Temporary foreign workers, DEI initiatives, and return-to-work policies: The labour issues Canadians are talking about on social media
Listen to this article as an audio recording
Every year on the first Monday of September, Labour Day is celebrated to advocate for workers' rights and celebrate workers’ accomplishments.
Last year, LMIC used Labour Day as an opportunity to reflect on the current state of labour and the labour market in Canada. We explored several labour market issues that were garnering significant attention and sparking lively discussions among X (formerly Twitter) users nationwide.
This year, we continue the tradition of fostering thoughtful conversations and insights on Labour Day, again asking: What do people in Canada believe are the most critical labour issues of the moment?
As of January 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter) had approximately 14 million active users in Canada, making it a rich repository for our research. We harnessed the power of social media to perform both a qualitative content analysis and a sentiment analysis, with X as our primary data source.1
Our qualitative analysis enabled us to identify key themes, topics, and patterns, which in turn provided us with the context we needed for a deeper understanding of the issues. This method allowed us to explore the data in more detail, examine underlying meanings, and extract valuable insights.
In addition, we conducted a sentiment analysis to systematically categorize the sentiments expressed in the content as positive, negative or neutral. This approach provided an objective measure of sentiment, enabling us to track trends over time and across different topics or user groups.
Our analysis identified several labour market issues that have commanded significant attention recently, sparking discussions among X users nationwide. The primary areas of concern we identified were:
What people in Canada are saying about temporary foreign workers
Our analysis revealed that Canadians from coast to coast are deeply interested in and concerned about temporary foreign workers (TFWs).
Canada's Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) was initiated in 1973 and enables Canadian employers to hire foreign workers to fill temporary labour shortages when there are no Canadians or permanent residents available to do the job (Cardoso et al., 2023).
Initially designed to attract skilled workers in sectors like nursing and farming, the program has been updated throughout its existence to balance employers’ requirements for workers against the need to ensure there are enough jobs for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Over time, it evolved to include a seasonal component (for example, the farm worker program) and an occupation-specific component (for example, the live-in caregiver program). In 2002, Canada expanded the program to include low-skilled TFWs.
In June 2014, major reforms were introduced to overhaul the program due to concerns that employers were not using the program as intended—that is to say, as a last resort when no qualified Canadians or permanent residents were available. Since the 2014 reforms, employers have been able to hire TFWs under only four streams:
- a high-wage stream
- a low-wage stream
- a primary agriculture stream
- a stream to support permanent residency
Today, TFWs help keep Canada competitive by filling short-term labour and skill gaps. The number of TFWs in Canada has increased rapidly and significantly over the past few years. Last year, approximately 692,760 work permits were issued2 from January 1 to August 31, 2023, compared to about 274,690 over the same period in 2022.3
As the program has expanded in the past year, there has been nearly 8,000 original X posts on the topic of TFWs. Many people vocalized concerns about how these workers are treated, while others focused on the potential for adverse effects on the Canadian labour market and economy.
Our sentiment analysis revealed an overwhelmingly negative sentiment toward the topic overall, indicating widespread dissatisfaction and concern among Canadians.
TFWs are inherently more vulnerable than citizens and permanent residents of both the sending and receiving countries (Ruth, 2002).
In Canada, while the rights of all workers (including TFWs) are protected by law, numerous reports have highlighted significant mistreatment within the system4 (see Al Jazeera, 2023; Kestler-D'Amours, 2022). A 2023 National Post article cites an independent United Nations human rights expert who describes Canada’s TFW programs as "a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery."
Despite having legal protections, TFWs are particularly vulnerable due to their dependence on work permits that tie them to a single employer. This dependency, coupled with the fear of deportation, often prevents them from reporting abuses or seeking legal recourse.
TFWs often face exploitative working conditions, such as long hours, low pay and unsafe environments. Abusive employer practices, including withholding passports or wages and providing inadequate access to health care and housing, are common concerns. These issues are well-documented across the country, with several reports detailing physical, financial, psychological and sexual abuse in workplaces (MacLauchlan et al., 2024).
Moreover, many TFWs want to stay in Canada, but face significant hurdles. Those working in low-wage and agricultural streams have limited opportunities to access permanent residency, and when a path to permanent residency does exist, it is complicated, lengthy and not guaranteed, unlike the pathways for individuals who arrive as permanent residents.
As the number of TFWs approved to come to Canada rose this year, X users shared their concerns about the vulnerable position in which the program can place workers.
For example:
TFWs are extremely vulnerable (dependent on employers). Except for refugee policy, Canadian immigration policy is primarily based on the costs and benefits for Canada and doesn’t do enough to protect people.
TFWs face severe mistreatment. They deal with bad recruiters, poor protections, and unfair power dynamics.
It’s troubling how Canada relies on temporary foreign workers while these workers face tough conditions and almost no protection. These workers do essential jobs but deal with bad recruiters and unfair treatment. We need better support and fairer policies.
Who really benefits from temporary immigration? Employers, often the most exploitative multi-national corporations, get to fill tough, low-paying jobs that locals avoid, often with poor conditions and few benefits. Meanwhile, temporary workers face tough jobs and inconsistent hours. It’s time to rethink this system.
While the Evaluation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (2021), conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), found no evidence pointing to an overall risk of job displacement or wage suppression at the national level in Canada, there is evidence that a variety of factors affect working conditions in localized labour markets.5
This highlights a risk of job displacement or wage suppression in specific sectors, occupations and regions. Recent Canadian Labour Economics Forum research has also observed a negative correlation between low-skilled TFW employment and the annual earnings of Canadians working in the same firms.
A significant concern across X users is the idea that, due to limited employment opportunities in their home countries, TFWs may be willing to accept jobs in Canada at lower wages than a Canadian would. There is a worry that this could negatively affect Canadians in the labour market if firms exploit this situation by favouring TFWs over Canadian workers in hiring decisions.
X users shared their concerns about the impact of TFWs on Canada’s economy, housing market and affordability.
For example:
The rise in temporary foreign worker approvals shows Canada's growing reliance on international labour. Investing time and money in retaining and encouraging local workers might yield better returns.
I'm concerned about the rise in temporary foreign workers competing for jobs with vulnerable Canadian workers, including recent immigrants and refugees. We need better strategies to support our local workforce.
The problem with the TFWP is that foreign workers from developing countries accept lower wages because they have fewer job options. Their work permits tie them to one employer, making them less likely to complain about bad conditions. This can lead to Canadian workers losing jobs or having lower wages.
X users also shared concerns that the influx of temporary residents puts additional strain on the Canadian housing market.
For example:
Allowing the number of TFWs to rise to an astounding 777,000 has contributed to Canada’s growing housing crisis—that’s simply the law of supply and demand.
Immigration, including temporary, can affect Canada’s housing market by boosting demand in certain areas, which might drive up property prices and rent. This can make housing less affordable for newcomers and current residents alike.
What people in Canada are saying about diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives
Canadians are concerned about corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
As discussed in our recent article, the years from March 2020 to August 2022 saw the murder of George Floyd, the subsequent worldwide protests against police brutality, racism and lack of accountability (Baum, 2021), the re-energizing of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the global COVID-19 pandemic. Socio-political unrest in the United States, Ukraine and beyond unleashed a tidal wave of pledges supporting greater DEI.
During this same period, corporations and universities quickly issued public statements expressing their commitment to advancing racial justice and pledging to implement explicit DEI initiatives.
Although data specific to Canada is unavailable, in the United States, job postings in diversity, inclusion and belonging have risen by 56.3% since 2021—to 210 jobs per million from 140 jobs per million. In 2021, the rate of new chief diversity officer (CDO) hires was nearly triple that of the previous 16 months. Today, 53% of Fortune 500 companies have a CDO or equivalent role.
But there is now a growing backlash against DEI, despite research demonstrating that diversity initiatives create fairer workplaces, support the careers of traditionally underrepresented groups, benefit worker morale, productivity and commitment, and enhance competitiveness and profitability (Dover et al., 2020).
Since Labour Day 2023, there have been nearly 17,500 X posts by Canadians discussing what is being termed a DEI backlash. This growing resistance seems to be coming from two distinct camps:
- those who promote anti-equity, anti-diversity, and anti-inclusion narratives, arguing on moral grounds that DEI programs themselves are discriminatory
- those who believe that corporate DEI policies are simply not having the intended effect
The first camp involves a strategic opposition to DEI efforts. This movement originated in the United States and parallels the “war on woke” anti-movement (Prasad & Śliwa, 2024). It has a clear agenda to reverse the (limited) progress achieved through DEI initiatives in recent years.
Our sentiment analysis, conducted using natural language processing, indicated a strong negative sentiment associated with these discussions, with users expressing skepticism and distrust.
The other camp argues that many DEI efforts are largely performative and have resulted in minimal real progress. The argument is that, despite the growing adoption of DEI principles and practices over the past few years, tangible improvements in career outcomes for equity-deserving communities have been limited.
As mentioned in some of our recent articles, there has been a lack of tangible outcomes for many equity-deserving groups in Canada. For instance:
Our sentiment analysis indicated a strong negative sentiment associated with these discussions, with users expressing frustration and disillusionment.
In line with LMIC’s recent work, the discussions on X revolve around these common criticisms, including accusations of tokenism and surface-level representation as well as a perceived lack of accountability and meaningful action.
For example:
We saw so many knee-jerk reactions to the DEI push—hire someone, post something—but this was about being seen as involved rather than driving genuine change.
Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives simply do not work by themselves. Real work needs to be put in to make Canadian workplaces diverse, equitable and inclusive, and so far, that’s not been done.
I've worked in DEI for four years now. I’m skeptical that we’re making a tangible impact. It’s frustrating to see so much effort without seeing meaningful outcomes.
What people in Canada are saying about return-to-office policies
In the ever-evolving landscape of Canada’s labour market, remote work and return-to-office policies remain a hot topic among X users in Canada.
As we detailed last fall, extensive research has thoroughly examined both the benefits and challenges of remote work for employers and employees.
For employers, the shift to remote work has provided notable advantages, such as access to a global talent pool unrestricted by geographic constraints. This expanded reach allows companies to tap into diverse skills and expertise from around the world. Remote work has also led to significant cost savings by reducing the need for physical office spaces and associated utilities, streamlining operational expenses.
Despite these benefits, critics argue that the absence of a physical office can impede collaboration, stifle creativity and reduce overall productivity.
For employees, a review of research-based evidence reveals that remote work can offer considerable autonomy, allowing them to align their work patterns and lifestyles with personal preferences, family responsibilities and individual productivity rhythms. This flexibility can lead to lower stress levels compared to traditional office environments. It can also enhance job satisfaction and foster improved collaboration through better data-sharing and communication.
Moreover, the remote work model presents new opportunities for inclusivity, enabling individuals who were previously excluded from the workforce to participate more fully. This greater inclusivity promotes diversity and allows employers enrich their workforces with varied perspectives and skills.
In Canada, recent research by the Future Skills Centre (FSC) underscores these findings, showing that remote workers experience significantly higher levels of job satisfaction and overall job quality compared to their on-site counterparts. Satisfaction rates among remote workers often exceed those of on-site employees by more than 10 percentage points across 14 different metrics. Furthermore, 70% to 83% of remote workers report high levels of satisfaction with aspects such as co-worker respect, job independence, work methods, job security, work-life balance and meaningful engagement.
In addition, remote workers consistently report better well-being, including greater hopefulness, improved self-rated mental health, and heightened life satisfaction. This highlights the substantial positive impact of remote work on both personal well-being and professional fulfillment.
While the research seems to favour remote work for the benefits it offers both employers and employees, our X content analysis revealed mixed sentiments regarding return-to-office mandates and hybrid work models. The majority of Canadian X posts on the topic—often reacting to news stories or discussions about returning to the office—conveyed deep frustration, anger and dissatisfaction with the idea of mandating workers back to offices.
This widespread response underscores a strong resistance to enforced shifts away from remote work.
For example:
Why is everyone so fixated on making us go back to the office? So frustrating!
It’s all about executive ego, social hierarchy and privilege. CEOs crave the power trip of walking into a room and feeling important, not just running things from Zoom.
The absurdity of the return-to-office push: it’s all about sacrificing workers' well-being to satisfy corporations and landlords. Absolutely disgusting. 🤮
There’s no real evidence that returning to the office boosts productivity or anything else. It seems like employers just want to see their employees in person for control and because they’re clinging to old ways.
What we learned—and what’s next
By leveraging social media data from X (formerly Twitter), where around 14 million Canadians are active users, LMIC was able to revisit the pressing labour issues that Canadians are talking about and conduct a thorough content and sentiment analysis to uncover what’s top of mind for users.
Our analysis spotlighted several critical labour market topics that have captured widespread attention: the use of TFWs, a backlash against DEI initiatives, and debate over remote work and return-to-office policies.
Our content analysis reveals strong and widespread concerns among Canadians about the TFW Program:
Based on our analysis of the backlash against DEI initiatives, we found that:
Lastly, in our analysis of X users in Canada discussing remote work and return-to-office policies, we found that:
As an organization, LMIC recognizes that these findings highlight the need for more accessible, relevant and timely information on the TFWP, DEI initiatives, and remote work and return-to-office policies. LMI on these topics will be crucial for empowering Canadians with the information they need to navigate these complex issues. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of LMI, and will continue to foster dialogue and collaboration around the issues that matter most to people in Canada.
Endnotes
1 For more information on why we chose X, and on the detailed approach to our research, please refer to last year's article: https://lmic-cimt.ca/wage-inflation-ai-green-economy/.
2 It is important to note that on March 21, 2024, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) unveiled updates to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), including changes to the duration of Labour Market Impact Assessments and adjustments to the cap on low-wage temporary foreign workers in specific sectors. (See Employment and Social Development Canada, "Government of Canada to adjust temporary measures under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Workforce Solutions Road Map," March 21, 2024).
3 The actual number of temporary foreign workers is likely larger than reported, as given that this data excludes foreign students who are permitted to work in Canada and whose numbers have increased five-fold since 2000. Neither the government nor Statistics Canada monitors the employment of these students.
4 As of August 6, 2024, Employment and Social Development Canada released an announcement reaffirming that Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program is designed as an extraordinary measure to be used when a qualified Canadian is not able to fill a job vacancy. Employers hiring temporary foreign workers are required to provide a healthy and safe workplace, and to treat employees with dignity and respect. The announcement emphasized that the TFW Program cannot be used to circumvent hiring talented workers in Canada, and the federal government will take further action to address misuse and fraud within the system. The announcement highlighted actions leading to improvements in the quality, timeliness, and reach of employer inspections, including a 36 per cent increase in fines issued in 2023–2024. These actions include enforcing consistent application of the 20 per cent cap policy for temporary foreign workers (including the “dual intent sub-stream”), applying stricter oversight in high-risk areas for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) and inspections, considering LMIA fee increases, and exploring future regulatory changes regarding employer eligibility, such as requiring a minimum number of years of business operations or examining an employer's history of layoffs.
5 According to ESDC’s Evaluation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, approximately one-third of key informants and 66% to 75% of survey participants indicated that there may be preferences to hire foreign workers. Beine and Coulombe (2017) noted that “employers, having hired temporary foreign workers from a specific origin country, get some useful information about those workers’ productivity and commitment to the job. If satisfied, Canadian employers subsequently tend to hire the same temporary foreign workers of the same origin.” Some key informants pointed out that the program demonstrates some risk for wage suppression in specific sectors, occupations and regions. Additionally, some key informants and focus group participants indicated that worker displacement may be occurring in some sectors (i.e., trucking, construction, food industry and beauty parlors). The report highlights some examples of sectors and occupations (i.e., carpentry, fisheries, and agriculture) that may be at risk of wage suppression.
Dr. Suzanne Spiteri is a sociologist with several years of experience in both qualitative and mixed-methods data analysis. She leads labour-related projects that explore labour market tightness and the labour market outcomes of under-represented groups.
References
Al Jazeera. (2023, September 6). Migrant workers in Canada ‘vulnerable’ to modern-day slavery: UN expert. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/6/migrant-workers-in-canada-vulnerable-to-modern-day-slavery-un-expert.
Cardoso, M., Haan, M., Lombardo, F., & Yoshida, Y. (2023). Research on labour market impacts of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Canadian Labour Economics Forum (Working Paper No. 57). https://clef.uwaterloo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CLEF-057-2023.pdf
Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 152–181.
Kestler-D'Amours, J. (2022). Jamaican minister rejects workers’ abuse claims on Canadian farms. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/27/jamaican-minister-rejects-workers-abuse-claims-on-canadian-farms.
MacLauchlan, E., MacRae, R., Glynn, T., & Wheatley, A. (2024). Permanent jobs, temporary people: Temporary foreign workers’ struggle for permanent residency in Prince Edward Island. TFW Maritimes. https://tfwmaritimes.ca/pdf/Permanent_Jobs-Temporary_People-TFWMARITIMES-PEI-2024.pdf
Prasad, A., & Śliwa, M. (2024). Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(2), 245–259.
Ruth, M. (2002). Temporary foreign worker programmes: Policies, adverse consequences, and the need to make them work. University of California San Diego Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (Working Paper No. 56). https://ccis.ucsd.edu/_files/wp56.pdf