Introduction

Critics have long argued that the mobility restrictions of employer-specific—or closed—work permits, combined with high dependence on employers, can make temporary foreign workers (TFWs) vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.[1] Foreign workers cannot fully defend their human and labour rights with respect to an employer and workplace that they cannot easily leave. For TFWs, the stakes of not fulfilling the conditions of these closed permits are often high. Leaving a job—quitting, being laid off, or being fired—can mean the immediate loss of medical services and housing, financial ruin, and quick deportation.

These risks are especially high for TFWs in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)—including workers with low-wages, caregivers and workers in the agriculture and agri-food system—who may depend on employers for housing (as it is a requirement in several TFWP streams that the employer provide housing) and access to information and services. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (the Committee) highlighted this vulnerability caused by the use of closed work permits in the TFWP in its June 2021 report, Immigration Programs to Meet Labour Market Needs.[2]

From 23 August to 6 September 2023, Tomoya Obokata, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery (the Special Rapporteur), undertook an official research visit to Canada to investigate the country’s efforts to prevent and address contemporary forms of slavery—such as forced labour, coercion and trafficking—including an examination of the TFWP.[3] In his End of Mission Statement dated 6 September 2023, which included his preliminary conclusions, the Special Rapporteur characterized the Agricultural and Low-wage streams of Canada’s TFWP as constituting “a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.”[4] On 22 July 2024, Mr. Obokata echoed this conclusion in his final version of the report, which he will present to the UN Human Rights Council during its 57^th session, from 9 September to 9 October 2024.[5]

On 7 November 2023, the Committee began its own study on closed work permits and TFWs. As part of its study, the Committee considered the underlying conditions of TFWs’ work and mobility, the important role the TFWP plays for both Canadian industries and migrant workers, the success of existing TFW protections, and the Special Rapporteur’s September 2023 End of Mission Statement. This report reflects the testimony of employers and industry representatives, TFWs and TFW representatives, and government officials. It also explores the testimony the Committee received from the Special Rapporteur, including his comments about the limitations and implications of his two-week official research trip, as well as his preliminary conclusion – since reiterated in his final report – that streams of the TFWP risk creating conditions for forms of modern slavery.[6] While the Committee’s report references the Special Rapporteur’s final report (2024), its focus is on Mr. Obokata’s End of Mission Statement (2023) which informed much of the witnesses’ testimony.

This report is divided into four parts. First, it outlines the government’s use of closed work permits in the TFWP, the growth of the program since 2014, and recent critiques of its working conditions in the Special Rapporteur’s End of Mission Statement. Second, it examines the success of existing worker protections in the TFWP, including the pathways for employment mobility for which TFWs are eligible. Third, the report examines precisely how workers may be made vulnerable to abuse by way of closed work permits in the TFWP, as well as the risks and benefits of issuing open and sectoral permits instead. Finally, possible changes to the TFWP are proposed, such as improving access to permanent resident pathways.

Closed Work Permits and the Growth of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Employer-specific work permits, also known as closed work permits, are issued to foreign nationals entering Canada as temporary residents. Under a closed permit, foreign nationals are restricted to a specific employer during the visa’s validity period.[7] Since 2014,[8] closed work permits are issued exclusively through the TFWP and the International Mobility Program (IMP).[9] In 2022, 77% of all work permits issued by IRCC were open, while 23% were closed.[10] According to the Immigrant Workers Centre, “fewer than 150,000 migrants” had a closed work permit in November 2023.[11]

This report will focus on closed work permits issued under the TFWP, as the majority of IMP visa holders are issued open work permits, allowing them to work for any employer willing to hire.[12] IMP visa holders are highly specialized foreign nationals, from “engineers to university professors,”[13] and are not subject to restrictions based on the protection of the Canadian labour market.[14] IMP permit holders include temporary workers with post-graduate work permits, spousal work permits for students or workers, those temporarily visiting, and in March 2024, constituted 44% of all temporary residents in Canada.[15] The number of permits issued under the IMP has grown by 83%, between 2017 and 2022.[16] Data provided by IRCC shows that there were 242,330 new IMP work permit holders in 2017, versus 466,905 in 2022.[17]

On the other hand, all work permits issued under the TFWP are primarily closed. Holders of closed work permits in the TFWP are mostly tied to a single employer. Within the systems of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) who jointly administer the program, one employer is linked to each closed work permit, which are in turn linked to individuals in the TFWP coming to work in Canada temporarily. The employer is also listed on the physical work permit, which is issued to the worker upon arrival in Canada and often stapled and folded into their passport.

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Successive governments have adopted the view that the TFWP can assist employers in filling labour market gaps, without compromising the capacity of Canadians to access the job market.[18] The results of this program have not been substantiated. Six subcategories of the program are tailored to address different labour gaps in Canada: the High-wage stream, the Low-wage stream, the Primary Agriculture stream, the Stream to Support Permanent Residency, the Global Talent Stream, and the Caregiver Programs.[19] The TFWP, introduced in Canada over 55 years ago,[20] predominately includes farm workers and food processors, but not exclusively.[21] Workers in the TFWP made up 9% of all temporary residents in Canada in March 2024.[22] This number includes TFWs that hold occupation-restricted open work permits, also known as sectoral permits, issued to them through recent Caregiver pilot programs.[23]

The TFWP is administered in partnership by IRCC and ESDC.[24] While IRCC assesses visa admissibility for the program, ESDC is responsible for determining potential effects of TFWs on the Canadian labour market. ESDC is also responsible for supervising compliance of employers with obligations set out under the program.[25]

To qualify for the TFWP, employers must provide a valid job offer to the applicant and obtain a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) from ESDC.[26] Before IRCC can issue a work permit under the TFWP, employers seeking to hire TFWs in Quebec must obtain a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec from the Minister of Immigration, Francisation et Intégration of Quebec, which is not the case for workers in the IMP.[27] LMIAs are used by the Canadian government to determine if there is a genuine need for foreign workers in local sectors of the labour market, and if hiring a migrant worker will have a negative impact for qualified Canadians or permanent residents. The LMIAs also play “a role in maintaining the integrity of the [relevant programs],” as it “provides protection to the foreign worker, given that employers … are held accountable by the Government’s employer compliance regime.”[28] The cost for applying to obtain an LMIA is $1,000 per position,[29] however, an exception is made for employers in the Primary Agriculture stream, which are fee exempt.[30]

LMIAs and closed work permits also facilitate workplace inspections, because they specify the employers and the conditions of work.[31] Using this information, Service Canada may inspect workplaces to ensure that the employer complies with 28 conditions set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.[32] Depending on the gravity of the violations, employers who are found non‑compliant may face a series of consequences, including a permanent ban from relevant programs.[33]

Growth of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Between 2014 and 2023

In 2014, IRCC described the TFWP as a “last and limited resort,” to help fill “genuine labour needs.”[34] 2014 was the year where the government made significant reforms to the TFWP, thereby limiting employers to hire a maximum of 10% low-wage position TFWs in proportion of their total staffing.[35] But over the next decade, Canadian employers have increasingly turned to, and relied on, the TFWP to fill their labour shortages, which has led to significant growth of the TFWP in Canada.[36]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, IRCC and ESDC relaxed several requirements of the TFWP to allow for greater mobility and faster processing of applications for TFWs into the Canadian labour market to fill skill shortages, especially in sectors considered as “essential services.”[37] In April 2022, in the wake of the pandemic, large gaps in the Canadian job market led ESDC to implement the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Workforce Solutions Road Map (the Road Map).[38] Among other measures, in response to industry demands, the Road Map increased the percentage of low-wage positions an employer can hire through the TFWP to 20% of their total staffing for all employers across the country, and temporarily increased the cap to 30% in certain sub-sectors of employment that demonstrated significant labour shortages, such as accommodation and food services, construction, as well as food manufacturing and hospitals. Additionally, the federal government ended its Refusal to Process policy for certain low-wage occupations in the Accommodation and Food Services, and Retail Trade sectors in economic regions with an unemployment rate of 6% or higher.

ESDC announced on 26 October 2023 that it would extend the 30% temporary increase into 2023–2024.[39] On 21 March 2024, the department reduced the cap on low-wage positions to 20% for all industries except for construction and health care sectors, and decreased the period of validity of a new LMIA from 12 to 6 months.[40]

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Honourable Marc Miller, reminded the Committee how essential TFWs are for employers “with short-term labour needs.”[41] He went on to highlight the valuable contributions of TFWs to the Canadian economy during COVID-19:

[TFWs] make valuable contributions to our economy and are essential to employers with short-term labour needs. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. One need only remind oneself of what happened during COVID and the shutdown, and the crisis that imposed immediately on the economy, if people’s memories are short.[42]

Figure 1 sets out the most recent TFWP numbers, including statistics for newly issued permits by year (new issues) and total TFWs in Canada in a calendar year.

Figure 1—The Total and New Work Permit Holders in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, 2015–2023

Source: Graph prepared by the Library of Parliament using data obtained from Yuqian Lu and Feng Hou, Foreign workers in Canada: Work permit holders versus employment income records, 2010 to 2022, Statistics Canada, 25 October 2023; IRCC, Temporary Residents: Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holders – Monthly IRCC Updates – Canada – Temporary Foreign Worker Program work permit holders by province/territory of intended destination, intended occupation (4-digit NOC 2011) and year in which permit(s) became effective.

The growth in TFW numbers prompted the Minister to indicate in September 2023 that IRCC would be “taking a closer look at temporary resident immigration levels and making sure they align with [Canada’s] capacity and needs, to ensure sustainable growth.”[43] On 21 March 2024, he announced that, starting in the fall, his department would be expanding the Immigration Levels Plan to include temporary resident arrivals.[44] In August 2024, ESDC Minister Randy Boissonnault announced measures to reduce the number of TFWs in Canada, with exceptions for seasonal and non-seasonal jobs in food security, healthcare, and construction sectors, “given current labour market conditions, and to further reduce the reliance of Canadian employers on the [TWFP].”[45]

The growth of low-wage streams of the TFWP will undoubtably continue to contribute to a growing population of undocumented workers who will be preyed upon by unscrupulous actors. As Quebec’s Central Labour Bodies notes, “even without an economic downturn, the increase in the use of the TFWP has an upward impact on the number of immigrants who become non-status in Canada.”[46]

Importance of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for Canadian Agricultural and Agri-Food sectors

TFWs play an integral role in several Canadian industries, including in Canada’s agriculture and agri-food system. Jobs filled by TFWs in these sectors include positions with businesses in primary agriculture and food and beverage processing industries, but also employment with food retailers and wholesalers, and food service providers.[47] In 2023, 70,267 TFWs were employed in agricultural industries, and 45,428 were employed in the food and beverage manufacturing industries.[48]

Peggy Brekveld from the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council reported on the state of agriculture as an industry, and its importance for Canada’s economy:

In 2022, the [primary] Canadian agriculture sector generated $38.8 billion in GDP, or 1.9% of the national total. Canada has established itself as a major producer of diverse and high-quality agricultural products. It ranks among the world’s largest exporters, with $92.8 billion in agricultural and processed food exports in 2022.[49]

When looking at the agriculture and agri-food system more broadly, $143.8 billion in GDP was generated by the industry in 2022, which represents 7% of the national total.[50]

But this industry, responsible for creating one in nine jobs in Canada,[51] has faced significant challenges in attracting and retaining sufficient employees. Minister Miller indicated that, over the last 50 years, the ratio of worker-to-retiree in Canada dropped from a seven-to-one to a three-to-one ratio, a change that has put significant pressures on the country.[52] Canada’s changing demography has also impacted the country’s capacity to safely achieve food security, with the agriculture and agri-food sectors facing “chronic labour shortages.”[53] Denise Gagnon, Vice-President of Réseau d’aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec (RATTMAQ) reported that the food security index for Quebec was on a downward trend in 2023.[54] Mark Chambers, Vice-President of Sunterra Farms, a Canadian pork production company, reported that in 2022 Canadian agriculture and agri-food industries lost an estimated $3.5 billion in sales due to labour shortages.[55] Peggy Brekveld informed the Committee that in 2022, the agricultural sector alone dealt with a labour shortage of over 100,000 people, a deficit which was filled by 71,000 TFWs.[56]

The importance of TFWs for the sustainability of Canadian agriculture and agri-food sectors, and the food security of Canadians cannot be overstated. Associations representing employers in these industries, such as Food and Beverage Canada, recognized the “pivotal role” played by TFWs in “addressing labour shortages in Canada.”[57] The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers agreed that “domestic labour shortage[s] in rural Canada … [were] one of the primary reasons that [the fruit and vegetable sector] continues to rely heavily on TFWs.”[58] The essential contribution of TFWs to the Canadian economy was highlighted as a key factor in “fostering not only the growth of businesses that employ them, but also contributing positively to the communities they become a part of.”[59] Mark Chambers told the Committee that the TFWP had been “a cornerstone in maintaining the balance of labour markets and safeguarding the interests of … agricultural and agri-food businesses.”[60] The program allowed Chambers’ business to “continue [its operations] with success, just as many other businesses in Canada have, especially in tight labour markets.”[61] Peggy Brekveld indicated that in order for Canada to keep up the pace with expanding global markets and the growth of demand in the agricultural sector, the Government of Canada will need to put together a “strategic response” to address labour shortages.[62]

As such, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada increase the cap for temporary foreign workers in the agri-food sector from 20 to 30%.

The Primary Agriculture Programs: Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and Agricultural Streams

Farmers in the agricultural and agri-food industry[63] may hire TFWs via the Primary Agriculture programs, which includes the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) and the Agricultural stream.[64] While the Agricultural stream allows employers to recruit TFWs from any country to work on‑farm for a period of two to three years,[65] the SAWP is designed around specific bilateral agreements with the Mexican and Caribbean governments, and foreign workers are brought in during the planting and harvesting seasons for up to eight months of the year.[66]

In a brief, Food and Beverage Canada indicated that hiring workers through the TFWP required careful planning from employers, as they “are often required to apply three to six months in advance, if not longer.”[67] Fernando Borja Torres, Director General of Fondation des entreprises en recrutement de main-d’œuvre agricole étrangère (FERME), informed the Committee that he believed “one of the main reasons for the success” of the SAWP in Quebec was the way it ensured a predictable “number of workers for seeding or planting” in proportion to their needs, thus protecting employers and their investments.[68] According to Kenton Possberg, Director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the ability to get a crop in or out of the ground is “life and death of [a producer’s] farming operations.”[69] Peggy Brekveld emphasized to the Committee that when TFWs do not arrive on time or in sufficient number, producers are faced with the prospect of losing “entire crops.”[70] According to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, the harvest window for many crops is very narrow, often only several days, or even hours, wide (e.g., strawberries, peaches, asparagus, etc.), leaving farm employers highly dependent on the reliability and predictability of their workforce.[71] Given the importance of food security and persistent shortages in the food sector, a closed work permit—with accompanying protections for workers—provides farmers and Canadians with predictable food production. This predictability is important for all employers using the TFWP, who pay amounts that they testified could range from $1,000 to $10,000 per position, including the LMIA ($1,000 per position except for primary agriculture positions, which are fee exempt), worker recruitment, housing,[72] and transportation.[73] Under the TFWP, employers hiring workers under the Agricultural Stream and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program are required to provide adequate, suitable and affordable housing, as defined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Employers hiring workers under the Low-Wage Stream must either provide suitable and affordable housing or ensure its availability. This must cost less than 30% of the TFW’s before-tax income.[74] Overall, these witnesses argued that fostering good practices amongst employers and investments in the TFWP makes the Canadian agricultural industry more resilient and protects food security. Former Deputy Minister of IRCC Christiane Fox remarked that “a private business that recruits workers and invests in its people fully recognizes their value,” and that it was “important to recognize the investments of good employers.”[75]

Worker Vulnerability to Exploitation and the Special Rapporteur

As the TFWP has grown, it has also attracted increased scrutiny concerning the vulnerability of workers to exploitation and abuse — including from international organizations. As mentioned above, the investigation of Tomoya Obokata, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, included looking at forced labour, coercion and trafficking in the TFWP.[76] In his preliminary report, he found that the Agricultural and Low-wage streams of the TFWP constitute “a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery” – a conclusion that, after further research, he retained in his final July 2024 report. Many witnesses representing employees – and one worker who was employed under the TFWP – similarly testified, during the Committee’s study, to worker exploitation and abuse under the TFWP and its closed work permit system.

Special Rapporteur’s Visit to Canada

As part of his mandate as Special Rapporteur, Tomoya Obokata visited Canada, at the invitation of the federal government, from 23 August 2023 to 6 September 2023, to assess Canada’s readiness for implementation of the new Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.[77] More broadly, the Special Rapporteur examined “Canada’s efforts to prevent and address contemporary forms of slavery, including forced labour, child labour, domestic servitude, debt bondage, and sexual exploitation within its territory and abroad.” This included an examination of Canada’s TFWP.[78]

During his investigation, the Special Rapporteur travelled to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and Moncton. To inform his findings, he met with

representatives from various departments of the Government of Canada and the Governments of Ontario, Québec, British Columbia and New Brunswick, federal ombudspersons, national and provincial human rights commissions, members of Parliament, UNHCR and the UN Global Compact Network, business associations, trade unions, civil society organisations, academics, and Canadian and migrant workers from a broad range of sectors including agriculture, caregiving, meat and seafood processing, and sex work.[79]

Despite his focus on the Low-wage and Primary Agriculture streams, the Special Rapporteur did not visit any farms using the TFWP.[80] When questioned on this at Committee, Mr. Obokata’s response was that he thought that such visits would likely not be representative of true working conditions, because they would have to be planned, with notice given to employers.[81]

Closed Work Permits and the Risk of Exploitation

In light of his research and these interviews, the Special Rapporteur argued that the Agricultural and Low-wage streams of the TFWP make workers vulnerable to contemporary forms of slavery, including forced labour. In his view, the closed work permit required under the TFWP makes migrant workers greatly dependent on their employers for accessing social services and housing – and, ultimately, for remaining in Canada. On a closed work permit, he noted in his preliminary report, workers largely “cannot change employers and may face deportation upon termination of their employment.”[82] He also reported that many workers experience “debt bondage” because they have had to pay large sums of money to recruiters in their countries of origin, and must work to pay off this debt.[83] In his final report, he also noted that “[m]any workers go into debt to cover the costs associated with participating” in programs under the TFWP.[84]

During the Committee’s own study, many witnesses, including TFWs and TFW representatives, echoed that the TFWP and closed work permits system blocked mobility and created conditions conducive to coercion.[85] Elizabeth Kwan, from the Canadian Labour Congress, for instance, agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s preliminary analysis, in that, in her view, the Low-wage and Primary Agricultural streams of the TFWP are “structured to allow really nasty practices that harm workers.”[86] While many good employers exist, she argued that:

The employer-specific work permit has a systemic impact of awarding all the power and control of the employment relationship to the employer … It simply renders migrant workers vulnerable, and open to abuse and exploitation by employers, labour recruiters and labour traffickers.[87]

Gabriela Ramo, Chair of the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, similarly “agree[d] with the finding of the UN [S]pecial [R]apporteur that the issuance of closed work permits to these workers, which prevents them from changing employers, increases their vulnerability to abuse.”[88]

While many witnesses noted that workers have rights on paper, some argued that worker dependency on their employers – combined with bureaucratic hurdles – makes these rights difficult to exercise. For Elizabeth Kwan, while the government claims that TFWP workers have the same rights and protections as Canadians and permanent residents,

the employer-specific work permit takes away the ability of migrant workers to exercise those rights. The fear of getting fired and deported traps migrant workers in involuntary servitude, which generates a compliant labour force.[89]

Similarly, the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, Covenant House Vancouver, Dignidad Migrante, and FCJ Refugee Centre, claimed, in a brief to the Committee, that “[w]hen exploitation inevitably occurs, closed work permits and bureaucratic barriers make it difficult for workers to leave their employers, report abuse and seek support.”[90] Speaking of the vulnerability of migrant agricultural workers to the threat of deportation, in particular, Justicia for Migrant Workers & Migrant Farmworker Clinic (Windsor Law), argued that:

Any attempt at seeking justice is faced with immediate loss of employment and ‘repatriation.’ … Employment can be discontinued at the will of employers and the workers are bundled into a flight back, sometimes within 24 hours, at the flimsiest of excuses - if the harvest season has been slow, or if they are injured, or for any other reason.[91]

Employees tied to employers by closed work permits – and dependent on them for access to housing, continued employment and status – may have difficultly speaking out against exploitation, even when official channels and protections exist.

Reports of Abuse

In some cases, worker vulnerability to coercion can result in appalling living and working conditions. In his testimony to the committee, Elías Anavisca, a former migrant worker under the TFWP recounted his expectation in coming to Canada:

In 2016, I was recruited by an associate of Karin and Jose Callejas. I was promised a job in Canada. I was supposed to be packing turkeys with a salary of $16 an hour. They also promised I could bring my family later.[92]

Once he arrived in Canada, however, Mr. Anavisca was very dependent on his employer and faced unhealthy and degrading working conditions. He noted, in a brief to the Committee submitted by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, that one of his employers “demanded [his] passport, claiming visa renewal under threats of deportation.”[93] Rather than $16 an hour and regular hours, workers were often given extra work, at a low wage, with no sick leave. As he testified, “[o]ur work was gruelling, 10 hours a day or more and a weekly salary of $300. Getting sick was not an option, and when I needed help, I was ignored.”[94]

At Committee, Mr. Anavisca also spoke of substandard employer-provided living quarters, physical abuse and restricted mobility freedom:

I … shared a house with eight other workers. There were no mattresses, and they once punished us by shutting off the water in the kitchen. Our freedom was limited, and a co-worker was physically abused by an associate of the Callejas family.[95]

In his End of Mission Statement, the Special Rapporteur noted that “a large number of stakeholders,”[96] similarly told him that workers they represented or advocated for reported:

[E]xcessive working hours, being obliged to perform extracontractual tasks, physically dangerous tasks, low wages, no overtime pay, being denied access to healthcare and/or transport to medical facilities, limited access to social services including services for newcomers, and language courses, as well as sexual harassment, intimidation, and violence at the hands of their employers and their family. Those in employer-provided housing reported overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions, lack of privacy, lack of gender-sensitive housing arrangements, and arbitrary restrictions on energy use.[97]

During the Committee’s study, many witnesses reported similar patterns of abuse.[98] Some noted that the exploitation and abuse disproportionately affected racialized[99] and female[100] workers. The Alliance for Gender Justice in Migration noted that vulnerability is especially high for TFWs living in remote areas or for those living in employers’ residences—as some caregivers do—because both groups depend more strongly on their employers. In many provinces, “workers with precarious status are disproportionately working in occupations excluded from protections under provincial Employment Standards, most notably care work and farm work.”[101] Workers who break the conditions of the closed work permit and leave their employer can easily find themselves undocumented, and vulnerable to further and worse abuse.[102]

Extent of Abuse and Viability of Existing Protections

Overall, during the Committee’s study, witness testimony was divided concerning the extent of abuse and the viability of existing protections. Many argued that, while exploitation and abuse of TFWs is deplorable, this abusive behaviour is limited to a small minority of employers, and existing worker protections are largely adequate.[103] Gabriela Ramo, Chair of the National Immigration Law Section at the Canadian Bar Association, who agreed that closed work permits increase vulnerability to be abused, noted that, following a legal definition, she was unaware of any instances of slavery in Canada.[104] When questioned by the Committee about his End of Mission Statement, moreover, the Special Rapporteur clarified that he did not consider exploitation and abuse in Canada as “widespread or systemic,” and indicated that he did not know how many workers are currently being exploited.[105] The Special Rapporteur also shared in his testimony that he met with farmers associations that were able to share examples of good practices in protecting the rights of workers.

Other witnesses agreed with the Special Rapporteur that the current provisions to protect workers, and to provideFRecommen them with options to leave employers, are inadequate.[106] Some went further, and argued that, in practice, the measures cannot, on their own, overcome the vulnerabilities that the TFWP and closed work permit system may create.[107]

The next section provides an overview of existing protections on paper and in practice, and possible improvements to these measures. The final sections will look at more systemic solutions – including the possibility of moving away from closed work permits.

Existing Protections on Paper and in Practice

This section discusses the various protections in place to safeguard workers and the TFWP’s integrity. It also looks at the available data and testimony about the effectiveness of these protections in practice.

Protections on Paper

Minister Miller detailed the many protections in place to safeguard workers and to “safeguard the integrity of the system,” to the Committee.[108] For the SAWP, for example, these “robust elements” include,

• the employer must demonstrate that their business and job offers are legitimate through documentation;
• the employer must provide housing that is adequate, suitable and affordable as defined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation;
• the employer must provide transportation to and from the country of origin for their worker and to and from work;
• when dealing with pesticides and chemicals, the employer must provide free protective equipment and appropriate formal and informal training; and
• the employer takes all “reasonable efforts” to provide access to health care services and provide transportation to the hospital or care clinic.[109]

The Minister also mentioned that the TFWP “takes into account minimum working conditions and other aspects of collective agreements, including wage requirements, which are used to prevent wage suppression for foreign workers and Canadians alike.”[110] Further, he added that the employers’ obligations are “very similar” to the obligations of employers of Canadians and Canadian permanent residents.[111]

Existing Options to Leave an Employer

While TFWs on closed work permits are tied to their employer, there are two avenues that TFWs can consider trying to take if they nevertheless wish to leave their employer and workplace. The first avenue is applying for a new work permit, which can then be used to work with a new employer, so long as the employer holds a valid LMIA. On the government job bank website, employers looking to hire TFWs mention in the job listing whether they have applied for, or already received, their LMIA.[112]

The second avenue is for TFWs who have experienced—or who are at risk of experiencing—abuse. This avenue, created in 2019, provides an open work permit, known as the open work permit for vulnerable workers (OWP-VW), to the individual for a limited duration—often a year—that is non-renewable.[113] It is meant to facilitate a quick transition out of an unsafe and abusive environment, allowing the worker to maintain their status and find another job.

There are two other avenues for temporary foreign workers in the SAWP. The first allows SAWP workers to change employers without applying for a new work permit. Instead, they submit a transfer request to change employers within the SAWP program. Alternatively, if the SAWP worker decides they would like to work for a new employer for the following year, they may request to be matched with a new employer for their next contract and are unmatched with the previous employer. Both of these options are available to SAWP workers even if one has already been exercised.[114]

Other Protections

On 19 September 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA) tabled a report on the TFWP, calling for better protections for foreign workers in Canada.[115] Then, in the February 2017 mandate letter, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was instructed to “act on the recommendations” of the HUMA study of the TFWP.[116] When Budget 2018 was tabled, $194.1 million was allocated for this purpose over five years, with $33.2 million per year ongoing for TFW protections.[117] $3.4 million was also allocated over two years for ESDC to “establish, on a pilot basis, a network of support organizations for [TFWs] dealing with potential abuse by their employers.”[118] The federal government then announced, on 31 May 2019, the creation of the open work permit for vulnerable workers, OWP-VW.[119]

On 26 September 2022, amendments to Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations included stipulations that the employer make reasonable efforts to provide a workplace free from abuse,[120] and changed the definition of abuse to include protection from any reprisals;[121] stipulations that the employer provide the employee with a signed copy of the employment agreement and information about their rights in Canada (in both official languages) on or before the first day of work; and, the explicit prohibition of employers, or any person who recruited the TFW on behalf of the employer, charging or recovering LMIA and recruitment fees.

Mobility and Protections in Practice

While TFWs on closed work permits have pathways to leave undesirable or abusive employers, and broader protections against coercion by employers and recruiters, the evidence for their effectiveness, in practice, is mixed. Since much exploitation and abuse takes place away from the public eye, the extent of these problems is hard to assess.

Applying for a New Work Permit with a New Employer in Practice

IRCC does not publish data on how many workers in the TFWP have applied for a new closed work permit, and successfully switched to a new employer. Many witnesses argued that, in practice, this option is not viable for most workers, because—in part—the length of time it takes to find a new employer with a positive LMIA, and the gap in housing, wages and services during this period, is prohibitive.[122] This impression was echoed in the Special Rapporteur’s analysis of the ability for TFWs to leave their jobs, more generally:

[Quitting and staying on an existing closed work permit] is not a feasible option for most as they are prohibited from working until they can find a new employer to undertake a labour market impact assessment on their behalf, a process that in and of itself takes many months. They would also not be able to access most social services for persons without employment given their temporary status.[123]

A TFW wishing to switch employers must apply for a new closed work permit while their current closed work permit is still valid; in April 2024, IRCC estimated the processing time for work permit applications from within Canada to be 101 days.[124] One witness cited his experience of wait times of 27 weeks, or roughly 189 days.[125]

Since May 2020, however, an IRCC public policy allows TFWs to begin working in a new job while their work permit application is pending.[126] This policy includes TFWs who continue to hold a closed work permit, but “need to transition to a different occupation or employer for reasons that may include having been laid off.”[127] Applicants can work for the new employer named in the application, once IRCC acknowledges receipt of the application, which the department estimates will take 10 to 15 days.[128]

Several witnesses representing the agricultural industry argued that this measure is effective for assisting employee mobility and preventing TFWs being stuck with exploitative or abusive employers.[129] As Mark Chambers put it: “Within about 10 days, they can start working for that new employer. That process was introduced through the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a very positive step [by IRCC] and continues to be a very positive step.”[130] In addition, as Kenton Possberg noted, “[t]here’s a dedicated processing centre to deal with these situations, and they get priority processing” to finalize the decision on these applications.[131]

However, even if this pathway to a new employer is more accessible than commonly believed, many TFWs have difficulty navigating the application process. Witnesses representing TFWs highlighted that the process is complex, bureaucratic and difficult to understand—particularly for those whose first language is not French or English.[132] The Canadian Mushroom Growers’ Association noted that the option “is not well publicized to workers or employees,” and recommended that IRCC offer a webinar for the agriculture sector explaining the process.[133] Witnesses representing TFWs also highlighted that the application needs the cooperation of both the new and current employers—the cooperation of the latter being potentially difficult to obtain when the relationship between worker and employer is breaking down.[134] Given this dependency, and the uncertainty of the outcome, some witnesses cautioned that many TFWs will not risk displeasing their current employer—and, potentially, deportation—to take advantage of this pathway.[135] Denis Roy noted that, in Quebec, his organization, the Union des Producteurs Agricole, and its partners, provide workers in this situation with the information they need, and work to find them a new position.[136] Some witnesses argued that IRCC should automate the issuance of the new work permit, and make it easily available online.[137]

In addition, the faster, 10-day application process is only available if the TFW can find a new employer willing to hire the worker, and who possesses a positive LMIA and housing capacity for that worker—something not always readily available. In the experience of the National Farmer’s Union, for instance, “[w]ith these stipulations, it is virtually impossible for a migrant worker to find and safely transfer their permit to a new employer.”[138] One witness testified that obtaining an LMIA for a new employer who does not already have one takes three or four weeks—a timeline they thought that ESDC should reduce to one week.[139] While some can quickly find a new, eligible employer, many cannot.

The Committee notes that if IRCC continues to require TFWs to work on closed work permits, it must make transferring to new employers a more viable option that is more independent from the employer. As such, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada make permanent its Public Policy on Exemptions to Work Permit Conditions When Changing Employment, and publicize this policy more widely, including by offering webinars to employers and employees in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Recommendation 3

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada prioritize processing work permits for temporary foreign workers moving to a new employer, and work to reduce the paperwork burden in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; and that Employment and Social Development Canada improve processing times for Labour Market Impact Assessments.

Recommendation 4

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, while recognizing the principle of contractual agreements between the two parties, allow temporary foreign workers to initiate new work permit applications from within Canada, with no regulatory or practical requirement for the current employer to be involved.

Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers in Practice

The previous section detailed the creation of the open work permit for vulnerable workers. This section will explore how this work permit is impacting vulnerable workers on the ground.

IRCC provided the Committee with the data in Table 1 below, which shows the refusal rate of OWP-VW applications processed since the program began in 2019.

Table 1—Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers Applications between 1 June 2019 and 31 October 2023 (in numbers of people)^[140]

Final Decision	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023 (to October 31)	Total
Approved	235	591	868	1078	1520	4292
Refused	232	485	527	778	1210	3232
Refusal Rate	50%	45%	38%	42%	44%	43%
Withdrawn	5	12	18	15	36	86

Source: Table prepared by the Library of Parliament with data provided from IRCC, CIMM 82.3—Open work permit rejection rate for vulnerable workers, IRCC’s response to a request for information made by CIMM on November 7, 2023.

Since the permit’s creation in 2019, applications have steadily increased almost sixfold; refusal rates have varied between 38 and 50 percent.

Raw numbers aside, however, multiple individuals and organizations before the Committee highlighted that the OWP-VW is non-renewable, placing vulnerable workers in a precarious position.[141] Elías Anavisca, a former migrant worker in Canada, explained that after receiving a temporary resident permit for victims of labour exploitation in 2018, a renewal was denied, leaving him undocumented for over a year.[142] The Legal Assistance of Windsor & Ministry for Social Justice, Peace, and Creation Care with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto raised another issue: “workers are required to have valid work permits in order to access the [OWP-VW]. Therefore, non-status workers, a population extremely susceptible to forced labour and exploitation, are unable to apply.”[143] The Committee thus learned that both workers who have in some way lost status, as well as vulnerable workers who have been identified as eligible for the OWP-VW, but have passed the often one year period for the work permit, are offered no further options to remain in Canada, and that, if they choose to stay, they fall out of status.

Another issue was raised by former IRCC Deputy Minister, Christiane Fox, who noted that “the low evidentiary threshold we’ve tried to set [for the OWP-VW application process] hopefully gives people confidence that [the OWP-VW] is a recourse mechanism that is available to them.”[144] However, the Committee heard that in reality, the evidentiary threshold is very high,[145] especially considering that,

• workers are not allowed to bring their phones to work to record workplace issues;
• workers are afraid to speak up and refuse to write letters of support for their coworkers; and
• it is difficult to prove many abuse allegations, e.g., they are verbal threats or acts of racism.[146]

As pointed out by the Migrant Workers Centre “[a]pplicants must fill out confusing forms, complete a personal statement, create an online profile, and upload documents. Applicants are expected to do all this, despite many of them not fluently speaking French or English or having access to functioning, private internet access. When applications are lacking, IRCC officers have the authority to conduct interviews to gather more information. However, this step is often bypassed completely, and applications are regularly rejected without any inquiry or opportunity to submit further details.”[147]

Moreover, the burden of proof rests with the applicant.[148] This can put workers in dangerous situations where the abuser may learn the worker is trying to collect evidence. The Migrant Workers Centre also highlighted that IRCC officers have the authority to conduct interviews with applicants for the OWP-VW if the application is lacking in any way. However, this step is rarely used and “often bypassed completely,” with applications getting rejected without a further opportunity to provide details.[149] This concerns the Committee, as those who choose to come forward deserve the opportunity to be heard, rather than rejected because they missed something on their application, or for lack of evidence. Just as when employers are deemed non-compliant with the TFWP, and they are given the opportunity to comply with justification, workers should have the opportunity to be heard.

Thus, the Committee recommends,

Recommendation 5

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada simplify the application process for the open work permit for vulnerable workers, lower the evidentiary threshold for success, and prioritize interviews with the worker when there is doubt about the application.

Recommendation 6

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada provide funding to organizations and legal providers that are recognized as culturally sensitive, trauma-informed and capable of assisting vulnerable workers in submitting their application for the open work permit for vulnerable workers.

Amnesty International summarized many issues with the OWP-VW in their brief to the Committee:

[I]f [the worker] want[s] to continue working in Canada, they must return to employment under a closed permit. We also note that the open work permit does nothing to address the problem of abuse by employers, as the granting of this type of permit does not [automatically] trigger an inquiry into the abuse. Further, possession of this permit identifies workers to employers as someone who has, in fact, taken action against abuse, which some workers and organizations have indicated makes it more difficult to find work.[150]

This last point the Committee heard repeatedly: the blacklisting of workers who have successfully received an OWP-VW. Denise Gagnon, Santiago Escobar (National Representative, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada) and Justicia for Migrant Workers & Migrant Farmworker Clinic (Windsor Law) all raised this, pointing out that employers do not want to hire workers who reported their former employers.[151]

Employer Compliance in Practice

Inspections of employers using the TFWP, through Service Canada, are not always conducted on site. In fact, since 2020, over half of all inspections have taken place virtually. One ESDC official explained that currently “about 46% of them are on site versus 54% being virtual.”[152]

There are five possible reasons an Integrity Service Investigator from Service Canada could conduct an inspection of a TFWP employer. The first is that there is a reason to suspect that an employer is non-compliant (e.g., a complaint or tip was received through the ESDC tip line).[153] The second is that the employer has a history of non-compliance. The third is that an employer is randomly selected. The fourth is that an employer has hired a TFW who is, or was, subject to an order or regulation made under the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act. The fifth is an introduction of a communicable disease where a TFW works.[154]

Data provided by ESDC indicates that nearly eighty per cent of federal inspections of workplaces using the TFWP are not conducted in person and merely seven per cent of inspections involve unannounced site visits. Virtual inspections and pre-planned site visits, which comprise more than ninety-three percent of ESDC’s TFWP inspections regime, will not uncover substandard living or working conditions and cannot facilitate frank discussions with workers. As Ms. Denise Gagnon, Vice-President of Réseau d’aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec indicated, “we need to reinforce workplace inspection mechanisms and conduct surprise visits. When visits are planned, everything’s always in order, everything’s beautiful, everything’s perfect, and nobody talks when the inspector arrives on site.”[155]

The TFWP employer compliance regime has mechanisms in place to ensure procedural fairness. If non-compliance is identified during an inspection, employers may provide additional information to demonstrate compliance. Once a final decision is made, the employer may apply for judicial review.[156] Figure 2 details the compliance rates of employers participating in the TFWP for the 2022–2023 fiscal year.

Figure 2—Compliance Rates for Employers During the 2022–2023 Fiscal Year

Source: Graph prepared by the Library of Parliament with data provided by ESDC, Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Compliance Regime, PowerPoint, Compliance Directorate Presentation on 30 November 2022.

This graph shows that, of the employers inspected, 2% were non-compliant. Nevertheless, Minister Miller said that: “1% is too much. I mean, that’s the issue that we have to drive at. I’m not trying to attack an industry. There are some really good actors. That isn’t the intention of anything that we’re saying, but if there’s one bad actor, we have to crack down on it.”[157] While Minister Miller did not “entirely agree with the UN Special Rapporteur,” regarding the TFWP as a “breeding ground for abuse,” he wanted “to get at the root cause,” adding, “[o]ur main goal is to stamp out abuse.”[158]

Witnesses agreed, though they had differing views on how to address employers who are non-compliant. Mark Chambers said he supported a system that removes employers found to be at fault for creating an abusive environment, and Kenton Possberg said that protections must be in place for foreign workers and Canadian citizens alike, but both witnesses concluded that the current investigations are thorough and effective enough at stamping out bad actors.[159] Similarly, Peggy Brekveld stated that agriculture employers work in step with IRCC and ESDC to protect workers and employers, improve processes and root out bad actors. Food and Beverage Canada stated in its brief to the Committee that vulnerable workers should have increased access to OWP-VWs and that they “do not condone companies with a history of abuse having access to the [TFWP].”[160] These witnesses from Canadian industry argued that the program is running smoothly as is, but TFW advocates and migrant rights groups argued that this is not the case.

In contrast, Michel Pilon from RATTMAQ argued it is the system that is the problem and must be changed, because as employers pay for their workers to come to work at their locale, “in certain situations, employers feel that temporary foreign workers belong to them.”[161] The National Farmers Union took issue with inspection regimes, saying “we are aware that many employers continue to be allowed to hire migrant workers in spite of serious infractions that have compromised workers’ health and safety,”[162] and the Alliance for Gender Justice in Migration believed the deterrents for employers are not harsh enough, suggesting larger fines and a shift from complaint-driven inspections to proactive inspections and investigations.[163]

Multiple witnesses also explained that the closed work permits are an important way of safeguarding the inspection system. Food and Beverage Canada argued that closed, employer-specific work permits “play a pivotal role” in safeguarding the integrity of the program by facilitating effective monitoring of employers through inspections.[164] Both Christiane Fox and Minister Miller emphasized the same point; the Minister said Canada is able to maintain oversight over foreign workers by having the work permit associated with “one occupation, wage, location and employer,” while Christiane Fox said that knowing where employees are working allowed the government to better do check-ins and inspections.[165] Mark Chambers added to this discussion by saying closed work permits balance the needs of Canadians and foreign workers, and help get workers to rural Canada, populating our rural communities.[166]

Having heard this testimony, the Committee recommends,

Recommendation 7

That Employment and Social Development Canada increase the percentage of unannounced, on-site inspections conducted by Service Canada and increase the use of more severe sanctions on employers, up to and including banishment from the program, when an inspection reveals breaches of the employment contract or abuse of a worker.

Recommendation 8

That Employment and Social Development Canada prioritize on-site visits and publish annual statistics about the number of inspections conducted, including whether they were virtual, on site, announced or unannounced, and the results of these inspections.

Language Barriers and Transparency

Many TFWs speak multiple languages, with French or English being a second, third or even fourth language in their repertoire; more often than not, Spanish, Tagalog, Mandarin, Hindi or Korean are spoken as first languages. This can lead to language barriers between employers and the workers, who may be working with an employer for the first time who does not speak their first language, or, who were recruited abroad and had some aspects of the work explained to them there, but are now running into problems seeking healthcare, understanding their contract and accessing their rights in a country where English and French are the official languages. Organizations and individuals told the Committee that language barriers for TFWs are a longstanding issue.

Legal Assistance of Windsor & Ministry for Social Justice, Peace, and Creation Care with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto highlighted that TFWs are excluded from accessing services geared to those with immigration status, including language education and job qualification programs.[167] Gabriela Ramo, Chair of the National Immigration Law Section at the Canadian Bar Association, recommended that “foreign workers have access to clear and transparent information, in their own language, on how the program works, on the prohibition on the payment of fees to recruiters and agents, on their rights while in Canada and on how they can report abuse” and that the government should “ensure that vulnerable foreign nationals understand up front that entering the [TFWP] is not a guaranteed path to permanent residence.”[168] Mark Chambers agreed with this recommendation.[169] The Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, Covenant House Vancouver, Dignidad Migrante, and the FCJ Refugee Centre also agreed, suggesting in their joint brief that TFWs have access to information on their labour rights in the workers’ preferred language and at appropriate literacy levels, prior to, during and after coming to Canada.[170]

Both IRCC and ESDC spoke with the Committee about language services provided to TFWs. ESDC noted that Service Canada’s tip line is available in 200 languages, and also specified that, of the 2,990 calls received on the tip line, 650, or 22%, required interpretation services.[171] According to ESDC, Integrity Service Investigators review the TFW information to determine possible languages spoken by the workers, as well as the potential need for interpretive services. If interpretive services are needed, the ISI must follow “regional procedures for accessing the use of translation services.”[172]

IRCC also provided details on interpretation services and how language barriers are addressed. Although IRCC does not track how many clients have used interpretation services, invoices provide the total number of hours of interpretation services used for all programs. IRCC stated that vulnerable workers are provided interpretation services “if needed.”[173] Former Deputy Minister Christiane Fox added, that in some rural areas of Canada, IRCC is working with employers to provide on-the-job language training for employees, and that IRCC “appreciate[s] and understand[s] the importance of people being able to communicate.”[174]

Recognizing the vital need for employers and workers to understand one another, but more importantly, that workers understand their rights and are able to access information they may require, the Committee recommends,

Recommendation 9

That Employment and Social Development Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop accessible materials for foreign workers to receive prior to and upon their arrival in Canada that provide details, in their own language, on how the Temporary Foreign Worker Program works, including their rights while working in Canada.

Recommendation 10

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada create, in consultation with stakeholders, a two-hour, mandatory paid workshop for temporary foreign workers about their rights and responsibilities while in Canada; that this workshop be presented by an independent, non-governmental organization; and that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada be invited to be present at the discretion of the temporary foreign workers and the non-governmental organization during these workshops to answer questions.

Reconsidering Closed Work Permits

While many witnesses called for improvements to inspections, language services and transparency, some witnesses also argued that worker vulnerability to exploitation and abuse can only be addressed significantly at the deeper level of worker status: by discontinuing the use of closed work permits under the TFWP, and by introducing or increasing other measures that rebalance the working relationship between employer and employee.

This section examines testimony concerning replacing closed work permits with other kinds of work permits. The final section addresses the merits of increasing permanent residence pathways for TFWs, and other structural measures.

International Context

Canada is not alone in requiring closed work permits for TFWs. In response to the Committee’s questions, IRCC noted that six of the seven G7 countries “predominantly use employer-specific work permits for their comparable seasonal agricultural programs,” while also offering worker mobility in particular circumstances.[175] In the United Kingdom, for instance, Season Worker visas are employer-specific. At the same time, workers who hold these closed work permits in the horticulture and poultry sectors “can seek authorization from the Home Office through a ‘change of application form’ in order to change employers/roles.”[176] Among G7 countries, the exception is Japan. Under the Specialized Skilled Workers Program, foreign workers may switch employers within a given industry, and – if they pass a skill test for another industry – can switch to employers in the second field.[177] In addition, seasonal workers from European Union (EU) countries may work with any employers within fellow EU countries.[178]

While closed work permits are globally popular, critics have argued that, in numerous countries, closed work permits make workers vulnerable to exploitation and even abuse, because they create a significant power imbalance between employers and TFWs. In parallel to the Committee’s and the Special Rapporteur’s own studies of TFWP and closed work permits in Canada, Amnesty International was also, on 30 November 2023, “in the process of interviewing workers and examining evidence of human rights violations and abuses experienced by individuals who came to Canada with closed work permits as participants in the [TFWP].”[179] In Amnesty International’s preliminary conclusions about Canada’s TFWP, the organization noted that:

Through years of research on labour migration policies in several countries and the human rights violations that are linked to them, Amnesty International has found that labour migration policies that tie migrant workers to a specific employer increase the risk of labour exploitation and other human rights violations and abuses.[180]

Echoing the Special Rapporteur’s analysis of the TFWP in Canada, Amnesty International argued, more broadly, that closed work permits “increase the risk of labour exploitation because they greatly reduce the likelihood that the worker will seek help from the authorities in case of abuse for fear of losing their right to continue working in the destination country and being required to return to their home country.”[181] In the United Kingdom, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Hong Kong, the organization traced analogous patterns of closed work permits rendering workers vulnerable to abuse, because they depended on keeping a particular job to maintain their status.

The often extremely high bar for legitimately leaving an employer while on a closed work permit, moreover, can render workers who leave employers without meeting these conditions further vulnerable to exploitation. Left to migrate or work without regular status, these workers are “very unlikely to report past or current abuse for fear of being penalized, unable to work, or deported.”[182] Amnesty International noted that, in some cases, the workers lost status simply because they were terminated prematurely.[183]

In countries around the world, the significant control employers may wield over the movement of workers on closed work permits can also lead to human rights abuses. In its brief to the Committee, the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers highlighted occurrences of “employer control over workers’ personal lives and movements during off-duty hours, psychological, physical, and sexual harassment, assault, rape, as well as work-related health issues, accidents, illnesses and death.”[184] Witnesses noted similar criticism of closed work permit systems by some parliaments, government-sponsored independent reviewers, supreme courts, and central departments in the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States, as well as by the International Labour Organization.[185]

Studying the United Kingdom (UK) bill that became the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, for instance, a 2014 House of Commons and House of Lords joint committee found that the then UK practice of “tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery.”[186] While acknowledging the existence of protection mechanisms, such as the National Referral Mechanism for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery, the joint committee found their protection inadequate in the face of the limitations of closed work permits.[187] In 2015, an independent review of the Overseas Domestic Workers visa commissioned by the UK Home Office similarly found that, while the extent of abuse of domestic workers remained unknown,

the presence of a tie to a specific employer places both real and perceived restrictions upon an overseas domestic worker’s ability to seek protection of her fundamental rights while at work in the UK which increases her risk of abuse.[188]

It proposed that “the tie to a specific employer should be removed”[189] – a proposal the government has since acted upon. In its brief to the Committee, Amnesty International noted that, since 6 April 2016, domestic workers in the UK, “can now change employer for any reason for the original duration of the work visa.”[190]

While the contexts – and the accompanying national protections for workers – vary, review bodies around the world have concluded closed work permits can create conditions for human rights abuses.

Critique of Closed Work Permits in Canada

As noted above, many witnesses in the Committee’s study similarly highlighted closed work permits as a key barrier to TFWs in Canada exercising their rights, because their employment and residency status is tied so directly to a single employer listed on a permit.[191] As Elizabeth Kwan summarized, “[t]he employer-specific work permit has a systemic impact of awarding all the power and control of the employment relationship to the employer, including employment of the migrant worker, compensation, working conditions and immigration status.”[192] If accessing protections and changing employers is difficult, employees are vulnerable to exploitation – even if many employers treat their workers fairly. These witnesses argued that workers who indeed face exploitation or abuse have few real choices to make the situation better.

Echoing Amnesty International’s analysis, several witnesses argued that the strict conditions of closed work permits – especially the tie to residency status – promotes further worker vulnerability in cases where workers must nevertheless leave exploitative working situations or are laid off early.[193] Many of these workers may then live and work irregularly in Canada, with even fewer benefits and protections. As the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada described the situation of workers on closed work permits, “[r]eturning home prematurely is often an unrealistic choice, and when subjected to abuse by an employer, their options narrow down to enduring mistreatment or resorting to a clandestine existence.”[194]

Overall, for many witnesses, the power imbalance that closed permits engenders outweighs the virtues of using these permits – e.g., of allowing participating employers to be subject to tracking and inspections. Government of Canada efforts to increase worker protections and mobility for TFWs on a closed work permit, moreover, are insufficient, because closed work permits render workers so dependent on employers. While improving these mechanisms is important, this may not significantly shift the underlying dependency of TFWs on the employers, or assuage the fear of reprisal against complainants (e.g., the blacklisting of workers who managed to transfer temporarily to open work permits for vulnerable workers, mentioned above[195]). TFWs are vulnerable, because their status in precarious, and largely tied to specific employers. As the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers put it:

All those measures were bound to fail and indeed have failed to deter the systemic violations of [im]migrant workers’ rights by employers since the structure that restricts their capacity from asserting their rights remains in place: a legal status in the country dependent on a specific employer or group of employers.[196]

In its preliminary conclusions about closed work permits in Canada, Amnesty International similarly commented that, while

[o]ver the years, the federal government has introduced some measures in an effort to address abuse of migrant workers, such as the open work permit for vulnerable workers and funding for organizations to provide support for migrant workers … the root causes that put migrant workers at risk of labour exploitation and other human rights abuses, including the closed work permit, persist, and so does abuse.[197]

Open Work Permits

If closed work permits render worker overly dependent on their employers to protect their rights, other types of permits offer greatly worker mobility – and potentially greater protection. Critics of the TFWP have long called on IRCC to consider alternatives to the closed work permit, such as open, regional, or sectoral work permits.[198] In this study, some witnesses cautioned that any changes to work permits must be made carefully, because each type of permit has advantages and disadvantages for TFWs, employers, and agricultural and agri-food production.[199]

For all their faults, closed work permits help the IRCC and ESDC track TFWs, know the conditions of their contracts and inspect their workplaces. The work permit—and connected LMIA—list the details of the worker, position, contract, duration, and workplace. It provides “a sense of job security for the workers,”[200] and clear criteria—and the means—for inspection.

As the Committee has seen, however, closed work permits have the potential to increase a TFW’s dependency on their employer if the worker cannot easily move to another employer in the case of exploitation and abuse. This increased dependency makes workers less likely to insist on proper working conditions, safety and contract terms, and less likely to reach out for supports, because they fear deportation, possible unpaid debt to recruiters and financial ruin. It is important to note that employers are not allowed to make the workers reimburse them for recruitment related fees that they paid to hire a temporary foreign worker.[201]

Many witnesses critical of closed work permits argued that all TFWs instead should be brought to Canada on open work permits.[202] TFWs on open work permits—like Canadians and permanent residents—can find a new job without applying to the government and involving their present employer. They can leave abusive, exploitative employers. They have much less reason to fear speaking up for their rights, because they are much less dependent on their employer. In his description of the abuse he endured as a TFW, Elías Anavisca put the need for open work permits starkly: “We are given extra work all the time and are not very well paid. We’ve been mistreated and abused. If we had an open work permit, we’d have an opportunity … to find a better job and work better with better living conditions.”[203]

On open work permits, TFWs can also leave an employer for better wages elsewhere. As Elizabeth Kwan put it, “I think for someone making so little money, even 10¢ more an hour makes a big difference,” and a TFW might leave for another employer offering the slightly better wage.[204] Some witnesses argued that—as for some TFWs in the International Mobility Program—eligibility for these work permits should be extended to immediate family members. This would allow TFWs to work without leaving their family behind for many months of the year.[205]

Michel Pilon, legal coordinator of the Réseau d’aide aux travailleuses et travailleurs migrants agricoles du Québec, further explained: “It’s actually not rocket science. Even if the workers have open work permits, if good employers are offering good working conditions and good accommodations, the workers will want to work for them and won’t look elsewhere.”[206]

At the same time, some witnesses highlighted that open work permits lack many of the advantages offered by the closed work permit and LMIA system. Unlike a closed work permit, Gabriela Ramo and others noted, they “provide no compliance mechanisms to ensure that employers provide foreign nationals with acceptable terms and conditions of employment,” such as inspections, housing, and transportation a lack of tracking and regulation, which “may also open workers to exploitation.”[207]

As open work permits are “fully open with respect to position and industry, they may also do little to address the labour shortages in particular industries that the temporary foreign worker program is intended to address.”[208] As Kenton Possberg put it, “if [TFWs] have an open work permit and can go anywhere, they’re going to be competing with Canadian citizens for jobs, possibly in sectors they’re not required in.”[209] Some witnesses noted that this employment fluidity, accompanied by unpredictable shortages, would be especially detrimental in the face of the strict timelines of the agriculture industry, because failure “to complete a task such as harvesting within the window prescribed by nature can cause crop failure and can compromise the health of plants and livestock, causing them irreversible harm or even death.”[210] Given worker shortages in agriculture and the many steps to hire workers under an LMIA, moreover, an employer operating in an open work permit system would find it hard to find new workers on short notice.[211] If the federal government continued to require LMIAs, for instance, but required open work permits, finding new workers would be difficult. Even with open work permits with no LMIAs, TFWs in agriculture currently require a medical exam, which can delay workers by six weeks. Such workers often leave for a sector that does not have this requirement.[212] Mark Chambers, Kenton Possberg and Peggy Brekveld noted that they were not aware of any farmers requesting open work permits.[213]

More broadly, an IRCC official commented that a “private business that recruits workers and invests in its people … doesn’t want to lose workers because they have an open permit.”[214] Kenton Possberg argued that introducing open work permits would lead to some unintended consequences: “As an employer, rather than taking the time, effort and cost of recruiting the individual and paying for the flights, I would be better off waiting for my neighbour to do this and then trying to poach that individual.” Open work permits also “would likely lead to significant numbers of TFWs leaving their rural employment to move to higher-populated urban centres.”[215]

In order to maintain the worker and sector protections of LMIAs, while increasing employee mobility, some witnesses recommended that the federal government—potentially in combination with provincial and territorial governments—take over the full cost and administration of LMIAs and work permit issuance and renewal.[216] This would also decrease financial and administrative burdens on employers. In one version of this idea, employers would be limited to inputting “free fast-tracking requests for open permits for workers and members of their families.”[217]

Sectoral or Regional Permits

To replace closed work permits, another group of witnesses argued for expanding the use of sectoral or regional work permits in the TFWP.[218] A sectoral permit limits workers to a defined sector, rather than a defined employer. A regional work permit would limit the employment to a given province or region, potentially in combination with a sectoral limitation. Both allow many of the benefits of the current closed work permit system, but with greater worker mobility. Sectoral work permits are currently used in the SAWP. The program requires protections such as LMIAs and housing inspections and limits TFWs to the agriculture sector. At the same time, it allows them to move between employers participating in the SAWP without needing a new permit; upon approval by ESDC, they can ask their source country’s liaison officer to place them with a new employer.[219] One witness noted that, in cases of urgency, this change can happen within a week.[220] Since 2019, the workers in Caregiver programs also have access to occupation-specific work permits.[221]

Gabriela Ramo described a broad version of a sectoral permit system that could apply to all TFWP streams. In her vision,

[a] set number of LMIAs per occupation could be issued, allowing employers in the sector who have been pre-approved to hire workers for the specific occupation. To be approved, employers would need to undertake to provide workers with the terms and conditions of employment set out in the LMIA. A website or portal would list employers participating in the program as well as the terms and conditions of employment.[222]

As in the SAWP, the government would issue LMIAs within a given sector. Employers could opt into participating and pay for all or part of an LMIA—depending on whether they retained their worker.

The ESDC would set aside [for example] 5,000 workers for this particular sector. Employers who want to be part of that program would pay for the LMIAs in that program. If a worker leaves an employer and moves to another employer, the proposal is for employers to pay for a proportional amount of the time on that LMIA.[223]

However, several witnesses cautioned against a sectoral permit, because it would easily give greater power to employers in a sector, relative to TFWs.[224] As the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers put it:

Within a framework of sectoral, regional, or equivalent restrictive permits, employers … are almost compelled to cooperate more extensively and systematically with each other. Consequently, these types of restrictive permits facilitate conditions where the worker must confront a group of employers able to boycott and remove foreign workers from the legal labour market when they have become ‘undesirable’ due to occupational illnesses, workplace accidents, inconvenient parenthood or, more generally, attempts to exercise rights or seek justice and the protection of the law in the country.[225]

As noted by the Migrant Workers Centre, the SAWP demonstrates how the sectoral permit system has failed to create labour mobility or improve the rights of seasonal agricultural workers:

Sectoral specific work permits are already partially in use under the [SAWP], under which farmworkers come to Canada not tied to a specific employer, but instead are able to work for any employer that is registered under the SAWP. Workers may seek permission to transfer to another farm without the need for a new work permit, but require the approval of their current employer, their proposed new employer, and the country liaison officer responsible. However, the reality for many abused workers is that transferring employers is impossible. The bureaucratic processes involved are complicated to navigate and consulate liaison officers often prioritize economic relationships with employers over the well-being of workers.[226]

Several witnesses highlighted the possibility of TFWs being blacklisted or given bad references by employers within a sector.[227] This curtails the ability to change employers. Currently in the SAWP, for instance, workers seeking to transfer to another farm require the approval of their current employer, their proposed new employer, and the country liaison officer. According to the Migrant Workers Centre, this can be hard to achieve, and privileges employers: “[t]he reality for many abused workers is that transferring employers is impossible. The bureaucratic processes involved are complicated to navigate and consulate liaison officers often prioritize economic relationships with employers over the well-being of workers.”[228]

The organization claimed that it is aware of “many workers who were not transferred as requested and instead repatriated back to their home country, and who were ultimately not invited back to Canada under the SAWP following their filing of complaints.”[229]

Other witnesses highlighted that when officials are given authority to place TFWs with new employers, this makes the workers bound to this new employer, who controls when and where they will work.[230] While increasing flexibility for both workers and employers, sectoral permits also risk tying TFWs to employers who, as a group, may not have an interest in providing workers sufficient hours: “Since labour needs for a sector cannot be precisely calculated and are typically over-estimated to ensure employer flexibility, many workers are often unable to access sufficient hours of work to cover living expenses and costs of migrating.”[231]

To mitigate dependence on employers, witnesses argued that the Government of Canada should “establish larger sectors, which would enable workers to offer their services to other businesses should problems arise in the business where they work.”[232] In the vision of the Migrant Workers Centre, “a broad list of industries with labour market shortages could be identified, and migrant workers could freely move between these jobs, subject to their qualifications.”[233]

In order to address labour protections for both TFWs and Canadians, while also increasing labour mobility, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 11

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, after consultation with Quebec, the provinces and territories, issue sectoral and regional work permits to workers accepted under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program; that the department define sectors broadly, providing workers with access to a wide range of employers that are experiencing labour shortages; and that the department discontinue the use of closed work permits for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Other Solutions

Several witnesses argued that altering the work permits used in the TFWP is insufficient, and must be accompanied or ultimately replaced with new or expanded pathways to permanent residency, the right of TFWs to unionize, and a Canadian-wide forum, with members from government, industry and civil society, which could foster good practices in the TFWP.

Permanent Residency

Throughout the study, several organizations recommended that the Government of Canada provide better opportunities for TFWs to obtain permanent residency status in Canada. Multiple witnesses, such as Denis Roy of the UPA and the Alliance for Gender Justice in Migration, positioned themselves as being in favour of offering better access to permanent residency pathways for TFWs who desired it.[234] However, former IRCC Deputy Minister Christiane Fox reminded the Committee that not all TFWs who work in Canada necessarily want to obtain permanent residency.[235]

According to Gabriela Ramo, the majority of TFWs in the Low-wage and Primary Agriculture streams are “generally unable to qualify for permanent residency” under most economic programs (such as Express Entry and Provincial Nominee Programs), as they do not meet program requirements for skills, education, language abilities and work experience.[236] Instead, Ramo argues that IRCC should take those TFWs out from the “general pool” of economic migrants, where they “compete with more highly skilled workers,” and put them in “dedicated programs” with reduced requirements.[237] Denise Gagnon of RATTMAQ told the Committee that she would support immigration policies that grant permanent residency to a full range of skill sets representing Canada’s needs on the labour market, and improve pathways for those who wish to remain in rural regions.[238] Mark Chambers also told the Committee that TFWs who work “year-round” are able to apply for permanent residency, and many of them end up staying in rural locations with their families, thus addressing rural depopulation and the need for workforce.[239]

Chambers also highlighted that, so far, in addition to provincial programs in Alberta, the Agri-Food Immigration Pilot[240] had been helpful in transitioning TFWs into permanent residency.[241] This model was also supported by the Canadian Mushroom Growers’ Association.[242] The pilot only accepts TFWs in Canada, outside of Quebec. For Quebec, the provincial government would be responsible for providing its own pathways.[243]

Minister Miller indicated that his department was looking at a certain “number of options” to provide TFWs with clear pathways to permanent residency,[244] and that Canada needed more workers to establish themselves in Canada on a permanent basis, especially in sectors for which the country cannot generate a sufficient domestic workforce.[245] The Minister did signal that “unannounced policies” on permanent residency pathways for workers in the construction industry were on the way.[246]In a joint submission, the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, Covenant House Vancouver, Dignidad Migrante, and the FCJ Refugee Centre recommended that the Government of Canada fulfill the commitment it took when it unanimously approved private member motion M‑44,[247] which called for “the development of a comprehensive plan to expand permanent residency pathways to all TFWs.”[248] According to these organizations, guaranteeing that TFWs are able to access pathways for permanent residency, after having accumulated a set amount of work experience in Canada, would reduce their precariousness and ensure that TFWs do not fall into irregularity.[249] Organizations such as the United Church of Canada, Justicia for Migrant Workers & Migrant Farmworker Clinic (Windsor Law) and Legal Assistance of Windsor & Ministry for Social Justice, Peace, and Creation Care with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto recommended that the government remove barriers to permanent residency for TFWs, “with the ultimate goal to grant permanent residency to migrants upon arrival.”[250] The Migrant Workers Centre and Legal Assistance of Windsor & Ministry for Social Justice, Peace, and Creation Care with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Toronto advocated for the government to establish regularization programs for those currently without status in Canada.[251] Elizabeth Kwan also recommended that IRCC “provide permanent residency streams for low-wage workers” including for those who are undocumented.[252]

The Committee recommends,

Recommendation 12

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada develop a comprehensive plan to provide more pathways to permanent residency for Temporary Foreign Workers in the Low-wage and Primary Agriculture streams and agri-food sector, separate from other pools of candidates in economic classes.

Unionization

In their joint submission, the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, Covenant House Vancouver, Dignidad Migrante and the FCJ Refugee Centre indicated that guaranteeing the ability of TFWs to unionize would “remove [the] harmful power imbalance between employers and migrant workers that facilitates labour trafficking.”[253] As such, they recommend that the federal government “encourage all provinces to allow for the unionization of agricultural workers and TFWs, granting them the same labour and employment rights and protections as other workers in Canada.”[254]

Santiago Escobar explained to the Committee how the International Labour Organization found in 2010 that “Canada and Ontario violated the rights of … agricultural workers by banning farm unions.”[255] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2011 that farm workers do not have the ability to unionize under provincial labour laws, unless the provincial governments authorize them to do so.[256] Escobar went on to recommend to give TFWs “the opportunity to join … unions,” as this would give them “the capacity to defend themselves.”[257] Currently, the Government of Canada only recognizes that TFWs working in a unionized environment must be paid the wage rate as established under the collective bargaining agreement.[258]

Table de concertation du Québec

In addition to suggesting ways the government could help TFWs better leverage their labour rights, witnesses from Quebec described how one provincial institution, created five years ago, was successful in bringing together a wide range of stakeholders to foster good practices in respect of TFWs. Denis Roy highlighted that the Table de concertation pour les travailleurs étrangers temporaires agricoles du Québec (the Table), a round table on TFWs in Quebec’s agriculture sector, was playing an incremental role in proactively informing TFWs of their rights.[259] Roy explained that the Table brings “together representatives of employers and workers … along with representatives of all the government departments and agencies involved, at both the federal and the provincial level.”[260] According to Paul Doyon of the UPA, the mission of the Table is “very simple: to ensure the success of the programs for employers, workers and their families.”[261] Denise Gagnon of RATTMAQ told the Committee that, thanks to the work done at the Table, stakeholders were able to “identify a number of problems and make progress” on them.[262]

Denise Gagnon went on to inform the Committee that it would be a good idea for the federal government to reproduce Quebec’s model at the national level.[263] This view was also shared by Tomoya Obokata, the Special Rapporteur, who commended the “multi-stakeholder approach that exists in Quebec,” saying that,

a multi-stakeholder approach is extremely important in order to listen to the voices of workers and stakeholders … I certainly encourage other provinces to consider the participation of other stakeholders, including workers. It is of vital importance in developing appropriate programs and strategies so that everyone—workers, businesses and local authorities—can benefit from the program.[264]

Given the success of the Table in Quebec as an initiative that has favoured good practices for TFWs in the agricultural sector,[265] the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 13

That, modeled on the Table de Concertation du Québec, the Government of Canada create a forum bringing together relevant government, employer, worker and union stakeholders, to address issues and foster best practices in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Conclusion

The TFWP has grown significantly in the decade since its modern inception. Where IRCC issued 73,000 new work permits in 2015, the department issued 184,000 in 2023. The program is increasingly important to many Canadian employers, especially those in the agriculture and agri-food sector. At the same time, the TFWP and its growth cannot come at the cost of making workers vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The Committee entreats IRCC and ESDC to improve the effectiveness of worker protections, and to reevaluate the closed worker permit system on which the TFWP is based.