Canada’s immigration department, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), completed a multi-year evaluation of the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (EMPP) and the results have just been published.

The evaluation looked primarily at the operation of the most recent EMPP, a federal and regional program that aimed to enable people living as refugees to more equitably fill in-demand jobs in Canada through the use of economic immigration pathways.  

Below are some of our takeaways from the evaluation. 

A permanent program is coming, but likely in later 2028

The evaluation has two main recommendations, and one is that the department continue working towards the development of a permanent program that is informed by the lessons captured in the evaluation. A timetable for implementing this recommendation shows development spanning the remainder of 2026 and 2027, and implementation beginning in the third quarter of 2028. 

It’s very positive to see an ongoing commitment to a permanent program, but it’s a disappointing timeline. Canada first pledged to work towards a permanent program in 2023, “committing” to do this by 2025.

Dealing with the processing backlog is coming, but likely in later 2028

The second main recommendation is dealing with processing timelines that, in our view, are inexplicably and indefensibly long. These stretched from a promised six months to what the department says “reached four to six years” by December 2025.

Grimly, the planned implementation timeline to address the existing caseload is late 2028. This is not due urgency for the harm caused by uncertain waiting. 

TalentLift has documented some of the impacts of extended processing times on those waiting in refugee situations and on the Canadian businesses in need of their skills. In a survey of EMPP applicants with visas processing beyond the six-month service standard, we found, “61% can’t send their kids to school, and 73% can’t afford enough to eat. At least fifty-two people with employers waiting for them in Canada have been arrested in countries trying to force its resident refugee population back where they came from.” Many were deported and took another dangerous journey across a new border. One family lost a child because of insufficient healthcare. 

An interim program is not mentioned

A permanent program takes time to develop, and there have been significant shifts that have likely impacted the original pledge: Notably, a shift towards reducing overall immigration levels and an ongoing economic shock caused by U.S. tariffs.

To bridge this period, TalentLift and our partners have recommended Canada implement an interim framework that can extend essential accommodations like the ability to apply with an expired passport in existing economic pathways, an approach that would not require new immigration space. The evaluation does not contemplate this recommended approach. 

Accommodations are essential for access 

The department concludes that “facilitation measures were essential to promoting access and alleviating administrative and financial barriers to economic immigration for skilled refugees and displaced people.” This is a very welcome finding. We know there are many talented individuals who can meet human capital criteria with reasonable accommodations for documentary, financial, legal status, and other barriers.

Conversely, without any form of the EMPP in place, access will continue to be limited to those whose profile more resembles a traditional applicant and not a displaced one. In other words, Canada’s economic stream will only work for someone with a valid passport, or an ability to obtain original transcripts, or savings in a bank account, among other common criteria. Consider that more than half of EMPP principal applicants examined in the evaluation used a travel document exemption. Again, without an interim program, we’re left with an access gap we know how to close. 

Lengthy timelines, and inconsistent guidance to immigration officials are among the problems eroding success

The evaluation found that extremely long processing times erode trust of employers and everyone else involved. And inconsistent knowledge and implementation by immigration officials do too. These are important reflections on department shortcomings – amidst real and remarkable innovation – that will take investment to improve. 

The wrong experts within IRCC may steer this work

The planned lead for implementing recommendations is the Resettlement, Family and Humanitarian Branch (RFH) at IRCC. The EMPP initially developed quickly and well through a team working on the economic immigration side of the department. It moved, over time, to teams working on refugee and humanitarian areas. This is problematic because the principles of what makes economic immigration work – like speed, predictability, and alignment with workforce needs – can be lost or secondary to humanitarian principles and operations. It sounds like humanitarian primacy could serve those in refugee situations, but we believe this isn’t true.

Two examples: If an employer-driven pathway doesn’t work for employers, individuals don’t get job opportunities, and so the highest humanitarian standards are inconsequential. This happened at different points over the EMPP lifetime, when timelines or other issues deterred employers hiring or rehiring from this talent pool. 

Second, a longtime recommendation by TalentLift and our partners is to extend EMPP accommodations to temporary (work permit) pathways, which is needed for anything approaching full equity-of-access to Canada’s economic stream. This approach could be limited to work permits with more likely transition routes to permanent residence, like work permits that allow provincial nominees to arrive quickly before their lengthier PR is approved. But department officials, usually with humanitarian portfolios, cite “protection” as a reason not to. The argument goes that we can’t let people in temporarily because for their protection they need permanent pathways. Imagine Canada never created the Canada Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET) – a temporary pathway – for Ukrainians because it wouldn’t protect them. The result of this protection mindset for EMPP applicants has been narrower entry points, and far less space open to them than to equally skilled folks from any other background. 

Incomplete analysis of shifts in skills and displacement profiles

A section of the evaluation considers a shift in the skills as well as displacement profiles of EMPP applicants over time. 

Missing in the analysis of the changing skills profile is the deliberate policy shift, in the federal EMPP pathway, to open applications to any occupation (NOC) and skill level (TEER) and how this could be adjusted in future. IRCC made this shift at the time to assist in scaling up EMPP applications, which of course worked – and resulted in a processing backlog because of poor planning. The evaluation muses there is now labour market misalignment, and we fear a response is to close off certain occupations or skill levels to EMPP applicants. An important policy option to more closely link the EMPP to workforce needs is to “mainstream” EMPP accommodations to a much broader set of Canada’s economic immigration pathways. These pathways – over 80 of them – are built for this purpose, many with labour market tests informing the best sectors and regions to welcome talent of all skill levels. Why reinvent the wheel? Extend more opportunities, and market-proof them. 

The evaluation also expressed concern with an expanded displacement profile, without fully exploring why this matters. Under the EMPP, an applicant didn’t need a Refugee Status Determination (RSD), which is unavailable or a years-long ordeal in some countries. There were flexible ways to demonstrate displacement. This was a very good thing. In an economic pathway with displacement-related accommodations, it is someone’s skills first that matter for selection, and their displacement situation second that triggers reasonable accommodations. From this perspective, it is better to widen the lens of displacement and reduce the administrative burden of proof. Consider: A Nurse is selected because they’re a Nurse, and they can use a repayable government loan for their travel because, where they’re living as a refugee, they can’t lawfully work to earn money. The burden of proof should be proportional to displacement as a secondary, not primary, factor in a skills-based pathway.  

Retention at work, a major indicator of success, is high

The evaluation found that among respondents to a survey of those relocated to Canada, nearly 70% are working in their original role, and many for longer than one year. TalentLift internal data echoes this finding, where our survey of candidates in Canada for longer than one year shows a retention rate with their employer of more than 90%.

So, where to from here? There are many positive parts of the evaluation, and it should be an important contribution to ongoing economic stream innovation for our peers in displacement. We hope the four underpinning principles of the EMPP, stated in the evaluation, continue informing the policy development ahead: Labour market focus, additionality, changing the narrative, and leveling the field.

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.