts.
  4. The levels of support to sustain persons during their repatriation process are grossly inadequate and do not provide the means forre-establishment. This is the situation for Sierra Leoneans currently repatriating.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request the government of Canada to work with the UNHCR and other countries to increase the levels of support and security given to refugees repatriating through UNHCR initiatives.

Res.: 13 , Nov 2004
Whereas:

children of many refugee claimants, failed refugee claimants and children who are themselves refugee claimants or failed refugee claimants are unable to attend post secondary educational institutions while they or their parent(s) are awaiting a decision on an application to CIC due to the high cost of that education. These children are considered international students.

Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR call on the Governments of Canada and the Provinces to permit children of refugee claimants, failed refugee claimants and children who are themselves refugee claimants or failed refugee claimants awaiting decisions on applications to CIC and who are not removable, to attend Canadian schools and post secondary educational institutions at the same fees and requirements as Canadian residents.

Res.: 1 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. Government Assisted Refugees (GARs) represent one of the most important mechanisms for Canada to protect those refugees in need of protection;
  2. In recent years CIC has been selecting GARs on the basis of need rather than “ability to settle in Canada” which CCR warmly welcomes, which has resulted in increased demands on settlement agencies because of their very high needs;
  3. CIC has recently suggested that this increased demand on services can best be met by reducing the number of GARs.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration underlining our commitment to Government Assisted Refugees, and the principle of selection based on need, and requesting that the number of GARs NOT be reduced under any circumstances.

Res.: 6 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. Many refugees are people of colour who encounter systemic, institutional and financial barriers to full participation in CCR.
  2. Refugees and people of colour have played and continue to play a vital role in the CCR.
  3. The People of Colour Caucus provides a space where leadership by refugees and people of colour can be nurtured.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Officially recognize the People of Colour Caucus and provide a space for the caucus at all future consultations.
  2. Acknowledge and take practical steps to overcome the systemic barriers to full participation when planning future consultations.
Res.: 11 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. There are many protected persons who delay in applying for landing beyond the 180 days because of their inability to raise the $550 cost recovery fee, or other valid reasons;
  2. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not yet satisfactorily responded to the CCR request to eliminate the $550 processing fee for protected persons;
  3. The IP5 Guidelines state incorrectly that protected persons who apply late for landing and are being processed as humanitarian and compassionate cases, must meet all the normal admissibility criteria for immigrants, including medical, financial and identity document criteria.
  4. Protected persons who are being processed as H&C cases and who don’t have “satisfactory identity documents” are being refused landing.
Therefore be it resolved:

That CCR request CIC to amend the IP5 Guidelines to correct this misunderstanding and to clarify that protected persons continue to be exempt from medical and financial criteria for landing and to benefit from other provisions to facilitate the landing of protected persons including special provisions for identity documents when the protected person is unable to obtain a passport to confirm identity.

Res.: 16 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. PRRA is not a substitute for an appeal on the merits of the case;
  2. The PRRA process is dysfunctional and demonstrates a lack of respect for international human rights norms and for the Suresh decision of the Supreme Court of Canada;
  3. There is inconsistent application by PRRA decision-makers in the consideration of what constitutes sufficient evidence and expert evidence.
  4. There are insufficient guidelines for PRRA decision-makers with respect to how they are to evaluate evidence.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Call on CIC to develop guidelines on what constitutes “sufficient” evidence for the purposes of PRRA decision-makers.
  2. Call on CIC to develop guidelines on what constitutes expert evidence or testimony for PRRA decision-makers.
  3. Propose that CIC form a consultative committee with CCR, other NGOs and lawyers to analyze and make recommendations on the PRRA system.
  4. Ask the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to study the overall effectiveness of the PRRA process in light of Canada’s international human rights obligations.
Res.: 4 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. Workers on temporary work permits are not aware of their rights under the program and the charter;
  2. Many workers are not permitted by employers to retain their personal documentation such as passport, return air ticket and health card.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR demand that CIC and HRSDC:

  1. Ensure that temporary workers are fully informed of their rights under the program before or when they enter Canada;
  2. Ensure that temporary workers are given control of their own papers.
Res.: 9 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. The violence and lawlessness in Iraq continues to escalate and the possibility of a peaceful solution does not seem imminent,
  2. Many Canadian families have been impacted by resulting tragedies,
  3. Relatives and friends and former neighbours of Canadians are fleeing Iraq for Syria, Jordan and Turkey on a daily basis,
  4. They feel compelled to flee because a member of their family has already been targeted and killed, because they have received death threats, because their children have been kidnapped and held for ransom or because of vendettas in the context of lawlessness,
  5. The UNHCR has suspended Refugee Status Determination for Iraqis and
  6. Those who have sought asylum in Turkey, Syria and Jordan are struggling to meet their basic needs because they left their belongings behind and they are not allowed to work.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urgently request the UNHCR to immediately: i)    Resume refugee status determination for Iraqis in the region, ii)    Provide care and support for Iraqis who have sought asylum in these countries, iii)    Dialogue with resettlement countries including Canada to implement resettlement as a solution for Iraqis in the region,
  2. Urge the Government of Canada to immediately: i)    Dialogue with the UNHCR to facilitate the resettlement of Iraqi refugees through the Private Sponsorship Program as well as the Government Assisted Refugee Program, ii)    Increase staff in the Damascus Visa Post to accommodate the increased need for resettlement from the region and to expedite cases already in process.
Res.: 14 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. PRRA and H&C applications are assessed by the same immigration officer in many cases;
  2. The grounds are to be considered under PRRA are different than H&C considerations.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR approach CIC to urge that H&C applications be assessed against the wider criteria of hardship, rather than risk as assessed in the PRRA.

Res.: 2 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. The presence of family members is a strong indicator for successful settlement, and assists in small centre retention;
  2. The cancellation of the Assisted Relative category has greatly increased the pressure on the Private Sponsorship program.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l’Immigration requesting that the Assisted Relative class be reinstated.

Res.: 7 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. The political situation in the Darfur Region of the Sudan continues to deteriorate, with widespread human rights violations leading to deaths of an estimated quarter of a million people.
  2. The government of the Sudan refuses to yield to the international pressures to put an end to the conflict.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urge the Canadian government to:

    i)    Use all available means, including by adding its voice to those who have already named the situation as genocide, to ensure that the international community intervenes to stop the abuses.ii)    Put more pressure on the Sudan government to immediately end the conflict against the Fur people by suspending all aid to the Sudan except humanitarian aid.iii)    Encourage and support the African Union to intercede in the conflict in Darfur.iv)    Assist the UNHCR in providing humanitarian aid for safety, health and maintenance of refugees in Chad and internally displaced persons in the Sudan.

  2. Urge the UNHCR to expedite the resettlement processing of vulnerable Furians in refugee camps in Chad.
Res.: 12 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. Some of the provincial health insurance plans (such as OHIP in Ontario) do not provide provincial health insurance coverage for “family members” of protected persons who are residing in Canada and who are being processed for permanent resident status simultaneously with the protected person;
  2. It is a waste of resources to have to make a refugee claim for these family members in Canada just so that they will have IFH coverage;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request all provincial health ministers to ensure that the family members of protected persons are eligible for provincial health insurance coverage.

Res.: 17 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. The Singh decision of 1985 is significant in establishing refugees’ rights to fundamental justice;
  2. NGOs and other refugee advocates commemorate the Singh decision in Canada on April 4, Refugee Rights Day.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR urge different levels of government in Canada to proclaim April 4 as Refugee Rights Day, by the 25th anniversary in 2010.

Res.: 5 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. The staff of CIC and CBSA do not appear to reflect the diversity of Canada’s population;
  2. The staff of CIC and CBSA regularly work with a very diverse population of clients.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR request the Public Service Commission to conduct an employment equity audit for both CIC and CBSA.

Res.: 10 , Nov 2004
Whereas:
  1. Overseas processing targets are inadequate, as reported in the “No Faster Way?” and “More than a Nightmare” documents, to meet demand in the family reunification and refugee sponsorship queues;
  2. Canada has an obligation to respond to the legitimate needs of Canadians, including its refugee sponsorship community and its separated families.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Urge the Government to review the 60/40 ratio in order to increase the numbers of Humanitarian class cases being processed.
  2. Urge the Government to establish and implement service standards for all immigration categories which are simple, fast (in less than 8-12 months) and accessible.
  3. Reaffirm a consistent application for all posts of the policy priorizing refugees.
Res.: 4 , May 2004
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.

Res.: 9 , 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.
Res.: 10 , May 2004
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.

Pages