Sustainable labour in Ontario’s sustainable food movement:
Where do migrant farmworkers fit in?
Kirsten Cole
A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies.
York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
November 30, 2012
___________________________________
Kirsten Cole, MES Candidate
___________________________________
Dr. Deborah Barndt, Major Paper Supervisor
Abstract
At a time when we’re trying to set things straight in our food system, why not get it all
right? A growing number of Southern Ontario consumers and food organizations have
demonstrated their commitment to a renewed, more sustainable food system but they’ve
overlooked the major role of migrant labour in this scheme. This paper seeks to
acknowledge this gap in our current food movement and explore the reasons for its
neglect. Using focus groups and interviews it draws on the experiences of sustainable
food initiatives, farmers, and labour advocates in the region to name the barriers that
inhibit food movement engagement with the issues of migrant agricultural labour. The
same methods are used to identify tensions around this complex issue and the often
conflicting positions of the food system actors that surround it. The research is situated
within Southern Ontario’s sustainable food movement with the objective of inspiring and
informing action from the existing body of social movement actors here. The findings of
this paper can be used as a resource for sustainable food initiatives to this end. They
provide a framework of the current and historical struggles of migrant agricultural
workers in Ontario and illuminate suggestions on how to navigate among these for
collective social change. This is change that will directly benefit migrant agricultural
workers employed in Ontario in the short and/or long-term.
i
Foreword
Over the past two and a half years, the Masters of Environmental Studies program has
provided me a plot to grow my knowledge of the Ontario food system. It has challenged
my understanding of food and broadened my perspective of what it means to be
sustainable and just. This major research paper draws on all three areas of concentration
outlined in my Plan of Study: agricultural policy, agricultural labour, and sustainable
agriculture. It contributes to the broader conversation of how to promote sustainable
agriculture in the province while bringing up important questions of social justice and
equality for all food system actors. As an enthusiastic eater, a concerned citizen, and a
potential future farmer, these are questions of particular personal significance to me.
When I first set out on this research project, I imagined the results would be gargantuan.
Perhaps I would name a solution that would put an end to the unjust treatment of migrant
agricultural workers. Or identify the main barrier that had been impeding sustainable
food initiatives from acting on this issue. In hindsight, I realize that my vision of a clearcut answer was naïve and uninformed. It did not account for the array of complexities I
had yet to unpack—those encapsulating migrant labour in the global neoliberal economy,
and those surrounding food and labour activists in the work they do. The more research I
did, the more complex each subject became. Rather than broaden my research goals
however, the effect was one of minimization. I shifted the scale of my focus to something
more reasonable: starting a conversation.
Using the background research I had completed, I brought a solid understanding of
migrant agricultural labour in Ontario to the individuals and groups with whom I
conversed. With it, I was able to tactfully broach the question, why aren’t we talking
about migrant labour in our sustainable food movement? I connected with local farmers
and sustainable food initiative representatives with a motive that was twofold (1) to tease
out the barriers inhibiting labour advocacy in their work, and (2) to generate the
beginning of dialogue needed to cultivate alliances among these groups. The process
aimed to inspire deeper engagement with the issue as well as action for change.
ii
Between the beginning and completion of this major paper (November 2011 and
November 2012, respectfully) there have been a handful of events that have affected the
migrant agricultural worker community and its position within the Ontario food
movement. A car accident causing the tragic deaths of ten Peruvian migrant workers in
Hampstead, Ontario in February 2012 was perhaps the most notable event. A series of
legal actions—the devastating decision to drop charges against employers at Filsinger’s
Organic Farms alleged to be responsible for the deaths of Jamaican workers Ralston
White and Paul Roach1; the first of its kind lawsuit of three Mexican workers who
attempted to sue the federal government as well as their farm employer for breaching
their contracts and charter rights2; approval of the Conservative government omnibus bill
(Bill C-38) that enables employers to pay migrant workers 15% less than Canadian
minimum wage; and a smattering of legal complaints placed, lawsuits launched, health
claims made, housing condition fines attempted—have unravelled over the past year.
Though few have resulted in successful legal action, each event has drawn more attention
to the existence of migrant agricultural workers and the conditions they endure.
At the same time, positive developments have also garnered attention for migrant labour
rights. Recent grassroots movement vigils, pilgrimages, and advocacy events to honour
and empower migrant workers have fostered collective energy for conversation and
change. Gatherings of food and labour groups around the express purpose of discourse on
migrant labour have also been key. Specifically, the May 9, 2012 visit of the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, which convened sustainable food initiatives,
community groups, and labour organizers around the subject of ‘migrant issues in
Canada’; the October 2, 2012 Ryerson University Social Justice Week conference and
subsequent workshop ‘Building Alliances for Sustainable Food and Just Labour’; and the
November 1-4, 2012 Food Secure Canada National Assembly which featured a full-day
plenary on the subject, ‘Local and Just, or Just Local?’. Each gathering represents a
hopeful commitment to incorporating food justice, and specifically, migrant labour
justice into Southern Ontario’s existing food movement. These manifestations of crosssectoral movement building paint an optimistic picture for the future of labour
organizing. They were not yet on the horizon one year ago today.
iii
Another important point to acknowledge is the voices that are missing from this
particular conversation. It is with utmost awareness that I note that migrant agricultural
workers themselves were not interviewed for this research. The reasons for this are many.
The primary subject of this work is actually not workers, but the SFIs and labour groups
that might organize with/around them. Additionally, there are the complications of trying
to establish a connection and conversation with workers who are constricted by their
workplace limits. The geographic divide, pressures of employer demands and contractual
ties, and barriers of language make it difficult to conduct interviews with workers in
Canada on temporary work contracts. During the winter—the period during which most
of this research was completed—connecting with migrant farmworkers is more difficult
still. This is considered off-season for the large majority of workers, when they return to
their home countries. In future coalition- and movement-building around migrant worker
justice, it will be essential that food movement actors work together with migrant
workers. Their interests will inform these movements and the objectives they seek to
accomplish.
End Notes
1
Ralston White and Paul Roach died of environmental asphyxiation as a result of a confined space accident at
Filsinger's Organic Farms in September 2010 (near Ayton, Ontario). The decision to drop charges made against four
employers of the farm (for reasons including failing to: ensure a written program for a confined space inside a vinegar
tank was developed and maintained before the workers entered the tank; ensure the workers received adequate training
in accordance with the relevant plan and followed the plan before entering the tank; ensure that each worker entering a
confined space inside a vinegar tank was adequately protected against suffocation and other hazards by adequate
means; ensure that where atmospheric hazards existed in a confined space inside a vinegar tank, the confined space was
purged, ventilated or both, before workers entered; take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that the workers did not
enter a vinegar tank, etc.) was passed more than a year later in January 2012. In lieu of these charges, the Ministry of
Labour applied a fine to one supervisor at the farm for $22,500. Many believed this decision gave employers carte
blanche to abuse their migrant employees. It sent the message that the Ministry will go easy on workplace violations,
even if they result in death. Source: Canada NewsWire. (2012, Jan. 11). Court fines supervisor $22,500 in the deaths
of two Jamaican Migrant Workers, retrieved January 18, 2012, from http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/904115/courtfines-supervisor-22-500-in-the-deaths-of-two-jamaican-migrant-workers.
2
In November 2011 Manuel Ruiz Espinoza, Salvador Reta Ruiz and Jose Ruiz Sosa, sought $50,000 each for breach of
contract and their charter rights after being arbitrarily sent home from Tigchelaar Berry Farms in Vineland, Ontario
where they had been contracted to work at least another 3 months. The three claimed they were sent home with no
explanation, though their contracts allowed for repatriation only with “sufficient reason”. None of their claims have yet
been proven in court. Source: Perkel, C. (2011, Nov 24). Migrant workers sue Ottawa and farm for breaching
contract, human rights, retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/migrantworkers-sue-ottawa-and-farm-for-breaching-contract-charter-rights/article4252269/.
iv
Acknowledgements
There are a number of key people I would like thank for the keen support they shared
throughout this writing process. Most importantly, my supervisor Deborah Barndt for her
kindness, constructive feedback, and generosity with her time (and kitchen!). Her
contributions helped me to see how I could both broaden and narrow the scope of my
work in order to produce realistic goals. Her position as an established member in both
food and labour circles enabled me to connect with people, places, and resources I would
not otherwise have had the chance to involve in my research. For these invaluable
opportunities and for her constant affirmations, I am incredibly grateful.
In addition, my parents, family, and friends have been a source of well-needed support
over the course of my writing (and more importantly, during the hiatuses when there was
no writing at all). Their constant encouragement does not go unacknowledged. The MES
community and collection of courses I completed each contributed to this work as well.
In particular, I’d like to acknowledge Professor Dayna Scott’s course, Environmental
Law and Justice. It was this class that first drew my attention to the struggles of migrant
workers in Canadian agriculture.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the individuals who participated in
this research. Whether it was over dinner conversations, focus groups, interviews, farm
visits, or informal brainstorming sessions, their contributions generated the heart and soul
of this work. And to those whose voices were not represented here—the migrant workers
of Ontario agriculture and countless others abroad—I am only just beginning to recognize
the weight of the struggles they endure.
v
Contents
Abstract…………….………………………………………………………………….…. i
Foreword…………..………………………………………………………………….…. ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….…… v
Contents…………..……………………………………………………………………... vi
Acronyms and Actors…………………………………………………………………... vii
Part I
Introduction………………………………………………………………… Page 1
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………….. Page 6
Methods…………………………………………………………………… Page 12
Political and economic context: The structures that encourage and embed
temporary migrant labour in the Ontario agri-food industry……………. Page 23
Migrant agricultural workers in Ontario: An overview…………………... Page 30
Why now? Finding a space to grow the good food conversation………… Page 44
Part II
Sustainable food and agriculture initiatives in the Greater Toronto Area:
An overview of key issues and strategies………………….………….… Page 49
Migrant labour advocates: Existing efforts underway………..…………... Page 57
Barriers to addressing the migrant labour issue………………………...… Page 70
1. The global neoliberal economic system
2. Canadian state policies and complicity with corporate agribusiness
3. Tensions within in the local sustainable food movement
4. Tensions within the labour movement
Engaging with the tensions and planning for action: Food movement
recommendations going forward……………………………………….... Page 96
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. Page 102
Bibliography…..………………………………………………………………... Page 104
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Complete list of SFIs surveyed for IDS overivew………………. Page 110
Focus group participants and details.……………………………. Page 111
Focus group question guide……………………………………... Page 111
Interview participants……………………………………………. Page 112
Interview questions……………………………………………… Page 112
vi
Acronyms and Actors
The following is a list of terms and acronyms used regularly throughout this research
paper. They may not all be commonly known, and so are laid out here. Some terms are
used with particular connotations tailored to this research, as explained below.
Terms
Food system: A food system covers a range of activities that span from the resource
distribution, inputs, labour, and production of food products to their cultivation, processing,
packaging, labelling, purchasing, delivering, distributing, serving, preparing, and
consumption. Throughout this cycle, there are countless factors that affect the trajectory of
food. Thousands of actors can be involved in this journey. Along with the social, cultural,
political, environmental, and economic conditions in which the food system operates, they
will determine how food passes through this system and makes it from farm to table (though
each with various degrees and hierarchies of influence).
A sustainable food system is typically referred to as one that optimizes the health of all
parties involved: the health of the environment wherein food is produced, the health of the
people growing and eating the food, and the health of economy that both produces and
consumes at a maintainable costs. A food system that encompasses all three of these
requirements is thought to be resilient to outside forces and equipped for long-term success.
Common definitions of sustainable food systems feature alternative production practices and
agro-ecological processes. They tend to dismiss conventional production systems (i.e.
industrial agriculture operations) that operate on economies of scale.
Agri-food industry: The agri-food industry refers to the entire business of producing food
agriculturally. In the context of this work, the term typically embraces not only farmers, but
also the larger corporate actors, enterprises, and political stakeholders that control aspects of
the food system and the sale of food. In Canada, the agri-food industry is an umbrella
organization, which also covers the industries of farm input, suppliers, primary agriculture,
food and beverage processing, food regulation, foodservice, and retail. Canada’s agri-food
industry plays an incredibly important role in the domestic (and international) economy. In
2010, the industry employed over two million people and accounted for 8.1% of the
country’s total gross domestic product1.
Farm/Small farm: There is a considerable difference between small farms and those
operating on an industrial scale. In this research, the terms ‘farms’ or ‘small farms’ refer to
independent businesses managed by individual farmers, not corporations, and are typically
under the scale of 500 acres. Informally, they also encompass the more traditional forms of
agriculture: those of mixed-use, and subsistence farming, organic, bio-dynamic, and less
input-dependent production.
Farmer vs. Farmworker: Throughout this paper, I use the terms ‘farmer’ and ‘farmworker’
with purposively different meanings. In general, this is done to elucidate the distinction
between those who own, manage, or otherwise run a farm operation (referred to here as a
‘farmer’) vs. the individuals enlisted or employed to work on the farm, without having any
managerial or financial stake in its operation (referred to as ‘farmworkers’). The term
vii
farmworker is used to depict paid labour and does not include family members, who are often
recruited to assist with family-run farms.
Migrant agricultural worker: There are many terms used to refer to the individuals who
travel between countries for non-permanent employment in the agri-food industry. Common
titles used include “seasonal workers”, “temporary foreign workers”, “guest workers”, and
“offshore labour”. For the purposes of this research, I have stuck with one title, “migrant
agricultural workers” to make clear that I am referring specifically to those employed in
agriculture, and not other industries.
Acronyms
SAWP: Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (described in detail in Part I)
TFWP: Temporary Foreign Worker Program (described in detail in Part I)
F.A.R.M.S./F.E.R.M.E.: Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, the HRSDCauthorized organization, which facilitates the application and administration of the Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Program (la Fondation des entreprises pour le recrutement des maind’oeuvre étrangère in New Brunswick and Quebec)
Actors
SFI: Sustainable Food Initiative (SFI) is a term used specifically in this research to refer to
the range of projects, programs, groups, organizations, collectives, and activities
endeavouring to promote or create the sustainable production of food and/or an alternative
food system in general. The method by which this is achieved varies from initiative to
initiative—from urban agriculture groups, alternative farms and farm training programs,
education, and advocacy to food policy groups, procurement initiatives, and food security
projects. Many SFIs wear a number of these hats (explored in detail in Part II).
Labour group: Like the categorization of ‘SFI’, the term ‘labour group’ is often used
throughout this paper to refer to the range of initiatives portrayed that are undertaking work
around labour. In particular, the labour groups referred to here advocate for the labour rights
of migrant agricultural workers. This includes grassroots and community-based groups as
well as various entities of organized labour (explored in detail in Part II).
UFCW Canada: United Food and Commercial Workers Canada
AWA: The Agriculture Workers Alliance
J4MW: Justicia for Migrant Workers
SAME: Students Against Migrant Exploitation
TFPC: Toronto Food Policy Council
LFP: Local Food Plus
End Notes
1
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2012). An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food System 2012,
retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display afficher.do?id=
1331319696826&lang=eng.
viii
Introduction
Ontarians are in the process of creating a new food system. Across the province, they are
exhibiting greater commitment than ever before to supporting alternative food production
models, distribution methods, and quality guarantees. Many Ontarians want food they can
feel good about and a food system that is sustainable and just at every step along the way.
A decade of shifting values and concerns has culminated in a new focus for growers and
eaters, one that draws attention to agricultural production processes and the sustainability
of events that link farm to fork. Local, organic, and other agro-ecologically produced
foods are in increasingly high demand. Recent studies show that roughly three quarters
Central Ontario residents show preference for them over their industrial counterparts1. At
the same time, those who can afford to are now willing to pay up to 30% more for
alternatively produced foods2.
As the food movement has gained momentum, it has drawn on interconnections with
other fundamental systems of life. Among them social, health, community, education,
economic, and environmental systems. Food-related organizations and initiatives have
emerged, simultaneously, in every one of these fields, each supporting the movement
through its own agenda. The efforts of this growing network aim collectively to develop a
food system that is good for eaters and the environment, one that is equitable,
responsible, and sustainable. Though interpretations of what these characteristics should
look like and how they will be achieved vary from group to group, food thinkers are
united in their yearning for change. And change they are delivering! The principles of
social justice, health, ecological growing and distribution, economic security, and
community engagement run liberally throughout our food movement. But one element of
sustainability is consistently overlooked. It does not appear in most interpretations of
sustainable production, nor is it addressed amongst the majority of our existing goodfood initiatives. Its role in the Ontario food system, however, is undeniable.
Agricultural labour is the very first link in our food chain and yet it is so commonly
overlooked. Historically and politically this is consistently the case. Our dependence on
1
agricultural labour is so deeply embedded in Canadian life that its continued existence
here is taken as granted. Without agricultural labour, families would be left to fare one of
two ways: by growing and harvesting for themselves, or grocery shopping abroad and
importing their food in its entirety. But neither is the case. Agriculture remains a major
sector of employment in Canada and one that contributes enormously to the country’s
economic success. This is the case despite the dwindling number of Canadians who are
taking jobs here.
Thousands of workers are needed each year to prep, plant, pick, inspect, pack, and
otherwise tend to the foods produced across the country. In Ontario, there are more than
20,000 farms that employ paid labourers. And though there is a constant trend toward
concentration in scale and farm size, the number of overall positions in the sector remains
relatively unchanged3. This work calls on human abilities that cannot be replaced by
industrial technology. Despite leaps and bounds in mechanization, a significant portion of
agricultural work continues to rely on manual skill.
In a keynote conference address, California workers’ rights activist, author, and former
farmworker Frank Bardacke gave an earnest explanation of the limitations of agricultural
mechanization. He attributed them to the fact that “nature matures unevenly and we
cannot correct this”. Machines will never be able recreate the distinctly human
combination of “keenness of the eye and strength of the hands”4, he suggested, though
many attempts have been made. He is one of few to speak publically to the value of
proficiency in agricultural labour, shattering the myth that it is ‘unskilled work’.
Unlike other industrialized fields, human labour has yet to become obsolete in
agriculture. Mechanization has succeeded in the application of agrochemicals, of some
planting, harvesting, and sorting processes, but workers and their skills remain paramount
in the operation of our food systems. For many alternative and sustainable production
methods like organic and mixed use farming, this is especially the case. Agroecological
farming methods are often more labour-intensive than any other. They rely less on
2
industrialized inputs and technologies and more on traditional methodologies: those
exercised by human labour.
Though agricultural workers form the backbone of our food system, they are seldom
mentioned in conversations about sustainable production. The very fact that our food is
produced by human beings—that someone else sweats in the field to supply us with our
supper—is rarely considered. This seems to be the case for the vast majority of eaters,
regardless of the consumption habits we practice. We rarely pay attention to the “who”
question when asking where our food comes from.
When labour is taken into account, it has a tendency to be glossed over with the image of
an idyllic Farmer Brown. Otherwise, it is exhibited under the pretence of a farmer-toconsumer relationship. These are promoted at farmers’ markets, CSAs, restaurants, or
even at farm gate. Campaigns connecting consumers to farmers have surfaced across the
country and around the world to encourage local purchasing and eating. They put a face
to the farmer’s name and attach a human element to consumer decisions 5. Connections
between consumers and farmworkers—those employed by farmers to assist with their
production—on the other hand are rarely made. Workers have not typically been
associated with a human identity the way their employers have. They remain out of sight
and out of mind, beyond our public consciousness. Add into the mix that farmworkers
may be non-citizens, racialized workers labouring temporarily in our fields, and
establishing connections with them becomes all but impossible. An enormous number of
key food system players are thus left entirely out of the good food picture.
Migrant agricultural labour is heavily relied on in Canada and nowhere more so than in
Ontario where two out of three agricultural workers are seasonal or temporary migrants.
Every year close to 20,000 workers arrive in the province to fill agricultural labour needs
that Ontarians themselves are unwilling to meet6. They plant flowers, pick fruit, grow
vegetables and trees, and tend to animals and greenhouses for as many months as the
season requires. Then they return to their home countries until the next growing season
begins7. Many repeat this process year after year, building a lifetime career in Canadian
3
agriculture and away from their families back home. More often than not, migrant
workers are subject to work conditions—as well as health, safety, and living
circumstances—that are considered inhumane. They work prolonged hours for minimum
pay and are denied access to many of the same labour rights and protections as their
Canadian peers. They are not regarded as Canadian citizens but more often as a
dependable, faceless workforce. Beyond the rural communities that employ them, most
Ontarians don’t even know these workers exist. In this setting, migrant workers can be
easily exploited and even more easily replaced.
*
*
*
If you take a good look, it is clear that the conditions of migrant agricultural labour do not
align with the principles of a sustainable food system. They cannot be sanctioned in their
current state by production methods that claim to be progressive, safe, ethical, equitable,
or socially responsible. Nor can they be overlooked in certifications of food
sustainability. A “local” apple may not seem so local once you factor in the roundtrip
airfare of the workers who grew it.
Migrant workers contribute enormously to the province’s food production and processing
systems and must be recognized and respected accordingly. A critical place this can start,
I argue, is with recognition from existing good food and agriculture organizations—
groups that have created momentum to actively pursue “sustainable production” goals
and incorporate them into their greater food initiatives. These groups represent an
incredible source of energy to be harnessed. Good food initiatives are not the only actors
who have a role in this conversation however. Migrant workers, their employers, labour
advocates, sending countries, and the state are all required in various capacities. But these
organizations are well situated (and connected) in the context of food system
transformation and practiced in movement building for social change. What’s more,
many of them share a commitment to creating a food system that is sustainable and just.
4
In this paper I argue that sustainable food initiatives, in coalition with labour rights
advocates, can initiate a movement intertwined with the exisiting food movement to
move Ontario in the direction of more sustainable and just agricultural labour. Before
doing this, I suggest that food groups must acknowledge the current and historical context
of migrant agricultural labour in the province. As well, the social, political, and economic
tensions that surround this truly complicated issue. To this end, this paper is divided into
two main parts. Part I provides background on the evolution of migrant agricultural
labour in the province and unpacks the political and economic forces that have created
and embedded its existence in Canadian agriculture. Part II paints a more specific picture
of the state of affairs in the Southern Ontario food movement. It identifies some of the
main actors and issues in this movement and names specific barriers impeding food
system work on migrant labour based on the input of interviews and focus group
conversations. Finally, the paper offers strategies for food organizations to engage with
the barriers and tensions of this issue in order to move forward toward collective action
that will directly benefit migrant agricultural workers.
End Notes
1
Noted in the Local Food Plus 2011 report “Get Certified: What LFP Can Do For You” http://localfoodplus.ca/farmerprocessor-certification. This figure represents the body of individuals who would choose the noted ‘sustainable’
classifications over conventional ones were price not a factor in their sale. It does not represent consumers’ ability to
afford sustainable foods or actual purchasing habits.
2
Ibid.
3
In 2006 the total number of farms in Ontario reporting any form of paid labour was 20,837, an increase from the five
previous years. Roughly 39% of the labour is seasonal, drawing on domestic and non-domestic workers. Source:
OMAFRA http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/agriculture_summary.htm#labour.
4
Frank Bardacke, (February 3, 2012 address). Labour Across the Food System Conference. UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA,
February 3-4, 2012.
5
The most recent and prevalent of which we have seen in Ontario is the Egg Farmers of Ontario Who made your eggs
today? advertising campaign, featuring different individuals and families, their farms, favourite recipes, farmer tips,
and family photos. The campaign features eight different farm families, all of whom are Caucasian and of European
descent. Source: http://www.eggfarmersofontario.ca/.
6
In 2010, more than 18,000 migrant workers were recorded to be working in Ontario agriculture in one program alone
(the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program). This number does not include those that came in through other programs
though the numbers here would be significantly smaller. By comparison, Quebec and British Columbia, the second and
third largest labour importers recorded 3,800 and 3,500 workers for that year respectively. Numbers are taken from the
UFCW 2010-2011 Status of Migrant Farm Workers in Canada report.
7
In addtion to foreign countries, there are also seasonal workers who hail from other Canadian provinces where
unemployment is more severe. This is most common with Maritime provinces which send workers to Quebec and
Ontario farms annually.
5
Theoretical framework
As in any social science research, there are theoretical assumptions, ideologies, and
predispositions that underpin this work. Some were manifest from the visioning phases.
Others emerged as the research unfolded. At the core of my studies lies a critique of the
corporate food regime that encompasses Canadian agriculture and of the dominant
system of agricultural production it has manufactured in Ontario. This includes taking a
critical look at the so-called ‘sustainable’ food movement here and the practices it
encompasses. A parallel critique of the global labour migration system that feeds into
Ontario agriculture fuels many of the contradictions I have chosen to address. Both
structures are direct products of major global economic movements: those of
globalization, open markets, capitalism, and neoliberal trade. They have contributed
markedly to the current realities we experience in agriculture and agricultural labour
today.
The framework I use in this research is a piecemeal one, drawing on elements of a
number of grounding theories. At its foundation is critical theory, the form of Marxism
that challenges the root of social problems and the dominant order of society. Critical
theory maintains that economic systems or modes of production are the basis from which
all social, political, and regulatory systems are derived 1. In the case of food and labour,
this is very much the case. The employment of migrant agricultural labour serves directly
to boost the Canadian agri-food industry and maintain its competitive advantage in the
global marketplace. It has become essential in a food regime dominated by deep-seated
corporate power and undervalued food prices.
Critical theory is, by definition, a framework that evokes criticism and the application of
one’s values and principles2. These are engaged to evaluate a problem but also to catalyze
change. In my research, I use critical theory to blend theory with action in the hopes of
effecting such change around migrant agricultural workers. I rely heavily on knowledge
of the subject matter and place emphasis on the lived experiences of those engaged with
Ontario food and farming to develop my understanding. This includes incorporating
6
consideration for a diverse set of actors—farmers, farmworkers, consumers, organizers,
labour activists, educators, agribusiness, the state, etc. It is my belief that only in drawing
on knowledge from a multiplicity of sectors and stakeholders that an accurate picture of
reality can be discerned. At the same time, a critical theory approach also acknowledges
the power differences among stakeholders and thus assessess the ‘knowledges’ drawn
from each with a critical eye.
I take a critical approach to the sustainable food movement as one that promotes social
justice. This critique is based largely on Patricia Allen’s notion that sustainable food
systems, and particularly local food systems, do not inherently address issues of social
justice3. Allen argues that progressive movements like these have failed to include
considerations for equity especially in regards to labour. Acknowledging this as a fault of
sustainable food systems is an important step going forward. It will be essential as
sustainable initiatives become more and more prominent in our food system. By
continuing to exclude these important factors—social justice, equity, and the labourers of
the food system—she claims that sustainable food initiatives will only exacerbate the
prevalence of inequity.
Local food systems serve many purposes and improve the quality of life for many
people. However, they do not automatically move us in the right direction of
greater social justice. In particular, workers as actors and justice as principle are
missing in both theory and practice of alternative agrifood consumer efforts
(Allen, 2010).
Allen emphasizes the significance of developing an understanding of the forces that
create injustices in our current food systems. This understanding must be shared with all
collaborators in order to move away from deficient food system models and toward goals
of social and global justice4. The idea of knowing where we’re coming from in order to
mobilize the process of getting where we want to go is one that runs steadily through my
research. It underlines the need to contextualize the issues we are engaging with. It also
reflects the need for a progressive approach to food system change that stems from (and
thus empowers) the actors at the bottom rather than promoting those at the top5.
7
In conducting and analyzing primary research, I drew on the Naming the Moment process
based on Antonio Gramsci’s notions of conjuncturual and structural analysis and
developed in the 1980's by GTA activists in a collective process led by Deborah Barndt 6.
Naming the Moment is a process of “multisectoral conjunctural analysis” of forces used
to build understanding and alliances around a common issue 7. It acknowledges that, at
any moment in time, there are unique forces that influence a problem and the actors and
actions that aim to upend it. These can include social, political, and economic forces,
actors, and events. The process also draws on the interactions between and among each of
these relevant forces. The interrelation of all forces (the “conjuncture”) will establish the
climate, or the moment, in which the problem exists8. It will also identify limits and
opportunities for action in that moment, both of which must be addressed. The Naming
the Moment approach is used to cultivate actions that will be most effective at producing
the desired type of change. It enables you to ‘make the most’ of the given moment.
More than naming the relevant sources of influence, Naming the Moment asks that you
acknowledge the tensions between the identified forces. This, it argues, will allow you to
develop a deep understanding of the issue. It combines structural analysis—in this case,
of the systemic forces of capitalism, global North-South divide, migration and
displacement, and competitive corporate agri-business that embed the problem we are up
against—with conjunctural analysis—of the current political systems, labour policies,
food movement developments, and trends in local and global labour that depict the
current framework in which migrant agricultural labour exists today. In this way, the
problem and its present issues are addressed within a historical context.
The combination of structural and conjunctural anaylyses is not entirely new. It is
reflective of the Gramscian theory of permanent and temporary factors 9. The dual
analysis is a keystone, however, of the Naming the Moment process. It is defended
accordingly:
If we focus only on the structural elements, our understanding may remain static
and lifeless. We won’t see how things change as forces shift. On the other hand, if
8
we look only at the personalities and events of the moment, we may lose sight of
the deeper issues and the longer-term battles (Barndt, 1991).
Speaking to both the current and the embedded factors at play within this issue is
paramount to working toward short- and long-term solutions.
Typically, the Naming the Moment process is used in group settings to optimize political
organizing strategies. In my work, I draw on the principles more broadly to construct a
larger, multi-sectoral picture of migrant labour in Ontario agriculture and engage with the
tensions that embed it. I held the principles with me through the process of my research.
Specifically, the four distinct phases of the Naming the Moment process served greatly to
steer my work:
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
Phase 3:
Phase 4:
Identifying Ourselves and Our Interests
Naming the Issues/Struggles
Assessing the Forces
Planning for Action
Phases 1 through 3 comprised the bulk of my research. They identified the range of actors
and opportunities at work around the issue of migrant agricultural labour. As well, the
tensions that surround them and the obstacles they are up against. Subsequent phases of
the process drew out the analysis of tensions and their effects on SFI actors.
Naming and exploring the forces at play in this moment of Southern Ontario’s
sustainable food movement made up the focus of my work. For the final phase, Planning
for Action, I looked to what many academics have called “transformative” participation 10.
This is a type of participation which engages participants and their opinions directly in
the research and analysis processes. Transformative participation is equally about
collecting knowledge from participants and sharing knowledge with them. For
participants, it “leads to greater consciousness and greater confidence in their ability to
make a difference” around the issue11. Through their participation, research subjects are
thereby thought to be transformed. Participation in the research functions as a means as
well as an end. Through this approach, my efforts to catalyze change were embedded in
9
the research process. I planted the seed for movement-building among the myriad
participant stakeholders with whom I interacted.
Finally, over the course of this research, I discovered one more framework that fed, and
in fact, reinforced the analysis I completed. “Reflexive localism” (also referred to as
“reflexive food justice”) is an approach developed in the 2011 food thinktank collective,
Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability. Like Patricia Allen’s approach,
reflexive localism acknowledges the imperfections of localist food system strategies and
attempts to work within an awareness of these. It responds to tensions and opportunities
in food systems with a grounding in this awareness. At its core, a reflexive approach thus:
o
o
o
o
o
Begins by admitting the contradictions and complexities of everday life;
Works within a strong memory of past inequalities;
Works within multiple notions of privelege and economy;
Emphasizes process rather than vision; and
Does not insist on shared values or even shared views of the world12.
Using these principles, a reflexive approach enables more inclusive discussions and
decision-making about what a food system should look like and how justice should be
achieved. Like Naming the Moment, a reflexive approach starts with identifying the
various sources of knowledge on an issue and the interests and priveleges each contains.
It claims that in cultivating alliances around these—“between groups with different
interests but some overlapping agendas”—that we can create political and social action13.
*
*
*
Using the theories and approaches outlined above, it is my intention to expose and frame
some of the contradictions of capitalist production in agriculture. In particular those
surrounding the employment of temporary migrant agricultural labourers. These are
tensions that exist in food systems and other social structures around the world. They are
exemplified perfectly by global migrant labour on Ontario farms and within our
configuration of a sustainable food system. In many cases, these are tensions that
sustainable food movements and actors are caught it themselves. Helping food initiatives
10
to engage with these tensions will be essential to stimulate the type of deep critiques and
collective action that will generate meaningful change.
End Notes
1
el-Ojeili, C. and Hayden, P. (2006). Critical Theories of Globalization. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
2
Ibid.
3
Allen, P. (2010). “Realizing justice in local food systems.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3:
295-308.
4
Ibid.
5
This notion is based loosely on Eric Holtz-Gimenez’s framework for distinguishing between different approaches to
building the food movement, laid out in Food Movements Unite! (2011). He identifies four political approaches to food
movement change and the discourses that accompany them. They progress from a Neoliberal approach (with food
enterprises), to Reformist (with food security), Progressive (with food justice), and Radical (with food sovereignty). It
is my belief that the Ontario food movement has not yet made it through these discourses to those of food sovereignty
and entitlement. My analysis thus falls within the context of food justice and empowerment.
6
Barndt, D. (1991). Naming the Moment Political Analysis for Action: A Manual for Community Groups. Toronto:
Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
The definition of transformative participation used here comes from US academic Sarah White (2000) who, in
studying different forms of participatory processes, identified four main types of participation: nominal, instrumental,
representative, and transformative. Source: White, S. C. (2000). Depoliticising Development: The Uses and Abuses of
Participation. In Development NGOs and Civil Society: A Development in Practice Reader, (ed.) Reade, D. Oxford:
Oxfam Publishing.
11
Ibid, p.146.
12
These principles and others are laid out in chapter 13 of Cultivating Food Justice, in a section titled “Just Food?” by
E. Melanie DuPuis, Jill Lindsey Harrison, and David Goodman, p.297-300. They are presented as a response to
existing local food system approaches that provide notable benefits to some, but not to others.
13
Ibid.
11
Methods
Research Question
How do Southern Ontario’s sustainable food initiatives situate migrant agricultural
labour in their work? This is the main research question pursued throughout my MRP
research. That is, how do agricultural workers and the myriad issues that surround
migrant workers in this field, factor into the agendas of the region’s sustainable food
groups? Where do these issues lie on their radar, and why?
This main research question gave rise to many others. Questions such as How and why
does migrant labour exist on Ontario farms?; What are the positions of our “good food”
initiatives on this subject?; Why is it important that they care?; and subsequently, What
are both the obstacles and opportunities for incorporating migrant agricultural labour into
the existing sustainable food conversations? Each question was explored, in time, in order
to address the primary research inquiry.
Background and Foundational Research
The foundation for this work was based on a grounding of literature research. Through a
range of academic publications, reports, government documents, and first-hand accounts,
I pieced together an understanding of the complex role of migrant workers in Ontario
agriculture. This includes their current and historical position in the region’s food system,
the labour migration programs that facilitate their passage to and from Canada, and the
larger global structures that have entrenched the commerce of human labour. Publications
by lead researchers in the field, Kerry Preibisch, Jenna Hennebry, Tanya Basok, Patricia
Allen, and Luin Goldring were used as keystones to my background research. They,
along with annual industry reports produced by the United Food and Commercial
Workers (UFCW) Canada, Agriculture Workers Alliance, Foreign Agricultural Resource
Management Services (F.A.R.M.S.), and statistics from Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada (HRSDC) and Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) laid the
foundation for the introductory chapters of this paper.
12
Course work—two independent directed studies and one course in the Human Rights and
Equity Studies Faculty of Liberal Arts—contributed similarly to my background
research. The Liberal Arts course, Migrant Workers and Human Rights, was directed by
lead migrant worker activist and ally Evelyn Encalada Grez of Justicia for Migrant
Workers, whose work with agricultural workers across Southern Ontario is paramount
and well known. Her first-hand accounts and one-on-one conversations provided deep
and meaningful insights into the world of migrant agricultural workers. The individual
directed studies—one focusing uniquely on the agricultural labour programs supplying
migrant labour to Canadian farms, and the other on the agendas of Southern Ontario’s
sustainable food initiatives—helped to address several of the ancillary questions that
transpired within my work.
Overview Survey
For the second independent directed study, the research consisted of an overview survey
of sustainable food initiatives (SFIs) operating in Southern Ontario. This included a basic
screening of the groups: community, organizational, and activism-based groups
endeavouring “local”, “organic”, “just”, and otherwise sustainable food practices (e.g.
food policy groups, agriculture-related NGOs, charitable and for-profit farm groups, food
educators, urban farm and food vendors). The survey looked also at a small number of
organizations that lie on the periphery of the food movement, outside of these categories,
and without a particular affiliation with “good” food. Their organizational focus lay
instead with agricultural labour, labour organizing, and activism, with migrant workers in
particular. These two groups—food groups and labour groups—were chosen based on
their commitment to changing the Ontario food system and for their potential to form
allied relationships with migrant agricultural workers. These groups are also in a position
to collaborate with one another. The range of organizational mandates held between the
chosen groups is varied. Accordingly, some present greater opportunity for connections
than others. Groups with no conceivable connection to agricultural production,
agricultural labour, or labour policies were not deemed necessary to survey. 25 groups
were surveyed in total. The full list of the SFIs surveyed is attached as Appendix 1.
13
The survey completed was a very general one. It consisted of a scan of each SFI’s
website, promotional materials, and annual reports, where applicable. It sought
information on the groups’ mandates and missions – what they do and how they do it.
The purpose of this work was to gather an understanding of the general values and
focuses of existing sustainable food and labour initiatives. It endeavoured to explore how
SFIs are defining sustainable food systems and what they are doing to create them. In
addition to their mandates, the survey looked specifically at the attention paid to the food
actors included within these initiatives. Is agricultural labour a consideration of our
progressive food initiatives? Is it included in the vision of a sustainable and just food
system? Each initiative was scanned for the same questions. Specifically: (1) How does
this organization define sustainability? Does the definition include consideration for
labour or food workers? (2) What are the organization’s primary areas of focus within the
current food movement? And (3) What is the organization’s position on temporary
migrant agricultural labour on Ontario farms (if they have one)?
For many reasons, the information collected from this overview can be used for general
observations only. The scope and detail of data available was limited due to the fact that
it was collected primarily online. The information made available on SFI websites may
not be entirely complete or up to date. It cannot be taken verbatim as the entirety of what
a group does, but rather paints a general and public picture of the scope of their work. It
could not be assumed, for example, that a group that makes no specific mention of
migrant workers on their website holds no position on the subject. What can instead be
inferred is that they likely do not focus on the subject within their general operations. It
must also be noted that some SFIs had significantly more information available to extract
from than others, creating an inconsistency in the level of detail found from one group to
the next. This could be a reflection of the organization’s size, staff, funding, or any
number of other factors.
Ultimately, the survey was used to develop a general overview of the mandates and
missions held by the sample group of SFIs. It identified trends and gaps in this field that
helped to formulate research questions for the latter part of my research. It was also used
14
to isolate groups that showed the greatest potential for partnership going forward in my
research. The SFIs with no real identified interest in labour were set aside; those
remaining populated the pool of potential candidates for focus groups and interviews.
Focus Groups
Two focus group conversations were held to collect the insights and positions of a range
of SFI participants. Each conversation was held over a shared meal, in an intentional but
relaxed setting. Participants were invited for the express purpose of the conversation and
were informed, in advance, of its use for this research. The first conversation, held
November 21, 2011, included 7 participants. The second, held January 15, 2012, included
5. Each conversation lasted under 3 hours: 1 hour and 55 minutes, and 2 hours and 54
minutes respectively. The participants were drawn from the same general population as
the overview survey, representatives of sustainable food initiatives invested in Southern
Ontario’s food movement. Their unique positions, however, varied. Whereas the first
group consisted mainly of local farmers’ market vendors, producers, and entrepreneurs,
the second convened major thinkers and leaders within the studied movement. They were
notably different groups, which generated different conversation.
The dinner conversations consisted of food-allied individuals only. There were no
representatives of labour groups in attendance. Three individuals who had agreed to
participate in the conversations were unable to attend due to unexpected obligations. All
those who did participate—12 in total—showed a great degree of personal interest in the
conversation, regardless of their connection to migrant agricultural labour. The promise
of transformative participation was thus a noted appeal. A complete list of the
participants of each focus group can be found at Appendix 2.
The focus group conversations were guided by a series of open-ended questions. They
were flexible in structure and were intended to create cataract effects among participants.
Through this approach, multiple and diverse opinions were shared. Each participant was
able to recount their own experiences and positions on the subject of labour in our food
system, triggering responses, analyses, and follow-up questions from others. More
15
extensive dialogue was encouraged around questions of particular interest, namely those
set out in my conversation guide that touched directly on the employment of migrant
agricultural workers.
As some of the participants had no first-hand experience with migrant labourers in their
own work, the questions used did not all pertain directly to this subject. Food activists,
educators, and entrepreneurs, for example, spoke more to their beliefs on the subject
matter than their own accounts. They put forward parallels experienced in other parts of
the food system (e.g. restaurants, food processing, serving) and in their own work where
food workers are found to be in similarly vulnerable positions. Farmers spoke to the
struggles of their own personal work as well as their standpoint on employing or not
employing temporary migrant help. In this way, each participant was able to situate
themselves among the others and acknowledge their position with respect to migrant
workers. The dialogue that followed would touch on both migrant agricultural workers
and more general observations on labour within the current food movement. It should be
noted that these conversations were also used by Professor Deborah Barndt in preparation
for a panel presentation at a US Conference on Labour Across the Food System, and by
Professor Harriet Friedmann (University of Toronto) in preparation for a keynote address
at the American Sociological Association conference. The questions reflect their research
goals as well. The same list of the questions was used to propel each focus group
conversation. It is included at the end of this document as Appendix 3.
Informal focus group conversations were a chosen research method for a variety of
reasons. The most immediate motivation was the clear interest demonstrated by SFI
members to sit down and share their thoughts on this subject (with myself and with one
another). Many agreed with the premise of my work—that migrant workers are a missing
piece in our sustainable food movement—and were eager to be a part of a conversation
that would address this gap. Instigating this conversation and the collaboration of
different food actors around it was a key objective of my research, and as such, the
decision to convene SFIs in a focus group setting was an obvious one. It was an easy and
natural way to bring individuals together in a research setting.
16
Focus groups are typically used to draw out a range of positions on a subject. Particularly
in flexible structures like these ones, they allow the discussion to follow natural leads and
related questions that emerge. This is precisely what I sought in my dinner conversations.
The research method is known to have “cascading effects”1 on participants wherein
individuals open up and are more willing to contribute to the discussion when others
around them do the same. This is particularly important for difficult or uncomfortable
subject matters such as those that surround the ethics of employing migrant agricultural
workers.
Focus groups are also useful to survey a sample wherein a multitude of opinions and
interpretations exist on one subject. By bringing together a variety of SFI, labour, and
food system actors, the conversations allowed me to develop an awareness of the range of
positions held by this sample group. The conversations were used to catalogue common
tensions, thoughts, and struggles. They also identified matters where the SFIs diverge.
Though often critiqued for their lack of replicability and accurateness 2, focus groups are
known for collecting a variety and quantity of inputs. They are typically used for data
collection of topics that cannot easily be studied through quantitative methods: those that
are not precise or inherently measurable. Likewise, focus groups are better suited for
subjects of a more personal or socially complex nature3. The dynamic nature of their
conversations enables the collection of information and responses to questions that are
more detailed than those acquired via methods such as surveys or observation. This is
largely because of the personal interaction between moderator and participants and the
rapport that is established between the two. In my focus group conversations, for
example, questions built up from more general to more specific such that any probing
queries were approached only once the group’s trust had been established.
It may be noted that the group of participants studied in my focus group conversations
present a biased sample as they each expressed interest in the research in order to
participate. Where this may skew research in other fields, it was done purposely here. It
was the insights and ideas of this group that served the greatest purpose for my long-term
17
research goals: to foster conversation and collaboration targeting the issues of migrant
agricultural labour. Many of the participants knew one another, as do the majority of
local food system actors. Their connections contributed to the depth and sincerity of the
conversations that took place.
The group dynamic of a focus group contributes to the wealth of information, attitudes,
and ideas it can generate. However, it can also inhibit conversation. Participants who feel
shy, uninformed, or uncomfortable about the subject may hold back from the discussion 4.
Considerable efforts were made to create an open, welcoming setting, conducive of
conversation from all parties. Other limitations of this research method include its
potential for creating bias and unsubstantiated generalizations of a larger population
based on a sample that is small and purposively selected. These claims are true of most
social and qualitative research methods, and again, do not detract from the long-term
research goals of this work (where findings will not be applied to the larger SFI
population to make conclusions, but rather will be shared with those who participated in
the study and others who express interest in it to trigger ongoing dialogue and action).
Both focus group conversations were audio-recorded with the consent of the participants.
Key Informant Interviews
10 semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted as the primary means of
data collection for this research. The subject pool of interviewees, like those of the focus
groups and survey, were representatives of food and labour groups operating in Southern
Ontario. Participants were selected based on the findings of the initial overview survey,
which identified key players in the field. The subjects chosen represent key informants
within this group—individuals who hold lead roles in their organizations. A key
informant refers to a person who can provide detailed information and a well-grounded
opinion on the subject based on his or her knowledge of the particular issue5. In this case,
key informants included directors, chairs, and coordinators of organizations, farm owners
and operators, community group leads, and former union representatives.
18
The 10 key informants interviewed constitute a well-rounded representation of the
studied body of SFIs. They included near equal representation of individuals aligned with
food groups and with labour. Within the food SFIs, grassroots, policy-based, and
entrepreneurial initiatives are each accounted for, as are organic farmers. Among the
labour groups, both community activists and organized labour are represented. Each
provides a unique understanding and informed perspective on the employment of migrant
agricultural workers. As with focus group participants, the key informants represent a
range of ages (roughly 25-65) and roughly equal gender make up. The majority of
participants were Caucasian with a number of Latin American background. A full list of
interview subjects is attached at Appendix 4.
The interviews occurred over the span of seven weeks, between February 23, 2012 and
April 10, 2012. The majority (6) were in-person interviews; the remainder (4) were
conducted by telephone. The duration of the interviews varied slightly. Participants were
requested to meet for approximately 45 minutes, though the decision to stay longer was
left to their discretion. The average length of the interview conversation was 62 minutes.
Each of the in-person interviews was audio-recorded with the consent of the participant.
Those held over the phone were recorded with detailed note taking.
The interviews were semi-structured around ten main questions. Half of these questions
were tailored to reflect the type of participant: food- or labour-aligned. Like the focus
groups, the interview questions progressed from broad conversational topics to directed
queries about one’s affiliated group. The nature of the interviews was relaxed and openended. Accordingly, not all interviews followed the roadmap of the established questions.
Often one question would be ignored at the expense of greater time and detail spent on
another. In general, interview questions were used to set the tone of the interview, not to
restrict what was and was not discussed. A full list of the interview questions used for
both groups is attached as Appendix 5.
It is recommended that key informant interviews take place in a setting that is familiar to
the person being interviewed in order to elicit a comfortable and relaxed disposure6. The
19
majority of the in-person interviews were conducted at the office of the interviewee. Two
took place at the public meeting location of the interviewee’s choice.
Key informant interviews were a chosen method based on their ability to collect in-depth
qualitative information about a community issue. They allowed me to collect information
from a small number of well-connected and informed community leaders, and to
understand the multiple motivations, beliefs, obstacles, opportunities, and concerns of
this group around the subject of migrant agricultural labour. The depth of the interviews
and their casual nature enabled candid conversations. They broached sensitive and
morally challenging questions and obtained more first-hand detail than was possible to
achieve in the focus group setting. Interviews were conducted after the focus groups for
this very reason. Their structure was tweaked given the findings of the focus groups in
order to narrow in on the most pressing research questions.
Some of the challenges of using key informant interviews include scheduling and
securing interviews with each of the desired candidates and ensuring the “right”
combination of participants to provide as accurate as possible a representation of the
groups’ viewpoints. These are challenges common of interview methods7. It is often
questioned whether the results of key informant interviews can be generalized to the
larger population unless many informants are interviewed. With respect to the total
number of SFIs and groups championing migrant labour rights in Southern Ontario, it is
true that those studied comprise only a small fraction of the whole. Their backgrounds are
diverse, however, and speak to a range of opinions, values, and beliefs. Further, the
findings of this research will not be used to pigeonhole all SFIs of the region. Rather,
they will be used as a resource here to be adapted or shared with other communities as
they see fit.
In fact, one of the greatest advantages of key informant interviews is their ability to serve
as a pathway for building or strengthening relationships with important stakeholders on
an issue. The interviews presented an opportunity to create a dialogue with community
20
leaders and to stimulate this conversation amongst themselves. Each interview allowed
me to create awareness, energy, and reflection around the issues of migrant workers.
Ethical Considerations
In all focus groups and interviews, participants were provided the option to remain
anonymous. Each participant completed a full Informed Consent Form (ICF) to indicate
his or her preferences for confidentiality. The ICF also made clear to participants their
right to withdraw from the study at any point, and to choose not to answer a question
without need for reason.
Conferences
In addition to the survey, focus group, and interview research methods conducted, I also
attended two conferences that contributed deeply to my work. The first—Labour Across
the Food System Conference, UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA, February 3-4, 2012, and the
second, a combination speaker series and workshop held at the October 2, 2012 session
of the Ryerson Food Justice Conference—Local Food, Global Labour: Food Justice
Needs Migrant Justice and Building Alliances for Sustainable Food and Just Labour,
both held at Ryerson University, Toronto. Each brought together a variety of food system
actors, activists, and academics around interactive events. They provided valuable
networking opportunities to connect with some of the key academics in this field.
Analysis of Findings
Each focus group and in-person interview was transcribed in full from their audiorecordings. Telephone interview notes were transcribed based on question content. All
findings were then coded by theme, grouping similar obstacles, uncertainties, and
opportunities together. Themes were addressed using both structural and conjunctural
analysis in order to best situate them in the scope of this work. What struggles came up
again and again? What are new challenges SFIs are facing? Are these current and
contextual? Imbedded in our global systems? The themes that arose comprised the
content of the Barriers to addressing the migrant labour issue section of this paper. Subheadings were allotted to the barriers that came up consistently and among the range of
21
participants. However, those with lower incidence or consensus among participants were
also mentioned to accurately portray the diversity of challenges faced by each type of
actor and interest. The ideas, propositions, and counsels generated from participants
helped to feed the Food movement recommendations going forward. Inherently, every
finding contributed to my evolving understanding of the Southern Ontario food system
and of the place of migrant workers within it.
End Notes
1
Jowett, M., & O’Toole, G. (2006). Focusing researchers’ minds: contrasting experiences of using focus groups in
feminist qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 6(4): 453-472.
2
Ibid.
3
Khan, M. E., et al. (1991). The use of focus groups in social and behavioural research: some methodological issues.
World Health Stat Q., 44(3): 145-49.
4
Ibid.
5
UCLA Center for Health Policy Research Health DATA Program – Data, Advocacy and Technical Assistance.
(2009). Key Informant Interviews, retrieved October 27, 2012, from
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/healthdata/ttt_prog24.pdf.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
22
Political and economic context: The structures that embed temporary migrant
labour in the Ontario agri-food industry
The modern Canadian agri-food industry is one that is closely governed by the principles
of capitalism: the creation of goods for profit, privatization of a means of production,
competitive markets, and a fundamental exchange of labour and wage. It emphasizes
efficient production and profit maximization, with the intentions of economic growth and
trade. In this scenario, productivity and labour efficiency are essential criteria to sustain
the industry as well as the livelihoods of those employed by it. In Canada, however,
securing the type of wage labour necessary to maintain growth has been an enduring
challenge. Never in the history of the Canadian state has there been a secure domestic
workforce to meet our vast agricultural demands. Nor have there been state policies to
derive such a workforce from within our national borders. Instead, Canadian agriculture
has come to rely on migratory labour, in a variety of forms, to meet its labour needs. This
has been the case ever since the Confederation in 18671.
The very first group of non-citizen labourers—Chinese immigrants banned from work in
other Canadian industries—were employed on Canadian farms between the 1870s and
1930s. Following them were British orphans who worked the fields in exchange for
eventual Canadian citizenship, succeeded by Japanese internees and German prisoners of
war brought to Canada throughout the Second World War 2. When these resources had
been exhausted, the state began channelling international migrants to work in the
agriculture sectors most lacking in labour supply. The employment of migrants was
institutionalized in the immigration policies of the 1960s and the development of the
national Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP), a labour migration program
that would see workers delivered to Canadian farms (and then returned to their home
countries) on an annual basis.
Transient and vulnerable peoples are keystones in the history of Canadian agriculture.
They have proven vital in an industry that fails to retain workers of their own volition.
Recent immigrants, temporary migrants, and seasonal help all offset the work of
23
Canadian nationals. In recent decades, Canada’s dependence on temporary migrant
labour has increased with the shift away from family farms and towards the conventional
model of industrial agriculture. The decline in farm numbers and increase in farm size is
a trend witnessed across the board in Canadian agriculture3. New industrial-size farms
favour mass production and the growth of single crops. They call for industrially
organized labour and a steady workforce to accommodate their larger scale of production.
On the other end of the spectrum, farms that resist conglomeration and ‘stay small’ can
scarcely afford to employ workers year-round. They depend on the availability of
“temporary” workers to meet their labour demands and minimize costs. The net effect in
both cases is a decline in Canadian farmers and farmworkers and sharp increase in nonCanadian workers picking up the slack.
The changing face of Canadian farming, the juxtaposition of industrial and small scale
farms, and the migratory labour force that each has come to rely on are all products of the
political and economic context in which the Canadian agri-food industry exists. As in
other economies of the developed world, this is a context dominated by corporate
capitalism and neo-liberal trade policies. Long gone are the days of farming for
subsistence, basic sustenance, and health. Today’s agri-food industry is driven by profit
generation, maximum production, efficiency, and trade. It has a tendency to overproduce
cash crops and drive down prices in Canada and abroad where products are offloaded into
other economies. It generates waste—in excess goods and environmental by-products—
unprecedented by any industry before it. And though farm profits have increased overall,
the distribution of profits is skewed in perverse ways. Large-scale retailers and corporate
giants have commandeered the agri-food industry, sequestering the riches and leaving
little to no income in the pockets of farmers and food workers. Corporations like
Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, and Walmart monopolize both the inputs and outputs necessary
for a farm to thrive4: the seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, antibiotics, and machineries used to
grow; the processing, packaging, distribution, and commercial retail space needed to sell.
They set the price for each cost and, effectively, the price of food. Few farms can evade
the power of such corporations and live to see a decent profit.
24
At the same time, corporate agri-food monopolies have infiltrated decisions made by the
state. They hold the significant ability to influence government policy and sway industry
decisions in their favour. Accordingly, industry standards—those of technology, trade,
and labour—are created and enforced by the same corporations that adhere to them, often
to the detriment of producers and consumers. Lax regulations and government oversight
are typical for major agri-food players. Given the immense financial power they hold,
agri-food corporations and their interests can trump almost any other, not the least of
which include farm unions, consumer groups, and competitive suppliers. Agri-food
corporations favour unregulated trade markets and privatization of resources, systems
that allow them to expand their operations (and profit generation) around the world. They
lobby for corporate globalization in multilateral agreements around food, with the result
of unlocking borders to accrue greater resources and wealth. The interests of agri-food
conglomerates are supported by the work of institutions like the IMF, the World Bank,
and other major development investors5.
The tenets of corporate capitalism are not unique to the Canadian agri-food industry.
They are mirrored in developed countries around the world and are being applied, more
lamentably, to economies of the Global South. More and more often this is accomplished
under the guise of philanthropic investments and structural adjustment policies from the
world’s big lenders (the World Bank, the IMF). Here, increased production, open
markets, and the privatization of common resources are being pushed even more
forcefully than they have been in the North. Rural economies and public lands, once
abound with subsistence farms, are dispossessed by corporations. They are replaced by a
more industrial means of production, one that is thought to generate greater returns for
their owners. In a process aptly referred to as “the capitalist modernization” 6 of Southern
agriculture, the same corporate monopolies that dominate the industry in the North have
extended their reach to command economies in the South. Their actions are facilitated by
an array of neoliberal trade agreements.
Through the processes of ‘investment’, ‘development’, and ‘modernization’, corporate
agribusinesses have stripped communities and entire countries of their primary source of
25
sustenance and expropriated lands for their own purposes: mass production of food and
agrofuels, development, and trade. Subsistence agriculture and local commerce are
wholly undermined in this equation. They are not defended by international or domestic
regulation. In fact, many state governments of the South—those marked by corruption
and bribery—facilitate the work of agri-food corporations7. The consequences for local
populations are disastrous. Extreme divergences between industrial and subsistence
production—in efficiencies, outputs, and price—are such that small-scale producers have
no chance to survive. They will never be able to maintain a livelihood while competing
with Walmart prices.
The advent of displaced farmers and workers in the Global South is yet another product
of corporate capitalism and a globalized food system. It has given birth to an alarming
number of impoverished and unemployed developing country citizens. The volume of
people who had made their livelihood from agriculture can no longer be accommodated
for in modern industrial operations and have become obsolete. Global industry actions
have thus created a labour market of displaced peoples and pool of eligible agricultural
workers. These workers are not restricted by borders and are willing to work for far less
than their neighbours in the North, given the assymetry of wages in the Global North and
Global South. They present a capital advantage and a means to minimize important input
costs in agri-food production. They present a new commodity. Rather than working in
their own fields, displaced workers are cycled into industries of the North where the bid
for cheap labour prevails.
Capitalist globalized agriculture both creates and promotes access to third world imported
labour. In North America, we see agri-food corporations triggering a vulnerable
workforce from the South and governments dictating how this workforce can be imported
and employed. Together these industry powers produce the push and pull factors that
stimulate temporary migrant labour in the agri-food industry8. They embed these factors
in the production and employment practices of modern agriculture with labour migration
programs and free trade agreements.
26
For agricultural workers, the implications of this system are tremendous. Workers are
disciplined in ways that ensure their precarity, flexibility, disposability, and neglect. They
are locked into substandard employment conditions with minimal liberties to affect their
situation. However inhumane, a captive migrant workforce has proven valuable for
capitalist accumulation in the Canadian agri-food industry. The ongoing success of
programs like the SAWP is a case in point.
The number of workers entering Canada through the SAWP has risen sharply ever since
the 1960’s; even more so after the cap on participants was lifted in 19879. Along with
more recent labour migration programs, the SAWP has played an undeniable role in the
expansion of profitable sectors of Canadian agriculture, most notably in horticulture. In
recent years, Canadian immigration policies have continued to favour temporary workers
in agriculture and in other undesirable sectors associated with low skills, high risks, and
routine exploitation (e.g. construction, manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, sex
industry, food processing, live-in care giving)10. Vulnerable workers are what enable
precarious industries like these to survive. They can be subject to uncouth standards
unlike citizens with secure status and leveragable rights.
Temporary workers originate primarily from countries with incredible levels of poverty
and political unrest and are eager to work abroad for the promise of stable income and a
better life. This is the most convoluted piece of the labour migration puzzle: workers
want to be here. Given the politcal forces at play (and the resulting challenges they face),
foreign workers are lined up in the thousands to take jobs in Canadian industries,
regardless of the costs they will ensue. In 2006, the annual number of temporary workers
entering the country surpassed the number of those accepted in Canada as permanent
residents, a trend that has continued every year since 11. The importation of migrant labour
is unstoppably on the rise.
*
*
*
In this new age of farming, farmers themselves have very little say in the decisions that
affect them. They, like many workers, are at the mercy of the political systems, economic
27
forces, and corporate superpowers that preside over them. Their labour supplies are
dictated by state policies and immigration programs, which, in turn, are fuelled by the
work of agri-food corporations around the globe. Low-cost migrant labour has become
another input in capitalist production and one which many farmers have developed a
dependence on to thrive. The generation of migrant labour is not a phenomenon for
which farmers can be held to account, however. It is entrenched in the history of
Canadian agriculture and perpetuated by the global agri-food industry here and in the
South.
Despite recent pushbacks on agri-food corporations, capitalist modes of production, and
the industrial food system that dominates Canadian society, no structural changes have
been made to affect the political and economic forces that produce the system we
experience today. The last decade has seen progressive efforts to counter these entities
and the inequalities they produce, but structural change has yet to take form. Arguably, it
never will. Instead, new policies, multilateral agreements, institutions, and investors
continue to enforce the very structures that have produced the corporate food system.
They remove barriers to mobility—globalizing people, resources, and wealth—and place
ever more control in the hands of industrial agri-food giants. In Canada, neoliberal
conservative governments are contributing to this phenomenon too. They are propagating
old systems, not supporting better food production, superior labour standards, more
industry accountability, or the changes that would enable these. At all levels of
government, neoliberal leaders (often deeply entrenched with their own business interests
as well) are allowing corporate interests to dominate the food system and overrule
progressive goals. Though the impetus for a new food future is growing, it has not yet
proven strong enough to upend political will and provoke radical change. The challenge
we face going forward is deep, rooted in global economics, and incredibly complex.
End Notes
1
Preibisch, K. (2011). Migrant Workers and Changing Work-place Regimes in Contemporary Agricultural
Production in Canada. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(1): pp. 62-82.
2
For more information on the history of immigrant and “unfree” labour in Canadian agricultural, see Kerry Preibisch’s
2011 report, Migrant Workers and Changing Work-Place Regimes in Contemporary Agricultural Production in
Canada.
28
3
Ontario has lost over 20,000 farms over the past 20 years, with mid-sized farms seeing the greatest decline. Over the
same period, the number of large-sized farms (250 acres or more) has expanded six-fold. Average farm size in the
country sits around 233 acres, a significant increase from previous decades. Source: NFU 2011 brief, Farms, Farmers,
and Agriculture in Ontario: an overview of the situation in 2011.
4
There is a growing body of literature documenting the current and historic power dynamic of agribusinesses such as
these and their control over farm operations and expenditures. See for example, Amin, 2011; Barndt, 2008;
Cholewinski, 2005; Holt-Giménez, 2011; and many more.
5
This is done primarily by imposing structural adjustment programs and lending conditions that force vulnerable
countries to concede control of their domestic policies and economic/development goals for the promise of debt
reduction. Privatization (of resources and spending), deregulation, and the removal trade barriers are typical results of
structural adjustments. Essentially, they force borrowing countries to relinquish their own economic goals and assume
those of their benefactor.
6
A term coined by Samir Amin, economist and director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal, in his discussion
of food sovereignty and preface address in the 2011 Food First publication, Food Movements Unite!
7
Hahamovitch, C. (2003): Creating Perfect Immigrants: Guestworkers of the World in Historical Perspective 1. Labor
History, 44(1): 69-94.
8
The push and pull theory is based on the migration research of scholar David Bacon. It suggests that corporate
globalization and mega-industries like agriculture are responsible for producing the factors that persuade workers of the
global South to leave their home countries (e.g. rural displacement, loss of agricultural lands, unemployment),
collectively the “push factors”; and those that draw them to work in the global North (e.g. the promise of plentiful jobs,
better living standards and pay), collectively the “pull factors”. Source: Bacon, D. (2007) The Political Economy of
International Migration. New Labor Forum, 16(3-4): 57-69.
9
Preibisch, 2011.
10
There are of course sectors employing migrant workers that are not affiliated with the same level of skill and
exploitation. Migrant and foreign workers are fixtures of industries like entertainment, hospitality, and information
technology in Canada. Live-in care giving is seen as an exploitable occupation in so much as it requires new workers to
endure constant supervision and indentureship with their employers for a minimum period of time (two years under
Canada’s Live-in Caregiver Program) before they can be eligible to gain citizenship. Caregivers are pressured to put up
with unusual hours, conditions, and treatment over this period in order to hold on to their positions and obtain a positive
assessment from their employer.
11
In Ontario, the number of permanent and temporary residents accepted into the province changed from 140, 525 and
64,741 in 2005 respectively to 106,840 and over 139,000 in 2009. The same trend was witnessed in other provinces,
particularly those heavily reliant on temporary agricultural workers like Quebec and British Colombia. Source:
Preibisch, 2011.
29
Migrant agricultural workers in Ontario: An overview
Canada’s temporary migrant workers play a critical role in our agri-food economy. They
cycle through in greater numbers each year to grow, pick, and package the foods that
sustain us: jobs most Canadians are unwilling to fill. In the face of rising global food
demands and labour-induced migration, temporary foreign worker programs have helped
to maintain Canadian food security at home and within the global economy. They have
successfully addressed the labour shortages widespread among Canadian farms and
provided employment for thousands of developing country workers. For these and other
reasons, Canada’s work programs have come to be known as models for labour migration
around the world. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (“SAWP”), the primary
and longest running program bringing agricultural workers to Canada, has been replicated
in countless other developed countries.
The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program: Canada’s flagship labour importer
When it was first introduced in 1966, the SAWP was presented as a temporary fix. It was
born of the needs of Ontario growers who, for years, petitioned the state to allow the
import of foreign labour to meet their ongoing labour shortages. The solution they were
handed was a simple one: 246 Jamaican workers marshalled into Southern Ontario’s
agricultural core. The Jamaican workers picked tobacco and other field crops1. Today,
nearly a half-century later, the SAWP holds strong as one of Canada’s most entrenched
labour migration policies. SAWP workers total over 25,000 annually and come from over
a dozen sending countries to fill an ever-growing array of agricultural jobs. Fruit and
vegetable picking, tobacco, flowers, sod, Christmas trees, apiary products, nurseries,
greenhouses, canning, processing, and packaging are all sectors bolstered by SAWP
workers2. Recently, the list of eligible sectors has been extended to include animal
production—bovine, dairy, poultry, duck, horse, mink, and sheep products—as well as
‘pedigreed canola seed’3. In addition to Jamaica, SAWP labour-sending countries now
include Mexico, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and the nine members of the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The program operates in every Canadian
province but Newfoundland and Labrador. Southern Ontario, home to major agri-food
30
hubs such as Leamington, Niagara, and Simcoe, remains the leading employer of SAWP
workers across the country4. Two-thirds of all SAWP workers find jobs in Ontario.
The stated objective of the SAWP is to match workers from sending countries with
Canadian farmers in need of temporary support. The program is endorsed only when
qualified Canadians or permanent Canadian residents are unable to fill this demand, a
condition which must be proven before employers are eligible to apply for a worker. The
program operates on a series of bilateral agreements between the Canadian government
and each participating country and is jointly administered by each. In Canada, SAWP
administrative duties fall mainly to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
(HRSDC)5. HRSDC is responsible for the implementation, oversight, and enforcement of
SAWP provisions. Identifying and pairing employers and employees are tasks facilitated
by private agencies in Canada (known as FARMS/FERMES) and the individual
recruitment agencies of sending countries6. FARMS (Foreign Agricultural Resource
Management Services or Fondation des Entreprises en Recrutement de la Main d’oeuvre
Agricoles Étrangère in Quebec) is a non-profit organization operated by farmers from
each of the commodity sectors participating in the SAWP 7.
The SAWP allows workers entry to Canada for a maximum of eight months, a period of
time intended to coincide with peak planting and harvesting seasons 8. Before entering,
each worker must have a secured work contract established between themselves and a
Canadian employer (approved by both participating governments). Once signed, a SAWP
employment contract binds the worker to one employer for the duration of their work
term. Workers cannot seek alternative or additional employment while they are here and
are only able to switch jobs with the approval of their original employer (and consent of
their consulate office representative and HRSDC 9). As this process can be overly
burdensome, changes in employers and positions are rare10.
SAWP workers are entitled to stay in Canada only so long as their work contract applies.
If their contract is terminated before its expected end-date, workers are prohibited from
seeking a replacement position. They must return to their home country, often at their
31
own expense. Under the terms of the SAWP contract, employers are authorized to
repatriate workers on the basis of illness, injury, or any reason they have to believe that a
worker is no longer worth their wage11. In extreme circumstances they can also have
workers banned from further participation in and employment through the program.
Workers have no means to appeal unjust firing or repatriation.
Unkept promises and fundamental injustices: the inner workings of the SAWP
Though workers have no input on their job placement, SAWP employers are authorized
to select workers based on their gender, nationality, and previous employment in the
program. This is a crucial element of the program which allows employers to segment the
workforce and create biases of citizenship, race, language, and gender. Requesting
workers who performed well the previous year is a process known as “naming”12. This
perogative, along with the ability to terminate contracts and send workers home at will,
serve as key sources of authority for employers in the SAWP. Threats to terminate,
repatriate, or ban workers contribute to a general feeling of indentureship documented by
countless migrant workers13.
If a worker does not accept the position they have been named for, they will have limited
means of regaining employment through the SAWP. They are not eligible to select a new
position elsewhere and will have to reapply to the program 14. Similarly, not being named
can signal the end of a SAWP career. It is akin to a receiving an unsavoury reference.
Workers will hence do everything in their power to avoid a negative evaluation from their
employer. An estimated 98.5% of workers see out the contracts they have been granted15.
The ability to pick workers by race, gender, and country of origin leads to employment
processes that are inherently discriminatory. It can be used to fortify stereotypes among
workers and pit groups of diverse backgrounds against one another. Women, for instance,
comprise only 3% of SAWP participants16. They are typically requested for the more
‘delicate’, ‘female’ jobs of packing produce and tending nurseries17.
32
In addition to their onerous contract ties, SAWP workers are typically dependent on their
employers for fundamental necessities. These include health care, safety training,
accommodations, transportation, and, at times, even food. SAWP participants are flown
to and from their home countries at the expense of their employers 18. They are housed on
or around their location of employment, also at the expense of their employers 19. Though
convenient in intention, employer-provided housing may be more a disadvantage to
workers than a benefit. SAWP housing is known to be substandard at best20.
Accommodations are often temporary and not properly equipped to support long-term
stay. This is despite the fact that many have some combination of workers living in them
year round. Trailers, portables, and make-shift constructions are commonplace21. More
often than not, they are used to house more people than they are meant to hold, denying
adequate space and privacy to all inhabitants. Some accommodations lack basic
utilities—heating and cooling, furniture and supplies, etc.—and fail to meet the housing
guidelines established under the SAWP 22. Meanwhile others are perfectly acceptable.
Employers are responsible for the maintenance of housing and for ensuring that it
complies with the appropriate Ministry of Housing standards 23. Quality inspections are
rare, however, and occur only before occupants have arrived24. Very easily, housing
standards are not maintained.
Living on-farm can serve as an acute source of stress for workers. On-site, workers are
unable to escape their work or the constant supervision of their employer. They are often
likely to work longer hours than they normally would with fewer breaks. Despite their
unfavourable living conditions however, workers are unlikely to bring complaints to their
employers for fear that they be reprimanded, un-named, or worse, sent home. This
acquiescence is a trend documented extensively with temporary migrant workers 25.
In addition to accommodation and travel, SAWP workers are promised the training their
work tasks require and the health coverage needed to protect them on the job. Workers
must be covered by OHIP or private employer-secured health coverage immediately upon
arrival in Ontario. Employers are also required to register workers under the provincial
33
Workers’ Safety and Compensation Board26. Coverage applies so long as workers’
contracts have them working in the province. If they fall ill, become injured, or require
medical assistance of any kind while employed here, workers are to be transported by
their employer to receive appropriate care27. Most have no access to a vehicle or a valid
driver’s license of their own. In fact, bicycles are the common form of transport, if they
have any. Workers are thus dependent on their employers for transportation to obtain
access to healthcare services, especially when living in remote rural areas.
Like many other promises of the SAWP, health coverage is one that can fail to ever
transpire. Many workers forego seeking medical treatment when they need it for fear of
being sent home. They regularly endure unsafe working conditions—alongside
chemicals, fertilizers, farm equipment, and machinery—amid a volatile climate.
According to the United Food and Commercial Workers of Canada (UFCW) 2010-2011
status report on migrant farmworkers, only 24% of workers who had been injured on the
job actually reported making claims to workers’ compensation. More than half of
respondents who worked regularly with chemicals and pesticides said they were not
provided with proper safety protection. In fact, most workers reported receiving no health
and safety training at all. Not surprisingly, SAWP workers have been connected with
injuries and illnesses of all kinds. Workers who participated in a 2006 review of the
program by Ottawa’s North-South Institute spoke of ailments such as “vertebrae and knee
problems, skin diseases, respiratory tract infections, hypertension, urinary tract infections,
allergies”28 and more. Many of these ailments are associated with improper protection
from chemicals, safety equipment, and ventilation; others with inadequate rest time and
too few bathroom breaks.
Agricultural labour is universally and historically recognized as some of the most
dangerous work of any sector, but for temporary migrant workers its risks are amplified
even more. Without the protection of citizenship status or the employment mobility
afforded to domestic workers, migrant workers are pushed to tolerate conditions others
might very well refuse. Language barriers and inadequate communication/training can
serve as additional detriments to workers’ safety29.
34
Like most agricultural workers, SAWP workers endure long hours for low pay. During
peak seasons, many SAWP participants record working 60 to 80 hours per week, double
the commitment of a standard workweek30. This is facilitated by the fact that, unlike their
domestic counterparts, SAWP workers are accessible to work at all times. In fact, they
are often eager to take on as many hours as possible31. The more hours they log, the
larger the paycheque they receive. The larger the paycheque, the more they can send
home to their families in savings. This impetus must be acknowledged. Not every worker
will want to work maximal hours, however, and some will concede to doing so only for
fear that they will be replaced by someone more willing if they don’t. Like sick or injured
workers, unenthusiastic workers can easily be replaced.
Up until recently, SAWP workers were required to be compensated with provincial
minimum wage or the going rate paid to domestic workers for the same work, whichever
was greater32. In Ontario, this equates to roughly $10.25 an hour33. Though the wage isn’t
much by Canadian standards, it can go a long way in remittances for workers’ home
countries. Steady wages are the chief draw bringing workers to Canadian soils in the first
place. Unfortunately, they do not always come as steadily as promised. Countless SAWP
workers have dealt with instances of docked pay, “lost” hours, and withheld pay cheques.
Some have even left the country while still owed thousands of dollars in back pay from
their employers34. When it comes down to it, arguing for the number of hours they’ve
worked means pitting the worker’s word against their employer’s.
In spite of the long hours they take on, SAWP workers are not eligible for overtime pay
like Canadian citizens. They are eligible, and indeed required, however, to pay into
Canadian income tax funds, EI, and CPP35. This is an unusual demand given that workers
are prohibited from benefiting from most of these funds36. As non-citizens, SAWP
workers cannot collect a pension (regardless of the length of their career in Canada).
They are not able to collect unemployment insurance as their contract dictates that they
are not legally allowed to be unemployed and in Canada at the same time 37. Perversely,
the more hours workers work, the more they are forced to contribute to these funds.
35
The social repurcussions of temporary migrant labour
With regards to their social and emotional well-being, SAWP workers have recorded
experiencing a great deal of hardship being away from their homes38. The program only
accepts applicants who demonstrate financial need, are unemployed, minimally educated,
and the breadwinner for a family or dependants. They must also have experience in
agricultural work. The same criteria is applied for men and women. Married fathers and
single mothers (often widows) are thus the typical candidates. Those who meet this
criteria face incredible hardships in their home countries: they are desperate to earn a
decent wage but not qualified for any job that will provide them one39. Quite often,
eligible candidates are experienced farmers who no longer have access to land (due in
large part to the neoliberal trade policies that have created labour migrantion programs).
From the perspective of the SAWP, these individuals present the perfect worker. They
are highly skilled in agricultural work and willing to work for next to nothing. Unlike the
Canadian unemployed, they are often people who have no other options to provide for
their families; people who are driven by necessity. Such workers come to Canada
removed from their families, stripped of familiar community and culture, and isolated
from the new society in which they are deposited. Quite often, workers have no social
ties outside of their work. They may have no community or friends save the other
workers they have been selected to live with. What’s more, social commitments can be
frowned upon by employers and, for some, denied completely40. Host communities and
rural towns can be equally unwelcoming of migrant workers, despite the massive influx
of revenue they provide for local businesses. Racism, discrimination, language barriers,
and a general sense of “othering” are not uncommon among local populations41.
Plagued with loneliness, many workers experience anxiety and depression during their
time in Ontario42. The emotional, physical, and psychological strain of being away from
their loved ones and pushed every day to maximize profits, tolerate abuses, and maintain
a spot on the re-hire list can be taxing to say the least. The perseverance of workers in
these situations typically attests to their commitment to the families they support, not to
their work. Those who return to Canada experience the emotional tolls of family
36
separation, migration, and reunification on an annual basis. For workers who spend a
lifetime split between Canada and ‘home’, the result can be a sense of not belonging in
either place43.
From the government perspective, the requirement that SAWP workers have dependants
back home is a strategic one. It ensures that workers are both desperate to find work and
committed to returning home at the end of their work contract. SAWP workers are not
provided any pathway to citizenship in Canada, nor are their families eligible for
reunification in the country. This is in contrast to many other sectors—such as the live-in
caregiver program, hospitality, and the Federal Skilled Worker Program—where workers
can be sponsored or directly admitted as Canadian citizens after spending a requisite
number of years working here44. The fact that SAWP applicants are categorized as “low
skilled” workers, and the caveat that they have only minimal education or training,
ensures that this will continue to be the case. Canadian immigration laws do not value the
learned abilities of agricultural work the same way many experienced in this field do.
Though not every SAWP worker would choose to become a Canadian citizen, the denial
of such an option has been heavily criticized by program participants and reviewers 45. It
presents a contradiction in Canadian immigration policy: that workers are “good enough
to work” here, but not “good enough to stay” 46. Having workers’ families and
communities a plane ride away also frees up their time in Canada to devote their full
attention to work. In this way, workers can be seen as units of labour, not as human
beings with social and emotional needs. The commodification of workers is a trend that is
common in temporary labour migration programs. It is embedded in the operation of the
SAWP by the fact that workers have very litmited ability to control or improve their
situation. What little government oversight does exist in the program is complainttriggered. In order for regulations to be enforced, therefore, workers must put themselves
at risk of repatriation and speak out against their employers.
In Ontario, the situation is made worse still by the fact that temporary migrant workers—
and all agricultural workers—are legally prohibited from forming a union. Workers are
37
effectively stripped of their right to collectively bargain for change, an act that has been
decried as a denial of their basic human rights 47. This is a condition unique to the
province and one that has been contested for over a decade primarily by the UFCW
Canada, the largest private sector union representing agricultural workers. The ban on
agricultural unions is unique to the province of Ontario and to sectors of outdoor
agricultural work in Alberta48.
Expanding the reach and the ramifications: new labour models reproduce old problems
Alongside the SAWP, two other temporary migration programs supply labour to the
Ontario agricultural sector: the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (“TFWP”) and its
off-shoot, the Agricultural Stream (known up until October 2012 as the Pilot Project for
Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training (NOC C and D) 49 (and referred
to herein as “Pilot Project”50). Each governs a range of industries including agricultural
work and extends the list of agri-food commodities eligible for temporary foreign
workers beyond those of the SAWP (namely to hothouses). The newer programs have no
cap on the number of participants they accept. Their supply is driven by employer
demand and increases all the time. Combined, the TFWP and Pilot Project contribute an
additional 15,000 workers to the Canadian labour force each year 51.
The move to develop two additional migrant labour programs was a calculated one on the
Canadian government’s part. It was a response to global trends that make labour
increasingly mobile and increasingly competitive. Open markets and liberal trade of
foreign bodies as a commodity have become dominant in our current global economy.
They facilitate the race to the bottom approach of countless corporations: who can
produce the same product at the cheapest cost? Labour migration programs have
consequently become a key feature of the broader corporate globalization strategy of
“flexible labour”. They enable labour to be moved as constantly as other goods. For
Canada, the addition of alternative labour streams also fosters competition. If an
employer can’t find labour that satisfies their needs through one program or country, why
not try another? Through these means, workers and their representative consulates are
38
often forced to promote themselves as the hardest working/most obedient/enduring/
quietest/most reliable population available for employment 52. The opportunities for racial
discrimination are enormous.
The main differences distinguishing Canada’s more recent programs from the SAWP are
the duration of their contracts and program eligibility. Both the TFWP and Pilot Project
contract workers from anywhere in the world, increasing the volume of workers as well
as competition between sending countries who depend on their remittances. They operate
in all provinces with the greatest presence in Ontario53. Unlike the SAWP, which limits
work contracts to eight months, the TFWP and Pilot Project allow workers to work in
Canada for up to four years. At the end of this period, however, they are forced to return
home for another four years before they are eligible to apply for a work permit again54.
The TFWP and Pilot Project programs are not based on bilateral agreements.
Participating governments have no role in setting or enforcing the terms of the
employment contracts that bind workers to employers, or in approving these for use 55.
They are thus even less regulated than the SAWP, which provides at least token
provisions on government oversight and responsibility. Likewise, recruitment and
placement processes are not presided over by an administrative body (e.g. FARMS). In
their place, employers solicit recruitment agents to enlist workers, often from their home
countries. Workers can be roped into long and costly processes, paying exorbitant and
often illegal recruitment fees, in order to secure themselves a job 56. For those who cannot
afford the fees upfront, they settle into a process of indentureship before even making
their way to Canada. They will spend the first portion of their time here paying off debt
they owe to their employer. Under the Pilot Project, employers are also encouraged to
recover a portion of the cost of rent57.
Aside from these notable differences, the TFWP and Pilot Project are remarkably similar
to the SAWP. They operate under the same conditions and are subject to the same wage,
employment, health, safety, and housing standards. Neither of the programs provides for
open transfers between jobs, nor do they grant any more access to status for experienced
39
workers. TFWP and Pilot Project workers are equally dependent on their employers and
vulnerable to repatriation. They are subject to the same ban on unionization in Ontario as
SAWP workers and have no real source of bargaining power. Regrettably, the newer
programs have also adopted the same lax oversight approach as the SAWP, allowing
them to stray strikingly in practice from what they pledge on paper. Though regulations
are in place to moderate temporary migrant worker employment, there is little, if any,
means to enforce them or to adjudicate employers for the violations that occur. The door
is left wide open for abuse and exploitation. Overlapping judicial responsibilities
contribute further to this problem. Though each program is managed federally by the
HRSDC, the health, employment, and housing standards they encompass are provincial
in jurisdiction.
Summing it up
The list of faults rampant in Canada’s temporary agricultural labour programs is
extensive and wide reaching. At their core, each of the programs—the SAWP, TFWP,
and Pilot Project—profits from the vulnerability of less prosperous, labour-seeking
countries and the exploitation of their workers. They institutionalize the unequal
allocation of benefits for employers and harms for employees needed to maintain a
competitive advantage in a global labour market. Effectively, the agricultural work
programs are tailored to the needs of the Canadian government and industry.
The same work programs exclude considerations for the main actors themselves. They
deny workers’ voices and their fundamental rights (in emphaszing complacency but also
as a product of renounced bargaining rights) in order to maintain a supply of labour that
is most conducive to Canada’s requirements. This labour is cheap, dependable,
exportable, exploitable, and faceless. And it isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Use of
the Pilot Project expanded 500% over a period of less than five years while SAWP and
TFWP enrolment continue to climb steadily58. In recent months, the Pilot Project has
been absorbed under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program Agricultural Stream. It is
no longer an experimental project but another fixture of the Canadian labour trade.
40
End Notes
1
Basok, T. (2007). Canada’s Temporary Migration Program: A Model Despite Flaws. Migration Information
Source. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
2
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2010). Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program,
retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/
ei_tfw/sawp_tfw.shtml.
3
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2011) National List of Commodities for the
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the Agricultural Stream of the Pilot Project for
Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training, retrieved July 21, 2011, from
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/commodities/shtml.
4
HRSDC, 2010.
5
Though Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is still responsible for reviewing and accepting all
applications for migration into the country.
6
Basok, 2007.
7
F.A.R.M.S. (2012). Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, retrieved November 20, 2011,
from http://www.farmsontario.ca/.
8
Most often, the 8-month period stretches from May until December, though contracts are not limited to these months.
Contracts can be offered for any time between January 1 st and December 15th.
9
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2012). Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program:
Requirements, retrieved September 5 2012, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign
_workers/sawp/requirements.shtml.
10
See for example Basok, 2007; Preibisch, 2007; Sharma, 2001; UFCW Canada, 2011.
11
HRSDC, 2010.
12
Basok, 2007.
13
See for example Basok, 2007; Preibisch, 2007; Sharma, 2001; UFCW Canada, 2011; Walia, 2010.
14
Though re-applying may not seem like a considerable setback, it must be taken into account that in most labour
sending countries, the number of people who apply to work abroad is far greater than the number who are actually
selected to participate in these programs. Not being named sends a worker to the back of line. Their wait to regain entry
to the program could take years and result in substantial financial loss.
15
F.A.R.M.S., 2003.
16
This is a trend specific to agricultural work and comparable to employment through the agricultural stream of
the TFWP where women make up 4% of the workforce. For all sectors of temporary foreign workers combined,
women represent a larger portion of workers: roughly 34%. Their participation in the SAWP is on the rise: 815 women
participated in 2009 compared to only 100 on average throughout the 1990s. Source Citizenship and Immigration
Canada. (2009). Facts and Figures 2009: Immigration Overview – Permanent and Temporary Residents, Permanent
Residents. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
17
There is a substantial body of literature addressing and analyzing the gendered biases inherent in agricultural work.
See for example Tangled Roots: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato Trail (second edition) by Deborah
Barndt (2008).
18
Though a portion of return airfare costs can be recovered from workers through weekly payment deductions. This is
not the case in British Columbia where employers pay the full airfare cost but charge for accommodations.
19
An expense recoverable from workers in British Columbia only.
20
As seen in Basok 2007; Hennebry & Preibisch, 2010; Hennebry, 2011; and many others.
21
Preibisch, 2007; UFCW, 2011.
22
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012.
41
23
HRSDC, 2010.
24
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012. Inspections coducted before work permit can be
offered to worker must be completed four weeks prior to move-in date, according to Ontario Ministry of Housing
standards.
25
It is noted in almost every academic publication on the subject. See for example, Basok, 2007; Hennebry
& Preibisch, 2010; J4MW, 2011; Preibisch, 2007; Preibisch, 2011; and many others.
26
HRSDC, 2012.
27
HRSDC, 2012.
28
The North-South Institute. (2006). Migrant Workers in Canada: A review of the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural
Workers Program. Ottawa: The North-South Institute/L’Institut Nord-Sud.
29
One of the most recent and tragic examples of this was seen with the death of two Jamaican workers at Filsinger’s
Organic Farm in Ayton, Ontario. The two workers died of asphyxiation in a vinegar tank. Their employers were
charged with not having provided proper safety training or an emergency evacuation plan, among other things.
30
Preibisch, K. (2007). Local Produce, Foreign Labour: Labour Mobility Programs and Global Trade
Competitiveness in Canada. Rural Sociology, 72(3): 418-449.
31
This trend is discussed by many activists and authors on the subject. See for example Basok, 2007; Preibisch, 2007;
and UFCW, 2011.
32
Bill C-38, the Conservative omnibus bill discussed in the Foreword, now allows employers to pay all migrant
workers 15% less than domestic minimum wage for the work that they do.
33
According to Ontario Ministry of Labour standards for 2012. In a number of the newer livestock-related fields,
workers are eligible for a slightly higher wage, between $10.25 and $12.20. Source: Ontario Ministry of Labour.
(2012). Employment Standards: Minimum Wage, retrieved July 12, 2011, from
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/minwage.php.
34
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012.
35
HRSDC, 2010.
36
Recent advances have been made by UFCW Canada in securing retroactive access to parental benefits. UFCW
Support Centres have also begun filing CPP claims for workers who have made inquiries (208 in total for centres
across Canada in 2010). Source: United Food and Commercial Workers. (2011). Report on the Status of Migrant
Workers in Canada 2011. Toronto: Human Rights, Equity and Diversity Department UFCW Canada.
37
Justicia for Migrant Workers (2010). The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, retrieved August 21,
2012, from http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/bc/pdf/sawp.pdf.
38
E.g. One Woman’s Grain of Sand: The Struggle for the Dignified Treatment of Canada`s Foreign Agricultural
Workers as told by Teresa Aleman to Kerry Preibisch. Canadian Woman Studies. 2005.
39
Justicia for Migrant Workers, 2010.
40
As noted in worker accounts documented in Preibisch, 2007.
41
As documented by Justicia for Migrant Workers, 2010; Preibisch, 2007; and several UFCW reports.
42
Walia, H. (2010). Transient servitude: Migrant labour in Canada and the apartheid of citizenship. Race &
Class, 52(1): 71-84.
43
Ibid.
44
Hennebry, J. (2012). Permanently Temporary? Agricultural Migrant Workers and Their Integration In Canada.
IRPP Study 26. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
45
For example, Hennebry, 2012; Justicia for Migrant Workers, 2010; UFCW, 2011.
46
“Good enough to work, good enough to stay” was a slogan used by the UFCW Canada in one of their social justice
campaigns for migrant worker advocacy in 2011.
42
47
In November 2010, the United Nations’s International Labour Organization ruled that Canada and Ontario, through
Ontario’s ban on farm unions (sanctioned under the Ontario Agricultural Employees Act, 2002 which denies all Ontario
agriculture workers the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining) violate the human rights of migrant
and domestic agricultural workers in the province. Specificially, the Act violates human rights under two United
Nation’s conventions: Convention No. 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, and
Convention No. 98 – Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining.
48
In British Columbia, workers from a large nursery operation have only recently joined the UFCW Canada Local
Union 1518. They are one of a small number of certified bargaining units represented by the UFCW Canada Local
1518.
49
Temporary workers entering Canada are organized by skill-level according to a system called the National
Occupational Classification Matrix (NOC). Under this system, NOC “C” is the classification used to refer to
occupations that call for some job training and some high school education. NOC “D” refers to occupations requiring
no training or formal education and encompasses solely on-the-job training.
50
It was only over the course of this research that the Pilot Project was adopted as a permanent labour program and
hence changed its name. See: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/communications/
agstream.shtml. Around the same time, the TFWP made permanent a “Stream for Lower-Skilled Occupations”.
51
UCFW, 2011.
52
Focus group conversation with anonymous SFI representative, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
53
Hennebry, 2012.
54
HRSDC, 2010.
55
Ibid.
56
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012.
57
Hennebry, 2012.
58
In Ontario, the number of Pilot Project workers employed in the agri-food sector rose from 800 in 2005 to 1,705 in
2009. The total number of labour market opinion applications for these two programs (TFWP and Pilot Project) surged
from 12,627 in 2006 to 68,568 in 2008. Source: UFCW, 2011.
43
Why now? Finding a space to grow the good food conversation
The poor treatment of migrant agricultural workers is not a new issue by any means. In
fact, agricultural workers have been seeking fair treatment in Ontario for over a century.
Whether or not they are Canadian born, agricultural workers are a group that has been
historically excluded from many of the standards—health, safety, employment, and wage
standards—that are applied to workers of other sectors. It was only in 2006 that the
Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, the main piece of legislation protecting
workers in the workplace, was extended to cover farmworkers and even still, some
exceptions remain1. The vulnerability of migrant agricultural workers particularly has
been substantiated by various academics, reports, and activists. Recently it was
confirmed by Canada’s Auditor General, who in April 2009 reported that because of the
federal government’s failure to adequately protect workers and supervise employers,
“Temporary foreign workers hired through the pilot project for occupations requiring
lower levels of formal training may be at risk of abuse and poor working conditions.” 2
Today, farmworker rights are more important and more complicated than ever. Farms no
longer operate on family labour alone and skilled workers are increasingly hard to come
by. Agricultural work as a profession is a declining field. Farmers looking to operate
agroecological farms often find themselves in conflicting situations: they require more
hands-on workers to function but have fewer at their disposal. Dwindling rural
populations and an increasingly urban Canadian workforce only aggravate this problem.
Securing adequate skilled labour presents a challenge for many farmers, even more so
when the positions they offer are not permanent ones. A typical farm job lasts only as
long as the growing season, eight months tops in Ontario3. Finding skilled workers who
can commit to this schedule and return year after year can be challenging to say the least.
The job description isn’t one that attracts a bountiful pool of applicants and neither is the
pay4. Though it may seem negligible, paying even minimum wage can be a struggle for
farmers. Many are bringing home less than minimum wage themselves and working the
44
hours of two or three employees to get their work done. And though food prices continue
to rise, farm debt in the province is increasing at an alarming rate5.
The distribution of government support payments tells a similarly skewed story with the
largest farms (those grossing revenues of more than $1,000,000 annually) receiving an
unfair share of program payments. Farms of this size are obtaining less and less of their
income from actual sales, and making up the difference with sturdy government
handouts6. Small and mid-sized farms receive proportionally much less. It is these farms
that are left to face farm debt and struggle to stay alive.
Faced with the challenges of declining revenues and labour shortages, many Ontario
farmers have gone one of three routes: towards increased mechanization to minimize
labour demands (and long-term costs); to seasonal intern and volunteer recruitment with
annual turnover; or to the employment of non-local workers, brought in from abroad
where the pool of eligible (and low cost) applicants is plentiful. The latter is typically
seen as the most enduring solution. Conventional and agroecological farms have both
come to rely on the availability of “temporary”, “offshore” workers to meet their labour
needs. For some farms, migrant agricultural workers make up only a small percentage of
their total workforce; for others, they comprise the entire team. Many farms have never
employed migrant workers at all. The total number of farms employing temporary
migrant workers in Ontario was 1,329 in 20107. Regardless of the individual breakdown,
the overall numbers are on the rise. The province employs more migrant agricultural
workers each year than the last.
For farms that are expanding, migrant workers can be the key to supporting augmented
growth. For others, they are essential to keep up with everyday production demands.
Sectors like horticulture, which are particularly dependent on migrant workers, have
suggested that, without migrant workers, many of their seasonal and labour-intensive
crops would cease to exist8. These domestic crops would be replaced instead by imports.
It is a wonder that migrant workers continue to be labelled as “temporary” when they
have become such a fixture in the Canadian agricultural industry.
45
Pushing the topic of migrant agricultural labour now in the context of sustainable food
would be a strategic move for food initiaitves. The window for change around food
systems has presented itself, both in terms of public interest and emerging political will.
The food movement has established a steady stream of interest in good food ideas around
the GTA. They have even succeeded in influencing electoral platforms and regional
policy reforms. The Toronto Food Policy Council, for example, works directly with
Toronto Public Health to identify key food issues and advocate for health, nutrition, and
sustainability in the development of food policy for the region. Sustain Ontario consults
with its food and farm sector members to recommend policy action at the provincial
level, the most recent of which—a Local Food Act—has been adopted by the Ontario
government9. This is not to say that political alliances come easily in the food movement.
There are still real political (and economic) obstacles with which food movement actors
must engage. Perhaps most distressing is the conservative Ford regime in the GTA which
has caused food and other social organizations to be prudent with their initiatives for the
time being. Coming together around the limitations imposed by the current municipal
government presents a challenge for food movement building. It also presents an
opportunity to generate alliances and connect over common goals.
*
*
*
At a time when we’re trying to set things straight in our food system, why not get it all
right? Citizens of Southern Ontario have made it loud and clear that there is a will for
change and sustainable food initiatives have responded. In the GTA, this is manifest in
the food organizations, public actions, policy decisions, backyard gardens, community
food events, and kitchen tables of a growing population of food-concerned citizens.
Thousands are participating in the process of revisioning what our food system should be.
In rural and urban settings people are beginning to imagine innovative agricultural
utopias and ways to make them a reality. Change is happening.
As this opportune moment unfolds, it is crucial that food movement advocates engage
with it as effectively as we can. This means ensuring that every important food concern
be acknowledged, that every food actor’s voice be heard. The new food system we create
46
must address all of the failings its predecessor has left behind, not only the most
popularized. This includes taking a stand for the proper treatment of the farmers and
workers who bring us our food. Acknowledging the lack of consciousness about migrant
workers in agriculture, and the general disregard for labour isses in the food system is
imperative here. It can be seen as part of a broader trend embeding the invisibility of
workers within a corporate system10.
In order to make room for effective change, a comprehensive review of the current
moment must first be accomplished. It must, among other things, acknowledge the
existence of migrant agricultural workers in Ontario and take into account the current
reality for this group of individuals. This includes the context of their employment, the
role they fill in Ontario food production, the conditions under which they come to work
and stay in the province, and the forces that influence each of these factors. At the same
time, a historical analysis of the structural forces that produce migrant labour is needed to
develop a deeper understanding of the issue. This research paper was orchestrated to do
just that. It aims to insert questions and considerations for migrant agricultural workers
into conversations around sustainable food futures that are already underway. For
organizations engaged in this discussion, the research seeks insight into how this has been
done. For the others, it endeavours to help draw out the barriers preventing them from
addressing migrant worker issues. Ultimately, it aims to facilitate opportunities for
positive action from this point forward. Starting the conversation here was the very first
step.
End Notes
1
Depending on the number of workers employed, not all of the OHSA regulations must be applied. Farms with fewer
than five paid employees are exempt from having a health and safety representative and do not undergo the same
inspection processes.
2
This statement was issued among many others under the 2009 Fall Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the
House of Commons. It was including in chapter 2 of the document, a chapter on “Selecting Foreign Workers Under the
Immigration Program”. The report also issued recommendations to the HRSDC and CIC with regards to their
governing roles in Canada’s temporary labour programs. Source: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_
200911_e_33252.html.
3
Though eight months is the typical duration of the farming season in Ontario and the maximum length of stay for
workers contracted under the SAWP, some do stay longer. Those employed by the TFWP, for example, or in indoor
industries (hothouses, processing plants, packaging, etc.) very often stay longer.
47
4
In accordance with Ontario Ministry of Labour standards, most agricultural labour is remunerated with minimum
wage, $10.25 in Ontario at the time of writing, the highest rate of any province.
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/ guide/minwage.php. Though now taken with the caveat that employers
can pay 15% less than minimum wage to temporary foreign workers under Bill C-38 of the Conservative budget.
5
Though gross farm revenue (the total revenue generated) for Ontario farms has been on the rise, realized net farm
income (the total farmers actually take home) has been falling very fast. In 2011 these two amounts stood at
approximately $10 billion and $0.3 billion, respectively. Source: The NFU’s Farms, Farmers and Agriculture in
Ontario: An overview of the situation in 2011 http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2011/farm_ontario.pdf.
6
Program payments and support from government include: provincial stabilization programs; federal and provincial
Business Risk Management and disaster assistance programs such as the Ontario Whole Farm Relief Program and the
Ontario Farm Income Disaster Program in Ontario; the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program and the
AgriStability Program; the now outdated Gross Revenue Insurance Program; government payments and range of other
sector-specific subsidies (such as acreage payments, assistance for clearing land and government grants, hog incentive
programs, etc.).Total program payments for 2012 are forecast to be $3.0 billion (nearly a 20% drop from those of
2011). Source: NFU, 2011.
7
This number is actually a decrease from previous years (e.g. 1,571 in 2003) though the total number of migrant
workers employed in Ontario is still on the rise. This is a trend indicative of farm size growth and cocentration (i.e.
there are fewer farms employing more workers). It may also reflect increases in more labour-intensive work. See the
2012 IRPP Study Permanently Temporary? Agricultural Migrant Workers and Their Integration In Canada by Jenna
Hennebry for more details.
8
See reports, for example F.A.R.M.S. (2003). The Quest for a Reliable Workforce in the Horticulture Industry.
Mississauga: Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services.
9
See http://sustainontario.com/2012/09/19/12352/news/sustain-ontario-looks-forward-to-new-local-food-act.
10
Addtionally, the lack of attention paid to labour (by food movement actors as well as the general public) reflects
more specific trends including a major decline in unionized labour and a public antipathy toward unions.
48
Sustainable food and agriculture initiatives in the Greater Toronto Area:
An overview of key issues and strategies
Amid the complexities of local and global politics, ecnomics, and social interests, food
movement actors are challenging the current food sytem. Their strategies seek to both
push for structural changes and create the alternatives they desire. Nowhere in Canada is
this witnessed more prominently than in the bevy of sustainable food initiatives found
across the GTA. Projects, groups, organizations, and events have sprung up over the past
five years to tackle an incredible variety of food-related concerns1. Others have been
chipping away at the greater food good for decades. These initiatives hone in on
particular intersections of food and life, among them social justice and equality within the
food system, issues of accessibility, affordability, food education and advocacy, local
production and distribution, farm support, training, food security, and food sovereignty.
For the most part, they approach these issues in a way that integrates maximum
consideration for our environments, economies, and health: key components of a
sustainable food system that have been disregarded, to great detriment, in our existing
industrial food schemes.
The sustainable food and agriculture initiatives (SFIs) of the GTA exist as a form of
rebuttal to a food system that doesn’t work as we would like it to. Each one is changeoriented, born of a particular defect in the production, processing, packaging, handling,
distribution, consumption, or valuation that characterizes our food. Many SFIs aspire to
remedy the failings of our current system and, in doing so, to cultivate a renewed, more
harmonious relationship between people, land, and food. Attaining “good” food,
however they define this, is an objective shared by all SFIs. It is one that is commonly
connected with production practices and value systems. It has not often been linked,
though, with fair food system labour.
To understand the general workings of the SFIs in the GTA, I examined 25 of these
initiatives. Each initiative operates uniquely in the GTA or has an active presence here.
Some represent regional branches of organizations that are provincial or national in
49
scope; others are confined to the urban core of Toronto only. Many are directly
associated with food production in the region.
SFIs were selected based on their commitments to sustainability in the food system and
their potential connections to labour within this field (i.e. initiatives that work directly
with farmers or farmworkers or who conduct education, advocacy, or campaign work
around issues that relate to farmers or farmworkers). A list of partners from the FoodShed
project network served as a base for this selection2.
Information on initiatives was gathered from their websites, handouts, and educational
brochures. It was further informed by dialogue with members of the SFIs who
participated in interviews and focus group dinner conversations. The findings generated
from this overview therefore offer general insights on the initiatives, their mandates,
goals, key issues and commitments, and the strategies they use to affect their desired
changes. They also shed light on the SFIs that incorporate considerations for labour in
their work, and those that don’t. The result of this overview is a series of common
interests, values, and strategies identified within the sample body of SFIs. These are
summarized below as key issues driving (and uniting) the GTA’s food movement: social
justice; health; public education, advocacy, and awareness; local food and food security.
The final issue—labour—is one that lacks presence throughout this movement.
Key Issue #1: Social Justice
Among each and every food initiative one commitment underlies all others: our food
system must meet the needs of every person who relies on it. Everyone needs food.
Greater than our environmental and economic goals, those of basic sustenance prevail.
The fundamental rights to food and to a food system that provides individuals with
provisions sufficient for basic well-being are both strongly upheld. They are defended for
all people, regardless of social, racial, or economic status. Achieving social justice within
a food system is thus often characterized as meeting the hunger, nutrition, and cultural
needs of all populations, with specific attention paid to those typically excluded from the
guarantee of “good” food3.
50
Providing equal access to and distribution of nutritional and well-produced goods for
food-poor populations is a focus shared by a number of SFIs operating in the GTA (e.g.
The Stop Community Food Centre, the West End Food Co-op, Food Share, the Afri-Can
Community Food Basket, the Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative Toronto LEG).
Many of these initiatives work directly with groups suffering from food injustices—
racialized communities, new Canadians, single mothers, and people living in poverty—to
address their food needs. Ensuring that these groups obtain food that is both healthy and
culturally suitable is a key commitment. More than a quarter of the initiatives studied
explicitly address the need for “culturally appropriate” foods, a trait characteristic of the
diversity of backgrounds united within the GTA.
Other social justice commitments include the elimination of race discrimination in the
good food movement (e.g. Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative) and the
empowerment of food-vulnerable groups to fulfil their own food needs with local
growing, storing, cooking, and purchasing practices (e.g. Afri-Can Food Basket, The
Stop, the West End Food Co-op, FoodShare, Farm Start).
The compelling role of social justice is primary in sustainable food initiatives in the
GTA. It appears more persistently than any other as a driving force behind our good food
movement. For the most part, though, there is a bias toward thinking about social justice
in terms of food consumption. The notions of justice put forward by SFIs don’t often
involve those involved in the production process.
Key Issue #2: Health
Much like equality, health has been championed as a fundamental food system goal by
SFIs. Campaigns for healthy, nutritious foods feature prominently in almost every SFI.
Groups like the Toronto Food Policy Council, Food Share, Sustain Ontario, The Stop and
many others endeavour to put forward food system solutions that feature first and
foremost the consumption of healthy food. Not every SFI campaigns for the same kind of
healthy food however. Their priorities, like their strategies, differ with some promoting
primarily organic food, and others local, whole/nutritious, culturally appropriate,
51
vegetarian, or in-season options. By supporting food production practices that emulate
their priorities, SFIs push to increase the amount of healthy food produced and consumed
in and around the GTA. Others connect GTA-dwellers with organic produce and goods
grown in urban agricultural plots, city farms, and farms within the Greenbelt region (e.g.
Young Urban Farmers and other urban agriculture groups, Fresh City Farms, Farm Start,
Everdale, FoodNet Ontario, Local Food Plus, the Greenbelt Foundation, etc.).
The Toronto Food Policy Council works directly with the municipal government (via
Toronto Public Health) to incorporate their goals of healthy, sustainable foods into
greater public policies and conversations of health. They, like others, advocate for the
right all citizens should have to be able to obtain foods they feel assured about eating and
serving to their families. More often than not, these are foods that promote healthy
environments as well.
Key Issue #3: Public Education, Advocacy, and Engagement
SFIs have generated a remarkable hub of food energy in the GTA. With their facilitation,
good food ideas, stories, programs, curriculum, events, networks, resources, businesses,
and people are coming together in ground-breaking ways. Not surprisingly, initiatives
that lead food education and advocacy activities have surfaced as forerunners here. For
many of them, their driving goal is to bring awareness of food system flaws (and, more
optimistically, possibilities for improvement) to as wide a population as possible. This
includes initiating dialogue with people of all ages, backgrounds, and positions within the
food system: children, students, educators, new and established citizens, farmers,
processors, crafters, retailers, restauranteurs, politicians, etc. A handful of SFIs interact
with a combination of these stakeholders to build networks that will unite them all (e.g.
Sustain Ontario, TFPC, TYFPC, Food Forward, The Stop, TUG, etc.).
In addition to fostering connections between food system actors, SFIs have created a
space for the voice of the food-concerned people of the GTA. Many work to engage
individuals and communities in the processes that affect them, mobilizing consumers to
make a difference with their own eating, growing, and purchasing habits. They connect
52
people who care about food and provide fora for collaboration and change. Farmers
markets, farm tours, seminars, conferences, media productions, public meetings, and
community events are all used to disseminate food knowledge. Digital storytelling has
become a major tool, of both Toronto Public Health and Foodshed, resulting in an April
2011 conference of 200 grassroots activists exploring its use in building the food justice
movement. Building awareness within the formal education system has been another
outlet of food system work4 (e.g. FoodShare’s Recipe for Change campaign to reintegrate
food literacy into the school curriculum). For many SFIs, public education is considered
to be a critical part of the work they do.
Though rarely a key strategy, several SFIs attempt to incorporate political alliances into
their quest for a good food system. Some have direct opportunities to dialogue with
government bodies (e.g. TFPC, the GTA AAC, the Canadian Organic Growers, Sustain
Ontario) while others do so mainly from the ground up. They use practices such as
community building, advocacy, lobbying, letter writing, and recommendation-based
reports to make sure their voices (and those they represent) are heard. Each asks for
political support to bolster their efforts underway. Not all SFIs choose to include political
strategies in the work that they do. In fact, many question whether doing so would help
realize the social change they want to see.
Key Issue #4: Local Food and Food Security
In the face of increased globalization, open markets, and gratuitous trade, SFIs are
demanding the opposite. Local production and food security have become pillars of a
good food future keeping Ontario food close to home where it can be grown, purchased,
and enjoyed locally. Countless initiatives provide support for these practices. “Regional”,
“local”, and “super local” forms of production are promoted as essential components of a
sustainable food system.
Directly related to “local” are the terms “food security” and “food sovereignty”.
Initiatives like Food Secure Canada, FoodNet Ontario, the People’s Food Policy Project,
and the Afri-Can Food Basket share the goal of achieving food security for populations of
53
various social and geographic parameters. They define food security as meeting the
nutritional needs of all those in their respective groups before attending to the needs of
others. In this regard, they seek a localized food system that pairs producers and products
with eaters of the same region. Food security discourages the export of goods that can be
enjoyed locally and encourages practices of self-reliance and social justice. It ensures that
people obtain the food that they need with as few middlemen as possible. As an offset,
local foods and food security also foster a number of important benefits: investment in
our existing local economies, a reduction in food travel and environmental waste,
stimulation of fading food-related jobs, new ties between producers and consumers, and
the prolonged well-being of our surrounding farms5. Food sovereignty, on the other hand,
entitles a nation and its people to control of their own food systems, markets, production
practices, etc.6 It emphasizes the opinions of the local producers and consumers in food
system decisions over those of corporations and global agri-food markets.
Local Food Plus, a sustainable food system organization operating primarily in Ontario,
spearheads the movement for many things local. It connects individuals producing and
seeking local sustainable food products and certifies farmers and processors who meet
their criteria for this claim. Accordingly, it enables those certified to market their
products as value-added and attempt to seek greater returns for their sale. The Local Food
Plus certification is one of the most direct measures used to support local production and
consumption. Other approaches include local eating/buying campaigns (e.g. the West
End Food Coop, Sustain Ontario, the Greenbelt Foundation, FoodNet Ontario, Food
Secure Canada, the People’s Food Policy Project), development and funding of local food
procurement policies (e.g. Sustain Ontario, the Greenbelt Foundation), promotion of
farmers markets, farmer training programs, and community-building for food security
infrastructure.
The Missing Issue: Labour
More evident than any other trend among SFIs is the glaring absence of the individuals
who grow and pick our food. Agricultural workers receive almost no attention in this
field. In fact, workers are rarely mentioned by SFIs save in broad statements about ‘the
54
people producing our food’ and their overarching rights to safe, fair, and respectful work.
Workers are seldom granted a personable identity or any substantial amount of
consideration as an individual group. This is true of most workers involved in food
systems whether migrant or domestic, in industrialized and alternative operations.
The requisites of a good food system described in paragraphs above and defended
elsewhere—those of social justice, health, education, and food security—are not always
extended to food system workers. As absurd as it seems, agricultural workers experience
high rates of food insecurity, malnutrition, and hunger. These trends are felt most acutely
by seasonal and migrant agricultural workers7. Provisions for accessibility and culturally
appropriate foods for these workers are seldom made. And when it comes to education
and advocacy, few SFIs shed light on the fact that migrant workers even exist.
The lack of attention paid to migrant agricultural workers reflects a broader trend
witnessed among SFIs to overlook labour of all kinds. It became clear throughout the
course of this research that our local food movement also lacks a serious ongoing
conversation about ‘work’ in more general terms, and about the visions of labour and
working conditions they hold within their own organizations. These too have been
struggling with some precarious conditions (e.g. too much work, too few resources,
inadequate pay, poor job stability, burn out, etc.)8.
There are, of course, some SFIs who have incorporated consideration for agricultural
labour in their work and for this, they must be commended. Initiatives like Local Food
Plus and the People’s Food Policy Project advocate for specific labour standards in their
definitions of sustainability. They ensure that food workers are not forgotten in the
development of good food systems. Other initiatives like Justicia for Migrant Workers,
Students Against Migrant Exploitation, the United Food and Commercial Workers
Canada and its Agriculture Workers Alliance work explicitly to defend the rights and
well-being of migrant workers in Canadian agriculture (in both large scale industrial
agriculture as well as in more sustainable agricultural initiatives). These groups tend to
operate independently of SFIs and are note yet allied with the good food movement. The
55
work of these groups is of fundamental importance and will be examined in detail in the
section to follow.
End Notes
1
Despite the wide variety of initiatives, however, many academics and critics suggest that the diversity of interests and
interest groups represented among SFIs is not all that wide-reaching. Middle and upper class citizens who can afford to
participate in local, organic purchasing (or high-end food events) are often thought to be the main winners in
sustainable food movements. Food system workers, lower income citizens, and those without access to ‘good food’ are
more consistently left out. The work of Patricia Allen (2010) on local food systems and their knack for excluding social
justice can be visited for a more in-depth analysis of this critique.
2
List of SFIs surveyed (all FoodShed Partners in bold): Fresh City Farms, Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC),
Sustain Ontario, Slow Food Toronto, West End Food Coop, Justicia For Migrant Workers, FoodShare, Food
Forward, Toronto Urban Growers (included with other urban agriculture initiatives), Toronto Youth Food Policy
Council (TYFPC), The Peoples’ Food Policy Project, Afri-Can Food Basket, Friends of the Greenbelt/The
Greenbelt Foundation, Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (GTA AAC), Not Far From the
Tree, ChocoSol Traders, The Stop Community Food Centre, Everdale Environmental Farm and Learning
Centre, Local Food Plus, FarmStart, Food Secure Canada, FoodNet Ontario, Collaborative Regional Alliance for
Farmer Training in Ontario (C.R.A.F.T. Ontario), Canadian Organic Growers (COG), Young Urban Farmers (and other
urban agriculture initiatives), Growing Food and Justice for All Initiative (GFJI), Students Against Migrant
Exploitation (SAME), Agriculture Workers Alliance (AWA). See also Appendix 1.
3
This definition is taken loosely from the glossary of Holt-Giménez, E.(ed.) Food Movements Unite! (2011), drawing
on the entry for food justice: “A movment that attempts to address hunger by addressing the underlying issues of racial
and class disparity and the inequities in the food system that correlate to inequities in economic and political power”
(p.340).
4
From the opposite end, SFIs are also drawing on sources of academic expertise in food, agriculture, and social justice
fields by collaborating with scholars, activists, and student researchers at Ontario universities.
5
These are features of a local food system that have been advocated by a number of academics, activists, and producers
(e.g. LFP, FoodNet Ontario, Food Secure Canada, the Greenbelt Foundation, etc.).
6
A definition based loosely on the introduction to food sovereignty used by Nettie Wiebe and Kevin Wipf in their
chapter of Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems. “Food sovereignty, broadly
defined as the right of nations and peoples to control their own food systems, including their own markets, production
modes, food cultures and environments, has emerged as a critical alternative to the dominant neoliberal models of
agriculture and trade.” (2011, p.4). Food sovereignty has often been referred as the ‘democratization’ of the food
system (e.g. Holt-Giménez, 2011).
7
A Californian study showed that 45% of all participating farmworkers in the US were food insecure, and over 63% of
seasonal and migrant farmworkers. The trend is similar in Canada e.g. UFCW Rapport of the Status of Migrant
Workers in Canada 2011. Source: Borre, Kristen et al. (2010). Working to eat: Vulnerability, food insecurity, and
obesity among migrant and seasonal farmworker families. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53: 443–462.
8
Over the course of the research conducted, this was one trend that became more and more obvious. SFIs and labour
groups do not have “sustainable” labour or working conditions themselves. Many are overworked, operating on
personal drive (and dollars) without the security of a stable job or pay. Many SFIs are volunteer-driven or charitable in
nature and do not always have secure funding. Others rely heavily on unpaid interns to complete the work they want to
do. A feeling of exhaustion was common among research participants, though some spoke to these same challenges as
sources of energy and inspiration.
56
Migrant labour advocates: Existing efforts underway
A handful of groups have taken on the challenge of supporting agricultural and migrant
agricultural workers in Ontario. Like the SFIs examined, they challenge the structures of
the corporate capitalist food system that have created the precarious workforce we see in
the industry today. Labour advocate groups question the standards and work conditions
afforded to agricultural workers, the value associated with this work, and the injustice of
a system that has thousands of individuals living in perpetual fear. They work to uphold
the rights due to all workers and the security of this exceptionally vulnerable group. In
comparison to sustainable food initiatives in the region, the number of groups
championing agricultural labour is small. But they cannot not be underestimated. The
labour advocates we see in this sector are spirited, political, and exceptionally committed.
In Southern Ontario, commitments to migrant agricultural workers have sprung forward
in a variety of forms and degrees. While some organizations work exclusively on the
rights of this group, others fall into the category of food groups with broader and more
holistic agricultural goals. They include stipulations for migrant workers within a vision
for an improved food system, but their dominant priorities lie elsewhere. Labour
advocates dedicated to this cause push more fervently for the standards and systemic
changes they hope to see in agricultural employment. Much like food groups promoting
local and sustainable food systems, labour groups endeavour not only to challenge
current practices but also to create the alternatives they desire. Below I examine two
classes of commitment to migrant agricultural workers—that of SFIs and of labour
groups—to illustrate the scope of work performed with workers in the field.
Sustainable Food Initiatives (SFIs)
The Local Food Plus “Local Sustainable Certification”
The most notable commitment to agricultural labour conditions among Ontario SFIs is
the Local Food Plus (LFP) ‘Local Sustainable Certification’. The certification
distinguishes farms and food processors that employ sustainable production practices.
These include social and environmental practices as well as local procurement. The Local
57
Sustainable Certification requires agricultural employers to guarantee “safe and fair
working conditions for on farm labour”1 (one of seven major criteria certifiers must fulfil
to earn the LFP label and one of only two that are strictly mandatory). Employers are
assessed thoroughly upon application by independent third party inspectors to confirm
that they meet the requisite standards for their employees. Once certified, they are subject
to random spot checks between inspection years. If a farm is found to be in violation of
the labour criteria, it is no longer eligible for LFP certification. Meeting the other ‘local
sustainable’ conditions is not enough.
The labour standards promoted by LFP are not overly stringent. They merely echo
provincial labour laws and federally approved regulations for programs like the SAWP.
Certified employers are required to comply with the provisions of these laws and ensure
that no complaints be lodged against them. The same is true for health, safety, and
housing regulations: employers must adhere with the applicable standards that are already
in place2. When employing temporary workers, LFP businesses must operate on contracts
consistent with the requirements of the relevant work programs (e.g. SAWP, TFWP).
Any operation noted for violating a temporary work contract within a period of 12
months is ineligible for LFP certification. In addition to domestic laws, LFP-certified
operations must comply with all International Labour Organization conventions that
relate to labour welfare3.
Meeting LFP’s labour certification seems easy enough. The certification does not impose
any conditions beyond those required by the law. But in an industry where regulations
and standards are notoriously overlooked, upholding even basic legal requirements is
quite the feat. With their criteria for safe and fair working conditions, LFP has, in
essence, stepped in to take over the enforcement responsibilities that governments have
renounced. The benefits of upholding labour standards—for migrant and domestic
agricultural workers alike—cannot be underestimated. The inclusion of the labour
criterion sheds light on the reality of work in the agricultural sector: where employment,
health, and safety standards are primitive and even still, are rarely being met. It highlights
the accountability of farmers who become LFP-certified as well as those who don’t4.
58
Despite continued interest in the program, the number of Ontario farmers who have
become LFP certified is still relatively small. The number who have done so and are
employing migrant workers is smaller still5.
Food Secure Canada’s People’s Food Policy Project
The People’s Food Policy Project is a Canada-wide initiative endeavouring to create the
country’s first-ever food sovereignty policy. The project seeks a coordinated approach to
food policy and relies on collaboration among food partners from all sectors. It promotes,
among other things, the need for enforced legislation on labour practices as a pillar of an
effective national food regime. It does so for both domestic and non-domestic workers,
embracing the distinct realities of the two groups and the important role of migrant
workers in our food system. In particular, tenets of the project call for legislation that will
“ensure that non-citizen workers on farms are fairly treated; given decent housing and
wages; enjoy safe and humane working conditions; have access to health care and
citizenship rights, all without reprisal”6. Defending the value of food providers is one of
the seven pillars of food sovereignty on which the People’s Food Policy Project is based.
The final product of this project—a comprehensive food policy document for Canada
incorporating consultations with 3,500 Canadians—was completed in April 2011. At the
same time the project put out ten policy discussion papers highlighting the main food
system problems identified through consultations as well as federal government policy
recommendations to address them7.
General Labour Statements
Other sustainable food groups allude to the need to integrate producers and workers into
the structures of a good food system but their commitments are less concrete. They tend
to group all agricultural workers together—farm owners, food workers, processors, etc.—
and sidestep the pervasiveness of migrant workers in this field. Examples of broad labour
references include those for “safe farming practices”, “ethically produced food”,
“dignified treatment of farmers”, and “fair treatment” based on integrity. These appear in
the mission statements, values, and publications of a number of SFIs8. Others advocate
generally for food systems that integrate and protect the people, land, and resources
59
producing our food. In either case, the labour element of production is rarely unpacked.
As noted in the previous chapter, migrant agricultural labour issues have yet to emerge as
a major focus of SFI work.
Labour Organizations
Other initiatives focus uniquely on labour and employment conditions. Those studied do
so particularly for migrant workers, agricultural workers, or a combination of the two.
They do not operate in the same discrete category as sustainable food initiatives but
instead in a parallel group of labour-oriented organizations with a connection to food.
Justicia for Migrant Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada and its
offsets, the Agriculture Workers Alliance and Students Against Migrant Exploitation,
work almost exclusively with non-domestic workers in the Ontario food sector9. They
collaborate with growers, pickers, packers, and processors to bring attention to the
struggles these workers endure. They do so in the hopes of cultivating improvements to
their labour conditions.
These organizations complete the bulk of their work in Southern Ontario where seasonal
and migrant agricultural workers are the most concentrated. Like SFIs, they employ a
variety of strategies including those of education and advocacy, community engagement,
personal empowerment, media and political campaigns, recommendation-based reports,
legal support, and government lobbying to demand change. Each represents a different
approach to and understanding of the issues labour groups face. More broad-based
organizations like the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change (formerly the Coalition for
Change) and Migrante toil after similar goals on behalf of migrant workers from a variety
of industries, and not only local workers but also national and international. Other groups
of note include ENLACE, KAIROS, the Workers’ Action Centre, and No One Is Illegal,
each of which has shown notable involvement in or solidarity with the struggles of
migrant workers. These entities don’t necessarily fall under either food or labour groups.
60
Justicia for Migrant Workers
Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) is a grassroots collective of organizers and activists
engaged in the issues of migrant work. Their focus is on migrant farm workers employed
on Ontario farms, where they have been operating for over a decade. J4MW has also
established a second chapter in British Columbia where it works alongside farmworkers
in the west coast10. In each location, J4MW is committed to promoting and protecting the
rights of farmworkers in temporary positions in Canada. The group allies work with
migrant farmworkers to empower them to make change. They create space for the voice
of migrant workers carefully making sure not to jeopardize their employment (given how
beholden they are to their employers and thus at risk if they speak out). J4MW also
collaborates with workers to name common struggles and demands, and help to mobilize
action in this field. In addition to their organizing functions, J4MW serves as a support
system for workers while they are in Canada. They assist with personal, social, cultural,
legal, and health-related qualms and extend the type of care and friendship lacking for
temporary workers and non-citizens in Canada11.
J4MW employs a range of strategies to achieve their goals of social justice, respect, and
dignity for migrant agricultural workers. They are actively engaged in community
outreach initiatives and general awareness building. They also participate in political
lobbying and offer support with legal work. Members of J4MW connect farmworkers in
Canada witht their families and governments back home; they host workshops and social
events for new and returning workers on their workplace and human rights; they
document worker complaints and hold employers accountable by surprising employers at
their front doors; and they help individuals deal with the difficulties of social isolation,
family separation, and depression12. They do all this and more.
The scope of work completed by the J4MW collective is enormous and ever changing. It
reflects the emerging needs of migrant workers in this field and the continuing struggles
that they face. Though the main objectives of J4MW are centered around long-term
labour solutions achieved with and for workers, they work equally to bring attention to
the processes that have led to precarious employment practices in the country. For
61
example, the group has organized two pilgrimages this year and last, to bring together
migrant workers and their allies around other historical struggles of resistance in labour.
The pilgrimages have drawn parallels to slavery (this year’s followed the path of the
underground railroad in Southern Ontario) and allow workers an avenue to discuss their
position, express their upset, and demand justice. The two pilgrimages have been aptly
named ‘Pilgrimages to Freedom’13. As public events, they encourage alliance-building
with other organizations, individuals, or marginalized communities14. The pilgrimages
represent one of the many organizing strategies used by the group in their multipronged
approach to migrant labour. Campaigns to challenge withdrawn healthcare for injured
workers and legal actions to protest unsubstantiated deportations are other important
tactics that they use. At its base, J4MW is both personal and political. The group is
deeply committed to both immediate and structural change (e.g. the current treatment of
migrant workers and the embedded racial inequalities that permits it).
The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada
The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW Canada) is often dubbed as
‘Canada’s largest private sector union’15. It represents over 250,000 workers from every
sector of the food industry. In agriculture, the UFCW Canada has been advocating for
workers rights since 198016. They operate on the mantra that agricultural workers have
the same rights as any other worker—a supposition that has not always been embraced on
Canadian farms. The objectives of solidarity, collective bargaining, and political action to
leverage power run throughout UFCW Canada’s actions17. These are used to seek out fair
labour the food system. With this in mind, the UFCW Canada advocates powerfully for
justice, safety, and better rights for agricultural workers. Like J4MW, they also advance a
voice for suppressed workers in this field (though their impetus is on representating
workers, not creating space for them to speak for themselves).
The UFCW Canada seeks to represent all agricultural workers. Currently, it serves as the
union for a number of places in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec where
collective agreements are in place. In Ontario, the organization was engaged in a two
decade-long legal battle with the provincial government arguing for the right to unionize
62
for Ontario agricultural workers. These are rights that would apply to both domestic and
migrant workers if attained. After monumentally achieving this right in 2009, the
decision was appealed by the McGuinty government and, more recently, revoked by the
Supreme Court of Canada in April 201118. Agricultural workers thus remain unable to
form unions in the province. The UFCW Canada continues, however, to champion their
rights.
Aside from union work, the UFCW Canada operates in Ontario by lobbying government,
challenging labour codes, engaging in legal work and in various media initiatives. The
landmarks accomplished by UFCW Canada have been crucial for agricultural workers.
They have conducted, for example, a successful lobbying campaign that saw the Ontario
government extend regulated health and safety regulations (via the Ontario Occupational
Health and Safety Act) to agricultural workers in the province. They have mandated rent
reductions for migrant workers in Quebec, filed charges with the United Nations’
International Labour Organization on Ontario’s ban on farm unions (as a violation of
human and labour rights), successfully retrieved millions of dollars in Parental Leave
Benefits for temporary workers across the country19, and built partnerships with sending
country governments to better support migrant individuals and their transition between
countries20. Each year, UCFW Canada also collaborates with industry experts and
agricultural workers to put forward a list of recommendations for improving Canada’s
temporary work programs. The recommendations are targeted at government officials
and the regulatory procedures of the SAWP and TFWP. They seek, unanimously, to
improve migrant workers’ lives while in Canada and at home. In 2011, the UFCW
Canada list included 30 such recommendations21.
The Agricultural Workers Alliance
The Agricultural Workers Alliance (AWA) is an offshoot of UFCW Canada. The AWA
is a membership-based group that provides outreach programs and general support for
member agricultural workers. This includes domestic and migrant workers on full-time,
part-time, and temporary work contracts. In association with UFCW, it operates as
Canada’s largest association for agricultural workers22.
63
The majority of AWA’s work is accomplished through its agricultural worker support
centres, the first of which opened in Leamington, Ontario in 2002. Over the past ten
years, nine other support centres have opened across the country23. These centres are used
as hubs for workers in the region, providing language training and important resources
for migrant workers while they are in Canada. AWA staff assist workers with matters of
unsafe working and housing conditions, abusive employers (though it is unclear what
they can actually do in these cases), medical treatment and Workers Compensation
claims, health and safety training, and parental leave benefits. They educate members on
the rights and entitlements they are due and help them to access benefits, complete
claims, and file for income tax24. AWA support centres also serve as a hub for advocacy,
maintaining the rights of agriculture workers to form a union. The support centres assist
thousands of migrant and Canadian workers each year.
Since 2010, AWA—with the UFCW Canada—has also begun offering scholarships to
the offspring of migrant workers labouring in Canada (e.g. children, grandchildren,
sisters, brothers, nieces, and nephews of migrant workers) to extend the reach of their
assistance and promote continuing education in workers’ home countries25. AWA
provides their services free to all member workers and encourages every agricultural
worker and ally to join.
Students Against Migrant Exploitation
Students Against Migrant Exploitation (SAME) is an ever-growing network of students
committed to spreading awareness of the realities of migrant work in Canada. The group
has a membership base that waxes and wanes with transient student populations but
remains relatively active in more than 30 school campuses across the country. Within
each chapter, SAME students carry out a variety of outreach and educational programs,
typically in conjunction with AWA worker support centres. Many of the SAME members
volunteer at these centres and assist with the myriad services they provide. They also
coordinate information seminars and roundtable discussions with migrant workers, offer
ESL classes, plan social events, and collaborate with workers to document their stories.
64
The educational component of the SAME’s mandate around language and rights mirrors
that of the longer standing labourer-teacher program of the Frontier College26.
The other key component of the SAME’s work is public education. The group labours to
shed light on the “often untold truths”27 of the migrant workers who feed, clothe, and care
for Canadians on a daily basis. Though they are engaged with a variety of industries
sustained by migrant workers, the SAME’s advocacy work focuses specifically on
agricultural workers. It is effected through school and community visits, media
campaigns, fundraisers, and workshops. In addition to spreading awareness on their own,
SAME members encourage individuals and communities to instigate offshoot initiatives
and empower them to share the knowledge they have acquired on migrant labour. Lastly,
SAME members connect with rural communities where migrant workers live. Here they
encourage dialogue with local populations and attempt to dispel the stigmas and
embedded racisms often associated with non-Canadian workers.
*
*
*
Each of the organizations examined here, whether food or labour based, displays an
incredible commitment to the betterment of migrant workers’ lives. They work with
creativity and resolve to uphold the rights and dignities of the workers, often in the face
of tremendous resistance. In their desire to alter the current conditions of migrant labour,
food and labour groups are pushing against immigration policies, labour programs, the
values of neoliberal trade, and the capitalist agro-food industry we experience today.
These are no small hurdles. They are forces that are extremely powerful and entangled in
the Canadian food system.
Regardless of their overlapping goals, the labour advocates we see here do not all agree
upon the strategies that should be used to tackle migrant labour issues. Nor do they
necessarily share a common approach when engaging with workers. This is not surprising
given their varied agendas. While some of them are grounded in worker entitlement and
personal/individual struggles (e.g J4MW), others come from a base of broad awarenessbuilding (e.g. the AWA), or collective organizing (e.g. the UFCW). Each group has
65
different analyses of the problem and of the strategies needed to address it. They do not
often come together around these to build upon each other’s strengths. Rather than
working in cooperation, therefore, the sentiment between groups can be one of
competition28.
Up against powerful structural obstacles, it is no wonder that the efforts of agricultural
labour groups remain limited in their long-term returns. The groups examined here do not
waiver in their dedication, however. They continue to make important changes in the
day-to-day lives of migrant individuals and see through strategies for shorter term goals.
For now, these are the most attainable. With each successful legal action or advocacy
campaign, the entire migrant worker community becomes more known. They accrue
public attention and a sense of empowerment, and establish partnerships that reinforce
their collective voice.
It should be noted that almost every labour organization examined—J4MW, UFCW
Canada, AWA, and SAME—operates on a volunteer basis. Members and leaders are
unpaid with the exception of a number of positions at UFCW Canada and the AWA
support centres. The commitments of these groups are thus stretched thin, as are their
budgets. Realizing the visions they desire can be an improbable challenge for resourcestrapped groups.
This imbalance of commitment and resources is a trend witnessed similarly in sustainable
food groups. SFIs and labour groups share also in their organizing strategies (e.g. for
outreach, education, political lobbying, and community building) and their desire to
create a better food system. They do not often work together, however, to combine their
overlapping goals, nor to examine their differences. In fact, the two groups are often
mutually exclusive. They coexist in the same regional food system without ever really
crossing paths. In part, this can be attributed to the single-issue style of organizing many
groups (both food and labour) take on. Also, there is the fact that there are no broadbased social movement organizations helping to connect these groups and mobilize
solidarity actions between them on specific issues. SFIs and labour organizations have
66
come together to share recommendations and policy advice, but they have never truly
collaborated or acknowledged their common objectives. Accordingly, their powers have
never been united. Neither have their interests, analyses, resources, energies, or tactics.
Migrant agricultural labour remains on the sidelines of the growing sustainable food
momentum, still very much overshadowed by other concerns for a good food system.
Only a handful of SFIs have begun to address this gap. On their end, labour organizations
continue to advocate for better rights and conditions for migrant workers. They support
workers in diverse (but often overlapping) ways, reflective of their own interests and
interpretations of the problem. They have corroborated a mounting pool of evidence of
worker mistreatment and exploitation but have seen less success challenging these
injustices. Accordingly, most labour advocates focus on addressing the immediate
problems migrant workers face—those involving docked pay, health claims, unjust
repatriation, and social isolation, for example—that work simultaneously toward the
longer term goals of structural reform29. Looking forward with an open mind, we must
consider new approaches to the migrant agricultural labour issue that build on those
established by labour advocates. The partnership of good food and good labour goals is
one that beckons some attention. It calls for collaboration between sectors and across
issues but also among actors of the same labour field. This will be a challenge for multisectoral coalition building.
End Notes
1
For a full list of LFP certification requirements, see http://www.localfoodplus.ca/certification/whats-the-process.
2
These include local/provincial and national regulations for: wages, minimum age, working hours, working conditions,
occupational health and safety, job security, unions, pensions, and other legal and health requirements. Farms with five
or fewer employees (including part-time, contract, and seasonal staff) are exempt from some of the training, safety, and
risk management procedures required of farms with six or more employees. Source: focus group conversation with
anonymous SFI representative, January 15, 2012.
3
Focus group conversation with anonymous SFI representative, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
4
Many farmers who do not certify cite the administrative burden of authenticating their lawful labour practices (a
series of paperwork, and in some cases, an initial farm inspection) as a major deterrent to certification. Others are
dubious of the benefits of certification and whether or not these will outweigh the initial inconvenience. Source: focus
group conversation with anonymous SFI representative Toronto, January 15, 2012.
67
5
There are no calculated statistics on the number of farmers employing migrant workers who have become LFP
certified. To date, LFP has certified just over 200 farmers and food processors across the country (though the majority
are in Ontario). Source: focus group conversation with anonymous SFI representative, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
6
This demand is taken directly from The People’s Food Policy Project publication, Resetting the Table: A People’s
Food Policy for Canada (2011, p.16), a documentation of the policy vision put forward by the project proponents. It is
incorporated into a section on “Agriculture, Infrastructure, and Livelihoods”, which focuses on farmer and producer
well-being and income in a more democratic food system.
7
To access the final policy document and the ten policy discussion papers, see http://peoplesfoodpolicy.ca
/policy/resetting-table-peoples-food-policy-canada#policy_papers. The ten policy topics addressed are: Indigenous
Food Sovereignty; Food Sovereignty in Rural and Remote Communities; Acces to Food in Urban Communities;
Agriculture, Infrastructure and Livelihoods; Sustainable Fisheries and Livelihoods for Fishers; Environment and
Agriculture; Science and Technology for Food and Agriculture; International Food Policy; Healthy and Safe Food for
All; and Food Democracy and Governance.
8
E.g. Canadian Organic Growers, Food Secure Canada, FoodShare, The Stop.
9
Though the UFCW and SAME also work with many other forms of domestic food labour, food retailers, etc.
10
See http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/justicia_new.htm.
11
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012.
12
Interview with Chris Ramsaroop, Toronto, March 22, 2012.
13
See http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/ontario/pilgrimage2/pilgrimage.html.
14
J4MW has particulary strong ties with No On is Illegal, for example, an immigrant-based group that advocates for
the rights of all migrants to live with dignity and respect.
15
UFCW Canada. (2011). About UFCW Canada, retrieved October 17, 2011, from
http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=2&lang=en.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
On April 29, 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the provincial ban on farm unions in Ontario is, in fact,
constitutional. It moved to reaffirm the provisions of the Agriculture Employees Protection Act (which bans
agricultural workers from collective bargaining), declaring that these were still appropriate for workers in the sector.
19
These are benefits accrued for all UFCW unionized members. In 2006 they were achieved for temporary workers as
well. Since then, the AWA has provided information about eligibility for parental leave claims (under the Employment
Insurance Program) and help submitting these claims for hundreds of workers in unionized sectors of food
employment. Unfortunately, this does not include Ontario agricultural workers. Source: UFCW Canada Guide to
Maternity, Paternity, & Parental Leaves from Work (2011).
20
Most recently, the UFCW Canada has established partnerships with the Mexican state and various Mexican
provincial governments to collaborate on practices that will ensure the respect of rights and fair treatment of Mexican
workers while in Canada.
21
UFCW Canada, 2011.
22
UFCW Canada. (2012). About AWA, retrieved May 4, 2012, from
http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content & view=article&id=2003&Itemid=245&lang=en.
23
Other centres have opened in Virgil, Simcoe, and Bradford, Ontario; Surrey, Kelowna, and Abbotsford, British
Columbia; Portage le Prairie, Manitoba; and Saint-Rémi and Saint-Eustache, Quebec.
68
24
UFCW Canada, 2012.
25
A total of 20 scholarships are awarded each year in the sum of $500 each. The scholarships are well-received and are
available to offspring of temporary foreign workers in other occupations as well (e.g. live-in caregivers). Since 2010,
the UFCW has collected over 9,000 applications for these scholarships. Source:
http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2058&Itemid=278&lang=en.
26
For over 100 years, Frontier College has operated a Labourer-Teacher program in Central and Southwestern Ontario
which has Canadians work alongside migrant workers on farms or in food processing plants while simultaneously
teaching them about workplace safeties, useful local resources, and the English language. For more information on the
program, see http://www.frontiercollege.ca/english/learn/programs_teachers.html.
27
SAME, 2011.
28
Interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012; Interview with Stan Raper, Toronto, March 7, 2012.
29
Though in the case of the UFCW Canada it could be argued that their main focus is on long-term, structural change
(achieving the right to unionize, for example) while they use their offshoot organizations, the AWA and the SAME, to
effect more immediate, on the ground action.
69
Barriers to addressing the migrant labour issue
When asked about agricultural labour in general, the SFIs and labour groups studied
replied in unison: the subject does not receive enough attention in our conversations
around good food. When it comes to migrant agricultural workers in particular, the
problem is confounded even more. Research participants all agreed this is a major piece
of our food system puzzle that is missing, a sore that needs urgent attention.
Why have migrant workers remained, by and large, out of sight and out of mind in the
food sector? What are the main reasons for which sustainable food initiatives have yet to
engage with this issue? When asked about these questions, the same research participants
put forward so many viable answers it was hard to narrow them down. The list they
generated is many and diverse but by no means exhaustive. A number of the barriers they
identified came up in numerous conversations and overlapped with one another. Others
were unique to one or two participants only. The barriers extend over a variety of root
causes—among them social, political, economic, cultural, and ethical dilemmas—that
have prevented migrant agricultural labour from surfacing as a front and centre issue in
our local good food movement. Many, and in fact most, of the barriers extend beyond
Southern Ontario in the scope of their reach and reflect the larger structural systems of
corporate agriculture and global trade that affect the production and distribution of our
food.
Though difficult to label in distinct categories, the barriers expressed can be best
classified under the following titles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The global neoliberal economic system
Canadian state policies and complicity with corporate agribusiness
Tensions within in the local sustainable food movement
Tensions within the labour movement
Each category is examined in detail below.
70
1. The global neoliberal economic system
The paradox of cheap labour and cheap food
Several research participants spoke to the embededness of cheap global labour in our
neoliberal system of politics. The fact that we, in the Global North, have become
accustomed to the use of third world labour (from the Global South) and the low-cost
products it provides is seen as a major deterrent to acknowledging the unsavoury details
of migrant labour. It brings up the question ‘why pay more when you can pay less?’ The
same conflict is broached when consumers purchase goods from industries wrought with
sweatshop and factory labour: electronics, textiles, and garments, for example. Whether
informed of their labour practices or not, consumers buy into these industries with no
restraint. When it comes down to it, the selling price is what matters most. Full-cost
accounting, taking into consideration the repercussions of production on the environment,
resources, workers, and human health, has not yet defeated our narrow economics as the
dominant way of thinking.
Cost is a major factor. People won’t question the cheapest cost, regardless of
what it means (Stan Raper, UFCW Canada)1.
Several research participants described Canada’s temporary migrant labour programs as a
means of “offloading” our domestic food responsibilities and getting other people to do
the dirty work Canadians would rather avoid.
We, as a society, have opted for the easy way out. We bring the temporary
workers, we get the food we need, and we look to other side (Jorge GarciaOrgales, UFCW/United Steelworkers)2.
In this industry, we need people who will work for next to nothing. So we get
people from the third world who will accept our nothing and work legally with lax
government regulations here (Eric Rosenkrantz, Rosenkrantz Sustainable
Agriculture)3.
For some our food system’s dependence on highly disciplined third world workers is
such that we cannot undo it. Or rather, we do not want to undo it for fear of the
repercussions this will pose to the price of food. In the big picture, a higher cost of
71
agricultural labour would translate directly to higher costs of food: a possibility few seem
to earnestly consider4.
It’s a neoliberal government that considers labour not as a collection of human
beings but as a cost of production. And as a cost of production, labour, like
anything else needs to be controlled and reduced. Since we don’t look at this as
human beings trying to make better lives for themselves and their families and
communities, but as a cost of production, then we take all the measures we can to
reduce this cost (Jorge Garcia-Orgales, UFCW/United Steelworkers).
Between a rock and a hard place: the undesirable position of small farmers
In terms of paying the true costs of good food and good labour, research participants
noted that most consumers aren’t quite there yet. We have grown accustomed to low-cost
foods readily available in abundant supply. With or without knowing it, we have grown
accustomed to the underlying racism and exploitation that enables this supply too. In
spite of this, many consumers still struggle to afford adequate healthy food. On the other
end of the spectrum, large agribusiness corporations controlling food production are not
willing to budge on the price point either. The burden of budgeting falls on farmers and
its effects are crushing. Many interview conversations turned to the monopolistic control
of agrifood businesses and to the difficult position they’ve left farmers and farmworkers
in (each with different consequences, given their different starting points and
privileges/oppressions).
In terms of pointing fingers, you can’t put it to the farmer. You have to put it on
the marketing system and corporations. Right now, farmers have to take really
low prices for their foods to stay in business (Eric Rosenkrantz, Rosenkrantz
Sustainable Agriculture).
The problem is not that farmers are exploitative or mean by nature but that
they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They’re up against mass amounts
of cheap, subsidized food that’s coming in and undermining their prices. This is a
huge issue tied to monopolies and power of buyers and supplies and the control
they have over costs and prices at all levels, throughout every part of the food
system (Wayne Roberts, formerly TFPC)5.
Large corporations like Walmart have convinced people that we need to—and
72
that we can—roll back the costs of all things, including labour, to bring
consumers the lowest cost. The effects of this on labour…well those are
paralyzing (Stan Raper, UFCW Canada).
The oppressive downward forces of corporate agribusiness and monopoly buyers have
left many farmers in a position where they are merely trying to stay afloat. Corporate
interests have overriden those of the state such that government policies act to support
export-oriented businesses over small farms. Without being able to raise the price of their
products (for fear of competition) or take a larger share of their revenues (commandeered
by corporate retailers and distributors), farmers minimize the only cost they can: labour.
And with the ready supply of willing workers in labour sending countries6, securing
cheap labour has rarely been a challenge.
In our global market place, there is always going to be someone who is going to
work for two dollars a day in another part of the world that Cargill can buy from
and sell to Aramark here in Canada. And that’s going to undercut anything we
can do, any way that we can do it (Anonymous SFI representative)7.
The global economic realities that characterize our food system—those of corporate
agribusiness control, neoliberal politics, cheap, imported labour, and the desire to
maintain the lowest price at all costs—convolute the role of labour and obscure it in this
realm. So long as agricultural workers remain on the bottom of the rung in terms of
power (a trend reinforced by North-South inequities and racism), it is unlikely that their
troubles will be given any real attention. Uncovering and accepting ‘the true cost of
food’—one that would incorporate decent wages and employment protections—was
suggested, on several occasions, as a necessary first step toward overcoming this barrier.
But as one participant aptly put it,
There is not enough money in agriculture to avoid this problem [of exploitable
labour]. Larger structural problems and corporate agribusinesses definitely
overshadow this one right now (Wally Seccombe, Everdale)8.
Small farmers’ struggles to survive
The fact that farmers are holding less and less control over the price of their food and the
revenue they bring in means that they are facing a tremendous amount of pressure
73
managing their own costs. For many struggling farms, “even paying migrant farm wages
is stretching it for farmers to remain economically viable” (Lauren Baker, TFPC) 9. This
is particularly the case for small non-conventional farm businesses10. Temporary labour
programs like the SAWP and TFWP provide easy, industry-vetted solutions for farmers,
and peace of mind when it comes to meeting their labour demands. They ensure the type
of skill and efficiency farms require to operate a productive business. Even so, farmers
themselves are strapped for income more often than not. Employing migrant workers can
be a final petition for a profitable farm season for some, though it offers no guarantee.
One organic farmer summarized the point many other participants alluded to, saying,
Another part of the reason that people aren’t talking about [migrant farm
labour] is that farm income itself is overall not very high. So until, you know, you
can at least make a decent living, how the heck are you going to have a
conversation about paying labourers more? (Jenn Pfenning, Pfenning’s Organic
Farm)11.
Another touched on the business side of farming:
When it comes down to it, farmers are business people too. There’s no retail
advantage to them for employing proper labour standards or something like the
LFP certification for labour. Really, it’s difficult to enforce change here unless
doing so will bring about some additional revenue stream for farmers. And we
can’t assure them that (Anonymous SFI representative).
Many farmers are so bogged down with their own long hours and low income that they
cannot imagine revising this for the workers they employ. For them, these elements are
the reality of agriculture. Rather than engaging with these issues with the workers they
employ, however, as one group joined by their desire to improve labour conditions and
pay, farmers and farmworkers are often pitted against one another. The acute amount of
farm poverty and debt acts as a decisive barrier to addressing migrant farmworker
conditions, particularly on small-scale farms. One farmer spoke of the costs of bringing
on temporary foreign work as financially debilitating to his business:
It’s not fun, it’s not cheap, you know, bringing in and supplying housing for five
guys... It’s going to cost me too much money right now to bring in offshore help
(Milan Bizjak, Bizjak Farms)12.
Some farmers are so far in debt that employing even the minimum number of workers
needed to sustain their fields puts them well over their heads. The start-up costs of
74
developing the infrastructure (like housing) needed to employ migrant workers is too
great for them to consider. This is despite the cost-effective advantages the labour would
lead to, once established.
It can prove difficult to start a conversation on the topic of migrant farm labour, given
these circumstances. Many farmers are not proud of the temporary worker system they
employ and would love to make changes to its practices. They use labour programs out of
necessity. “They can’t afford anything else. They are ashamed of it but not afraid to say
it’s not their fault, the market forces it” (Eric Rosenkrantz, Rosenkrantz Sustainable
Agriculture). In other instances, farmers avoid broaching the subject for fear of being
misquoted, generalized, or inaccurately portrayed. Too often they have been depicted as
the main villain here: slave drivers with no ability for human compassion. In terms of
media publications, this is frequently the case. As a result, the farmer’s side of the story
often goes unheard.
I’ve read a number of articles about farm labour in this light and I’m going
through thinking like, okay nowhere in here did they even talk to a farmer
(Jenn Pfenning, Pfenning’s Organic Farm).
When all farmers employing migrant workers are generalized under the auspices of the
“bad ones” it gives a bad name to everyone, even those offering the most accommodating
conditions for the workers they employ. According to one farmer, media pieces that
sensationalize migrant labour like this do more of a disservice to the conversation than
anything else. After being lumped in with the horror stories of another farm, no farmer
wants to speak up to his or her own practices. The fear of being similarly smeared
outweighs the desire to set their story straight. When the employment of migrant workers
is presented as a secret or something that farmers should feel guilty about, their
willingness to talk about it decreases even more.
It’s not a secret! And taking that approach, I think [with media and academic
publications], is the barrier. So most farmers don’t want to talk to anybody about
it because they don’t want to be judged, or vilified, or misquoted. And we have
been misquoted, a lot. So it makes people really not want to talk about anything,
much less a subject as emotionally fraught as migrant workers (Jenn Pfenning,
Pfenning’s Organic Farm).
75
The fear of scrutiny and misrepresentation, whether warranted or not, keeps many
farmers who employ migrant workers from engaging in this conversation. It causes
similar aversions to academic research and advocacy work related to labour conditions.
These same reservations can deter farmers from accepting labour standards like the Local
Food Plus certification and the inspections that ensue. The aversion to scrutiny and
misrepresentation, along with a notable lack of time and finances of their own, comprise
the main barriers for farmers in addressing the issues of migrant agricultural labour. They
highlight the important need to acknowledge the differences between farmers who are
indeed abusing the workers they employ and those who are trying to challenge some of
the inequities built into this relationship.
2. Canadian state policies and complicity with corporate agribusiness
I underestimated the industry and the incredible lack of political will to support
this kind of work, to make change. And also the painfully slow political process
involved in it all (Stan Raper, UFCW Canada).
The general complacency of government towards the subject of agricultural labour arose
in every research participant conversation. Interviewees expressed uncertainty over what
the current role of both the provincial and federal government is in this domain. Many
contemplated parallel questions about our government’s complicity in maintaining a
system of migrant employment that benefits agribusiness and reinforces global inequities.
Could a more progressive federal government sever its ties with corporate agribusiness to
reflect on the human rights violations sanctioned in our labour programs? Could it be
mobilized to draw attention to the unethical labour conditions workers face? Is our
current government likely to bring about any kind of positive change for migrant
agricultural workers? On all fronts, the answer was a resounding ‘no’ 13. In fact, many
participants believed that the Canadian and Ontario governments have done nothing but
intensify the issues facing migrant workers with the addition of new open immigration
policies, increased pathways for labour migration (e.g. The Pilot Project for Occupations
Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training (NOC C and D) 14), and renewed interest in
the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between North American states.
Perhaps the most ardent example of federal government complicity is the recent omnibus
76
budget bill passed under the Harper government. The amendments to Bill C-38 allow
employers to bring foreign workers to Canada almost instantaneously (with only 10 days
notice) and pay them 15% less than the minimum wage given to domestic workers for the
same work. Both amendments promote the employment of temporary foreign workers in
no uncertain terms. They play a key role in the Conservative Jobs, Growth and Long term
Prosperity Act. Bill C-38 and the Act received Royal Assent on June 29, 201215.
At the provincial level, unchecked housing, health, and employment standards for
migrant workers contribute further to their precarious position. Through measures like
these, our government bodies have cut corners to minimize the costs associated with
imported labour. They have institutionalized the industry’s dependence on temporary
labour and the differential treatment of persons who fill this demand. They show no sign
of changing courses any time in the near future.
Political will is not there. Government doesn’t want to bother the industry, they
want to allow it to keep expanding and generating profit for them. They can’t
build greenhouses fast enough in this province16 (Stan Raper, UFCW).
Government departments like HRSDC have taken a similar laissez-faire approach to the
regulations stipulated under the SAWP, TFWP, and Pilot Project. The standards, on
paper, work to appease foreign workers, their home governments, and the periphery of
concerned consumers. They provide a facade of protection that has, by and large, kept
public scrutiny at bay. Several research participants touted the fact that regulations are in
place but not updated or upheld as a barrier to engaging in the migrant labour
conversation. So long as the public is under the impression that the labour and migration
processes are being adequately governed by the state, these do not surface as issues for
concern.
Most farmers, we assume, are doing what the law requires them to do. Most of
them are bringing in temporary workers under the guest worker programs and
they are paying them whatever they’re supposed to. People just don’t know that
the law is shitty and the requirements it poses are mostly useless (Jorge GarciaOrgales, UFCW/United Steelworkers).
77
The lack of statistics and transparency around labour programs convolutes them even
more. Government accounts of migrant employment are supplied by farmers, not
workers. They cannot always be trusted.
Many participants felt that government agencies that should be engaged in agricultural
labour like the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and
the Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (GTA AAC) don’t even
acknowledge that there is a problem with the current conditions of migrant employment.
Until the public makes this clear, one suggested, the issue will stay below government
radar.
People in power aren’t even really aware of all this. The government operates in
silos too so they don’t have a holistic understanding of what’s going on here. The
GTA AAC still doesn’t believe the city cares about good food. They’re not taking
action around certain food issues because they don’t know people want it
(Eric Rosenkrantz, Rosenkrantz Sustainable Agriculture).
Another research participant went further to suggest that the lack of established
partnerships with government serve as a distinct barrier to accomplishing meaninful
change in our food system. Referring to sustainable food initiatives, in general, he said,
We’ve been trying to design programs and effect change without government as
a partner. But without someone to do the heavy lifting and bring tax money to
bear, you just can’t make this puppy work (Wayne Roberts, formerly of TFPC).
He later went on to examine programs with institutional backing which have been able to
achieve considerable achievements (e.g. those administered by FoodShare with the
Toronto District School Board). Having government on board, he suggests, is a must 17.
The research conversations made clear that there is a disconnect between social
movement priorities and those of the state when it comes to food and farming. The value
of incorporating politics in the discussion—specifically, lobbying the state or pushing for
particular legislative changes—however, was not regarded equally by all. Participants
with experience organizing alongside migrant workers shared insight on the
complications of involving politics and the law in their struggles for advocacy. One
representative of Justicia for Migrant Workers spoke to the contentious relationships they
had come into with lawyers and politicians:
78
We’ve been told if we bring in more politics into the case, it will worsen the
outcome for workers. The law will always promote the status quo, the economic
and political interests of the country. And it is very long and very costly to get
involved in lawsuits… The law has betrayed workers. It has created some of the
conditions for workers to be as exploited as they are (Evelyn Encalada Grez,
J4MW)18.
The general apathy of government toward agricultural labour, the uncertain role of the
state concerning change in this realm, and the lack of clarity over how best to work with
government (or even how to challenge them and around what) have served as major
structural barriers for SFIs addressing migrant labour. Unsubstantiated standards and
labour program regulations have mollified the need for reform on paper, though not in
practice.
3. Tensions in the local sustainable food movement
The elephant in the room: the difficult, sticky, divisive subject of migrant labour
Participants used a variety of terms to explain why SFIs and consumers were not yet
engaged with the issues of migrant labour.
I can tell you first off why people aren’t talking about it. Because it’s emotional.
That’s one reason (Jenn Pfenning, Pfenning’s Organic Farm).
It’s messy. I can’t see a lot of people wanting to get involved in it. It’s an easy
topic for people to sweep under the carpet because they don’t see it
(Damian Adjodha, local SFI)19.
This is not an issue people want to engage in. People are not interested in it. They
may acknowledge labour as a good feature in the larger social justice context, but
that’s about all (Anonymous SFI representative).
It’s an uncomfortable issue and one that’s often taken for granted. Consumers
who are pushing for other production requirements and standards like local,
organic, biointensive, they’re not even aware of this one (Wally Secombe,
Everdale).
It’s just one of those issues that will cause fractures and so, because we’re still
trying to bring people together, we haven’t tried to tackle labour yet
(Carolyn Young, Sustain Ontario)20.
79
It does divide people up. The attitude of the food industry is keep them [labour
organizers] out at all costs. No one even wants to broach the subject because
they’re scared of what the industry will do (Stan Raper, UFCW Canada).
In addition to these explanations, participants used terms like ‘sticky’, ‘unappealing’,
‘disheartening’, ‘too complex’, and ‘politcal’ to portray the difficulties of including this
missing piece of the good food movement conversation. They made it clear that labour is
not a popular topic among food activists, nor is it one that is easily broached. This is
especially the case around temporary and migrant labour. In many cases, this discomfort
was linked back to struggles dealing with differences of race and class.
Too many sustainable/social justice issues
The idea of engaging with another issue of ‘sustainability’ (i.e. the notion of sustainable
labour) while still trying to tackle others is overwhelming to some food groups. One
research participant summarized her dilemma saying,
It’s almost like we’re working at the base level stuff right now and that [labour] is
almost at the next level of what we have to work on. And the base level is even just
to get people to be looking at Ontario agriculture as a priority. So first we need to
establish that this is a priority, that we want to have agriculture in our province
and our own food. And then secondly, we can look at the practices behind it
(Carolyn Young, Sustain Ontario).
Many groups have trouble dedicating efforts to this social justice issue while others
remain unsolved. Securing adequate nutrition, distribution, and health for local
populations, for example, are concerns typically perceived to be more immediate than
those surrounding food workers. As noted in previous sections, social justice in our food
movement tends to be consumer-focused.
When we think of equity in the food system, we tend to think about the distribution
side—the eaters. And that’s not even figured out yet. So moving on to the
production side, to growers and workers, is hard to fathom still (Carolyn Young,
Sustain Ontario).
A similar opinion was expressed at FoodShare where one of the main priorities is
securing good, affordable food for the diverse population that they serve (often
prioritizing low-income and racialized communities). While this has proven already to be
80
a challenge on a budget, it would be nearly impossible if the organization were to commit
to improving farmworker wages and standards. Ultimately, supporting labour rights
might sacrifice the organization’s ability to secure good food at the cost they need. With
regards to their procurement practices, a FoodShare representative explained,
The reason we don't address labour is that it puts us right smack into the fight
around price point and low income food price. And if we did, it would just shake
thing up even worse… it might just completely paralyse us. This is why we
[FoodShare] can't actually imagine going full LFP for most of the food we buy
(Debbie Field, FoodShare)21.
The trade-off of price for production standards is hard one to balance. By its very nature,
the subject creates divisions of priorities, values, and interests, placing the wellbeing of
some groups over others. It raises uncomfortable questions of race and class—are the
needs of middle class Canadian citizens more important than those of the racialized
workers who sustain us?—that many choose to ignore rather than engage with.
For some, the omission of agricultural labour in their work is seen not as a product of
over-commitment, or conflicting priorities, but instead as one of insularity. One SFI
representative spoke at length of need to move away from single issue organizing to
adopt broader, more holistic approaches to food system work. Approaches that
acknowledge the interconnectedness of all actors and aspects of this system, rather than
divide them. Currently, he suggests that many are failing to do this.
People are only concerned with their fragment of the food system, what they
relate to, their issue. They’re operating and thinking in silos. We need to
acknowledge that it’s all related and that labour and human beings are at the
very core of this (Eric Rosenkrantz, Rosenkrantz Sustainable Agriculture).
Rather than leave this matter to labour experts only (encouraging the incidence of singleissue groups), he suggests, it should be incorporated into the framework of all food
system work. This would tease out deeper connections from SFIs. It would embed
consideration for workers into the decision-making process of the entire food movement.
81
Unique knowledge set and a lack of expertise
The fact that there are labour advocates championing the causes of migrant labour rights
seems to act as another deterrent to SFIs. It assures them that someone else is devoting
attention to this issue. The effect is two-fold: food groups are encouraged to pass the buck
in terms of responsibility for addressing this issue; they are also convinced that, as nonlabour based groups, they lack the knowledge needed to contribute to a conversation
where experts do exist. Several SFI participants commented on feeling unequipped to
add, constructively, to this conversation. For example,
Honestly, it’s mostly that we haven’t gotten into that area yet because it’s a
special knowledge set. We’re stuck wanting to have an informed opinion on each
issue but we have all these other priorities (Carolyn Young, Sustain Ontario).
A better understanding of the issues, of the labour programs used, of the
conditions and the facts is needed. People just don’t know that much about
migrant workers (Lauren Baker, TFPC).
The point was made clear. SFIs need to build a deeper understanding of the problems that
surround migrant agricultural workers. This includes understanding the scope of the
structural and conjunctural factors that affect these problems, and how these will
influence their strategies for change.
A clear understanding and context of the migrant labour issue is essential to gain public
support too. For consumers, some SFIs argue that they are creating a feeling of
disillusionment with so many definitions of ‘local’, ‘sustainable’, and ‘good’ food being
co-opted. By introducing evermore caveats to consider, consumers become bogged down
with the food decisions they have to make. The criteria they support may be enriching,
but they can also bring up confusion around ethical and financial tensions.
There are so many definitions of ‘local’ going around right now that people don’t
know what to trust. So long as the food is physically produced here and made
available to consumers here, consumers tend not to care who produced it or how
they traveled (Anonymous SFI representative).
82
Whether we’d like to admit it or not, food is an easy place to surrender one’s expressed
values and opt for the cheaper option. Even the most committed sustainable food
consumers can stray from their commitment to ‘good food’ practices at times. So how do
we expect the average population to support changes in production practices—say to
increase the pay or tax breaks to migrant workers—that will lead to higher food costs?
Not everyone can afford to sustain this kind of reform. Consumers, like SFIs, are unlikely
to get behind the issues of migrant workers if they are not thoroughly informed about
them. Even then, many will not support this cause. Education and awareness building—
about both the deeper structural issues and the options for engaging with them—will be
key goals going forward.
Organizational responsibilities
Finally, there come the immediate and unsophisticated reasons for which SFIs have not
yet tackled the issues of migrant farmworkers. They just don’t have the resources. Many
food organizations report being strapped for funding, staff hours, research materials, and
time. They are stretched thinly among their existing obligations and have a hard time
taking on more. In discussing the contradictions of migrant labour in a sustainable food
movement, many participants came to the realization that their own food system work is
fundamentally unsustainable. Long hours, low pay (or no pay for countless interns and
volunteers in the field), and a fair amount of job/organizational insecurity are traits
characterstic of many Ontario SFIs. The issue of ‘labour’ is thus also one that they have
to wrestle with internally.
Many organizations operate on the funding of grants, donation partners, and community
contributions. Others fundraise or collect members’ fees to support their programs. What
this means for most is that they are not necessarily in full control of how their funding is
used. Funds received may dictate an organization’s priorities and where they dedicate
their resources, based on the interest of the donation partner. One SFI representative
compared her experience seeking funding to a sales pitch, trying to secure funding (from
government, food businesses, community donors) by marketing the projects and
programs of her organization that she thought seemed the most ‘fundable’22. Projects that
83
draw on substantial public interest, those that champion education, community
development, accessibility, and inclusion were all cited as initiatives that would be
attractive to a broad base of funders. Labour rights for non-Canadians, on the other hand,
can be a hard sell. It can be off-putting for funding partners who may not want to be
associated with the social justice debate. For agribusiness actors, it’s just plain taboo. One
organization working with members from all parts of the industry suggested,
I think the people who are within our network are concerned about equality. For
farmworkers especially. But the main thing is that we don’t want to alienate
ourselves from the big ag organizations either unless there’s just cause to. And so
we’re always playing this fine line between advocating for sustainable agriculture
and supporting the larger farms (Carolyn Young, Sustain Ontario).
Defending the interests of migrant agricultural workers can shut the door for potential
collaboration, funding, or support from many actors within and outside the food system.
The challenge of building a unified vision of what we’re working for and what we’re up
against
One of the most glaring obstacles preventing SFIs from addressing the issue of migrant
agricultural labour is the lack of consensus on exactly what the issue is. Farmers,
workers, food activists, and labour organizers are not all on the same page about the main
problem is here. Is it one of equity, safety, legality, or race? A combination of them all?
Or something different altogether? Some focus on the lack of citizenship for workers as
the most important problem facing migrant labour. Others on wage, living conditions,
union rights, health coverage, cyclical migration, social exclusion, or racial
discrimination. Many believe it is the combination of all these facets and more. Not
surprisingly, allies are equally disjointed when it comes to putting forth a solution. Do we
push for short-term advancements like the right to overtime pay, or toil after long-term
improvements like pathways to citizenship for recurring workers? What is clear is that
the current way of doing things—the outdated labour programs, employment regulations,
and frequent violations of human and social rights—is not working.
84
The lack of clarity among actors is not unusual. In fact, it is endemic of most social
movements. Individuals and groups are brought together around a common problem but
each with ties to a different set of issues within it. Every ally speaks from their own
historical position within the interests and affiliations of their group. It is inevitable,
therefore, that their views differ from one another. In a situation like this, it is important
that all views be considered in the analysis of the problem (though not all taken at the
same face value given the different interests and oppressions they bring with them).
Likewise, the array of positions must be integrated in the development of multi-faceted
solutions. Coalitional politics like these will create a broader understanding both of
what’s being opposed and what’s being proposed.
Contemplating the challenge of having multiple visions, some research participants began
to reflect on the larger questions that call for some consensus. For example,
Farmers make little money here. We know that. The whole questions though is
what do we want to do as a society? Do we want to support these farmers and
have food produced here or not? Do we give up having our own production and
just have imports? As a country, I hope that we say no to exporting our
production but we could. It could be cheaper… At no point has society had the
opportunity to decide whether we want to export our production and not grow our
own food. These are issues that the neoliberal government puts aside and talks
about as a given23 (Jorge Garcia-Orgales, UFCW/United Steelworkers).
Others reflected on the merits of a union for agricultural workers, or the offer of
permanent Canadian citizenship for workers who return year after year. Several mulled
over the same problems and propostions but few with a clear idea of how best to proceed
going forward.
A number of SFIs conferred that what they need is a leader: someone to convene the
conversation on labour, to share ideas and strategies, to do the leg work establishing a
road map for going forward. They need someone to lay the groundwork for change and
facilitate the process. This, they arugued, would stimulate action from their body of likeminded organizations. On the other end of the spectrum, some labour groups scoffed at
the idea of a single leader. The idea that such a thing is possible (and in fact beneficial)
85
has caused a considerable amount of tension between those behind organized labour (who
might see themselves as the said leader) and grassroots labour activists (who don’t
necessarily agree). A single leader, they suggest, will commandeer the conversation,
rather than assist it. J4MW advocates that the movement have no leader but instead that it
be worker-driven. How better to generate solutions that will positively affect workers?
Though the merits of a single leader remain contested, what became clear among
participants was the need for a set of goals or short-term actions that could be agreed
upon throughout their coalition.
The emphasis placed on a road map, ‘needing an idea of where we’re going in order to
get there’, was extended beyond the conversation of migrant workers to the reform of our
food system, in general.
In the realm of food and production practices, it’s clear that people—left-leaning
people especially—are united in their desire for change but unclear what form
they want that change to take… or how to achieve it. This is a major crisis
impeding progress (Debbie Field, FoodShare).
More and more social movements are straying from the direction of forefront leaders
toward decentralized processes of grassroots organizing, temporary coalition-building,
and emergent partnerships. In terms of agricultural labour, those partnerships have just
begun taking shape. SFI and labour groups cross paths in an increasing number of arenas,
be it conferences, workshops, rallies, advocacy events, or at a board room table. Policydriven SFIs like the TFPC and Sustain Ontario have collaborated directly with labour
groups for conversation and political advice. Their next challenge is to create a collective
definition of the problems of migrant labour, one that will acknowledge the positions of
all allies. Naming the issues in collective terms will foster a deeper understanding of
them by all parties. This definition must be established with sizeable input from workers
themselves. As one participant put it,
We need a solution that will best help workers. Really, we must ask them for
their opinion. There’s no point struggling after what we think, but don’t know, is
right (Lauren Baker, TFPC).
86
This is the position endorsed by J4MW as well. But collecting the opinions of workers is
no easy feat. Doing so with the hopes of assembling a unanimous agreement on their
main qualms of employment is more difficult still. Not all workers have negative
experiences within the labour migration programs. Many don’t. They might very well be
divided on their desire for change. SFIs and labour groups must recognize this
contradiction and the need for innovative actions at different levels that it calls for. These
two groups and the diverse actors they contain may not agree on a collective vision for
the future of migrant agricultural labour. But they should attempt to come together
around common goals—fighting on various related fronts--to best understand the issue
and give power to their allies.
4. Tensions within the labour movement
Conflicting stories and opposing values (of consumers, organizers, farmers, and
farmworkers)
As mentioned above, one of the reasons it has been so difficult to engage migrant worker
allies in change, is because of the conflicting array of interests and opinions held amongst
them. Workers, employers, organizers, activists, consumers, and governments each hold
different interests and investments in migrant labour. While some interest groups,
activists, and nationalists might argue for outright elimination of Canada’s temporary
labour programs, the Canadian government and labour sending countries continue to push
for the exact opposite. They seek to maximize the flow of labour and capital between
countries, to maintain each of their economies (hence the 300,111 temporary migrant
workers brought into Canada this past year24). Consumers are torn between a number of
values and commitments that influence their food and are often unsure which to support.
SFIs, for their part, have no formal position regarding the employment of migrant
agricultural workers. Most agree that they are not opposed to it and recognize the
important role of migrant workers in the Canadian food and economic systems. The
current conditions of this exchange, however, are not something the group condones.
We shouldn’t do away with employment of migrant workers. It is necessary and
can work well for all parties, but we need to make some fundamental changes in
87
the treatment of workers, the standards that apply to them, etc. (Carolyn Young,
Sustain Ontario).
The call for structural changes in our temporary worker programs was a common theme,
though few identified exactly what these changes should be. On the other end of the
spectrum, one labour-oriented participant suggested that making fundamental changes—
increased wage earnings and more regulated work hours, for example—would eliminate
the need for non-domestic labour altogether. He was not the only one to consider this
proposition.
With so much unemployment here in Canada, do we need temporary foreign
workers? If they got paid reasonable wages and got treated reasonably well,
Canadians would do this! The only thing is that they are shitty jobs that no one
wants. Make it a decent job and Canadians would do it (Jorge Garcia-Orgales,
UFCW/United Steelworkers).
In response to this suggestion, research participants put forward a number of loopholes:
reasons for which Canadians have not, and likely will continue not to take on agricultural
jobs. The first is the fact that most agricultural labour is skilled. There is a tremendous
amount of dexterity and attention to detail required of jobs like harvesting, pruning, and
livestock maintenance. There are also taxing physical demands. These are not requisites
easily offloaded onto the Canadian unemployed. One Niagara region farmer spoke to the
difficulty of finding local workers who are ‘keen’ and committed:
People think they want to do it, they come down two, three days… then I get a
phone call: ‘I’m sick’. I get another phone call: ‘you know, this isn’t for me’ and
you have to understand (Milan Bizjak, Bizjak Farm).
The second loophole is that unconventional work and pay conditions are customary of
agricultural labour. Long and irregular hours, seasonal employment, dangerous physical
work in the outdoors, and minimum wage pay are the standard for non-industrial
Canadian farms. This is the case for farm owners and labourers, Canadian citizens or not.
While activists advocate for the rights of workers to reject these uncouth conditions,
labour-sending governments hail the very same ones. They market their workers as
strong, with good backs and arms, willing to endure long workdays without making
88
complaints25. The messages sent are mixed to say the least. They justify to the Canadian
government the commodified trade of human labour and the circumstances they preserve.
Why acknowledge fault in the labour system when there are so many countries readily
sending, and indeed fighting over, workers to fill our fields? This again goes back to the
historical assymmetries between nations and economies. In major sending countries like
Mexico, remittances from exported labour are a primary source of foreign exchange.
The final source of conflicting values and positions between ally groups, as mentioned, is
the fact that each workers’ experience is unique and not all of them call for action.
The fact that poor treatment, violations, abuses, complaints, etc. are not
experienced by all workers—and that they occur in various degrees and
severities—actually makes them harder to organize around (Stan Raper, UFCW).
Migrant workers and employers hold markedly different positions on labour reflective of
their own personal experiences. Many research participants spoke of farmers they knew
who maintained wonderful relationships with migrant workers they employed and
showed keen investment in their health, happiness, and families back home. They
recognized that changes should be made to labour programs like the SAWP to better
protect the people that they employ. It must be said, however, that farmers allied with the
SFIs studied likely represent the cream of the crop: those who are perhaps
disproportionately committed to their business’ and employees’ sustainability.
Even among common groups it is clear the stories vary. There are differences and
tensions within any of these broad categories (workers, employers, consumers,
organizers) that give way to varied positions. Migrant agricultural labour may be good or
bad, economically requisite or ethically incorrect, operationally functional or intricately
flawed. It depends whom you talk to. Each of these positions must be brought together
and unpacked for effective alliance building and action.
Difficulty harnessing migrant workers’ power and their voices
More immediate than any other barrier is the physical distance that separates migrant
workers from their allies. Every research participant spoke of the geographic separation
89
and rural-urban divide that keeps agricultural workers from the public eye. Not only does
this conceal the problem of temporary migrant labour, it makes it intrinsically difficult to
connect with workers, as well as their employers. Many SFI representatives spoke of the
difficulty finding opportunities to actually speak with migrant farmworkers. In addition to
the distance, there are a number of other factors participants highlight which convolute
the experience of collaborating with workers. These include their demanding work
schedules, language barriers, constant migration in and out of the country and sometimes
between provinces, frequent misinformation on their rights, and position housed on-farm,
to name a few. One labour activist touched on some of these burdens directly, saying of
her experience visiting and organizing with workers:
Most often, this is the last thing workers want to do on their one Sunday
afternoon off is to speak with us about their problems. They may want to
disassociate themselves from all this, to forget about it for a day. Or just relax.
They are dealing with a lot of frustrations (Evelyn Encalada Grez, J4MW).
Workers’ ties to their employers—both physical in terms of their accommodations and
time spent labouring on the farm, and contractual—discourage them from acting ‘out of
line’ in any way that would disrupt the status quo. The threat of repatriation looms large
for migrant workers who are seen as disposable. Several research participants referred to
the “fear instilled in workers” who are seen as rebelling against their labour program.
Rebellion could include anything from joining a union, organizing a group of likeminded workers, participating in various degrees of activism, speaking out against
employers, conversing with academics/organizers or media, demanding the health and
safety entitlements they are owed, or standing by a fellow employee in a time of need.
Each act could have a worker blacklisted from the program that sustains their livelihood.
Worker vulnerability is a deep-seated barrier to engaging in reform. How can anyone
effect the changes needed by workers to rectify their treatment if we cannot have a
conversation with them that is open and free? How can they converse with one another to
exercise their collective strength while doing so jeopardizes their future and that of their
families? One union representative said aptly,
There is no problem getting workers on board and uniting them in their efforts.
Most of them want to be there. The problem is protecting them. How do we
90
actually use their collective strength and sustain it to make change? Once you’ve
secured the answer to this, you can do anything. There’ll be no stopping them
(Stan Raper, UFCW Canada).
Like every other actor in this story, workers have values that are at odds with one
another. They want to see reform in the structures that shape their employment in
Canada. But whether or not these happen, they continue to depend on Canada’s labour
opportunities for their livelihoods.
It’s a difficult body of people to organize. Especially because they’re coming
here often, coming back year after year. They’re coming from a place of thinking
‘I’m going to make so much more money for my family in this place’, so, in a way,
they’re willing to put up with a lot more without fighting it (Carolyn Young,
Sustain Ontario).
Migrant workers’ dependence on Canadian labour migration programs diminishes their
clout in the face of state pressure. Taking a resolute stand against employers would be
difficult when workers have no employment security or mobility to rely on. So long as
they remain vulnerable in this way, migrant workers will continue to experience
comprised levels of workplace leverage and power. The precarious status of migrant
agricultural workers is one more barrier limiting them and their allies from addressing the
fundamental issues that they face.
The implications of race, rights, and uncomfortable information: the bedrock of labour
migration
Over the course of our interview conversations, research participants used the terms
“difficult”, “dirty”, “uncomfortable”, “emotional”, and “socially complex ” to describe
the issues of migrant farmworkers. Though few came out to say it, many implied that this
is because it is a subject that engrosses a denial of rights and the subordination of one
class of peoples by another. As consumers, we are all complicit in this subordination—
SFIs, labour advocates, and myself included. In purchasing foods produced with migrant
labour we benefit from the economic advantages of imported global labour whether we
like it or not. As Canadian citizens, we are not keen to acknowledge the differential
treatment that occurs among people in our nation. Even less so when differentiation is
associated with race or class and is embedded in our very own actions. This challenges
91
our perception of Canada as a benevolent multicultural nation and of ourselves as antiracist conscientious individuals. With agriculture, it challenges the common perception of
our local family farms too.
We have to ask ourselves why people don’t know about migrant labour in
Canada. Is it because of ignorance or the fact that it’s hidden from us? Or both?
The growers’ associations are a central player in this. They’re very involved in
masking the migrant workforce and promoting wholesome, local Ontario food,
perpetuating the image of the white family farm (Chris Ramsaroop, J4MW) 26.
The racial component of our food system is so deeply embedded in its history and so
imperative to its continued progress that it often gets taken for granted. Recognizing the
racial inequalities present in migrant agricultural labour (and, in fact, in all parts of our
global food system) calls for a fundamental shift in consciousness. As one participant
suggests, it can be easier to ignore the problem than to successfully institute this shift:
Race plays a big role here. The fact that we have a very racialized workforce,
that we’ve constructed our workforce around this, is a huge barrier. There’s the
mythic white family farm that we believe is sustainable, wholesome, and devoted
to good farming, and there’s the reality of what our farming is. This counters the
perception of the image [Canadians] have of farming and we just don’t want to
come to terms with that (Chris Ramsaroop, J4MW).
In response to information like this, some suggested that Canadians use a form of
othering to distinguish themselves from lesser-treated groups of individuals in order to
justify the gradation of rights and opportunities afforded to different people within our
country. Permanent vs. temporary workers, citizens vs. migrants, skilled vs. unskilled
labour. These distinctions are institutionalized within temporary foreign work programs.
One farmer spoke to the differential treatment of migrant workers by farmers as a product
of the fear of the unknown:
Human beings are really…well we respond to what we know and we respond
with fear or distrust when we don’t understand something or it’s unfamiliar. So if
someone behaves in an unfamiliar way, it sort of rubs our cultural sensitivities the
wrong way. We immediately are fearful, distrusting, uneasy, and try to rationalize
it subconsciously as there’s something wrong with them; not us. So easily, we
separate ‘them’ from ‘us’ (Jenn Pfenning, Pfenning’s Organic Farm).
92
More specifically on why SFIs have yet to take on the plight of migrant farmworkers as
one of their own causes to champion, another stated:
The food movement itself is more of a white middle class bourgeoisie and this—
the dirty, race implicated reality of migrant workers—kind of challenges it
(Chris Ramsaroop, J4MW).
Unlike ethical causes that can be easily broached, this is one that brings in the personal
privilege, status, and consumption of each person who engages with it. The typical food
movement ally is a permanent Canadian citizen who maintains the ability to choose
where he or she works and the guarantee of basic rights and freedoms. They live yearround in a priveleged country with their own families, in their own homes, and likely
consume foods grown by migrant workers on a regular basis. These privileges set allies
apart from most migrant workers. They can create a barrier of discomfort or guilt when
dealing with the issue. The pervasiveness of this discomfort suggests that we must find a
way to recognize and draw from it in order to broach the subject with awareness and tact.
A more comprehensive racial analysis of the issue will be critical going forward.
The migrant worker conversation is not one to be approached lightly. It has complicated
connections to issues of race, rights, and class that are global in scope and personal in
nature. The magnitude of the subject can be off-putting for many which perhaps explains
why it has so often been ignored.
*
*
*
These four categories of barriers—The global neoliberal economic system, Canadian
state policies and complicity with corporate agribusiness, Tensions within the local
sustainable food movement, and Tensions within the labour movement —encompass the
array of obstacles put forward by the SFI representatives and labour advocates
interviewed. They affect the way SFIs deal with agricultural labour in their organizations,
and indeed, the way we all understand this issue. Each barrier must be acknowledged in
93
the development of strategic action. The interaction of these barriers—like the forces that
create them—must also factor in to our analyses for change.
End Notes
1
Taken from an interview with Stan Raper, Toronto, March 7, 2012.
2
Taken from an interview with Jorge Garcia-Orgales, Toronto, February 23, 2012.
3
Taken from an interview with Eric Rosenkrantz, Toronto, April 3, 2012.
4
There are activists who are arguing for the need to reconsider the importance of food and acknowledge it as a greater
cost (compared to housing, electronics, etc.). However, their arguments are rarely connected to the fact that the labour
associated with food is underpaid. Rather they focus on the general undervaluing of food stuffs.
5
Taken from a focus group conversation with Wayne Roberts, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
6
Migrant labour has been increased with free trade which has given foreign businesses easier access to land, and sent
greater numbers of migrants from the South to the North to seek work.
7
Taken from a focus group conversation with anonymous SFI representative, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
8
Taken from an interview with Wally Seccombe, Toronto, March 1, 2012.
9
Taken from an interview with Lauren Baker, Toronto, February 24, 2012.
10
Small farms here refer to non-industrial operations or conventional mega-agribusinesses which are indeed supported
by state policies.
11
Taken from an interview with Jenn Pfenning, Baden, Ontario, March 21, 2012.
12
Taken from a focus group conversation with Milan Bizjak, Toronto, November 21, 2011.
13
This is part of the bigger picture of neoliberal restructuring associated with the erosion of the nation-state, and the
advancement of political action in service of corporate globalization.
14
Now a permanent fixture of HRSDC under the title “Temporary Foreign Worker Program – Agricultural Stream”.
15
Bill C-38 covers a number of other budgetary provisions which were, at the same time, implemented by the
Conservative budget. The stipulations to undercut wages and shorten application turnover times were the only decisions
thought to directly affect the employment of migrant workers (such that they encourage the employment of migrant
over domestic workers, and institutionalize the second-class treatment of non-Canadian workers). For the full bill, see
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication. aspx?Docid=5697420&file=4.
16
In spite of their desire to minmize spending around agricultural labour, the federal government is still keen to support
the goals of large-scale agribusiness with developments like industrial-sized greenhouses that produce products for
mass export.
17
It should be noted here that Roberts refers to his experience working with the Toronto Food Policy Council, in
conjunction with Toronto Public Health. He speaks generally of partnerships with the municipal government which can
often (though not always) present an easier route to government endorsement than tackling federal ministries.
18
Taken from an interview with Evelyn Encalada Grez, Toronto, April 10, 2012.
19
Taken from an interview with Damian Adjodha, Toronto, April 6, 2012.
20
Taken from an interview with Carolyn Young, Toronto, March 20, 2012.
21
Taken from a focus group conversation with Debbie Field, Toronto, January 15, 2012.
22
Ibid.
23
This quote touches on one of many deeper structural issues: the fact that in the past 20-30 years, with global
economic restructuring, the emphasis on agro-export economies in the Global South as well as in the North, has
intensified to the point where goods are being shipped abroad while they could be meeting domestic consumption
94
needs. In another country, however, they may receive a greater price. This phenomenon occurs with markets around the
world where the same products are both imported and exported for optimal economic gains.
24
300,111 is the number of temporary foreign workers recorded to be working in Canada as of December 1, 2011.
This is the highest number on record and is projected to increase for 2012 (no numbers are available yet). More
than one third of these workers (106,849) were employed in Ontario. Source: Citizenship and Immigration
Canada’s Preliminary tables – Permanent and temporary residents, 2011, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/
statistics/facts2011-preliminary/04.asp.
25
One research participant recounted her experience at a something she referred to akin to a “secret industry meeting” at
the Guelph Organic Conference where lead employers met with representatives of a couple labour-sending country
governments. One representative from the Honduran government used these characteristics (‘strong backs and arms’,
‘won’t steal’, etc.) to “sell” her country’s labourers to Canadian farmers. The participant recounted the split reaction of
the table. For most Canadians, the sales pitch seemed humiliating, condescending, demeaning, and wrong. To sending
countries, it was an opportunity to be grabbed. This juxtaposition highlights the disparity between the two worlds and
the power Canada holds over more desperate, vulnerable, work-seeking nations. This is the foundation on which
temporary labour programs continue to work. Source: focus group conversation with anonymous SFI representative,
January 15, 2012.
26
Taken from an interview with Chris Ramsaroop, Toronto, March 22, 2012.
95
Engaging with the tensions and planning for action: Food movement
recommendations going forward
Now that the issues, actors, and tensions have been outlined it’s time to look towards
action. How can Southern Ontario’s food and labour groups engage with these forces to
act in ways that will positively affect migrant agricultural workers and the work they do?
What kind of strategies and objectives can we develop? And who will execute these? It
would be unrealistic to think that migrant agricultural labour in Ontario could cease to
exist in the foreseeable future. Farmers certainly wouldn’t want this, consumers would
have their objections, and the state might just be paralysed by the economic repercussions
that would ensue. More importantly, migrant workers would be at a devastating loss. The
financial contributions generated by labour for workers and their home economies—
despite seeming nominal by Canadian standards—are of critical importance. It is for this
reason that labour activists make no means to dismantle labour migration programs
altogether. This was summarized succinctly by one organizer who said,
Our stance has always been—though these programs repulse us—that they meet
many of the needs of the migrant workers and their families. So it would be awful
of us to advocate against these (Evelyn Encalada Grez, J4MW).
The same position is shared by the vast majority of participants who contributed to this
research, regardless of the role they hold within the food movement. It highlights what is
arguably the main contradiction underlying this issue and one that most definitely
discourages us from addressing it: migrant agricultural labour as we see it today is
problematic, yes; but Canada depends on it and so do the countless countries who send
workers here in greater and greater supplies. This exchange isn’t going anywhere any
time soon. Acknowledging this reinforces the need for a deeper structural analysis of the
forces affecting migrant agricultural labour, and the development of more short-term
strategic goals. These will focus on the current problems facing migrant labour rather
than the historical structures that entrench the phenomenon in our global economy (those
that may never be defeated). As the analyses in this paper have emphasized, we need now
to engage in action that will alter the status quo of migrant agricultural work to the
benefit of the individuals who continue to be employed in by it. We must do this while
96
also taking into account the positions of the various forces and actors at play and the
difficult situation of small farmers.
Up until this point, I have navigated roughly through the first three phases of the Naming
the Moment organizing approach: Identifying Ourselves and Our Interests, Naming the
Issues/Struggles, and Assessing the Forces. The final phase, Planning for Action, I have
left deliberately unfinished. It is left in the capable hands of the SFIs and labour groups
examined here. This document and the research behind it are intended to initiate a
conversation for change and to guide it through to action. They lay the preliminary
groundwork for mobilization, but leave ample room for ongoing analysis, strategizing,
and ally-building over common barriers or goals.
Going forward with this issue, there are a number of recommendations I hold out to the
food and labour groups who might convene around it. In truth, they can be applied to all
potential allies of migrant agricultural labour. The recommendations range in purpose and
scope. Some are general intentions to hold while engaging in analysis/action, others are
concrete strategies to consider. They reflect the barriers, tensions, and opportunities
identified in previous chapters, as well as the Naming the Moment approach to social
movement building and the concepts of ‘reflexive localism’.
Recommendations for immediate action
Establish a deep, cross-sectional understanding of migrant agricultural labour
o
o
o
o
Acknowledge the various tensions at play between and among farmers, workers,
consumers, food and labour organizers, sending countries, corporate agribusiness,
and the state: the actors that most influence migrant agricultural labour;
Embrace the fact that this is a difficult and uncomfortable issue full of social,
political, and economic complexities that are constantly evolving;
Acknowledge the primary importance of migrant workers’ voices in the
development of strategic goals; and
Draw out the connections of migrant and labour rights to other sectors of food and
labour work, recognize that it is everyone’s issue.
97
Situate yourself and your interests in this work
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Be clear about existing assumptions, powers, and privileges that you bring in to
the conversation of migrant labour and how these will affect your interests/goals
going forward;
Acknowledge where labour stands in your organizational priorities;
Identify areas of your work that have room for partnership with this issue as well
as those that don’t;
Broaden your notion of social justice to extend over both the production and
consumption ends of the food system;
Accept that you do not have to be an expert on the subject of migrant agricultural
labour in order to contribute to the conversation. A clear understanding of the
context and history that frames it will suffice;
Use the pressures of time and resources you face to think creatively about work
partnerships and strategies; and
Be clear on the reasons why you are undertaking this issue/work: what are you
hoping to achieve from it, why and for whom?
Build a coalition
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Acknowledge common goals and barriers between your’s and other food and
labour groups (and that other SFIs/labour groups present potential allies to your
goals, not competitors);
Recognize that there are various interpretations of this problem and various
interests/standpoints that will affect how it will be approached. Establish
connections around multiple visions, solutions, and ideas;
Seize opportunities to collect allies, unite around this issue and the barriers/
opportunities it presents. Join forces for events, publications, conferences,
consultations, etc.;
Connect food and labour justice with other like-minded social movements (e.g.
environmental justice and racial justice);
Connect and promote good food and good jobs for all sectors of the food system;
Draw on the existing efforts—those of J4MW, UFCW, AWA, the SAME, LFP,
etc. and others organizing around migrant labour (e.g. in care-giving); and
Name collective short and long-term goals and acknowledge the forces that will
inhibit or encourage them.
Recommendations for short to medium-term action
Advocacy
o
o
Increase education, awareness, and dialogue on the topic of migrant agricultural
workers in all number of ways, make it a commonplace discussion rather than a
‘dirty little secret’;
Engage consumers in conversation around the full costs of local foods produced
with migrant labour;
98
o
o
o
Use media to open up dialogue around this issue rather than to shape public
consciousness with one belief or another;
Draw on consumers as another source of strategies for action; and
Include the faces, voices, and opinions of workers in advocacy campaigns; make
sure that they have a role and an identity in the good food movement.
Legislative/Policy change
o
o
o
o
o
o
Push for policies that will increase small farm support, giving farmers options and
control over their costs, shifting to policies that will allow them to sell their
products at reasonable prices instead of having to compete with the overflow of
subsidized industrial agriculture at impossibly low costs;
Target key federal policies like Bill C-38 that proliferate the unjust treatment of
migrants working in Canada;
Support the development of immigration policies that allow foreign workers to be
treated the same way Canadians are, with equal accesses, rights, dignity, and pay;
Tackle provincial government health, housing, and employment standards that
influence migrant agricultural labour. Lobby government for third-party
enforcement bodies that will uphold these standards and strict penalties (that are
actually applied) for those who fail to meet them;
Review and update the outdated SAWP regulations on which our labour
migration programs are built; and
Identify political allies at all levels of government and engage with the relevant
departments you have connections with to show commitment to this issue and
interest in collaboration.
Confronting identified barriers
o
o
o
o
o
Acknowledge that not all farmers are abusing the migrant workers they employ.
Use media opportunities to shed light on the good ones (to model best practices
for others), as well as the bad (to hold abusers accountable);
Consult directly with workers—a range of individuals with both positive and
negative experiences—to understand their position and the pressures that they
face (partnering with labour organizations that have established rapport with
workers in the province may be helpful here);
Recognize the level of skill involved in agricultural labour and the implications of
it being named an unskilled trade (i.e. using the classification of skill to deny
workers the right to apply for Canadian citizenship);
Recognize that, like with ‘local’, ‘organic’, and ‘sustainable’ issues, not everyone
can afford to support the pursuit of more ethical labour in food production
(and that the perceived trade-off of low-cost food for low-cost labour will likely
deter many consumers from contemplating this type of change); and
Acknowledge the deep-rooted dependency of our economy on cheap, racialized
labour and the strategies that have been used to disassociate ourselves from this
(those that may also have contributed to the obscuring of migrant labour from
public view and the questions of racism, classism, and equality this brings up).
99
Recommendations for long-term action
Some barriers—the structural forces that are historically embedded in our systems of
politics and economics—are unlikely to be overthrown. They can motivate short and
long-term goals, however, and paint a picture of the kind of change we are working
toward. The long-term actions listed below will probably never be realized. They are
used to inform our actions however, and to guide the process of social change. They
emphasize the value of a unified process where there may not be one unified goal. For
example:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Transform the oppressive power relations and unequal division of resources
between the Global North and Global South;
Put an end to the globalized capitalist economy that induces both labour migration
and racial/human exploitation;
Transform corporate agribusiness;
Uncover and pay the true costs of fair labour and good food, adopting systems of
full-cost accounting;
Convert state priorities to support the interests of social movements and the public
over those of corporations; and
Shift the global economic value system to honour human beings over profit.
Areas for further research and development
o
o
o
o
o
Statistics on the employment of migrant agricultural workers on sustainable/
organic/small farms vs. in large-scale industrial production facilities;
Trends, statistics, and best practice models of employers who have managed to
use temporary labour programs in ways that produce equal benefits for
themselves and their employees;
Successful strategies and solutions used for regulating just labour (e.g. Fair trade
labour models and certification programs used in other provinces and countries);
The effects of the constant trend toward concentration and dominance of large
agribusinesses on paid labour needs and labour importation; and
A complete race analysis of the embeddedness of migrant labour in Canada.
*
*
*
Reading through this document may be the very first step for SFIs contemplating action
on migrant agricultural labour. Alternatively, conducting a similar exercise to name and
acknowledge the actors and forces interacting around this issue would be essential. In
100
doing so, it becomes clear that migrant labour is a multi-sectoral issue that calls for
varied, multi-sectoral approaches to change. Legislative and advocacy work are both
essential strategies, for example. But neither will affect the kind of substantial change we
desire if exercised alone. The strategies we seek are both catalysts for movementbuilding, and ends in and of themselves.
Ultimately, SFIs must understand what this particular moment offers so that they can
make the best use of it. This is the main objective of Naming the Moment and the
fundamental purpose of this work. This means uniting the identified forces facilitating or
obstructing work around migrant labour with those affecting the operation of the region’s
SFIs. It means recognizing the group’s weaknesses and drawing strength from its
overlapping goals. Having done this we can endeavour larger objectives: to deepen the
food movement’s collective awareness of this issue and come together to create better
work for migrant agricultural workers.
101
Conclusion
So why aren’t sustainable food initiatives talking about migrant labour in our good food
movement? Well, the reasons are complicated. Like the multifaceted issue they confront,
the barriers identified embody a number of social, political, and economic forces that
inhibit our ability to deal with migrant labour. The barriers are many and diverse and
though often shared, they reflect a varied set of positions within the Ontario food system.
The lack of time, funding, and resources, for example, is an affliction that unites most
SFIs. The structural challenges of corporate capitalism and neoliberal government are
similarly shared. Other circumstantial forces, however, present barriers specific to
individual SFIs. Groups with strong allegiances to farmers, agribusiness companies, or
issues of local social justice proffered unique interests and challenges. Their ability to
support the needs of migrant agricultural workers without producing disadvantageous
effects for the other populations they support is of key concern. In labour groups, there is
a clear division over organizing strategies and allegiance.
In spite of the barriers they are up against, several Southern Ontario SFIs have
demonstrated keen interest in participating in a movement for just agricultural labour.
They are committed to improving the quality of work and life for migrant and domestic
workers employed in agriculture. They are increasingly aware of the absence of all food
system workers in the existing Ontario food movement1. Now these groups, as a
collective, must determine how to mobilize the objectives they have been united around.
Following the organizing phases of the Naming the Moment approach, the next step is to
plan for action. This paper provides a series of suggested recomendations to this end.
Looking forward, SFIs must engage with the contradictions that have been
acknowledged. Any effective response to the migrant labour problem must address these
contradictions in order to avoid reproducing them. Doing so will require groups to hold
the tensions and discomfort of this subject rather than attempt to resolve them. It is the
tensions that define this particular moment and the tensions that will determine its future.
102
There is no doubt that building this cross-sectoral movement will be a challenge. Its
ability to move forward calls for partnered strategies—between food groups and labour
groups, but also, within each sector—and the development of strong alliances. With the
assistance of consumers, farmers, and agricultural workers, SFIs and labour advocates
must work together, acknowledging the different positions they bring to the table and the
importance of incorporating each of these positions into a powerful movement for
change. They must find ways to bring together groups that, while they share a broad
commitment to social justice, are caught between the goals of sustainable production, just
labour, and affordable food.
It is my hope that SFIs and labour groups can engage with the analyses presented in this
document2. But also, that they continue their own analysis for action. They must look
critically at the current situation of migrant labour in Ontario agriculture as well as its
existence in historical terms. From this grounding will come the most effectual actions,
those that will respond to the present moment problems in Ontario agriculture and
address the systemic roots of the injustice we are fighting. In some capacity or another,
these are goals that we all share.
End Notes
1
With the noted exceptions of the LFP Local Sustainable food certification, Food Secure Canada People’s Food Policy
Project, and the direct involvement in migrant labour organizing of the labour groups reviewed (i.e. J4MW, UFCW
Canada, AWA, SAME).
2
It is my intention that the findings, analyses, and recommendations of this paper be summarized into a more concise
and accessible resource that can be used by SFIs, labour advocates, academics, and anyone else with an interest in
migrant agricultural labour and social change.
103
Bibliography
Adjodha, D. (2012, April 6). Telephone interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Agricultural Workers Alliance (AWA). (2012). About AWA, retrieved April 30, 2012,
from http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id
=2003&Itemid=245&lang=en.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2012). An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture
and Agri-Food System 2012, retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www4.agr.gc.
ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1331319696826&lang=eng.
Alemán, T. as told to K. Preibisch. (2005). One Woman’s Grain of Sand: The Struggle
for the Dignified Treatment of Canada’s Foreign Agricultural Workers. Canadian
Woman Studies, 24(4): 98-101.
Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society, 3: 295-308.
Allen, P., et al. (2003). Alternative Food Initiatives in California: Local Efforts Address
Systemic Issues. The Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems
Research Briefs, 3: Fall Brief.
Amin, S. (2011). Food Sovereignty: A Struggle for Convergence in Diversity. In, HoltGiménez, E. (ed.), Food Movements Unite! Oakland: Food First Books. Pp. xixviii.
Bacon, D. (2007) The Political Economy of International Migration. New Labor Forum,
16(3-4): 57-69.
Baker, L. (2012, Feb. 24). Telephone interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Bardacke, F. (February 3, 2012). Labour Across the Food System Conference. UCSC,
Santa Cruz, CA, February 3-4, 2012. Keynote address.
Barndt, D. (1991). Naming the Moment Political Analysis for Action: A Manual for
Community Groups. Toronto: Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice.
Barndt, D. (2008). Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato
Trail. Second edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Basok, T. (2007). Canada’s Temporary Migration Program: A Model Despite Flaws.
Migration Information Source. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
Bizjak, M. (2011, Nov. 21). Focus group conversation. Toronto, Ontario.
104
Borre, K., et al. (2010). Working to eat: Vulnerability, food insecurity, and obesity
among migrant and seasonal farmworker families. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, 53: 443-462.
Canada NewsWire. (2012, Jan. 11). Court fines supervisor $22,500 in the deaths of two
Jamaican Migrant Workers, retrieved January 18, 2012, from
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/904115/court-fines-supervisor-22-500-in-thedeaths-of-two-jamaican-migrant-workers.
Cholewinski, R. (2005). Protecting Migrant Workers in a Globalized World. Migration
Information Source. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2009). Facts and Figures 2009:
Immigration Overview – Permanent and Temporary Residents, Permanent
Residents. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). (2012). Preliminary tables – Permanent and
temporary residents, 2011, retrieved October 24, 2012, from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/ resources/statistics/facts2011-preliminary/04.asp.
DuPuis, E. M., Harrison, J. L., & D. Goodman. (2011). Just Food? In Alkon, A. & J.
Agyeman (eds.), Cultivating Food Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Pp. 283-307.
Egg Farmers of Ontario. (2012). Farm Families, retrieved June 12, 2012, from
http://www.eggfarmersofontario.ca/.
el-Ojeili, C. & Hayden, P. (2006). Critical Theories of Globalization. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Encalada Grez, E. (2012, April 10). Personal interview. Toronto, Ontario.
F.A.R.M.S. (2003). The Quest for a Reliable Workforce in the Horticulture Industry.
Mississauga: Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services.
F.A.R.M.S. (2012). Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services, retrieved
February 20, 2012, from http://www.farmsontario.ca/.
Field, D. (2012, Jan. 15). Focus group conversation. Toronto, Ontario.
Frontier College (2011). Workplace Literacy & Essential Skills Training – Second
Century Labourer-Teacher Program, retrieved November 9, 2012, from
http://www.frontiercollege.ca/english/learn/programs_teachers.html.
Garcia-Orgales, J. (2012, Feb. 23). Personal interview. Toronto, Ontario.
105
Goldring, L., Hennebry, J., & Preibisch, K. (2009). Temporary worker programs: North
America’s second class citizens. Canada Watch, Spring Issue.
Hahamovitch, C. (2003). Creating Perfect Immigrants: Guestworkers of the World in
Historical Perspective. Labor History, 44(1): 69-94.
Hennebry, J. (2008). Bienvenidos a Canadá? Globalization and the Migration Industry
Surrounding Temporary Agricultural Migration in Canada. Canadian Studies in
Population, 35(2): 339-356.
Hennebry, J. (2012). Permanently Temporary? Agricultural Migrant Workers and Their
Integration In Canada. IRPP Study 26. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public
Policy.
Hennebry, J. & Preibisch, K. (2010). A Model for Managed Migration? Re-Examining
Best Practices in Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. International
Migration, Journal compilation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Holt-Giménez, E. (2011) Food Movements Unite! Making a New Food System Possible.
In Holt-Giménez, E. (ed.), Food Movements Unite! Oakland: Food First Books.
Pp. 315-323.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2010). Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Program, retrieved February 14, 2011, from
http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/foreign_workers/
ei_tfw/sawp_tfw.shtml.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2011). National List of
Commodities for the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and the Agricultural
Stream of the Pilot Project for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal
Training, retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/
workplaceskills/foreign_workers/commodities/shtml.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2012). Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Program: Requirements, retrieved September 5, 2012, from
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/workplaceskills/ foreign_workers/sawp/
requirements.shtml.
Jowett, M. & O’Toole, G. (2006). Focusing researchers’ minds: contrasting experiences
of using focus groups in feminist qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 6(4):
453-472.
Justicia for Migrant Workers (2010). The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program,
retrieved August 21, 2012, from http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/
bc/pdf/sawp.pdf.
106
Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW). (2011). Justice for Migrant Workers! Pilgrimage
to Freedom, retrieved September 12, 2012, from http://www.justicia4migrant
workers.org/ontario/pilgrimage2/ pilgrimage.html.
Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW). (2012). JUSTICE for Migrant Workers, retrieved
October 20, 2012, from http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/.
Khan, M. E., et al. (1991). The use of focus groups in social and behavioural research:
some methodological issues. World Health Stat Q., 44(3): 145-49.
Local Food Plus (LFP). (2009). LFP General Standards for Farmers and Ranchers,
retrieved May 1, 2012, from http://www.localfoodplus.ca/certification.
Local Food Plus (LFP). (2011). Get Certified: What LFP Can Do For You, retrieved
May 10, 2012, from http://localfoodplus.ca/farmer-processor-certification.
The National Farmers Union (NFU). (2011). Farms, Farmers, and Agriculture in
Ontario: an overview of the situation in 2011. Saskatoon: National Farmers
Union.
The North-South Institute. (2006). Migrant Workers in Canada: A review of the
Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. Ottawa: The North-South
Institute/L’Institut Nord-Sud.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2009). Fall 2009 Report of the Auditor
General of Canada to the House of Commons. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works
and Government Services Canada. Retrieved online September 4, 2012, from
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_ 200911_02_e.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). (2012). Statistical
Summary of Ontario Agriculture, retrieved September 12, 2012, from
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/agriculture_summary.htm#labour.
Ontario Ministry of Labour. (2012). Employment Standards: Minimum Wage, retrieved
August 12, 2011 from http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/
minwage.php.
Parliament of Canada. (2012). An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled March 29, 2012 and other measures: Bill C-38, retrieved October 13,
2012, from http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=
5697420&file=4.
Perkel, C. (2011, Nov. 24). Migrant workers sue Ottawa and farm for breaching contract,
human rights. The Globe and Mail, retrieved December 2, 2011, from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/migrant-workers-sue-ottawa-andfarm-for-breaching-contract-charter-rights/article4252269/.
107
Pfenning, J. (2012, March 21). Personal interview. Baden, Ontario.
People’s Food Policy Project. (2011). Resetting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for
Canada. Creative Commons. Retrieved online, October 16, 2011, from
http://peoplesfoodpolicy.ca/files/pfpp-resetting-2011-lowres_1.pdf.
Preibisch, K. (2007). Local Produce, Foreign Labour: Labour Mobility Programs and
Global Trade Competitiveness in Canada. Rural Sociology, 72(3): 418-449.
Preibisch, K. (2011). Migrant Workers and Changing Work-place Regimes in
Contemporary Agricultural Production in Canada. International Journal of
Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19 (1): 62-82.
Ramsaroop, C. (2012, March 22). Telephone interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Raper, S. (2012, March 7). Personal interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Roberts, W. (2012, Jan. 15). Focus group conversation. Toronto, Ontario.
Rosenkrantz, E. (2012, April 3). Telephone interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Seccombe, W. (2012, March 1). Personal interview. Toronto, Ontario.
Sharma, N. (2001). On being not Canadian: the social organization of ‘migrant workers’
in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38(4): 415-440.
Stahlbrand, L. (2012, Jan. 15). Focus group conversation. Toronto, Ontario.
Students Against Migrant Exploitation (SAME). (2011). Our Mission, retrieved October
11, 2011, from http://www.thesame.ca/.
UCLA Center for Health Policy Research Health DATA Program – Data, Advocacy and
Technical Assistance. (2009). Key Informant Interviews, retrieved October 27,
2011, from http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/healthdata/ttt_prog24.pdf.
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW). (2011a). Report on the Status of
Migrant Workers in Canada 2011. Toronto: Human Rights, Equity and Diversity
Department UFCW Canada.
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW). (2011b). The Status of Migrant
Farm Workers in Canada 2010-2011. Rexdale, Ontario: UFCW Canada.
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW). (2011c). UFCW Canada Guide
to Maternity, Paternity, & Parental Leaves from Work. Rexdale, Ontario: UFCW
Canada National Communications and Research Department.
108
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW). (2012). About AWA, retrieved
May 4, 2012, from http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option =com_content&view=
article&id=2003&Itemid=245&lang=en.
Wald, S. D. (2011). Visible Farmers/Invisible Workers: Locating immigrant labour in
food studies. Food, Culture & Society, 14(4): 567-586.
Walia, H. (2010). Transient servitude: Migrant labour in Canada and the apartheid of
citizenship. Race & Class, 52(1): 71-84.
White, S. C. (2000). Depoliticising Development: The Uses and Abuses of Participation.
In Reade, D. (ed.), Development NGOs and Civil Society: A Development in
Practice Reader. Oxford: Oxfam Publishing.
Wiebe, N. & Wipf, K. (2011). Nurturing Food Sovereignty in Canada. In Wittman, H.,
Desmarais, A., & N. Wiebe (eds.) Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just
and Sustainable Food Systems. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Pp.1-19.
Wyld, A. (2011, April 29). Ontario farm workers ‘shocked’ as union ban upheld. CBC
News Canada, retrieved October 24, 2012, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
story/ 2011/04/29/supreme-court.html.
Young, C. (2012). Sustain Ontario Looks Forward to new Local Food Act, retrieved
October 24, 2012, from http://sustainontario.com/2012/09/19/12352/news/sustainontario-looks-forward-to-new-local-food-act.
Young, C. (2012, March 20). Personal interview. Toronto, Ontario.
109
Appendices
Appendix 1. Complete list of SFIs (including labour advocates) surveyed for IDS
overview
Surveyed Initiatives
Focus Areas within Food Movement
1
2
3
4
FoodShare
Toronto Food Policy Council
Toronto Youth Food Policy Council
Sustain Ontario
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Food Forward
Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation
People’s Food Policy Project
Food Secure Canada
FoodNet Ontario
Local Food Plus
The Stop Community Food Centre
Everdale Organic Farm and
Environmental Learning Centre
CRAFT Ontario
Slow Food Toronto
Afri-Can Food Basket
Canadian Organic Growers
(Toronto Chapter)
Greater Toronto Area Agricultural
Action Committee
Various urban agriculture initiatives
(YUF, TUG, TUF, Not Far From the
Tree, City Seed Farms, etc.)
West End Food Co-op
Farm Start
Fresh City Farms
Growing Food and Justice for All
Initiative
Justicia for Migrant Workers
Students Against Migrant Exploitation
Agriculture Workers Alliance (with
UFCW Canada)
Food/social justice, Food security
Food policy (municipal), Health
Food policy (municipal), Youth engagement
Food and farming, Farmer support, Policy
(provincial)
Advocacy, Education, Networking
Food, Farming, Economy, Development
Food sovereignty, Food policy (national)
Food security (national)
Food security (provincial)
Food and farming, Procurement, Certification
Food/social justice, Health, Accessibility, Education
Farmer training , Education
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Farmer training, Education
Education, Networking
Food/social justice, Health
Education, Advocacy
Agricultural policy/ planning
Urban agriculture, Local growing and distributing
Food security (local), Accessibility, Justice
Farmer training, Education
Urban agriculture, Local growing and distributing
Food/social justice, Race and equality
Farmworker/migrant rights, Community-based
Farmworker/migrant rights, Youth advocacy
Farmworker/migrant rights, Organized labour
110
Appendix 2. Focus group participants and details
Group 1: November 21st, 2011 7:00-9:45pm
Location: 47 Wright Avenue, Toronto, ON
Duration of recorded conversation: 1:55:54
Group 2: January 15th, 2012 6:15-9:45pm
Location: 176 Robert Street, Toronto, ON
Duration of recorded conversation: 2:54:17
Daniel Hoffman
Farm Owner and Operator, The Cutting Veg Organic
Farm
Harriet Friedmann,
University of Toronto Faculty of Geography and
Planning, former Chair of the Toronto Food Policy
Council
Anonymous
Anonymous SFI
Jesse Mudie
Farm Intern and Food Business Entrepreneur, These
Luscious Dips
Milan Bizjak,
Farmer Owner and Operator, Bizjak Farms
Mathieu McFadden,
Manager, ChocoSol Traders and Chocolatiers
Cassandra Rizzto,
Co-owner, Earth and City
Wayne Roberts,
Director, Sustainability Research at YU Ranch,
Formerly of Toronto Food Policy Council
Debbie Field,
Executive Director FoodShare Toronto
Deborah Barndt,
York University Faculty of Environmental Studies, Cocoordinator of the FoodShed Project
Susanna Redekop,
Westend Food Co-op
Joel Fridman,
University of Toronto Food and Geography,
Toronto Youth Food Policy Council
Appendix 3. Focus group question guide
Question Guide for Focus Group Conversations
Does food system work inspire different ways of thinking and acting? Is there anything specific
about food system change that drew you in and that affects your work relationships now?
How does labour figure into your efforts to create sustainable food practices? How do you think
about ‘work’ in your organization? How does labour factor in to your definition of sustainability?
What are the main struggles you face with regards to labour in your field? Do you consider your
current labour/work scheme to be sustainable for the long term?
Have you involved migrant farm workers or volunteer labour in your food or farming operations?
How do you feel about this? What challenges have you faced in this process?
Do you believe the employment of migrant agricultural workers constitutes “sustainable labour”
or is in line with sustainable production practices? Why or why not?
Do you believe agricultural labour receives adequate attention within our food movement?
How are the issues of labour in agricultural production relevant to your work?
Do you believe it is the responsibility of sustainable food and agriculture initiatives to bring
attention to the issues of labour, and specifically migrant labour, in the existing food movement?
111
Appendix 4. Interview participants (key informants)
Interview Subjects
Date and Location of Interview
Jorge Garcia-Orgales
Formerly of the UFCW Canada, currently
with the United Steelworkers
Lauren Baker
Toronto Food Policy Council
February 23, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (in-person)
Wally Seccombe
Everdale Organic Farm and Learning Centre
Stan Raper
United Food and Commercial Workers
Canada
Carolyn Young
Sustain Ontario
March 1, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (in-person)
March 7, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (in-person)
6
Jenn Pfenning
Pfenning’s Organic Farm
March 21. 2012
Baden, Ontario (in-person)
7
Chris Ramsaroop
Justicia for Migrant Workers
March 22, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (telephone)
8
Eric Rosenkrantz
Rosenkrantz Sustainable Agriculture
April 3, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (telephone)
9
Damian Adjodha
Fresh City Farms
April 6, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (telephone)
10
Evelyn Encalada
Justicia for Migrant Workers
April 10, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (in-person)
1
2
3
4
5
February 24, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (telephone)
March 20, 2012
Toronto, Ontario (in-person)
Appendix 5. Interview questions
Questions for sustainable food initiatives
1. Do you believe that agricultural labour receives adequate attention within the existing food
movement? Why/why not?
2. How does labour figure into your efforts to create sustainable agriculture or food practices? How
do you think about agricultural work/incorporate it into your organization’s work?
3. Does labour factor into your initiative’s definition of sustainability (in terms of food systems or
production)?
a. If yes, how so?
b. If no, can you think of reasons why this is so? How could it be?
112
4. What is your organization’s position on the use of temporary and migrant agricultural labour on
Ontario farms? (this may be an implicit position; not formal)
5. Do you believe the employment of migrant agricultural workers constitutes “sustainable labour” or
is in line with sustainable production practices?
6. Do you believe sustainable food and agriculture initiatives have the ability to bring attention to the
issues of labour, and specifically migrant labour, in the existing food movement?
a. If yes, how?
b. Do you believe it is their responsibility to do this?
c. What kind of opportunities and obstacles can you think of that they might
encounter here?
7. What would you propose to do to incorporate considerations for sustainable labour into your work?
Do you believe your organization would be interested in adjusting their mandate to include such
considerations (for labour)?
8. What kind of alliances could you/your organization make around this issue? Would you be willing to
work alongside government or a union on issues of agricultural labour regulations?
9. What issues (related to the conditions of migrant agricultural workers) would you most like to see gain
attention in the public eye?
a. How would you suggest that your organization and others like yours bring
attention to these issues?
10. How would you define “sustainable labour” in the agricultural sector? Is such a thing achievable?
Questions for labour advocates
1. How would you describe the work experiences of migrant agricultural workers in Ontario?
2. Do you believe that migrant workers are treated differently by employers than domestic workers
(Canadian citizens) within the agricultural sector?
a. If yes, how so?
b. Why do you think this differential treatment occurs?
3. Do you believe that the value and reward (pay) associated with agricultural work is appropriate? (this
can refer to compensation for farmers as well as farmworkers)
4. Do you believe that current conditions of migrant agricultural work (work hours and conditions,
contracts, pay, benefits, living conditions, social status, etc.) will continue to exist for years to come?
How does this make you feel?
5. Do you believe that farmers and sustainable food initiatives (groups and organizations promoting
healthy, local, organic, farm fresh, etc. foods) can bring attention to the issues surrounding migrant
agricultural workers?
a. If yes, how?
b. Do you believe it is their responsibility to do this?
113
c. What kind of struggles do you believe such groups might face bringing
attention to these issues? Opportunities?
6. Do you believe government/policy changes are likely to improve the working and living conditions of
migrant agricultural workers in Canada? How might this be achieved?
7. What are your thoughts on grassroots (organizing or education) vs. legal or policy work here? What are
the disadvantages and benefits of each kind of approach?
8. Do you believe that having the right to form a union in Ontario would successfully improve the living
and working conditions for migrant agricultural workers in the province? Why or why not?
9. What issues (related to the conditions of migrant agricultural workers) would you most
like to see gain attention in the public eye?
a. How would you suggest that your organization and others like yours bring
attention to these issues?
10. How would you define “sustainable labour” in the agricultural sector? Is such a thing achievable?
114