Maritime Stakeholders Voice Concerns Over Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers Policy, Urge for Major Policy Reforms
For more information contact alyssa.weeks@dal.ca
New research from Dalhousie University finds that Maritime stakeholders have significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of Canada's Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers (OWP-V) policy, urging for comprehensive reforms to better protect migrant workers from abuse and exploitation.
Introduced in June 2019, The OWP-V is a policy that allows immigration officers to grant open work permits to vulnerable migrant workers who can demonstrate they are in or at risk of being in an abusive situation (Canada Gazette, 2019). OWP-V permits are valid for up to 12 months and are Labour Market Impact Assessment exempt which aims to expedite the process (Depatie-Pelletier et al., 2022). The OWP-V policy was introduced to address issues linked to closed work permits, which tie migrant workers to specific employers and have been criticised for enabling abuse and exploitation. Despite these intentions, the findings of this study reveal significant shortcomings of the OWP-V policy.
Although there has been considerable research on migrant workers across Canada, much of the existing literature focuses on the experiences of migrant workers employed in Ontario and British Columbia (Basok, 2002; Beckford, 2016; Caxaj & Cohen, 2021; Lee, 2006; Preibisch, 2010; Vosko et al., 2019), with minimal peer reviewed research conducted in the Maritime provinces (for exceptions see Fitting et al. 2023; Marschke et al., 2018; Knott, 2016; Horgan & Liinamaa, 2017). Given the recent launch of the policy, literature and statistics surrounding migrant workers who receive these permits remain limited.
Evaluating the OWP-V Policy: Methodological Approach
Drawing from secondary literature, policy analysis and qualitative interviews with migrant support workers and experts, this research assessed the implementation of the OWP-V policy in the Maritimes by examining its benefits and critiques. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three study populations. The first study population consisted of 11 migrant support workers who provide legal and social support to migrant workers. The second included four interviews with key academic experts who have significant background in migrant labour research. And finally, one interview was conducted with an international consulate officer who supports migrant workers in the Maritime provinces. Three study populations were chosen for this research to include various perspectives of the policy and compare different insights and expertise.
“A vicious circle of abuse” — Challenges and Limitations of the OWP-V in Addressing Migrant Worker Exploitation
The findings of the study indicated that due to several barriers hindering workers' effective engagement with the process, the OWP-V is an inadequate solution for removing migrants from abusive and exploitative conditions. Aligning with Depatie-Pelletier and colleagues’ study (2022), participants of this study perceive the OWP-V policy as merely a band-aid solution that ends up returning migrant workers to precarious situations. Although many participants viewed the OWP-V as a step in the right direction given it provides migrant workers with a temporary solution, interviewees were dissatisfied because the policy is exactly that, “temporary”. As mentioned, OWP-Vs are issued for a maximum period of 12 months. A notable concern expressed by stakeholders across all three groups was that after the permit expires, migrant workers are forced to return to a closed-work permit.
When filling out the application, interviewees highlighted several technological and functional issues that unnecessarily complicate the performance of the policy and make it “nearly impossible” for migrant workers to complete on their own. This includes limited language options, incompatibility on mobile devices, limited gigabyte upload size, and lengthy processing times. Moreover, employers found guilty of abusive and/or exploitative working conditions are seldom punished, or receive only minimal penalties, allowing them to continue hiring migrant workers. Given the structure of the policy, stakeholders stated that migrant workers are set up to re-enter a “vicious circle” of abuse (Weeks, 2024).
Migrant support workers argued that poor government intervention exacerbated the precarity of vulnerable migrant workers. For instance, when a migrant worker applies for the OWP-V, the government is supposed to ensure anonymity of the worker. However, in some cases, government officials have contacted employers to let them know one of their employees applied for an OWP-V. At worksites where few migrant workers are employed, this makes it easy for the employer to determine who the applicant was. In other instances, when an inspection is required, government officials will tell the employer when the inspection will be performed. This advance notice allows employers to prepare and ensure that the migrant workers are absent during the inspection, preventing them from speaking with the inspectors.
Moreover, instead of offering migrant workers a fresh start, stakeholders indicated that workers are further stigmatised, given that OWP-Vs are differentiated from general open work permits. The findings of this research indicate that workers possessing OWP-Vs sometimes face significant challenges finding a new employer because they are perceived as “troublemakers” or “whistleblowers.” As a result of these factors, stakeholders believe that many migrant workers choose to endure employer abuse, rather than speak up or apply for an OWP-V.
The United Nations Human Rights Council recently reported similar concerns with the policy, highlighting that the OWP-V "does not offer an effective solution" for several reasons (Obokata, 2024). These concerns include putting workers in a vulnerable position as they await their results, the need to possess a valid work permit for approval, the complex and bureaucratic application process that is challenging without assistance, imposing a high evidentiary threshold, and contributing to further stigmatisation of workers who do receive the permit (Obokata, 2024).
Major Reforms Necessary: Recommendations for Accessibility, Enforcement, and Support
The research participants provided several suggestions to improve the efficacy of the policy. For starters, they argue that the application must be more accessible (e.g. available on mobile devices, and easier to locate online without having to complete a complex questionnaire), available in more languages, and have a consistent, quicker processing time. Given the wide range of abuse experienced by migrant workers mentioned by interviewees, the Government of Canada might also consider expanding its definition of abuse to support a wider range of vulnerable migrant workers experiencing mistreatment.
Additionally, when employers are found guilty of abuse, stakeholders would like to see greater sanctions issued. To prevent instances of exploitation and abuse necessitating the OWP-V policy, stakeholders favour the idea of having more inspectors on the ground, monitoring employers and workplace conditions. The inspectors and immigration officers involved with the process must also be held accountable for ensuring the privacy and anonymity of complainants. To ensure government accountability and confirm that the policy is achieving its intended purposes, the Government of Canada should be responsible for publishing statistics on the number of applicants by stream, the types of mistreatment or abuse reported, and the number of approved applicants. These statistics should be released quarterly, or at the very least, annually. To better protect migrant workers, stakeholders provided general suggestions including the abolishment of closed work permits and providing migrant workers with permanent residency upon arrival.
This research revealed that without the assistance of migrant support workers, many migrant workers would not be able to navigate the OWP-V application, let alone attain a favourable outcome. This study uncovered that migrant support workers put in herculean efforts to support migrants, despite limited funding and resources. More government funding would allow organisations to receive assistance when completing OWP-V applications through the hiring of lawyers, translators, or regional workers dedicated to assisting with applications.
Summary of recommendations to application and policy
Make the application more accessible (e.g., compatible on mobile devices and easier to locate online without completing a complex questionnaire)
Make the application available in more languages
Ensure a consistent and quicker processing time
Expand the definition of abuse to include all migrant workers experiencing mistreatment
Impose greater sanctions on employers found guilty of abuse and exploitation
Increase the number of inspectors monitoring employers and workplace conditions
Hold inspectors and immigration officers accountable for ensuring the anonymity of applicants
Provide more funding to migrant support organizations to better assist migrant workers with OWP-V applications
References
Basok, T. (2002). Tortillas and tomatoes: Transmigrant Mexican harvesters in Canada. McGill Queen's Press-MQUP.
Basok, T., & George, G. (2021). “We are part of this place, but I do not think I belong.” Temporariness, social inclusion and belonging among migrant farmworkers in Southwestern Ontario. International Migration, 59(5), 99-112.
Beckford, C. (2016). The experiences of Caribbean migrant farmworkers in Ontario, Canada. Social & Economic Studies, 153-188.
Canada Gazette. (May, 2019). Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations: SOR/2019-148. Government of Canada. https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rppr/p2/2019/2019-05-29/html/sor-dors148-eng.html.
Caxaj, C. S., & Cohen, A. (2021). Relentless border walls: Challenges of providing services and supports to migrant agricultural workers in British Columbia. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 53(2), 41-67.
Depatie-Pelletier, E., Deegan, H., & Berze, K. (2022). Band-aid on a bullet wound—Canada’s Open work permit for vulnerable workers policy. Laws, 11(3), 36.
Encalada Grez, E. V. (2018). Mexican migrant farmworker women organizing love and work across rural Canada and Mexico (Doctoral dissertation).
Fitting, E., Bryan, C., Foster, K., & Ellsworth, J. W. (2023). Re-centering labour in local food: local washing and the growing reliance on permanently temporary migrant farmworkers in Nova Scotia. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(3), 973-988.
Henaway, M. (2023). Essential Work, Disposable Workers: Migration, Capitalism and Class. Fernwood Publishing.
Horgan, M., & Liinamaa, S. (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.
IRCC. (2023e). Find out if you need a work permit. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/workcanada/permit/temporary/need-permit.html?wbdisable=true).
Knott, C. (2016). Contentious mobilities and cheap(er) labour: Temporary foreign workers in a New Brunswick seafood processing community. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 41(3), 375-398.
Landry, V., Semsar-Kazerooni, K., Tjong, J., Alj, A., Darnley, A., Lipp, R., & Guberman, G. I. (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.
Lee, S. L. (2006). El Contrato. [Film]. Canada: National Film Board of Canada.
Marschke, M., Kehoe, C., & Vandergeest, P. (2018). Migrant worker experiences in Atlantic Canadian fish processing plants. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 62(4), 482-493.
Obokata, T. (2024). Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences. United Nations General Assembly. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/120/97/pdf/g2412097.pdf
Preibisch, K. 2010. Pick-your-own labor: Migrant workers and flexibility in Canadian agriculture. International Migration Review, 44(2): 404-441.
Satzewich, V., and Liodakis, N. (2007). Race and ethnicity in Canada. Oxford University Press.
Vosko, L. F., Tucker, E., & Casey, R. (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).
Walia, H. (2021). Border and rule: Global migration, capitalism, and the rise of racist nationalism. Haymarket Books.
Weeks, A (2024). Navigating Precarious Paths: An Assessment of the Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Migrant Workers. [Unpublished Master of Arts thesis]. Dalhousie University.
Weiler, A. M., & McLaughlin, J. (2019). Listening to migrant workers: should Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program be abolished? Dialectical Anthropology, 43(4), 381-388.