If I recall correctly, the Harper government was moving to reduce the TFW program towards the end of their mandate, in response to stories of abuse of the program by certain industries.
The arguments from McDonald’s, Timmys, A&W , etc franchise owners on needing to be open 24/7 and needing TFW was always ludicrous. If it makes business sense to be open 24/7, then pay accordingly to attract workers.
Trudeau government decision to expand the TFW program has undermined the ability of lower income Canadians to negotiate wages and benefits and skewed the market. I guess this isn’t a surprise - his kids won’t need a part time high school job when their 10 day Christmas vacation is worth $90k.
[The] Trudeau government decision to expand the TFW program has undermined the ability of lower income Canadians to negotiate wages and benefits and skewed the market.
END QUOTE
This policy also underscores the fakery / smoke-and-mirrors characteristics of said government.
Despite my deep-seated worries about Poilievre and his own brand of populist pandering, I really, r-e-a-l-l-y want to see the backs of Trudeau and his government.
I don't disagree with the overall issue, but let's be honest. We are primarily talking about smaller farming/agro operations here. Adding yet more layers of bureacracy, red tape, social services, unions, minimum wages, etc etc etc, will put an end to these smaller farm businesses. That is what is at stake.
I guess everyone experiences/interprets underpayment and exploitation differently. However, I'd like to think my implications likely reflect a middle of the road, common sense position. Beyond that, I was just pointing out the likely future scenarios for this sector when applying the author's point of view.
Fair assertion, but I disagree that "middle of the road" and "common sense", though lofty-sounding, have a tangible policy application when the question comes down to whether or not people can afford to actually live. But I suppose that too is up for interpretation.
Great article, and thanks for proposing solutions. Too often the solutions are absent.
We are trading on vulnerable foreign workers in the name of affordable food production. What reasonable justification can we have to tether a worker to a single employer? It’s a clear recipe for exploitation.
Farm work is seasonal minimum wage work, that won't change. If smaller farms (family run in many cases) had a nice pool of local workers to choose from, great. But that's not reality. You could offer big bucks, but then we'd have to listen to a certain politician's incessant whining about grocery prices and how much $$ Galen Weston makes - if you catch my drift - and we'd also have even more Cdns on the dole in the "off season", after a tough 4 months tending & harvesting the crop. The other option that has been playing out for decades now is to continue to let the agro industry evolve where small farms continue to be bought up by huge "factory farm syndicates" who have the capital and critical mass to automate and innovate with various high tech methods of farming, keeping our food more affordable. Since many of them are international, we could continue get our apples from the other side of the world instead of the other side of town, but then the "climate change angst and handwringing crowd" gets their dander up. It's a lot easier just to tweak the solutions a bit to protect TWF's, and provide a bit of oversight from existing agencies. Unfortunately, Govt and Think Tank types don't do "simple".
This is a cop out, I’m afraid. WRT grocery prices, if Canadian farms cannot operate without relying on what is essentially indentured labour, then they do not deserve to continue to exist.
Many greenhouse operations are not meaningfully seasonal these days, but employers still get to exploit rules (like long hours and no overtime pay) designed around the idea that all agriculture is seasonal.
Abusive labour practices should never be tolerated in any aspect of society. I think that in some instances, temporary foreign workers are loyal to their employers and line up to work hard for the growing season year after year. There should be a carrot offered from the government that allows these people a pathway to citizenship as compensation for doing menial backbreaking jobs that Canadians simply won’t do anymore. That brings a sense of fairness into the picture, IMO.
One other comment: a good number of the temporary foreign workers are doing specialized farm work that can’t be done easily through automation. Picking asparagus or tending to huge market garden operations isn’t necessarily dangerous but it’s hard work. We can agree that these workers are the make or break point on a balance sheet but let’s remember that there are many other cost factors that affect the ability of farm operations to complete with cheap food imports. Some of these costs are local land taxes or overhead passed down from other levels of government through regulatory burden or taxation. Running a successful business requires everyone to have a hand in keeping costs low.
Great article. It’s not the responsibility of the govt to subsidize businesses that dont have what it takes to be competitive in a global with cheap labour. It reduces any incentives businesses have to improve their productivity if they know they can rely on a bottomless supply of exploitable cheap labour.
Is it cheap labour though? I'm not sure that is the case. In the small farm operations I know of well, it is a case of getting any labour at all - ie to pick apples. This is not work that a resident Canadian is going to sign up for at minimum wage. So bring in TFW's, pay them minimum wage, allow them some basic emergency medical care while here, give them access to assistance if they feel they are being exploited, and don't allow them to stay when they are done. We don't need layers of government red tape for the basic needs of these people, and for the basic needs of those employing them. We know what happens when there is too much govt involvement in ANYTHING.
Isnt it though? “This is not work that a resident Canadian is going to sign up for AT MINIMUM WAGE” (emphasis mine).
If, theoretically lets just say that these employers can offer workers 100k a year. Are you certain that no canadian will sign up for the job? If you do get canadians to sign up for the job, then it absolutely is about labour costs.
If businesses dont have what it takes to be profitable without having access to a bottomless supply of cheap labour, then they should go under or figure out a way to become profitable without getting govt handouts in the form of cheap labour.
That’s only sort of true. What government is responsible for is decided by the voter. In this case the public policy issue is cost of living and wage inflation, which are generally considered to be matters that concern government.
How many voters are actually ok with having so many temporary foreign workers? I recall Trudeau hammering Harper on TFW in 2015. However, since then, the Trudeau liberals have only increased TFWs here in canada.
And Poillievre can’t stop blaming Trudeau for inflation. Increasing the cost of food production would be a hard sell. That doesn’t make it ethical to indenture an employee to a specific employer.
First, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program needs to be scaled back dramatically over time, and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found.
Second, Canada needs to re-commit itself to bringing permanent immigrants here who have a path to citizenship. This would return us back to first principles and the purpose of immigration: nation building.
Third, we must also create real transparency and accountability in the program... We must tighten the foreign worker approvals process, through the disclosure of applications and approvals of temporary foreign workers. This can be facilitated with the public disclosure of information concerning what jobs are being offered to temporary foreign workers and in what communities.
Fourth, we must require that employers applying to the program have clearly attempted to fill job vacancies with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadians whose unemployment rate is nearly twice the national average. We require Canadians who are collecting EI benefits to prove they are looking for work. It’s only fair that we require employers looking to benefit from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to prove they really need it.
Finally, the government should tighten the Labour Market Opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is broken. Action must be taken.
Why is it that every time an issue like this surfaces, the only solution anyone can think of is “the government needs to step up”? As a taxpayer, I’m sick of always being expected to pay.
Totally agree, but in this case it was the government that generated the problem, so it is necessary for them to fix it. A good solution could be cancelling the program altogether.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The system has to have a structure that ensures workers are paid and have benefits that are up to Canadian standards. The TFW program in particular has to be restructured from what I see. What I don't agree with is that it be used as a foot in the doors to residency. A lot of countries, particularly Central American ones, are cheap places to live but if TFWs stay, Canada has a more acute housing problem. If they go back they are supporting a third world country with their income. The system has to support efficient cross border travel however and a requirement to return to a home or other country after a certain period of time. If the system cannot be navigated by the individual, ie. you need the intervention of lawyers, it is useless. If businesses have onerous requirements to hire TFWs over Canadians it is also useless.
If we offered an opportunity for residency to TFW's it doesn't mean they will all take it up. Some will of course, but many people come here to earn income to support their families at home and wouldn't be interested in taking up permanent residence here.
I think we want to make sure that people are not using the TFW to skip the queue in the regular immigration process however. I worked in the US for a while on a work visa which was an I-94. This was a lot easier for my employer to get at the time than the standard "green card" ( which unfortunately was still not simple ). There is still a lot of complexity here as you can have issues with people skipping out on their TFW and working illegally, etc. but I don't think there needs to be anything to limit someones participation in the regular immigration process while they are working as a TFW.
The work permits should be open and labour inspectors should proactively visit each farm twice per season. Beyond that, this proposal for better wages and conditions simply shifts exploitative ag operations elsewhere, just as rising wages and working conditions have done in the textile industry and others. Loblaws will remain full of US farmed carrots that are cheaper than ours thanks to their low/exploitative labour regime. Canadian shoppers will choose the lower cost carrot if given the choice. Even if I loathe the argument I've presented, it feels to me like the way the world will tend to operate in a free trade ag market with the US.
Part of the solution lies with us as consumers. As a general rule, I don't buy imported produce if it is also grown here. Your example of carrots is perfect. We grow carrots here, they're a root vegetable so they can be kept for quite a while. Why would I want to buy imported carrots. The same applies to berries - I don't buy imported berries period. I buy them when they're in season - just as we did when I was a child.
Would not exploitation fall in absolute terms if a path to permanent residency for TFWs was greatly curtailed? Like the foreign student visas, it seems a calculation is made that an upfront investment in providing below-market labour or inflated school tuition (often both), is a gamble on being able to achieve permanent residency at some point in the future. People leave their home countries for a reason. Over the years I have met migrants from other countries who said that their understanding of what it takes to live in this country was dramatically different from what they thought they knew upon arrival, however, they were glad they did it. I will say these people tended to be from the traditional points based stream of immigrants, not the TFW or student visa variety.
Reporting by The Line and other outlets has explicitly said the federal government has expanded these programs to supply low wage labour to business. The authors solution of increasing innovation, hiring locals at market rates, and encouraging consolidation are market forces working. Would businesses fail without this hidden subsidy, absolutely. TFWs should have the right to sell their labour according to the best terms they can get recognizing, like many Canadians, they are often constrained to certain regions due to a lack of a vehicle, housing, etc. The responsibility of the society is to ensure they can extricate themselves from exploitation and sanction those doing the exploiting. If they cannot find workable opportunities within a reasonable time they should be required to return to their origin country to try again at some point in the future if they so choose. This is reasonable and pragmatic.
I'll go out on a limb here and say I agree with what seems to be a classically Marxist analysis of the problem, but as usual the Marxist solution is not viable without compelling either the owner or the worker. The owner should not receive a subsidy to make their business viable and the worker does not get to have all risk hedged out by the country. Individuals regularly occupy both roles. Workers often become owners and owners often become workers again. This is the foundation of social mobility in the economic domain.
The TFW program artificially suppresses wages in the labour market. Without this interference in the market, employers would be forced to increase wages or innovate to get the labour they need.
I think it's a great idea, but unless it G20 wide, it's economic suicide. It's the same as corporate subsidies. Fixing some of the huge flaws in our society requires western leadership to act as a whole; not as individuals. There's lots of money out there. Until government s deal with those who are hoarding it, this, and the needless suffering that goes with it, will continue.
Our temporary worker program is designed from the ground up to "control inflation" by adding supply to the labour market to keep wages low. Even worse, it is designed in a way that couldn't make it easier to take advantage of temporary foreign workers.
First we need to admit that many employers are too greedy and/or cheap to operate in a competitive economy in 2024.
If I recall correctly, the Harper government was moving to reduce the TFW program towards the end of their mandate, in response to stories of abuse of the program by certain industries.
The arguments from McDonald’s, Timmys, A&W , etc franchise owners on needing to be open 24/7 and needing TFW was always ludicrous. If it makes business sense to be open 24/7, then pay accordingly to attract workers.
Trudeau government decision to expand the TFW program has undermined the ability of lower income Canadians to negotiate wages and benefits and skewed the market. I guess this isn’t a surprise - his kids won’t need a part time high school job when their 10 day Christmas vacation is worth $90k.
QUOTE
[The] Trudeau government decision to expand the TFW program has undermined the ability of lower income Canadians to negotiate wages and benefits and skewed the market.
END QUOTE
This policy also underscores the fakery / smoke-and-mirrors characteristics of said government.
Despite my deep-seated worries about Poilievre and his own brand of populist pandering, I really, r-e-a-l-l-y want to see the backs of Trudeau and his government.
Since 2015. A phrase that will live ininfamy.
I don't disagree with the overall issue, but let's be honest. We are primarily talking about smaller farming/agro operations here. Adding yet more layers of bureacracy, red tape, social services, unions, minimum wages, etc etc etc, will put an end to these smaller farm businesses. That is what is at stake.
I agree, but also don’t think that policy issue should be laid at the feet of vulnerable people.
If they can't afford to hire locally, perhaps their business plan doesn't make sense and they should lease out their land to better farmers?
The implication being that underpaying and exploiting workers is acceptable?
I guess everyone experiences/interprets underpayment and exploitation differently. However, I'd like to think my implications likely reflect a middle of the road, common sense position. Beyond that, I was just pointing out the likely future scenarios for this sector when applying the author's point of view.
Fair assertion, but I disagree that "middle of the road" and "common sense", though lofty-sounding, have a tangible policy application when the question comes down to whether or not people can afford to actually live. But I suppose that too is up for interpretation.
So be it. Their profitability and success is not a right. If they can't afford the cost of business - that is their problem.
Great article, and thanks for proposing solutions. Too often the solutions are absent.
We are trading on vulnerable foreign workers in the name of affordable food production. What reasonable justification can we have to tether a worker to a single employer? It’s a clear recipe for exploitation.
Farm work is seasonal minimum wage work, that won't change. If smaller farms (family run in many cases) had a nice pool of local workers to choose from, great. But that's not reality. You could offer big bucks, but then we'd have to listen to a certain politician's incessant whining about grocery prices and how much $$ Galen Weston makes - if you catch my drift - and we'd also have even more Cdns on the dole in the "off season", after a tough 4 months tending & harvesting the crop. The other option that has been playing out for decades now is to continue to let the agro industry evolve where small farms continue to be bought up by huge "factory farm syndicates" who have the capital and critical mass to automate and innovate with various high tech methods of farming, keeping our food more affordable. Since many of them are international, we could continue get our apples from the other side of the world instead of the other side of town, but then the "climate change angst and handwringing crowd" gets their dander up. It's a lot easier just to tweak the solutions a bit to protect TWF's, and provide a bit of oversight from existing agencies. Unfortunately, Govt and Think Tank types don't do "simple".
This is a cop out, I’m afraid. WRT grocery prices, if Canadian farms cannot operate without relying on what is essentially indentured labour, then they do not deserve to continue to exist.
Many greenhouse operations are not meaningfully seasonal these days, but employers still get to exploit rules (like long hours and no overtime pay) designed around the idea that all agriculture is seasonal.
Abusive labour practices should never be tolerated in any aspect of society. I think that in some instances, temporary foreign workers are loyal to their employers and line up to work hard for the growing season year after year. There should be a carrot offered from the government that allows these people a pathway to citizenship as compensation for doing menial backbreaking jobs that Canadians simply won’t do anymore. That brings a sense of fairness into the picture, IMO.
One other comment: a good number of the temporary foreign workers are doing specialized farm work that can’t be done easily through automation. Picking asparagus or tending to huge market garden operations isn’t necessarily dangerous but it’s hard work. We can agree that these workers are the make or break point on a balance sheet but let’s remember that there are many other cost factors that affect the ability of farm operations to complete with cheap food imports. Some of these costs are local land taxes or overhead passed down from other levels of government through regulatory burden or taxation. Running a successful business requires everyone to have a hand in keeping costs low.
Great article. It’s not the responsibility of the govt to subsidize businesses that dont have what it takes to be competitive in a global with cheap labour. It reduces any incentives businesses have to improve their productivity if they know they can rely on a bottomless supply of exploitable cheap labour.
Is it cheap labour though? I'm not sure that is the case. In the small farm operations I know of well, it is a case of getting any labour at all - ie to pick apples. This is not work that a resident Canadian is going to sign up for at minimum wage. So bring in TFW's, pay them minimum wage, allow them some basic emergency medical care while here, give them access to assistance if they feel they are being exploited, and don't allow them to stay when they are done. We don't need layers of government red tape for the basic needs of these people, and for the basic needs of those employing them. We know what happens when there is too much govt involvement in ANYTHING.
Isnt it though? “This is not work that a resident Canadian is going to sign up for AT MINIMUM WAGE” (emphasis mine).
If, theoretically lets just say that these employers can offer workers 100k a year. Are you certain that no canadian will sign up for the job? If you do get canadians to sign up for the job, then it absolutely is about labour costs.
If businesses dont have what it takes to be profitable without having access to a bottomless supply of cheap labour, then they should go under or figure out a way to become profitable without getting govt handouts in the form of cheap labour.
If you can't find people for minimum wage - then it isn't a minimum wage job. Raise the pay.
That’s only sort of true. What government is responsible for is decided by the voter. In this case the public policy issue is cost of living and wage inflation, which are generally considered to be matters that concern government.
How many voters are actually ok with having so many temporary foreign workers? I recall Trudeau hammering Harper on TFW in 2015. However, since then, the Trudeau liberals have only increased TFWs here in canada.
And Poillievre can’t stop blaming Trudeau for inflation. Increasing the cost of food production would be a hard sell. That doesn’t make it ethical to indenture an employee to a specific employer.
Yep. And the Conservatives won't change it. Neither party is trustworthy on this issue.
First, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program needs to be scaled back dramatically over time, and refocused on its original purpose: to fill jobs on a limited basis when no Canadian workers can be found.
Second, Canada needs to re-commit itself to bringing permanent immigrants here who have a path to citizenship. This would return us back to first principles and the purpose of immigration: nation building.
Third, we must also create real transparency and accountability in the program... We must tighten the foreign worker approvals process, through the disclosure of applications and approvals of temporary foreign workers. This can be facilitated with the public disclosure of information concerning what jobs are being offered to temporary foreign workers and in what communities.
Fourth, we must require that employers applying to the program have clearly attempted to fill job vacancies with Canadian workers, particularly young Canadians whose unemployment rate is nearly twice the national average. We require Canadians who are collecting EI benefits to prove they are looking for work. It’s only fair that we require employers looking to benefit from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to prove they really need it.
Finally, the government should tighten the Labour Market Opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is broken. Action must be taken.
Justin Trudeau May 5, 2014
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/justin-trudeau-how-to-fix-the-broken-temporary-foreign-worker-program/article_c27f214f-1fa2-5fdf-af61-5a7642e4eb7c.html
Why is it that every time an issue like this surfaces, the only solution anyone can think of is “the government needs to step up”? As a taxpayer, I’m sick of always being expected to pay.
Totally agree, but in this case it was the government that generated the problem, so it is necessary for them to fix it. A good solution could be cancelling the program altogether.
Agreed. Shut it down.
If there are enough votes in this, expect the next words out of Trudeau's mouth to be. "Canada needs a Ministry for Migrant Workers".
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The system has to have a structure that ensures workers are paid and have benefits that are up to Canadian standards. The TFW program in particular has to be restructured from what I see. What I don't agree with is that it be used as a foot in the doors to residency. A lot of countries, particularly Central American ones, are cheap places to live but if TFWs stay, Canada has a more acute housing problem. If they go back they are supporting a third world country with their income. The system has to support efficient cross border travel however and a requirement to return to a home or other country after a certain period of time. If the system cannot be navigated by the individual, ie. you need the intervention of lawyers, it is useless. If businesses have onerous requirements to hire TFWs over Canadians it is also useless.
If we offered an opportunity for residency to TFW's it doesn't mean they will all take it up. Some will of course, but many people come here to earn income to support their families at home and wouldn't be interested in taking up permanent residence here.
I think we want to make sure that people are not using the TFW to skip the queue in the regular immigration process however. I worked in the US for a while on a work visa which was an I-94. This was a lot easier for my employer to get at the time than the standard "green card" ( which unfortunately was still not simple ). There is still a lot of complexity here as you can have issues with people skipping out on their TFW and working illegally, etc. but I don't think there needs to be anything to limit someones participation in the regular immigration process while they are working as a TFW.
The work permits should be open and labour inspectors should proactively visit each farm twice per season. Beyond that, this proposal for better wages and conditions simply shifts exploitative ag operations elsewhere, just as rising wages and working conditions have done in the textile industry and others. Loblaws will remain full of US farmed carrots that are cheaper than ours thanks to their low/exploitative labour regime. Canadian shoppers will choose the lower cost carrot if given the choice. Even if I loathe the argument I've presented, it feels to me like the way the world will tend to operate in a free trade ag market with the US.
Part of the solution lies with us as consumers. As a general rule, I don't buy imported produce if it is also grown here. Your example of carrots is perfect. We grow carrots here, they're a root vegetable so they can be kept for quite a while. Why would I want to buy imported carrots. The same applies to berries - I don't buy imported berries period. I buy them when they're in season - just as we did when I was a child.
Would not exploitation fall in absolute terms if a path to permanent residency for TFWs was greatly curtailed? Like the foreign student visas, it seems a calculation is made that an upfront investment in providing below-market labour or inflated school tuition (often both), is a gamble on being able to achieve permanent residency at some point in the future. People leave their home countries for a reason. Over the years I have met migrants from other countries who said that their understanding of what it takes to live in this country was dramatically different from what they thought they knew upon arrival, however, they were glad they did it. I will say these people tended to be from the traditional points based stream of immigrants, not the TFW or student visa variety.
Reporting by The Line and other outlets has explicitly said the federal government has expanded these programs to supply low wage labour to business. The authors solution of increasing innovation, hiring locals at market rates, and encouraging consolidation are market forces working. Would businesses fail without this hidden subsidy, absolutely. TFWs should have the right to sell their labour according to the best terms they can get recognizing, like many Canadians, they are often constrained to certain regions due to a lack of a vehicle, housing, etc. The responsibility of the society is to ensure they can extricate themselves from exploitation and sanction those doing the exploiting. If they cannot find workable opportunities within a reasonable time they should be required to return to their origin country to try again at some point in the future if they so choose. This is reasonable and pragmatic.
I'll go out on a limb here and say I agree with what seems to be a classically Marxist analysis of the problem, but as usual the Marxist solution is not viable without compelling either the owner or the worker. The owner should not receive a subsidy to make their business viable and the worker does not get to have all risk hedged out by the country. Individuals regularly occupy both roles. Workers often become owners and owners often become workers again. This is the foundation of social mobility in the economic domain.
The TFW program artificially suppresses wages in the labour market. Without this interference in the market, employers would be forced to increase wages or innovate to get the labour they need.
I think it's a great idea, but unless it G20 wide, it's economic suicide. It's the same as corporate subsidies. Fixing some of the huge flaws in our society requires western leadership to act as a whole; not as individuals. There's lots of money out there. Until government s deal with those who are hoarding it, this, and the needless suffering that goes with it, will continue.
Our temporary worker program is designed from the ground up to "control inflation" by adding supply to the labour market to keep wages low. Even worse, it is designed in a way that couldn't make it easier to take advantage of temporary foreign workers.
First we need to admit that many employers are too greedy and/or cheap to operate in a competitive economy in 2024.