IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-NLVM63
IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-P5JSM4P
1887
* ABOUT
* CONTACT US
* ALERTS
* HELP
*
*
*
*
OECD instance
* My Favorites
* Login
(BUTTON)
/content/igo/oecd ____________________ (BUTTON)
Advanced Search
(BUTTON) EN
* FR
* JA
* Browse by Theme
+ Agriculture and Food
+ Development
+ Economics
+ Education
+ Employment
+ Energy
+ Environment
+ Finance and Investment
+ Governance
+ Industry and Services
+ Nuclear Energy
+ Science and Technology
+ Social Issues/Migration/Health
+ Taxation
+ Trade
+ Transport
+ Urban, Rural and Regional Development
* Browse by Country
+ A C
+ D I
+ J M
+ N R
+ S T
+ U Z
+ Afghanistan
+ Albania
+ Algeria
+ American Samoa
+ Andorra
+ Angola
+ Anguilla
+ Antigua and Barbuda
+ Argentina
+ Armenia
+ Aruba
+ Australia
+ Austria
+ Azerbaijan
+ Bahamas
+ Bahrain
+ Baltic States
+ Bangladesh
+ Barbados
+ Belarus
+ Belgium
+ Belize
+ Benin
+ Bermuda
+ Bhutan
+ Bolivia
+ Bosnia and Herzegovina
+ Botswana
+ Brazil
+ British Indian Ocean Territory
+ Brunei Darussalam
+ Bulgaria
+ Burkina Faso
+ Burundi
+ Cambodia
+ Cameroon
+ Canada
+ Cape Verde
+ Cayman Islands
+ Central African Republic
+ Chad
+ Chile
+ China, People’s Republic
+ Chinese Taipei
+ Colombia
+ Comoros
+ Congo, the Democratic Republic of the
+ Congo
+ Cook Islands
+ Costa Rica
+ Cote dʼIvoire
+ Croatia
+ Cuba
+ Cyprus
+ Czech Republic
+ Denmark
+ Djibouti
+ Dominica
+ Dominican Republic
+ Ecuador
+ Egypt
+ El Salvador
+ Equatorial Guinea
+ Eritrea
+ Estonia
+ Eswatini
+ Ethiopia
+ Euro Area
+ European Union
+ Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
+ Faroe Islands
+ Fiji
+ Finland
+ France
+ French Guiana
+ French Polynesia
+ Gabon
+ Gambia
+ Georgia
+ Germany
+ Ghana
+ Gibraltar
+ Greece
+ Greenland
+ Grenada
+ Guam
+ Guatemala
+ Guernsey
+ Guinea-Bissau
+ Guinea
+ Guyana
+ Haiti
+ Holy See (Vatican City State)
+ Honduras
+ Hong Kong, China
+ Hungary
+ Iceland
+ India
+ Indonesia
+ Iran, Islamic Republic of
+ Iraq
+ Ireland
+ Isle of Man
+ Israel
+ Italy
+ Jamaica
+ Japan
+ Jersey
+ Jordan
+ Kazakhstan
+ Kenya
+ Kiribati
+ Korea, Democratic Peopleʼs Republic of
+ Korea, Republic of
+ Kosovo
+ Kuwait
+ Kyrgyzstan
+ Lao Peopleʼs Democratic Republic
+ Latvia
+ Lebanon
+ Lesotho
+ Liberia
+ Libya
+ Liechtenstein
+ Lithuania
+ Luxembourg
+ Macau, China
+ Madagascar
+ Malawi
+ Malaysia
+ Maldives
+ Mali
+ Malta
+ Marshall Islands
+ Mauritania
+ Mauritius
+ Mayotte
+ Mexico
+ Micronesia, Federated States of
+ Moldova, Republic of
+ Monaco
+ Mongolia
+ Montenegro
+ Montserrat
+ Morocco
+ Mozambique
+ Myanmar
+ Namibia
+ Nauru
+ Nepal
+ Netherlands Antilles
+ Netherlands
+ New Caledonia
+ New Zealand
+ Nicaragua
+ Niger
+ Nigeria
+ Niue
+ Norfolk Island
+ North Macedonia
+ Northern Mariana Islands
+ Norway
+ Oman
+ Pakistan
+ Palau
+ Palestinian Authority
+ Panama
+ Papua New Guinea
+ Paraguay
+ Peru
+ Philippines
+ Pitcairn
+ Poland
+ Portugal
+ Puerto Rico
+ Qatar
+ Romania
+ Russian Federation
+ Rwanda
+ Saint Helena
+ Saint Kitts and Nevis
+ Saint Lucia
+ Saint Pierre and Miquelon
+ Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
+ Samoa
+ San Marino
+ Sao Tome and Principe
+ Saudi Arabia
+ Senegal
+ Serbia
+ Seychelles
+ Sierra Leone
+ Singapore
+ Slovak Republic
+ Slovenia
+ Solomon Islands
+ Somalia
+ South Africa
+ South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
+ South Sudan
+ Spain
+ Sri Lanka
+ Sudan
+ Suriname
+ Svalbard and Jan Mayen
+ Sweden
+ Switzerland
+ Syrian Arab Republic
+ Tajikistan
+ Tanzania, United Republic of
+ Thailand
+ Timor-Leste
+ Togo
+ Tokelau
+ Tonga
+ Trinidad and Tobago
+ Tunisia
+ Turkey
+ Turkmenistan
+ Turks and Caicos Islands
+ Tuvalu
+ Uganda
+ Ukraine
+ United Arab Emirates
+ United Kingdom
+ United States Minor Outlying Islands
+ United States
+ Uruguay
+ Uzbekistan
+ Vanuatu
+ Venezuela
+ Viet Nam
+ Virgin Islands, British
+ Virgin Islands, U.S.
+ Wallis and Futuna
+ Western Sahara
+ Yemen
+ Zambia
+ Zimbabwe
* Browse by Theme and Country
Select one or more items in both lists to browse for the relevant
content
Theme
Select/clear all
Country
Select/clear all
[ ] Agriculture and Food [ ] Development [ ] Economics [ ]
Education [ ] Employment [ ] Energy [ ] Environment [ ] Finance and
Investment [ ] Governance [ ] Industry and Services [ ] Nuclear
Energy [ ] Science and Technology [ ] Social
Issues/Migration/Health [ ] Taxation [ ] Trade [ ] Transport [ ]
Urban, Rural and Regional Development
[ ] Afghanistan [ ] Albania [ ] Algeria [ ] American Samoa [ ]
Andorra [ ] Angola [ ] Anguilla [ ] Antigua and Barbuda [ ]
Argentina [ ] Armenia [ ] Aruba [ ] Australia [ ] Austria [ ]
Azerbaijan [ ] Bahamas [ ] Bahrain [ ] Baltic States [ ] Bangladesh
[ ] Barbados [ ] Belarus [ ] Belgium [ ] Belize [ ] Benin [ ]
Bermuda [ ] Bhutan [ ] Bolivia [ ] Bosnia and Herzegovina [ ]
Botswana [ ] Brazil [ ] British Indian Ocean Territory [ ] Brunei
Darussalam [ ] Bulgaria [ ] Burkina Faso [ ] Burundi [ ] Cambodia
[ ] Cameroon [ ] Canada [ ] Cape Verde [ ] Cayman Islands [ ]
Central African Republic [ ] Chad [ ] Chile [ ] China, People’s
Republic [ ] Chinese Taipei [ ] Colombia [ ] Comoros [ ] Congo, the
Democratic Republic of the [ ] Congo [ ] Cook Islands [ ] Costa
Rica [ ] Cote dʼIvoire [ ] Croatia [ ] Cuba [ ] Cyprus [ ] Czech
Republic [ ] Denmark [ ] Djibouti [ ] Dominica [ ] Dominican
Republic [ ] Ecuador [ ] Egypt [ ] El Salvador [ ] Equatorial
Guinea [ ] Eritrea [ ] Estonia [ ] Eswatini [ ] Ethiopia [ ] Euro
Area [ ] European Union [ ] Falkland Islands (Malvinas) [ ] Faroe
Islands [ ] Fiji [ ] Finland [ ] France [ ] French Guiana [ ]
French Polynesia [ ] Gabon [ ] Gambia [ ] Georgia [ ] Germany [ ]
Ghana [ ] Gibraltar [ ] Greece [ ] Greenland [ ] Grenada [ ] Guam
[ ] Guatemala [ ] Guernsey [ ] Guinea-Bissau [ ] Guinea [ ] Guyana
[ ] Haiti [ ] Holy See (Vatican City State) [ ] Honduras [ ] Hong
Kong, China [ ] Hungary [ ] Iceland [ ] India [ ] Indonesia [ ]
Iran, Islamic Republic of [ ] Iraq [ ] Ireland [ ] Isle of Man [ ]
Israel [ ] Italy [ ] Jamaica [ ] Japan [ ] Jersey [ ] Jordan [ ]
Kazakhstan [ ] Kenya [ ] Kiribati [ ] Korea, Democratic Peopleʼs
Republic of [ ] Korea, Republic of [ ] Kosovo [ ] Kuwait [ ]
Kyrgyzstan [ ] Lao Peopleʼs Democratic Republic [ ] Latvia [ ]
Lebanon [ ] Lesotho [ ] Liberia [ ] Libya [ ] Liechtenstein [ ]
Lithuania [ ] Luxembourg [ ] Macau, China [ ] Madagascar [ ] Malawi
[ ] Malaysia [ ] Maldives [ ] Mali [ ] Malta [ ] Marshall Islands
[ ] Mauritania [ ] Mauritius [ ] Mayotte [ ] Mexico [ ] Micronesia,
Federated States of [ ] Moldova, Republic of [ ] Monaco [ ]
Mongolia [ ] Montenegro [ ] Montserrat [ ] Morocco [ ] Mozambique
[ ] Myanmar [ ] Namibia [ ] Nauru [ ] Nepal [ ] Netherlands
Antilles [ ] Netherlands [ ] New Caledonia [ ] New Zealand [ ]
Nicaragua [ ] Niger [ ] Nigeria [ ] Niue [ ] Norfolk Island [ ]
North Macedonia [ ] Northern Mariana Islands [ ] Norway [ ] Oman
[ ] Pakistan [ ] Palau [ ] Palestinian Authority [ ] Panama [ ]
Papua New Guinea [ ] Paraguay [ ] Peru [ ] Philippines [ ] Pitcairn
[ ] Poland [ ] Portugal [ ] Puerto Rico [ ] Qatar [ ] Romania [ ]
Russian Federation [ ] Rwanda [ ] Saint Helena [ ] Saint Kitts and
Nevis [ ] Saint Lucia [ ] Saint Pierre and Miquelon [ ] Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [ ] Samoa [ ] San Marino [ ] Sao Tome
and Principe [ ] Saudi Arabia [ ] Senegal [ ] Serbia [ ] Seychelles
[ ] Sierra Leone [ ] Singapore [ ] Slovak Republic [ ] Slovenia [ ]
Solomon Islands [ ] Somalia [ ] South Africa [ ] South Georgia and
the South Sandwich Islands [ ] South Sudan [ ] Spain [ ] Sri Lanka
[ ] Sudan [ ] Suriname [ ] Svalbard and Jan Mayen [ ] Sweden [ ]
Switzerland [ ] Syrian Arab Republic [ ] Tajikistan [ ] Tanzania,
United Republic of [ ] Thailand [ ] Timor-Leste [ ] Togo [ ]
Tokelau [ ] Tonga [ ] Trinidad and Tobago [ ] Tunisia [ ] Turkey
[ ] Turkmenistan [ ] Turks and Caicos Islands [ ] Tuvalu [ ] Uganda
[ ] Ukraine [ ] United Arab Emirates [ ] United Kingdom [ ] United
States Minor Outlying Islands [ ] United States [ ] Uruguay [ ]
Uzbekistan [ ] Vanuatu [ ] Venezuela [ ] Viet Nam [ ] Virgin
Islands, British [ ] Virgin Islands, U.S. [ ] Wallis and Futuna [ ]
Western Sahara [ ] Yemen [ ] Zambia [ ] Zimbabwe
Browse the selected
Themes and / or countries
Submit
0
Theme selected
0
Country selected
* Catalogue
+ Books
+ Papers
+ Statistics
+ Glossaries
+ Coronavirus (COVID-19)
* Statistics
*
*
*
* ABOUT
* CONTACT US
* ALERTS
* HELP
*
+
+
+
* AA
+ A+
+ A-
*
Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Canada
2019: Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Canada 2019
Back to iLibrary publication page
Key concepts
Show all
work permit
labour migration
foreign workers
employers
international students
labour market test
workers
occupations
migrants
labour market
immigrants
caregivers
temporary workers
Canadians
Countries covered
New Zealand
Australia
Korea, Republic of
United States
Canada
China, People’s Republic
San Marino
Show all
Chapter 3. Temporary labour migration
This chapter describes and analyses the two streams via which temporary
labour migrants come to Canada: the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW)
Program and the International Mobility Program (IMP). It also looks at
a specific sub-group of temporary immigrants — international students —
who since 2014 enjoy extended working rights. The chapter outlines how
the labour-market-tested TFW Program, has become rather tightly managed
and has continuously declined in overall numbers while the IMP has
grown substantially. It also discusses some specific elements of the
system, such as the policies for caregivers and, more generally, the
role of two-step (temporary to permanent) migration in international
comparison.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the
responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such
data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan
Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under
the terms of international law.
A key objective of temporary labour migration is to fill labour
shortages that are often concentrated in certain sectors and regions
and – as the name suggests – temporary in nature. In Canada, there are
not only temporary labour migrants who are admitted for such purposes,
but also a wide range of temporary migrants with working rights (such
as researchers) coming under multiple programmes for varying durations
and purposes.
While in principle, a labour market test is required for temporary
labour migrants to ensure that Canadian or permanent residents are not
available to fill an open position, numerous exemptions apply. In
particular, about three in four temporary migrants to Canada with
working rights are admitted because their presence provides broader
economic, cultural or other competitive advantages for Canada, or
because Canadians/permanent residents enjoy the same benefits in their
country of origin. The admissions of these migrants is not linked to
labour market needs – and thereby not labour-market-tested. Of these,
about two-thirds receive open work permits, and information on their
activities is scarce. As a result, a large and growing number of
individuals in Canada have open work permits over which very little
oversight and hence analysis is currently possible. At the same time,
procedures for labour market tested programmes have become complex and
are now tightly regulated, leading to an overall decline in new inflows
under these streams.
Canada traditionally had clearly separated pathways for temporary and
permanent labour migration. This is gradually changing, and onshore
transitions are increasingly common. In most low-skilled occupations
however, transitions are still rare, as these migrants can essentially
only pass through provincial nominations. Other programmes, such as
those in the caregiving sector, have a longstanding dual intent with a
built-in transition to permanent residence, subject to a number of
requirements.
Though not generally viewed as temporary labour migrants, a key group
to consider in this context are international students. Their working
rights during study have greatly expanded in recent years, and Canada
also provides them with comparably favourable options to stay and work
after graduation. International students are also a key source of
future permanent labour migrants, benefitting from a selection system
that values Canadian credentials and experience.
Overview of temporary labour migrant groups
In 2017, according to standardised OECD data, around 214 000 temporary
labour migrants entered Canada for work purposes, a number that has
strongly increased in recent years (+50% 2015/2017). However, compared
with peer systems in Australia and New Zealand, Canada still receives
relatively few temporary workers for work purposes, around 1.1% of its
labour force (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Annual inflow of temporary labour migrants, 2017
Figure 3.1. Annual inflow of temporary labour migrants, 2017
Note: Data excludes renewals and temporary migration under mobility
agreements, such as posted workers (intra-EU/EFTA).
Source: OECD Migration Database 2018
(https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIG) and OECD Labour
Force Database 2018
(https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ALFS_SUMTAB).
A large number of programmes for temporary work purposes co-exist,
including bilateral programmes with countries and regions. Some
programmes target specific occupations or seasonal employment, and
others, such as those for caregivers, have established explicit links
with the permanent migration system, initiating a two-step – temporary
to permanent – migration. As mentioned in Chapter 1, following concerns
of abuse of the previous temporary foreign worker programme, changes to
the temporary migration system took place in 2014, establishing two
distinct programmes (ESDC, 2014[1]).
The first is the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program, through which
employers can hire foreign workers to fill labour and skill shortages
where qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available. A
labour market test – a so-called Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)
by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) – verifies the
genuine need for a temporary foreign worker by checking that the
employer has first tried to recruit among Canadians and permanent
residents. The employer applies for the authorisation to hire under the
TFW Program to ESDC. Once the employer has received a positive LMIA,
the foreign worker can apply with the positive LMIA for a work permit
to IRCC, under the TFW Program.
This process differs if the temporary worker, under the TFW Program,
intends to work in Quebec. In that case, employers must obtain approval
from both ESDC and the Quebec government by submitting an application
for an LMIA to both ESDC and the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la
Diversité et de l’Inclusion (MIDI). In addition, employers need to
submit an application to MIDI for a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec
(CAQ) for temporary work in Quebec. ESDC and MIDI jointly analyse the
LMIA according to respective regulatory criteria. MIDI assesses wages,
working conditions and whether the employment of the foreign worker is
likely to adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in
progress or the employment of any person involved in the dispute. ESDC
assesses recruitment efforts, the authenticity of the job offer and the
labour market need.1 Subsequently, the TFW must submit their work
permit application to IRCC and attach a copy of the joint positive LMIA
decision, as well as the approved CAQ.
The second umbrella programme, the International Mobility Program
(IMP), includes LMIA-exempt work permits as well as work permit
exemptions. Exemptions from the labour market test are provided when
there are broader economic, cultural or other competitive advantages
for Canada or when Canadians and permanent residents enjoy reciprocal
benefits in other countries such as in the case of international
exchanges or provisions under trade agreements. In addition, exemptions
from the LMIA exist for a number of specific groups, including refugee
claimants, certain permanent residence applicants in Canada and their
family members and for humanitarian reasons. Several professions and
individuals are allowed to work in Canada without a work permit. This
includes international full-time students with a valid study permit,
who can work part-time during the academic season and full-time during
academic break both on and off campus based on their valid study permit
if the permit states this condition, business visitors and short-term
highly skilled workers and researchers, foreign representatives,
foreign military members as well as some specific professions.2 ESDC is
responsible for the TFW Program while Immigration, Refugees and
Citizenship Canada (IRCC) administers the IMP.
Temporary work permits in Canada can be either open or
employer-specific. Open work permits are in most cases unrestricted3,
meaning they are neither employer- nor occupation-bound and allow their
holder to work throughout Canada and for any employer. Open work
permits do not require an LMIA from ESDC and employers do not need to
submit an offer of employment via the Employer Portal, nor pay the full
employer compliance fee (see next section). Individuals who receive an
open work permit come from a diverse group of foreign nationals who
require such permits for many different reasons. As they do not need an
LMIA, open work permit holders are part of the IMP, although not all
individuals who are part of the IMP are eligible for an open work
permit. The largest groups with such a permit are spouses of economic
immigrants and international students, former international students
holding a post-graduation work permit, and participants in the working
holiday programme, one of three categories under the International
Experience Canada (IEC), the bilateral reciprocal Youth Mobility
Agreements (YMA) Canada has negotiated with partner countries.
Furthermore, open work permits are also granted to other groups under
the IMP, such as, for example, asylum seekers and applicants for
permanent residence from within Canada.
While open work permits state solely the duration of the permit, an
employer-specific permit additionally states the name of the employer
and, where applicable, the location. A temporary foreign worker who
holds such a permit can only work for the employer, length of time and,
where applicable, the place specified on the permit. Individuals
working under the TFW Program generally hold employer-specific work
permits. Hence, they need to obtain a new work permit if they wish to
change employer. Workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Program (SAWP) – one sub-stream of the Primary Agriculture stream – are
an exception to the rule. Although these workers are part of the TFW
Program, they do not need a new work permit to change employers, as
long as the new employer has a valid LMIA to hire the foreign worker
under the SAWP.4 Figure 3.2 provides an overview of temporary labour
migration.
Figure 3.2. Overview of temporary labour migration
Figure 3.2. Overview of temporary labour migration
Note: Under the TFW Program, many employers are exempted from paying
the CAD 1 000 fee; for example, positions under the TFW Program's
Agriculture Stream.
*If the applicant is exempt from the requirement to pay the work permit
processing fee, he/she will be exempt from the requirement to pay the
open work permit holder fee. If the applicant is exempt from the
requirement to pay the work permit processing fee, the employer will be
exempt from the requirement to pay the open work permit holder fee.
Source: OECD Secretariat with data from IRCC.
Over the last 20 years, there has been a strong increase in temporary
work permits. Numbers tripled from around 110 000 permits in 1998 to
close to 340 000 in 2018 – a number equivalent to about 1% of the
Canadian population.5 In particular, the number of temporary migrants
under the IMP reached unprecedented levels. They accounted for
three-quarters of work permits issued to temporary labour migrants in
2018 (Figure 3.3). When considering only initial work permits for work
purposes in 2018, over 82% were issued under the IMP and only 18% under
the TFW Program, as most permits under the latter are renewals –
especially for returning agricultural workers.
Figure 3.3. Work permit holders by year in which permit(s) became
effective and programme (%), 1998-2018
Total numbers (left) and share by programme (right)
Figure 3.3. Work permit holders by year in which permit(s) became
effective and programme (%), 1998-2018
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
In absolute numbers, most work permit holders concentrate in Ontario,
followed by British Columbia and Quebec. This is irrespective of the
programme (TFW Program/IMP) though, importantly, for a fifth of IMP
work permits issued, the intended location (province/territory) of work
is not recorded. Relative to the population however, foreign work
permit holders are often found in Prince Edward Island,
British Columbia and Yukon, where they account for more than 1% of the
population.
As noted, an increasing number of international students adds to
Canada’s labour force. In 2018, Canada issued close to 185 000 initial
study permits6, a close to three-fold increase over ten years. However,
the total number of study permits cannot simply be added to those
temporary labour migrant with work permits, and this for several
reasons. First, there are possible overlaps,7 second, not all study
permit holders benefit from these provisions8 and, thirdly, not all
international students take advantage of the working opportunities
provided by their permit.
In the following paragraphs, the three groups – temporary workers under
the TFW Program, the IMP and international students – are each
discussed in more detail.
Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program
Recent reforms to the labour-market-tested programme reduced the number of
permits issued
The TFW Program itself has undergone several significant reforms in
recent years.9 These were motivated by concerns to streamline the
programme, thereby rendering it a last and limited resort to fill acute
labour shortages and to address integrity issues, as well as concerns
about the treatment of some temporary foreign workers (Nakache and
Kinoshita, 2010[2]; HUMA, 2016[3]; CIC, 2012[4]).
As a result, Canada introduced stricter provisions for testing labour
needs and labour market impact. The current Labour Market Impact
Assessment (LMIA) requires employers to provide extensive information,
such as the number of Canadians and permanent resident workers who
applied and interviewed for a position, and reasons why interviewed
candidates were not hired. A fee of CAD 275 for the LMIA was introduced
in 2013 and raised to CAD 1 000 in June 2014.
A crucial change with the overhaul of the programme in 2014 was that
all streams in the TFW Program – apart from the Primary Agriculture
stream and the, since terminated, Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) –
were reorganised. They are now based on wage levels rather than on
occupational groups and skill levels. If an employer is offering a wage
that is at or above the provincial/territorial median hourly wage, it
is considered a “high-wage” position, and if the offered wage is below
the median hourly wage, it is considered a “low-wage” position. Job
Bank (see below) lists the current median hourly wage by
province/territory and shows the varying wage levels across the country
(Table 3.1) The process of obtaining an LMIA differs depending on
whether the position is classified as “high-wage” or “low-wage”.
Table 3.1. Median hourly wages in CAD by province or territory
Province/Territory
2018 wage (CAD / hour)
Alberta
26.67
British Columbia
23.98
Manitoba
21.00
New Brunswick
20.00
Newfoundland and Labrador
22.00
Northwest Territories
34.00
Nova Scotia
20.00
Nunavut
30.00
Ontario
23.08
Prince Edward Island
19.49
Quebec
22.00
Saskatchewan
24.52
Yukon
30.00
Source: IRCC online data based on Statistics Canada, Labour Force
Survey, 2018.
For both wage streams, the employer needs to provide details about the
job offer, such as job responsibilities, location, working hours, pay
and benefits. As part of the LMIA, labour market impacts of the
employment of the foreign temporary worker are also assessed. For
“low-wage” positions, a cap applies to limit the number of low-wage
TFWs hired by the same employer at a particular location to a maximum
of 10% of the total staff or 20% for employers who employed temporary
foreign workers in the six weeks prior to June 20, 2014, though there
are some exemptions.10 In addition, employers cannot hire TFWs in
certain low wage occupations11 requiring little or no education, in the
accommodation and food services sectors, or in the retail trade
industries, when the unemployment rate in the economic region in
question is 6% or higher. “High-wage” positions are not capped, but
require a transition plan, outlining steps employers will take to
transition to a domestic workforce.
Further changes in 2014 for obtaining an LMIA stipulated that employers
must advertise vacancies for four consecutive weeks – instead of two
previously. One channel for doing so is Canada’s national online
platform “Job Bank”, which connects job seekers with job openings. It
also provides a wide range of labour market information, including the
median wage of an occupation by province or territory. As of August
2017, employers (with some exceptions) seeking access to the
“high-wage” and “low-wage” streams of the TFW Program are required to
advertise on Canada’s Job Bank and subscribe to the Job Match alert
service for at least four consecutive weeks as part of their
advertising requirements. Employers also have to demonstrate their
efforts to recruit Canadian/permanent residents (see below). The
required duration of advertisement is at the high end of the scale
compared to other OECD countries (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4. Duration of the advertising period in the labour market
test for temporary labour migration permits, in days, 2018
Figure 3.4. Duration of the advertising period in the labour market
test for temporary labour migration permits, in days, 2018
Source: OECD Secretariat.
“Job Match” – a feature of Job Bank – allows employers to see the
profiles of registered Canadian job seekers who correspond to the
skills profile outlined in their job postings. Jobseekers who provide
an email address in their online application for employment insurance
are automatically sent an email to subscribe to Job Match alerts.
Depending on how well they match the employment offer, job seekers
receive a one out of five star rating on Job Bank. Employers are
required to invite all job seekers matched within four consecutive
weeks of the job advertisement to apply for the position if they are
rated four stars or more under a “high-wage” scenario, or two stars or
more under a “low-wage” scenario.
An enhanced policy on recruitment processes was put in place in August
2017 to further ensure that Canadian citizens and permanent residents
are considered first and foremost for available jobs. Employers seeking
to hire temporary foreign workers in “low-wage” occupations (with some
exceptions) must now demonstrate that they have made efforts to recruit
from two or more underrepresented groups that face barriers to
employment (i.e., Indigenous people, vulnerable youth, persons with
disabilities, and newcomers) before they can apply to the “low-wage”
stream. Previously, employers were required to demonstrate efforts to
recruit from a single underrepresented group.
Temporary foreign workers under the TFW Program today can be grouped
into the “high-wage” positions Stream, the “low-wage” positions Stream,
the Global Talent Stream and the Primary Agriculture Stream
(Figure 3.2). The Primary Agriculture stream is currently divided into
four sub-streams: The Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), the
Agricultural sub-stream, the High-Wage sub-stream, and the Low-Wage
sub-stream. The primary agriculture stream’s High- and Low-Wage
sub-streams are not to be confused with the “high-” and “low-wage”
under the broader TFW Program. The seasonal SAWP, where the temporary
foreign worker is a national of Mexico or participating Caribbean
countries, is by far the largest programme accounting for about
three-quarters of permits issued over the last decade. However, in
2018, initial permits – those not issued to returning workers – under
the other streams accounted for around two-thirds of permits issued.
This suggests that while the absolute new intake of the SAWP increased
modestly, the growth of the agricultural programmes between 2015-18 was
driven by a larger intake under these other seasonal and non-seasonal
programmes (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. Streams of agricultural workers under the TFW Program
Figure 3.5. Streams of agricultural workers under the TFW Program
Note: The primary agriculture stream’s High- and Low-wage Streams are
not to be confused with the “high-” and “low-wage” under the broader
TFW Program.
Source: ESDC (2019[5]).
Since the termination of the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) in 2014,
newly arriving immigrants working in caregiving occupations are part of
the regular “high-” or “low-wage” streams. Overall, with the
2014 restructuring of the TFW Program, the number of work permits
issued decreased significantly although there was a slight rise in
2018, driven by increases in the agricultural stream (Figure 3.6).
Work permits can be valid for differing durations. Participants under
the SAWP – about two-thirds of all agricultural workers in 2018 – have
to leave Canada by the 15^th of December each year and can only return
the following year. The duration of a work permit for “low-wage”
workers outside of caregiving occupations12 has been set at a maximum
of one year. This makes – where applicable – an annual renewal
necessary. For “high-wage” workers, the duration is a maximum of two
years. At the same time, since December 2016, temporary foreign workers
can remain and work in Canada as long as they have a valid visa/work
permit.13
Figure 3.6. TFW Program permit holders with permit(s) by sign year,
2009-18
Figure 3.6. TFW Program permit holders with permit(s) by sign year,
2009-18
Note: Numbers show individual work permit holders by programme with a
permit signed in the given year. The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP)
ended in 2014 and foreign caregivers under the 2014 caregiver pilots
take part in the regular LMIA tested programmes. Data excludes a small
number of other TFW Program holders.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
The labour market test for “high-wage” positions is cumbersome
As mentioned, for “high-wage” job offers, employers must provide a
“transition plan” in which they specify how they intend on reducing
their dependence on temporary foreign workers and to transition to a
Canadian workforce in the future. This plan comes in addition to
fulfilling many of the same requirements for “low-wage” occupations.
Regarding the transition plan, employers have two options – either to
help the temporary foreign worker to become a permanent resident or to
reduce the need for temporary foreign workers altogether. Regarding the
latter, employers need to provide proof of four distinct activities to
recruit, train or retain Canadians/permanent residents. Such activities
notably include: raising the wages offered, providing on-the-job
training, providing paid leave for education, engaging with headhunting
firms, partnering with unions, providing part-time or flexible working
solutions, and providing financial support to relocate workers. One of
these activities has to engage an organisation serving groups that face
barriers in the labour market. Alternatively, employers can commit in
their transition plan to supporting the temporary worker into becoming
a permanent resident. This can for example entail to offer language
training to support a permanent residence application. If employers are
not able to demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to
fulfil the commitment made in their Transition Plan, their subsequent
LMIA application may receive a negative assessment on this labour
market factor. Table 3.2 provides an overview of the LMIA, by TFW
stream.
Table 3.2. Key assessment criteria by TFW Program streams
High Wage Stream
Low Wage Stream
Primary Agriculture Stream
Global Talent Stream
Assessing the genuineness of the job offer
x
x
x
x
Direct job creation/retention
x
x
x
x
Transfer of skills/knowledge
x
x
x
Filling a genuine labour shortage
x
x
x
x
Employer offers prevailing wage and acceptable working conditions
x
x
x
x
Employer has/will attempt to hire or train Canadians
x
x
x
x
No effects on current labour dispute
x
x
x
x
Transition Plan
x
Labour Market Benefits Plan
x
Verification of cap (maximum 10% of workforce, or 20% for employers
employing TFW six weeks prior to June 20, 2014)
x
Note: Employers can be banned from the TFW Program in the case of
previous non-compliance.
Source: ESDC's Resource Determination Model (RDM).
It is not clear why this cumbersome process of a transition plan is in
place for “high-wage” jobs. Most OECD countries favour rather than
discourage recruitment of high skilled temporary migrants. In addition,
the bulk of temporary high-skilled employees come via the LMIA-exempt
IMP which is discussed below. Under this programme, no labour market
test is required. Imposing a transition plan including a CAD 1 000 fee
for this group of temporary workers clearly incentivises employers to
find ways to switch to the non-labour market tested IMP. Changes in
volumes of the IMP in recent years suggest that this might indeed be
the case.14
The Global Talent Stream facilitates temporary migration for certain
employers and occupations…
Certain temporary labour migrants who require an LMIA benefit from
fast-track processing (ten business days).15 If applicable, their
subsequent visa and work permit application can also benefit from
fast-track (additional 14 calendar days) processing if they apply from
outside Canada and their employer takes part in the Global Talent
Stream (GTS) under Canada’s Global Skills Strategy (Box 3.1), which was
made permanent in Budget 2019. This preferential treatment still
requires a positive LMIA, which under the GTS includes a Labour Market
Benefits Plan (instead of a transition plan required as in the LMIA for
“high-wage” positions).
By using the GTS, employers may apply for an LMIA through two distinct
channels. They can either obtain a referral from a “designated partner”
for hiring specialised talent (Category A) or recruit for specific jobs
from the Global Talent (GT) Occupations List (Category B). Employers do
not need to formally demonstrate prior recruitment efforts of Canadians
and permanent residents, because a shortage has already been determined
in these occupations.
As of February 2019, 37 designated partners had been approved for
referral to Category A and the GT Occupations List included
12 occupations (or a subset thereof), mostly professional occupations
in natural and applied sciences.
Box 3.1. Canada’s Global Skills Strategy
Canada’s Global Skills Strategy (GSS) aims to attract top global talent
to Canada by providing work permit exemptions for high-skilled short
term work, and a dedicated service channel for employers. The goal is
to provide faster and assured access to highly-skilled foreign workers
to fill job vacancies while ensuring that Canadians and permanent
residents have the first opportunity to apply for available jobs. Under
the strategy, two types of workers do not need work permits. The first
group are individuals working in highly-skilled (NOC16 0 and A)
occupations for up to15 days in six months or 30 days in a given year.
The second are researchers at a Canadian publicly funded
degree-granting institution or its affiliated research institution, who
will work for no more than one 120-day period in Canada, once every
12 months.
LMIA-exempt workers qualify for two-week processing of their employer
specific work permit application if they are applying from outside
Canada, if their employment offer is either a managerial or
professional job (classified as 0 or A under the NOC) and their
employer has submitted an offer of employment using the Employer Portal
and paid the CAD 230 employer compliance fee. However, applicants from
the International Experience Canada within the IMP are not eligible for
this accelerated processing and have a separate service standard of
eight weeks processing time.
LMIA-required workers qualify for two-week processing of their work
permit application if they are applying from outside Canada, and have
received a positive LMIA through the GTS. The GTS was launched as a
two-year pilot in June 2017, as part of the GSS, and made permanent in
Budget 2019. It facilitates two-week LMIA processing for companies
seeking unique talent, or seeking to hire foreign nationals in
occupations for which there is a shortage of domestic labour. The
stream is available for two types of Canadian employers:
* Innovative Canadian companies, that are recommended by an ESDC
Designated Partner, and seeking to fill a position(s) which
requires unique and specialised talent in order for the firm to
scale-up and grow (Category A); and
* Companies seeking to hire highly-skilled foreign workers for
occupations found on ESDC’s GT Occupations List because they have
been determined to be in demand and for which there is insufficient
domestic labour supply (Category B). The list is focused on
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) occupations and
updated annually based on labour market information.
While the same regulations apply, the GTS has some unique elements. It
provides eligible employers with client-focused service to assist with
the GTS application process and there are no minimum recruitment
requirements. As part of the application process, an employer using the
GTS is required to develop a company-specific Labour Market Benefits
Plan that outlines their measurable commitments to create lasting
benefits for the Canadian labour market through activities such as job
creation, investment in training and skills for Canadians and permanent
residents, and increased diversity in the workforce. Progress Reviews
of these Labour Market Benefits Plans on an annual cycle help identify
and measure progress on these commitments, and all employers returning
to the Stream will have their existing Plan reviewed and may be
requested to amend or expand existing commitments to make the benefits
commensurate with their usage of the Stream. The GTS requires employers
to pay and at least annually adjust the wage to temporary foreign
workers ensuring equivalent wages to Canadian/permanent resident
employees hired for the same job and work location, and with similar
skills and years of experience. Under both categories, additional
salary thresholds apply. These LMIAs and the subsequent work permit
applications benefit from priority processing17. Spouses and partners
of skilled workers arriving in Canada under this Strategy can get
expedited work permits to further their own careers, ensuring that all
family members are welcomed together.
As of June 2019, more than 1 300 Canadian companies, representing every
province, have used the GTS and since implementation in June 2017 over
23 900 work permit applications were processed under the GSS. In
addition, over 160 employers making job-creating investments in Canada
have also been referred to IRCC’s Dedicated Service Channel, a pillar
of the GSS. In 2018, the majority of permits that became effective were
open employment authorisations followed by computer and information
systems professionals as well as university professors and lecturers.
In 2018, over 80% of new work permits under the GSS were completed
within 19 days, while those highly skilled professionals who did not
benefit from this accelerated processing needed to wait three times as
long (56 days). Work permit extensions for high-skilled level work
permits took longer, close to three months (87 days) to complete 80% of
cases.
Applications for work permit renewal from within Canada are not
eligible for faster processing under the GSS. If a temporary resident
applies for renewal of his/her work permit from within the country and
their permit expires before a decision is made, they benefit from
“implied” status and may continue working under the same conditions as
their work permit, pending a decision being taken on their application
for renewal, as long as they remain in Canada.
…but most work permits remain employer-specific
As noted, temporary work permits in Canada can be either open or
employer-specific. The TFW Program by design is employer-specific. It
is built around a labour market test that requires employers – among
other things – to demonstrate a labour shortage. If a temporary foreign
worker wants to change jobs or employers, they must apply to change the
conditions of their work permit, which in the cases of most TFW Program
streams includes a new job offer letter, employment contract and a new
LMIA.
The fact that foreign workers are bound to their employers appears to
be motivated at least in part by relatively high costs of recruitment
faced by the latter. At the same time, the employer-specific work
permit limits bargaining power of the temporary foreign worker, making
them dependent on the compliance of their employer. If an employer is
found non-compliant and banned, an employee risks losing their
permit.18 This does not only seriously limit the incentives to report
non-compliant employers but also potentially puts employees at risk of
exploitation and abuse (Nakache and Kinoshita, 2010[2]; Caruso,
2018[6]). However, the degree to which this is actually the case is not
known.
Other OECD countries have introduced provisions to limit the risks for
temporary labour migrants in the case of non-compliant employers. In
New Zealand, for instance, temporary foreign workers can continue to
work for a non-compliant employer for as long as their visa remains
valid but cannot renew their visa. In Korea, temporary workers (under
the E-9 programme) are allowed three voluntary changes of employers
over the course of their employment period (within the same sector and
among authorised employers) but changes that became necessary due to
circumstances beyond their control (such as, an annulation of the
contract) do not count towards this number. An alternative, providing
for more flexibility, would be to link temporary permits and the labour
market test to occupations and/or certain provinces, rather than
specific employers.
As employer-specific work permits limit mobility of the migrant worker
concerned, Canada announced in May 2019 a new policy for vulnerable
migrant workers who are at risk of abuse in the workplace. These
temporary foreign workers can apply for a specific “open work permit
for vulnerable workers” which is LMIA-exempt and entails the
possibility to obtain authorisation to work for another employer.19
Work permit extensions involve a repetition of the process, including the
fee…
An employer can apply for several temporary foreign worker positions
using one LMIA application form but has to pay the CAD 1 000 fee for
each worker.20 The LMIA is valid for six months and within this period
the temporary foreign worker has to apply for their work permit to
IRCC. Renewals of work permits under the TFW Program involve a
repetition of the LMIA-process, including the mandatory payment of the
CAD 1 000 fee for each applied position for a temporary foreign worker.
This fee is non-refundable in cases of a negative LMIA or a subsequent
negative work permit decision. The fact that for both “high-” and
“low-wage” positions, each renewal requires the same procedure as for
the issuance of the initial permit, is rather unusual in international
comparison.
…and processing times for renewals are high, as are refusal rates
While permits under the GTS benefit from accelerated treatment,
processing times for permits under regular temporary high-skilled
migration have increased. Processing times vary depending on the type
of application submitted; they are updated weekly and also made
publicly available. Processing times for initial high-skilled work
permits were, in 2018, about five times longer than those for permits
under the low-skilled category. For renewals of permits, where
applicants benefit from “implied” status, processing times were much
longer, and there was no difference between higher- and lower-skilled
in terms of duration (Table 3.4).
Table 3.3. Processing times of TFW work permit applications, 2015-18
Work permits requiring an LMIA by occupational skill level, duration in
days
2015
2016
2017
2018
Work Permit
43
43
41
34
Higher-Skilled
71
78
89
81
Lower-Skilled
38
37
31
17
NOC is not defined
71
81
82
87
Work Permit – Renewals
114
111
110
108
Higher-Skilled
119
111
109
106
Lower-Skilled
111
110
111
107
NOC is not defined
113
111
110
109
Note: Data excludes Agricultural and Live in Caregiver Program.
Processing times refer to the number of days in which 80% of complete
applications received were finalised by IRCC.
Source: IRCC (CICEDW/EDW), February 2019.
Refusals for labour market tested work visas are common. In 2018,
one-third of all work permit applications under the TFW Program
(excluding agriculture and Live-in Caregiver programmes) were refused
(Table 3.4); rates were slightly higher for low- than high-skilled
occupations. In particular, renewals of work permits were more often
declined than approved. However, this is driven entirely by the fact
that virtually all applications that did not state the intended
occupation were refused, and this share was higher for renewals. It is
not clear to what extent applicants are aware of this procedure as in
all years considered here, 2015 to 2018, about a quarter of issued
applications (excluding withdrawals) did not state the intended
occupation.
Table 3.4. Refusal rates of TFW work permit applications, 2015-18
High- and low-skilled TFW Program work permits, initial permits and
renewal
2015
2016
2017
2018
Work Permit
18%
20%
22%
23%
Higher-Skilled
7%
7%
12%
11%
Lower-skilled
14%
17%
17%
15%
NOC is not defined
98%
97%
98%
96%
Work Permit – Renewals
55%
58%
52%
56%
Higher-Skilled
10%
11%
6%
7%
Lower-skilled
15%
14%
7%
7%
NOC is not defined
99%
99%
99%
99%
Total
37%
36%
31%
33%
Note: Data excluded Agricultural and Live in Caregiver Program. Refusal
rates exclude applications withdrawn.
Source: IRCC (CICEDW/EDW) March 2019.
Non-compliance rates under the TFW Program are low
As part of the overhaul of the TFW Program in 2014, the number of
inspections was increased, aiming to inspect one in four employers
using temporary foreign workers annually. Inspections may occur after a
positive LMIA has been issued and the foreign worker has received a
work permit and begun working. Inspections may be conducted during a
period of six years and throughout this period employers are required
to hold records – instead of two years previously. Inspectors have the
power to conduct site visits without a warrant, interview workers
(contingent on their consent) and review all 21 requirements when
inspecting, compared to a previous three.
Given the limited numbers involved, inspections are rather frequent –
2 214 in 2017-18. Overall, only about 1% of inspected employers under
the TFW Program were found non-compliant since 2015. There has,
however, been a strong decline in TFW Program inspections in the fiscal
year 2018-19. Conversely, that year also saw a larger share of
non-compliant employers (5%). While outright non-compliance is rare,
many employers face difficulties in fully complying with TFW Program
regulations. Over the last four years, only 55% of employers under the
“high-” and “low-wage” stream were found compliant, whereas over 40%
needed to take action to comply with the requirements (Table 3.5).
Employer correction was also required for about 32% of the primary
agriculture stream and for almost half of the inspected employers in
the caregiving sector.
Table 3.5. Completed TFW Program inspections, by fiscal year and
outcome
Fiscal Year
Satisfactory (no correction required)
Employer correction required
Non-compliant
No Decision Entered
Total
2015-16
748
392
0
38
1 180
2016-17
1 752
1 101
1
80
2 938
2017-18
1 057
1 086
32
45
2 214
2018-19 (19 March)
606
483
66
86
1 241
Total
4 163
3 062
99
249
7 573
Note: Data by fiscal year, and outcome April 1, 2015 to March 19, 2019.
The data excludes the Live-in Caregiver Program and Primary Agriculture
programmes.
Source: Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)’s Foreign
Worker System (FWS) and/or the National Integrity Investigation System
(NIIS) and/or the Integrity Case Management System (ICMS).
Possible sanctions for non-compliance include administrative monetary
penalties and/or temporary bans from hiring temporary workers. Perhaps
even more importantly, names and addresses of employers found
non-compliant are made public on an internet list with details of the
violation and its consequences. While this list of employers is not
complete,21 it allows applicants to check if their employer has
received a positive LMIA in the past.22
Exceptional arrangements for labour migration in the caregiving sector exist
Canada has a long tradition of temporary migration in caregiving
occupations and has established explicit links with its permanent
migration stream for immigrant workers in this sector. As a result,
about one in three long-time care workers in Canada is foreign-born, a
larger share than in most OECD countries (Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7. Over a third of long-time care workers in Canada are
foreign-born
Percentage share of foreign-born among the LTC workforce in 2015 (or
nearest year)
Figure 3.7. Over a third of long-time care workers in Canada are
foreign-born
Note: OECD and EU are the unweighted averages of the 19 and
12 countries shown in the chart. EU-Labour Force survey data are based
on ISCO 4 digit and NACE 2 digit.1-Data are based on ISCO 3 digit and
NACE 2 digit. 2-Data must be interpreted with caution, as sample sizes
are small. Census 2016 for Canada.
Source: OECD (forthcoming[7]).
The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) established in 199223 was closed to
new applications in 2014. For over two decades, it allowed temporary
labour immigrants working in the caregiving sector to apply for
permanent residency as economic class immigrants within three (and
after 2010 four) years of arrival in Canada, once they had completed at
least two years of full-time caregiving work. These employees usually
lived and worked in private households caring for children, seniors or
people with disabilities.
Participants in the LCP required only the equivalent of a Canadian
high-school diploma and six months’ full-time training or 12 months’
paid work experience as a caregiver within the last five years prior to
admission. LCs needed a positive LMIA from ESDC to ensure no Canadians
or permanent residents were available to take the position. While
initially, most LCPs transitioning to permanent residency were
principal applicants, from the mid-2000s onwards, up to one in two
permanent residents admitted under this immigration class were spouses
and dependants (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. Admissions of permanent residents under the caregiver
category, 1995-2018
Figure 3.8. Admissions of permanent residents under the caregiver
category, 1995-2018
Note: 2016-18 data might include small numbers of individuals admitted
under the new caregiver classes.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
The 2019 caregiver pilots address shortcomings of the previous programmes
After the termination of the LCP in 2014, Canada introduced two new
economic immigration pilots for caregivers as part of its permanent
immigration programmes: the Caring for Children and the Caring for
People with High Medical Needs classes. In June 2019, these pilot
programmes were replaced by the Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home
Support Worker Pilot. While the 2014 pilots are now closed24 and have
been replaced by new pilot programmes with new rules and criteria,
Canada’s experience with these pilots is nevertheless insightful.
The 2014 pilots changed the way caregivers apply for, and transition
to, permanent residence compared to the LCP. Under the LCP, caregiver
applicants were assessed for select criteria (such as official language
and education requirements) at the temporary stage, before they arrived
in Canada. While temporary resident intake was not limited, transitions
to permanent residence were. This created a large backlog of applicants
who qualified but were unable to transition. In contrast, to qualify
for the 2014 pilots, caregivers needed to have worked in Canada already
for 24 months in an eligible occupation. The assessment of skills and
selection was then done upon application for permanent residence.
Hence, foreign national caregivers first entered Canada as any other
temporary foreign worker coming under the TFW Program. Depending on the
wage offered, they were part of either the “high-” or the “low-wage”
stream and a positive LMIA was required to obtain their
employer-specific work permit. Unlike the former LCP, but similar to
other economic immigration programmes, they were not assessed for their
ability to economically establish as permanent residents (e.g. official
language, education) at the temporary stage. Interested temporary
foreign worker caregivers could only apply for permanent residence
after they obtained the relevant work experience and met all applicable
permanent residence requirements. Compared with the former LCP, the
live-in requirement was removed, and the programme criteria were
modified to more closely align with the approach of selecting economic
immigrants on the basis of their ability to become economically
established in Canada.
While the LCP only required high school education, the minimum
education requirement had been raised to at least one-year Canadian
post-secondary credential or equivalent under the 2014 caregiver
pilots. In addition, applicants needed to prove language skills
equivalent to CLB 5 for the Caring for Children and a varying minimum
language level for a job under the Caring for People with High Medical
Needs programme. The latter could be as high as CLB 7, depending on the
specific requirements of the various occupations under the second
programme. Since December 2017, families or individuals who hired a
caregiver to care for persons who require assistance due to physical or
mental condition, and to provide child care for individuals and
families with an income below CAD 150 000 per year, have been exempted
from paying the CAD 1 000 LMIA-fee. However, and in contrast to
seasonal agricultural jobs, caregiving jobs still had to be advertised
on Job Bank for four consecutive weeks. Employer-specific work permits
were issued for two years to caregivers. Given that there has often
been a time interval between arrival and taking up the job, this often
implied a renewal to allow transitioning to permanent residence.
Both pilot programmes allowed for a capped number of permanent
residence applications to be received by IRCC for processing annually
(2 750 under each programme as for all immigration classes established
through Ministerial Instructions). However, and in contrast to their
predecessor, the 2014 caregiver pilots were under-subscribed. In 2017,
Canada admitted only 1 875 economic immigrants as caregivers under the
new programmes (principal applicants and their dependants), compared
with combined cap of 5 500 principal applicants alone (IRCC, 2018[8]).
While a report by the Canadian Bar Association suggested that the
reason for the low take-up were the enhanced education and language
requirement (Caruso, 2018[6]), data on caregivers’ education
characteristics do not support this idea. In 2014, about 62% of
principal applicants admitted as permanent residents under the LCP in
that year (over 7 000 out of 11 320 for whom this data is available)
had at least a Bachelor’s degree. This stands in sharp contrast to the
1990s, where only about 5% of caregivers had such a degree (Kelly
et al., 2011[9]). However, already in 2007 the share of caregivers
holding a Bachelor’s degree and above had risen to above 60%,
suggesting that the trend towards higher qualification of caregivers
started prior to the introduction of the pilot programmes. It is
nevertheless unclear to what extent the language requirements might
have prevented caregivers to qualify for the two pilot streams.
A second reason for under-subscription outlined in the report might be
alternative pathways for caregivers. They may qualify for the
PT-programmes as well as for the federal high-skilled programmes under
Express Entry (Caruso, 2018[6]). For example, higher-skilled caregivers
(NOC 3012 and 3233) can also qualify for the CEC, and several provinces
have specific programmes to attract individuals in caregiving
occupations. Such alternative channels have the advantage for the
migrant that they are permanent from the start, and thereby allow not
only for full occupational mobility after admission but also for
migrating as a family. Between 2016-18, about 2 700 higher-skilled
caregivers (registered nurses, licenced practical nurses and nurse
aides, orderlies and attendants) became permanent residents through the
PNP and the programmes managed under Express Entry, compared with only
about 170 under the 2014 caregiver pilots. That notwithstanding, both
pathways – CEC and PT-programmes – are not new, and can thus hardly
explain the low take-up of the 2014 programme.
A more likely reason, however, is the uncertainty regarding
transitioning from temporary to permanent residence. Indeed, this is
one of the changes in the new 2019 pilot programmes – the Home Child
Care Provider Class and Home Support Worker Class. Applicants will be
assessed for permanent residence criteria before they begin working in
Canada, providing a clearer and more assured pathway to permanent
residence. Once caregivers have their work permit and two years of
eligible work experience, they will have access to a direct pathway to
permanent residence. As a response to the alternative – and more
attractive – pathways for higher-skilled occupations in the caregiving
sector, the 2019 caregiver pilots only target in-home caregiving
occupations at a lower-skill level (NOC 4411 and 4412, excluding
housekeepers). The educational requirement of one-year of Canadian
post-secondary education (or the foreign equivalent) introduced in the
2014 pilots is maintained, and the language requirement has been set at
CLB 5 for both occupations. The 24 months of full time work experience
must be acquired within a 36 months period.
The new pilots also include further changes. Most importantly, the work
permit caregivers receive is an occupation-restricted open work permit,
which lets them work as a caregiver for almost any employer throughout
Canada (excluding Quebec). It provides caregivers with the possibility
to change jobs quickly. In addition, under the new programmes,
caregivers can apply for open work permits for spouses/common-law
partners and for study permits for dependent children. This allows the
caregiver’s family to accompany them to Canada from the start. Finally,
employers will no longer need an LMIA before hiring a caregiver,
facilitating their recruitment.
Skill-selective access to permanent residence in caregiver categories would
increase the programmes flexibility
Overall labour market outcomes of labour immigrants under the
caregiving programmes and those of their spouses and dependants are
favourable. Data from the IMDB – notably based on previous cohorts,
admitted under the LCP – suggests that 95% of principal LCP-applicants
report earnings in the first year of landing and over 90% throughout
the ten years after. What is more, following the year of landing, over
95% of LCP’s spouses and dependants are working, in contrast to only
about 60% among the spouses of federal skilled workers. While the
income of caregivers remains below the levels of most other (permanent)
labour migrants the income gap to their spouses and dependants is much
smaller than for any other group of economic immigrants. What is more,
the earnings of spouses and dependents of caregivers are well above the
earnings of spouses and dependants accompanying other labour migrants
(Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. Median earnings by years since landing, Live-in Caregivers
and economic labour migrants and their spouses and dependants, landing
cohort of 2006
Figure 3.9. Median earnings by years since landing, Live-in Caregivers
and economic labour migrants and their spouses and dependants, landing
cohort of 2006
Source: IMDB, 2016.
In this context, the gendered nature of the caregiving sector is
revealing. Over 90% of caregivers are women25, compared to other
permanent economic immigration programmes where the majority of
principal applicants are men. Under all admission classes, male spouses
and dependants who report earnings have higher median earnings than
female spouses and dependants. Still, male spouses and dependants of
caregivers have median earnings exceeding those of male spouses and
dependants of federal skilled workers/federal skilled trades. However,
the opposite holds for female spouses and dependants of caregivers.
One challenge of the caregiver programme is the fact that many
caregivers leave the occupation once they become permanent residents
(Banerjee, Kelly and Tungohan, 2017[10]). At the same time, and partly
a result of this, caregiving occupations continue to be in high demand
across Canada. In March 2019, the national job online platform for job
search and matching Job Bank listed over 2 800 vacancies for the term
“caregiver”.
One option to remain the quality of selection but increase its
flexibility would be by introducing a points system balancing
educational and language skills with duration of work experience in the
caregiving sector in Canada. Thereby, caregivers with somewhat lower
skills would be required to remain longer in their profession to earn
permanent residence.
A new pilot in the agri-food sector will test an industry-specific approach
to address structural low-skilled labour needs
In July 2019, Canada announced a new 3-year economic immigration pilot,
the Agri-Food Immigration Pilot, which aims to fill structural labour
shortages particularly in meat processing and mushroom production. The
programme aims to attract and retain workers experienced in these
occupations by providing them with permanent residence.
Temporary foreign workers who meet the criteria will be able to apply
under the new pilot starting in 2020. Applicants require 12 months of
full-time, non-seasonal Canadian work experience in the TFW Program, in
an eligible occupation in processing meat products, raising livestock,
or growing mushrooms or greenhouse crops. In addition, they require at
least a Canadian Language Benchmark level 4 in English or French and an
education equivalency of Canadian high school level or greater.
Finally, applicants need an indeterminate job offer for full-time
non-seasonal work in eligible occupations in Canada, outside of Quebec,
at or above the prevailing wage.
International Mobility Program (IMP)
High growth, driven by a few admission categories
Figure 3.10. IMP work permit holders by initial sign year and
programme, 2007-18
Figure 3.10. IMP work permit holders by initial sign year and
programme, 2007-18
Note: The number of permit holders by initial sign year differs from
often published data on the number of permit holders by sign year as
the latter includes both initial permits and renewals. Post-graduation
work permit holders (PGWP) are sometimes disregarded in initial permit
statistics as they in most cases had a previous (study) permit. For the
purpose of comparing their “inflow” and as study permit holders are not
included in this graph for previously outlined reasons, initial PGWP
are included here.
PGWP, Working Holiday programme participants – one group (with the
largest volume) of International Experience Canada work permit holders
(IEC) and spouses are able to apply for an open work permit.
This figure does not include work permit holders for other reasons such
as permanent residence application, humanitarian reasons and the
category other.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
The IMP, as the second umbrella programme for temporary work purposes,
aims to advance Canada’s broad economic, social and cultural national
interests. Hence, individuals under the IMP do not need to pass a
labour market test and are allowed to work either based on agreements
or because their presence and ability to work is otherwise deemed to
present a specific Canadian interest.
Initial work permits issued to individuals per year under the IMP more
than doubled over the last decade (Figure 3.10). The growth has been
largely driven by few groups of temporary workers. This includes in
particular three groups, post-graduation work permits (PGWP) holders,
individuals with permits under the International Experience Canada
(IEC) programmes, and permits for spouses of skilled workers and
international students.26 The number of work permits under the category
Agreements increased until 2013 and since then declined to its level
from about a decade ago. This category includes intra-company
transferees and professionals benefitting from provisions under
international agreements such as free trade agreements between Canada
and other countries (NAFTA, CETA, and going forward also CPTPP).
Since 2015, employers hiring through the IMP have to submit information
to IRCC relating to their offers of employment via an online platform
called Employer Portal and to pay an employer compliance fee of
CAD 230 per work permit. In addition, the foreign worker has to pay a
CAD 155 work permit fee. In the case of open work permits under the
IMP, for example the working holiday programme of the IEC, which are
not tied to a specific employer, an earmarked CAN 100 open work permit
holder fee is collected from the applicant to fund the collection of
employment information related to such permits.
Youth participating in temporary working programmes
Like many OECD countries, Canada runs federal programmes for foreign
national young adults to work and travel temporarily in the country.
The International Experience Canada (IEC) programme admits foreign
nationals of selected countries on the basis of bilateral
agreements, – for up to 24 months27. To be eligible, applicants need to
be aged between 18 and 35, while for few countries and programmes the
age limit is 30 years28. In most cases renewals are not possible for
the same programme; however, applicants can apply for a new permit
under a different programme within the IEC. The IEC stream combines
three main programmes, and Canada sets annual quotas per country and
category (IRCC, 2019[11]).
Individuals under the Working Holiday programme, the large majority
(86%) of permits issued under the IEC, usually intend to travel in
Canada and take-up temporary paid employment to help pay for their trip
and living expenses. They need to pay a participation fee of
CAD 150 and an open work permit holder fee of CAD 100. Participants of
this programme receive an open work permit. This allows them to work in
most jobs in Canada, change employers whenever they want or need to,
and travel freely throughout the country. Evidence from New Zealand
suggests that participants in this scheme from lower-income countries
work more hours than those from high-income OECD countries. This raises
the question whether the primary intention of the former may be
employment rather than travel (OECD, 2014[12]). For Canada the number
of hours participants of working holiday programme worked are not
available. However, tax reported median earnings in 2015 of IEC open
work permit holders (a close proxy for participants of the working
holiday programme) suggest that youth of Australia and Ireland reported
the highest earnings in Canada and those from Germany the lowest. In
contrast, youth from Chile report an income that is close to the
average of all countries.
The second category within IEC is the International Co-Op programme,
which enables foreign youth enrolled at a post-secondary institution to
gain work experience in Canada related to their field of study, usually
in the form of an internship. The third category is the Young
Professionals programme, under which youth are able to gain
professional work experience after completion of their studies. Under
both programmes, applicants need to have a valid job offer in Canada to
be eligible to apply and need to prove a direct link to their field of
study. If issued, their work permits are employer-specific. The
participation fee in each of the programme is CAD 150 and in addition,
employers need to pay the CAD 230 Employer Compliance fee online via
the Employer Portal.
Initial permits to participants of the working holiday programme
increased slightly over the past decade, but overall numbers are lower
than in comparable OECD countries (Figure 3.11). These programmes are
reciprocal but participation of Canadian youth abroad under such
programmes has been low (IRCC, 2018[8]). This reflects experiences in
other major working holiday recipient OECD countries.
Figure 3.11. Initial permits to working holiday makers in selected OECD
countries, 2010-17
Figure 3.11. Initial permits to working holiday makers in selected OECD
countries, 2010-17
Source: OECD International Migration Database
(https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIG)
Australia runs the largest working holiday programme in the OECD in
absolute terms while relative to the population, the largest is that of
New Zealand. Both are very similar to the Canadian one but a key
distinction is that in both countries, the programmes are a key feeder
for transition to permanent residency. This is less the case in Canada
were administrative data indicates that 7% of IEC foreign youth who
came to Canada under the IEC Programme (combining the outlined three
sub-programmes of which the working holiday is one) between 2013-17
have since then permanently immigrated to Canada (IRCC, 2019[11]). A
further distinction is that in contrast to the Canadian set-up, the
Australian programme includes an extension possibility which in some
circumstances allows for a third year for young workers who commit to
stay in regional areas during their second year.
Non-compliance rates under the IMP are low
Table 3.6. Completed IMP inspections by fiscal year and outcome
Fiscal Year
Compliant
Compliant with Justification*
Non-compliant
Total
2015-16
116
4
1
121
2016-17
461
81
10
552
2017-18
2 929
453
42
3 424
2018-19 (31 Dec. 2018)
2 759
345
28
3 132
Total
6 265
883
81
7 229
Note: Data by fiscal year, and outcome April 1, 2015 to December 31,
2018. *Compliant with Justification: Employers who have provided
justification, and compensation when required, in accordance with the
Regulations to justify their non-compliance.
Source: Data compiled from ECIU Master Tracker provided from ESDC.
Programme inspections aim to protect temporary foreign workers and
ensure that employers use the IMP properly. On behalf of IRCC, Service
Canada inspects employers against the conditions listed on the work
permit of their employees and the details of the offer of employment
that employers previously submitted to Service Canada. This entails
that employers meet all applicable employment and recruiting laws, as
well as co-operate with Service Canada by showing up for inspections
and providing all required documentation. Employers must keep any
documents they have about the employment of their temporary worker for
six years from the date Service Canada issued their work permit.
Overall compliance with the IMP is high, and only 1% of all inspected
employers were fond non-compliant. An additional 12% needed to provide
justification and/or compensation since the start of the fiscal year
2015 (Table 3.6).
Penalties for non-compliance depend on the severity of the
non-compliance and are decided by a points system. This looks, among
other aspects, at the number of violations, the compliance history, the
number of workers negatively affected by the violation, and for
monetary penalties also at the size of the business. Possible sanctions
for non-compliance include warning letters, monetary penalties from
CAD 500 to CAD 100 000 per violation up to a maximum of CAD 1 million
over one year. It can also include a ban from hiring temporary workers
through the programme for one or several years and for serious
violations a permanent ban from hiring. In addition pending work permit
applications tied to the business might be refused and active work
permits revoked.
As for the TFW Program (see above) the names and addresses of employers
found non-compliant under the IMP regulations are made public on an
online list. This list states the reason for their non-compliance, the
amount of monetary penalty – if applicable – and if they remain
eligible for hiring temporary foreign workers under the programme in
the future.
International Students
Strong increase in international students in parallel with expanded working
possibilities
The number of international students enrolled in Canada is not
particularly high in international comparison (Figure 3.12). However,
among the major recipient countries of international tertiary
students,29 Canada experienced the largest growth in recent years. The
numbers doubled between 2008-16, whereas for the OECD as a whole the
increase was about 70%. In 2016, Canada hosted more than one in 20
international tertiary students in the OECD and around one in eight
tertiary students in Canada was an international student.
Figure 3.12. International tertiary students enrolled in OECD
countries, 2016
Figure 3.12. International tertiary students enrolled in OECD
countries, 2016
Source: OECD Education at a Glance (2018[13]).
While international students do not necessarily constitute labour
migrants per se, many countries offer them work permits to help them
defray the costs of their education and to get a first foothold into
the labour market. Countries are also increasingly providing
facilitated pathways to residence, motivated by the fact that
international graduates with host-country qualifications are
essentially pre-integrated. Canada is no exception in this regard and
provides possibilities for international students to work during and
after their studies (via a post-graduation work permit) and a pathway
to transition to permanent residence (Box 3.2).
Since 2014, international student visa holders in Canada have
opportunities to work on campus and work off campus without an
additional work permit. There are no restrictions in terms of hours
related to on campus work, and international students may work off
campus up to 20 hours a week during term times and full time on
regularly scheduled breaks. In 2015, over 25% of international students
reported earnings through on and/or off campus employment, up from 12%
in 2004. International students may also access Co-Op or internship
opportunities while studying provided that the work component is part
of the academic programme (see above). In recent years, the number of
Co-Op work permits issued for such purposes has increased.
Canadian data suggest that this strong increase of international
students is still ongoing. The number of initial study permits issued
in 2018 – excluding those for attendance in primary and secondary
schools –, was around 185 00030, an over 50% increase from 2016.
Most international students in Canada are citizens from either India or
China. While from the late 1990s until 2016 over half of all
international students came from China, numbers of Indian students have
doubled since and in 2018, Canada issued one in three new study permits
to Indians (Table 3.7). Numbers of international study permit holders
who are citizens of Vietnam, Iran and Bangladesh also increased
strongly over the past three years.
Table 3.7. International students by citizenship and sign year, 2015-18
2015
2016
2017
2018
India
31 965
52 705
83 220
107 650
China, People's Republic of
65 900
76 975
82 905
85 735
Korea, Republic of
14 740
15 940
16 720
16 960
France
11 860
11 840
13 255
13 555
Vietnam
2 830
5 325
9 915
12 470
Other citizenship
91 880
101 890
109 975
121 215
Total unique persons
219 175
264 675
315 990
357 585
Note: These data include initial permits and renewals.
Source: IRCC 2018.
In this respect, it is important to note that Canada runs an expedited
study permit processing programme available to legal residents of
India, China, the Philippines and Vietnam who are living in one of
these four countries and want to study in Canada at a post-secondary
designated learning institution. As part of this Student Direct Stream
(SDS) applicants need to meet specific requirements by providing
upfront documentation and enjoy accelerated processing (see below).
International students mostly intend to live in Ontario (49%) and the
larger cities in other parts of the country. At the end of 2017, 27% of
international study permit holders concentrated in Toronto, and another
18% in Vancouver. 92% of international students whose permit was issued
in the last four years intended to stay in a central metropolitan area
– an area with a total population of at least 100 000 – a share almost
identical than among the 2011-16 cohorts of labour immigrants (91%).
Almost one in three international students are in a subject in the
field of business, administration and law, which is also the most
popular field of study among national students, though at a lower share
(23%). In comparison to the Canadian population however, international
students are much more likely to study subjects in the fields of
engineering, manufacturing and construction (20% against 11%) as well
as subjects in the field of information and communication technologies
(6% against 3%). In contrast, international students are less likely
than Canadians to study education, health or welfare (Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13. Field of study of international and national tertiary
level students, 2016
Figure 3.13. Field of study of international and national tertiary
level students, 2016
Source: OECD Education Database
(https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EAG_ENRL_MOBILES_FIELDS)
.
Possibility to work is a key driver for deciding to study in Canada
According to a 2018 survey of the Canadian Bureau for International
Education, 62% of international post-secondary students stated that
they chose Canada because of the possibility to work during their
studies. However, among these students, less than half (43%) were
actually employed at the time of the survey. What is more, the main
source of income was on-campus work. Among those who did not yet find
employment, a key challenge was limited work experience (52%), not
finding an appropriate employment (37%) and limited time resources
(33%). 13% of international students indicated that Canadian employers
did not understand that they are legally allowed to work in Canada
based on their study permit. While employment possibilities were key
for post-secondary students, among all students the top three reasons
to study in Canada were the reputation of the educational system, the
reputation as a tolerant and non-discriminatory society, and Canada
being a safe destination. Almost three in ten international students in
Canada had also applied to other countries before deciding to study in
Canada. Among those, 54% applied to the United States, 22% to the
United Kingdom, 15% to Australia and 13% and 10% to France and Germany,
respectively (CBIE, 2018[14]).
In terms of attractiveness for university students more generally, a
recent study ranks Canada eighth among 35 OECD countries, surpassed by
the United States and Australia as well as a number of European
countries (Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Finland and France). While
this still places Canada in the top quarter of countries, this is a
lower position than for temporary labour migrants with master’s degrees
or higher, discussed below (Tuccio, 2019[15]). One of the reasons for
Canada’s lower ranking are the country’s relatively high study fees for
international students which are above the rates for domestic students
(Figure 3.14). Those costs add to the high living expenses in the
country especially for housing.
Figure 3.14. Annual average tuition fees charged by public tertiary
educational institutions to foreign students in USD, 2015/16
Figure 3.14. Annual average tuition fees charged by public tertiary
educational institutions to foreign students in USD, 2015/16
Note: For New Zealand, estimates include universities only and exclude
second programmes at ISCED 6, such as postgraduate certificates and
diplomas. Year of reference for Korea 2016; United States 2011/12;
Australia, Austria, Switzerland 2014/15; Israel 2013/14. Tuition fees
for foreign students in Denmark and Sweden refer to students from
outside the European Economic Area or the European Union.
Source: OECD (2018[13]).
Approval rates have slightly declined but vary by province and programme as
do processing times
Study permit approval rates vary greatly by the level of study and
province/territory of destination. Overall approval rates for study
permits for all school types have gradually declined over the past five
years from 72% in 2014, to 66% in 2018. While between 2014-18, over 70%
of all study permit applications in British Columbia were approved, the
approval rate was much lower in the Atlantic Provinces. Furthermore,
Saskatchewan saw the steepest decline in its approval rate over the
past five years from 67% in 2014 to just 44% in 2018.
Table 3.8. Study permit approval rate in % by province, 2014-18
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Alberta
65
64
63
63
65
British Columbia
80
79
80
73
73
Manitoba
68
67
58
56
62
New Brunswick
58
55
49
46
48
Newfoundland
64
63
60
61
61
Nova Scotia
77
73
66
65
67
Ontario
69
69
69
67
68
Prince Edward Island
59
63
48
50
56
Quebec
73
71
66
64
58
Saskatchewan
67
64
53
49
44
Total
72
71
69
67
66
Note: Shares include initial permits issued to all study programmes.
Source: IRCC (CICEDW/EDW) as of April 10, 2019.
Approval rates also varied by study programme. While most permit
applications for doctorate programmes were approved – approval rates of
over 80% in most provinces and years – rates were much lower in
particular for study permit applications to college programmes and
Processing times for study permits vary by place of residence.
Information by country and permit are publicly available online and
regularly updated. The service standard for SDS processing is
20 calendar days.31 Processing starts after receipt of a complete
application and biometrics.
Common issues for the management of temporary labour migration
Attracting Talent
Canada is an attractive destination for highly educated workers from abroad
For the high-skilled sought-after talent the job market is increasingly
global and Canada is an attractive destination for labour migrants from
around the world. A recent OECD study on indicators of talent
attractiveness places Canada in fifth position – after Australia,
Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand – among OECD countries for its
overall attractiveness to workers with masters/doctoral degrees
(Figure 3.15). This index considers a prospective migrant with a valid
and skill-adequate job offer from the destination country. In the case
of Canada, the index assesses the attractiveness of the “high-wage”
stream under the TFW Program.
Figure 3.15. Attracting Talent indicators for workers with
master/doctoral degree, 2019
Figure 3.15. Attracting Talent indicators for workers with
master/doctoral degree, 2019
Source: Tuccio (2019[15]).
In addition to considering the countries migration policies, the
ranking takes into account employment and earning opportunities as well
as non-pecuniary factors (such as possibility for family migration) and
amenities. With regard to seven broad factors considered as key
influences on migrants’ decision-making where to move to, Canada ranks
within the top quarter when considering migrants’ future prospects,
inclusiveness and the quality of life. It also ranks high for the
quality of opportunities, migrants’ income, and its skills environment.
The only factor where Canada takes a position below average is “family
environment”.32
Labour Market Impact
Changes in labour market tested permits correlate with regional unemployment
Figure 3.16. Change in unemployment rate and labour market tested work
permit levels 2009-18
Change in percentage points and total of LMIA-tested permits
Figure 3.16. Change in unemployment rate and labour market tested work
permit levels 2009-18
Note: Data excludes permits to Agricultural workers and Live-In
Caregivers.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC and
Statistics Canada.
One would expect the numbers of labour market-tested temporary work
permits to change with labour market needs. Not considering the years
2014/2015, which were outliers due to the programme tightening, one
indeed observes that periods of growing unemployment tended to be
associated with lower intakes, and vice versa (Figure 3.16).
Across Canada, the number of labour market-tested temporary foreign
worker permits issued outside of agricultural and live-in Caregiver
programmes corresponds to just 0.14% of the labour force on average
between 2015-18. This share varies from 0.6% in Prince Edward Island to
0.07% in Ontario. In the four years since the overhaul of the
programme, the share increased in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia, and declined in Saskatchewan and Alberta
(Figure 3.17).33
Figure 3.17. Labour market tested work permit holders as share of
labour force (LF) and unemployment rates, by region 2015-18
Figure 3.17. Labour market tested work permit holders as share of
labour force (LF) and unemployment rates, by region 2015-18
Note: Data excludes Live-in Caregiver Program and Agricultural Streams.
In total for about 15% of work permits issued under the TFW Program the
intended province/territory was not stated.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
The evolution in regional unemployment rates in recent years shows a
negative correlation between unemployment and the number in labour
market tested temporary worker permits relative to the labour force in
the following year. In other words, unemployment in a region correlates
with a decline in TFW Program permits issued the following year. The
correlation at the regional level is not necessarily stronger than that
observed at the national level and the conclusions that can be drawn
from this correlation are limited. The overall share of LMIA-tested
permits outside of agriculture and foreign caregivers is small in
relation to the labour force, and also in relation to the non-labour
market tested permits under the IMP. The relatively recent introduction
of the changes and missing data on the location of a subset of these
permits provides additional limitations. Finally, the occupations
temporary workers are targeted for might constitute a specific sub-set
of occupations by region and thus relate differently to overall
provincial unemployment rates.
Missing information on IMP work permit holders hampers assessment of their
labour market impact
Analysis of the labour market impact is even more difficult with
respect to the IMP, which accounts for the majority of temporary
workers. Key to assessing the labour market impact of temporary workers
is information on their occupational profiles. However, intended
occupation is only registered for occupation- and/or employer-specific
permits and largely missing on open work permits where providing such
information became optional in 2012. Hence in 2018, only about 31% of
work permits issued to temporary migrants admitted under the IMP
contained information on the intended province and occupation. For
close to a quarter of IMP permits, the intended province/territory was
not stated, up from only 10% of permits where this was the case in
2015. As noted, there has been a large increase in recent years in the
number of work permits issued under the IMP and between 2015-18, this
increase was largely driven by permits where very little information is
collected (+66%), while the increase in permits with stated intended
occupation was more moderate (+12%). Among these where data was
available for 2018, 93% were classified as higher skilled – usually
requiring at least two years of post-secondary education.
For open work permit holders34, Canada is able to capture data on the
province and industry of employment only after several years via
linking tax filing data with other databases in the recently introduced
Canadian Employer-Employee Dynamic Database (CEEDD). For a large share
of open work permit holders of 2015 – the latest year available – the
province/territory (40%) and/or industry (42%) is not stated. These are
individuals who did not use their work permit to find employment or who
tried but did not find employment.
Among those open work permit holders for whom information is available,
more than four in five work in Ontario (37%), Alberta (20%) or
British Columbia (23%). Among those were the industry of employment is
stated, more than half work in a lower-skilled jobs – based on the NOC
classification – such as in retail trades and administrative and
support services. The largest number of work permit holders (22% among
those were information is available) worked in accommodation and food
services (NOC 72).
With the limited information on the regional and occupational
intentions of these temporary migrants, assessing their labour market
impact is challenging and, given the importance of this group and their
likely concentration in certain areas and occupations, calls for a
closer monitoring in the future. A first step in this direction has
been taken with the Canadian 2019 Budget, which commits money for the
ongoing collection of labour market information related to open work
permits.
Labour market impact of international students is hard to monitor
As international students can work without an additional permit their
impact on the labour market is difficult to monitor. Upon graduation
they can apply for a post-graduation work permit which is an open work
permit. This entails the above discussed limitations on monitoring the
timely labour market impact of international graduates despite the
strong increase of international students in recent years.
Estimates suggest that in 2016, international students contributed over
CAD 5.5 billion to the Canadian economy (IRCC, 2018[8]). This is about
0.7% of GDP in 2016, or the equivalent of 14.5% of the country’s
service exports (Roslyn Kunin and Associates, 2017[16]). While
sizeable, this is somewhat lower than the estimates for New Zealand,
about 2% of GDP (Infometrics, 2016[17]), and Australia about 1% of GDP
(Australian Government, 2015[18]).
Intended occupations by region overlap among labour market tested and
non-tested streams
Across Canada, about 51% of TFW Program permit holders predominantly
work in agriculture, and a further 11% in the caregiving sector.35 The
remaining share is dispersed across a broad range of other occupations,
predominantly lower-skilled.
For IMP work permits, the picture is less clear-cut, as the information
on intended occupation is not available for more than two-thirds of all
permits – notably in the case of open work permits. Among the
remainder, more than 90% are higher-skilled. In other words, the
limited information at the federal level suggests that the two
programmes target rather different occupational profiles.
As mentioned, information on the province is missing in many cases. For
the permits with available information, it seems – in contrast to the
observation at the federal level – that both programmes are sometimes
used for catering similar occupational needs within provinces. For
example, over the 2015-18 period, 2890 permits under the IMP and
3095 permits under the TFW Program were issued to individuals intending
to work in British Columbia as a graphic designer and illustrator (NOC
5241). Similarly, 190 permits under the TFW Program and 195 under the
IMP were issued to individuals intending to work as cooks in Nova
Scotia. Likewise, 185 permits were issued to transport truck drivers in
Manitoba under the TFW Program and 635 for the same intended occupation
and province under the IMP.
Transition
Onshore transition has increased substantially in Canada
Historically, Canada – like the other settlement countries (Australia,
New Zealand and the United States) have drawn a firm distinction
between temporary and permanent migrants, with most immigrants arriving
in the past receiving permanent residence on arrival and rather few
migrants transitioning onshore from temporary to permanent status. By
contrast, in European OECD countries as well as in Japan and Korea,
migrants receive the right to permanent residence typically after
completing a number of years in the country on temporary visas, with
transition being in many cases the standard and expected procedure.
In Canada, transition has become gradually wider-spread since the early
1980s. The Foreign Domestic Movement Program (the predecessor of the
Live-in Caregiver Program) in 1981 established, for the first time, a
built-in pathway to permanent residence for temporary workers. Onshore
transition accelerated during the second half of the 1990s, when the
start of the PNP allowed provinces and territories to nominate
candidates for permanent residency in their province. Many of these had
previous local work experience or education and indeed, within the PNP,
transitions account for a much larger share than among the FSW (74% of
all PNP admissions in 2016 compared with 41% in the FSW). Furthermore,
the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) in 2008
provided a general pathway to permanent residence for migrants with at
least one year of skilled work experience.
From 1990 to 2006, only around 23% of all migrants landing as permanent
economic immigrants had prior Canadian experience (Hou and Bonikowska,
2016[19]). These figures have increased since and in 2017, almost 60%
of principal applicants in the economic category admitted that year had
a previous permit under the TFW Program or the IMP.36 Linked data on
newly-admitted permanent labour migrants show that the majority had
only a prior work permit, and direct transitions of graduates – i.e.
without additional work experience – are rare (Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18. Admissions of permanent labour migrants (principal
applicants in economic classes) by previous permits, 2006-16
Total numbers by type of previous permit (left) and share among all
labour immigrants in data (right)
Figure 3.18. Admissions of permanent labour migrants (principal
applicants in economic classes) by previous permits, 2006-16
Note: Total numbers include principal applicants in the economic
classes. Data includes only those immigrants filing income tax in their
year of landing.
Source: Statistics Canada. IMDB 2016.
Various pathways to onshore transition exist
Figure 3.19. Transition paths for temporary workers to permanent
residence through economic programmes
Figure 3.19. Transition paths for temporary workers to permanent
residence through economic programmes
Note: After graduation, international students can obtain a
post-graduation work permit. These are generally part of the
high-skilled temporary work permit holders. Federal Economic Pilots
include the Atlantic Immigration Pilot, the Rural and Northern
Immigration Pilot, the Agri-Food Immigration Pilot and the two
Caregiver Pilots.
Source: OECD Secretariat.
Several pathways for transition to permanent residency exist
(Figure 3.19). Not surprisingly, the IMP is the key driver for
transitions to permanent migration. In 2018, over 90% of admissions of
permanent residents under economic class who had a prior work permit in
Canada did so under the IMP. This share continuously increased over the
last decade relative to the work permit holders under the TFW Program.
In 2018, of the about 53 000 transitions from temporary work permit
holders for work purposes to economic migration categories, about
49 000 passed through the IMP (Figure 3.20).
Figure 3.20. Admissions of permanent residents under economic class
with prior work permit holder status
Figure 3.20. Admissions of permanent residents under economic class
with prior work permit holder status
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from IRCC.
Data from 2016 suggests that only about half of transitions came
through the post-graduate route. Transitions from the IMP mainly
occurred to the PNP (44%), followed by FSW (34%) and Canadian
Experience (20%). Among workers under the TFW Program, Canadian
Experience (40%) was the main pathway, followed by FSW (26%).
Interestingly, provincial nominations were much less common among the
temporary foreign worker transitions – they accounted for less than 16%
of the total.
The apparent shift to onshore migration in Canada can be compared to
New Zealand in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where the increased
transition was caused by additional points for applicants with
education and work experience in New Zealand. This is currently also
the case under Express Entry, which awards points for Canadian work
experience and education (Chapter 2). In Australia, the
study-to-residence pathway led the increase in transitions. The country
removed a three-year eligibility bar for international students in 1999
and allowed direct onshore student applications in 2002. Within a year
of the reforms, over 50% of Australia’s economic permanent residence
applicants held Australian qualifications (Hawthorne, 2010[20]). In
contrast to Australia, international students in Canada need at least
one year of skilled work experience before applying to the federal
economic immigration programmes in Express Entry (see Box 3.2).
Box 3.2. Transition of international students in Canada
Under Express Entry, at least one year of skilled relevant work
experience is required for pool entry. Therefore, direct transitions
from student status to permanent residency without prior skilled work
experience – at least one year within the last ten years for the
Federal Skilled Workers and one year of Canadian Experience within the
last three years for the CEC – under Express Entry are not possible.
However, some provinces have specific streams for international
students, and specific programmes such as the Atlantic Immigration
Pilot have dedicated graduate streams. In addition, Canada has a
relatively generous post-graduation search and work permit scheme for
international students (Figure 3.21).
Figure 3.21. Duration of post-graduation job search periods in months,
2018
Figure 3.21. Duration of post-graduation job search periods in months,
2018
Source: OECD Secretariat.
International students who completed at least eight months of study in
Canada, have six months to apply for a Post-Graduation Work Permit once
they obtained their notice of graduation. At the time of application
they are not required to have a Canadian job offer and while awaiting
the decision of their permit, they can stay and work. The
post-graduation work permit is an open work permit allowing former
graduates to work for any job and employer and is valid for up to three
years. The duration of the permit is linked with the duration of
studies in Canada.
A survey by the Canadian Bureau for International Education showed that
60% of all international students plan to stay permanently in Canada,
an increase from 51% who intended to do so prior to the recent reforms
which valued Canadian studies (CBIE, 2018[14]). In 2018, there were
more than 46 000 initial work permits issued to individuals under the
post-graduation work permit stream, a number that has increased
five-fold since 2014. Between 2016-18 this number increased slightly
stronger than the number of initial study permits over the same period
(53% versus 46%). Overall, 12% of permanent immigrants in economic
classes in 2018 – almost 23 000 individuals – previously held a PGWP,
up from just 5% in 2015 (IRCC, 2019[21]). An estimation of student stay
rates suggests that about six in ten international graduates stay in
Canada upon graduation.37 This is a much higher share than observed in
other OECD countries, however it is not clear how many finally
transition to permanent residency (OECD, 2019[22]).
In 2018, 25% of applicants to permanent residency under EE claimed
bonus points for education in Canada (around 23 000 individuals), a
strong decline from 45% who did so in 2017 (31 000) (IRCC, 2019[23]).
Onshore transition levels remain lower than in other settlement countries
All Settlement countries accept large numbers of permanent labour
migrants through two-step migration pathways. Such onshore transitions
quickly became the norm for skilled migrants in New Zealand, where
onshore proportion of skilled principal applicants reached over 80% in
the 2000s. A similar but less pronounced trend occurred in Australia,
where over two-thirds of principal applicants transitioned onshore in
the year 2015/16. In the United States, where the bulk of permanent
immigration is through family streams labour migration accounts for
only about 5% of permanent residents permits. Among these labour
immigrants, in many years close to and over 90% were onshore
transitions a share that remained broadly unchanged over the last
decade.
Data on transitions to economic classes in Canada shows that about 55%
of those principal applicants admitted in 2018 held a previous work
permit. This is below the shares observed in the other settlement
countries, although the growth over time has been more pronounced in
Canada than elsewhere (Figure 3.22).
Figure 3.22. Onshore transitions to permanent residence (%), 2007-17
Figure 3.22. Onshore transitions to permanent residence (%), 2007-17
Note: All four countries include only principal applicants to economic
classes and exclude spouses and dependants. Shares in New Zealand,
Australia and the United States denote onshore transitions whereas the
shares in Canada are based on number of individuals who held a previous
permit (TFW Program/IMP) before their permanent admission in Canada.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from MBIE (annual
migration trends reports), DIBP, USDHS (Employment-based preferences)
and Statistics Canada.
Immigrants with Canadian pre-admission experience have higher earnings than
their peers selected from abroad
Figure 3.23 presents the median annual income of principal labour
migrants by pre-admission permits in Canada, for the cohort admitted in
2008 by years since landing. Trajectories for other admission years are
very similar.
Figure 3.23. Median annual income in CAD by pre-admission experience,
cohort of 2008
Figure 3.23. Median annual income in CAD by pre-admission experience,
cohort of 2008
Source: Statistics Canada. Table 43-10-0010-01 Immigrant Income by
admission year and immigrant admission category.
Two observations stand out. The first key observation is that, for the
first four to five years after landing, labour immigrants with previous
work permits outperform those without such permits. However, about
eight years after landing, labour immigrants without pre-admission
experience have caught up to those with work – but no study –
experience in Canada. This is consistent with earlier findings that
immigrants with pre-immigration Canadian skilled work experience had a
large earnings advantage over immigrants who were selected from
abroad38 (Hou and Bonikowska, 2016[19]). The authors find that only
one-quarter of the earnings advantage was attributable to the level of
education, language knowledge and origin country. Hou and Bonikowska
(2016[19]) suggest that the earnings advantage might be related to
pre-immigration labour market selection. This could happen in at least
two ways. First, employers could be better placed than the objective
criteria used by the immigration authorities to judge the value of an
individual’s skills in the context of the current labour market. To
some extent, the bonus points awarded to Express Entry candidates who
have a job offer can be understood as a reflection of employers’ more
astute judgment in this area. Second, the prior work history could also
provide for some selection, as unsuccessful temporary workers may be
less likely to get enough skilled work experience for transition.
Interestingly, the earnings advantage of Canadian work experience fades
out over time. This is not the case for Canadian education. Indeed, the
second key observation from Figure 3.23 is that immigrants with
Canadian education have the steepest earnings growth. However, even
after ten years, they still lag somewhat behind those who also have
pre-landing work experience in addition.
Conclusion
The changes to the temporary foreign worker programmes over the past
five years have established two broad pathways for temporary labour
migration. While one is labour-market-tested and rather tightly
restricted with caps and transition plans, the other admits a large and
growing number of individuals for broader economic, cultural and other
benefits – not directly linked to labour market needs. Around
two-thirds of the latter group hold open work permits rendering a
timely assessment of the labour market impact difficult. However,
Canada has made first commitments to increase the monitoring of the
latter group under the 2019 Budget and it is important to continue
along these lines.
More generally speaking, the current system encourages higher-skilled
individuals (and their employers) to divert to permanent pathways,
whereas transition possibilities to permanent residence for
lower-skilled are mainly available via regional programmes.
A key group to take into account in labour market impact analyses going
forward are international students. They are not only a strongly
growing but also hardly monitored labour force and present a key group
of potential future permanent residents.
References
[18] Australian Government (2015), The value of international education
to Australia, http://www.internationaleducation.gov.au.
[10] Banerjee, R., P. Kelly and E. Tungohan (2017), ASSESSING THE
CHANGES TO CANADA’S LIVE--IN CAREGIVER PROGRAM: IMPROVING SECURITY OR
DEEPENING PRECARIOUSNESS?,
http://p2pcanada.ca/files/2017/12/Assessing-the-Changes-to-Canadas-Live
-In-Caregiver-Program.pdf.
[6] Caruso, B. (2018), The Canadian Bar Association: Consultation on
Caregiver Pathways,
http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=ebc5bb3e-3ed0-400d-9c15-2
ef044e1285c.
[14] CBIE (2018), The Student’s Voice: National Results of the 2018
CBIE International Student Survey, Canadian Bureau for International
Education,
https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Student_Voice_Report-ENG.pdf
.
[4] CIC (2012), Evaluation of the Labour Market Opinion Streams of the
Temporary Foreign Worker Program,
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/rhdcc-hrsdc/HS28-
207-2012-eng.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2019).
[5] ESDC (2019), What we heard: Primary agriculture review,
http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-
workers/reports/primary-agriculture.html.
[1] ESDC (2014), Overhauling the temporary foreign worker program,
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/
migration/documents/assets/portfolio/docs/en/foreign_workers/employers/
overhauling_TFW.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2018).
[20] Hawthorne, L. (2010), “How Valuable is “Two-Step Migration”? Labor
Market Outcomes for International Student Migrants to Australia”, Asian
and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 19/1, pp. 5-36,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900102.
[19] Hou, F. and A. Bonikowska (2016), “Selections Before the
Selection: Earnings Advantages of Immigrants Who Were Former Skilled
Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada”, International Migration Review,
p. imre.12310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/imre.12310.
[3] HUMA (2016), Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources,
Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities: TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM, http://www.parl.gc.ca.
[17] Infometrics (2016), The Economic Impact of International Education
in New Zealand 2015/16,
https://enz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/The-Economic-Impact-of-International
-Education-in-New-Zealand-2015-2016.pdf.
[21] IRCC (2019), “Admissions of Permanent Residents with Prior
International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holder Status under
Post-Graduate Employment by Province/Territory of Intended Destination
and Immigration Category”,
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/1b026aab-edb3-4d5d-8231-270a09ed
4e82.
[11] IRCC (2019), Evaluation of the International Experience Canada
Program,
http://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/documents/pdf/english/evaluation/
e2-2017-iec-en.pdf.
[23] IRCC (2019), Express Entry year-end report 2018,
http://www.cic.gc.ca/publications.
[8] IRCC (2018), Report to OECD Expert group on International Migration
(SOPEMI): Canada’s immigration policies, programs and trends.
[9] Kelly, P. et al. (2011), “Profile of Live-In Caregiver Immigrants
to Canada, 1993-2009”, Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative
(TIEDI) 18.
[2] Nakache, D. and P. Kinoshita (2010), The Canadian Temporary Foreign
Worker Program: Do Short-Term Economic Needs Prevail over Human Rights
Concerns?, l’Institut de recherche en politiques publiques,
http://irpp.org/fr/research-studies/the-canadian-temporary-foreign-work
er-program/.
[22] OECD (2019), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Korea 2019, Recruiting
Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264307872-en.
[13] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[12] OECD (2014), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: New Zealand 2014,
Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215658-en.
[7] OECD (forthcoming), Time to stop falling short on long-term care.
[16] Roslyn Kunin and Associates (2017), Trends in international
student enrolment and economic impacts in Canada,
http://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/impact-2017/sec
-5.aspx?lang=eng.
[15] Tuccio, M. (2019), “Measuring and assessing talent attractiveness
in OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working
Papers, No. 229, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b4e677ca-en.
Notes
← 1. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and Quebec’s
Ministère de l'Immigration, de la Diversité et de l'Inclusion (MIDI)
are implementing simplified processing requirements for select
occupations that are updated annually by the province. In recognition
of the fact that the provincial government (Emploi Québec in
collaboration with MIDI) has already determined that there is
insufficient labour supply for these occupations in Quebec, employers
seeking to hire TFWs in these occupations do not have to demonstrate
proof of recruitment efforts in advance of applying to the TFW Program
for foreign workers in the province.
← 2. Reference to these work opportunities are listed under R186 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). These specific
professions include athletes and coaches; aviation accident or incident
investigators; civil aviation inspectors; clergies; convention
organisers; crew members; emergency service providers; examiners and
evaluators; expert witnesses or investigators; family members of
foreign representatives; foreign government officials or
representatives; health care trainees; judges, referees or similar
officials; military personnel; news reporters and film and media crew;
producers or staff members working on advertisements; performing
artists; and public speakers.
← 3. There are cases where the open work permit can be restricted by
occupation or by location. For example, Bridging Open Work Permit
applicants who have a permanent residence application under the
Provincial Nominee Program may receive an open work permit restricted
by location/province.
← 4. In addition, the foreign worker, the transferring and receiving
employers, as well as an agent of the foreign worker’s government must
all agree to the change of employment.
← 5. This number includes both initial permits and renewals. Depending
on the programme, the duration of a work permit can vary from a few
weeks to several years.
← 6. This number includes only initial study permits (no extensions)
and excludes permits to attend primary and secondary schools.
← 7. When a study permit holder decides not to renew the study permit
but obtains a work permit before the existing study permit expires,
there is a period when the permit holder holds two permits of a
different type. For reporting purposes, neither permit is omitted
during the period of time when the two permits overlap. Instead, both
are reported in different tables according to the type of permits held.
IRCC data from end-2013 suggest that this applied to approximately 10%
of work and study permit holders.
← 8. A valid study permit with a specified condition allows full-time
international students enrolled at a designated learning institution to
work on and off campus part-time during academic season and full time
during academic breaks.
← 9. Starting in April 2013, and in the following year ESDC introduced
major changes and some additional reforms took place in 2016 and 2017.
← 10. The cap only applies to employers who employ more than 10
persons. Employers in seasonal industries hiring TFWs in seasonal
positions that are no more than 180 calendar days in length are exempt
from this cap. In addition, caregiving positions in private households
and in health care facilities, on-farm primary agricultural positions,
as well as certain short duration positions of 120 calendar days or
less in duration (e.g. carnival or fair operators) are exempted from
the cap. Likewise, positions on a Labour Market Impact Assessment to be
submitted to support a temporary foreign worker’s permanent residence
application under Express Entry are exempted from the cap.
← 11. These occupations include: cashier, store shelf stockers, clerks
and order fillers; food counter attendants, kitchen helpers and related
support occupations; security guards and related security service
occupations, light duty cleaners, specialised cleaners; janitors,
caretakers and building superintendents; support occupations in
accommodation, travel and facilities set-up services; construction
trades helpers and labourers; and landscaping and grounds maintenance
labourers.
← 12. As of June 2019, foreign caregivers seeking work permits are
subject to new rules. Ministerial Instructions were issued on June 18,
2019 to stop processing certain caregiver Labour Market Impact
Assessment (LMIA)-required work permit applications for
outside-of-Canada applicants intending to work in caregiving
occupations under the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program.
← 13. On 13 December 2016, the four-year cumulative duration rule
(“four-in, four-out” rule), which banned certain migrant workers from
working in Canada for four years after they had spent four years
working there, was abolished. This rule had been implemented in 2011.
← 14. For instance, work permits issued under the IMP in Ontario in
2007 accounted for 37% of all 83 000 permits issued in that year while
in 2016, they accounted for 70% of the close to 100 000 permits issued.
A similar trend – strong decline among TFW Program permits and
simultaneous strong increase of IMP work permits –holds for Alberta.
← 15. The TFW Program has a 10-day “priority” LMIA processing for
applications other than the Global Talent Stream. This includes: 1)
highly paid occupations that offer wages within the top 10% of wages
earned by Canadians in the province-territory where the work is taking
place; 2) the job offer has a length of 120 calendar days or less and
the wage is at or above the provincial/territorial median hourly wage
in the province/territory where the work will take place; 3) the LMIA
is requested for high-demand skilled trades occupations and the wage is
at or above the provincial/territorial median hourly wage in the
province/territory where the work will take place; 4) LMIA applications
supporting permanent residence under any Express-Entry-eligible
programmes.
← 16. NOC refers to Canada’s National Occupation Classification,
Canada’s official job classification system. It includes more than
30 000 occupational titles into 500 Unit Groups, organised according to
skill levels and skill types.
← 17. Other LMIA-required workers (outside of the Global Talent Stream)
such as High Wage Stream can also receive two-week priority processing
of the employer’s LMIA application if they are NOC 0 and A.
← 18. In such a case, the foreign national is sent a notification
letter stating their permit will be revoked in 90 days and their
temporary resident status and work authorisation continues until the
date stated in the letter.
← 19. For migrant workers to be eligible, they must be in Canada and
either hold a valid employer-specific work permit or be authorised to
work without a work permit under implied status as a result of ongoing
renewal of their employer-specific work permit.
← 20. A number of exemptions to the fee exist, such as for agricultural
workers and certain caregivers in private households as listed in 315.2
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).
← 21. Due to the exclusion of private households and some other
employers, the list is not complete.
← 22. Reviews of the LMBP are conducted separately and distinct from
measures to ensure compliance of employers with these general
requirements.
← 23. The LCP replaced the Foreign Domestic Movement Program, initiated
in 1981. This programme had essentially the same terms as the LCP, by
providing migrant domestic workers with access to Canadian permanent
residence after they completed a twenty-four month live-in work
requirement.
← 24. The 2014 caregiver pilots are no longer open to new applications
but submitted applications are still being processed.
← 25. 93% of those filing first income tax in 2006, 94% in 2016.
← 26. Until 2014, a specific permit for Off-Campus Work for enrolled
international students existed. Since June 2014, international students
are generally allowed to work on and off campus without an additional
permit, explaining the slight decrease in IMP permits from 2014 to
2015.
← 27. For the Working Holiday programme, these countries include
Australia, New Zealand, the United States, as well as a number of
European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). In addition,
Chile, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei
participate in the programme. Mobility agreements with Mexico and the
Ukraine are currently under review.
← 28. For applicants from the Netherlands, Korea, Sweden and the United
Kingdom, the age limit at application is 30 years.
← 29. All countries having more than 100 000 international tertiary
students enrolled in full-degree programmes.
← 30. This number includes permits issued to individuals for: CAAT,
CEGEP or other post-secondary course lasting a year or more (including
pre-university and technical), Colleges (applied degree, certificate
and diploma), English/French as Second Language (ESL/FSL),
English/French as Second Language (ESL/FSL) and College, English/French
as Second Language (ESL/FSL) and University, PTC/TCST/DVS/AVS, Trade
Schools, University (Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate and others) as
well as a number of other or unspecified study permits. It excludes
permits issued for primary and secondary school attendance.
← 31. Only applications received electronically are eligible for SDS
processing. All paper applications are processed under the regular
study permit application stream and are subject to the associated
processing times. Foreign nationals eligible for SDS processing are
still subject to all other eligibility and admissibility requirements.
← 32. Within this factor, in particular the public expenditure on
family benefits and the tax structure that disincentives a second
earners to enter employment decrease Canada’s score. However, both of
these issues are beyond the remit of migration policy.
← 33. For about 15% of permits issued under the TFW Program between
2015 and 2018, the intended destination was not available.
← 34. As discussed previously, the largest groups of open work permit
holders are former international students with a post-graduation work
permit (PGWP), most participants of International Experience Canada
(IEC) and spouses of skilled workers and international students.
← 35. TFW Program holders with permits issued between 2015 and 2018.
Shares are based only on permits where this information is available.
For about 14% of the TFW Program permit issued between 2015-18 the
information on intended destination and occupation is missing. These
shares are based on including for agriculture the NOC 0821, 0822, 8252,
8255, 8431, 8432 and 8611 and for caregivers NOC 4411, 4412, 3012, 3233
and 3413.
← 36. ^These data refer to the number of admissions of persons with
previous IMP or TFW permits, divided by the number of admitted
principal applicants in the economic classes.
← 37. This estimation is based on the number of initial post-graduation
work permits issued in 2016 as well as on the number of admitted
permanent residents under the family class in 2016 who previously held
a study permit, as a share of the total number of international
graduates in 2016.
← 38. The study used data on arrival cohorts from 1990-2006. A positive
impact was found regardless of whether the year of immigration or the
year of first arrival were taken as starting point.
References[1] ESDC (2014), Overhauling the temporary foreign worker
program,
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/
migration/documents/assets/portfolio/docs/en/foreign_workers/employers/
overhauling_TFW.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2018).
Open URLReferences[2] Nakache, D. and P. Kinoshita (2010), The
Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Do Short-Term Economic Needs
Prevail over Human Rights Concerns?, l’Institut de recherche en
politiques publiques,
http://irpp.org/fr/research-studies/the-canadian-temporary-foreign-work
er-program/.
Open URLReferences[3] HUMA (2016), Report of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities: TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM,
http://www.parl.gc.ca.
Open URLReferences[4] CIC (2012), Evaluation of the Labour Market
Opinion Streams of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/rhdcc-hrsdc/HS28-
207-2012-eng.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2019).
Open URLReferences[5] ESDC (2019), What we heard: Primary agriculture
review,
http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-
workers/reports/primary-agriculture.html.
Open URLReferences[2] Nakache, D. and P. Kinoshita (2010), The
Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Do Short-Term Economic Needs
Prevail over Human Rights Concerns?, l’Institut de recherche en
politiques publiques,
http://irpp.org/fr/research-studies/the-canadian-temporary-foreign-work
er-program/.
Open URLReferences[6] Caruso, B. (2018), The Canadian Bar Association:
Consultation on Caregiver Pathways,
http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=ebc5bb3e-3ed0-400d-9c15-2
ef044e1285c.
Open URLReferences[7] OECD (forthcoming), Time to stop falling short
on long-term care. References[8] IRCC (2018), Report to OECD Expert
group on International Migration (SOPEMI): Canada’s immigration
policies, programs and trends. References[6] Caruso, B. (2018), The
Canadian Bar Association: Consultation on Caregiver Pathways,
http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=ebc5bb3e-3ed0-400d-9c15-2
ef044e1285c.
Open URLReferences[9] Kelly, P. et al. (2011), “Profile of Live-In
Caregiver Immigrants to Canada, 1993-2009”, Toronto Immigrant
Employment Data Initiative (TIEDI) 18. References[6] Caruso, B. (2018),
The Canadian Bar Association: Consultation on Caregiver Pathways,
http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=ebc5bb3e-3ed0-400d-9c15-2
ef044e1285c.
Open URLReferences[10] Banerjee, R., P. Kelly and E. Tungohan (2017),
ASSESSING THE CHANGES TO CANADA’S LIVE--IN CAREGIVER PROGRAM: IMPROVING
SECURITY OR DEEPENING PRECARIOUSNESS?,
http://p2pcanada.ca/files/2017/12/Assessing-the-Changes-to-Canadas-Live
-In-Caregiver-Program.pdf.
Open URLReferences[11] IRCC (2019), Evaluation of the International
Experience Canada Program,
http://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/documents/pdf/english/evaluation/
e2-2017-iec-en.pdf.
Open URLReferences[12] OECD (2014), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: New
Zealand 2014, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215658-en.
Open DOIReferences[8] IRCC (2018), Report to OECD Expert group on
International Migration (SOPEMI): Canada’s immigration policies,
programs and trends. References[11] IRCC (2019), Evaluation of the
International Experience Canada Program,
http://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/documents/pdf/english/evaluation/
e2-2017-iec-en.pdf.
Open URLReferences[13] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD
Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
Open DOIReferences[14] CBIE (2018), The Student’s Voice: National
Results of the 2018 CBIE International Student Survey, Canadian Bureau
for International Education,
https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Student_Voice_Report-ENG.pdf
.
Open URLReferences[15] Tuccio, M. (2019), “Measuring and assessing
talent attractiveness in OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and
Migration Working Papers, No. 229, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b4e677ca-en.
Open DOIReferences[13] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD
Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
Open DOIReferences[15] Tuccio, M. (2019), “Measuring and assessing
talent attractiveness in OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and
Migration Working Papers, No. 229, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b4e677ca-en.
Open DOIReferences[8] IRCC (2018), Report to OECD Expert group on
International Migration (SOPEMI): Canada’s immigration policies,
programs and trends. References[16] Roslyn Kunin and Associates (2017),
Trends in international student enrolment and economic impacts in
Canada,
http://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-rapport/impact-2017/sec
-5.aspx?lang=eng.
Open URLReferences[17] Infometrics (2016), The Economic Impact of
International Education in New Zealand 2015/16,
https://enz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/The-Economic-Impact-of-International
-Education-in-New-Zealand-2015-2016.pdf.
Open URLReferences[18] Australian Government (2015), The value of
international education to Australia,
http://www.internationaleducation.gov.au.
Open URLReferences[19] Hou, F. and A. Bonikowska (2016), “Selections
Before the Selection: Earnings Advantages of Immigrants Who Were Former
Skilled Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada”, International Migration
Review, p. imre.12310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/imre.12310.
Open DOIReferences[20] Hawthorne, L. (2010), “How Valuable is
“Two-Step Migration”? Labor Market Outcomes for International Student
Migrants to Australia”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 19/1,
pp. 5-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/011719681001900102.
Open DOIReferences[14] CBIE (2018), The Student’s Voice: National
Results of the 2018 CBIE International Student Survey, Canadian Bureau
for International Education,
https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Student_Voice_Report-ENG.pdf
.
Open URLReferences[21] IRCC (2019), “Admissions of Permanent Residents
with Prior International Mobility Program (IMP) Work Permit Holder
Status under Post-Graduate Employment by Province/Territory of Intended
Destination and Immigration Category”,
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/1b026aab-edb3-4d5d-8231-270a09ed
4e82.
Open URLReferences[22] OECD (2019), Recruiting Immigrant Workers:
Korea 2019, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264307872-en.
Open DOIReferences[23] IRCC (2019), Express Entry year-end report
2018, http://www.cic.gc.ca/publications.
Open URLReferences[19] Hou, F. and A. Bonikowska (2016), “Selections
Before the Selection: Earnings Advantages of Immigrants Who Were Former
Skilled Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada”, International Migration
Review, p. imre.12310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/imre.12310.
Open DOIReferences[19] Hou, F. and A. Bonikowska (2016), “Selections
Before the Selection: Earnings Advantages of Immigrants Who Were Former
Skilled Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada”, International Migration
Review, p. imre.12310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/imre.12310.
Open DOI
End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page
* Terms & conditions
* Copyright & permissions
* Educators & students
* Privacy Policy
* Contact us
OECD at 60 years
OECD iLibrary is the online library of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) featuring its books, papers and
statistics and is the knowledge base of OECD's analysis and data.
© 2021 OECD. All Rights Reserved.
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not
be processed due to error
OECD iLibrary: