Synopsis: Mark Carney now argues reform, not abolition, of the Canada Temporary Foreign Worker Program 2025. He warns that ending TFWP would damage agriculture, construction and hospitality. This analysis examines economic impacts, regional differences, worker protections, and policy options — targeted reforms, stronger inspections and clearer PR pathways for temporary workers.
The Politics of Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program
Immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in Canadian politics today. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which allows employers to hire overseas workers when no Canadian is available, is now at the center of heated debate. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre recently called for the program to be scrapped entirely, arguing it depresses wages and reduces opportunities for Canadian workers.
In response, Mark Carney—a former Governor of the Bank of Canada and a likely central figure in the next Liberal government—defended the program’s existence while acknowledging the need for reform. He emphasized that Canada is already planning to reduce immigration levels from 7% of the population today to about 5% in coming years. Importantly, he argued that the TFWP is not the primary driver of immigration pressures, a point also reflected in official government immigration targets outlined by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) (Government of Canada, 2025 Immigration Levels Plan).
This raises crucial questions: Should the TFWP be abolished or reformed? What role does it play in Canada’s economy, and how do businesses and workers perceive it? Let’s explore the issue in depth.
Historical Context: Why the TFWP Was Created
Origins and Purpose
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program was established decades ago to allow employers to fill immediate labour shortages in agriculture, caregiving, hospitality, and construction. Over time, it expanded to cover low-wage industries facing chronic worker shortages.
Criticism Over the Years
The program has been controversial for years. Critics argue it creates a class of vulnerable workers with fewer rights, while business groups defend it as a lifeline that keeps industries afloat. Reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) and academic institutions have repeatedly pointed to structural flaws, including weak enforcement against exploitation and limited oversight (Parliamentary Budget Officer Report on TFWP).
The Political Debate: Poilievre vs. Carney
Pierre Poilievre’s Argument
Poilievre’s position is straightforward: abolish the program entirely. He argues that allowing an influx of foreign workers suppresses wages for Canadians and creates dependency among businesses unwilling to raise pay or improve conditions.
Mark Carney’s Counterpoint
Carney countered by noting that the TFWP plays a targeted but necessary role in specific industries. He insisted the bigger issue is Canada’s overall immigration intake, not temporary workers. According to Carney, tariffs and broader labour market challenges often rank higher in business concerns than access to temporary foreign workers.
This divergence underscores a deeper ideological split: Conservatives see the program as a distortion of the labour market, while Liberals view it as an economic adjustment tool.
Economic Implications of Ending the TFWP
Impact on Key Industries
- Agriculture: Thousands of seasonal workers from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America arrive each year to harvest crops. Without them, food prices would likely surge, and Canadian farms could face collapse.
- Hospitality and Retail: Restaurants and hotels in smaller communities struggle to find staff locally. Removing the TFWP would exacerbate closures and service shortages.
- Construction: With housing affordability already in crisis, Canada cannot afford slower construction timelines caused by labour shortages.
Wage Pressures and Productivity
Critics argue that ending the program would push wages higher for Canadian workers. Yet, empirical research suggests that in sectors heavily reliant on foreign labour, wage increases alone may not attract sufficient local workers. The Canadian Labour Congress has acknowledged that structural barriers—such as rural locations, seasonal work, or physically demanding conditions—limit domestic interest.
Immigration Levels and the Bigger Picture
Carney stressed that temporary workers are not the main driver of immigration growth. According to the 2025 Immigration Levels Plan, Canada expects to welcome over 485,000 permanent residents annually—a figure much larger than the number of temporary foreign workers admitted (IRCC Immigration Data).
The temporary workforce makes up only a fraction of total newcomers, yet the program has outsized political visibility. This is because it intersects with broader anxieties over housing, wages, and cultural change.
The Quebec Factor: Why Regional Dynamics Matter
In Quebec, where demographic pressures are acute, businesses frequently demand more flexibility in hiring temporary foreign workers. Carney acknowledged that Quebec employers list tariffs as their top concern and access to temporary foreign workers as their second.
This illustrates how the TFWP debate cannot be separated from regional realities. Policies that might resonate in Ontario or Alberta could have very different implications in Quebec, which maintains partial control over its immigration streams through agreements with Ottawa (Quebec Immigration Ministry).
Worker Protections and Human Rights Concerns
Exploitation Risks
The TFWP has faced criticism for creating conditions where workers are tied to specific employers, limiting mobility and increasing vulnerability to exploitation. Numerous studies—including those by the Migrant Rights Network—have documented cases of poor housing, withheld wages, and unsafe working conditions.
Government Reforms
Ottawa has attempted reforms, including measures requiring employers to prove they cannot find Canadian workers and mandatory workplace inspections. Still, enforcement remains uneven. Human rights advocates argue that reform, rather than abolition, is the more pragmatic path forward.
Alternatives and Policy Options
1. Program Abolition
Ending the TFWP, as Poilievre suggests, would be a radical shift. While it may win political points, it could destabilize industries reliant on seasonal or specialized foreign labour.
2. Targeted Reform
Carney’s position points to reform: narrowing eligibility, increasing inspections, and shifting more workers toward permanent residency. This approach balances labour market needs with fairness.
3. Pathways to Permanency
Critics argue the program should not create permanent “temporary” classes of workers. Expanding pathways to permanent residency would recognize the long-term contributions of foreign workers and reduce vulnerability.
Public Sentiment and the Broader Immigration Debate
Canadian public opinion is increasingly divided on immigration. A 2024 poll by Angus Reid Institute found that 60% of Canadians support reducing immigration levels. Linking the TFWP to this broader sentiment risks overshadowing its relatively small demographic impact.
At the same time, businesses lobbying for continued access to temporary foreign workers highlight a paradox: while the public wants lower immigration, employers demand labour inflows to stay competitive.
International Comparisons
Canada is not alone in grappling with temporary worker controversies:
- United States: The H-2A and H-2B visa programs face similar criticisms of exploitation and wage suppression.
- Australia: The Seasonal Worker Program and Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme have been accused of creating “guest worker” classes.
- United Kingdom: Brexit magnified labour shortages in agriculture, forcing the government to reintroduce seasonal worker visas.
Studying these examples suggests that scrapping such programs outright often leads to unintended economic shocks.
Conclusion: Reform, Not Abolition
The debate over the Temporary Foreign Worker Program reflects deeper tensions in Canadian immigration policy. Pierre Poilievre’s call to abolish the program appeals to voters anxious about wages and fairness, while Mark Carney’s response reflects a more cautious, reform-oriented stance.
Given Canada’s reliance on foreign labour in critical industries, outright abolition seems impractical. Instead, targeted reforms—stronger worker protections, stricter oversight, and expanded pathways to permanency—offer a more balanced solution.
Ultimately, the TFWP debate cannot be isolated from Canada’s larger immigration strategy, which is already moving toward reduced intake. The challenge for policymakers will be ensuring that reforms address exploitation concerns while preserving economic stability.
