This discussion will be open from  8am - 11pm EST on November 12th; guidelines for the discussion board can be found here. If you experience any technical difficulties, please see our  Help/FAQs page or email  info@governancevillage.org.

Please visit this page ahead of the discussion date as contributions from panelists will be added as they are received.

Hi, all. It's great to be participating in today's forum. As you probably know, next month is the start of historic climate change talks in Copenhagen, and the outcome of the summit could have important implications for the rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities in Latin America are already feeling the impact of climate change on their land and traditional ways of life, but they could also be affected by plans to combat climate change. In particular, there has been a lot of controvery around Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) programs at the United Nations and the World Bank, and whether these carbon trading schemes will respect the rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent. Some experts have pointed out that U.N. REDD guidelines talk the talk - citing ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - but do not necessarily understand or respect the timetables and ways of life of indigenous peoples. Countries like Panama and Guyana are racing ahead with REDD plans without necessarily including indigenous communities in the process. What implications do you think this has for indigenous rights in the Americas? And if REDD programs go forward, what do you think are the best mechanisms for indigenous peoples to protect their rights?

Good morning all. In seeking legal and other instruments which can support freedom of expression, the role of non-state actors is crucial. As the Pen Canada declaration of support for freedom of expression states "...non-state actors are responsible for many of these violent attacks against journalists, particularly drug traffickers, paramilitaries and other criminal groups, and even state agents operating outside of the legitimate authority of their offices."

Freedom of expression dialogues elsewhere-- for instance in Iran, China and much of Africa-- tend to focus on the role of the state in limiting or protecting freedom of expression. But non-state actors play a particularly significant role in the Americas.

One way to counter their influence is to ensure stiff state protections of freedom of expression. But if criminal groups have grown large and strong despite pre-existing laws, can states effectively protect freedom of expression? What role can the international community play in addressing the threat of criminal groups to freedom of expression?

Hi, Chris, thanks for your informative post. I was wondering, could you point to any good examples of strategies for protecting freedom of speech in countries like Colombia where non-state actors play a critical role in limiting speech? And how can State strategies for maintaining order and security in the face of organizing by non-state actors avoid infringing on freedom of speech? I think we saw some important issues raised around the intersection of security and freedom of expression/speech this past spring when the authorities in Peru were responding to the wave of indigenous protests and boycotts.

That's an interesting question Alyson. Maintaining security while creating an enabling environment for freedom of speech has proved elusive for many countries. So often, restrictions on of freedom of association and expression are justified in the name of 'state security' that the argument barely holds water anymore and few take it seriously.

Hi Alyson. Colombia is an excellent example to raise. Efforts there to improve freedom of expression have been hampered both by state and non-state actors. Perhaps the court system is one way of establishing a legal framework for improving freedom of expression. If the state fails to implement, act on or respond to court decisions in favour of freedom of expression, there is a starting point for outside bodies to push for change.

As the International Media Support organization stated in an interesting overview of self-censorship in the Colombian media, "Sometimes defamation cases have been a good mechanism to ensure truthful, wholesome journalism, but in many cases defamation suits are also used by the accusers to divert attention from what is often the truth. The judicial procedures cost time and money for media outlets..."

If domestic media outlets do not have the resources to fight cases in the courts, then perhaps this is where international players can have an increased role, by supporting such cases with finances, research and legal advice/support.

(Post to be continued)

Hi Alyson. Colombia is an excellent example to raise. Efforts there to improve freedom of expression have been hampered both by state and non-state actors. Perhaps the court system is one way of establishing a legal framework for improving freedom of expression. If the state fails to implement, act on or respond to court decisions in favour of freedom of expression, there is a starting point for outside bodies to push for change.

As the International Media Support organization stated in an interesting overview of self-censorship in the Colombian media, "Sometimes defamation cases have been a good mechanism to ensure truthful, wholesome journalism, but in many cases defamation suits are also used by the accusers to divert attention from what is often the truth. The judicial procedures cost time and money for media outlets..."

If domestic media outlets do not have the resources to fight cases in the courts, then perhaps this is where international players can have an increased role, by supporting such cases with finances, research and legal advice/support.

(Post to be continued)

(Above post continued)

To illustrate the role the courts can play: In October 2008, Colombian journalist and human rights activist Claudia Duque succeeded in getting Colombia's courts to acknowledge that secret service reports about her work existed, should be declassified and delivered to her. As Ms Duque says, "This ruling represents a fundamental step forward for securing freedom of expression, opinion and of the press. It is important not only for me, but for all journalists and human rights activists involved in any kind of illegal prosecution or harassment. The court ruled that security forces and other state entities can only collect information on a person when it implies his/her responsibility in a criminal action. As a result of this, it is now illegal to record and share information about the private lives of people, even if they are included in State protection programs, which had previously been my case."

Perhaps that touches on your second question-- that such rulings can help draw a line between state surveillance and action against non-state actors that infringe the rights and work of journalists. As Bob says, differentiating between the two has proven extremely difficult.

I agree with Chrustopher that Colombia is aunique case in the sense that both the state and non-state actors are a threat for freedom of expresion. I agree with the role of the courts, however, currently even the situation for the courts are extremly difficult, especially for the Supreme Court. In Colombia, the environment of polarization is extremly high. In this context, the role of civil society has been instrumental. National and international NGOs as well as international organization have an important role to overcome the problem of freedom of speech in Colombia. I think it is important to keep exploring this role.

These are all good points. Clearly NGOs at national and international levels can and do play an important role in overcoming problems of freedom of expression. Not only is it vital to create mechanisms that encourage free speech/ dialogue in Columbia, in Mexico and throughout the global south, it is also imperative that governments and civil society work to ensure that vulnerable migrants from these countries working and living in the US and Canada are free to voice concerns over their working conditions without fear of reprimand or deportation. Migrant workers must have the freedom to speak up and defend their rights without the potential for their employment and their status to be comprimised.

Thanks to everyone for your helpful comments! I don't know a great deal about how the Inter-American Human Rights system has addressed freedom of speech issues in the Americas. I wonder how strong the jurisprudence is and how helpful the Commission and Court have been in exerting pressure on State actors to respect this right. I know that Special Rapportuers, such as the one on Freedom of Expression within the American system, can play an important role in exerting pressure, both behind the scenes and publicly, on states parties to live up to their human rights commitments.

Let me try to jump in here quickly.  Chris, you make a good point about non-state groups and their ability to step outside the system to limit freedom of expression. I suppose my only response to your comment is that if groups exist within a state that are either so large or powerful that they no longer feel bound by state laws, then the right to freedom of expression seems a much smaller problem than the obvious lack of security that these groups pose. Courts can pass all the laws they want, but if the police are unable to enforce them, they are meaningless. The international community has every incentive to help states bring these rogue groups under control. In terms of freedom of expression specifically, it seems that the best strategy for the international community is to ensure that the political structure is set up in such a way that once the threat is removed, freedom of expression will be an inevitable consequence.

Hello Alyson. Great comments and even better questions. Let me start off by saying that I don't purport to be an expert on international indigenous rights but it seems to me that neither the OAS nor the UN are proper vehicles for addressing indigenous rights. The history, experiences and constitutional status of indigenous peoples vary so considerably from country to country that it becomes extremely difficult to develop any sort of over-arching policy; let alone one that can be seamlessly applied across the Americas. I realize that in saying this I am running counter to the entire notion of universal unalterable rights, however, in the case of indigenous rights perhaps this is better left to individual states. For example just look at the relative status between Canadian and American (US) indigenous peoples; let alone those in Peru. Can one standard really fit all? At the very least you are right to point out that indigenous peoples deserve to be involved in the process. But what do you think, can indigenous rights be meaningfully addressed at the regional level?

Hi Mike, thanks for your comments on indigenous rights. I agree that change has to happen at the level of individual states in order for indigenous peoples' rights to be adequately protected and their basic needs met. However, I do think there are universal rights principles - such as the right to free, prior and informed consent as well as the rights to life, freedom of expression and rights to traditional lands - are applicable to indigeous communities across the region. The Inter-American Court has issued important rulings on indigenous peoples' rights to their land, such as in the case of Awas Tingni in Nicaragua. And the Commission helped put pressure on the Brazilian government to protect the territorial integrity of indigenous lands in Raposa Serra do Sol. There is a history of regional engagement on these issues from human rights bodies, but in order to be effective these decisions do need to be implemented at the national level.

Possibly human rights in practice can be addressed regionally - but shouldn't these rights be overarching and universal regardless of an individual or group's status? What can history tell us about what happens to indigenous peoples rights if it is simply left to individual states?

Dr. Hennebary, I found your article quite interesting and would be interested to know if you see any clear distinction between labour rights and human rights.  For example, is it a human rights violation to pay migrant workers less money than domestic ones? And if so, would programs such as the Seasonal Agriculture Work Program in Canada be sustainable if workers were paid substantially more? Without some sort of wage disparity, what incentive would Canadian farmers have to hire migrant workers (given the added hassel of potential language barriers, governmental paperwork and - in many cases - housing)?

Hello,

Great conversation everyone, this for me is one of the greatest challenges the world of humanity has to resolve.

 For me the notion of a globally improvised system of rights on a state by state basis is an outdated system that now in the globally connected sense of humanity makes no sense. The system of rights as it stands still encourages those who would profit from the weaknesses that state sovereignty in many cases entrenches. To build the road blocks that profit corporations and the few while marginalizing the many does not make global sense.

The fundamental layer of governance that should supersede all others is the layer of rights for all humanity. The indifference that sovereignty across the planet creates is quite clear. The atrocities that are committed to humanity and the planet are the fallout; the inability to counter this threat is the direct result of the weakness in this fundamental layer. All other inventions of governance that humanity chooses must not degrade that which should be a prerequisite. If the world is ready for change, then the strength of universal rights for all humanity that essentially protect us from ourselves would be a great place to start, would it not?

Should it not be the entire body of humanity that clears this question up once and for all? Is it not the short term individual state actors across the world that tends to perpetuate these weaknesses?

Great discussion to be following here. I don't want to disrupt the (very interesting) discussion of state-by-state vs. universal rights protections, but I do want to touch on Michael's comment (post #12). You're absolutely right that freedom of expression dialogues struggle to remain prominent while unfolding amongst so many other concerns related to powerful non-state actors. Perhaps that is the core problem: How can freedom of expression be protected (or even created in the first place) if it falls by the wayside in efforts to control non-state actors? Perhaps this is where NGOs and the like need to step-up their work. Many may lack the mechanisms to address the enforcement of laws against criminal activity, but they do possess the ability to ensure attention, both domestic and international, is paid to the impact of non-state activities on freedom of expression.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your comments. Well, I would say the distinction is far from clear.  It is certainly a good point though, since there are cases where labour rights might not be human rights. With respect to wages for example, paying different workers different wages based on skill or type of work is not a human rights issue. However, if workers are paid different rates on the basis of country of origin (proxy for race) or gender then we run into human rights problems. If migrant workers can be selected according to their country of origin and gender (which they can be in the SAWP), then racial and gender discrimination is built into the system.

Actually, in the Canadian system wages are supposed to reflect the prevailing wage in the sector, so it is not the wage differential that motivates employers to hire migrant workers.  In general though, my position is that simply paying workers more so that they tolerate human rights violations, and unsafe living and working conditions, isn't  the kind of sustainability I think we should aim for.   An area where I think human rights and labour rights do strongly coincide is related to the right to organize and bargain collectively - something that has been a problem for migrant workforces in many countries. 

Jenna

part 1 of 2

Hello All.

After reading the commentary thus far, I would like to suggest that perhaps the most appropriate framework to analyze and put real meaning behind the types of rights being advocated for (access to food, water, security etc) might not necessarily be the 2007 UN Declaration on the Righs of Indigenous Peoples. The better framework is simply the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In many ways, I believe that the universality of the indigenous experience is more of a man-made construct than a true reality. It is rare that indigenous groups share the same universal claims when it comes to regional cases of indigenous rights abuse. Rendering all indigenous claims as universal, might hinder rather than help those whose rights are grossly abused. "Indigenous Rights" encompass more than Universal Human Rights, they also include cultural rights, unique by definition. The blanket 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does little to protect indigenous peoples from the day-to-day violations of  basic human rights being discussed here.

part 2 of 2

Of the four UN members who voted against the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, two were Canada and the United States, who arguably have the most comprehensive frameworks for indigenous rights in the hemisphere.  Both countries have unique frameworks that they have developed in response to their own unique circumstances. Having studied the Canadian framework specifically, I know that the protection of indigenous cultural rights has been a process premised upon accommodating the unique histories and claims of various indigenous groups within the country. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to cultural claims. Suggesting that there is often creates unneeded tension between national governments and indigenous groups.

It is obvious however that indigenous peoples need protection above and beyond the scope of the "Universal Human Rights" of which we are all entitled to. With that being said, I feel however that individual countries ought to employ individual strategies and consultation processes to ensure lasting solutions. Indigenous movements throughout Latin America (think CONAIE in Ecuador) have been relatively successful in advocating their own unique interests, and cultural claims to their governments. They have a long way to go, but I think that the best way to move forward is if NGOs and other groups can rally their united support behind grassroots actors.They have the will and the know-how to achieve their demands (which include stronger rights), and desperately need resources to sustain their efforts.

Without getting too far away from the topic of Human Rights "in the Americas", I would like to just briefly address the whole issue of state attributed vs. universal rights. Human rights lend themselves to universality since we are all - for lack of a better term - "human". This is a fundamental and unalterable characteristic. Therefore, what is considered a right for someone in Canada should be transferable to China, France, Brazil or anywhere else in the world.

Conversely, not everyone is indigenous which is a legal distinction tied to a person's constitutional status within their country. Who is and who is not indigenous is a very political question and has a lot to do with the distinct culture of each state. For example how many generations removed from your indigenous ancestors can you be before you are no longer considered indigenous? Here in Canada, would the international community recognize the Metis peoples? We get into even more problems when indigenous rights conflict with an ordinary citizen's human rights; or women's rights or other group rights. The point I am making is that there are so many nuances to indigenous status that it is difficult if not impossible to be adequately addressed at the regional level. But this is just my take on it and is certainly open to interpretation.

Hi Dr. Hennebry,

Thank you for responding to my comment. I am surprised to learn that the Canadian system is committed to wage equality. Not that it isn't a noble goal, but I am curious about what incentives Canadian farmers have to bring in migrant workers if there is no cost savings. I want to emphasise that I don't mean this in a discriminatory way but in the sense that there must be extra paperwork and logistical hassles to sponsoring migrant workers. Is it just a simple matter of too many jobs and not enough people?

On the issue of unionization, I would imagine that migrant workers would be very difficult to organize for collective bargaining due to the temporary nature of their employment. With so much turnover within the group and - as you point out - a significant number of migrants working illegally, this must be near impossible.

Perhaps part of the incentive is that there is not enough demand among Canadian citizens for doing these types of jobs in the first place, forcing (or at least encouraging) farmers to look abroad for migrant workers. I remember seeing this being cited in an article, and it is in line with what Jenna wrote in her opening statement/essay leading up to this session.

State actors attempting define rights without the will of the indigenous peoples they represent is precisely why those who in the past have managed to corrupt state actors have had so much to gain. We will always have failure to recognize humanity as the primary source for our invention of governance when we leave human rights to the end of our problem solving agenda.  To be indigenous also means you may have had a long history of oppression that has created a warped sense of human rights within a region.  To have such a warped sense of what rights are for better or worse all across the planet only give rise to the tensions that create all the animosity. These weaknesses do expose the fragility of even some of the most robust human rights definitions that were fought so aggressively for in the past. Surely this age, the age of the 21st century and the ability to communicate a holistic fundamental layer of global human rights as a prerequisite for all other layers of governance is here? What would this fundamental governance layer of universal human rights consist of? Let the people of this 21 ^st century globally connected world tell us these answers.  To know where humanity stands independent of the state actor is extremely important as state actors come and go, and humanity must go on. Humanity must supersede the state unless by state we mean the state of humanity.

Hello,  I have a question for Dr. Hennebry:

Canada has had to quickly shift its focus from addressing labour shortages to recovering from a recession. To address the skills shortage, the federal government drastically increased the number of temporary migrant workers brought legally into Canada. There may still be a shortage of labour to fill the “undesirable” roles but many employers have had to lay off workers, forcing them underground. For those who complete their term its unlikely they’ll be able to renew their permits.

Should we expect a significant increase in undocumented workers over the next couple of years and is anything being done to prepare for this? An increase means it will be harder than ever for this group to access  basic rights. Settlement agencies have their hands full with legal immigrants/refugees and don’t have the resources to extend their services to illegal workers simply because the government won’t fund it. Since the government created this mess, is there a viable argument for these people to be granted legal status? The temporary worker program was driven entirely by employers' needs and is not designed with the workers' interest in mind - should this program be cut or is there a way to modify it to make it work for everybody?

Thanks for your sharing your insights!

Chris is right that part of the incentive is that migrant workers do the work that citizens generally reject. In addition, they have trouble retaining workers for the duration of the season (high school students return to school in September and the harvest may last until late November). For employers there are many incentives, some of which are: many employers claim that migrant workers work harder because they are here only to work and do not have the distraction of families and social ties; they typically live on work sites or close by and offer the ultimate flexibility for an employer; they are less likely to reject difficult, dirty and unsafe work, long hours primarily because of families waiting back home for remittances; they are less likely to unionize (due to the many challenges correctly noted by Michael) or cause trouble because of their lack of social networks, relative social exclusion and knowledge of their rights. Ultimately, this comes down to flexibility and controllability of the workforce. For employers, the costs of bringing in and hiring a migrant worker through the SAWP are minimal (particularly in terms of time), there is very little paper work and much of the organizing is done for employers through a consortium made up of growers association representatives, called Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services (FARMS).  On the other hand, the benefits are significant, with growers able to bring in workers for short periods (4-8 months), and they are guaranteed to work at least 6 days a week (and if they refuse to work they can be repatriated), making sure potatoes get out of the ground before they rot and berries are picked as soon as they are ripe. The benefits for hiring undocumented migrants are similar, although costs are usually less since housing is not provided and pay is typically lower.

Thanks for your comments Michelle. You are bang on about the current situation. Temporary migrants outside of the SAWP,  working in sectors ranging from agriculture to the service sector, are here on between 12-24 month work visas tied to one employer. If they are laid off or fired, they have to try to find another employer with permission to hire foreign workers, and then apply to get the work permit changed to reflect the new employment. The problem is that there is no mechanism to help these workers find authorized employers, which is compounded by language barriers, etc. They are not legally allowed to work for unauthorized employers, yet they are entitled to stay in the country until the expiry on their work permit. Since many migrant workers go in to debt trying to locate work or get permits, and many others have sacrificed so much to come here and have families waiting for remittances, they are motivated to stay until they earn at least enough money to send home.  I am certain that this situation is contributing to a growth in the numbers of undocumented migrants in Canada. You are right that the employer driven nature of the various streams of Canada's temporary migration program means that there is not much in place to support migrants. Despite the many problems with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (particularly with respect to the "Low-Skill" programs), many migrants depend heavily on remittances, and they have no alternative avenues for permanent entry. Most of these migrants would not qualify to come to Canada through the immigration point system, despite having the desire to work in sectors which are argued to be experiencing labour shortages.  Access to permanent residency for temporary workers in all sectors with a variety of skill levels would go a long way toward solving some of the existing problems with the system, while addressing the growing numbers of undocumented migrants.   

Hello again Dr. Hennebry. That is certainly an unpleasant picture that you paint about migrant workers in Canada. I had no idea that this type of exploitation was so prevalent or that the ability to exploit their workers is part of what makes this program so attractive. I guess the elephant in the room then becomes, if all of these issues are addressed and Canadian employers are no longer able to exploit their migrant workers; will they still hire them. In your paper one of the suggestions you make is that Canada ratify both the ICMW and ILO. While this might be an overly technical question, do you know if the use of migrant workers has decreased in other countries where these documents have been ratified?

On a side note, I was doing some background reading on this issue and was confused when I read that in Ontario farm owners must ensure that workers have either private or public health insurance ( pg. 12 here). Are migrant workers not covered by OHIP? And if not, do you feel they should be?

Hi Michael,

Yes, sorry about that! It is really not all unpleasant - but it can be. It is not so much that the employers consciously choose migrant workers because they are more exploitable. My  concern is about their structural vulnerability and the potential for exploitation. Luckily many employers just want good workers and treat them very well. Although, that isn't the case everytime.  I think the demand for these workers will remain high, particularly in agriculture. Some of the reasons that there are shortages are demographic and some socially created, relating to rising education levels, urbanization, aging populations, lower birth rates, etc. Not to mention the lack of popularity with respect to farm labour as a career choice! I think that ratifying the agreements would significantly address this structural vulnerability, and at the very least signal to the rest of the world that Canada, with it's legacy of immigration and multiculturalism, takes human rights seriously  for all.  Possible changes that may come out of ratification (and the living up to the committments it involves) may deter unscrupulous employers from opting to hire migrant workers, but I do not believe that to be the majority of Canadian employers. As long as governments (at all levels) provide from support for employers in order to comply, and also step up regulation and monitoring, then it would be sustainable. In Europe, where the EU has made changes in line with the ILO conventions, there has been no decline in foreign workers - in fact these programs are growing. So few receiving states have ratified the ICMW it is hard to tell.

The  SAWP workers in Ontario are covered by OHIP, but it is up to the employer to get them their OHIP cards, etc. The higher numbers of workers here under Canada's " NOC C and D Program for Occupation Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training " have a probationary period of three months before they are eligible for OHIP. If they don't make it past that period then they are not eligible with their work permits alone.

This has been such an interesting discussion so far. I think the case of migrant workers in Canada is intriguing, in part because it seems a majority of Canadians have little idea of the number of migrant workers involved in the domestic food industries and the harsh situations they face. Dr. Hennebry, the suggestions you have made in your paper seem to mainly involve governmental/legal solutions to the working/living conditions. Has there been a movement to pressure large-scale farmers or companies directly to act more responsibly?

I'm wondering about countries that are both senders and receivers of migrant workers. I'm thinking of Mexico, where many workers are heading to developed countries as seasonal labourers, but which also receives large numbers of Central Americans looking for work. How does this dual role affect the country's attitude and behavior in the international arena? Are there other countries facing a similar situation?

FYI everybody: http://www.cidh.oas.org/prensa/publichearings/Hearings.aspx?Lang=En&Session=117

There is a movement among Organic farmers to integrate labour issues into organic certification. Also, there has been significant NGO involvement, with the United Food and Commerical Workers Union taking the lead: http://www.ufcw.ca/.

Interestingly, the greatest growth in numbers of Mexican migrant workers to Canada has taken place post -NAFTA, while at the same time Mexico is attempting to strengthen its borders to the south and establish immigration policies that respond to the Central American migration.  Also interesting, is that the SAWP started as a DFAIT initiative and is based on a bilateral agreement between Canada and Mexico, which originally had very little connection to Citizenship and Immigration Canada or HRSDC. Here is a useful sourse on the Mexico-Canada relationship including the SAWP: http://www.focal.ca/pdf/canada_mexico04.pdf 

Other countries like Spain find themselves in need of aligning their migration policies  to the EU with respect to foreign workers (similarly Mexico is feeling the pressure from the US to control their borders in the South), but even though they have bilateral agreements with Morocco to supply migrant workers, there is no exclusive seat at the table for Morocco in a regional context.

That is a good point, Jennifer-- It would also be interesting to know whether any farmers, or farmers groups, have been involved in efforts to change/improve the lot of migrant workers. Presumably if some are seeing the conditions for workers they may feel compelled to lobby the government(s) involved to initiate policy changes. (The migrant worker discussion has been very interesting to follow).

I feel like such a cynic writing this, but I'd be surprised, Christopher, if farmers groups were involved in  lobbying for stricter standards. It's obviously not in their immediate best interests for their migrant labour force to have higher wages or more stable working conditions. I'd love to be wrong, though!

I was interested in Jenna's comment that SAWP workers health care is provided through OHIP.  Perhaps this is the case now?   I'm not sure since some of their complaints in a 2007 study relate to the fact that the health insurance coverage they had (from home countries?) was insufficient to cover the cost of some of the workers.  The report goes on to say that question of inadequate insurance coverage must be addressed with urgency (see Jamaican Workers’ Participation in the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program).  It further recommend that

"The CSAWP medical/health insurance scheme should be redesigned, the main features of which should include:

a) adequacy of coverage based on past experience and inflation
b) participation of farmers and workers
c) affordability
d) transportability of benefits and coverage"

It is interesting that the main complaint of CSAWP workers from Jamaica was about wages.  They seemed fairly well satisfied.  Again, I'm not sure.  For a poingnant view of what life is like for seasonal workers, see Cecil Foster's 1998 novel,  Slammin Tar.

Yep - they are eligible for OHIP - but it is access that is the problem. They depend on employers for filling out forms, getting photos, etc.  Employers provide private insurance, and do for first time SAWP workers who do not have their cards yet.  Problems with private insuracne include: many clinics in rural areas are resistant to accepting private insurance, upfront costs for workers, fear of loss of employment when workers have to access insurance through employer, etc. Also, as you know the coverage of OHIP is limited, so costs of some tests, treatments and drugs are not fully covered and require workers to pay out of pocket.  Workers are eligible for Insurance through WSIB, but there are a number of reasons why claims are either not made or not awarded, some which relates to the difficulty in demonstrating accidents or illnesses occurred due to work, language and literacy barriers, fear of loss of employment, lack of transportation/access to clinics, filing or receiving claims in Mexico, etc. 

Closely tied to the issues related to migrant workers is the topic of remittances. These migrant workers are sending home money, which while it is helpful to their families, also has some less positive effects, which Jenna Hennabry brought up in her paper - creating an unsustainable economy, divides between migrant and non-migrant families, encouraging dependency, etc.

Seeing as how they seem to have such mixed impact, I'd be interested in hearing some participants' reactions to remittances and their effects. Are they just an unavoidable part of the global economy?  Is there really division within communities between those who have family members working abroad and those who do not?

Competition for the limited seasonal jobs is strong.  I have worked on interenational migration from Grenada, where those workers who were accepted in the seasonal workers programme were treated as "lucky".  It was also lucky to have a relative abroad who provided remittances.  Practically everyone in rural Grenada relied on remittances to some extent.  Nationally, remittances from abroad contributed about a third of the GDP, about the same amount as each of the two major crops (bananas and nutmeg).  Naturally, as migrants remained abroad for long periods, their attention to their relatives back home weakened. So, the impact of remittances may be subject to the ebbs and flows of international migration.  In Grenada, international migration was part of their cultural expecation, and successive genrations were able to emigrate, often returning with capital to buy land and contribute to the agricultural development of the island's crops.  The divisions of wealth fostered by emigration were already there, but emigration was a way to increase the economic power of small landowners since the owners of large plantations let their lands laspe into scrub and unused pasture. Emigrating and returning with money probably led to jealousy, but it also helped foster a culture of migration as a means to greater wealth.

To answer Jenifer's question, migration from the Caribbean has been a part of the global economy since the end of slavery.

GR Pool,

In Grenada, did you see evidence of tension between the 'lucky' and the 'unlucky' in the rural communities you mention, or is it more of a latent jealousy? Is the division of wealth within these communities increasing as a result of emigration?

And I realize emigration has always been present in the Americas. The ability to transfer the remittances has become much easier and faster in recent decades, however, which seems to amplify both their positive and negative effects.

Hello all,

First of all, I am glad to participate in this event. 

I have some comments and a couple of questions.

It is well known that Colombia is a very important source of migrants due to the violent armed conflict and the difficult economic situation in that country. In fact, the Colombian situation is nowadays one of the worse humanitarian catastrophes in the world, and the worse in our continent. This country not only averages thousands of murders yearly, but also millions have fled from their homes.

These forced migrations from Colombia are not only affecting this country and their neighbours countries, but also the whole continent. Canada has been receiving thousands of Colombian refugee claimants during the last years, and the majority of them had been granted refugee protection, and of course, permanent residency and citizenship.

With their status in Canada, refugee claimants receive a temporary work permit until the Refugee Board accept or reject their cases. If the refugee case is accepted, the are able to apply for permanent residency and, of course, they receive all the rights  involved with the status. 

As many other refugees in this country, Colombian refugees in Canada have been working on different jobs while they settle. Among these jobs, they have been working in farms where they have been joining the temporary migrant workers from Central-America and Mexico. 

Now, my questions are:

Could the difference in the status (between refugee claimants, refugees, permanent residents and temporary migrant workers) influence farm owners in their decision to hire seasonal workers from abroad?

Is it possible that refugees (Colombians in this special case) could displace temporary migrant workers in Canadian farms? 

Is it possible that this fact may affect the government policies on temporary migrant workers?

Thanks,

(Belatedly)-- Jennifer, I too am a bit cynical about the role farmers may or may not play in advocating for extended migrant worker rights. But not knowing for sure one way or the other, I suppose I came out sounding optimistic. Given the sheer number of farmers involved I presume someone, somewhere must have advocated for extended rights. I suppose the issue is whether such efforts could produce any results. So far indicators would suggest there is little coming from the farmers' side in support of extended rights.

I thought I should try to answer Jennifer's question about whether emigration leads to divisions of wealth, but it is difficult to generalize about so many countries and time periods.

There are really two kinds of divisions of wealth in many Caribbean countries.  The first was created by plantation slavery.  The second wealth division was caused by emigration (caused by the failure of many plantations to survive slavery).  Some Jamaicans and Grenadians who emigrated (1880s and 1900s) to Panama to work on the canal returned to own small acreages of land. Land purchase was more difficult where the plantations owned almost everything (e.g., Barbados).   In Grenada, emigration has led to land ownership for the returnee and to division on a small scale.  Sometimes, an agricultural property remained in the hands of an individual and was passed on to a son/daughter, but many properties were divided up as family land among numerous descendants of the original owners.  It is hard to generalize but emigration probably leads to more division of wealth than not, at least in the short term.  A remittance-led economy is not sustainable unless there is a continued social matrix of emigration.  In Grenada, a culture of migration has worked to provide for people when jobs are scarce and income from agriculture is low.  It seems to work in the long term, but it has some divisive consequences as far as who gets to emigrate and what happens when they return.

GR, thanks for your answer.
And Christopher, I think you're right in questioning whether farmers' efforts would have results. I suspect that if numbers were large enough or vocal enough, farmers could have a significant role. Compared with the migrant workers for whom they would be advocating, they surely would have better access to enact changes.

Fernando, thanks for your perspectives on the Colombian situation. And that's an intriguing question you have brought up, about whether refugees endanger the work prospects for migrant workers. I imagine that since both groups would be willing to work for lower wages than domestic citizens, they'd be competing for jobs - is there enough agricultural work for all? I hope someone with greater knowledge than I can help to answer your questions.

Does anyone know whether the recent economic downturn has affected demand for the seasonal workers? Is an unemployed domestic labour force in the developed countries more likely to seek out the jobs that were previously being filled from abroad?

Gr Pool is definitely correct, it is hard to generalize, but we do know that in many countries with long histories of labour migration (and remittance receiving) the impacts on development have been mixed, really luke warm at best. Remittances to Mexico tend to go to subsistance costs and consumption first, not land purchase or investment into income generating projects - at least not in the short term (2-5 years). In the SAWP even after a long period of participation in the Canadian program (15 -20 years) workers still use significant portions of remittances for daily subsistence costs or to maintain their transnational living (e.g. purchasing cell phones). Those we have interviewed typically say they only intended to come for a year or two, but have had to keep coming back every year just to maintain their living costs. This is not sustainable development. During my fieldwork in Mexico it was clearly evident which families have migrants sending money.

The long lines of migrant workers camped outside the offices of La Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social in Mexico City for weeks at a time to try to get into the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program reminds workers there is always someone else wiling to take their place if they make trouble with employers. WIth the expansion of the NOC C and D program I was talking about before, these foreign workers and the other immigrant workers and undocumented workers, are also competing for these jobs now. Having the programs operate simultaneously breeds conflict among ethnic groups, and enables employers to pit one group against another, and undercut one group with another. One Mexican worker I interviewed claimed that their employer threatened to replace them with Thai workers if they didn't work faster and stop complaining.

Hi Jennifer - the economic downturn has affected the demand for all workers. The key issue is that in the years preceding the recession, there was looming labour shortage so the government brought in more seasonal workers. The economic climate right now is that lay-offs have occurred in most industries so in contrast to what was promised, this is a pretty drastic change. 

Youth unemployment has skyrocketed particularly among students seeking seasonal work so I would imagine that youth as well as immigrants seeking survivor jobs would be more likely to take undesirable jobs than in previous years. 

Yes, and the problem is that the 251,235 temporary foreign workers in Canada on December 1st 2008 may find  themselves without the job they were promised. If they don't have high skill levels, capital or strong social networks then they are more likely to end up undocumented. 192,519 temporary foreign workers entered Canada in 2008. 

Demand for foreign workers has yet to show a decline. In 2005 there were 74,719 foreign worker positions requested and approved for empoyers, and by 2008 there were 176,368.  Interestingly, demand for SAWP workers has not declined since 2005. In fact in 2005 employers requested and were given 23,090 SAWP positions, and in 2008 there were 27,740 SAWP positions.

I don't understand how it happens, how it can be allowed, that an employer can request and be approved for a temporary foreign worker and then not be responsible for actually having to employ said worker. It seems completely unethical.

Jenna, why has the demand for foreign workers been skyrocketing over the past few years? The difference between your 2005 and 2008 numbers is huge! Is part of the increase due to an increased awareness on the part of the employers?

Partly it is because the Feds started a number of initiatives to expand the TFWP into other sectors and to ease up some restrictions around getting work permits for international students (this is a good thing since they pay tuition fees that are double that for Canadian residents). At the same time the government pumped millions of dollars into making it easier for employers to hire foreign workers and shortening wait times, and changing the advertising requirements that allow workers to get permission to hire FWs (for low-skilled jobs they must advertise for 14 days to demonstrate an attempt to hire Canadians first). Also, you can get permission to  hire more foreign workers than you actually choose to hire in the end - so the numbers of requests for workers are a bit inflated. That being said, the numbers of temporary workers entering every year have been increasing, while the numbers of permanent entries have remained steady or declined. At the same time with many producers trying to compete in global markets (like those in agriculture and manufacturing), any opportunities to cut costs or improve production are welcomed. For those sectors, you could say that the options are the following: a) hire Canadian labour, b) outsource you production to developing countries, c) import your product,  or  d) import workers from developing countries instead!

Thanks to all of our panelists and participants who took part in the e-Conference discussion today, and throughout this four-part series. Watch this space for links to a full summary of each session and of the success of the Inter-American Forum as a whole.

Moving forward, we will also ask you to complete a quick participant survey which will assist us in producing future e-Conferences. 

Sincerely,

- The CIGI e-Conference Team