I think the government’s consistent policy is to presume that resettlement of refugees is permanent. This paper compares the Canadian and Australian response to Kosovan refugees: here. Once Kosovo was secured by NATO, Australia giving them a big cheerio whilst Canada gave them the choice of staying or leaving.
Similarly, in 1998 Germany required that all Bosnian refugees left the country having declared the country safe.
Whether it is right to do is a matter of debate. Certainly, if refugees were admitted only for the duration of a conflict, then I think the host population at large would be more accommodating. Alternatively, some conflicts are protracted to decades long, and there is so much power on the migrant/immigrant/refugee advocate industry that I think it is a political non-starter.
Morally, is it questionable to retain refugees? I see that Germany has commenced a low level programme of teaching the trades so that refugees (70% of the 1 million are working age males) can put them to good use on their return. There is historic precedent as the quarter million Belgian refugees in the UK 1914-18 were largely concentrated in clumps together and administered themselves.
Imagine if Canada had a policy of teaching refugees construction skills, accountancy, engineering, administration, etc. so that they could help rebuild Syria on their return? It might prove controversial. Call me cynical, but no more selfies?? No more heart rending stories of Syrians telling us how fantastic we are and how grateful they are and how much they love Canada. Some segments of the political class can be a bit needy at times.
Although I think it good we have helped several thousand of them, ultimately, there effect would probably be greater in Syria (at war’s end) than here in the longer term. Certainly, Professor Paul Collier (‘Exodus’) believes that a generous refugee policy followed by a return at conflict’s end, is the best way to rebuild a war torn state. He calls the returning diaspora, a country’s ‘sovereign wealth fund’.