DOI: https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202500400006-eng
Text begins
The movement of temporary foreign workers between the United States and Canada represents a critical yet understudied aspect of North American labour mobility. This article examines recent trends in the number of temporary foreign workers from the United States in Canada and their employment patterns, industrial distribution and earnings. These trends showcase the interconnectedness of the U.S. and Canadian labour markets and shed light on the economic contributions of these workers to various sectors in Canada.
Previous studies have shown that permanent migration flows from the United States to Canada have historically fluctuated in response to economic, political and social factors (Boyd, 1981; Kobayashi & Ray, 2005). These trends varied for U.S. citizens and non-citizen residents because their immigration to Canada may be driven by different socioeconomic changes (Hou & Stick, 2025). The trends and sociodemographic characteristics of temporary workers in Canada may also differ for U.S. citizens and non-citizen residents. For instance, non-citizen residents of the United States generally do not benefit from free trade agreements that facilitate easier temporary migration for U.S. citizens (Government of Canada, n.d.). They need to rely on other pathways to Canada, which may involve more stringent requirements and longer processing times. In addition, restrictive immigration policies may prompt skilled foreign workers with precarious immigration statuses to explore alternative opportunities abroad (Neri-Lainé & Rapoport, 2025). Canada, with its relatively open immigration system and demand for skilled labour, has emerged as a viable destination.
This article compares U.S. citizen and non-citizen resident temporary foreign workers in Canada, examining their numbers, admission programs and employment outcomes. By analyzing the differences between these two groups, this article aims to shed light on their unique motivations for seeking work in Canada and their contributions to the Canadian labour market.
Recent trends in the numbers of temporary foreign workers from the United States
Chart 1 presents the number of U.S. temporary workers holding work permits for work purposesNote from 2010 to 2013. The number of U.S. citizen temporary workersNote declined almost continuously after 2013, stabilizing after 2020. Annual changes by program (not shown in a table) indicate that approximately two-thirds of this decline was driven by workers admitted through international agreements.
Data table for Chart 1
| Year | U.S. citizens | U.S. non-citizen residents | The share of temporary foreign workers from the U.S. in total temporary foreign workers |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | percent | ||
| Source: Statistics Canada, Non-permanent Residents File. | |||
| 2010 | 61,698 | 3,728 | 16.6 |
| 2011 | 63,485 | 5,124 | 16.6 |
| 2012 | 68,309 | 6,317 | 16.4 |
| 2013 | 70,420 | 6,770 | 15.5 |
| 2014 | 67,953 | 6,134 | 14.6 |
| 2015 | 63,699 | 5,977 | 14.5 |
| 2016 | 59,093 | 6,022 | 13.6 |
| 2017 | 56,375 | 6,652 | 12.3 |
| 2018 | 55,114 | 8,638 | 11.0 |
| 2019 | 54,936 | 11,939 | 9.9 |
| 2020 | 42,710 | 11,749 | 8.1 |
| 2021 | 36,586 | 12,315 | 7.7 |
| 2022 | 37,486 | 15,467 | 5.9 |
| 2023 | 38,867 | 17,353 | 4.0 |
Early studies suggested that United States–Canada free trade agreements historically contributed to an increase in the flow of temporary workers from Canada to the United States and a decrease in the opposite direction (Grant & Townsend, 2004). This pattern likely reflects the tendency of multinational enterprises (primarily in the United States) to centralize key functions in their home country, reducing the need to place senior management and highly skilled workers in foreign affiliates (Grant & Townsend, 2004). This tendency may have intensified since the mid-2010s.
The remaining one-third of the decline in U.S. citizen temporary foreign workers was associated with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). This decrease was likely influenced by policy changes introduced in 2013 and 2014 that aimed to reduce employer reliance on temporary foreign workers and strengthen compliance mechanisms (Kachulis & Perez-Leclerc, 2020; Worswick, 2013). The TFWP allows Canadian employers with a Labour Market Impact Assessment to hire foreign workers to fill temporary job vacancies when no suitable Canadian citizens or permanent residents are available.
Although U.S. citizen entries under both the TFWP and international agreements have declined since 2013, entries under the International Mobility Program (IMP), excluding international agreements, increased throughout the 2010s and remained relatively stable in the early 2020s. In addition to facilitating worker mobility under Canada’s bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, the IMP aims to attract foreign workers who can provide significant economic, social or cultural benefits to Canada. Since the early 2010s, growth in the IMP (excluding international agreements) has been the primary driver of the overall increase in temporary foreign workers for work purposes (Lu & Hou, 2023a).
In contrast to the decline in U.S. citizen temporary workers, the number of U.S. non-citizen residents coming to Canada as temporary foreign workers has risen. Their numbers grew from 3,700 in 2010 to 17,400 in 2023, with the largest increases occurring from 2016 to 2019, and again after 2020 (Chart 1). By 2023, U.S. non-citizen residents accounted for 31% of all temporary workers from the United States, up from 6% in 2010.
Overall, the number of temporary workers from the United States has declined since the early 2010s, while the number from other countries has increased significantly. As a result, the share of temporary workers from the United States in Canada’s total temporary foreign worker population fell from 17% in 2010 to 4% in 2023.
Admission programs and occupational skill levels of U.S. temporary workers
International agreements accounted for nearly half of U.S. citizen temporary workers in Canada during the study period (Table 1). In 2023, approximately 5% of U.S. citizen temporary workers entered through the TFWP, while another 48% came through the IMP, excluding international agreements. In contrast, 89% of U.S. non-citizen residents were admitted through the IMP (excluding international agreements). The admission patterns of U.S. non-citizen residents more closely resembled those of temporary foreign workers from other countries, although a higher share of the latter entered through the TFWP.
| United States citizens | United States non-citizen residents | From other countries | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2019 | 2022 | 2010 | 2019 | 2022 | 2010 | 2019 | 2022 | |
| person count Table 1 Note 1 | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Total | 61,700 | 54,900 | 37,500 | 3,700 | 11,900 | 15,500 | 329,000 | 610,000 | 848,100 |
| By program | percent | ||||||||
| Temporary Foreign Worker Program | 28.5 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 37.4 | 9.3 | 8.3 | 45.6 | 20.5 | 21.5 |
| International Mobility Program, international agreements | 46.2 | 56.3 | 47.3 | 10.0 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 2.3 |
| International Mobility Program, other categories | 25.3 | 38.6 | 47.8 | 52.6 | 86.5 | 88.8 | 52.7 | 77.1 | 76.2 |
| By occupational skill level | |||||||||
| Managerial occupations | 15.3 | 16.4 | 15.4 | 14.9 | 15.6 | 13.1 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2.1 |
| Professional or technical occupations | 66.3 | 65.3 | 60.6 | 55.6 | 55.7 | 53.5 | 21.4 | 17.4 | 15.3 |
| Lower-skilled occupations | 5.5 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 30.7 | 15.2 | 14.4 |
| Occupations not specified | 12.9 | 16.0 | 22.0 | 24.4 | 27.2 | 32.3 | 44.4 | 64.9 | 68.2 |
| Percentage with T4 earnings | 29.1 | 29.6 | 34.9 | 41.0 | 59.8 | 68.7 | 67.7 | 73.0 | 73.5 |
| Industrial distribution among foreign workers with T4 earnings Table 1 Note 2 | |||||||||
| Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 1.0 | 0.9 | 12.2 | 12.6 | 11.3 |
| Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction | 5.5 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Utilities | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Construction | 9.0 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 4.8 |
| Manufacturing | 6.5 | 6.6 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 10.2 |
| Wholesale trade and retail trade | 8.3 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 10.5 | 12.1 | 12.5 |
| Transportation and warehousing | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 2.9 | 4.3 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 4.2 | 5.0 |
| Information and cultural industries | 3.8 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 2.3 |
| Finance and insurance, real estate and rental and leasing | 4.0 | 4.4 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 4.2 |
| Professional, scientific and technical services | 15.7 | 17.9 | 18.1 | 18.2 | 51.2 | 55.0 | 7.8 | 10.2 | 11.4 |
| Management of companies and enterprises | 0.5 | 2.2 | 1.6 | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services | 3.2 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 5.8 | 8.6 | 7.8 |
| Educational services | 12.7 | 13.7 | 15.4 | 19.8 | 8.8 | 6.2 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 2.6 |
| Health care and social assistance | 4.1 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 4.7 |
| Arts, entertainment and recreation | 6.8 | 7.7 | 8.9 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.1 |
| Accommodation and food services | 4.5 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 19.1 | 17.9 | 14.8 |
| Other services (except public administration) | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 9.7 | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| Public administration | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | x suppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the Statistics Act | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Industry unknown | 4.6 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 5.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Earnings Table 1 Note 1 (full year equivalentTable 1 Note 3) among foreign workers with T4 earnings | 2022 dollars | ||||||||
| Earnings at 90th percentile | 368,500 | 402,900 | 343,200 | 281,000 | 240,900 | 266,000 | 84,300 | 103,700 | 116,700 |
| Earnings at 75th percentile | 176,000 | 161,300 | 152,500 | 150,200 | 145,300 | 167,100 | 46,200 | 60,500 | 67,900 |
| Median earnings | 86,400 | 77,200 | 75,900 | 77,700 | 101,100 | 107,600 | 29,700 | 39,300 | 42,500 |
| Earnings at 25th percentile | 33,700 | 34,700 | 37,300 | 33,800 | 59,400 | 67,300 | 18,000 | 25,000 | 28,100 |
Reflecting these differences in program composition, U.S. citizen temporary workers had a higher proportion of work permits designated for managerial, professional or technical occupations—76% in 2023, compared with 67% among U.S. non-citizen temporary workers. U.S. non-citizen workers had a larger share of work permits without designated occupational skill levels, because of the prevalence of open work permits issued under various IMP sub-streams. Compared with both U.S. citizen and non-citizen workers, temporary foreign workers from other countries had a significantly lower share of work permits designated for managerial, professional or technical occupations and a higher share without designated occupational skill levels.
Employment patterns, industrial distribution and earnings of U.S. temporary workers
A much lower proportion of U.S. citizen temporary foreign workers had T4 earnings (35% in 2022) compared with U.S. non-citizen workers (69%) and temporary foreign workers from other countries (74%).Note The low rate of T4 earnings among U.S. citizen temporary foreign workers was largely due to their higher representation in international agreement streams, which generally had lower rates of T4 earnings (Lu & Hou, 2023b). It is possible that some of these workers were paid directly by U.S. companies.
Among those with T4 earnings in 2022, about one-third of U.S. citizen temporary workers were employed in two sectors: professional, scientific and technical services; and educational services. In contrast, 55% of U.S. non-citizen workers were employed in professional, scientific and technical services. The industrial distribution of temporary foreign workers from other countries was more evenly spread, with a significantly higher share working in sectors typically associated with lower-paying jobs, such as accommodation and food services; agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; and wholesale trade and retail trade.
The three groups of temporary foreign workers with T4 earnings had distinct earnings levels and distributions, related to differences in occupational skill levels and industry distribution. In 2022, U.S. non-citizen temporary workers had the highest median full-year equivalent earnings,Note at $107,600, compared with $75,900 for U.S. citizen workers and $42,500 for temporary foreign workers from other countries. U.S. citizen workers exhibited the most uneven earnings distribution, with earnings at the 90th percentile reaching $343,000—about nine times those at the 25th percentile—compared with a ratio of about four among U.S. non-citizen workers and those from other countries.
In summary, the trends in temporary foreign workers coming from the United States to Canada reveal an evolving landscape. While the number of U.S. citizens entering Canada for temporary work has generally declined since the early 2010s, primarily driven by decreases in entries under international agreements and the TFWP, the number of U.S. non-citizen temporary workers has significantly increased. These two groups exhibit distinct characteristics: U.S. citizens were more likely to enter through international agreements and have work permits designated for managerial, professional or technical occupations, while U.S. non-citizen residents predominantly entered through the IMP (excluding international agreements) and were concentrated in professional, scientific and technical services industries. Notably, U.S. non-citizen temporary workers had higher rates of T4 earnings and higher median earnings than their U.S. citizen counterparts, and much higher median earnings than temporary foreign workers from other countries. Although their numbers remain small, U.S. non-citizen temporary workers’ strong labour market outcomes suggest they can be a key source of skilled talent for Canada. They are more likely drawn by the prospect of Canadian permanent residency and pushed by restrictive U.S. immigration policies.Note
Authors
Feng Hou and Yuqian Lu are with the Social Analysis and Modelling Division, Analytical Studies and Modelling Branch, at Statistics Canada.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Marc Frenette and Li Xue for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Boyd, M. (1981). The American emigrant in Canada: Trends and consequences. International Migration Review, 15(4), 650-670.
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) – Chapter 16 – Temporary entry for business persons. Accessed February 26, 2025.
Grant, H., & Townsend, J. (2004). Free trade, foreign investment and migration: Canada’s experience under NAFTA. PCERII Working Paper Series WP01-04. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pcerii/WorkingPapers/WP01-04.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2025.
Hou, F., & Stick, M. (2025). Recent trends in migration flows from the United States to Canada. Economic and Social Reports, 5(3): 1-9.
Kachulis, E., & Perez-Leclerc, M. (2020). Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada. Library of Parliament.
Kobayashi, A., & Ray, B. (2005). Placing American emigration to Canada in context. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/placing-american-emigration-canada-context/?utm. Accessed February 11, 2025.
Lu, Y., & Hou, F. (2023a). Foreign workers in Canada: Work permit holders versus employment income records, 2010 to 2022. Economic and Social Reports, 3(10): 1-9.
Lu, Y., & Hou, F. (2023b). Foreign workers in Canada: Changing composition and employment incidences of work permit holders. Economic and Social Reports, 3(10): 1-9.
Neri-Lainé, M., & Rapoport, H. (2025). The consequences of Trump’s migration policies. Paris School of Economics. https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/app/uploads/2025/02/The-consequences-of-Trumps-migration-policies.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2025.
Worswick, C. (2013). Economic implications of recent changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. IRPP Insight. https://irpp.org/research-studies/economic-implications-of-recent-changes-to-the-temporary-foreign-worker-program/. Accessed February 21, 2025.
- Date modified: