Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Making vulnerability visible: medical repatriation and Canada’s migrant agricultural workers

Jenna L. Hennebry and Gabriel Williams
CMAJ April 07, 2015 187 (6) 391-392; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141189
Jenna L. Hennebry
International Migration Research Centre, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jhennebry@wlu.ca
Gabriel Williams
International Migration Research Centre, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The long-standing Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) has drawn considerably less public criticism than other streams of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) that have captured media attention in recent years, despite mounting evidence against its deeply flawed structures that render migrant agricultural workers vulnerable to exploitation and health risks. Making a substantial contribution to this evidence base, the CMAJ Open article by Orkin and colleagues1 analyzes hitherto inaccessible data on repatriations of migrant workers, a phenomenon with transnational health implications. This novel research can help inform new regulatory frameworks around health care, compensation and service provision, as well as methods of collecting program data, which are currently performed in the private domain. We have focused our comments on the structural issues of repatriation and employer control, data collection and access, and the difficulties in both estimating and addressing the health and social needs of the vulnerable population of migrant agricultural workers.

In 2013, 221 273 foreign workers entered Canada under both the TFWP and the International Mobility Program, of whom 27 566 entered or re-entered as part of the SAWP.2 The chronic health effects facing many migrant agricultural workers are of great concern for researchers, migrant rights advocates and scholars.3–6 In Canada, the practice of repatriating workers who have been injured and “naming” people for future participation in the program increases employer control, the dependency that migrant workers have on the program and the likelihood that workers will not seek treatment for medical conditions or injuries. Experts and government officials gathered to offer testimony on the violations of workers’ labour and human rights under the SAWP before a recent hearing of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.7 The tribunal accepted that workers are reluctant to complain about their employers, injuries or safety standards for fear of repatriation; that workers are rendered uniquely vulnerable because of their closed relationship with their employers; and that the structure of the program leads to precariousness of the workers.7 The structures of the program create the conditions for workers’ increased vulnerability to health risks, particularly because workers’ lives (and access to essential services and protections) are closely controlled and tied to the employers.4,8

Medical repatriation and the naming system exacerbate barriers to health care for migrant agricultural workers, because fear of repatriation and lack of reporting injuries contribute to workers’ reticence to seek care while in Canada. For those who are repatriated, opportunities to seek care or compensation from provincial insurance systems (e.g., Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) are lost once they return home. An overwhelming body of evidence from surveys and interviews with migrant workers, health care practitioners and community service providers points to systemic vulnerabilities of migrant farm workers, with contributing factors being barriers to health care access, employment and legal precarity, and dependency.4,8 Although the program is often framed as a “win–win–win” for Canada, the sending countries and the migrants themselves, the developmental rhetoric is contrasted by these realities and the increased precarity and vulnerability perpetuated by the naming and early termination clauses of the program (in particular, medical repatriation).

For decades, researchers, and more recently health care providers and public health representatives, have struggled to gain access to detailed data on migrant agricultural workers. In general, data on entries at a detailed geographical level, repatriations and complaints have not been publicly available from governments. Yet, in Ontario, a nonprofit private organization comprising growers’ association representatives, the Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services (FARMS), keeps detailed records of medical repatriations of migrant agricultural workers as part of their integral role in the management of the SAWP.9 Despite an awareness that data were being collected on entries, re-entries, type of crop, size of farm, naming (or repeat hiring) and repatriations, no direct avenue for accessing such data was available, primarily because FARMS is a private sector organization. As such, it has no obligation to share data publicly or accede to freedom of information requests without a court order.9–11 Orkin and colleagues were able to access these data because it became publicly available as evidence in the tribunal. At that time, a request was issued to FARMS to release medical repatriation data on migrant agricultural workers.1,7 The resulting report, based on data received from the Freedom of Information Coordinator at Social Justice Tribunals Ontario in 2011, provided ground-breaking access to a new source of data, and Orkin and colleagues’ coding and assessment of these repatriation data by medical practitioners provides unrivalled evidence of the transnational vulnerability of migrant agricultural workers in Canada.

These data were brought to public light through the tribunal, but they should continue to be made available. The lack of transparency in accessing these most basic and vital data for improving health and rights is truly appalling, and frankly should be embarrassing to governments in this period of evidence-based policy. Furthermore, without public access, scrutiny and evaluation, the potential of these data remain limited owing to the weakened validity and reliability of the dataset when it is open to manipulation by employers and has no oversight mechanism to ensure reliability or accuracy throughout the data collection process. Thus, these data represent the only data set available to assess the indicators of medical repatriation and are of landmark importance.

Orkin and colleagues’ work has opened the door to improved understanding of the vulnerability of agricultural workers. This transnational vulnerability was hitherto argued by researchers using anecdotal evidence and qualitative case studies; these data make visible the undeniable costs of becoming ill or injured in the SAWP. This study ought to provoke wider discussion on the structures of the SAWP and spark public outrage over the health risks faced by migrant workers, the lack of transparency with regard to this vulnerable population and the inhumane practice of medical repatriation.

Key points
  • Mounting evidence shows that Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program is deeply flawed, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation and health risk.

  • The practice of repatriating workers who become ill or injured exacerbates barriers to health care for these workers, and data on such repatriations in Ontario are collected and controlled by a private employers’ group.

  • These data, released by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, have allowed Orkin and colleagues to open the door to improved understanding of the vulnerability of migrant workers.

  • This transparency should be maintained to ensure that the labour and human rights of migrant agricultural workers are upheld.

Footnotes

  • See also CMAJ Open, www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/doi/10.9778/cmajo.20140014

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Both of the authors contributed substantially to the conception and writing of the article, approved the final version submitted for publication and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Orkin A,
    2. Lay M,
    3. McLaughlin J,
    4. et al
    . Medical repatriation of migrant farm workers in Ontario: a descriptive analysis. CMAJ Open 2014; 2:E192–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Facts and figures 2012 — Immigration overview: Permanent and temporary residents. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; [modified 2014]. Available: www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2012/temporary/03.asp (accessed 2014 Oct. 10).
  3. ↵
    1. Preibisch K,
    2. Hennebry J
    . Temporary migration, chronic effects: the health of international migrant workers in Canada. CMAJ 2011;183:1033–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. McLaughlin J,
    2. Hennebry J,
    3. Haines T
    . Paper versus practice: occupational health and safety protections and realities for temporary foreign agricultural workers in Ontario. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé 2014;16–2.
    1. Preibisch K,
    2. Otero G
    . Does citizenship status matter in Canadian agriculture? Workplace health and safety for migrant and immigrant laborers. Rural Sociol 2014;2:174–99.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. McLaughlin J,
    2. Hennebry J
    . Pathways to precarity: structural vulnerabilities and lived consequences for migrant farmworkers in Canada. In: Goldring L, Landolt P, editors. Precarious migratory status. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2013.
  6. ↵
    Peart v. Ontario. HRTO 611 (CanLII). Available: http://canlii.ca/t/g6qb5 (accessed 2014 Sept. 2)
  7. ↵
    1. Hennebry JL
    . Permanently temporary? Agricultural migrant workers and their integration in Canada. Montréal: Institute for Research on Public Policy; 2012.
  8. ↵
    1. Hennebry JL
    . Bienvenidos a Canadá? Globalization and the migration industry surrounding temporary agricultural migration in Canada. Can Stud Popul 2008;35:339–56.
    OpenUrl
  9. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) [factsheet]. Guelph (ON): Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; [modified 2014]. Available: www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/rural/facts/05-049.htm#3 (accessed 2014 Sept. 2).
  10. ↵
    Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER F.31. Available: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm (accessed 2014 Sept. 2).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 187 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 187, Issue 6
7 Apr 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Making vulnerability visible: medical repatriation and Canada’s migrant agricultural workers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Making vulnerability visible: medical repatriation and Canada’s migrant agricultural workers
Jenna L. Hennebry, Gabriel Williams
CMAJ Apr 2015, 187 (6) 391-392; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.141189

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Making vulnerability visible: medical repatriation and Canada’s migrant agricultural workers
Jenna L. Hennebry, Gabriel Williams
CMAJ Apr 2015, 187 (6) 391-392; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.141189
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Revisiting the concept of urgency in surgical prioritization and addressing backlogs in elective surgery provision
  • Antiviral treatment for COVID-19: ensuring evidence is applicable to current circumstances
  • Who is Black? The urgency of accurately defining the Black population when conducting health research in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Global health
    • Human rights
    • Occupational health

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire