Should Workers in Canada Have a Direct Pathway to Permanent Residence?

The short answer? In many cases, yes. 

A recent interview with Immigration Minister Lena Diab brought this issue into sharper focus. When discussing foreign workers in Canada, she said: 

“If you wish to stay here permanently, use the available immigration pathways.” 

That is a loaded statement. It assumes that those pathways are actually available. For thousands of foreign workers in Canada, they are not. And when that is the case, they have no option to stay permanently. 

It also shifts responsibility onto the worker, rather than acknowledging a deeper structural issue. There is a clear disconnect between the workers Canada brings in and the workers it ultimately selects for permanent residence. 

A Disconnected System 

The main reason Canada allows temporary workers in is to fill recognized labour shortages. They contribute to the economy, gain experience, and build their lives here. Yet when it comes time to stay, they are expected to navigate a system that is not aligned with how they were admitted, where eligibility to work does not translate into eligibility for permanent residence. 

Is this right? If Canada brings in workers to contribute to its economy and fill labour shortages, and they do exactly that, should IRCC not offer them a clear and direct pathway to stay?  

It is time for the system to move from a model of uncertainty, where doing X may lead to Y, to one where doing X will lead to Y. 

Before we get further into this, it is important to add some context here. Work permits in Canada are broadly issued under two programs. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), which relies on the Labour Market Impact Assessment to evaluate job offers, and the International Mobility Program, which does not require an LMIA. 

When discussing a direct pathway to permanent residence, the focus here is on workers entering through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.  

Rethinking the Starting Point 

Recent proposed reforms to Express Entry, including updating program eligibility and comprehensive ranking system scoring aim to better target candidates based on labour market needs. But this focus remains at the permanent residence selection stage. 

A different approach would be to shift the focus of targeting target candidates based on labour market needs to the work permit stage. 

Instead of primarily targeting occupations through permanent residence programs, Canada could target them when issuing work permits. And then offer those who successfully establish themselves in Canada, a direct permanent residence pathway. And to use Minister Diab’s words, allow them to stay here permanently, using the available immigration pathways.  

An example of this in practice: Let’s say Canada has a need for Civil Engineers. Right now, these would be targeted via Express Entry draws and perhaps a few Provincial Nominee Programs. A Civil Engineer may apply and be successful, and be given PR status, having never worked in Canada as a Civil Engineer. What if rather than being given PR status, they were given a three-year open work permit? If in that three-year period they have acquired at least one year of Canadian experience as a Civil Engineer, they had a direct pathway to PR. These workers would arrive with a clear understanding of why they were selected and what is expected of them. In other words, it offers workers transparency and certainty, two things desperately missing from the current set up. 

Why This May Be the Winning Approach 

There are several advantages to this model. 

First, it aligns with what we already know about successful immigration outcomes. Canadian work experience is one of the strongest predictors of long-term economic success, so why not build that directly into the system? 

Second, open work permits provide flexibility. Workers are not tied to a single employer, which reduces the risk of exploitation and allows for better labour market mobility.  

Third, it creates a more coherent system. Workers (not permanent residents) are selected based on real labour needs, and those who meet expectations are given the opportunity to remain in Canada.  

Fourth, it solidifies Canada’s position as an immigration destination of choice for skilled workers. Presently, with foreign worker targets declining and uncertainty about future prospects increasing among work permit holders, Canada is at the risk of losing its attractiveness in the highly competitive global market. This would make workers believe, once again, that the Canadian promise is real and long-term.  

And this approach is not new. In 2024, Canada introduced field of study requirements for certain international students to become eligible for a Post-Graduation Work Permit. These targeted fields of study were designed to reflect labour market needs, and there is already significant overlap between those fields and the occupation categories prioritized under Express Entry. 

This shows that Canada is already moving toward aligning temporary selection with long-term economic priorities. The opportunity now is to extend that same logic more broadly to the work permit system. 

The Trade-Off 

This approach would obviously shift the selectivity of PRs to the work permit stage. Canada would need stronger and more detailed labour market data including better communication channels with the various stakeholders, more precise but informed intake targets with both short- term and long-term modelling, and improved methods for selecting workers. 

There are also practical challenges that need to be addressed, including but not limited to the following:  

A hiring bias. Some employers may be hesitant to hire candidates on time-restricted work permits. However, if these workers are being admitted to fill clearly defined labour shortages, employers would have limited alternatives.  

Another concern is the risk of worker exploitation, particularly if labour is perceived as more accessible or lower cost. Safeguards would need to remain in place. Wage standards, working conditions, and oversight mechanisms such as those applied through the LMIA process, and then some, would continue to play an important role in protecting workers. 

There are also regulatory barriers in certain professions. Entry into fields such as engineering, healthcare, and skilled trades often requires licensing or certification. This challenge exists regardless of whether workers are selected at the work permit stage or the permanent residence stage. Addressing these barriers is essential to ensure that skilled workers can fully participate in the labour market once they arrive. 

There is also the question of roles where there is no long-term economic need. In some cases, Canada will want workers to stay on a temporary basis with no intention of retaining them permanently. In those situations, separate work permit streams would still be needed. However, where permanent residence is not an option, the worker must be clear from the outset. 

These challenges are not insignificant, but they are also not new. And for all the cons of this approach, this would move decision-making earlier in the process to make a fairer more equitable system for all. Instead of bringing workers into the country without a clear long-term pathway, Canada would and should define that pathway from the beginning. 

It is easy to say that workers who want to stay in Canada should use the immigration pathways available to them. But that only works if those pathways are actually accessible. Right now, that is not the case. 

Workers can and should be brought to Canada to fill real labour needs. Those who come contribute, gain experience, and build their lives here should not be met with a one-sided system that takes but does not give back. If Canada cannot offer its temporary workers a direct permanent pathway, it needs to reconsider how and why workers are brought here to begin with. 

For this to work, there would need to be a meaningful overhaul of both the work permit and PR system. We are already long overdue for change. It needs to happen, however hard it will be.