Since the Dominion of Canada’s creation on July 1, 1867, immigration has defined Canadian society, history, culture, and economy. The Great White North is perceived as a shining example of effective refugee resettlement, multiculturalism, and inclusivity, fueling persistent population and economic growth. In 2023 alone, Canada received 471,771 permanent immigrants and 804,901 non-permanent residents. Although it prides itself on being a haven for asylum seekers and refugees, as of 2021, more than half of recent immigrants are admitted not for asylum but to strengthen economic development, whether by pursuing self-employment or filling vacancies in the skilled and unskilled labor markets. Many newcomers contribute positively to the Canadian workforce, and by glancing at the numbers, the immigration system seems like a well-oiled economic machine.

Despite Canada’s long-standing vision and success in crafting a diverse, productive workforce, newcomers still struggle to integrate into the labor market, restraining their social mobility and reinforcing economic inequality. An early 2000s census data analysis demonstrated that immigrants, especially racial minority groups, experience higher poverty levels than native-born Canadians. Since employment is directly linked to quality of life, Canada must consider the systemic barriers faced by the working-age immigrant population to repair ineffective settlement services that fail to prioritize economic well-being. This article will examine the ongoing human rights crisis in the temporary immigration stream and its extensive implications on Canadian immigration policy.

Temporary foreign workers (TFWs) are foreign nationals who live and work in Canada for a limited period for work purposes. Due to their public perception as easily replaceable substitutes filling labor gaps, they face social exclusion and vulnerability to exploitation by employers, including harassment, unpaid overtime, inadequate wages, and unsafe working conditions. In addition, unlike permanent residents, TFWs are ineligible for federal settlement services, which makes it difficult to integrate into a local community. Even if pathways to long-term employment and permanent residency are legally viable and desirable, economic, social, and linguistic red tape hinder their ability to pursue them. 

Canada has wrestled with these structural issues since it opened its doors to immigrants of non-European ancestry in the late 1960s. One of the earliest TFW programs was the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), negotiated in 1966 by the Pearson government. It permitted farm owners to hire foreign workers from Mexico or the Caribbean for 8 months of agricultural work. Although SAWP still exists today, in 1973, it evolved into a stream under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which assists employers of various industries in finding low and high-skilled foreign labor when Canadian citizens or permanent residents are unavailable. There are five major streams of entry: high-wage, low-wage, agricultural (which includes SAWP), Global Talent, and Caregiver. After obtaining a positive Labor Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)—affirming that a TFW will benefit the Canadian labor market—the TFW can apply for an open or closed work permit. While an open work permit gives TFWs the freedom to work for any Canadian employer within the period, a closed work permit limits them to one employer and location for the entire duration. 

An over-capacity immigration system, housing shortage, and cost-of-living crisis have triggered calls from both sides of the aisle for the nation to reevaluate admission and integration mechanisms. Both temporary and permanent immigration policies are under the purview of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), overseen by Minister Marc Miller, and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). These agencies implement recommendations from interest groups. Thus, moving into the current policy debate, the federal government must consider discrimination, cultural differences, increased competition or hostility from the native-born workforce, and lack of social networks as disadvantages for TFWs.

In particular, recent studies and data have brought the economic conditions of TFWs to the federal government’s attention. In the United Nations 2023 End of Mission Statement for Canada, Special Rapporteur Tomoya Obokata found that “agricultural and low-wage streams of the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme constitute a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery”. The low-wage stream refers to work with an hourly wage below the provincial or territorial median, often unskilled or on-farm agricultural work. These two streams are intertwined—lacking bureaucratic regulation and accountability. Criticisms were specifically directed toward closed work permits; if workers fear losing their permits and facing deportation, they are less likely to report labor exploitation to authorities. The federal government had been aware of these abuses and attempted and failed to support victims through the Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers. Implemented in 2019, it provided TFWs authorized under closed work permits the opportunity to leave an abusive employer and seek employment elsewhere. However, with a lengthy application process, extensive evidence requirements, lack of evaluation standards for immigration officers, and geographic isolation, the service has proven unfair and inaccessible to most TFWs in need. 

With this in mind and in response to the Special Rapporteur’s findings, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) began a study on closed work permits and their consequences for TFWs on September 26, 2023. 

The committee brought numerous stakeholders nationwide to testify, representing diverse perspectives. It was expected for advocacy organizations—serving as political voices for either temporary migrant workers or Canadian agriculturalists—to take clear sides on this highly controversial and pressing issue. The Canadian Labour Congress and the Réseau d’aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec (Support network for migrant agricultural workers in Quebec) likened the system to an abuse of power and concurred with the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations to abolish closed work permits. Contrastingly, the agriculture sector was more resistant to reform. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council staunchly denied the accusation that farmers were exploiting migrant workers. In witness testimony, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association also stated that switching to a full open work permit policy would be “catastrophic” for family-owned farms that depend on TFWs for their livelihoods. Before a farm can hire TFWs, it must invest $25,000 to $40,000 for worker housing and up to $2,000 for round-trip flight tickets; thus, if TFWs were to leave farms shortly after arrival to seek other employment, the economic burden on farmers would be immense and irrecoverable. 

Canada is known for its rare cross-party consensus on immigration, especially given how controversial this subject is in the Western world. There are distinct perspectives, but it is more nuanced than simply “pro-immigrant versus anti-immigrant.” The Liberal and New Democratic parties concentrate on family reunification, government-assisted refugee streams, and attracting highly skilled workers. The Conservative Party prioritizes skilled, economic immigration and recognizes temporary workers as a valuable asset for private-sector labor gaps. Nevertheless, due to recent strains on the social welfare system, Conservatives believe it is more vital than ever to limit temporary immigration to alleviate pressure on housing and prioritize citizenship as the ultimate goal of policy. Acknowledging the detrimental effects of uncontrolled immigration, the Liberal government has put a “soft cap” on foreign worker, asylum, and international student levels. While both sides of the aisle favor protecting TFWs’ rights, creating more opportunities for TFWs to obtain status will reduce legal uncertainty and the risk of labor exploitation and fulfill sustained labor market needs in agricultural or skilled trades.

It is a reality that Canada can only claim victory in integrating newcomers into the labor market with equitable employment opportunities and conditions across industries and statuses. People migrate to a new country hoping to support their families back home, create a prosperous life for their children, or escape unfulfilling, dangerous living conditions. When immigrants cannot continue careers they dedicate their entire lives to or work in safety and dignity, there are national consequences on employment, productivity, investment, and quality of life. Before the federal government engrosses itself in a heated discussion over numbers, it must address the crises occurring in its backyard for those who intend to make Canada home.