As one of the world’s leading historical polluters, Canada can uphold climate justice by facilitating mobility and supporting development and adaptation initiatives for those displaced by climate change.

 Canada leads the world in cumulative emissions per population and is the second highest in terms of cumulative emissions per capita.[1] Despite its negative historical contributions to the climate crisis, Canada does not have an explicit policy focused on climate mobility, and to date, the government has only introduced ad hoc and temporary policy mechanisms to respond to sudden-onset climate events, rather than developing permanent solutions for individuals affected by both the sudden and slow-onset causes of climate displacement.

To remedy its destructive impact on the planet, Canadian policymakers can implement the following recommendations to uphold a climate justice-centered approach to climate mobility. These recommendations include modifying the current guidelines for admission on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; utilising ‘public policy class’ admissions to facilitate mobility; introducing resettlement and private sponsorship pathways; and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Canada should also leverage existing labour, family reunification and education pathways; support regional and global initiatives to facilitate climate mobility; and significantly expand funding for loss and damage, climate adaptation and disaster reduction efforts.

1.Expand humanitarian and compassionate grounds guidelines

Under Section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Canada grants permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, such as during adverse conditions in an individual’s country of origin. The Minister of Immigration and Citizenship is permitted to “examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national” and “grant the foreign national permanent resident status” based on “humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national.” As such, Canada should recognise climate displacement as a relevant consideration for admission under humanitarian and compassionate grounds by enacting and amending guidelines related to Section 25 of IRPA.

The Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers recommends adding the following consideration to the current humanitarian and compassionate grounds guidelines: “short-term or long-term environmental disasters or degradation… that can be expected to pose a risk to a person’s life, liberty, or security of the person…because of its direct physical effects and/or because of secondary socio-political effects such as population pressures, profound poverty, and political strife.”[2] By adding such a guideline, Canada would enable access to permanent protection beyond the traditional definition of a “refugee” in Canadian law for those impacted by sudden and slow-onset climate events and disasters. While it may be argued that such a definition would be too broad, it is worth remembering that the current definition of a refugee under international law is too narrow in scope amidst the realities that communities are facing and enduring globally, and such a narrow definition also risks perpetuating climate injustice.

2.Leverage ‘Public Policy Class’ admissions

Canada should create a public policy class under Section 25.2 of the IRPA, which would enable the Minister to grant permanent residency based on “public policy considerations” for those who would not otherwise qualify based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, typically a group of individuals in similar circumstances. Recently, Canada used this mechanism to support the evacuation and resettlement of Afghan nationals, including marginalised groups such as women leaders and human rights defenders. Following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Canada used the public policy class to temporarily defer the removal of individuals back to Haiti and introduced a temporary policy giving Haitian nationals the opportunity to apply for permanent residency.

There is no legislative or regulatory process required to create a public policy class under section 25.2 of IRPA. Canada can flexibly adapt to the needs of groups of individuals affected by specific climate-related events and disasters across the world and provide permanent protection. However, since this policy option is used in an ad hoc manner and is left to the Minister’s discretion, there is no guarantee of a public policy being invoked for any climate-related event, risking inconsistent application of this protection mechanism. As such, guidance must be developed by government authorities to provide clarity on when and how the public policy class could be used in the context of climate change and displacement.

3. Introduce resettlement and private sponsorship pathways

Regulation 146 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states that protection may be granted to “a person in similar circumstances to those of a Convention refugee [who] is a member of the country of asylum class.”[3] Accordingly, through the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Class, the Government of Canada may resettle individuals if “they are outside all of their countries of nationality and habitual residence” (under regulation 147(a)) and if “they have been, and continue to be, seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed conflict or massive violation of human rights in each of those countries” (under regulation 147(b)). Canada should introduce a new class under the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Class for those individuals seriously and personally affected by climate-induced risks, including sudden and slow-onset events. Alternatively, Canada could also expand regulation 147(b) to include individuals whose life and security are threatened due to climate-induced risks.

By expanding the eligibility criteria of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Class, Canada can leverage its longstanding commitment to refugee resettlement and private sponsorship to resettle or sponsor those fleeing the effects of climate change. Currently, Canada has three principal refugee resettlement and sponsorship programmes: the Private Sponsorship of Refugees programme, the Government-Assisted Refugee programme and the Blended Visa Office-Referred programme.

In 2019, the government introduced a new programme to support the sponsorship of individuals facing persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. As such, Canada has several options for formally recognising climate change displacement and supporting climate displaced individuals using the same approach: introduce a programme specifically to protect those who are forced to flee due to the effects of climate change; expand the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Class to individuals facing climate-related risks so resettlement or sponsorship can be considered under one of the current programmes; and/or introduce a public policy class to facilitate the resettlement and sponsorship of individuals displaced and forced to flee as a result of the effects of climate change.

4. Amend Section 97 of IRPA

Section 97 of IRPA establishes that a person may be granted protection if they are “personally” subjected to the danger of torture, a risk to their life, or of cruel, unusual treatment or punishment. However, according to Section 97(1)(b)(ii), this risk must not be faced generally by other individuals in or from the country because generalised risks such as crime, violence, corruption, human rights violations, political extremism and general insecurity may fall outside the 1951 Convention definition of a refugee. The personalised risk requirement seemingly excludes individuals seeking protection from the wide-reaching effects of climate change or disaster displacement, although it can be argued that simply because a risk is generalised, it does not negate an individual’s right to life, liberty or security.

The Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers proposes adding a new subsection – Subsection 97(1)(c) – to establish a legislated exception to the requirement of “personalised risk” for individuals affected by climate change. The government can leverage the existing Chairperson Guidelines developed for Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)[4] decision-makers to provide guidance on identifying individuals who should be considered as protected persons under the expanded Section 97(1)(c) regulation. For example, the Protection Agenda of the Nansen Initiative suggests that an individual may need protection due to an ongoing, imminent or foreseeable disaster that may pose a risk to their life or safety and they are not able to receive support from government or humanitarian actors. After amending Section 97 of IRPA, it would be useful to incorporate this guidance into the existing guidelines for IRB decision-makers to ensure that an individual’s life, liberty or security are not jeopardised because of climate change.

5.Explore other climate mobility pathways and support regional and global initiatives

Canada can explore a wide range of other climate mobility pathways to undertake a justice-based approach to this issue. For example, Canada implements special measures to prioritise and expedite applications for temporary or permanent residence in Canada from countries affected by a disaster. For example, following the Haitian earthquake in 2010, the government incorporated special measures to instruct government officials interim federal health coverage, as well as work and study permits for Haitians seeking permanent residence in Canada.[5]

Canada should pursue similar actions as a response to inevitable climate-related disasters in order to ensure permanent and seamless settlement and integration for those impacted by climate-related events. However, such ad hoc and temporary measures should not take priority over the longer term policy solutions explored above.

Canada should leverage existing economic and labour mobility pathways, such as the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for those affected by climate change, since many of these programmes already target countries that are made vulnerable by the effects of climate change, such as Small Island Developing States in the Caribbean and countries that are susceptible to drought in Central America, such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

However, such pathways should only be used if working conditions are fair and safe and permanent residency is granted upon arrival in order to prevent individuals from being trapped due to a precarious immigration status. Furthermore, as the top source countries of immigration to Canada such as the Philippines and Pakistan face significant environmental degradation, Canada should also explore family reunification pathways for those affected by climate change, especially as this mechanism would facilitate a smoother settlement and integration process due to the presence of social networks in the country. Moreover, Canada should investigate the use of education mobility pathways, whether focused on humanitarian protection (for example, the World University Service of Canada programme) or more generally to support students to continue their educational and employment aspirations, especially if these aspirations have been obstructed because of climate change and its impacts on their local communities.

Beyond domestic policy and legislative changes, Canada can also advocate for regional and global progress on climate mobility. Following the regional agreements such as the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees in Latin America, Canada can support regional partners and institutions in establishing regional climate mobility agreements and policies. In this regard, Canada should also support the establishment of bilateral and regional labour agreements to address the environmental and livelihoods needs which are increasing due to climate displacement.

On a global level, Canada is a signatory to the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which urges States to “identify, develop and strengthen solutions for migrants compelled to leave their countries of origin due to slow-onset natural disasters, the adverse effects of climate change, and environmental degradation.” Canada should use this forum to support regional and global solutions to climate mobility, while also advocating for the establishment of an optional protocol under the 1951 Refugee Convention to provide legal protection to persons displaced across international borders due to climate change, as per the UN Special Rapporteur’s 2023 recommendation.[6]

6. Fund loss and damage, climate adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction efforts

Canada has only committed CAD 2.65 billion (2015-2021) and CAD 5.3 billion (2021-2026) as part of its international climate finance commitments.[7] This is significantly below what could be considered Canada’s fair contribution to global climate financing if calculated according to its share of historical emissions. In fact, Canada only gave 37% of its fair share of international climate financing in 2020, falling USD 3.3 billion short of its target for the year from a climate justice point of view. Canada should significantly expand its international climate financing obligations. Providing adequate amounts of funding for climate adaptation efforts relative to its historical impact on global greenhouse gas emissions will also ensure that communities are able to adapt – to the extent possible – and secure their livelihoods, including by moving within their country or region as a response to the changing climate conditions in their respective contexts.

To achieve this, Canada should also provide funding to organisations led by migrants and refugees themselves, as a matter of both procedural justice and agency in relation to climate justice and displacement, but also because they know how best to respond to the needs of their communities.

Additionally, displacement can cause significant loss and damage for individuals and communities due to trauma and psychological impacts, loss of income and livelihoods, lack of access to food and water, reduced health and access to health care, inability to continue education, disruption of community, and loss of sense of place and identity. Therefore, from a climate justice perspective, Canada should provide a significant amount of funding to the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP27 to ensure that countries are compensated for the destruction caused by the actions of the Minority World, including Canada.

Ultimately, considering its historical and ongoing impacts on the health of the planet, Canada has an obligation to support countries that are disproportionately and negatively impacted by the climate crisis. By following these recommendations, Canada can be a leader in facilitating climate mobility and repaying its climate debt to countries in the Majority World.

Rahul Balasundaram
Policy and Advocacy Manager, Canadian Council for Refugees
rbalasundaram@ccrweb.ca
linkedin.com/in/rahulbalasundaram/

This article has been written in the author’s personal capacity and does not reflect the views of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

[1] Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?’ CarbonBrief, 5th October 2021

[2] Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers (2021) The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers’ 2021 Report on Climate

[3] Government of Canada, ‘Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations’

[4] The IRB is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for making decisions on immigration and refugee matters in Canada.

[5] Omeziri E and Gore C (2014) ‘Temporary Measures: Canadian Refugee Policy and Environmental Migration’, Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, Vol 29 (2): 43-53 x

[6] ‘Providing legal options to protect the human rights of persons displaced across international borders due to climate change’ – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry

[7] Government of Canada, Canada’s $2.65 Billion International Climate Finance Commitment

READ THE FULL ISSUE