Research & Publications

Solidarity Across Borders: Canadian Union Membership and Attitudes Towards Immigration

Hanna Taylor Milne Clement Nocos
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.

Table of Contents

Solidarity Across Borders: Canadian Union Membership and Attitudes Towards Immigration is a supplementary research project to Shifting Borders: Canadian Attitudes Towards Immigration, a joint research project between the Broadbent Institute and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Canada, with field research conducted by Viewpoints Research. This project was assisted by the Government of Canada through the Canada Summer Jobs Program.

Solidarity Across Borders (.pdf)Download

About the Authors

Hanna Taylor Milne is a master’s student at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts from Carleton University in Human Rights and Social Justice and a Bachelor of Education from Queen’s University. She was the Broadbent Institute’s 2025 Canada Summer Jobs Social Policy Analyst.

Clement Nocos is the Director of Policy and Engagement at the Broadbent Institute.

The authors would also like to thank the following for their instrumental support in this analysis.

  • Jordan Leichnitz, Canada Program Manager, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
  • Natalie Pilla, Research Manager, Viewpoints Research
  • Syed Hussan, Executive Director, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change
  • Pablo Godoy, Western Canada Director, UFCW Canada

Introduction

Canadians have often thought of their country as a welcoming, multicultural society, being home to millions of the world’s diaspora communities, with regard for the waves of immigration from outside of Northern Europe who have settled in Canada since the mid-20th century. Toronto, as Canada’s most populated city, is often called the most multicultural city on the planet (Statistics Canada, 2024a). Canada’s multicultural diversity, because of immigration and labour policy, is often discussed as a point of pride for Canadians, with generally celebrated views regarding the contribution of newcomers of recent decades to Canada’s economy and to culture. In recent years, however, there has been a growing disinformation effort to blame rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and a struggling health care system on newcomers by Canadian policymakers, in lieu of proposing substantial investments and economic reforms to address these issues. As a result, Canadian attitudes towards Canada’s immigration policies are changing.

A survey conducted across Canada in March 2025 by Viewpoints Research for the Broadbent Institute and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung report Shifting Borders: Canadian Attitudes Towards Immigration, indicates that over the past year, 38% of Canadians have shifted their views on immigration, now preferring less than current immigration levels. 32% of respondents state that immigration has a negative impact on Canada. Housing, healthcare, and employment are all vital issues for Canadians, with some seeing immigration as contributing to these economic pressures. Still, 45% of respondents did not change their opinions, with the same number of respondents believing that immigration has had a positive impact on Canada (Nocos, 2025). 

Notably, of survey respondents, those who were members of a labour union were more likely than non-union members to see immigration as a positive, with strong contributions to the Canadian economy. This is not a fluke: many Canadian unions openly advocate for the rights of migrant workers, and union membership correlates with favourable attitudes towards regularization, wherein individuals are given the opportunity to apply for permanent residency. However, most union worker respondents also stated that they believed Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program is unfair and should end, with 54.4% agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement (Nocos, 2025).

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which allows for international workers to come to Canada to fill important job positions on a temporary basis, has long drawn criticism from newcomers, labour unions, and the Canadian public. Many TFWP participants are told by recruiters in their home countries that it serves as an immigration pathway to Canada, though the program does not promise the granting of permanent residency (Ouellet et. al., 2024). Though there is a lack of clarity between jurisdictions, for higher-wage streams of the program, it has been used as a “step” counting towards Canadian work experience for permanent residency applications. Labour unions point out that temporary foreign workers often face exploitation in the workplace, and are often the ones performing dirty, dangerous, and demeaning work. Some unions, such as UFCW Canada, argue that these workers deserve workplace protections just as much as Canadian workers, if not more. Regarding migrant agricultural workers, UFCW Canada states that union representation is vital, as it “empowers and protects workers, advocates for improved safety conditions, and holds employers accountable for providing a safe work environment” (UFCW Canada, 2024).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery reported in 2024 on Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program, criticizing it as a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery” that places more importance on the desires of employers than it does the rights of its workers (Obokata, 2024). This report echoes claims made by reports published by LiUNA Western Canada, which point out that the TFWP is legally considered indentured servitude, and that the UN considers this servitude to be a form of modern slavery (Gilbert, 2022). Migrant rights organizations, such as the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, detail a culture of “rampant abuse and exploitation” in temporary foreign worker-dependent fields (Faraday, 2017). Furthermore, Canada has not yet signed or ratified the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Despite certain legal protections in place within the TFWP, instances of exploitation, safety issues, low pay, lack of access to healthcare, and inadequate employer-provided housing often go underreported by workers out of fear of employer reprisals. 

While many temporary foreign workers from the different work streams of the program go on to pursue entry into Canada as economic migrants, these pathways have shrunk as fewer workers are permitted to Canada (see Table 1) and permit renewals are issued in recent years (See Table 2). The TFWP is a different program from Canada’s economic streams in which newcomers can be admitted to the country under a variety of methods. The “Express Entry” stream, for instance, refers to economic migrants that are given permanent residency status based on their work and cultural experience as evaluated through the “Comprehensive Ranking System” (CRS): newcomers are assigned a score based on demographics such as age, marital status, education and work experience and can then be admitted based on this score. Family reunification allows for individuals with Canadian citizenship or permanent residency to sponsor individuals in their family as permanent residents. Additionally, newcomers may be allowed permanent residency through provincial nomination programs or apply for asylum status as a refugee. Unlike these pathways to permanent residency, the TFWP is emphasized as temporary and supplements Canadian business cases for access to labour surplus.

Chart 1 – Total New Worker Arrivals in Canada per Month

Chart 2 – Shrinking proportion of PR issuance of TFWP permit holders after one year of issuance

Systemic issues, such as stagnant wages, degraded public healthcare services, and housing affordability, are blamed on newcomers by some policymakers, despite contributing to these economic activities and having limited access to good wages and services themselves. Permanent residency in Canada has slowed within the past two years, with the federal government’s targets set to continue this trend (Statistics Canada, 2025). Low wages, degrading public healthcare, and a lack of affordable housing are not the fault of migrant workers. Policymakers choose to leave minimum wages below the rate of inflation while setting policies at the behest of business interests. New investments in affordable housing have only begun to return after decades of absence and have not reached their peak mid-20th century levels despite the present housing crisis. Provincial governments withhold public funding for the healthcare system to let it fail and give the appearance of fiscal responsibility. Business works with governments to maximize profits, defend them against workers gains, and run roughshod over workers rights.

These systemic issues are rooted in those who control the system’s levers. Instead, many of Canada’s unions have stated that they believe that the solution lies in providing permanent residency to migrant workers, shifting the focus away from precarious work. As indicated from previous research (Nocos, 2025), most unionized respondents would agree that if migrants are good enough to work, they are good enough to stay. Using the public opinion survey collected by this research project, this paper will also replicate quantitative analysis from previous studies, but with a focus on attitudes of union members towards immigration regularization in Canada, that demonstrate that, “the security gained from union membership should generate less, rather than more, hostility towards migrants.” (Gorodzeisky & Richards, 2016) It will also assess competing evidence that, “working belonging to a union household […] increases anti-immigration sentiment,” due to labour’s attempt to control labour supply (Wilkes, Guppy & Farris, 2008).

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) was established in 1973, after the establishment of the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program in 1966 and the Caribbean Domestic Workers Scheme in 1955. The TFWP began as a temporary measure to fill labour gaps in high-skill talent, caregivers, and seasonal agricultural workers when Canadian or permanent resident workers were unavailable to take those jobs. Despite the scapegoating that has occurred around the TFWP itself, program admissions to Canada have not risen much over the past two decades, having increased from 124,000 to 126,000 between 2011 and 2021. The total number of non-permanent residents with employment income, however, has increased dramatically though other programs such as the International Mobility Program (IMP) and study permit holders, from 356,000 in 2011 to 845,000 in 2021 (Chart 3; Statistics Canada, 2024b).

Temporary foreign workers can be admitted to Canada under several streams including, high- and low-wage streams, agricultural streams, caregiver streams, global talent for highly skilled workers, and others that are developed as the program evolves due to the changing demands of employers and policymakers. Employment and Social Development Canada sets the wage caps for the high- and low-wage streams and processes Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications – cited as a necessary step in the TFWP process, but relied upon less for admitting temporary workers to Canada.

Chart 3 – Number of non-permanent residents with employment income, 2011 to 2021

LMIAs are undertaken by employers wishing to hire a temporary foreign worker and are intended to show the federal government that there is a need for a particular job position to be filled and that there are no Canadian citizens or permanent residents available to fill the position. Certain status situations, international agreements, and labour sectors do not require a LMIA to be submitted for a temporary foreign worker to be admitted under the TFWP. The International Mobility Program (IMP), introduced during the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, provides another easy avenue for employers to hire temporary foreign workers without needing an LMIA. Positions filled through the IMP are intended to be advantageous for Canada’s interests and economy, as well as provide benefits to Canadian citizens and permanent residents through the employment of a temporary foreign worker.

Industries that are heavily dependent on temporary foreign workers include agriculture, caregiving, food manufacturing, and accommodation and food services (Lu & Hou, 2023). There is also a high demand among employers for temporary foreign workers in construction today, as Canada moves to build more homes in the coming years. Agriculture is the sector most reliant on temporary foreign workers, and it is important to note that in Ontario, Alberta and Quebec, agricultural workers do not have collective bargaining rights, despite this being a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The TFWP often mirrors colonial-style exploitation. Pablo Godoy of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Canada discusses how Canadian industries operating in historically exploited countries can worsen social, economic, and ecological situations for people of those countries that induce labour migration to rich Western economies like Canada’s. Many from the Global South find themselves turning to programs such as the TFWP to make ends meet for their loved ones back home, having to go through expensive recruitment agencies seeking to exploit workers for Canada’s temporary work positions where immigration status is held at the behest of the employer. (Godoy & Nocos, 2024).

Once in Canada, temporary foreign workers often face abuse and exploitation in the workplace, with documented instances of verbal, physical, and sexual abuse (Obokata, 2024). Employers must pay fees to submit LMIA applications, as well as provide health care and sometimes housing for temporary workers. Recruitment agencies will also charge fees for their services to employers and employees, but these costs are often passed down to the worker, resulting in a debt-bondage situation that must be paid off before they can earn their own wages.

Additionally, temporary foreign workers are almost always admitted through closed work permits, meaning they are tied to the employer who admitted them and cannot seek another employer. These employers may illegally confiscate temporary workers’ legal documents, subject them to lower wages, or assign them dangerous tasks with inadequate health and safety training. Temporary foreign workers can be provided with an open work permit in cases of abuse or exploitation, but this is a rare and complicated process, and many temporary foreign workers are not informed of their rights and alternatives when confronted with these issues. As employers oversee their workers’ healthcare, wages and sometimes housing, instances of abuse and exploitation go underreported as temporary workers fear losing access to these lifelines or deportation (Obokata, 2024).

It is worth noting that temporary foreign workers are often tasked with completing dirty, dangerous, and demeaning jobs that are associated with a myriad of occupational safety hazards. This work, especially in cases with a lack of health and safety training, is often associated with poor health outcomes for its workers. A 2024 European study in the Journal of International Migration and Integration found that so-called “triple D jobs” had a “direct, negative impact on migrants’ self-rated health” (Lenko et. al., 2024). This pattern is likely to hold true for Canada’s temporary foreign workers too.

Canadian Labour’s Solidarity with Migrant Workers

Some of Canada’s major unions have expressed solidarity with migrant workers, calling for better working conditions, more pathways to permanent residency, and for Canada to shift its focus from the exploitative TFWP, and towards an immigration system that respects human rights. Migrant workers generally see unions positively and are responsive to unions that advocate for their rights. A 2018 study by Migrant Work Saskatchewan interviewed both Canadian and non-Canadian workers in Saskatchewan on their attitudes towards unions and immigration. They found that newcomer respondents were more satisfied with union representation than Canadian citizens (56% to 51%), newcomers turn to their unions for help more frequently than Canadian citizens (21% to 17%), and that newcomers were more likely than Canadian citizens to believe that unions had their best interests in mind (62% to 47%). Newcomer respondents were also far more likely to agree that unions could do even more to support migrant workers (75%) (Stevens, 2018). While this study was small and centred on workers in Saskatchewan, it is indicative of a reciprocal relationship between unions and migrant workers, with unions receiving support from migrant workers while advocating for their needs in the workplace.

Among building trades unions, Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) Western Canada have also criticized the TFWP, as it has enabled employers to pay wages far below union standards and improperly supply workers with protective equipment or health and safety training (Gilbert, 2022). Over the past decade, LiUNA WC has commissioned studies regarding the socioeconomic effects of the TFWP, detailing its history and case studies of the program’s abuse. In detailing a 2008 BC Human Rights Tribunal, LiUNA WC found that workers from Latin America working on infrastructure projects in Vancouver were paid far under the minimum wage for their work (Gilbert, 2022). As a result of this advocacy, LiUNA Local 1611, also known as the Construction and Specialized Workers’ Union (CSWU), launched a complaint and was eventually awarded $2.4 million (CBC News, 2008).

Among public sector unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has also criticized the TFWP and has released a series of publications regarding the rights of workers in this program. In 2024, CUPE released a comprehensive “Solidarity and Action Guide” regarding the TFWP to protect the rights of temporary foreign workers. The guide demonstrates several labour actions and tactics in support of migrant workers including filing grievances, requesting document disclosure from employers, and joining calls for open work permits and easier access to permanent residency (CUPE, 2024).

UFCW Canada has been particularly outspoken on the TFWP, regularly calling for better access to permanent residency, as well as better health and safety training, for temporary foreign workers. The union also regularly amplifies calls to action made by migrant rights organizations. UFCW Canada has been especially proactive in advocating for the rights of agriculture workers, many of whom are temporary foreign workers. This advocacy includes engaging in lengthy legal challenges to provincial laws that prevent agriculture workers from unionizing, as well as direct assistance for migrant workers.

Notably, UFCW Canada has also reached across border lines to facilitate an agreement with CATEM (Confederación Autónoma de Trabajadores y Empleados de México), one of Mexico’s largest unions, to better protect temporary foreign workers when they enter Canada. Both unions have agreed to pressure their respective governments to overhaul the TFWP in favour of a program that better protects its workers from exploitation, as well as allows union representation, better access to permanent residency, and open work permits. This cross-borders approach encourages temporary foreign workers’ countries of origin to carefully consider the risks of allowing migrant work to Canada and may serve as extra pressure for Canada to ensure its programs mitigate risks for temporary foreign workers. This agreement between the two unions has yet to be fully implemented, signed only in October 2023, but demonstrates a path forward for further cross-border collaboration amongst the labour movement (UFCW Canada, 2023).

Canadian trade union federations have also joined calls for change, including the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and Canada’s Building Trades Unions (CBTU). The CLC has made regular calls for better access to permanent residency and open work permits for temporary foreign workers and makes it a point to discuss the harms of the TFWP annually on International Migrants Day, which takes place on December 18th (Canadian Labour Congress, 2014). The labour organizations represented by CBTU also experience their industry’s demands for foreign labour to build and maintain homes and infrastructure. CBTU has published reports on the harms of the TFWP on the construction industry, demonstrating how the program has led to the suppression of wages for skilled trades workers (Sas, 2024). The CBTU differs in its calls to action from other labour organizations as it is particularly concerned with Economic and Social Development Canada’s calculation of prevailing wages and also advocates for unions to have a say in LMIA agreements (CBTU, 2025).

However, Canada’s labour unions are not homogenous in their calls for action. A study published in 2015 collected the responses of five Canadian unions to temporary foreign workers, examining unions that were either restrictive (generally unsupportive), facilitative (encouraging the hiring of temporary foreign workers and assisting employers in this task), active (supportive of temporary foreign workers), or transitioned from restrictive to active in their support of migrant workers over time (Foster et. al., 2015). The study found that some restrictive unions maintained “Canadians First” rhetoric to justify restrictions to union benefits and a set hierarchy for layoffs prioritizing Canadian citizens. Other unions treated migrant workers as any other union member, without addressing the specific needs and concerns of these workers (Foster et. al., 2015). These responses reflect common sentiments regarding migrant workers that can coexist with calls to reform the TFWP: that Canadian jobs should be prioritized. While organized labour has taken varied positions on Canada’s migrant worker policies, Canada’s unions are also positioned to advocate for their rights.

Temporary Foreign Workers and Canada’s Agricultural Sector

According to Statistics Canada, temporary foreign workers made up almost 1 in 5 (17%) workers in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector in 2021 (Lu & Hou, 2023). The TFWP hires agricultural workers through multiple different streams, including the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), which began in 1966. This migrant worker program began as a deal between Canada and Jamaica to supply Jamaican workers for Canada’s agriculture sector but was later expanded to include workers from Mexico and elsewhere from the Caribbean, before opening to migrant work globally. The SAWP differs from the regular TFWP agricultural stream in that it is governed by bilateral agreements between Canada and the sending country, rather than through individual LMIA applications.

The SAWP and the agricultural stream of the TFWP typically cover primary agriculture work that cultivates and harvests goods on the National Commodities List; goods that are vital to Canada’s agriculture sector, such as vegetables, poultry, honey, and tobacco. Under these agricultural migrant worker streams, employers must provide housing for temporary foreign workers due to the rural nature of the work. For any other agricultural work that deals with goods not listed on the National Commodities List, including commodities such as seafood from aquaculture, seed oil, maple products, and tree farming, workers are hired through the TFWP’s high- and low-wage streams, which are also applied to other urbanized industries. This results in a different wage calculation than in the agricultural streams, and employers are not typically required to provide housing.

The agricultural sector represents not just one of the biggest employers of temporary foreign workers, but also the sector with one of the highest rates of on-the-job fatalities, at a rate two-fold more dangerous than other sectors (UFCW Canada, 2024). Despite this, or perhaps as a cause of this, in Ontario and Alberta, agricultural workers are not granted the right to unionize. Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically protects the right to collective bargaining and forming a union. Nevertheless, in Ontario, agricultural workers are governed under a different set of rules than other workers, specifically the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) instead of the Ontario Labour Relations Act (OLRA), with the latter allowing collective bargaining rights. Under the AEPA, agricultural workers are permitted to form associations with their fellow workers, and employers are required to hear their complaints, but collective bargaining is not granted.

Agricultural workers face an immense amount of danger on the job, ranging from machinery accidents to improper safety gear, to environmental hazards, to poor living conditions, to workplace harassment and abuse. According to UFCW Canada, temporary foreign workers are also often not informed of their health and safety rights before they begin working. In conjunction with the already elevated risk of exploitation for temporary foreign workers, the agricultural sector is a hotbed for rights violations (UFCW Canada, 2024). A lack of collective bargaining rights in two of Canada’s most prominent agricultural provinces further exacerbates these issues, with little recourse. Despite UFCW Canada’s victories in challenging a similar lack of collective bargaining rights in Quebec’s agricultural sector, workers face confusing legal precedents for collective bargaining. Through a Superior Court decision in 2013, agricultural workers in Quebec have the right to unionize. However, through Quebec’s 2014 Bill 8, An Act to amend the Labour Code with respect to certain employees of farming businesses, agricultural workers are only permitted to form associations that can inform employers of concerns. Collective bargaining is not a granted right to these workers (UFCW Canada, 2014).

Still, UFCW Canada has continued to advocate for the rights of migrant agricultural workers through aid, research, advocacy and legal resources provided to agricultural workers seeking collective bargaining rights. The union has also estimated that immigration will account for all of Canada’s labour force growth by 2032 and has adapted its strategies to advocate for permanent residency and open work permits in its demands (UFCW Canada, 2024). They have pushed for better health and safety protections for temporary foreign workers, with Ontario adding agricultural workers to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in 2006, and Alberta, being the last province to do so, following suit in 2016 (UFCW Canada 2024).

Recent Federal Response

In 2024, the Government of Canada released a statement in defense of its current practices regarding the TFWP, ahead of the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery. In this statement, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) highlighted the implementation of new requirements for employers, holding them accountable for non-compliance with health and safety measures. The federal government went on to defend their regulation and disciplinary actions against foreign worker recruiters and consultants, despite the assessment of the Special Rapporteur. They also strongly defended their enforcement of the Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers (OWP-V) program, which allows open work permits for temporary foreign workers who experience abuse in the workplace, and Temporary Residence Permits (TRPs), that allow for open work permits and healthcare coverage for victims of human trafficking.

The TFWP has undergone several changes in the past few years, as foreign workers were brought in through other programs like the IMP. In 2022, the federal government raised the limit on the percentage of temporary foreign workers allowed in a given sector, with most sectors rising to a 20% cap. Sectors that experienced more extreme shortages due to the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, and were deemed a higher priority for the federal government such as supply chains or other essential services, were raised to 30% caps for one year. Additionally, the policy that automatically refused LMIAs in areas with a higher than 6% unemployment rate was halted, allowing these LMIAs to be approved (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2022). In 2023 the federal government extended the 30% cap measure by another year as businesses in sectors such as food manufacturing, construction, and nursing care still reported labour shortages. Demand by employers for temporary foreign workers rose in 2023-24, with files created for the hiring of temporary foreign workers increasing by 40% (year-to-date at the time of reporting) when compared to the same 2022-23 fiscal period (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023).

Amid mounting criticism, the federal government only recently scaled back some of these expansions. In 2024, the Government of Canada halted some of the exceptions made in 2022 and 2023 earlier than planned to address the falling number of job vacancies, which had been declining steadily between 2022 and 2023, as well as overreliance on the TFWP (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2024). Sectors previously identified as having shortages had their temporary foreign worker caps reduced to 20% of their labour force, and LMIA application validity was reduced to 6 months, from 12 months, to ensure better reactivity to the labour market. Additionally, the Government of Canada stipulated that employers must take all steps possible to hire Canadian citizens, permanent residents and asylum seekers first before applying for an LMIA (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2024).

The Mark Carney minority government, elected in early 2025, indicated in its first post-election news conference that limits would be imposed on migrant work and immigration to Canada, including reducing the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada to less than 5% of Canada’s general population by 2027 (Stevenson, 2025). At the time of writing, the TFWP is also undergoing a consultation process for proposed changes, though the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees have raised the alarm on the lack of transparency regarding this consultation process. A notable proposal from this ongoing consultation is the introduction of stream-specific work permits, allowing temporary foreign workers to find work in the same field with a new employer if the current employer also has an unused 2-year LMIA approval.

Straddling the line between closed work permits and open work permits, this proposed change may still make it difficult for migrant workers to change employers when experiencing abuse, as they remain tied to their original employer until they find another with the right LMIA approval. Additionally, employers may now be able to deduct up to $1,307 per month from the wages of temporary foreign workers to pay for accommodation (Migrant Rights Network, 2025). While these proposed changes are being considered by the federal government, migrant rights advocacy groups fear further obscurity and half measures could continue or further exacerbate the harm caused by Canada’s migrant worker policies.

For the past half decade, the federal government has attempted TFWP reform to meet the demands of the job market, rather than to fulfill human rights obligations. Newly proposed changes appear to take some of the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur report into consideration, but critics argue that these changes do not address the core issues and are inadequate. Canadian labour organizations tend to point out that these are systemic issues and call for the federal government to listen to migrant workers and union advocates over the interests of employers and industry. However, as a fixture of Canada’s economy, and as the issue gets mixed up within anti-immigrant sentiments stoked by far-right movements and policymakers that seek to deflect attention towards other social issues, the issues with the TFWP are unlikely to be resolved when regularization is further reduced and industry interests are prioritized.

Quantitative Analysis

Released in April 2025, Shifting Borders: Canadian Attitudes Towards Immigration is a report published by The Broadbent Institute and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, and fielded by Viewpoints Research. This public opinion survey, collected on the eve of the 2025 federal election, studied shifting attitudes towards immigration policy. The survey included weighting to ensure responses reflect the actual distribution of the population by age, gender and region using Statistics Canada Census 2021 data. It was conducted online using a web survey with 1000 responses participating between March 5th to 13th, 2025. See Shifting Borders (broadbentinstitute.ca/research) for the full details on the survey’s methodology.

In the cross-tabulation of this data, union membership can be associated with more positive attitudes towards immigration policy. Overall, there is a significant difference between respondents who are members of unions and not members of unions on the outlook of immigration, with more than half of unionized respondents (56%) seeing the impact of immigration as good, versus 41% of non-union member respondents. This positive outlook in 2025 among unionized respondents appears to demonstrate a longer-term shift in attitudes from Wilkes et al. (2008) who found that the effect of union membership on attitudes towards immigration between 1980 and 2000 was mostly negative in Canada.

Table 1 – (Q12) Generally, what kind of impact do you think immigration has on Canada?

This shift is also demonstrated in the Shifting Borders study, as demonstrated by the overall opinion among unionized respondents who have shown more resilience in shifting towards negative attitudes on immigration. For union members, 32% have shifted to thinking Canada should allow less immigration compared to 41% of respondents non-unionized. This is even more pronounced in thinking Canada should allow more immigration, with almost one-fifth (19%) of unionized respondents changing their attitudes to this opinion in the past year.

Table 2 – (Q13) In the past year, has your opinion on immigration changed?

Significantly, unionized workers (67%) are much more likely to see immigrants as important for filling labour shortages in key industries, compared to Canadians who do not belong to a union (55%). Unionized workers (60%) are also much more likely to see the value of immigration in growing Canada’s workforce to keep social programs sustainable than non-unionized Canadians (46%).

While union workers follow other trends in opinion on wage suppression and ending the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, they do see the necessity of immigration, and perhaps the economic contradictions lending to the misallocation of workers to low-wage jobs instead of in-demand, highly skilled jobs. Given this nuance, any appeal to labour unions on the issue of immigration should consider the majority view among members that immigration is necessary–and focus on the economic issues lending to injustice and inefficiencies in the Canadian labour market’s allocation of workers and skills.

Table 3 – Unionized Workers Are More Sympathetic to Immigrants and Recognize Issues

These differences are again pronounced when it comes to union respondents’ attitudes towards regularization, wherein individuals without legal immigration status are granted the opportunity to apply for permanent residency. Among unionized respondents, there are significant differences when compared to non-unionized respondents regarding the benefits of regularization. Non-unionized respondents are also more likely to agree with negative sentiments towards regularization.

Table 4 – (Q30) Which of the following statements about regularization do you agree with?

These significant differences in attitudes towards regularization warrant further investigation, demonstrating the influence of union membership on attitudes towards immigration policy, and in particular attitudes towards the policy of regularization. Replicating similar studies on public opinion attitudes towards immigration (Gorodzeisky & Richards, 2016; Wilkes, Guppy & Farris, 2008), a logistic regression analysis demonstrating likely agreement with Q30 statements related to regularization, due to the significance of union membership support for regularization policies in the crosstabs, can offer useful insight into the strength of unions as an influential variable related to positive immigration policy values. Q30 of the survey complements the previous Q29 which defines and asks, “regularization is a process to give undocumented immigrants already in Canada a path to stay in the country legally. Do you support or oppose regularization for undocumented immigrants in Canada?” This question is also related to the ongoing issue of Temporary Foreign Workers as irregularities of shifting rules and objectives of this program lend to the “undocumented status” of many would-be immigrants already residing in Canada.

From this sample delivered from the previous Shifting Borders survey research, refined for full responses, n=702 respondents who have indicated whether they are a member of a union, with 29% (n=204) indicating that they are union members. This proportion is roughly in line with Canada’s union coverage rate of the general working population of 30.4% (Statistics Canada, 26 November 2024). Taking agreement with these statements as the dependent variable, coded as a binary “dummy variable” (1=agreement; 0=disagreement) the key independent variable, union membership, is also coded as a dummy (1=member; 0=non-member). Taken as a dummy variable, a binary logistic regression analysis is used to demonstrate the probability of agreement with the dependent variable among union members compared to non-union members. Gender, age, and education level are introduced in a second model as demographic control variables. Education is also used as a proxy for a respondent’s socioeconomic position. In a third model, to demonstrate the strength of influence of the union independent variable, birthplace within or outside of Canada is introduced to test whether this interacts with the significant correlation of the union membership variable. While union membership may determine more favourable attitudes towards regularization, differences between union members born in Canada and union members born abroad could confound the strength of the union membership variable.

The first question to be tested is the likelihood of agreement among unionized respondents with the statement that regularization, “helps Canada’s economy by making sure that all workers contribute taxes and are fairly paid.” The second question to be tested is the likelihood of agreement with the statement of, “it’s about fairness – regardless of how they came, many undocumented immigrants have built lives here and deserve a chance to stay,” in the context of regularization. Lastly, though not indicative of significance among the crosstabs, the statement of, “it’s unfair to those who wait their turn and follow legal immigration processes,” will also be tested among union members in the context of regularization.

Table 5 – Logistic Regression Models of Attitudes Towards Immigration Regularization by Union Membership, Demographic Variables, and Birthplace

Regarding attitudes towards the statement that regularization, “helps Canada’s economy by making sure that all workers contribute taxes and are fairly paid,” unionized respondents are significantly 1.63 times more likely to agree than non-unionized respondents. The influence of union membership maintains a significantly higher likelihood of agreement with the statement on regularization’s contribution to taxation when modeled with demographic variables and birthplace. Union membership also indicates a significant 1.87 times higher likelihood than non-union respondents to agree with the statement that, “it’s about fairness – regardless of how they came, many undocumented immigrants have built lives here and deserve a chance to stay.” This positive correlation is also maintained against other demographic variables and the influence of whether respondents were born in Canada. Lastly, and significantly, union members are less likely to agree with the statement that regularization is, “unfair to those who wait their turn and follow legal immigration processes.” While the significance holds when tested against demographic variables, the variable falls just short of significance when birthplace is introduced.

This analysis would indicate that union membership has a positive correlation to positive attitudes towards the regularization of immigration in Canada—contrary to perceived notions that unions in a competitive labour market would reject increased supply due to the economic benefits and justice norms associated with fully recognized immigration status. While the rejection of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is clear, there are indicators that also suggest a return to the original promise of Canada’s immigration program as a pathway to permanent residency supported by union membership, as well as advocates and labour leadership who have expressed solidarity with migrant workers experiencing poor working conditions. The potential for increased union power through membership growth is also implied with higher likelihood of support for regularization with more workers under union coverage, rather than seen as non-unionized competition.

Onward Migration

One aspect of immigration to Canada that is often missing from discussions is the number of immigrants who arrive before making the decision to leave. According to a 2024 Institute for Canadian Citizenship report, the proportion of recently arrived newcomers who leave Canada onward has reached an all-time high. In the long-term, Canada loses 1 in every 5 immigrants to onward migration, with that number jumping to 35% for francophone immigrants. The most likely immigrants to leave Canada were admitted under the economic category, particularly in high-skill fields that are important to Canada’s economy, such as tradespeople or healthcare workers (Monteiro et. al. 2024). Another 2024 study by Ipsos found that many of the systemic issues that are blamed on immigration are also the reasons fuelling onward migration. The top three causes for immigrants to leave Canada are housing costs (79% of respondents), low wages (65% of respondents) and general concerns for the economy (54% of respondents) (Sethi, 2024).

According to the Broadbent Institute’s Shifting Borders report, Canadians are supportive of immigration policies that benefit the economy, and are concerned with a lack of affordable housing, available jobs, and high-quality healthcare. Canada is losing much of its international talent to these systemic issues as well. Failure to address these issues means losing many of the social and economic benefits that immigrants would be bringing to Canada, which should be especially alarming given the need for workers in the skilled trades and healthcare fields. More than half of immigrants choosing to leave Canada state that it has fallen short of economic expectations (Sethi, 2024). As some unions have called for, prioritizing policies that lower housing costs, boost wages, and increase pathways to permanent residency may present a way forward that not only addresses the concerns of Canadians but prevents the loss of immigrants to onward migration.

Conclusion

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is an evolving and contentious issue in Canadian public policy, and Canadian labour’s solidarity with migrant workers should guide the way forward for policy reform. Canadians are supportive of labour policies that fulfil Canada’s economic objectives, sustain social services, and fill gaps in vital work sectors. At the same time, Canadians need jobs, higher wages, and affordable housing. Despite the scapegoating taking place, Canadians recognize that immigration is the solution for Canada’s economic shortcomings. While industry exploitation of foreign workers has been an ongoing issue, the systemic problems of profiteering and inequality have led to unaffordable housing and healthcare, which are also at the root of Canada’s migrant worker issues. Migrant workers are not the cause of these problems, but the result of the same systemic inefficiencies that housing and healthcare are experiencing.

Foreign workers themselves are often underpaid, made to do dangerous work with improper safety protocols and held in debt-bondage to their employers. LiUNA Western Canada describes the situation of temporary foreign workers as “modern slavery” — a concern echoed by the 2024 UN Special Rapporteur’s report. The time limits imposed on temporary foreign workers keep them precarious, with limited pathways to permanent residency. In agriculture, a field heavily reliant on migrant labour, workers are not provided adequate housing or safety training, and in some provinces, do not have the right to collective bargaining.

Temporary foreign workers should have many of the same legal employment rights as Canadian citizens and permanent residents but also experience similar problems as citizens in accessing those rights. Employers also have the power to fire temporary foreign workers for raising concerns about human rights abuses, ejecting them from Canada for speaking out. Out of fear of deportation and other reprisals, rights violations of temporary foreign workers often go unreported, and employers continue their abusive and unethical business practices.

Canadian unions largely recognize both the injustice of the TFWP and the need for solutions to the housing unaffordability crisis and the cost of living. They recognize that a strong shift towards regularization is vital to protect the rights of migrants. This was the original promise of the 1973 Immigration Act: good enough to work, good enough to stay. A focus on pathways to permanent residency and open work permits for migrant workers, in addition to better funding for housing and healthcare, can ensure the needs of all workers in Canada. Rather than scapegoating temporary foreign workers for systemic issues, Canada’s labour movement shows the way forward.

References

Canadian Labour Congress. (2014, December 18). CLC seeks justice, fairness for migrant workers. News Release. https://canadianlabour.ca/news-news-archive-clc-seeks-justice-fairness-migrant-workers/

Canadian Labour Congress. (2015, March 23). Temporary Foreign Workers: The revolving door. News Release. https://canadianlabour.ca/news-news-archive-temporary-foreign-workers-revolving-door/

CBC News. (2008, December 4). ‘Canada Line Foreign Workers treated unfairly, tribunal rules.’ CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-line-foreign-workers-treated-unfairly-tribunal-rules-1.706285

Canada’s Building Trades Unions. (2025, July 31). Our issues: Temporary foreign worker program. Canada’s Building Trades Unions. https://www.buildingtrades.ca/en/issues-temporary-foreign-worker-program/

Canadian Union of Public Employees (2024, April 17). Temporary foreign workers in our union: A solidarity and action guide. https://cupe.ca/temporary-foreign-workers-our-union-solidarity-and-action-guide

Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2025, March 5). CUPE members working with temporary immigration status: Know your rights. https://cupe.ca/cupe-members-working-temporary-immigration-status-know-your-rights

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2022, April 4). Backgrounder: temporary foreign worker program workforce solutions road map. News Release. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2022/04/backgrounder-temporary-foreign-worker-programworkforce-solutions-road-map.html

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2024, March 21). Government of Canada to adjust temporary measures under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program workforce solutions roadmap. News Release. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2024/03/government-of-canada-to-adjust-temporary-measures-under-the-temporary-foreign-worker-program-workforce-solutions-road-map.html

Faraday, F. (2017, July 21). ‘Stronger Together: Delivering on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Unionize for Migrant Workers.’ Migrant Workers Alliance Coalition. https://migrantworkersalliance.org/policy/july2017unionize/

Foster, J., Taylor, A., & Khan, C. (2015). ‘The dynamics of union responses to migrant workers in Canada.’ Work, Employment and Society, 29(3), 409-426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014559964 (Original work published 2015)

Gilbert, R. (2016, April). The Impact of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program on the Construction Labour Force in Western Canada (2003-2015). LiUNA Western Canada. Report. https://www.liunawc.ca/imptemporary-foreign-worker-program

Gilbert, R. (2017). Policy Brief: International Mobility Program Recommendations for Change. LiUNA Western Canada. Report. https://www.liunawc.ca/imptemporary-foreign-worker-program

Gilbert, R. (2022). The Political Economy of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and the International Mobility Program (IMP)  in Canada: Modern Slavery, Construction Cycles and National Output (2000-2020). LiUNA Western Canada. https://www.liunawc.ca/imptemporary-foreign-worker-program

Godoy, P., & Nocos, C. (2024, September 3). ‘Good Enough to Work, Good Enough to Stay: Fixing Canada’s Immigration System with Pablo Godoy.’ Perspectives Journal. Podcast. https://perspectivesjournal.ca/fixing-immigration-pablo-godoy/

Gorodzeisky, A., & Richards, A. (2015). ‘Union members’ attitudes towards immigrant workers: A 14-country study.’ European Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680115589490  (Original work published 2016)

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2024, March 6). ‘CIMM – UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery – November 07, 2023.’ Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-nov-07-2023/un-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-slavery.html

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2025, March 18). ‘CIMM – Regularization of Undocumented Workers. Government of Canada.’ https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-nov-25-2024/regularization-undocumented-workers.html

Lenko, M., Refle, J.-E., Burton-Jeangros, C., Fakhoury, J., Consoli, L., & Jackson, Y. (2024). ‘Migrant work conditions and health status—a longitudinal study on ‘dirty work’ among undocumented and newly regularized workers.’ Journal of International Migration and Integration, 26(1), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01182-5

Lu, Y., & Hou, F. (2023, December 21). Foreign workers in Canada: Distribution of paid employment by industry. Statistics Canada. Economic and Social Reports. https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202301200005-eng

Migrant Rights Network. (2025, July 30). Migrant Workers Expose Government Plan to Allow Employers To Steal Their Pay by up to $15,600/Year. News Release. https://migrantrights.ca/controlsnotprotectionsrelease/

Monteiro, Stein, Federica Guccini, and Lauren Hamman. (2024) The Leaky Bucket 2024: A Closer Look at Immigrant Onward Migration in Canada. The Conference Board of Canada. Ottawa. https://forcitizenship.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/the-leaky-bucket_2024.pdf

Nocos, Clement. (2025, April 16). Shifting Borders: Canadian Attitudes Towards Immigration. Broadbent Institute. Report. https://broadbentinstitute.ca/research/shifting-borders/  

Obokata, T. (2024, July 22). Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of  slavery, including its causes and consequences. United Nations. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/57/46/Add.1

Ouellet, V., Wong, A., Penrose, C., & Bhat, A. (2025, January 8). ‘Online ads illegally sell jobs to temporary foreign workers.’ CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/cbc-ijf-lmia-ads-investigation-1.7350596

Sas, J. (2024). HELP WANTED: How Canada’s immigration system has failed  to address the construction labour shortage in B.C. CBTU: Canada’s Building Trades Union. Report. https://www.buildingtrades.ca/en/reports-submissions/

Sethi, S. (2024, October 30). Reducing number of newcomers to Canada misses the real issue of current immigrants looking to leave. Ipsos. Report. https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/reducing-number-of-newcomers-to-canada-misses-real-issue  

Statistics Canada. (2024, October 30). Ethnocultural diversity in Canadian cities. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7238-ethnocultural-diversity-canadian-cities

Statistics Canada. (2024, November 27). Research to Insights: Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada. Statistics Canada. Report. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2024006-eng.htm  

Stevens, A. (2018, May). Migrant workers and their union: Survey results. Migrant Work Saskatchewan. https://migrantwork.ca/migrant-workers-and-their-union-survey-results/

Stevenson, V. (2025, May 2). ‘From Trump to Poilievre to the king, what came out of Carney’s 1st post-election news conference.’ CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/livestory/recap-from-trump-to-poilievre-to-the-king-what-came-out-of-carneys-1st-post-election-news-conference-9.6745127?ts=1746199135629

UFCW Canada. (2024, January 29). The Status of Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada, 2023. News Release. https://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33571:urgent-reforms-needed-for-migrant-agricultural-workers-says-ufcw-canada-in-new-report&lang=en

UFCW Canada. (2023, October 19). UFCW Canada signs collaboration agreement with Mexico’s largest worker organization. News Release. https://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33512%3Aufcw-canada-signs-collaboration-agreement-with-mexico-s-largest-worker-organization&catid=10375%3Adirections-23-042&Itemid=6&lang=en

UFCW Canada. (2014, September 15). UFCW Canada battles Quebec legislation that strips rights of agriculture workers. News Release. https://ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30239%3Aufcw-canada-battles-quebec-legislation-that-strips-rights-of-agriculture-workers&catid=9551&Itemid=98&lang=en

Wilkes, R., Guppy, N. & Farris, L. (2008) ‘“No Thanks, We’re Full”: Individual Characteristics, National Context, and Changing Attitudes Toward Immigration’. The International Migration Review, 42(2), 302-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00126.x

___. (2024, November 26). State of the unions in Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/7416-state-unions-canada