Canada's current immigration, refugee, citizenship and temporary migration polices facilitate the production and maintenance of multitude forms of temporariness. The designation of temporary and precarious status means limited rights, conditionality and increased risk of abuse and exploitation. It also shapes persons’ access to rights and services and their sense of belonging. The special section includes four original articles that employ a range of qualitative methods to delve into the issue of temporariness and its implications for migrants, Canadians, and the future of migration management in Canada. The authors call for repeals, amendments and the creation of innovative programmes that leads to pathways to permanent status. The contributions are intended to provide active, pointed, and practical recommendations that would eventually lead to an immigration programme that is efficient, secure, and complies with international human rights standards while eliminating instances of abuse and exploitation.

Who is stateless and when is a state obligated to confer nationality under international law? Using the case study of Malaysia, this paper sheds light on who are stateless and gives weight to the international customary ‘doctrine of dominant and effective nationality’ as a factor to consider when conferring citizenship on stateless persons in Malaysia. Six categories of stateless persons were identified in this research project. This article posits that five of the six categories of stateless persons can be said to have ‘genuine and effective links’ to Malaysia suggesting that not all stateless persons are foreigners or migrants. The research project suggests that in examining who are stateless, different pathways of citizenship should be conceived for them.

Afer years of cuts, Canada’s refugee health-care program, the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), was fully restored in 2016. In this exploratory study, eleven semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with refugee service providers in the City of Ottawa to learn about their experience with the restored IFHP to date. Five themes emerged from the interviews: service provision challenges during the years of IFHP cuts; support for IFHP restoration; entitlement gaps in the current IFHP; ongoing confusion about the IFHP; and administrative barriers deterring health professionals from IFHP participation. More research is needed to determine whether the identifed challenges with the reinstated IFHP arise on a national scale.

No abstract