Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Migrant agricultural workers face various health inequities that have led to preventable illness and death. This paper investigates how material housing conditions have shaped physical and mental health outcomes for temporary foreign workers in Canadian agriculture. We conducted a scoping review of literature on migrant agricultural worker housing in Canada published between 2000–2022, analysing insights on the physical quality of workers’ housing in relation to international frameworks on housing quality. Our review revealed a range of housing-related health risks, including: (1) Sanitation, food security, and water; (2) Thermal safety, electricity, and utilities; (3) Habitability of structure, air quality, and exposure to hazards; (4) Spacing, privacy, and co-worker relations and; (5) Geographic proximity to necessary services and social opportunities. Although housing has been increasingly recognized as a social determinant of health, little research examines how migrant farmworkers’ accommodations shape their health outcomes, particularly in Canada. This scoping review provides timely insights and recommendations to inform research, policy, and public health interventions.

Keywords

migrant workers housing health equity Temporary Foreign Worker Program migrant labor

Introduction

As wealthy countries worldwide have become increasingly reliant on government-administered ‘guestworker’ programs for low-wage agricultural work, housing has been consistently identified as a key determinant of migrant workers’ health (Neef, 2020; Quandt et al., 2015; Weiler et al., 2021). Issues such as overcrowding, pesticide exposure, and rodent infestation present direct threats to workers’ health (Beckford, 2016; Bradman et al., 2005; Muñoz-Quezada et al., 2016). Although researchers have long documented patterns of substandard housing for agricultural workers worldwide (Corrado et al., 2016; Hartwig & Marais, 2005; Neef, 2020), the issue persists because of a weak regulatory regime, agribusiness lobbying, and a lack of government enforcement (Mojtehedzadeh, 2020; Vosko & Casey, 2019). In the isolated rural areas where migrants tend to live and work, they often have limited access to services such as health care (Colindres et al., 2021). Ultimately, the quality of housing that is typically available to migrant agricultural workers can significantly undermine their physical and mental health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, congregate housing conditions for migrant agricultural workers contributed to a heightened risk of poor health outcomes and preventable death (Caxaj et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2020; Vosko et al., 2022). Given the far-reaching health consequences of housing and food security to health outcomes, nurses have a moral and professional obligation to advocate for dignified housing (Vold et al., 2019). This is especially important for the field of nursing given the unique health vulnerabilities facing migrant agricultural workers coupled with the Canadian agricultural industry's assertions that it would collapse without this workforce (Weiler et al., 2017; StatCan, 2022).

While the prevalence of housing-related health challenges for migrant agricultural workers is widely known, little research has focused specifically on the physical quality of their accommodations. In Canada, decades of research on what is now the federal Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) has likewise focused only minimally on migrant agricultural worker housing (Perry, 2018; Smith, 2015a; Tomic et al., 2010). Employers are typically responsible for migrant farmworker housing, which is frequently on-farm and adjacent to employers’ homes. In the absence of research that explicitly documents migrant workers’ concerns regarding their housing quality, policy decisions may reflect the priorities and lobbying power of actors who have greater access to political channels, such as growers and agribusiness representatives (Weiler & Grez, 2022). An evidence-informed understanding of the complexities that shape migrant workers’ living conditions can also inform more effective public health interventions.

In this paper, we present findings from a systematic scoping review of prior research on housing conditions for migrant agricultural workers in Canada. This review was guided by the following central question: What does existing literature reveal about the impact of employer-provided housing on migrant agricultural worker health in Canada? Our scoping review draws from scholarly literature and grey literature in English, French, and Spanish. As such, this paper provides a systematic documentation of concerns raised by workers, researchers, government, and civil society organizations. After providing a brief overview of relevant literature on migrant health and the Canadian policy context, we document five central themes regarding physical dimensions of workers’ housing. Specifically, we analyze insights on the physical quality of workers’ housing in relation to international frameworks on housing quality (City of Toronto, 2022; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2004; United Nations, 2019). At a policy level, these findings can inform the long-awaited implementation of enforceable national housing standards for migrant agricultural workers in Canada (Caxaj & Weiler, 2022). As clinicians and leaders privy to the many ways that poor housing negatively impacts health outcomes (Pauly et al., 2009), nurses are uniquely equipped to advocate for improved housing standards for migrant agricultural workers.

Migrant agricultural worker health in canada

Initiated as a pilot project in 1966, Canada's farm labor migration program enables employers to hire workers from less wealthy countries such as Jamaica, Mexico, and Guatemala (Dunsworth, 2021; Smith, 2015b). It is administered by the Canadian federal government with logistical involvement by grower organizations in various provinces. Agricultural streams of the TFWP are popular among growers and have grown to include some 50,000 farmworkers annually (Zhang et al., 2021). In 2017, international migrants made up 16.1 percent of all agricultural workers (Zhang et al., 2021). Depending on the stream of the TFWP through which they were hired, migrant agricultural workers’ visas allow them to reside in Canada for between eight months to two years.

Typically, migrant agricultural workers’ ability to legally reside in Canada hinges on remaining employed by the initial person who hired them. Leaving their job could mean losing their immigration status and associated health care (Basok et al., 2014). In a survey of Mexican migrant workers in British Columbia, 44 percent reported a high risk of “working with an aggressive boss or supervisor” (Preibisch & Otero, 2014, p. 186; see also Hennebry et al., 2016, p. 529). Yet even in flagrant contexts of employer abuse and unsanitary accommodations, changing employers can be exceedingly difficult (Weiler & McLaughlin, 2019). Although migrants often depend heavily on income earned in Canada to support themselves and their families, the precarious design of this work abroad presents risks for their physical and mental health, along with labor and human rights (Binford, 2013). The consequences of this precarity include pressure to accept hazardous working and living conditions, limited help-seeking and reporting of health concerns, and enduring workplace abuse and intimidation (Basok et al., 2014; Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Cohen & Caxaj, 2022). Prolonged familial separation, social isolation, and employer expectations of hyperproductivity can further exacerbate these risks (McLaughlin, 2010; Perry, 2018; Wells et al., 2014).

The precariousness of migrant farmworkers’ immigration and employment status heightens their risk of poor health outcomes. For example, workers may avoid reporting illness or injury due to fear of not being rehired, or of being medically repatriated (Colindres et al., 2021, Cohen & Caxaj, 2018; Hennebry et al., 2016; Orkin et al., 2014; Preibisch & Otero, 2014). Health risks such as exhaustion as well as musculoskeletal injuries and pain are significantly linked to long, intense workdays with few or no breaks (Hennebry et al., 2016; Preibisch & Otero, 2014). Mental health concerns including depression and anxiety have also been linked to fear of repatriation, alongside contributing factors such as the loneliness of being apart from children and other family, high levels of stress, and a sense of powerlessness (England et al., 2007; Paciulan & Preibisch, 2013; Pysklywec et al., 2011; Salami et al., 2015). Existing literature often notes how migrant health issues as varied as food insecurity, social isolation, and reproductive health converge with employer-provided housing (Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017; Weiler et al., 2017). However, there has been little explicit scholarly focus on how housing drives poor physical and mental health outcomes for migrant agricultural workers.

National housing standards for migrant agricultural worker in canada

Considering decades of research and advocacy documenting substandard housing for migrant agricultural workers, governments in Canada have faced pressure to respond. Responsibility for migrant health, safety, and housing falls under multiple governmental and non-governmental jurisdictions (Hennebry, 2010). However, a federal government department, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), holds ultimate responsibility for coordinating across jurisdictions and administering the TFWP. In 2018, the federal government launched a National Housing Study with the stated intention of “establishing a cohesive Temporary Foreign Worker Program housing standard across Canada” (NHICC, 2018). Key recommendations from the study included establishing a consistent national housing standard, improving coordination across jurisdictions, and strengthening training and certification for housing inspectors. Forty percent of surveyed employers indicated that workers’ housing was in a ‘dual purpose’ building such as a storage facility or machine shed, highlighting the possibility of toxic chemical exposure (p.13). Despite the concerns raised by this study and previous research, grower organizations successfully lobbied against the creation of national housing standards (Mojtehedzadeh, 2020). ESDC asserted it would be difficult to standardize housing requirements across Canada due to distinct standards in provinces and territories, highlighting that “many employers worry that their costs could increase to meet a potential new national standard” (ESDC, 2019).

To date, employer-provided housing standards and enforcement remain a major gap in supporting the health of migrant agricultural workers in Canada. Although the federal government has not yet established national housing standards for migrant workers, ESDC proposed to improve migrant agricultural workers’ housing through increased on-site inspections and modest administrative changes that would increase the frequency of certain desk-based reporting requirements expected of employers (ESDC, 2018). Yet housing remained the top concern for many migrant agricultural workers across the country, indicating workers’ needs were going unaddressed. In 2019, leaked documents from the Mexican Ministry of Labour showed that since 2009, migrant workers had reported 3,100 concerns about their housing and workplace conditions, with over 1,200 regarding substandard housing (Mojtehedzadeh, 2019). Canadian governments often rely on a complaint-driven system to address migrant worker housing concerns and have not established adequate enforcement measures to proactively address substandard housing (Vosko & Casey, 2019). Nevertheless, extensive research shows that migrant agricultural workers are reticent to voice complaints or pursue legal measures when faced with poor housing conditions because of the threat of retaliation by employers (e.g., Caxaj & Cohen, 2019). In other words, many workers facing poor housing standards remain silent because reporting concerns may jeopardize their employment and immigration status.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified many of the housing-related risks facing migrant agricultural workers in Canada (Caxaj et al., 2022b; Vosko et al., 2022). In late 2020, the federal government launched consultations regarding migrant worker housing with various government actors, industry, and civil society organizations that support migrant workers. The following year, the Auditor General released a report that was sharply critical of ESDC for inadequate inspections of migrant farmworker housing. She noted that the quality, rigor, and timeliness of inspections had in fact deteriorated between 2020–2021 (Auditor General, 2021). In 2022, Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, released a report based on roughly 150 submissions received, documenting inconsistent housing quality criteria across regions (ESDC, 2022a). Minister Qualtrough expressed the government's interest in improving collaboration across sectors and levels of government. At a Ministerial Roundtable later that year, ESDC proposed to address “essential” foci such as access to water, ventilation, proximity to hazardous materials, and sewage (ESDC, 2022b). These items are undoubtedly important for migrant workers’ health and safety. However, the government's response reflects both a lack of urgency and an exceedingly narrow acknowledgement of concerns raised by workers, advocates, and scholars. Amidst these political struggles, nurse scholars and advocates have played a prominent role in advocating for affordable, quality housing for the general public (Benbow et al., 2016; Chiu et al., 2020). Yet the discipline has been relatively silent in recognizing the unique housing threats faced by migrant agricultural workers.

Methods

Our scoping review sought to broadly identify existing research detailing migrant agricultural workers’ housing experiences in Canada. We drew on a scoping review framework as first developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later revised by Levac et al. (2010). A scoping review is an appropriate methodology when there exists minimal scholarly research on a topic, and our literature review is intended to be descriptive rather than theory testing. Although extensive literature exists on migrant agricultural workers in Canada, there is surprisingly little focus on the quality of their housing. Much of the research that does address their housing mentions it only in passing. A strength of scoping reviews is that they enable researchers to analyze a broad range of publication types; this breadth is crucial when there is limited scholarly literature on a topic. For this reason, our search encompassed not only peer-reviewed scholarly literature, but also academic commentaries and influential grey literature. Our review was driven by the question: What does prior literature reveal about migrant agricultural workers’ housing experiences in Canada? This question aligned well with a scoping review. First, the question allowed us to account for a variety of micro- and macro-level factors that could shape housing quality for this population. Second, the question permitted us to set sufficiently broad parameters of inquiry (e.g., ‘housing experiences’) to map the body of literature in this regard (Peterson et al., 2017; Munn et al., 2018).

To reflect relevant recent policy changes related to migrant worker housing, our scoping review included articles from 2000 onward. Peer reviewed scholarly literature was identified using a comprehensive search strategy developed by information specialist and health science librarian (Martyniuk) in consultation with the review team. This co-author oversaw the main search of databases, along with hand-searches of grey literature and references. The PRISMA-Search extension developed by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) has been used to report all search strategies and can be found in Appendix A. Subject headings and textwords related to the following concepts were included in the search: agricultural foreign workers, housing, and Canada. The complete search strategies can be found in Appendix B.

We developed and finalized our search strategy in OVID Medline and then translated it to OVID Embase, OVID HealthStar, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, CAB Direct, PAIS Index, and Academic Search Complete. A date limit was applied to include articles published since 2000. No language limit was applied to the search strategies. However, articles not in English, Spanish or French were omitted during our full-text screen. The searches were initially run in April 2021. To capture subsequent publications, we reran searches in June 2022 prior to the final analysis and article submission. The search results were exported into EndNote and deduplicated.

To ensure comprehensiveness, we complemented the main database search in several ways. To identify relevant grey literature, we conducted a hand search of relevant grey literature resources, including TripPro, Canada.ca, and Google Scholar immediately following the academic database search. Documentation of the grey literature search can be found in the Appendix C. To identify any studies that had been missed, we also performed hand searching of reference lists from included articles. In addition, we informally consulted expert colleagues in migrant agricultural worker health and human rights, which involved sharing our list of included publications and asking them to identify any remaining literature missed by our search strategies.

To screen the articles for inclusion, we imported articles into Rayyan (with additional deduplication as necessary). Two paired reviewers then independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. Any conflicts were resolved through consensus among the three authors. Next, the three authors independently screened full-text versions of the long-listed articles. Any articles that raised questions regarding the interpretation of the eligibility criteria were discussed among all authors to ensure consistency across the screening process. Eligibility criteria for academic articles included empirical or theoretical works, including book chapters, relevant to migrant workers, housing and the Canadian context. Articles published before 2000, in languages other than English, French or Spanish, or not relevant to the topic were excluded. The PRISMA Flow Diagram (appendix A) presents the screening process of the included and excluded articles. In total, we included 51 academic articles, 6 government documents/websites and 7 non-profit reports. Most government documents reviewed were authored by federal agencies (n = 5). Most academic articles written within a bounded geographic setting were based in Ontario (n = 21), British Columbia (n = 10), with much less focussed in Quebec (n = 1) and Nova Scotia (n = 1). Yet a large amount of articles, because of their theoretical or methodological nature (i.e., literature reviews), or, their transnational or multi-regional analysis could not be classified under a specific provincial context (n = 18). Only 4 non-English articles were identified, three being in Spanish and one in French.

Finally, the two first authors [Caxaj, Weiler] used a live intake spreadsheet form to extract and organize key insights from the full-text included articles and grey literature. Authors only participated in the extraction of articles written in a language they were fluent in. To analyze key qualitative themes from the data, we drew on Braun and Clarke's (2006) approach to thematic analysis. This involved Weiler and Caxaj applying codes to each unique insight and then combining codes to develop broader themes. We delineated two distinct but interrelated types of findings: (1) Physical housing characteristics - descriptions of concrete and/or material issues and; (2) Social dynamics of housing – interpersonal, political, and economic circumstances that determined migrant agricultural workers’ subjective housing experiences. Here, we focus on physical housing characteristics, which merit targeted consideration to guide both issues of housing quality definitions and oversight and enforcement. To make sense of how these findings measure up against broader measures of housing and health, and to organize our findings, we drew from housing standards in Canadian, U.S., and other international jurisdictions (City of Toronto, 2022; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2004; United Nations, 2019).

Findings

Our findings revealed a range of housing issues that posed a notable risk to migrant workers’ physical and mental health, and that did not measure up to existing governmental requirements for employers of migrant workers in Canada (Service Canada, 2017; WALI, 2020). Here, we will discuss these issues under five broader categories: (1) Sanitation, food security, and water; (2) Thermal safety, electricity, and utilities; (3) Habitability of structure, air quality, and exposure to hazards; (4) Spacing, privacy, and co-worker relations; and (5) Geographic proximity to necessary services and social opportunities. Structural factors such as workers’ precarious immigration status make them uniquely vulnerable to the health and safety risks posed by these issues. The implications of these findings will be discussed following this section and further elaborated in subsequent publications.

Sanitation, food security and water

Literature on migrant agricultural worker housing documented a lack of access to adequate washrooms, laundry facilities, and other sanitary facilities (Bejan et al., 2021; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017; Landry et al., 2021; Diaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; Rosales Mendoza, 2016; Perry, 2018; Salami et al., 2015; Stasiulis, 2020; Thomas, 2020). For a workforce that may be regularly exposed to agrochemicals, a lack of laundry and handwashing stations posed a threat to workers’ health and safety (Preibisch & Otero, 2014). In addition, researchers reported insufficient refrigeration and/or food storage capacity, along with limited facilities and space to cook meals (McLaughlin, 2017; Preibisch, 2004; Perry, 2018; Valenzuela-Moreno, 2018; Weiler et al., 2017). A scarcity of facilities — whether related to hygiene or food preparation — had significant implications for migrant farmworkers’ health. For instance, individual workers reported that delayed access to scarce shared facilities meant losing out on opportunities for rest, recreation, and even sleep (Binford, 2013; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017; Perry, 2018). Some workers also reported having to wake up at dawn to have a chance to shower. A lack of adequate food storage, including refrigeration, had an adverse impact on migrant farmworkers’ nutrition and food security (Al-Bazz et al., 2022; Díaz Mendiburo & Mclaughlin, 2016). This included heightening the risk of foodborne illness transmission. Inadequate kitchen facilities and utensils limited workers’ capacity to prepare nutritious food, prompting them to rely on high-energy and nutritionally poor processed food requiring limited preparation (Weiler et al., 2017). Finding a physical space to eat was also reported as a challenge (Perry, 2018).

Perhaps most concerningly, nine studies highlighted a lack of, or inadequate, potable/clean water in migrant farmworkers’ homes (Bauder, 2005; Bejan et al., 2021; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; McLaughlin, 2017; Decent and Dignified Housing for Migrant Farmworkers, 2020; Preibisch & Otero, 2014; Salami et al., 2015; Stasiulis, 2020). Limited access to this basic amenity would amplify challenges for workers already facing barriers to kitchen and washroom facilities. Beyond describing this issue as illustrative of poor housing conditions or wider structural marginalization, none of the studies provided an in-depth investigation of inadequate potable water.

Thermal safety, electricity, and utilities

Buildings or shelters in which some workers were housed were in such poor condition that basic ventilation required for summer months, and adequate heating required for cooler periods, were sometimes ineffective or nonexistent (Beckford, 2016; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; Rosales Mendoza, 2016; Salami et al., 2015). Researchers documented a case in which migrant worker residents had no electricity (Caxaj & Diaz, 2018). In other cases, migrant workers stated that they faced illegal deductions from their earnings, or that they had to pay directly for heating and electricity despite employers’ contractual obligations to cover these costs (Caxaj & Diaz, 2018). A lack of access to utilities or service to facilitate communication was reported in some studies and considered particularly difficult, especially because workers relied on phones and the internet to communicate with their families abroad (Binford, 2002; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Colindres et al., 2021; Juarez Cerdi, 2016; Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; Tomic & Trumper, 2012).

Habitability of structure, air quality, and exposure to hazards

Some housing structures were noted as being in disrepair, with inadequate installation of washrooms, kitchens and bedrooms, and a lack of basic furniture (e.g., beds and chairs), or communal spaces, leading to extreme discomfort and poor wellbeing (Binford, 2013; Salami et al., 2015; Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; Rosales Mendoza, 2016; Tomic & Trumper, 2012; Perry, 2018). In one study, employers “staged” a kitchen with additional stoves that were only temporarily placed in workers’ homes for the duration of a housing inspection (Caxaj & Cohen, 2019). Relatedly, researchers reported on cases of minimal or no maintenance or clean-up of living quarters by employers across seasons (Bejan et al., 2021; Binford, 2013). Pest infestations, such as rodents, were also documented (Beckford, 2016; Bejan et al., 2021).

Ten studies identified exposure to pesticides as a housing hazard (e.g., pesticides stored adjacent to living quarters) (Basok, 2000; Bauder, 2005; Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Hennebry & McLaughlin, 2012; McLaughlin, 2017; Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2017; NHICC, 2018; Salami et al., 2015; Stasiulis, 2020). A report in Eastern Canada identified bylaw violations related to the placement of smoke detectors (Bejan et al., 2021). Air quality was generally discussed in relation to thermal safety (see above), but also in relation to hazardous exposures. The COVID-19 pandemic elevated the consequences for workers’ health and safety of access to ventilation, fresh air, and personal space. For instance, authors described cases in which migrant farmworkers were not provided with separate facilities when awaiting COVID-19 tests, even when symptomatic (Landry et al., 2021; Caxaj et al., 2020). Shared dwellings and overcrowding were significant problems for migrant workers generally (Díaz Mendiburo & McLaughlin, 2016; Preibisch & Grez, 2010; Valenzuela Moreno, 2018). During the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during the quarantine period, overcrowding resulted in an inability to physically distance and a greater risk of exposure (Bejan et al., 2021; Colindres et al., 2021; Landry et al., 2021; Mema et al., 2021; Sztainbok, 2021).

Spacing, privacy, and co-worker relations

The location of workers’ housing and the blurring of personal and work spaces led to various mental health stressors for migrant agricultural workers, including the pressure to be constantly “on call” or working (Bridi, 2013; Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Cohen, 2019; Hjalmarson, 2016; Perry, 2018; Preibisch, 2004; Valenzuela Moreno, 2018; Reid-Musson, 2018). This pressure was exacerbated by the location of workers’ housing, which was typically on their employer's property and/or in close proximity to farm operations (Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Gallié, Galerand & Bourbeau, 2020). Proximity to employers’ homes facilitated surveillance and arbitrary ‘house rules,’ and overcrowding in congregate housing quarters further reducing workers’ autonomy and freedom of mobility (Bejan et al., 2021; Birdi, 2013; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Cohen, 2019; Hjalmarson et al., 2015; McLaughlin, 2017; Perry, 2018). In an extreme case, migrant workers reported being physically locked indoors after work (Preibisch, 2004) and in many cases, workers were explicitly instructed not to socialize outside of the farm (Caxaj & Cohen, 2018; Hjalmarson et al., 2015). Another common spatial practice of employer control involved racial and gender segregation of housing facilities (Cohen, 2019; Juárez Cerdi, 2010; Preibisch & Grez, 2010). Workers reported poorer or differential treatment based on their gender or country of origin, which they described as a form of discrimination or control (Beckford, 2016; Cohen & Caxaj, 2018; Cohen, 2019; Hjalmarson et al., 2015; Preibisch & Grez, 2010). Researchers also cataloged extensive cases in which workers reported that harassment and fear for safety impacted the overall quality of their living conditions, and that these dynamics often mirrored workplace hierarchies (Basok et al., 2014; Binford, 2013; Cohen, 2019; Juárez Cerdi, 2010; Decent and Dignified Housing for Migrant Farmworkers, 2020; Perry, 2018; Preibisch & Grez, 2010).

Without a clear separation between home and workspaces, and without adequate personal space, conflict could arise between co-workers who were also housemates (Lippel & Walters, 2019; Perry, 2018). Workplace hierarchies could be reproduced in living spaces, entrenching workers’ experiences of lacking control over their personal time and space (Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Preibisch & Grez, 2010). Overcrowding resulted in a lack of privacy, dignity, and poorer reported mental health for many workers (Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Perry, 2018; Salami et al., 2015). In one study, Mexican migrant farmworkers were misinformed by the Mexican recruitment office about how crowded their housing would be (Bejan et al., 2021). In another case, participants reported sharing three trailers and two working toilets with 45 co-workers (Preibisch, 2004).

Accessibility and location

Research commonly described the geographic location of workers’ housing as situated in rural or segregated areas with few amenities (e.g., groceries), and with limited access to basic services (Binford, 2013; Cohen & Caxaj, 2018; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017; Juárez Cerdi, 2010; Rosales Mendoza, 2016; Tomic & Trumper, 2012). This isolation was often reinforced by a lack of access to safe and affordable transportation (e.g., public transit, sidewalks, etc.), making it difficult for workers to leave their employer's property/farm (Bridi, 2013; Juárez Cerdi, 2010; McLaughlin, 2013; Hjalmarson et al., 2021; Lippel & Walters, 2019; Preibisch, 2004; Reid-Musson, 2018; Stasiulis, 2020). Limited mobility also restricted individuals’ opportunities to forge social connections with local communities (Binford, 2002; Cohen, 2019; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017; Rosales Mendoza, 2016; Reid-Musson, 2018; Tomic & Trumper, 2012; Wong et al., 2021). As a result of their isolation, workers often had to rely on supervisors or employers to access health services and other essential needs (Basok, 2000; Basok, Belanger & Rivas, 2014; Cohen & Caxaj, 2018; Colindres et al., 2021), which jeopardized migrant workers’ privacy and could deter help-seeking (Caxaj & Cohen, 2018; Wong et al., 2021). Farmworkers’ built-in dependence on employers and supervisors also intensified barriers for workers to move freely and access necessary services (Basok, 2000; Caxaj & Cohen, 2018; Hennebry & McLaughlin, 2012; Rosales Mendoza, 2016). Constrained freedom of mobility became acute during employer-overseen quarantine periods in the COVID-19 pandemic (Decent and Dignified Housing for Migrant Farmworkers, Sztainbok, 2021). Racialized surveillance and profiling in the surrounding community also contributed to workers’ sense of isolation (Basok et al., 2014; Cohen, 2019; Cohen & Caxaj, 2022; Juárez Cerdi, 2010; Preibisch, 2004; Hjalmarson et al., 2015).

Overcrowding and isolation undermined migrant workers’ mental health in several ways. Indoor housing tended to offer few spaces for privacy or solitude, and a lack of access to green space limited individuals’ opportunities to practice their spiritual or cultural beliefs (Rosales Mendoza, 2016). Previous authors noted that on the rare occasions when green space was available, workers were afforded some reprieve, and opportunities to more easily bond with co-workers (Perry, 2018). Furthermore, migrant agricultural workers identified physical space and time off the farm/property as important, particularly given the drawbacks of their on-farm housing. Yet strenuous work schedules, geographic isolation, limited freedom of mobility, and the expenses incurred through travel and recreation further constrained workers’ ability to access health-promoting amenities and leisure from life off of the farm/property (Binford, 2002; Birdi, 2013; Caxaj & Diaz, 2018; Juárez Cerdi, 2010). Because it was often difficult to leave their employer's property in remote rural areas, poor living conditions became an inescapable, fundamental determinant of workers’ physical and mental health in their day-to-day lives.

Discussion and implications for policy, nursing practice, and public health

Based on our scoping review, we recommend that the federal government establish national housing standards that significantly raise requirements for the quality of migrant workers’ physical housing conditions (e.g., no bunk beds), along with more systemic changes to the design of the TFWP (Caxaj & Weiler, 2022; Caxaj et al., 2020; McLaughlin, 2013). Stronger mechanisms for proactive enforcement and complaint-reporting are needed to ensure such standards are followed. We recommend that the federal government coordinate among all levels of government so that workers no longer fall through the jurisdictional cracks, which have led to accommodation quality that is inconsistent and at times severely substandard (Hennebry, 2010).

A key first step to address health inequities facing migrant farmworkers is for the federal government to establish strong national housing standards. These standards should include targeted attention to chemical exposures, thermal safety, and ventilation. Thermal safety and air quality will become of increasing public health importance with climate-related extreme weather events such as heat domes, droughts, wildfires, and flooding (Amini et al., 2021; Austin et al., 2015; Greene, 2018). Policymakers should develop stronger health and safety standards for farmworker housing to reflect the known adverse effects of thermal stress on workers’ physical and mental health (Berry et al., 2010; Castillo et al., 2021). Access to internet utilities should be considered a basic right because it not only enables migrant farmworkers to maintain ties with families and communities abroad, but also to use e-health services (Price et al., 2013). This is crucial given that a lack of access to timely medical care can lead to preventable illness and death (Caxaj et al., 2022a). Nurses are emerging as leaders in advocacy for climate change, digital health equity, and racial justice (International Council of Nurses, 2020) — areas of expertise that could be leveraged to inform a national housing strategy for this population, and ultimately, improve housing conditions for migrant farmworkers.

The fundamental design of Canada's farm labor migration program lends itself to health vulnerabilities faced by migrant workers, including issues of substandard housing, geographic isolation, a lack of privacy, and employer restrictions on migrant workers’ freedom and dignity (Caxaj & Cohen, 2019; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017). Key features of the program that undermine workers’ bargaining power include farmworkers’ precarious immigration status and deportability, exclusion from certain provincial labor protections (e.g., agricultural workers cannot unionize in Ontario), structural and interpersonal racism, and low-wage positions (Basok et al., 2014; Smith, 2015b). Provincial governments should support farmworkers’ right to collectively organize and assert decision-making power over their housing conditions through processes such as contract negotiations (Preibisch, 2004). Government funding for workers to be housed off-farm in the community, with transportation to worksites, could serve as an important preventive strategy to keep workers safer and closer to the supports they need. Providing migrant agricultural workers with permanent residency on arrival, open work permits, and a fair grievance procedure prior to a removal order could significantly address the asymmetrical power relationship between workers and employers (Weiler & McLaughlin, 2019).

Solutions to poverty and unemployment in the Global South are complex and context-specific. However, multilateral coordination to support viable livelihood options in workers’ countries of origin can also help reduce pressure on migrant workers to ‘consent’ to high-risk jobs and substandard housing in the Global North (Binford, 2013). Given the transnational migratory status that underpins this groups’ housing, and ultimately their health, nurses and other clinicians must exercise working knowledge of the various structural factors that threaten this group's health status (Cole et al., 2019). For example, nurses can anticipate how fear of being repatriated may underscore workers’ decision to withstand hazardous living conditions or tolerate employer gatekeeping of service access. Program and service delivery may need to be adapted accordingly to meet the unique needs of this group.

The existence of unsanitary farmworker housing, along with a lack of clean running water and unsafe food storage conditions, suggests that existing oversight and enforcement mechanisms for employer-provided housing have been ineffective (Beckford, 2016; Colindres et al., 2021; McLaughlin, 2013; Wong et al., 2021). The severity of these issues underscores the need for urgent policy interventions to prevent them from occurring. A reliance on pre-arrival and desk-based housing inspections has clearly proved inadequate, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Baum & Grant, 2020). ESDC should prioritize random, unannounced, and proactive housing inspections by in-person inspectors. Documented issues with rodent infestations, exposure to agrochemicals, and lack of appropriate heating, ventilation, and cooling further underscore the importance of in-person housing inspections to assess safety-ground conditions. Federal and private Inspectors alike should be well-trained, certified by a single federal governing body for consistency, and either able to speak migrant workers’ languages or accompanied by a translator. Penalties for non-compliance should be sufficiently high to promote deterrence. Strong leadership and coordination in this area by ESDC could help address jurisdictional and procedural issues. Furthermore, in many provinces and territories, public health units are tasked to carry out housing inspections that may be overly narrow in volume and scope. Therefore, nurses and other healthcare professionals have a role in advocating for more comprehensive standards and infrastructure to oversee and implement safer and more dignified housing for this population.

Alongside stronger proactive enforcement, ESDC should create accessible mechanisms for workers to safely report concerns about their housing. ESDC's commitment to staff complaint lines with live operators is a useful first step (ESDC, 2022c), but these operators must be trained to understand the unique barriers and potential retaliation migrant workers might face by making a complaint. In addition, methods to ensure anonymous reporting to inspectors during site visits, and protocols to activate adequate referrals and follow-up to ensure hazardous living conditions are fully addressed must be put in place. Alternative housing must be available for workers who report human rights abuses and other violations.

Nurses and other health care practitioners play an important role in supporting migrant workers’ access to healthier housing. Outreach by healthcare workers to the remote rural areas where workers live could also help improve sanitation, food security, and potable drinking water access, especially given this group's limited connections with the wider community. In addition, taking into account that this workforce faces circumstances that pressure them to accept and under-report unsafe living conditions, nurses and other clinicians should proactively develop effective communication channels to connect with migrant farmworkers well in advance of emergency events (Chiabai et al., 2018; Roelofs, 2018). Given the precarity and multiple layers of regulation that shape migrant workers’ housing challenges, nurse leaders can form working relationships with civil society organizations, churches, and other support organizations that have gained the trust of this population. Furthermore, they must be prepared to help navigate and liaise with government authorities that have not always prioritized workers’ health and safety through their policies and actions. This is particularly important in rural and small-towns where migrant workers may often be isolated.

Limitations

A few limitations of this review should be acknowledged. First, of the academic articles included in our review, housing was rarely the central empirical or theoretical focus. This points to the need for further research that specifically targets housing issues and experiences faced by this population. Second, the vast majority of articles that met our inclusion criteria used qualitative methods. This suggests the need for further quantitative empirical work to measure the magnitude of housing challenges faced by migrant agricultural workers in Canada, including associated health outcomes. Lastly, our review included documents only up until June 2022. So pertinent articles since that time have not been included in our analysis.

Conclusion

Our scoping review provides evidence that the material conditions of migrant agricultural workers’ accommodations in Canada can significantly undermine their physical and mental health. On the one hand, the design of migrant farmworker housing can contribute to barriers to well-being for this population, including by creating a dependence on employers for transportation from remote rural areas to healthcare services and crucial amenities such as groceries. On the other hand, housing conditions can directly threaten workers’ health, such as the threat of exposure to agrochemicals from ‘dual purpose’ housing, rodent infestations, along with airborne disease and stressful interpersonal conflict in overcrowded bunkhouses. Given the increasing popularity of low-wage, temporary farm labor migration programs worldwide and a growing recognition of housing as a determinant of health (Lee et al., 2022; Reid et al., 2021; Swope & Hernández, 2019), this scoping review offers insights that transcend the Canadian context. On the other hand, our focus on the physical domains of housing may preclude important social processes and consequences such as the gender dynamics arising from institutionalized living quarters (Preibisch & Grez, 2010; Smith, 2015b; Thomas, 2020), along with workers’ agency in resisting housing conditions that segregate them (Cohen & Hjalmarson, 2020; Juárez Cerdi, 2010). Further research should also explore how both micro and macro-level power dynamics in employer-provided housing may shape health equity for migrant workers.

Future studies that look to areas of migrant farmworker housing in Canada that have been less well-documented thus far could be particularly beneficial. For instance, some housing issues faced by this group, even compared to U.S. research have been minimally explored in the Canadian context, and include household food security, water potability, and pesticide exposure. Finally, given the profound impacts of climate-related weather events on occupational health and health equity, the link between migrant farmworker accommodations and climate change represents a vital, under-explored area of empirical study in Canada and internationally. Nurses can play a critical role in advocating for policies and practices that ensure more suitable housing for various underserved populations, through the development of oversight mechanisms, preventative frameworks, and policy changes (Ford-Gilboe et al., 2018; Koprowski, 2020). As key voices in public health advocacy (Caxaj et al., 2021), nurses are well-positioned to document the health threats faced at the intersection of housing and health equity for migrant agricultural workers specifically, and to push for needed changes to prevent such injustices.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 - Supplemental material for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review by C. Susana Caxaj, Anelyse M. Weiler and Julia Martyniuk in Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 - Supplemental material for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review by C. Susana Caxaj, Anelyse M. Weiler and Julia Martyniuk in Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 - Supplemental material for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-cjn-10.1177_08445621231203086 for Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review by C. Susana Caxaj, Anelyse M. Weiler and Julia Martyniuk in Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This work was supported by a 2020 Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant number 435-2021-0094). This review is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada and represents one component of several under the banner of the Migrants' Intersecting Experiences with Housing in Agriculture (MIHA) research project. Caxaj and Weiler currently co-lead the MIHA project.

ORCID iD

C. Susana Caxaj

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

C. Susana Caxaj is an associate professor in the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing.

Anelyse M. Weiler is an assistant professor in Sociology at the University of Victoria.

Julia Martyniuk is a library and information specialist. She is currently in the role of liaison and education librarian at the University of Toronto.

References

*Authors references removed for anonymous review

Al-Bazz

Béland

Lane

G. L.

Engler-Stringer

R. R.

White

Vatanparast

(2022). Food security of temporary foreign farm workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program in Canada and the United States: A scoping review. Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 13(5), 1603–1627. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmac027

Amini

Ibrahimi Ghavamabadi

Rangkooy

Fouladi Dehaghi

(2021). Climate change and its effects on farm workers. Environmental Health Engineering and Management, 8(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.34172/EHEM.2021.21

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Auditor General of Canada (2021). Health and safety of agricultural temporary foreign workers in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Report 13. Retrieved August 2, 2022, from https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_202112_02_e.pdf

Austin

Ford

J. D.

Berrang-Ford

Araos

Parker

Fleury

M. D.

(2015). Public health adaptation to climate change in Canadian jurisdictions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(1), 623–651. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120100623

Basok

(2000). He came, he saw, he stayed. Guest worker programmes and the issue of non-return. International Migration, 38(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2435.00108

Basok

Bélanger

Rivas

(2014). Reproducing deportability: Migrant agricultural workers in South-western Ontario. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(9), 1394–1413. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.849566

Bauder

(2005). Landscape and scale in media representations: The construction of offshore farm labour in Ontario. Canada. cultural geographies, 12(1), 41–58.

10.

Baum

K. B.

Grant

(2020). Ottawa didn’t enforce rules for employers of migrant farm workers during pandemic. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-how-ottawas-enforcement-regime-failed-migrant-workers-during-the/

11.

Beckford

(2016). The experiences of Caribbean migrant farmworkers in Ontario, Canada. Social and Economic Studies, 65(1), 153–188. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26380115

12.

Bejan

Allain

Gkynn

Wheatley

Soto Flores

(2021). Safe at work, unsafe at home: COVID-19 and temporary foreign workers in Prince Edward Island. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/80526/Report-Safe_at_Work_Unsafe_at_Home-TFWMARITIMES-PEI-2021.pdf?sequence=5

13.

Benbow

Gorlick

Forchuk

Ward-Griffin

Berman

(2016). Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy: A critical discourse analysis. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 48(3-4), 100–109.

14.

Berry

H. L.

Bowen

Kjellstrom

(2010). Climate change and mental health: A causal pathways framework. International Journal of Public Health, 55(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-0112-0

15.

Binford

(2013). Tomorrow we're all going to the harvest: Temporary foreign worker programs and neoliberal political economy. University of Texas Press.

16.

Bradman

Chevrier

Tager

Lipsett

Sedgwick

Macher

Vargas

A. B.

Cabrera

E. B.

Camacho

J. M.

Weldon

Kogut

Jewell

N. P.

Eskenazi

(2005). Association of housing disrepair indicators with cockroach and rodent infestations in a cohort of pregnant Latina women and their children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(12), 1795–1801. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7588

17.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

18.

Bridi

R. M.

(2013). Labour control in the tobacco agro-spaces: Migrant agricultural workers in South-Western Ontario. Antipode, 45(5), 1070–1089.

19.

Castillo

Mora

A. M.

Kayser

G. L.

Vanos

Hyland

Yang

A. R.

Eskenazi

(2021). Environmental health threats to Latino migrant farmworkers. Annual Review of Public Health, 42(1), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-012420-105014

20.

Caxaj

Cohen

Colindres

(2022a). More of the same? Migrant agricultural workers’ health, safety, and legal rights in the COVID-19 context. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 11(3), 1–18.

21.

Caxaj

Tran

Mayell

Tew

McLaughlin

Rawal

Vosko

L. F.

Cole

(2022b). Migrant agricultural workers' deaths in Ontario from January 2020 to June 2021: A qualitative descriptive study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 21(1), 1–17.

22.

Caxaj

C. S.

Cohen

(2019). “I will not leave my body here”: Migrant farmworkers’ health and safety amidst a climate of coercion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2643.

23.

Caxaj

C. S.

Weiler

A. M.

(2020, July). For migrant farm workers, housing is not just a determinant of health, but a determinant of death. The conversation.

24.

Caxaj

Diaz

(2018). Migrant workers’(non) belonging in rural British Columbia, Canada: Storied experiences of Marginal Living. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 14(2), 208–220.

25.

Caxaj

Hanley

Hennebry

J. L.

Mayell

Mclaughlin

Tew

Vosko

L. F.

Weiler

(2020). Federal consultation on the housing conditions of migrant farmworkers. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from http://www.migrantworker.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Submission_National_Consultation_Housing_MWHEWG_2020.pagenumberscorrected-WEBSITE.pdf

26.

Caxaj

Oudshoorn

Ford-Gilboe

Webster

Donelle

Forchuk

Smye (2021). Taking a Stand to Remedy the Inadequacies of Action on Health Equity Exposed by COVID-19. Nursing Leadership (1910-622X), 34(1).

27.

Chiabai

Spadaro

J. V.

Neumann

M. B.

(2018). Valuing deaths or years of life lost? Economic benefits of avoided mortality from early heat warning systems. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23(7), 1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9778-4

28.

Chiu

Duncan

Whyte

(2020). Charting a research agenda for the advancement of nursing organizations’ influence on health systems and policy. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 52(3), 185–193.

29.

City of Toronto (2022). Rental housing standards. Retrieved September 3, 2023, from https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/housing-shelter/rental-housing-tenant-information/rental-housing-standards/

30.

Cohen

(2019). Slavery hasn’t ended, it has just become modernized”: Border Imperialism and the Lived Realities of Migrant Farmworkers in British Columbia. Canada. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 18(1), 130–148.

31.

Cohen

Caxaj

C. S.

(2022). A Lifeline in troubled waters: A support intervention for migrant farm workers. International Migration.

32.

Cohen

Caxaj

(2018). Bodies and borders: Migrant women farmworkers and the struggle for sexual and reproductive justice in British Columbia, Canada. Alternate Routes A Journal of Critical Social Research, 29, 90–117.

33.

Cohen

Hjalmarson

(2020). Quiet struggles: Migrant farmworkers, informal labor, and everyday resistance in Canada. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(2-3), 141–158.

34.

Cole

D. C.

McLaughlin

J. E.

Hennebry

J. L.

Tew

M. A.

(2019). Precarious patients: Health professionals’ perspectives on providing care to Mexican and Jamaican migrants in Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. Rural and Remote Health, 19(4), 5313. https://doi.org/10.22605 /RRH5313

35.

Colindres

Cohen

Caxaj

C. S.

(2021). Migrant agricultural workers’ health, safety and access to protections: A descriptive survey identifying structural gaps and vulnerabilities in the interior of British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3696.

36.

Corrado

De Castro

Perrotta

(2016). Migration and agriculture: Mobility and change in the Mediterranean Area. Routledge.

37.

Decent and Dignified Housing for Migrant Farmworkers. (2020). Migrant Rights Network - Food & Farmworkers Working Group Submissions to Consultations on Mandatory Requirements for Employer-Provided Accommodations in the TFW Program. Retrieved September, 1 2023, from https://migrantworkersalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MRN-Submission_-Decent-Dignified-Housing-for-Migrant-Farmworkers.pdf.

38.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (2004). Housing Quality Standards and Inspections. Washington DC: Department for Housing and Urban Development Housing Quality Standards.

39.

Díaz Mendiburo

Mclaughlin

(2016). Structural vulnerability and health among seasonal agricultural workers in Canada. Alteridades, 26(51), 85–95.

40.

Dunsworth

(2021). ‘Me a free man’: Resistance and racialisation in the Canada-Caribbean seasonal agricultural workers program. Oral History, 49(1), 71–82.

41.

Employment and Social Development Canada [ESDC] (2018). New housing standards better protect agricultural temporary foreign workers. Retrieved August 2, 2022, from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2018/01/new_housing_standardsbetterprotectagriculturaltemporaryforeignwo.html

42.

England

Mysyk

Gallegos

J. A. A.

(2007). An examination of nervios among Mexican seasonal farm workers. Nursing Inquiry, 14(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2007.00368.x

43.

ESDC (2022a). What we heard: Consultations on accommodations for temporary foreign workers. Retrieved August 4, 2022, from https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/images/services/foreign-workers/reports/what_we_heard_report.pdf

44.

ESDC (2022b). Temporary foreign worker program: Improving housing standards [Email communication].

45.

ESDC (2022c). How to report abuse of temporary foreign workers. Retrieved August 4, 2022, from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-workers/report-abuse.html

46.

ESDC (2019). What we heard: Primary agriculture review. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-workers/reports/primary-agriculture.html#h2.5.2

47.

Ford-Gilboe

Wathen

C. N.

Varcoe

Herbert

Jackson

B. E.

Lavoie

J. G.

Pauly

Perrin

N. A.

Smye

Wallace

Wong

S. T.

Browne

A. J.

(2018). How equity-oriented health care affects health: Key mechanisms and implications for primary health care practice and policy. The Milbank Quarterly, 96(4), 635–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12349

48.

Gallié, M., Galerand, E., & Bourbeau, A. (2015). Le droit à la liberté face aux formes modernes de travail «non libre»: le cas de l'obligation de résidence chez l'employeur. Revue générale de droit, 45(1), 95–142.

49.

Greene

(2018). Broadening understandings of drought–the climate vulnerability of farmworkers and rural communities in California (USA). Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.002

50.

Hartwig

Marais

(2005). Farm-worker housing in South Africa: An evaluation of an off-farm housing project. Housing Studies, 20(6), 931–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030500291165

51.

Hennebry

(2010). Who has their eye on the ball? ‘Jurisdictional fútbol and Canada’s temporary foreign worker program. Policy Options, 63, 62–67. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/immigration-jobs-and-canadas-future/hennebry.pdf

52.

Hennebry

McLaughlin

(2012). The exception that proves the rule: Structural vulnerability, health risks and consequences for temporary migrant farmworkers in Canada. In Lenard

P. T.

Straehle

(Eds.), Legislated inequality: Temporary labour migration in Canada (pp. 117–138). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

53.

Hennebry

McLaughlin

Preibisch

(2016). Out of the loop: (In)access to health care for migrant workers in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(2), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-015-0417-1

54.

Hjalmarson

Bunn

Cohen

Terbasket

Gahman

(2015). Race, food, and borders: Situating migrant struggle in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 5(4), 77–82.

55.

Hjalmarson

K. E.

(2016). Race, labour, and the postmodern plantation: Jamaican migrant farmworkers in Canada's Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

56.

Horgan

Liinamaa

(2017). The social quarantining of migrant labour: Everyday effects of temporary foreign worker regulation in Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(5), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1202752

57.

International Council of Nurses (2020). Nurses. A voice to lead. Achieving the sustainable development goals. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://www.icnvoicetolead.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ICN_AVoiceToLead_guidancePack-9.pdf

58.

Juárez Cerdi

(2010). Sex, soccer and Saturday dance: Free-time among the Mexican immigrants in Canada. Alteridades, 20(40), 49–64.

59.

Juarez Cerdi

(2016). From'check-writing dads' to'exemplary fathers'. Relations among parents in Michoacan, seasonal labor migrants and their children. NOESIS-REVISTA DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y HUMANIDADES, 25(50), 19–38.

60.

Koprowski

(2020, February). Nurse Leaders are Housing Advocates. National Nurse-Led Care Consortium (NNCC). Retrieved February 22, 2023, from https://nurseledcare.phmc.org/advocacy/policy-blog/item/725-nurse-leaders-are-housing-advocates.html

61.

Landry

Semsar-Kazerooni

Tjong

Alj

Darnley

Lipp

Guberman

(2021). The systemized exploitation of temporary migrant agricultural workers in Canada: Exacerbation of health vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for the future. Journal of Migration and Health, 3, 100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmh.2021.100035

62.

Lee

R. S.

Collins

Perez-Brumer

(2022). COVID-19 violence and the structural determinants of death: Canada’s seasonal agricultural worker programme. Global Public Health, 17(5), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2022.2053735

63.

Levac

Colquhoun

O'Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

64.

Lippel

Walters

(2019). Regulating health and safety and workers’ compensation in Canada for the mobile workforce: Now you see them, now you don’t. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 29(3), 317–348.

65.

McLaughlin

(2010). Classifying the “ideal migrant worker”: Mexican and Jamaican transnational farmworkers in Canada. Focaal, 2010(57), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.3167/fcl.2010.570106

66.

Mclaughlin

(2017). Strengthening the Backbone: Local food, foreign labour and social justice. Nourishing Communities: From Fractured Food Systems to Transformative Pathways, 23–40.

67.

Mema

Frosst

Hanson

Yates

Anderson

Jacobsen

… Roe

(2021). Foodborne and animal contact disease outbreaks: COVID-19 outbreak among temporary foreign workers in British Columbia, march to may 2020. Canada Communicable Disease Report, 47(1), 5. ISO 690.

68.

Mojtehedzadeh

(2019). Snakes, rats, bedbugs, abuse: Complaints filed by Mexican migrant workers expose underside of Canada’s seasonal agriculture program. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/10/14/snakes-rats-bedbugs-abuse-complaints-filed-by-mexican-migrant-workers-expose-underside-of-canadas-seasonal-agriculture-program.html

69.

Mojtehedzadeh

(2020). A study urged better standards for migrant workers’ housing. Nothing was done. Now COVID-19 has struck. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/05/11/a-study-urged-better-standards-for-migrant-workers-housing-nothing-was-done-now-covid-19-has-struck.html

70.

Munn

Peters

M. D.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(143), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

71.

Muñoz-Quezada

M. T.

Lucero

B. A.

Iglesias

V. P.

Cornejo

C. A.

Achu

Baumert

Hanchey

Concha

Brito

A. M.

Villalobos

(2016). Chronic exposure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides and neuropsychological functioning in farm workers: A review. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 22(1), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2015.1123848

72.

National Housing Inspector Certification Council [NHICC] (2018). National housing standard for primary agriculture review (Temporary Foreign Worker Program). Retrieved August 1, 2022, from http://www.nationalhomeinspector.org/NHICCreportRsum.pdf

73.

Neef

(2020). Legal and social protection for migrant farm workers: Lessons from COVID-19. Agriculture and Human Values, 37(3), 641–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10086-w

74.

Orkin

A. M.

Lay

McLaughlin

Schwandt

Cole

(2014). Medical repatriation of migrant farm workers in Ontario: A descriptive analysis. Canadian Medical Association Open Access Journal, 2(3), E192–E198. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20140014

75.

Paciulan

Preibisch

(2013). Navigating the productive/reproductive split: Latin American transnational mothers and fathers in Canada's temporary migration programs. Transnational Social Review, 3(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2013.10820763

76.

Pauly

B. M.

MacKinnon

Varcoe

(2009). Revisiting “who gets care?”: Health equity as an arena for nursing action. Advances in Nursing Science, 32(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0b013e3181a3afaf

77.

Perry

J. A.

(2018). Living at work and intra-worker sociality among migrant farm workers in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 19(4), 1021–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-0583-z

78.

Peterson

Pearce

P. F.

Ferguson

L. A.

Langford

C. A.

(2017). Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12380

79.

Preibisch

Otero

(2014). Does citizenship status matter in Canadian agriculture? Workplace health and safety for migrant and immigrant laborers. Rural Sociology, 79(2), 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12043

80.

Preibisch

K. L.

(2004). Migrant agricultural workers and processes of social inclusion in rural Canada: Encuentros and desencuentros. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 29(57-58), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2004.10816857

81.

Preibisch

K. L.

Grez

E. E.

(2010). The other side of el otro lado: Mexican migrant women and labor flexibility in Canadian agriculture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(2), 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/605483

82.

Price

Williamson

McCandless

Mueller

Gregoski

Brunner-Jackson

Treiber

Davidson

Treiber

(2013). Hispanic migrant farm workers’ attitudes toward mobile phone-based telehealth for management of chronic health conditions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e2500. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2500

83.

Pysklywec

McLaughlin

Tew

Haines

(2011). Doctors within borders: Meeting the health care needs of migrant farm workers in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), 183(9), 1039–1042. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.091404

84.

Quandt

S. A.

Brooke

Fagan

Howe

Thornburg

McCurdy

S. A.

(2015). Farmworker housing in the United States and its impact on health. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 25(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291115601053

85.

Reid

Ronda-Perez

Schenker

M. B.

(2021). Migrant workers, essential work, and COVID-19. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 64(2), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23209

86.

Reid-Musson

(2018). Intersectional rhythmanalysis: Power, rhythm, and everyday life. Progress in Human Geography, 42(5), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517725069

87.

Rethlefsen

M. L.

Kirtley

Waffenschmidt

Ayla

A. P.

Moher

Page

Koffel

J. B.

(2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.962

88.

Roelofs

(2018). Without warning: Worker deaths from heat 2014–2016. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 28(2), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291118777874

89.

Rosales Mendoza

A. L.

(2016). “ Toda la creencia está allá”. Linderos interculturales, espacios y derechos en migrantes agrícolas temporales de la península de Yucatán en Quebec. Estudios de cultura maya, 48, 193–222.

90.

Salami

Meharali

Salami

(2015). The health of temporary foreign workers in Canada: A scoping review. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 106(8), e546–e554. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.106.5182

91.

Service Canada (2017). Schedule F - Housing inspection report. Retrieved July 29, 2022, from https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/content/EForms/en/Detail.html?Form=EMP5598

92.

Smith

A. A.

(2015a). The bunk house rules: Housing migrant labour in Ontario. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 52(3), 863. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2958

93.

Smith

A. A.

(2015b). Troubling “project Canada”: The Caribbean and the making of “unfree migrant labor”. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies/Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes, 40(2), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2015.1054682

94.

Stasiulis

(2020). Elimi (nation): Canada’s “post-settler” embrace of disposable migrant labour. Studies in Social Justice, 2020(14), 22–54. ISO 690

95.

Statistics Canada (2022, June 13). Agriculture and agri-food labour statistics. Retrieved February 21, 2023, from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220613/dq220613d-eng.htm

96.

Swope

C. B.

Hernández

(2019). Housing as a determinant of health equity: A conceptual model. Social Science & Medicine, 243 (2019), 112571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112571

97.

Sztainbok

(2021). The great pandemic confinement: Long-term care, migrants, and organized abandonment. Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research, Polity, and Practice, 9(1), 7–27.

98.

Thomas

E. H.

(2020). ‘Forgetting’ to survive: Black Jamaican masculinities in Canada’s seasonal agricultural worker program. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(12), 1785–1805. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2020.1754168

99.

Tomic

Trumper

(2012). Mobilities and immobilities: Globalization, farming, and temporary work in the Okanagan Valley. In Lenard

P. T.

Straehle

(Eds.), Legislated inequality: Temporary labour migration in Canada (pp. 73–94). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

100.

Tomic

Trumper

Aguiar

L. L.

(2010). Housing regulations and living conditions of Mexican migrant workers in the Okanagan Valley, BC. Canadian Issues/Thèmes Canadiens, 78–82.

101.

United Nations. (2019, December). Special Rapporteur on housing. Guidelines for the implementation of the right to adequate housing. Retrieved September 3, 2023, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/guidelines-implementation-right-adequate-housing

102.

Valenzuela Moreno

K. A.

(2018). Mexican consular protection and the precarization of seasonal agricultural workers in Canada. Norteamérica, 13(1), 57–78.

103.

Vold

Lynch

Martin

(2019). A review of housing and food intersections: Implications for nurses and nursing research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 51(4), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562119831891

104.

Vosko

L. F.

Basok

Spring

Candiz

George

(2022). Understanding migrant farmworkers’ health and well-being during the global COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Toward a transnational conceptualization of employment strain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8574. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148574

105.

Vosko

L. F.

Casey

(2019). Enforcing employment standards for temporary migrant agricultural workers in Ontario, Canada: Exposing underexplored layers of vulnerability. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 35(2), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.54648/IJCL2019011

106.

Weiler

A. M.

Mclaughlin

(2019). Listening to migrant workers: should Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program be abolished?. Dialectical Anthropology, 43(4), 381–388.

107.

Weiler

A. M.

Grez

E. E.

(2022). Rotten asparagus and just-in-time workers: Canadian agricultural industry framing of farm labour and food security during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation, 9(2), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v9i2.521

108.

Weiler

A. M.

Mclaughlin

Cole

D. C.

(2017). Food security at whose expense? A critique of the Canadian temporary farm labour migration regime and proposals for change. International Migration, 55(4), 48–63. ISO 690

109.

Weiler

A. M.

Sexsmith

Minkoff-Zern

L. A.

(2021). Parallel precarity: A comparison of US and canadian agricultural guestworker programs. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v26i2.57

110.

Wells

McLaughlin

Lyn

Diaz Mendiburo

(2014). Sustaining precarious transnational families: The significance of remittances from Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. Just Labour, 22, 144–167. https://doi.org/10.25071/1705-1436.9

111.

Western Agriculture Labour Initiative [WALI] (2020). B.C. temporary foreign agriculture worker housing inspection housing guide. Retrieved July 29, 2022, from https://walicanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TFW-Housing-inspection-guide-V20-3-October-2020.pdf

112.

Wong

J. P. H.

Poon

M. K. L.

Vahabi

Sutdhibhasilp

Narushima

(2021). Transnational contexts and local embeddedness of HIV/STI vulnerabilities among Thai and Filipino agricultural temporary foreign workers in Canada. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 23(6), 723–739.

113.

Zhang

Ostrovsky

Arsenault

(2021). Foreign workers in the Canadian agriculture industry. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2021004/article/00002-eng.htm

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.06 MB

0.02 MB