A few years ago, the federal government began consultations to inform how Canada should respond to crisis situations around the world through immigration. The immigration department called it a Crisis Response Framework. 

At the time, Canada’s response to the Russian war in Ukraine was well underway, including a special visa program that would welcome nearly 300,000 Ukrainians over two years. The same year of the special visa for Ukrainians, Canada used far smaller and inflexible visa measures for Afghans leaving the Taliban takeover of the country. 

In the years since, Canada has launched programs for displaced Sudanese and for Palestinians in Gaza. Criticism of these range from steep financial requirements, to invasive questioning, to a failure to facilitate exits, to arbitrarily low caps. 

The asymmetrical response across these situations raised questions about fairness and transparency. The conclusion many of us formed is that Canada’s approach had been unjustifiably preferential, and not at all transparent. The development of a Crisis Response Framework seemed like a good way to do better. And yet, we’re still without a public framework to evaluate decisions.

We’re posting the feedback we shared with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in May 2024 as part of the public record and, we hope, to inform a public framework towards more just and equitable use of immigration measures when Canadians are moved to respond to a crisis.

Q: For better transparency, predictability and equity of process in Canada’s response to crises, IRCC proposes a Crisis Response Framework that is

• facilitative and responsive

• evidence-based

• fair and equitable

• fiscally responsible

• operationally feasible

• minimizing downstream impacts

Will these guiding principles help contribute to sound decision-making? Should other core principles be considered? If yes, please explain.

We welcome these principles, notably an equity-based approach. Equity is essential in order to extend Canada’s support to all populations in crisis and to maintain Canadians’ confidence in immigration as a crisis response. 

We recommend including ‘predictable’ which is a complement to fairness and equity. A predictable framework is one that would apply consistent or similar program criteria and flexibility. A predictable framework could also entail a baseline program (i.e. immediately open 10,000 emergency visas, with further scale dependent on factors such as the scale of the crisis, or demand by family/community members in Canada). 

We recommend including ‘swift’ to emphasize the importance of timely immigration measures and operational support. Canada can aspire to be a first responder with immigration in crisis moments, among the international community. A swift framework should also apply to visa processing: Speed is essential to the security and wellbeing of those who may make Canada their permanent home. We emphasize that long processing times when someone is in crisis can unintentionally add more hardship, physical and psychological, as waiting creates new vulnerabilities and an inability to make other plans or life and family decisions.*

Finally, we recommend ‘transparent.’ Discussions and decisions on future crisis response should be public and fully transparent. 

* See our survey on the effects of immigration delays on people in refugee circumstances. 

Q: How can equity be considered in a practical and meaningful way when responding to the different needs of different populations in the face of crises?

To embed equity in Canada’s response, we recommend Canada design a baseline emergency program that includes 1) an emergency visa and 2) temporary flexibility across other complementary programs. 

The emergency visa could be built using good practices established by the CUAET (such as no human capital criteria, waiver of valid passport criteria, and waiver of temporary intent criteria for temporary permits). It could be established with a minimum level (space) that could further scale according to conditions in the country of crisis and in Canada.

In parallel, a set of temporary flexibilities could be set across complementary programs including study permits, work permits, and permanent economic pathways. The flexibility could include waiver of language tests (often impractical or impossible to obtain in crisis situations), waiver of valid passports, and waiver of temporary intent.

The baseline program should be initiated for any sudden displacement crisis. One consideration for scaling the baseline program could be establishing a capped general program, and an uncapped (unlimited) family-linked program. An uncapped family-linked program would enable Canadians to support those nearest and dearest to us, without the additional emotional and financial stress of a race for limited space. 

Q: What are some of the factors that would be important for IRCC to monitor and assess before making a recommendation on whether to launch special immigration measures in response to a crisis, associated pathway(s) or supports, and when and how to wind down those measures?

Where people are suddenly forced to leave home due to violence or other danger to their lives, Canada should be prepared to extend special immigration measures to contribute to immediate relief and security. 

In a family-linked stream, winding down measures could be equitably done according to demand. Outside a family-linked stream, winding down could be done according to the advice of UNHCR or IOM, and the security environment in the areas of refuge.

Q: What are some of the key systemic barriers that clients and populations affected by crises may experience when applying to come to Canada? What facilitative measures or supports can reduce those barriers?

Barriers that may be faced even in an ‘open’ emergency visa: 

1. Expired or no travel documents: Canada can accept expired passports or alternative ID in lieu of valid passports, and issue Single Journey Travel Documents.

2. Ability to leave: Canada can waive the temporary intent requirement, as done in the CUAET. 

3. Ability to access biometrics or medicals: Canada can waive the biometrics requirement, and allow completion of the medical exam in a transit country or upon arrival in Canada. 

Barriers that may be faced across other immigration pathways: 

Please note that TalentLift works under the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (EMPP), an innovative program that removes many displacement-related barriers in selected permanent residence pathways. However, Canada has not yet leveraged this flexibility as well as tested flexibility from other emergency visas, to provide broader access to Canada’s immigration pathways in response to crises. TalentLift has compiled the below steps that could apply to all economic immigration pathways, temporary and permanent, as an example: 

1. Waive the temporary intent requirement across all work permit pathways.

Precedent: CUAET; Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs)

2. Accept expired passports or alternative ID in lieu of valid passports, and issue Single Journey Travel Documents, across all temporary and permanent residence economic pathways. 

Precedent: CUAET; EMPP

3. Accept charitable or philanthropic loans in lieu of savings to meet the settlement funds requirement across all permanent residence economic pathways.

Precedent: EMPP

4. Accept an alternative in lieu of a traditional Educational Credential Assessment, from already accredited bodies such as World Education Services, across all permanent residence economic pathways.

Precedent: The World Education Services Gateway Program assessment is accepted by regulatory bodies and academic institutions in Canada

5. Waive language test criteria across all permanent residence economic pathways, and consider accepting an affidavit from an employer or NGO as an alternative. 

Relevant waivers should also be available to applicants in displacement after arrival in Canada as they transition from temporary to permanent residence. 

Q: The Government of Canada has shared lessons learned from past responses, including on the Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, special programs for Afghanistan, and the response to the situation in Ukraine. Drawing on your own experiences and lessons learned from past responses, how can Canada assess the needs of clients at the onset of a crisis to help inform potential measures and decision-making? What are the key questions that should be answered as part of this assessment?

At the onset of a crisis, Canada should seek immediate input from UNHCR or IOM about immigration opportunities and challenges. Domestically, Canada should seek immediate input from family or diaspora networks as well as NGOs with relevant expertise supporting people in a particular geography. 

Among the questions that should be asked are: 

1) What are the opportunities to leverage Canadian immigration, including through a baseline emergency program (as proposed above) and any complementary immigration pathways? 

2) What are the challenges to a Canadian immigration response, and how might they be mitigated?

3) How can Canada extend equitable access within the affected population, considering wealth, gender, age, and other equity factors?

Q: How would you like to see the Government of Canada collaborate with partners and stakeholders, including civil society organizations in Canada and where crises are unfolding? Are there particular opportunities for enhanced coordination and collaboration? If yes, please explain.

As noted above, Canada should seek input from family or diaspora networks as well as NGOs with relevant expertise supporting people in a particular geography. A notable opportunity is seeking input from NGOs in Canada that are focused on leveraging immigration pathways for displaced populations. This NGO community includes organizations supporting refugee resettlement as well as complementary pathways, including economic pathways under the EMPP. These NGOs should have important insight on how to rapidly scale access to existing pathways in times of crisis. 

Q: Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on IRCC’s Crisis Response Framework?

We encourage maximum transparency, and hope to see the framework and rationale made public. As noted above, discussions and decisions on future crisis response should be public and fully transparent.  

Candidates living in refugee circumstances and seeking a job in Canada can join TalentLift. Employers seeking global talent while engaging their team in something transformative can start hiring.