First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

Canadian government amends temporary foreign worker regulations

Author: Henry J. Chang

Posted on Thursday, August 19th, 2010 at 09:00

Tweet

On August 4, 2010, the governor-general-in-council published amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), which will adversely affect many temporary foreign workers (TFWs). Although the amendments do not come into force until April 1, 2011, the changes are significant. An overview of these amendments is provided below.

Assessment of employment offered [R200(5)]

The amendments establish specific factors to assess the genuineness of the employer’s offer of employment to a TFW, both in Labour Market Opinion (LMO) cases and in LMO-exempt cases. These factors include:

  1. Whether the offer is made by an employer that is actively engaged in the business in respect to which the offer is made (except in the case of live-in caregivers, who are typically employed by households instead of businesses);
  2. Whether the offer is consistent with reasonable employment needs of the employer;
  3. Whether the terms of the offer are terms that the employer is reasonably able to fulfil; and
  4. The past compliance of the employer, or any person who recruited the foreign national for the employer, with the federal or provincial laws that regulate employment, or the recruiting of employees, in the province in which it is intended that the foreign national work.

Additional employer-related requirements for live-in caregivers [R203(1)(d)]

In the case of a live-in caregiver, an immigration officer must determine, on the basis of an LMO provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), if:

  1. The foreign national will reside in a private household in Canada and provide child care, senior home support care or care of a disabled person in a household without supervision;
  2. The employer will provide adequate furnished and private accommodations in the household; and
  3. The employer has sufficient financial resources to pay the foreign national the wages offered.

Ban on employers who fail to substantially comply with the terms of a previous LMO [R200(1)(c)(ii.1)(B) and R203(1)(e)]

The amendments make an employer ineligible to seek a work permit on behalf of a TFW unless, during the period beginning two years before the initial request for an LMO is made to HRSDC or, in the case of an LMO-exempt work permit, beginning two years before the work permit application is received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) or the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA):

  1. The employer provided each of its foreign workers with wages, working conditions and employment that were substantially the same as the wages, working conditions, and occupation set out in the employer’s offer of employment; or
  2. The failure to do so was justified in accordance with R203(1.1).

The permitted justifications described in R203(1.1) include:

  1. A change in federal or provincial law;
  2. A change to the provisions of a collective agreement;
  3. The implementation of measures by the employer in response to a dramatic change in economic conditions that directly affect the employer, provided that the measures are not directed disproportionately at foreign nationals employed by the employer;
  4. An error in interpretation made in good faith by the employer with respect to its obligations to a foreign national, if the employer subsequently provides compensation or makes sufficient attempts to do so to all foreign nationals who suffered a disadvantage as a result of the error;
  5. An unintentional accounting or administrative error made by the employer, if the employer subsequently provides compensation or makes sufficient attempts to do so to all foreign nationals who suffered a disadvantage as a result of the error; or
  6. Circumstances similar to those set out above.

The assessment is undertaken at the time that a new LMO is requested or, in the case of an LMO-exempt work permit application, when the work permit application is received by CIC/CBSA.

Published list of banned employers [R203(6)]

The amendments provide that CIC must maintain on its website a list of banned employers, stating the names and addresses of each employer and the date that the determination was made. HRSDC will not issue an LMO, and CIC/CBSA will not issue a work permit, for any banned employer.

Temporary foreign workers limited to four years [R200(3)(g)]

The amendments provide for a cumulative four-year cap on TFWs until a period of 48 months (four years) has elapsed. However, exemptions from the four-year cap exist in the following situations:

  1. The foreign national intends to perform work that would create or maintain significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Therefore, work permits based on LMO exemptions such as significant benefit to Canada (C10) and intracompany transferee (C12), among others, will be exempt from the four-year cap.
  2. The foreign national intends to perform work pursuant to an international agreement between Canada and one or more countries, including an agreement concerning seasonal agricultural workers. Therefore, work permits issued in accordance with international agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, among others, will be exempt from the four-year cap.

Fortunately, a TFW who has reached the four-year cap is not required to leave Canada; they just may not obtain a work permit during the subsequent 48-month period. In other words, the foreign national could obtain a study permit, attend school for 48 months, for example, and then once again become eligible for a work permit.

LMOs to indicate period of validity [R203(3.1)]

The amendments provide that LMOs shall indicate the period during which the opinion is in effect. If the TFW does not obtain a work permit within the time period, the employer must request a new LMO from HRSDC.

HRSDC’s current policy is that all LMOs expire six months after issuance. It is unknown whether this validity period will continue once the amendments come into force.

Conclusion

Clearly, the amendments will have a dramatic and undesirable effect on most TFWs. The only positive news is that the status quo will be maintained at least until April 1, 2011.

Henry J. Chang
Blaney McMurtry LLP

Tags: Canadian Border Services Agency, foreign worker, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulat, Labour Market Opinion, live-in caregivers, LMO, temporary foreign work, temporary foreign worker regulations

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 19th, 2010 at 09:00 and is filed under Corporate Immigration, Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Canadian government amends temporary foreign worker regulations”

September 6th, 2010 at 19:20

foreign worker says:

hi, i just want to ask something about the 4 year cap, i’ve been working in canada for about 2 years already, does that mean i have 2years left in obtaining a work permit? or the 4 year cap will only start at april 2011?

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

September 24th, 2010 at 17:01

Yosie Saint-Cyr says:

As I understand, the regulations will only come into full effect on 1 April 2011.

Under the new regulations, work permit extensions will no longer be issued to TFWs who have been working in Canada for a cumulative period of four years, unless four years have elapsed from the time the worker last accumulated four years’ employment in Canada.

There are exceptions to this regulation for workers performing work that creates significant social, cultural or economic benefits for Canada, as well as for foreign workers who are performing work pursuant to an international agreement (e.g., NAFTA).

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2012 Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference

    2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentLeslie D Foreman:
      I agree with the court decision. Granting a full 52 weeks leave for an adoptive...

      CommentDr. Mike Michael:
      While there are many factors associated with depression, a main cause is the...

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (9)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design