RESEARCH PAPER
Labour Mobility in Canada
Issues and Policy Recommendations
By
Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood
October 2014
Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood is a social and
economic policy researcher based in
Ottawa, Ontario.
He has completed an Honours BA in Media
Studies from Western University and an MA
in Political Economy from Carleton
University, where his SSHRC-funded
research project was a critical analysis of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade
agreement.
In addition to international trade, Hadrian's
research interests include Internet freedom,
socioeconomic inequality, and global
political economy.
He holds the 2014 Andrew Jackson
Progressive Economics Internship at the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................1
Recommendations...................................................................................2
Introduction..............................................................................................3
What is Labour Mobility?..........................................................................4
Part 1: Interprovincial Labour Mobility in Canada....................................5
Overview of Interprovincial Agreements.....................................................6
Issues for Canada...................................................................................8
Part 2: International Labour Mobility in Canada....................................10
Overview of Programs............................................................................10
Canada’s Labour Mobility Commitments Under International Agreements......12
The Scale of Migrant Workers in Canada...................................................17
Issues for Canada.................................................................................21
Looking Forward: CETA.........................................................................27
Looking Forward: Other New Agreements................................................31
Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................33
Summary of Key Recommendations.........................................................37
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
ii
Acronyms
AIT
Agreement on Internal Trade
CEC
Canadian Experience Class
CETA
Canada-European Union’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement
CIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
ESDC
Employment and Social Development Canada
FSTP
Federal Skilled Trades Program
FSWP
Federal Skilled Worker Program
FTA
Free Trade Agreement
GATS
General Agreement on Trade in Services
ICT
Intra-Company Transferee / Intra-Corporate Transferee
IEC
International Experience Canada Program
ILMI
Interprovincial Labour Mobility Initiative
IMP
International Mobility Programs
ISP
International Student Program
LICP
Live-in Caregiver Program
LMIA / LMO
Labour Market Impact Assessment / Labour Market Opinion
MFN
Most-Favoured Nation
NAFTA
North American Free Trade Agreement
NWPTA
New West Partnership Trade Agreement
OCWPP
Off-Campus Work Permit Program
PGWPP
Post-Graduation Work Permit Program
PNP
Provincial Nominee Program
TFWP
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
TILMA
Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement
TISA
Trade in Services Agreement
TPP
Trans-Pacific Partnership
SAWP
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program
WTO
World Trade Organization
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
iii
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Executive Summary
Labour mobility refers to the free movement of workers between provinces,
regions, or countries. When labour mobility between two jurisdictions is high, a
worker in one can easily cross the border to deliver services in the other. High
labour mobility is economically efficient, because workers can move to where
they are most needed. However, there are many barriers to labour mobility,
such as certification requirements when crossing provincial boundaries or visa
requirements when entering another country. Typically, governments impose
these barriers on labour mobility to advance legitimate social interests, such as
encouraging local development or ensuring public safety.
In Canada, labour mobility is governed by a patchwork of legislation and
treaties at the provincial, federal, and international level. Taken together, these
programs, laws, and agreements seek to strike a balance between the free
movement of individual workers and the broader public interest. This labour
mobility regime has been more successful within Canada than between Canada
and other countries.
At the interprovincial level, workers are mostly free to move between provinces
to find employment. The 1995 AGREEMENT ON INTERNAL TRADE (AIT), which was
updated in 2009, requires that all provinces recognize the existing training,
skills, and certification of workers in regulated occupations, ensuring that
these professionals are qualified to work in all provinces and territories (there
are some exceptions). In general, this framework encourages mobility while
respecting the provinces' right to regulate. Notably, this framework does not
extend to apprentices and other trainees, who in most cases cannot cross
provincial boundaries to complete their training.
At the international level, Canada's labour mobility regime is much more
convoluted and far more problematic. Numerous programs and treaties pursue
contradictory goals and ultimately lead to a variety of negative social outcomes,
including wage suppression and inflated unemployment. The TEMPORARY
FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM (TFWP) in particular has been widely criticized for its
concerning social impact. Not only have migrant workers who have entered
Canada through this program been abused, with few avenues for recourse, but
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
1
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
the program has become a crutch for entire industries unwilling to pay
Canadian workers an appropriate wage.
In addition to the TFWP, Canada offers a wide variety of lesser-known
INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAMS (IMPs) that facilitate the temporary entry into
Canada of large numbers of migrant workers every year. For example, the
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE CANADA PROGRAM (IEC) provides “working holiday”
visas to 60,000 international youth workers every year. A further 30,000
workers enter Canada every year as “INTRA-CORPORATE TRANSFEREES” (ICTs),
student workers, or as the spouses of migrant workers. Altogether, around 60%
of the more than 200,000 migrant workers entering Canada every year, do so
through Canada's International Mobility Programs. Crucially, unlike the TFWP,
these programs do not require a LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LMIA),
which is a government review process intended to ensure that migrant workers
are only hired where legitimate labour shortages exist. The potential labour
market impact of all of these workers is startling, although a lack of data
collection makes it impossible to draw concrete conclusions.
Unlike the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which is being wound down in
response to public outcry, the International Mobility Programs are poised to
expand in the coming years. New international treaties such as the CanadaEuropean Union’s COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC AND TRADE AGREEMENT (CETA) will
provide even greater unrestricted access to the Canadian labour market for
certain categories of migrant workers. These programs and agreements deserve
far more attention than they have received to date.
Recommendations
Within Canada, workers should have the right to move anywhere for work;
apprentices and other trainees in particular should have greater mobility rights
than they currently possess. Increasing employer investment in workplace
skills development will also help to strengthen the domestic labour market. So
long as there are Canadians looking for work, the solution to long-term labour
and skills shortages should not be temporary migrant labour.
In the case of legitimate short-term skills shortages, or where long-term labour
shortages cannot be addressed through investment in the domestic labour
market, workers from other countries should absolutely be able to enter
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
2
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Canada. However, these workers should enjoy the same rights and protections
as Canadian workers, and should be offered a pathway to permanent
residency. A robust immigration system is a more appropriate and democratic
avenue for shaping Canada's labour mobility regime than secretive trade
agreement negotiations.
The free movement of labour is economically efficient and is a worthy policy
goal, so long as its social consequences are understood and appropriately
addressed. In the interest of greater understanding, Canada's labour mobility
policies at both the national and international levels need to be informed by
better data. The International Mobility Programs are especially poorly
monitored and demand a thorough review and more stringent data collection
protocols moving forward.
Introduction
“Qualified Canadians should have first crack at available jobs,” declared
Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Chris Alexander, in August
2013. "Our Government’s number one priority remains jobs, economic growth
and long-term prosperity,” added Jason Kenney, Minister of Employment and
Social Development, as the pair announced reforms to the much-maligned
Temporary Foreign Worker Program.1
Imagine the surprise of workers in the small logging town of Mackenzie, British
Columbia, when that summer they learned that a new project to build a fuel
storage facility in the area was being completed by American workers from an
American contractor—even though local workers were willing and able to do
the job.2 The company, Oregon-based O&S Contractors, had won the contract
legitimately. But, instead of hiring qualified local workers, the contractor took
advantage of Canada’s little-known intra-company transfer rules to import
comparable workers from the US. Local unions were outraged, but as their
ongoing Federal Court challenge is likely to prove, O&S was well within its
1
“Further Improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,” Government of
Canada, August 7, 2013, http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/news/further-improvements-temporaryforeign-worker.
2
The Canadian Press, “Foreign worker permits for Conifex Power plant raise questions in
B.C.,” CBC News British Columbia, June 23, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britishcolumbia/foreign-worker-permits-for-conifex-power-plant-raise-questions-in-b-c-1.2685242.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
3
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
rights.3 Unfortunately, according to Brian Cochrane, who represents the
workers, there is simply “little Canadians can do to stop the job loss to foreign
workers”.4 But what gives American companies this right? Why are Canadian
workers powerless to stop it? And what do cases like this mean for Canadian
society and the Canadian economy more broadly?
This paper serves as both an investigation into Canada’s labour mobility
regime, as well as a guide for future policy. It unpacks Canada’s labour
mobility programs at both the interprovincial and international levels so that
policymakers, researchers, and workers themselves can develop a better
understanding of the institutions and rules that facilitate the movement of
workers into and within this country. Throughout the analysis, problematic
economic trends and concerning social issues are highlighted for discussion
and further analysis. The paper concludes by recommending specific actions
that policymakers can take to make Canada’s labour mobility regime work
better for workers, and for Canada.
What is Labour Mobility?
Labour mobility refers to the ability of workers to move freely between
jurisdictions and occupations in order to work. When labour mobility is high,
workers face few barriers in moving to find employment. When labour mobility
is low, workers are prohibited or discouraged from doing so.
Generally speaking, increased labour mobility means a larger and more flexible
labour force, which has a variety of consequences. On one hand, an increased
labour supply means more competition for work, which tends to increase
productivity. Labour mobility also creates individual economic opportunities,
3
At the time of writing, a final verdict had not yet been rendered; however, court
documents suggest the unions’ case will be unsuccessful. The two unions, Local 115 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers and Local 1611 of the Construction and Specialized
Workers’ Union, lost a similar Federal Court case in 2013 when HD Mining, a Canadian
company, transfered 200 Chinese workers into Canada to work on a project in Tumbler Ridge,
BC. In that case, the judge ruled that HD Mining had done enough to try to find Canadian
workers before looking abroad. The unions continue to dispute this claim.
4
Brian Cochrane, “Why are U.S. workers — even crooks — taking Canadian jobs?” The
Province, July 16, 2014 http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/07/16/brian-cochrane-why-areu-s-workers-even-crooks-taking-canadian-jobs.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
4
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
because it allows workers to move to find employment better suited to their
skills, needs, and aspirations. On the other hand, greater competition amongst
workers tends to drive down wages and working conditions, and can increase
unemployment. Depending on the circumstances, increasing labour mobility
between uneven economies can either exacerbate existing differences or serve
to level them out, both internationally and regionally.
Labour is increasingly mobile within and between most countries, but workers
are rarely completely free to move. A wide range of natural and artificial
barriers inhibit the free flow of labour between countries or regions. Natural
barriers include social, structural, and personal restraints; such as cultural
differences (including language), personal limits on physical and mental
competencies, and the capacity or willingness of workers to relocate due to
distance or cost. Artificial barriers are institutional or political, and often exist
for legitimate social and economic development goals. They include
accreditation requirements, availability of education and training, preferential
hiring rules (e.g. Employment Equity), employment standards (e.g. minimum
wage), social welfare (e.g. Employment Insurance), and measures designed to
encourage local development.
In Canada, artificial barriers to labour mobility exist at a variety of levels. The
movement of workers within Canada—referred to by economists as “domestic
labour market flexibility”—and between Canada and other countries is
governed by a complex web of provincial and national legislation in addition to
interprovincial and international treaties. To make matters more complicated,
these overlapping policies and agreements are occasionally at odds with one
another as a result of different governments pursuing conflicting goals over
time. Policymakers at both the provincial and federal level have struggled to
strike a balance between the free movement of workers and the legitimate
social and developmental goals of governments, which has produced this
disjointed labour mobility regime over time.
Part 1: Interprovincial Labour Mobility in Canada
Canadian citizens and permanent residents do not need work permits or visas
to move between provinces. Indeed, the right to mobility is enshrined in Section
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
5
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Six of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, low-skill workers are
generally very mobile in Canada (barring the natural barriers outlined above).
High-skill, regulated workers—on the other hand—face a number of
impediments to interprovincial mobility. These workers, which include
professionals (e.g. doctors, lawyers, and accountants) and skilled tradespeople
(e.g. electricians, carpenters, and cooks) make up about 6% of the Canadian
workforce.5
Barriers have emerged because the regulation of labour falls primarily under
provincial jurisdiction. Each province is responsible for setting out occupational
standards to define what work “counts” as a given profession in that province.
Therefore, an occupation that exists in one province may not be recognized as a
regulated occupation in another. For example, while British Columbia
recognizes both Registered Nurses (RNs) and Registered Psychiatric Nurses
(RPNs), Ontario only certifies the former, making it potentially difficult for an
RPN from BC to move east. To make matters more complicated, the
responsibility for certification requirements of each occupation—in each
province—is typically devolved from the provincial government itself to a
professional governing body (e.g. the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of
BC), which facilitates and monitors the accreditation process. Therefore, even if
an occupation is recognized in two provinces, a worker’s certification might not
be acknowledged by the receiving province’s professional governing body.
Overview of Interprovincial Agreements
The Agreement on Internal Trade, which came into force in 1995, was meant to
streamline some of these issues. Chapter 7 of the AIT, the INTERPROVINCIAL
LABOUR MOBILITY INITIATIVE (ILMI), was explicitly designed to “enable any worker
qualified for an occupation in the territory of a Party to be granted access to
employment opportunities in that occupation in the territory of any other
Party”.6 Among other provisions, it largely eliminated residency requirements
for interprovincial work. However, ten years after the ILMI came into effect,
5
“Federally Regulated Businesses and Industries,” Government of Canada Labour
Program, July 9, 2013, http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/regulated.shtml.
6
“Agreement on Internal Trade: Chapter Seven - Labour Mobility,” Industry Canada,
September 27, 2011, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ait-aci.nsf/eng/il00008.html.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
6
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
35% of regulated workers attempting to move between provinces were still
rejected on the basis of incompatible or unrecognized qualifications. 7
Frustrated by the AIT’s failure to deliver true, nation-wide labour mobility,
some provinces negotiated their own regional agreements. The TRADE,
INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT (TILMA), signed by Alberta and BC
in 2006, which was later expanded into the NEW WEST PARTNERSHIP TRADE
AGREEMENT (NWPTA) with the addition of Saskatchewan, is the most important
of these agreements. TILMA and the NWPTA harmonized certification rules
through the principle of mutual recognition, which ensured that “professionals
and skilled tradespersons certified in one province will be recognized as
qualified in all three provinces”.8 Motivated by the success of these agreements,
the AIT was amended in 2009 to extend the principle of mutual recognition to
every province in Canada. This change complemented the long-running
INTERPROVINCIAL STANDARDS RED SEAL PROGRAM, which is a federally-supported
initiative to certify workers in specific skilled trades across provincial
boundaries.
Although the revised AIT was a significant step forward for interprovincial
labour mobility, it failed to resolve some important issues. Notably, although
certification requirements are now largely harmonized, the provinces remain
responsible for defining occupational standards. Some important differences in
standards remain. Furthermore, the principle of mutual recognition does not
apply to apprentices and other trainees, which means schooling or other
training started in one province must be completed there. An apprentice welder
who does her classroom work in New Brunswick will not receive credit for any
on-the-job training completed in Saskatchewan. Tight restrictions on mobility
are one factor in Canada’s low apprenticeship completion rate. 9
7
Economic and Development Review Committee of the OECD, OECD
Economic Surveys: Canada (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014),
22.
8
“Professional or Skilled Tradesperson,” New West Partnership Trade Agreement Official
Website, 2010,
http://www.newwestpartnershiptrade.ca/professional_or_skilled_tradesperson.asp.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
7
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Issues for Canada
Advocates of greater labour mobility within Canada argue that increasing the
flow of workers between provinces will help to smooth out regional differences,
such as those created by the Western resource boom. If unemployed skilled
workers in Ontario are free to move to Alberta, where skilled labour shortages
are more common, the “receiving” province benefits through increased
productivity and the “sending” province benefits through remittances (money
sent back or brought back by returning workers). Extending mutual
recognition to apprentices could have a similarly beneficial effect for skillstarved regions, as well as for individual trainees.
Calls for reform of the AIT are increasingly widespread. Professional
organizations, employers, and provincial governments are among the voices
demanding a more robust national framework for interprovincial labour
mobility, such as the one found in the NWPTA. Federal Industry Minister
James Moore has promised changes to the AIT to address these issues and is
currently consulting with stakeholders across the country, although he has yet
to produce specifics. So far, the discussion surrounding the AIT has focused
more on barriers to trade in goods, so potential changes for labour mobility are
unclear. Nevertheless, there will be changes in any new or updated agreement
with implications for labour. Generally speaking, workers, employers, and the
provinces would all like to see improved mobility through the AIT.
It should be noted that further increasing labour mobility within Canada may
have some unintended side effects. A handful of sending provinces are
concerned that greater mobility will have devastating long-term consequences
for economic development in their regions. The Atlantic provinces, in
particular, are already struggling to keep workers from migrating West, where
jobs are plentiful and wages are relatively high, even though Atlantic provinces
face skills and labour shortages of their own. 10 For example, a 2007 report by
the Newfoundland and Labrador Skills Task Force nervously concluded that
9
Only about half of registered apprentices in Canada complete their training program
within a decade of starting, although this cannot be solely attributed to any one factor. See
Louise Desjardins, “Completion and discontinuation rates of registered apprentices: Does
program duration matter?” Statistics Canada, June 15, 2010,
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010002/article/11253-eng.htm.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
8
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
the province faced a vicious cycle of worsening skills shortages due to
demographic shifts and workers being “siphoned off” to Alberta. 11 Without the
skilled workers necessary for far-sighted, large-scale local development
projects, a province like Newfoundland and Labrador may be challenged to
implement any kind of serious, long-term development strategy.
Therefore, even if the free movement of labour is economically “efficient” (i.e. it
produces a net economic benefit for Canada), and even if sending provinces
benefit somewhat from any wages brought back by returning workers, draining
these provinces of their locally-trained, skilled workforce is likely to hurt their
economic strength and self-sufficiency in the long run. The possibility that
increasing interprovincial labour mobility will exacerbate existing regional
disparities is an important consideration for labour policy in Canada.
Moreover, the social costs of this internal migrant labour force are
considerable. Migrant workers are routinely separated from their families for
weeks, months, or years at a time, and migrant worker communities like Fort
McMurray, Alberta often lack the social supports of more settled areas. 12
Pressuring workers in high unemployment areas to move to find work can also
disrupt traditional aspirations and ways of life. 13 In reforming Canada’s
internal labour market regime, a balance must be struck between the benefits
of economic efficiency—in terms of employment and growth—and the potential
social dislocations produced by increased mobility.
10
Even British Columbia, which has a relatively robust labour market, is feeling the
squeeze. As a pair of BC business leaders recently noted, “employers hoping to attract and
retain educated and skilled younger workers will continue to face pressure from the powerful
draw being exerted by strong labour demand and comparatively high pay levels in Alberta”. See
Ken Peacock and Jock Finlayson, “Alberta’s Demand for Workers is Affecting BC’s Labour
Market,” HRVoice.org, May 15, 2014, http://www.hrvoice.org/albertas-demand-for-workers-isaffecting-the-labour-market-in-bc.
11
Newfoundland and Labrador Skills Task Force, All the Skills to Succeed (Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, March 2007), 24.
12
Jason Foster and Alison Taylor, “In the Shadows: Exploring the Notion of ‘Community’
for Temporary Foreign Workers in a Boomtown,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 38, no. 2
(2013): 167-190.
13
See The Canadian Press, “As skilled workers migrate west, some fear EI changes could
make things worse,” Maclean’s, June 26, 2013, http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/asskilled-workers-migrate-west-some-fear-ei-changes-could-make-things-worse.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
9
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Part 2: International Labour Mobility in Canada
At the international level, Canada’s labour mobility policy is closely tied to
Canada’s immigration policy. Workers who wish to enter Canada—whether
temporarily or permanently—and Canadian employers who wish to hire
internationally must do so through programs offered by CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION CANADA (CIC). CIC offers more than a dozen different pathways for
international labour mobility, which it groups into two categories: those
programs requiring a Labour Market Impact Assessment and those that are
LMIA-exempt. The LMIA-exempt streams are collectively known as the
International Mobility Programs.
An LMIA—previously known as a “LABOUR MARKET OPINION” (LMO)—is a
document either confirming or denying that a legitimate labour or skills
shortage exists in a specific industry in a specific area. They are issued at the
request of employers by EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA (ESDC),
which monitors the Canadian labour market. The purpose of the LMIA process
is to ensure that Canadian employers hire Canadians first when jobs are
available; employers should only turn to migrant workers as a last resort when
suitable domestic workers cannot be found. Unfortunately, cases of
unwarranted ESDC approvals, whether due to disingenuous employers or a
lack of administrative resources, are common.14
Overview of Programs
The following CIC labour mobility programs require employers to receive a
positive LMIA from ESDC before they can hire a migrant worker. Unless
otherwise noted, workers are not offered a pathway to permanent residency in
Canada.
•
TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM (TFWP): a set of programs
designed to meet short-term Canadian labour market needs where
employers are unable to find suitable Canadian workers. 15
14
See Bill Curry, “Ottawa approved thousands of foreign worker requests at minimum
wage, data reveal,” The Globe and Mail, May 26, 2014,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/thousands-of-foreign-workers-at-minimumwage-approved-data-show/article18839911.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
10
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
•
•
◦ AGRICULTURAL STREAM: allows employers to hire migrant workers for
on-farm primary agriculture for up to two years at a time.
◦ LIVE-IN CAREGIVER PROGRAM (LICP): allows families to hire migrant
workers to provide care in a private household, wherein the worker is
also required to live; the LICP offers a pathway to permanent
residency after a minimum of 22 months.
◦ SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROGRAM (SAWP): allows employers
to hire migrant workers from Mexico and select Caribbean countries
for on-farm primary agriculture in specific sectors for up to eight
months at a time.
◦ STREAM FOR HIGHER-SKILLED OCCUPATIONS: allows employers to hire
migrant workers in a variety of higher-skilled positions; specific rules
govern the temporary entry of academics and entertainment-related
occupations.
◦ STREAM FOR LOWER-SKILLED OCCUPATIONS: allows employers to hire
migrant workers in any lower-skilled positions for up to 12 months at
a time (renewable up to 24 months).
FEDERAL SKILLED TRADES PROGRAM (FSTP) and FEDERAL SKILLED WORKER
PROGRAM (FSWP): designed explicitly for Canadian employers facing
long-term skills shortages; the FSTP and FSWP offer a pathway to
permanent residency for high-skill workers with a permanent job offer.
CANADIAN EXPERIENCE CLASS (CEC): provides a pathway to permanent
residency for migrant workers who are already well-established in
Canada.
Unlike CIC’s LMIA streams, the International Mobility Programs are exempt
from the LMIA process. According to the government, LMIAs are not necessary
for these programs because workers entering Canada through the IMP have a
neutral or positive labour market impact, either by providing “competitive
advantages to Canada” or “reciprocal benefits to Canadians”. 16 However, as we
shall see below, this is a problematic assumption; the IMP may be just as open
to abuse as the LMIA streams, if not more so.
15
This list describes the TFWP streams as they existed at the time this report was
prepared. The Federal Government has made changes to the program and some of these
streams. An overview of these changes can be found at:
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/index.shtml.
16
“Reforming the International Mobility Programs,” Employment and Social Development
Canada, June 20, 2014, http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/reform/imp.shtml.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
11
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
The IMP includes the following LMIA-exempt sub-programs. Unless otherwise
noted, workers are not offered a pathway to permanent residency in Canada.
•
•
•
•
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE CANADA PROGRAM (IEC): provides travel and
work permits (i.e. “working holiday” visas) to young people from one of
the 32 countries with which Canada has a reciprocal youth mobility
agreement.17
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM (ISP): a set of programs that allow
international students to participate in the Canadian labour market
during or immediately after their studies.
◦ OFF-CAMPUS WORK PERMIT PROGRAM (OCWPP): allows international
students to find part-time employment while enrolled full-time in a
Canadian educational institution.
◦ POST-GRADUATION WORK PERMIT PROGRAM (PGWPP): provides a 3-year
open work permit to international students who have recently
graduated from a Canadian educational institution.
PROVINCIAL NOMINEE PROGRAMS (PNP): CIC allows each province to “fast
track” a set number of economic immigrants every year to meet
provincial labour market needs; each PNP offers a pathway to permanent
residency.
Canada’s commitments under international agreements (see next
section).
Taken together, this patchwork of programs permits the entry into Canada of a
wide variety of workers from around the world on both a temporary and a
permanent basis. In all cases, the government claims these workers augment,
rather than undermine, the domestic labour market and Canada’s
international competitiveness.
Canada’s Labour Mobility Commitments Under International
Agreements
Canada extends additional labour mobility rights to the citizens of certain
countries on a bilateral, plurilateral, or multilateral basis. Citizens and
permanent residents of these countries enjoy all of the usual rights to labour
mobility for foreign workers in Canada, as outlined above, but they also receive
17
For a complete list of partner countries, see “For Non-Canadians – Travel and Work in
Canada,” Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada, March 12, 2014,
http://www.international.gc.ca/experience/intro_incoming-intro_entrant.aspx.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
12
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
special access to the Canadian labour market in accordance with each
agreement. For example, business visitors from the United States and Mexico
do not need a work permit or LMIA to enter the country on a temporary basis.
In return, Canadian business visitors receive the same mobility rights in those
countries.
Over the past few decades, Canada has signed a flurry of international treaties
and FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (FTAs) with a wide variety of countries. Some
agreements place labour mobility at the centre of negotiations, such as
bilateral airline personnel agreements, but in most cases the movement of
people is a secondary consideration to the movement of capital and goods.
Even in recent, comprehensive economic partnerships, such as the 2012
Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, labour mobility is sometimes excluded
altogether. Nevertheless, these agreements play an increasingly important role
in entrenching and extending labour mobility into and within Canada. The
most important agreements in this regard are explored here.
The GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES (GATS) was one outcome of the
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION’S (WTO’s) Uruguay Round, which culminated in
1996. GATS extends basic labour mobility rights to the citizens of all 140
members of the WTO, including Canada, on a multilateral basis. It is
significant because the agreement “implies a binding obligation on states to
admit non-nationals on to their territory”.18 However, these rights are both
limited and rife with exceptions. Although GATS ensures that “service
suppliers” (whether independent, contractual, or intra-corporate) of one
country are free to deliver that service through the presence of “natural
persons” in another country (also known as “Mode 4” service supply),
commitment to this principle is essentially voluntary. Each WTO member
chooses which sectors it is willing to oblige itself to, and unsurprisingly, few
countries have made substantial commitments under Mode 4. Moreover, GATS
does not apply “to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the
employment market of a Member, nor [does] it apply to measures regarding
18
Alexander Betts and Kalypso Nicolaidis, “The Trade-Migration Linkage: GATS Mode IV”
(presentation memo, Global Trade Ethics Conference, Princeton University, February 19, 2009),
1.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
13
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
citizenship, residence or employment on a permanent basis”.19 GATS does not
prohibit governments from imposing requirements for visas, work permits, or
economic needs tests, provided these regulations do not contravene the
member’s scheduled commitments. Therefore, the impact of GATS on the
global labour market is extremely limited. In 2013, less than 300 workers
entered Canada through our GATS commitments. 20
Most countries have been more ambitious with labour mobility on a bilateral
and regional basis. The European Union is perhaps the gold standard for
international labour mobility, as it provides complete freedom of movement
within the EU for all EU citizens. For Canada, the 1994 NORTH AMERICAN FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) is most significant for two reasons: first, it
facilitates the movement of a substantial number of workers between Canada
and our largest trading partner, the United States, and second, the labour
mobility provisions in NAFTA have become the template for almost all of
Canada’s subsequent FTAs.
Chapter 16 of NAFTA eases mutual entry requirements for citizens of Canada,
the US, and Mexico who are engaged in activities related to trade and
investment on a temporary basis. It removes the LMIA requirement for all
persons covered by the agreement and, where it does not prohibit work
permits, it allows covered persons to apply for a permit at their point of entry.
NAFTA covers four categories of workers:
•
•
BUSINESS VISITORS: American and Mexican business people who come to
Canada to facilitate international business without actually entering the
Canadian labour market are allowed to stay up to 6 months without a
work permit.
PROFESSIONALS: American and Mexican workers in a specific set of 63
occupations who meet the relevant certification requirements and have a
job offer from a Canadian employer can receive an LMIA-exempt work
permit to enter Canada for the duration of the contract.
19
“Movement of natural persons,” World Trade Organization, no date,
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/mouvement_persons_e/mouvement_persons_e.h
tm.
20
“Improving Clarity, Transparency and Accountability of the Temporary Foreign Worker
Program,” Employment and Social Development Canada, July 21, 2014,
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/reform/index.shtml.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
14
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
•
•
INTRA-COMPANY TRANSFEREES (ICTs): American and Mexican managers,
executives, and workers with “specialized knowledge” who are employed
by an American or Mexican company with a corporate presence in
Canada can receive an LMIA-exempt permit to work for the same
company in Canada on a temporary basis; in the O&S Contractors case,
discussed earlier, the American workers received their work permits
through NAFTA’s ICT rules.
TRADERS AND INVESTORS: American and Mexican business people who are
supervising or managing a large amount of trade in goods or services can
receive an LMIA-exempt permit for the duration of their work in Canada.
Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, Canada has completed ten more free
trade agreements, almost all of which include temporary entry provisions
modelled on NAFTA’s Chapter 16 (see Table 1). Canada’s bilateral FTAs
generally follow the NAFTA model by extending temporary entry rights to
business people and some higher-skilled workers on a temporary basis. The
specific breadth of these provisions varies from deal to deal and has fluctuated
over the years. Initially, all of our FTAs took a “positive list” approach to
temporary entry, which means only those occupations explicitly listed in the
agreement text are covered by its provisions. This is the case in Canada’s FTAs
with the US, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, and the EFTA, as well as GATS. Over
time, that approach changed. Our FTAs with Colombia and Peru, both signed
in 2008, take a “negative list” approach, which means all professions are
covered by these agreements except for those explicitly carved out by
negotiators. In our more recent agreements with Panama, Honduras, and
Korea, Canada has reverted to a positive list approach for all categories of
professionals, although that list is much longer than in the first generation of
Canadian FTAs.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
15
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Table 1: Labour Mobility Provisions in Canadian Free Trade Agreements
Agreement
Year Signed
Year
in
Force
Scope Of Temporary Entry
Provisions
Business visitors
Traders and investors
Professionals
Intra-company transferees
Visa
Requirement To
Enter Canada
North American FTA
(NAFTA)
1992
1994
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Canada-Israel FTA
1996
1997
None
No
Business visitors
Traders and investors
Professionals
Intra-company transferees
Yes
Mexico: Yes
United States: No
Canada-Chile FTA
1996
1997
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Canada-Costa Rica FTA
2001
2002
(1) Business visitors
(2) Intra-company transferees
(3) Spouses and children
Yes
Canada-European Free
Trade Association FTA
2008
2009
(1) Business visitors
(2) Intra-corporate transferees
(3) Spouses and children
No
Canada-Peru FTA
2008
2009
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Business visitors
Traders and investors
Professionals
Intra-company transferees
Yes
Business visitors
Traders and investors
Professionals and technicians
Intra-company transferees
Spouses
Yes
Canada-Colombia FTA
2008
2011
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Canada-Jordan FTA
2009
2012
None
Yes
Yes
Canada-Panama FTA
2010
2013
(1) Business visitors
(2) Traders and investors
(3) Intra-company transferees
(4) Persons engaged in specialty
occupations
(5) Spouses
Canada-Honduras FTA
2013
n/a
(1) Business visitors
(2) Intra-company transferees
(3) Spouses and children
Yes
Canada-Korea FTA
2014
(concluded, not n/a
signed)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
No
Business visitors
Traders and investors
Professionals
Intra-company transferees
Spouses
In addition to business people and professionals, a few of these agreements
include provisions covering “technicians” and “specialty occupations”—skilled
tradespeople, in other words. Unlike “professionals”, which typically require a
4-year postsecondary degree, “technicians” covered by these agreements
require as little as one year of training to be eligible for an LMIA-exempt work
permit. Some of these FTAs also include mobility rights for the spouses and
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
16
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
dependents of migrant workers. Spouses of Korean workers who enter Canada
through the Canada-Korea FTA can receive an LMIA-exempt open work permit
for the duration of their spouse’s contract in Canada. Unlike the contracted
worker, the spouse is not bound to any particular occupation or employer.
Despite these meaningful differences, all of Canada’s FTAs follow the same
general pattern of providing temporary access to the Canadian labour market
for certain categories of workers on a reciprocal basis. In theory, these
agreements only facilitate the entry of business executives and some
professionals into the country. As the O&S Contractors case demonstrates,
however, the range of workers entering Canada through these agreements is far
broader in practise. Therefore, when taken together, these free trade
agreements make up an important component of Canada’s international labour
mobility regime. But just how significant is this regime for the Canadian labour
market?
The Scale of Migrant Workers in Canada
Between Canada’s LMIA streams, like the TFWP, and those that are LMIAexempt, such as NAFTA’s Chapter 16, Canada permits a wide range of migrant
workers into the country on a temporary basis. In some instances, such as the
LICP or FSWP, it also provides pathways to permanent residency. Measuring
the labour market impact of all of these workers is challenging, but statistics
published by CIC and ESDC about the TFWP and Canada’s International
Mobility Programs shed some light on the question.
According to CIC,21 there were just under half a million migrant workers in
Canada at some point in 2012, up from about 180,000 in 2003 (see Table 2).
This increase is due in large part to a deliberate widening of the “pipeline” for
migrant workers under the Conservative government.22 The number of
21
Unless otherwise noted, all facts and figures in this section are taken from statistics
published by CIC. See “Facts and figures 2012 – Immigration overview: Permanent and
temporary residents,” Citizenship and Immigration Canada, August 7, 2013,
http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLish/resources/statistics/facts2012/index.asp.
22
“How the Conservatives expanded the temporary worker pipeline,” Canadian Labour
Congress, January 20, 2014, http://www.canadianlabour.ca/news-room/publications/howconservatives-expanded-temporary-worker-pipeline.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
17
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
temporary migrant workers entering Canada every year has more than doubled
in the past decade, from approximately 103,000 to over 213,000. Migrant
workers are now the fastest growing category of temporary entries to Canada
(173% increase since 2003), significantly outpacing students (57% increase)
and the “humanitarian” (i.e. refugee) population (22% decrease).
Table 2: Migrant Workers in Canada
Category
Migrant workers
entering Canada
Total
Share of all entries
Migrant workers present Total
in Canada
Share of all temporary residents
2003 2012 Change % Change
102,932 213,573
110,641
107%
50.7%
15.2 pp
43%
179,780 491,587
311,767
173%
18.7 pp
71%
35.5%
26.3%
45.0%
Approximately 18 million people are currently working in Canada, which
means migrant workers make up about 2% of the national labour force. 23
Jason Kenney, Federal Minister of Employment and Social Development, has
used this figure to downplay the scale of Canada’s international migrant
worker regime.24 Yet focusing on the proportion of migrant workers in the
overall labour force distracts from the real issue, which is competition between
migrant workers and those permanent residents who are looking for work. The
number of migrant workers is irrelevant if every Canadian looking for work can
find it. In reality, around 7% of the workforce, or approximately 1.3 million
Canadian citizens and permanent residents, are unemployed. Therefore, in
theory, if every migrant worker was replaced by a Canadian worker tomorrow,
the unemployment rate would drop to around 5%. Put another way, a quarter
of the unemployment rate in Canada today can be indirectly attributed to
migrant workers, up from 8% a decade ago.25 This proportion will continue to
grow as the number of migrant worker entries to Canada continues to outpace
domestic job creation.
23
Based on the total number of migrant workers present on December 1st, 2012
(338,221) (source: CIC) and the total number of employed persons in Canada in December
2012 (17,667,600) (source: “Canada Employed Persons,” Trading Economics, 2014,
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/employed-persons).
24
Jason Kenney, “Foreign workers in Canada: Let’s separate the facts from the myths,”
The Globe and Mail, June 20, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/foreignworkers-in-canada-lets-separate-the-facts-from-the-myths/article19256920.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
18
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
CIC’s data reveal other important trends. First, the increase in the number of
migrant worker entries only explains part of the rise in the absolute number of
migrant workers in Canada. The majority of this growth has come not from
more workers entering the country, but from migrant workers staying in
Canada for longer. The definition of “temporary” has stretched over the past
decade. Second, the majority of migrant worker growth is not attributable to
Canada’s labour market-oriented programs like the TFWP. In fact, the
proportion of migrant workers entering Canada through the TFWP and other
programs requiring an LMIA has decreased significantly as a share of all
migrant worker entries to Canada over the past decade. In 2003, about half of
all migrant worker entries to Canada received LMIAs; in 2012, just over a third
did. Instead, the majority of new entries have been through the IMP (see
Table 3). None of the pathways in the International Mobility Programs require a
Labour Market Impact Assessment from ESDC. This means that the migrant
workforce in Canada is trending away from occupations and industries with
known skills and labour shortages towards more ambiguous participation in
the Canadian labour market.
Table 3: Migrant Worker Entries by Category
Category
2003
2012
Change % Change
International Mobility
Programs (excluding free
trade agreements)
[LMIA-exempt]
Total
37,001
102,119
65,118
176%
Share of all migrant worker
entries
35.9%
47.8%
11.9 pp
33%
Free trade agreements
[LMIA-exempt]
Total
15,751
29,118
13,367
85%
Share of all migrant worker
entries
15.3%
13.6%
-1.7 pp
-11%
Total
49,194
80,613
31,419
64%
Share of all migrant worker
entries
47.8%
37.7%
-10.1 pp
-21%
Migrant workers requiring
LMIAs (including TFWP)
The rapid increase in migrant workers entering Canada through LMIA-exempt
25
Based on the total number of migrant workers present on December 1st, 2012
(338,221) and December 1st, 2003 (102,932) (source: CIC) and the total number of
unemployed persons in Canada in December 2012 (1,358,400) and December 2003 (1,254,300)
(source: “Canada Unemployed Persons,” Trading Economics, 2014,
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployed-persons). Of course, the assumption
that all migrant workers can be replaced by unemployed Canadians is clearly not true for a
wide variety of reasons, many of which are discussed in this paper. However, these figures
serve to illustrate the relative size of the migrant workforce in Canada, especially as it has
grown over the past decade.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
19
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
streams has a number of problematic social and economic implications, which
will be discussed in more depth below. This shift also has troubling
implications for data collection and analysis. For workers entering the
Canadian labour market with an LMIA, ESDC tracks and publishes
comprehensive statistics.26 We know that most LMIAs are granted for
“intermediate and clerical” work in general and “sales and service” occupations
in particular; the industry receiving the most LMIAs nation-wide is
“accommodation and food services”. We also know the regional distribution of
LMIAs; the data show that there has been a clear shift from East to West,
particularly from Ontario to Alberta, over the past decade. ESDC even
publishes a complete list of all employers who are granted LMIAs, which
permits an extremely detailed analysis.27 However, for migrant workers entering
the Canadian labour market without an LMIA, we know very little. As noted
above, the spouse of a skilled Korean migrant worker can receive an “open”
work permit, which means he—or, more commonly, she, since most migrant
workers are men—can be hired anywhere in Canada, regardless of local labour
market conditions. The same applies to foreign student workers and young
people with “working holiday” visas. As more workers enter the Canadian
labour market without ESDC vetting, the less we know about who they are and
what work they do.
Overall, the available data suggest that migrant workers play a significant and
growing role in the Canadian economy. Both our International Mobility
Programs and our labour market-oriented Temporary Foreign Worker Programs
facilitate the entry of a substantial number of migrant workers into Canada.
However, the balance is shifting away from the streams requiring an LMIA,
such as the TFWP, toward streams that are LMIA-exempt, such as FTAs.
Although migrant workers in lower-skilled occupations are on the rise, as
evidenced by ESDC’s LMIA data, the number of people entering the country to
work without any consideration for labour market needs is increasing at an
even faster rate. We have a poor understanding of these workers, who include
26
“Labour Market Opinion (LMO) Statistics,” Employment and Social Development
Canada, January 28, 2014,
http://www.edsc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/lmo_statistics/index.shtml.
27
For an excellent visual representation of the available data, see NTFW.ca, Canadian
Workers Advocacy Group, http://ntfw.ca.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
20
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
intra-corporate transferees, international students, and family members. There
is a clear need for more comprehensive data collection and reporting on all
categories of migrant workers.
Issues for Canada
Given the current national context of high unemployment and regional
economic disparity, Canada’s international labour mobility regime has come
under intense public scrutiny in recent months. Amidst allegations of abuse
and short-sightedness, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in particular
has drawn the ire of many Canadians and has provoked a political firestorm for
Minister Kenney. Criticisms of the TFWP are grounded in a variety of concerns,
but can be broadly grouped into three categories: concerns for foreign workers,
concerns for domestic workers, and concerns about labour market needs.
First, the treatment of migrant workers by employers is poorly monitored,
which has resulted in a number of documented cases of abuse. 28 Claims of
intimidation, forced overtime, inadequate pay, recruiter extortion, and other
mistreatment are common. Some critics argue that programs like the SAWP are
effective precisely because the rights of workers are restricted, which allows
employers to squeeze out more labour hours at a reduced cost. 29 To make
matters worse, the complaints system available to workers in the TFWP is
inadequate and largely inaccessible.30 The lack of pathways to permanent
residency for migrant workers is perhaps the biggest issue. Regardless of their
contributions to Canadian society, the majority of migrant workers in Canada
have no way to stay in Canada once their work permits have expired.
28
A series of CBC investigations were instrumental in drawing attention to these issues.
See Kathy Tomlinson, “McDonald's accused of favouring foreign workers,” CBC News British
Columbia, April 14, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mcdonald-saccused-of-favouring-foreign-workers-1.2598684.
29
Kerry L. Preibisch, "Local Produce, Foreign Labor: Labor Mobility Programs and Global
Trade Competitiveness in Canada,” Rural Sociology 72, no. 3 (2007): 418-449.
30
Geoff Leo, “Complaint-based systems failing abused foreign workers: expert,” CBC
News Saskatchewan, May 27, 2014,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/complaint-based-systems-failing-abusedforeign-workers-expert-1.2651413.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
21
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Second, programs like the TFWP have been shown to have a negative impact on
domestic Canadian workers by driving down wages and working conditions in
certain sectors.31 Unfortunately, some unscrupulous employers have brought
in migrant workers for no other reason than to keep labour costs low. For
critics, employers are turning to the TFWP not as a last resort but as an
opportunity to suppress wages and avoid training costs.32
Third, there is an apparent mismatch between employers’ claims of labour
shortages and the reality of high unemployment in many parts of the country.
In areas as far apart as Northeastern BC and Prince Edward Island, employers
claim widespread labour “shortages”, even as unemployment sits well above
the national and regional average.33 Employers in these areas assert that skills
mismatches exist between vacant positions and the local workforce, but critics
simply see Canadians being passed up for much-needed work in favour of lowwage migrant replacements. Evidence to support employers’ claims is hard to
come by.34 Indeed, independent studies have clearly linked the increased
presence of migrant workers in Canada with increased unemployment. 35
31
“Audit shows TFW program drives down wages, labour group says,” CBC News
Edmonton, May 26, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/audit-shows-tfwprogram-drives-down-wages-labour-group-says-1.2655129.
32
The nature of labour mobility also poses a threat to Canada’s representative unions,
which are limited in jurisdiction to bargaining units in each workplace. Migrant workers are
especially vulnerable because of the challenge of unionizing a precarious workforce with
uncertain migration status. The weakening of unions tends to exacerbate the erosion of wages
and labour standards that labour mobility inherently creates. See Eric Tucker and Brendan
Jowett, “Employment-Related Geographic Mobility and Collective Bargaining in Canada”
(forthcoming).
33
On Northeastern BC, see Jonny Wakefield, “Northeast B.C. has skills mismatch – not
labour shortage – and highest unemployment in the province: UNBC prof,” Business
Vancouver, June 4, 2011, http://www.biv.com/article/20140604/BIV0115/140609975/1/BIV0100/northeast-bc-has-skills-mismatch-8211-not-labour-shortage-8211-and-highestunemployment-in-the-province-unbc-prof.
On PEI, see Andy Walker, “Atlantic region faces labour/energy crises: Both now and
over the long term,” Troy Media, June 9, 2014,
http://www.troymedia.com/2014/06/09/atlantic-region-faces-labourenergy-crisis. See also
Teresa Wright, “Temporary foreign workforce in P.E.I. quadruples while unemployment rate
remains high,” The Guardian, May 30, 2014,
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2014-05-30/article-3742989/Temporary-foreignworkforce-in-P.E.I.-quadruples-while-unemployment-rate-remains-high/1.
34
The Canadian Press, “Budget watchdog finds little evidence of labour, skills shortages,”
CBC News Politics, March 25, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-findslittle-evidence-of-labour-skills-shortages-1.2585468.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
22
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Responding to overwhelming public pressure in all three of these areas,
Minister Kenney announced reforms to the TFWP in June 2014. In general, the
changes made it more difficult for employers to hire migrant workers by raising
fees, replacing the old Labour Market Opinion with the more rigorous Labour
Market Impact Assessment, placing caps on the share of migrant workers in
each workplace, and banning the program entirely for low-wage workers in
high-unemployment areas.36 Employers, especially in the food service and
hospitality sectors who had become reliant on a low-wage migrant workforce,
decried the changes.37 Conservative politicians in regions with a large migrant
workforce, predominantly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, were also critical of
the government decision.38 On the other hand, longstanding critics of the TFWP
felt that the changes did not go far enough to address the root issue. The
Canadian Labour Congress described the changes as a “rescue mission for a
program that is deeply flawed,” because although the changes may discourage
some employers, the most egregious abusers of migrant workers can continue
to rely on it.39 The Alberta Federation of Labour reiterated that the changes
keep alive a program in a region where supposed labour shortages are largely a
myth propagated by employers.40 Kenney may have tightened the TFWP
pipeline, but he did not turn it off.
35
Robert Knox, “Who Can Work Where: Reducing Barriers to Labour Mobility in Canada,”
C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder 131 (June 2010).
36
“New Reforms for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,” Employment and Social
Development Canada, July 11, 2014,
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/reform/highlights.shtml.
37
In the weeks following the announcement, employers flooded news outlets with claims
that they would go out of business or have to scale back operations because of a lack of
suitable workers. See Jonny Wakefield, “TFW reforms a headache for businesses,” Alaska
Highways News, June 27, 2014, http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/news/local/tfw-reformsa-headache-for-businesses-1.1306777.
38
See Tim Bryant, “Politicians voice concerns with TFWP,” The Westlock News, July 8,
2014, http://www.westlocknews.com/article/20140708/WES0801/307089969/1/wes08/politicians-voice-concerns-with-tfwp.
39
“Statement regarding today's announcement on the Temporary Foreign Worker
program,” Canadian Labour Congress, June 20, 2014, http://www.canadianlabour.ca/newsroom/statements/statement-regarding-todays-announcement-temporary-foreign-workerprogram.
40
“Low-wage employers in Alberta are blowing smoke when they whine about labour
shortages,” Alberta Federation of Labour, July 4, 2014, http://www.afl.org/index.php/PressRelease/low-wage-employers-in-alberta-are-blowing-smoke-when-they-whine-about-labourshortages.html.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
23
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program continues to be debated around the
country and at all levels of government. The program is undoubtedly a pressing
issue worthy of national attention. Unfortunately, in the controversy
surrounding this particular set of programs, Canada’s other international
labour mobility programs have been brushed aside or ignored. Far more
workers enter Canada through the LMIA-exempt IMP streams, which have a
much murkier—but potentially just as severe—impact on the Canadian labour
market. This is an even bigger concern in the wake of the recently-announced
changes to the TFWP, since employers who are no longer able to hire migrant
workers through those programs may be encouraged to turn to less-regulated
streams. These streams include our international agreements, which give
special rights to certain categories of workers, such as intra-corporate
transferees, professionals, and contractors (as well as their spouses), but also
programs like International Experience Canada, which facilitates the LMIAexempt entry of huge numbers of young migrant workers into Canada.
According to CIC, roughly 60,000 workers enter the country every year through
these reciprocal youth arrangements, which is almost as many as the entire
TFWP.41 Where are these international migrant youth workers employed?
Neither CIC or ESDC can tell us, because LMIAs are not required for their work
permits. Unlike the TFWP, which is employer-initiated, the IEC is almost
entirely worker-initiated, which means it is largely unresponsive to the
domestic labour market. At least with the TFWP migrant workers are employed
where they are ostensibly needed. That is not the case with migrant workers
entering through the IEC program, although we can assume that these young
workers are competing for the same sorts of low-wage, seasonal work as many
young Canadians. Retail stores, summer camps, ski resorts, and serving
positions are all popular among youth workers and there is no lack of supply.
In 2013, about 390,000 Canadians aged 15 to 24 were unemployed, or
approximately 13.5% of those young people in the labour force, so the number
of people struggling to find work in this demographic is significant. 42
41
“Facts and figures 2012 – Immigration overview: Permanent and temporary residents:
Temporary residents,” Citizenship and Immigration Canada, August 7, 2013,
http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLish/resources/statistics/facts2012/temporary/05.asp.
42
“Labour force characteristics by age and sex (Estimates),” Statistics Canada, January
10, 2014, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor20a-eng.htm.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
24
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Technically, Canadian youths have the same right to work or study abroad in
partner countries, but as the government itself admits, “the number of young
Canadians going abroad has been stagnant in recent years, and there are
several countries to which virtually no Canadians apply to go”. 43 ESDC calls
this a “serious concern”, but instead of tightening the IEC program to limit
competition from unregulated low-wage workers, CIC merely proposes to
“enhance its efforts through increased promotion of the program to make
young Canadians aware of the opportunities it presents”.44
Similarly, spouses of some migrant workers can receive an LMIA-exempt open
work permit through a number of our international arrangements. In 2013,
more than 10,000 migrant workers entered Canada this way. 45 Unlike migrant
workers entering through the TFWP, who are bound to a specific employer, the
spouses of workers entering through many of the IMP streams face no
limitations on where they can work on a temporary basis. Comparable
employment rights are granted to an additional 10,000 foreign students every
year. Taken together, the total number of unregulated workers entering
Canada every year, without any consideration for labour market conditions, is
comparable to all the streams of the TFWP combined. Since there are so few
limitations, these workers can range from unskilled labourers to highly-trained
professionals.
The IMP also provides LMIA-exempt “closed” work permits for a wide variety of
workers, which means the worker is tied to a single employer or a specific
contract. More than 13,000 intra-company transferees enter Canada every
year, in addition to comparable numbers of independent professionals. 46
Although defenders of the program dismiss these workers as insignificant to
the Canadian labour market, either due to their relatively low numbers or their
concentration in high-skill occupations, abuses of these programs have still
been documented. One of the most egregious cases saw eight American
43
“Reforming the International Mobility Programs,” Employment and Social Development
Canada, June 20, 2014, http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/reform/imp.shtml.
44
Ibid
45
“Facts and figures 2012 – Immigration overview: Permanent and temporary residents:
Temporary residents,” Citizenship and Immigration Canada, August 7, 2013,
http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLish/resources/statistics/facts2012/temporary/05.asp.
46
Ibid
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
25
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
construction workers transferred into Canada to complete a project, even
though they had no special skills and Canadian workers were willing and able
to do the job.
Since the IMP lacks the same oversight as its counterparts in the LMIA
streams, the potential for abuse is significant. To make matters worse, the
international agreements to which Canada is party cannot be reformed
unilaterally. When Minister Kenney announced in June 2014 that the rules
around ICTs would be tightened, he neglected to mention that these tighter
rules would not apply to the workers of countries with which Canada has
already signed a labour mobility agreement, like NAFTA. Our government may
be able to reform the TFWP, but it is essentially powerless to stem the flow of
workers entering the country through our international agreements. At the
same time, ESDC promised to implement a new compliance system for the IMP
on par with the TFWP, which will monitor employers and investigate alleged
abuses. However, this proposed compliance system only applies to LMIAexempt closed work permits, like ICTs, and not to LMIA-exempt open work
permits, like the IEC. Therefore, even if the new system is as robust and
efficient as promised, it still overlooks a huge proportion of the migrant workers
entering Canada through the IMP.
As an aside, it is important to remember that all of these migrant workers—
whether high or low skill—lack the same rights as Canadian workers,
occasionally in law but almost always in practice. The abuse of migrant
workers, and the resulting erosion of labour standards for Canadian workers,
that have been documented through the TFWP are also possible through the
IMP. Fortunately, since many of these workers are not tied to a particular
employer, they have greater bargaining power and are therefore at less risk of
employer abuse. Nevertheless, as the Federal Government tightens the TFWP
with a plan to phase out the low-skill stream entirely, attention must shift to
these LMIA-exempt IMP streams, which have escaped closer scrutiny thus far.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
26
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Looking Forward: CETA47
Even as the TFWP is wound down, the IMP is poised to expand in the coming
years through a number of new international treaties. The most significant and
imminent agreement for labour mobility is the Canada-European Union
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which reached the end of
negotiations in September 2014 and is expected to enter into force in 2016.
This sweeping FTA is supposed to “open new markets to our exporters
throughout the EU and generate significant benefits for all Canadians”. 48 The
final text was completed by August 2014 and contains temporary entry
provisions that go beyond our existing international treaties. According to a
leaked draft of the temporary entry chapter, which has since been confirmed by
the official release of the text, CETA will facilitate the entry of the following
categories of workers into Canada:
•
•
SHORT-TERM BUSINESS VISITORS: EU workers who enter Canada for less
than 90 days and without a contract to supply services (e.g. for meetings,
seminars, trade fairs, etc.).
KEY PERSONNEL: EU workers who are responsible for establishing,
controlling, or operating a company or investment in Canada.
◦ BUSINESS VISITORS FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES: a manager or executive
who is responsible for setting up a new company or branch in
Canada.
◦ INVESTORS: an individual or representative of a company that commits
a “substantial amount of capital” to an investment in Canada.
◦ INTRA-CORPORATE TRANSFEREES: workers employed by an EU company
who are moved to a branch of the same company in Canada for a
period of up to three years.
▪ SENIOR PERSONNEL: managers of the company or other employees
who exercise “wide latitude in decision making”.
▪ SPECIALISTS: workers with “uncommon” knowledge” or an
“advanced level of expertise” in the operations of the company.
47
For a more detailed treatment of the temporary entry provisions in CETA, see Hadrian
Mertins-Kirkwood, “Temporary Entry,” in Making Sense of the CETA: An Analysis of the Final
Text of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, edited by
Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew, and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives, 2014): 99-103.
48
“CETA: Agreement Overview,” Government of Canada, 2014,
http://actionplan.gc.ca/en/page/ceta-aecg/agreement-overview.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
27
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
•
•
•
▪ GRADUATE TRAINEES: junior employees transferred for “career
development purposes” (limited to a period of up to one year). 49
CONTRACTUAL SERVICE SUPPLIERS: EU workers who are employed by a
company that does not have a presence in Canada but has a contract to
supply services in Canada for a period of up to one year; contractual
service suppliers require a university degree or equivalent professional
qualification in an approved field.
INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONALS: self-employed workers who do not have a
commercial presence in Canada, but have a contract to supply services
in Canada for a period of up to one year; independent professionals
require a university degree or equivalent professional qualification in an
approved field.
SPOUSES: the spouses of ICTs, but not other categories of workers, can
receive treatment equal to that provided to Canadian ICTs in the EU
country of origin.
Although the structure is a little different, CETA’s categories for temporary
entry are substantively similar to the four found in NAFTA (business visitors,
professionals, ICTs, and traders/investors). In both agreements, workers can
only enter on a temporary basis and must remain employed exclusively by the
employer through which they entered the country. Like NAFTA, CETA does not
offer a pathway to permanent residency for workers or impose visa and
immigration requirements on governments in Canada and the EU. Like its
predecessors, CETA will also prohibit economic needs tests (i.e. Labour Market
Impact Assessments) for committed occupations. It similarly prevents
numerical limits on the number of workers who can enter Canada or the EU
under these provisions. However, with regard to labour mobility, there are
three important dimensions of CETA that distinguish this agreement from past
FTAs.
First, the range of occupations covered by CETA is markedly more
comprehensive than in previous agreements. According to leaked documents,
CETA covers 37 broad categories of contractual service suppliers and 17
categories of independent professionals, many of which do not overlap with
existing agreements. Categories covered by CETA that are not addressed in
previous agreements include advertising, construction and related engineering
49
Ironically, CETA may give Canadian apprentices greater mobility between Canada and
the EU than they currently have between some provinces.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
28
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
services, insurance, manufacturing, mining, postal and courier services, and
telecommunications. Each of these categories covers dozens of specific
occupations. Most of these previously uncovered occupations are limited to
“advisory and consulting services only”, which mitigates their potential labour
market impact. However, advertising and construction services do not face that
restriction. Opening the door to LMIA-exempt workers in these areas could
have a much greater impact on the Canadian labour market than past
agreements have permitted.
To be clear, companies operating in most of these industries are already able to
do business in Canada through the cross-border services provisions in existing
agreements, such as GATS. CETA contains similar provisions that will provide
even greater market access for foreign service suppliers. Although CETA is
distinct, because it is the first agreement that gives workers in these industries
the general right to enter Canada without a labour market test. For instance,
under NAFTA American construction companies can bid on Canadian
contracts, but must hire local workers to do the work; if no local workers are
available, the employer must apply for LMIAs to bring in temporary workers—
the ICT loophole notwithstanding.50 Under CETA, EU companies that win
Canadian contracts may be able to ship in workers indiscriminately to
complete the contract even if qualified Canadian workers are available.
Construction workers’ designation as “contractual service suppliers” under
CETA gives them broad mobility rights on a temporary basis.
Canada could have excluded building and construction trades from the
agreement, but chose not to. Based on a leak of our schedule of commitments,
Canada has secured exclusions for doctors, dentists, and other medical
professionals; nurses, midwives, and other “paramedical personnel”;
veterinarians; higher education professionals; and some other categories of
workers in the CETA text. Canada has also negotiated broad exclusions for
cultural industries and social services in other parts of the text. Yet, with the
exception of construction managers and supervisors, Canada has committed
50
American and Mexican companies with a legal presence in Canada can bypass the LMIA
process through the use of ICTs. Although O&S Contractors is headquartered in the US, it
technically has a “branch” incorporated in Canada, which consists of nothing more than a
postal address in downtown Vancouver. Nevertheless, O&S was within its rights to “transfer”
employees from its American to its Canadian operation without requiring ESDC approval.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
29
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
all forms of construction and engineering services to CETA’s temporary entry
provisions for contractual service suppliers. Any skilled construction worker,
with 3 years experience and a recognized post-secondary degree or equivalent
qualification, is covered by the deal. It remains to be seen if, in practice, these
caveats are enough to prevent a disruptive inflow of migrant workers in the
building and construction industries.
A second important dimension of CETA for labour mobility is its likely impact
on government procurement. The agreement will open up government contracts
significantly, at both the national and sub-national level, to bids from EU
companies, which may compound the labour market effect described above.
Without the ability to bid on Canadian contracts, the rights of EU companies
and workers to enter Canada on a temporary basis are limited. Procurement
liberalization in conjunction with labour mobility for intra-company
transferees, on the other hand, gives EU construction companies a powerful
incentive to bid on government contracts and then bring in their own skilled
workers to carry out the projects.
A third important consideration for labour mobility under CETA is how the
agreement might interact with existing FTAs. Most of Canada’s past deals
contain a most-favoured nation (MFN) provision, which ensures that the “best”
provisions in any future agreements are automatically extended to the earlier
partner. For example, the MFN provision in NAFTA guarantees that if Canada
offers better access to Canadian capital markets to a new partner, like the EU,
then it must automatically grant the same benefits to investors in the US and
Mexico. We already know that the investment chapter in CETA will be subject
to these MFN provisions, which will benefit investors in the United States,
Mexico, Chile, Peru, and the rest of Canada’s current FTA partners. 51 Based on
the most recent leaks, MFN appears to apply to the temporary entry chapter in
CETA as well. If that is the case, the rights being extended to European
workers, which go well beyond previous FTAs, will automatically be extended to
all of Canada’s existing FTA partners. This will further compound CETA’s
labour market effect in Canada, since not just European but also American,
Mexican, and other countries’ construction workers would gain LMIA-exempt
51
Lawrence L. Herman, Who Else Benefits from CETA? Some Implications of “MostFavoured Nation” Treatment (C.D. Howe Institute, December 19, 2013).
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
30
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
access to Canadian contracts. However, a more thorough legal analysis of the
CETA and NAFTA texts is necessary before we can confirm that conclusion.
Although the CETA text has been completed, it is still years away from
implementation. The text must undergo an extensive legal scrubbing before
being translated into all of the EU’s official languages, and even then it must
still be approved by all of the provinces and EU member states before it takes
effect. It is possible that some details will change in the final text, if it is
approved at all. As the process progresses, the potential impact that CETA may
have on the Canadian labour market deserves continued attention. CETA
marks an important step in the continued liberalization of Canada’s
international labour mobility programs.52
Looking Forward: Other New Agreements
In addition to CETA, a number of other issues for international labour mobility
in Canada loom on the horizon. Each deserves scrutiny moving forward.
The TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP) is a proposed free trade agreement currently
being negotiated between a dozen Pacific Rim countries, including Canada. It
will likely be completed in early 2015, although the deadline has been pushed
back several times already. Labour standards and human rights in the TPP are
hotly contested, with the majority of US Congressional Democrats demanding
meaningful and enforceable protections for workers (especially in Vietnam,
Malaysia, Brunei, and Mexico),53 while worker mobility has been largely
ignored. Canada’s position on labour in the TPP reflects the concerns of most
other developed countries, that increased mobility will encourage a disruptive
inflow of low-skill workers from developing countries. Consequently, countries
like Canada and the US are unlikely to consent to temporary entry and
immigration provisions that provide meaningful access to their domestic labour
52
For a more thorough discussion of CETA’s potential implications for Canada-EU labour
mobility, especially for Canadians working in Europe, see Natalie Brender, Across the Sea with
CETA: What New Labour Mobility Might Mean for Canadian Business (Ottawa: The Conference
Board of Canada, July 2014).
53
“153 House Dems Push For Binding Labor Plans With Four TPP Countries,” Inside U.S.
Trade 32, no. 22 (May 29, 2014), http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade05/30/2014/153-house-dems-push-for-binding-labor-plans-with-four-tpp-countries/menu-id710.html.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
31
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
markets (excluding business persons who facilitate trade on a temporary
basis). Ultimately, the TPP is unlikely to impact the Canadian labour market in
the same way that CETA might. However, the negotiations still warrant careful
monitoring because of the deal’s sheer ambition and potentially massive
socioeconomic impact.
A lesser-known, newer agreement may be more directly significant. The
proposed TRADE IN SERVICES AGREEMENT (TISA) is being negotiated by 50 mostly
developed countries, including Canada, on the sidelines of the WTO in Geneva.
TISA is another ambitious agreement that could impose sweeping changes on
its signatories in the area of services, which includes the cross-border
movement of so-called “natural persons” (i.e. “Mode 4” service supply). Unlike
most previous FTAs, which largely ignore labour mobility, the free movement of
workers is a central concern in these negotiations. Some participants, such as
Turkey, are demanding “highly improved” commitments in this area. 54 As in the
TPP, Canada and the United States are resisting greater commitments that
would permit LMIA-exempt access to the domestic labour market for low-skill,
low-wage workers from other countries. Nevertheless, TISA has the potential to
go well beyond any previous Canadian FTA—including not just NAFTA but also
CETA—in terms of its labour mobility commitments. This agreement deserves
very close attention as the negotiations progress. No timeline has been set for
completion, but negotiators report substantial progress to date.
Canada is also negotiating a number of bilateral free trade agreements with a
variety of new partners, including the Dominican Republic, India, Japan, and
Singapore. We are in the process of “modernizing” (i.e. renegotiating) existing
agreements with Israel and Costa Rica. Furthermore, so-called “exploratory
discussions” are ongoing with Turkey, Thailand, and others. Each of these
agreements is likely to contain labour mobility provisions in line with Canada’s
existing FTAs. The individual impact of each of these deals on the Canadian
labour market will likely be minor. Taken together, they pose a very real
challenge for domestic workers, especially if they diverge from or expand on the
NAFTA model, as CETA does. Once again, vigilance is required moving forward.
54
Scott Sinclair and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, TISA versus Public Services: The Trade in
Services Agreement and the Corporate Agenda (Public Services International, April 28, 2014),
17.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
32
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations
Canada’s current labour mobility regime is complicated and largely
directionless. The patchwork of programs and agreements that facilitate the
movement of workers between provinces and into Canada are oriented more
toward short-term political goals than long-term social solidarity and economic
prosperity. The system does not have a clear purpose and its problematic side
effects, whether intended or otherwise, are significant. Canadians are
justifiably dissatisfied with the status quo; demands for reform are increasingly
heard from across the political spectrum. Fortunately, there are a number of
tangible steps that Canadian governments can take which will better support
workers through these programs in addition to strengthening the Canadian
labour market.
At the national level, the best course of action is relatively straightforward:
Canadian workers should face fewer barriers to finding work within Canada.
Unregulated workers are already mostly mobile, but many higher-skilled,
regulated workers are not. Moving beyond mutual recognition towards mutual
standardization of all regulated workers in all provinces is a necessary step in
the next round of AIT negotiations. To be clear, the objective must be to
harmonize standards upward—and not downward to the lowest common
denominator. Crucially, mobility rights must be extended beyond alreadycertified workers to include apprentices and trainees. Young workers in
training are perhaps the biggest victims of the current interprovincial mobility
regime. At a minimum, apprentices in all fields should be free to cross
provincial borders to complete their on-the-job training hours.
When it comes to skills development, employers need to play a much bigger
role. They should be encouraged to invest more in workplace training and
employee development. Employer investment in training has fallen 40% over
the past few decades,55 and only 19% of skilled trades employers train new
apprentices.56 If employers are serious about skills shortages, they will be
proactive in training the next generation of skilled workers. The responsibility
55
Carrie Lavis, Learning and Development Outlook 2011: Are Organizations Ready for
Learning 2.0? (The Conference Board of Canada, 2011), 15.
56
23.
Employers and Apprenticeship in Canada (Canadian Apprenticeship Forum, June 2011),
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
33
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
for funding cannot fall exclusively, or even primarily, on governments. If
employers are unwilling to shoulder more of the burden of training voluntarily,
they should be mandated to do so. Cost is hardly an excuse; thanks to decades
of corporate tax cuts, Canadian corporations are now sitting on more than
$600 billion—or as much cash as the entire national debt. 57
Furthermore, Canadian employers complaining about labour shortages should
be encouraged to increase spending on the recruitment and training of new
workers from within Canada. As long as unemployment in Canada remains
high, employers should not have the option of looking abroad for cheap labour.
Instead, they should raise wages to attract available domestic workers. If
unemployed Canadians are unwilling to serve coffee, clean hotels, or process
lobster for minimum wage, employers need to improve pay or conditions until
these positions are filled. Eliminating the low-skill stream of the TFWP entirely,
rather than simply restricting it as Minister Kenney has done, will force
employers to offer appropriate wages for less desirable work.
Reducing barriers and encouraging skills development will improve
interprovincial labour mobility, which will benefit Canadian workers,
employers, and the economy on the whole. However, we must remain sensitive
to the social dislocations that accompany greater mobility. In areas with high
unemployment in particular, greater social spending is necessary to smooth
over labour market adjustments. The Federal Government has scaled back
Employment Insurance, but a more generous and accessible EI program is
precisely what is needed to support worker training and ease the re-entry of
unemployed Canadians into the labour market.58
Internationally, the problems are more complex and governments have less
latitude in decision making. Yet, reforms are both possible and necessary.
Rather than create meaningful economic opportunities for hard-working
Canadians, the federal government has facilitated the temporary entry of
57
David Macdonald, “The truth behind corporate tax cuts (in one chart),” Behind the
Numbers, August 19, 2014, http://behindthenumbers.ca/2014/08/19/the-truth-behindcorporate-tax-cuts-in-one-chart.
58
For more on this issue, see “Unemployment Insurance,” Canadian Labour Congress,
http://www.canadianlabour.ca/issues/unemployment-insurance.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
34
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
hundreds of thousands of precarious migrant workers into Canada even as
unemployment remains uncomfortably high. Job-seeking Canadians are left in
the lurch by unfair competition and a lack of social support, while the migrant
workers themselves are easy targets for abuse from unscrupulous employers.
Not only do migrant workers lack economic rights, but they are also socially
devalued by a system that makes pathways to permanent residency largely
inaccessible. Canada’s current international labour mobility regime does not
work for workers and it simply does not work for Canada.
Despite welcome reforms, recent changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker
Program do not address its fundamental flaws. The program is ultimately a
short-term, ad hoc solution to a long-term, structural problem. If Canada does
indeed face significant labour shortages across the skills spectrum, and if
those needs cannot be met in full through increased investment in the
domestic workforce, then we need to expand pathways for economic
immigration and permanent residency. Simply put, migrant workers who are
good enough to work in Canada are good enough to live here. We can, and
should, meet our long-term labour market challenges in a manner consistent
with Canada’s historical commitment to immigration. That means a return to a
robust immigration regime that increases annual immigration numbers, while
at the same time transitioning toward the elimination of the low skill/wage
category of the TFWP entirely—excluding the Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Program and the Live-In Caregiver Program, for which there are genuine needs
and significant efforts are being made by unions and others to ensure these
workers have labour rights and access to permanent residency.
The TFWP is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to international labour
mobility. Policymakers must also pay more attention to Canada’s International
Mobility Programs, which facilitate the entry of an even greater number of
migrant workers into Canada. All of the workers entering through the IMP do
so without a Labour Market Impact Assessment, so there are few restrictions
on where and in which occupations they can work. Consequently, the spouses,
students, youth workers, intra-company transferees, and other workers
entering Canada through these programs may have a labour market impact as
great or even greater than those entering through the TFWP.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
35
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Unfortunately, specific policy recommendations are not possible without a
better understanding of the IMP’s labour market impact. Are Croatian
exchange students edging out unemployed Canadian youths for work
opportunities? Are the highly-skilled spouses of Colombian professionals
replacing unemployed Canadian accountants? At this point, we simply don’t
know. A prerequisite for improved policy is improved data collection.
Employment and Social Development Canada, which grants LMIA-exempt work
permits, has recently imposed fees on open work permit applications which it
claims will enable better data collection in this area. For this data to be useful,
it must tell us where and in which occupations migrant workers are employed,
as well as the specific pathways they take to enter the labour market.
Furthermore, if ESDC is really serious about making the IMP accountable to
Canadians, a complete and transparent independent review of these programs
is necessary. Internal reviews and reforms don’t go far enough.
Finally, in all aspects of this labour mobility regime, whether nationally or
internationally, workers need to have a greater say in the direction of policy.
Too often governments consult with employers when crafting labour policy
while ignoring the labour movement. Unions and other civil society
organizations need to have a seat at the table to ensure Canada’s labour
mobility regime serves workers as well as employers. This is especially the case
in international trade agreement negotiations, which are increasingly
conducted in secret. A lack of transparency is unacceptable when workers’
rights are on the line.
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
36
Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Summary of Key Recommendations
1. To reduce barriers to interprovincial mobility: encourage harmonization
of occupational standards for all regulated occupations; including
apprentices, through reform of the Agreement on Internal Trade with the
objective of harmonizing standards to the highest level.
2. To address skills shortages: encourage or mandate employers in Canada
to invest more in workplace training and skills development.
3. To address labour shortages: encourage employers to raise wages to
attract available Canadian workers instead of looking abroad for lowwage replacements.
4. To ease labour market adjustments: increase investment in and
accessibility of Employment Insurance.
5. To address long-term labour market needs that cannot be solved with
investment in the Canadian workforce: expand our immigration regime
and pathways to permanent residency while phasing out the low
skill/wage pathways for temporary migrant workers—excluding the
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the Live-In Caregiver
Program.
6. To facilitate more informed labour mobility policy: drastically increase
data collection and analysis for all streams of Canada’s labour mobility
regime, including an independent review of the domestic labour market
impact of the International Mobility Programs.
HMK:sd:COPE225
Canadian Labour Congress
www.canadianlabour.ca ● October 2014
37