Those in the ag sector who hire temporary foreign workers 365 days a year say Ottawa’s new regulations will be costly
UPDATED: May 10, 2024 – 0900 CST – Emailed comments from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) added.
WINNIPEG — Producers and primary agriculture companies that employ temporary workers 365 days per year say a federal policy change will require farmers to maintain empty houses.
In early May, a representative of the Canadian Mushroom Growers’ Association spoke to the House of Commons agriculture committee.
Executive vice-president Ryan Koeslag told MPs that it’s normal for temporary foreign workers on mushroom farms in Canada to live on their own.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“For a long time now when a worker requests to move out of the farmer-provided housing … Service Canada has accepted a housing waiver, allowing workers to move in with family members, spouses, children, friends, or simply have their own independence,” Koeslag said.
“However, since Service Canada has arbitrarily stopped accepting the housing waivers … they will be punishing farmers by demanding the farmers keep empty housing for those workers who have moved out.”
Janet Krayden, the agri-workforce expert with the mushroom growers, said something changed last year.
Government officials started asking for a housing inspection, showing that the employer-provided housing met certain standards.
However, if the temporary foreign workers are living on their own, why is that necessary?
“You don’t need a housing inspection if they’re not living there,” she said.
Mushroom Growers and other farmers who employ temporary foreign workers 365 days of the year, such as hog producers, greenhouses and dairy farmers, are worried about the cost of maintaining housing for people who don’t live in them.
“The farmers’ cost to this policy change will be enormous,” Koeslag said.
“We’re talking about hundreds of empty houses, hundreds of empty rooms, hundreds of empty beds for people who may never use them.”
This policy change won’t affect beekeepers, fruit and vegetable growers and other farmers who have seasonal temporary foreign workers. In those cases, the majority of workers live in employer-provided housing and then return to their home country in the off season.
“(But) anybody who is keeping temporary foreign workers year-round under the agricultural stream, they will be impacted by this,” Koeslag said.
The agricultural stream allows employers to hire temporary foreign workers when Canadians and permanent residents are not available, says the Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) website.
In an email, an ESDC spokesperson said the government has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of foreign workers.
“When employer-provided accommodations are a program requirement… employers must provide temporary foreign workers with adequate, suitable, and affordable housing… and submit a Housing Inspection Report,” the spokesperson said.
If a foreign worker chooses not to live in the employer-provided housing, they have the right to make that decision.
But the employer (farmer in this case) must still provide housing and a housing inspection, the feds say.
“(This) does not exempt the employer from meeting overarching Temporary Foreign Worker Program housing requirements as part of the LMIA (Labour Market Impact Assessment). Moreover, the employer is still required to submit a (housing inspection report),” the spokesperson said.
“Employers must ensure that sufficient housing will be made available for all temporary foreign workers… from the date of arrival to the date of departure. This policy is meant to protect temporary foreign workers over the course of their stay should their circumstances change.”
The spokesperson emphasized that the government is committed to protecting the rights of temporary foreign workers.
“(They) may be vulnerable to exploitation due to their limited financial means, possible language barriers, dependence on their employer, and possible difficulty in obtaining information on their rights.”
