Skip to main content

CCR Resolutions Database

Date
Filter by year and month (in format YYYY-MM)

  • Passport requirement for Iranian refugee and hack applicants

    Res.: 14
    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.

  • Allocation of additional settlement funds

    Res.: 2
    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.

  • The ability to refer refugees for consideration under the Joint Assistance Sponsorship program

    Res.: 7
    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.

  • RCO's seconded from CIC

    Res.: 12
    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.

  • Best interests

    Res.: 5
    Whereas:
    1. Presently no guidelines exist at the IRB with respect to making children's best interests a primary consideration in appropriate cases before it;
    2. The need to assign primary consideration to the best interests of children is required by international legal instruments to which Canada is a party;
    3. The Federal Court of Canada has failed to give effect to the best interests of children representing more than a consideration in immigration matters affecting children's interests;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Encourage the IRB to develop guidelines for the Immigration Appeal Division and the Convention Refugee Determination Division appertaining to the best interests of children in light of the principle of family reunification and Canada's international legal obligations, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on adoptions;
    2. Urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to adopt and implement the guidelines so developed for both inland and visa office cases.

  • IRB presumption against certain claims

    Res.: 10
    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.

  • Identity documents

    Res.: 15
    Whereas:
    1. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has introduced the Undocumented Convention Refugee in Canada Class (UCRCC) as a proposed solution to the problems created by 46.04(8) of the Immigration Act;
    2. The UCRCC is only effective until January 1999;
    3. The House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration rejected the five year waiting period before applying for landed immigrant status;
    4. The five year wait under UCRCC will cause:
      (1)undue hardship for refugees (such as extended or permanent family separation);
      (2)significant barriers to successful integration of refugees in relation to education, employment, health care and travel outside Canada;
    5. All people subject to the UCRCC have already been recognized as Convention refugees;
    6. 80% of the people affected by the UCRCC regulations are women and children who do not fit the profile of war criminals or security risk that the Minister referred to in justifying the five year waiting period;
    7. Only two countries, Somalia and Afghanistan, are presently included in the UCRCC, and there has been no solution proposed for persons from other countries in similar situations;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to:

    1. Abolish the five-year waiting period provided for under the UCRCC and land all Convention refugees using the identification documentation which they already have and/or accepting statutory declarations as proof of identification;
    2. Allocate resources to the granting of landed status within six months to those persons who have already completed the UCRCC waiting period;
    3. Notify all eligible members of the UCRCC of their eligibility so that they know that they may apply for landing;

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CCR write to the Québec Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration, requesting his support for our position on this issue.

  • Blood donation

    Res.: 3
    Whereas:
    1. The Canadian Red Cross has presented its programs at CCR meetings;
    2. The policy of not allowing blood collection from non-English or French speakers may resolve practical issues of informed consent, but has the effect of singling out and demeaning residents of Canada who do not speak either French or English;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Write to the Canadian Red Cross and express the CCR's concerns;
    2. Demand that the Canadian Red Cross renounce the exclusion of non-French and English speakers from the blood donor program and take immediate steps to allow for participation of all residents of Canada in the program.

  • Safe third country agreement and U.S. standards

    Res.: 8
    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.

  • PDRCC review

    Res.: 13
    Whereas:
    1. There have been recent changes to the Post Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class (PDRCC) instituting a rigid fifteen day deadline for application;
    2. The PDRCC review process will be simultaneous with the judicial review process before the Federal Court and as such is a duplication of cost and expense which may not be necessary if the judicial review is successful;
    3. It is onerous for counsel to do both the judicial review and the PDRCC submissions at the same time, which may result in a reduction in quality of representation;
    4. Changes in country conditions may occur after the PDRCC decision is made and before deportation, putting the applicant at risk if returned to his/her country of origin;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That that the CCR urge that:

    1. The PDRCC review be applied to all rejected refugee claimants whether they apply for it or not;
    2. The PDRCC review be done shortly before removal, rather than after a negative CRDD decision or after a negative Federal Court decision;
    3. The PDRCC decisions be made under the auspices of the Immigration and Refugee Board, instead of by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and by qualified personnel with expertise in specific country conditions and international human rights standards and standards of procedural fairness.
    4. People with criminal convictions not be excluded from consideration for the PDRCC as it is against Canada's international obligations, and specifically against Canada's obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

  • Family reunification

    Res.: 1
    Whereas:
    1. The Canadian Immigration Act and the Québec immigration law state that family reunification is a central objective of the Canadian and Québec immigration programs;
    2. Canada has signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, all of which affirm the principle of family unity and that the family is entitled to protection by society and the state;
    3. The CCR has published an extensive report on family reunification and has passed various resolutions calling for the elimination of barriers to family reunification;
    4. The federal government continues to make changes in the Family Class regulations which serve to create further delays and barriers to reunification (i.e.. recent changes announced on March 18, 1997) and the Québec government has tightened the financial requirements for sponsors and has recently implemented a repayment program for defaulting sponsors without regard to their present financial situation;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR call on the Government of Canada to:

    1. Repeal the amendments of March 18, 1997 to the Family Sponsorship regulations;
    2. Initiate a process of consultative meetings with the CCR and concerned communities to revise the Family Sponsorship Regulations in a manner consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations;
    3. Recognize both in legislation and in policy implementation that family unity is the cornerstone of healthy and effective settlement for refugees and immigrants;
    4. Ensure that legislation, policy and regulations consider the importance of family unity on the successful settlement and long-term contribution of vulnerable groups such as survivors of torture and trauma, women at risk, and others who come to Canada under humanitarian programs;

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CCR call on the Government of Québec to review, in collaboration with the settlement agencies, its policy on defaulting sponsors to ensure that standards of fairness and equity are maintained in all situations.

  • Port of entry

    Res.: 6
    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.

     

  • Expedited hearing process - Vancouver pilot project

    Res.: 11
    Whereas:
    1. The Convention Refugee Determination Division intends to introduce a pilot project in Vancouver requiring that all refugee claimants go through the expedited process interview with an RCO that would be tape recorded, with the transcripts available should the case go to full hearing;
    2. The process will unnecessarily complicate the hearing process for those cases which are required to proceed to full hearing;
    3. The process will prejudice the claimants who go to full hearing by making it known to the Board members conducting the full hearing that the claimant has not been recommended by the expedited process;
    4. Use of the recording of the pre-hearing conference or RCO notes at the full hearing will create a hearing process which overly focuses on contradictions between the PIF, the transcript of the pre-hearing conference and the full hearing and create an overly adversarial environment during the hearing;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Oppose the introduction of the Vancouver Immigration and Refugee Board pilot project of holding obligatory pre-hearing conferences which will be recorded;
    2. Urge that the expedited hearing process conserve its administrative autonomy and remain completely separate from the full hearing process;
    3. Urge that the existence of the expedited hearing process continue not to be disclosed to the Board members conducting the full hearing process.

  • Women at risk

    Res.: 4
    Whereas:
    1. The actions of the Taliban army of Afghanistan have once again made the world aware of the unique risks faced by women;
    2. The Government of Canada prides itself on its guidelines on gender persecution;
    3. The number of women accepted by Canada as victims of gender persecution under the Women At Risk Program is disproportionately small in comparison to the enormous numbers of women refugees;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Obtain comparative statistics from the UNHCR on admissions under the Women At Risk Program in Canada and other nations;
    2. Write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration du Québec requesting an increased commitment to resettle Women at Risk and that this be reflected in the Canadian and Québec Annual Levels Plans for 1998 and following years, which plans should include an implementation plan;
    3. Express concerns regarding the Women At Risk Program in its submission to the UNHCR Formal Consultation on Resettlement and request follow up from UNHCR and government participants.
    4. Request the UNHCR and CIC to establish a Working Group together with NGOs (both settlement and sponsoring) to improve the Women at Risk program. Settlement/Overseas Protection

  • IRB scheduling

    Res.: 9
    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.

  • Guidelines to replace DROC

    Res.: 14
    Whereas:
    1. The DROC regulations have been eliminated;
    2. Chapter 1E 9 of the Immigration Manual has been changed to include guidelines dealing with applicants who have not been removed from Canada for a considerable period of time;
    3. The emphasis in the guidelines is placed on economic self-sufficiency by requiring that applicants be successfully established under the criteria used for Illegal De Facto Residents (listed in IE 9.15(3));
    4. These establishment criteria may discriminate against vulnerable groups (such as the elderly, women and children);
    5. Unlike the former DROC regulations, the guideline requiring full cooperation of the applicant with the department places too great an onus on the applicant and too much potential for inconsistent interpretation by the department;
    6. The new guidelines are very restrictive and apply only to those few countries where removals have been suspended or where the applicant has had to go and apply to their government for travel documents and does not include individuals who have just not been removed;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That CCR urge the government to amend the guidelines to:

    1. Ensure that people who through no fault of their own have not achieved economic self-sufficiency but have otherwise become successfully established are not excluded from being accepted for permanent residence;
    2. Clarify that full cooperation means that applicants have done nothing to interfere with their removal;
    3. Delete the reference in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) of the guidelines to ensure that the policy applies to anyone who has remained in Canada.

  • Access to social and health services for Canadian children of parents waiting for status

    Res.: 2
    Whereas:
    1. Some provincial governments are refusing to provide social services, health services and benefits for Canadian children born to parents waiting for status;
    2. These Canadian children face discriminatory and arbitrary treatment that is counter to their fundamental rights;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Document the policies and practices of the different provinces in this area through its regional contacts;
    2. File complaints with the appropriate Human Rights Commissions (federal/provincial) to denounce these discriminatory practices of the provinces towards these Canadian children;
    3. In addition investigate possible international recourses with regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in order to file a complaint.

  • New mail-in system for refugee claimants at ports of entry in Ontario

    Res.: 7
    Whereas:
    1. The Pilot "Mail-In" Project first implemented by CIC at Pearson Airport about 6 months ago is being implemented in Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, Ontario as of May 15, 1997;
    2. There is no public knowledge of any evaluation regarding its value nor was there any consultation or discussion with NGOs or organizations working with refugees previous to its initial implementation or extended implementation in Fort Erie and in Niagara Falls;
    3. Refugee claimants no longer have the same access to assistance from Canadian legal counsel nor Canadian refugee support workers familiar with Canadian law and process;
    4. American refugee support workers are being overwhelmed with paperwork, lack needed resources and are unfamiliar with the Canadian system and the after-effects of what may be written on these forms;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Request a public evaluation of the project at Pearson International Airport involving NGOs, legal workers and organizations working with refugees which would include the following:

      a)the criteria on which the decision was made to extend this project to Niagara Falls and Fort Erie;

      b)the consideration of the extent to which Canada Immigration considers this policy to be beneficial to refugee claimants;

    2. Oppose the extension of this "write-in" process to ports of entry in other provinces of Canada.

  • Federal Court and international human rights obligations

    Res.: 12
    Whereas:
    1. The Federal Court of Canada has been extremely reticent to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights obligations in the judicial review process for refugee claimants and non-residents;
    2. Immigration and refugee practitioners are frustrated with the negative attitude of the Federal Court to refugee and immigration issues;
    3. The Federal Court leave requirements and the process for certification for appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal afford less access to the Court by refugee claimants and immigrants than the average Canadian has to appeal a conviction for a traffic ticket;
    4. The news media and notes produced before the Supreme Court of Canada have shown that there have been improper contacts between the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Court and there are currently inquiries by the Canadian Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice;
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Demand that the independence of the Federal Court be reaffirmed and that, more particularly, contacts between the government and its quasi-judicial bodies and the Federal Court without the presence of the opposing parties or non-governmental organizations cease immediately and that the current inquiries be expanded to include such contacts;
    2. Express its concern to the Minister of Justice that the Federal Court is not consistently applying the Charter and our international human rights obligations and that it is overly restrictive in its application of judicial review in its handling of immigration and refugee matters and ask the Minister of Justice to commission an independent study on the effectiveness of the judicial review remedy;
    3. Ask that the federal government appoint judges to the Federal Court who have an immigration and refugee law background, particularly those who are members of the immigration bar.

  • Deportations to Zaire

    Res.: 17
    Whereas:
    1. The situation in Zaire is acknowledged by both political and human rights experts to be very volatile, with human rights violations and violence rampant in various parts of the country.
    2. There is effectively no central government in control in Zaire at this time.
    3. Canada, recognizing this serious situation, is presently leading a major humanitarian initiative in Zaire and the Great Lakes Region.
    4. A growing number of Zairois (mostly in Montreal) have already received, or will be receiving, departure dates for the near future.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Urgently request the Prime Minister of Canada to address this inconsistency in Canadian policy by ordering an immediate suspension of deportations to Zaire.
    2. Request a clarification from the UNHCR on the dangers of deporting people to Zaire at this time.

  • Security certificate process

    Res.: 22
    Whereas:
    1. The process under article 40.1 of the Immigration Act provides for mandatory detention when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor-General have signed a security certificate for people who may be refugees or refugee claimants.
    2. The person cited in these security certificates does not have the right to know the evidence against them.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Condemn the security certificate process and particularly the provisions for mandatory detention without review and asks for the immediate repeal of this section of the Act.
    2. Urge the Government of Canada to suspend immediately the use of these provisions which clearly violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international human rights obligations;
    3. Call upon the Canadian Bar Association and human rights NGOs to condemn these procedures which violate fundamental human rights.

  • LINC program devolution

    Res.: 5
    Whereas:
    1. Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) is an integral part of settlement through its orientation of newcomers to Canada and the cultural adaptation that occurs through its instruction.
    2. LINC has not provided and was never intended to provide English competency which would enable immigrants to find employment.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR urge CIC:

    1. Not to classify LINC as a training program as this would result in its transfer to the province as part of the federal commitment to devolve all training to the provinces.
    2. To continue to see LINC as an integral part of settlement services.

  • Tertiary education for Sudanese refugees

    Res.: 10
    Whereas:
    1. The conflict in the Sudan is over three decades old.
    2. Many Sudanese refugees languish in refugee camps in Kenya, Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.
    3. There is no imminent likelihood of these refugees repatriating to the Sudan.
    4. The majority of these refugees are youth with no opportunities for education past the secondary level.
    5. There is little opportunity for these youth to resettle to a third country.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR urge the Government of Canada, through consultations with other donor countries and international agencies, to develop a fund to provide educational opportunities, at the tertiary level, to Sudanese refugees in Kenya, Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.

  • Identity documents

    Res.: 15
    Whereas:
    1. The CCR moved a resolution in June 1996 clearly outlining requirements for an acceptable solution to the ID issue.
    2. The CCR submitted a detailed brief in October 1996.
    3. Article 27 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees states that contracting states shall issue identity papers to any refugee in their territory who does not possess a valid travel document.
    4. Draft regulations published on November 16, 1996 fails to address any of the preconditions contained in the resolutions and the brief.
    5. The proposed regulations will discriminate on the basis of race and national origin and create a measurable hardship for Convention refugees in Canada and their families abroad.
    6. The impact of these regulations will be particularly harsh on families and children.
    7. The regulations demonstrate a clear departure from Canada's commitment to the protection of refugees.
    8. The regulations do not respond to solutions, offered in good faith by representatives of Somali, Iranian, Afghan, Sri Lankan and other communities in interminable and numerous meetings with the government.
    9. The draft regulations do nothing for people in refugee-like situations.
    10. The Immigration and Refugee Board had determined the identity of anyone found to be a Convention refugee.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR:

    1. Reject the draft ID regulations published November 16, 1996.
    2. Call on the Canadian government to: a) Amend the Immigration Act to remove the requirement for identity documents for Convention refugees, and others in refugee-like situations. b) Withdraw the proposed regulations; or in the alternative:
      i) commit resources to land affected persons within 6 months.
      ii) direct immigration officers to give greater weight to personal interviews and other documentary evidence when primary documents cannot be obtained.
      iii) make an exemption to permit family reunification where the passage of time due to delays in landing processing has prevented sponsorship.
    3. Submit a detailed brief of their criticisms of the regulations and call on member agencies to do the same.
    4. Call on the UNHCR to condemn the proposed regulations on the grounds that they violate Canada's international obligation to protect families, children and refugees and to facilitate family reunification.

  • Simple court remedy

    Res.: 20
    Whereas:
    1. The refoulement of Ms Mbulu after Canadian post-claim procedures against the express wishes of the UN Rapporteur against Torture and the many cases before international human rights committees and commissions reveal a problem with Canadian post-claim procedures.
    2. International law requires a simple, that is one-step, court procedure when fundamental human rights are at issue.
    3. Canada has agreed to ensure or guarantee human rights for everyone on the territory, including when there is a real risk of a violation of a fundamental right consequential to expulsion.
    4. There was a major report revealing the inadequacy of risk review and humanitarian and compassionate review by Davis and Waldman which recommended inclusion of international human rights standards.
    5. Some way of better acquainting Canadians with current international human rights standards is needed.
    Therefore be it resolved:

    That the CCR urge the Government of Canada to:

    1. Review legislation to ensure a simple (one step) effective court remedy when fundamental rights arise in expulsion.
    2. Write to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asking them to hold a seminar in Canada with international experts from international committees and commissions and members of the Canadian legal community to advise on current requirements of international human rights law for the new legislation.