What we heard: Consultations on accommodations for Temporary Foreign Workers

Space allocation requirements

During stakeholder consultations in the Fall of 2020, the Government of Canada sought feedback on a proposal that would require a minimum distance of 2 meters between beds in each bedroom. This measure was proposed to make accommodations more adaptable to address communicable disease outbreaks in the future. It would extend the existing COVID-19 regulation introduced by the Government of Canada beyond the 2020 and 2021 seasons. In addition, the Government proposed that accommodations allow for 7.44 square meters (80 square feet) of total usable and unobstructed floor area per person in common living spaces.

While the majority of stakeholder groups agreed that explicit requirements on personal space are necessary, they did not believe that proposed requirements went far enough to address issues of privacy and overcrowding. Stakeholders from public health units, municipalities, migrant worker support organizations, unions and labour groups suggested the following:

• increase the amount of floor area allotted per person to 120 to 160 square feet
• use cubic unit measurements instead of square unit measurements to address airflow needs
• define and configure spaces for privacy and specific use. This includes explicit requirements on the number of doors required in each room, the construction of floor-to-ceiling wall separations, adequate storage space, windows and lighting
• include requirements on the provision of outdoor recreational space and/or multiple indoor common spaces, depending on total occupancy, to avoid overcrowding; and
• configure spaces like sleeping quarters and washrooms using a more inclusive lens, to account for the needs of women and non-binary individuals. This includes the explicit provision of women only and gender neutral washrooms

At the same time, it was also acknowledged that employers could potentially incur significant costs to meet proposed requirements. Submissions made by employers, industry organizations and provincial/territorial government officials raised serious concerns about the practicality of requiring employers to meet new spacing requirements without assistance. They noted that:

• employers would have to make significant upgrades to existing accommodations in an effort to meet proposed requirements
• securing the appropriate building permits, land, funds, materials and personnel to retrofit and/or build new accommodations to meet proposed requirements would be an expensive and time-consuming process, which may in some cases be limited by restrictions in certain regions; and
• investing in significant upgrades would not be economically feasible for some agricultural industries who only hired workers for a short period of 6 to 8 weeks in a season

Ratios for bedrooms, fixtures and appliances

To further address issues of overcrowding in employer-provided accommodations, the Government outlined a series of proposed ratios that set maximum bedroom occupancy at 4 persons per bedroom, and various minimum requirements on the provision of essential fixtures and appliances within worker accommodations (for example, toilets, showers, sinks, ovens, refrigerators, microwaves, washers, dryers).

In response, the majority of employers and a few provincial/territorial government officials stated that ratio requirements for bedrooms were unnecessary because space allocation requirements were enough to determine the maximum number of persons per bedroom, while also allowing employers to work within the spaces they already have. However, other stakeholders, including provincial/territorial health officials, public health units, migrant worker support organization, and academia agreed that explicit ratios were necessary to limit overcrowding and mitigate public health risks. They also suggested:

• smaller ratios ranging between 1 to 4 persons per bedroom would ensure privacy. In addition fully retrofitted “isolation spaces” should be available to allow individual workers to quarantine if showing signs of symptoms thereby mitigating the risk of larger outbreaks; and
• ratios should be consistent across bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens so that workers can live in small cohorts and limit disease transmission across larger groups of workers

Other stakeholder groups including employers, industry organizations and a few provincial/territorial officials preferred slightly larger ratios, such as 6 persons per bedroom, and reiterated concerns regarding the significant resource and financial costs that smaller ratios would impose on employers.

These stakeholders also suggested that more consideration be given to other types of accommodations provided by employers like trailers or single-family dwellings. They indicated that the proposed spacing and ratio requirements were largely skewed towards addressing challenges associated with bunkhouses.

Bunkbeds

Consultations also aimed to seek input on the use of bunkbeds, which were noted as major contributors to overcrowding, and a lack of personal space and privacy. They were also identified as potential amplifiers of disease transmission when workers lived in close quarters.

Feedback showed that the majority of stakeholders supported the prohibition of bunkbeds in employer-provided accommodations to support the mental and physical health of workers and reduce the risk of overcrowding. However, they advised conducting further analysis to identify ways to mitigate the impact that this prohibition would have on employers.

Submissions from employers indicated that the strict elimination of bunkbeds would significantly decrease capacity in existing buildings and as a result, businesses would have to downsize their workforce and/or make large investments for new builds.

To mitigate the impact on employers, provincial/territorial government officials and public health units recommended phasing-in the elimination of bunkbeds. In the meantime, they suggested the following alternative approaches that were consistent with public health measures introduced during the pandemic, but also increased quality of life:

• employers who provide bunkbeds must ensure that only one (1) bunk is occupied at a time; and, to decrease the risk of disease transmission
• if there is more than one (1) bunkbed in a room, bunkbeds can be spaced 2 meters apart and arranged head-to-toe or toe-to-toe, or could be arranged in a L-shape, with the head of the beds positioned at the extreme ends; and
• employers could use temporary barriers between beds that met specified requirements, to prevent disease transmission and provide some privacy

Public health units also clarified that while the elimination of bunkbeds would reduce disease transmission, it would not eliminate transmission completely, particularly in enclosed spaces.

Water and air quality

According to the Primary Agriculture Stream’s existing accommodations policy, employers should provide workers with adequate accommodations as defined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and in accordance with applicable provincial, territorial and municipal authorities.

In its drafted proposals, the Government of Canada maintained that it would continue to uphold this policy and require that accommodations meet existing provincial and territorial building Codes, fire Codes, and health and safety legislations.

However, to address specific concerns previously raised about water and air quality in some employer-provided accommodations, the Government outlined the following additional requirements to prompt further discussion:

• sinks provided in washroom facilities must have hot (>43˚C) and cold running water
• accommodations must maintain a temperature between 20˚C to 25˚C
• accommodations must have proper, functional heating and air conditioning equipment to maintain this specified temperature range, as well as humidity control; and
• all washrooms must be within worker accommodations and have separate ventilation with an exhaust fan

With respect to water, feedback from municipalities, migrant worker support organizations, unions, labour groups, public health units, and some provincial/territorial government officials advised that minimum program requirements should include explicit language on the quality and quantity of water provided in accommodations including:

• requirements on the provision of potable and hot water in all kitchen and washroom sinks, and showers
• a tank size requirement for hot water (for example, 20 gallons per occupant using the tank)
• a requirement that sewage system capacity be a determinant of occupancy rate
• a requirement that accommodations unable to connect to municipal sewers must be connected to a functioning septic system that is sized accordingly and meets local standards; and
• require that accommodations unable to connect to a municipal drinking water service must be sampled and tested at least once per month

The impacts of these requirements on employers were also acknowledged in submissions. In particular, it was noted that employers would have to incur significant financial costs to upgrade septic facilities, especially in rural areas. Additionally, environmental factors, like septic allowances or municipal building codes could potentially pose an obstacle to an employer’s ability to comply.

With respect to air quality, the majority of stakeholders supported the Government’s proposed requirement on the provision of adequate heating and cooling equipment but suggested the following additional requirements:

• require the provision of proper ventilation (for example, windows and/or mechanical ventilation) in all living spaces. Public health units emphasized this would prevent the spread of airborne pathogens and support Infection, Prevention and Control objectives
• ensure that heating and cooling equipment can be controlled by TFWs and not solely by the employer
• specify humidity control at 40% to 60%
• prohibit space heaters as they are a fire hazard
• require that mechanical ventilation equipment is in working condition; and,
• ensure living spaces are smoke-free

Some provincial/territorial government officials and the majority of employers and industry associations raised concerns about the requirement to provide air conditioning. In particular, they noted that:

• air conditioning is not necessary in all regions of Canada to maintain a reasonable temperature
• considerations need to be made for different types of accommodations. For example, single-family dwellings tend to stay cooler in the summer and do not need air conditioning
• cooling and heating is not necessary in accommodations that are only used to house workers on a seasonal basis
• some existing accommodations cannot accommodate air conditioning, so the Government should consider fans as an acceptable alternative; and
• financial costs for water, hydro, gas could be mitigated if employers charged workers a small fee

Cleaning, sanitation, and maintenance

Although the Government of Canada mandates compliance with provincial and territorial building codes, and suggested the additional provision of furniture, mattresses, showers and laundry facilities that were in clean and good condition, stakeholders believed

Multiple stakeholders including municipalities, public health units, and migrant worker support organizations highlighted the lack of proposed requirements addressing the maintenance of accommodations. They suggested the following additions:

• an explicit requirement that ensures accommodations are cleaned, maintained and in sanitary condition (for example, mold, insect, mice and pest-free)
• employers must provide enough cleaning and sanitation products that last the duration of workers’ stay
• interior walls, floors, ceiling and furniture must be made of material that is free from defects, impervious and can be easily cleaned and maintained
• appliances should be no more than 10 years old, to ensure they are in working order; and
• employers must establish clean living space protocols. New workers, staff and contractors must be educated on procedures via training sessions and/or appropriate signage

Although employers agreed that the major upkeep of accommodations was their responsibility, they suggested that after the initial set up, workers should be required to pay a small weekly fee for the maintenance of their accommodations. This fee could be used to employ a full-time worker who would ensure regular cleanliness, maintenance and disinfection of living quarters.

Proximity to waste and hazardous materials

The majority of stakeholders believed that proposed requirements for employer-provided accommodations did not effectively address recurring health and safety issues arising from the location of living quarters near waste and hazardous materials.

Proposed requirements mandated employer compliance with provincial and territorial building codes, fire codes, and health and safety legislation, and required that facilities used to clean personal protective equipment (for example, spray masks, rain gear, gloves) be separated from laundry machines and living areas.

Representatives from public health units, migrant worker support organizations, provincial/territorial government officials, municipalities, unions and labour groups recommended the following additions:

• specify minimum indoor and outdoor distance from hazardous and harmful chemicals and materials
• define ‘hazardous materials’ (for example, fertilizers, pesticides, boilers, industrial fans, heaters)
• require that employers provide separate indoor storage for work clothes and boots, to prevent contamination in living and sleeping quarters
• prescribe the location and number of garbage receptacles required indoors and outdoors; and
• require that employers ensure that garbage is collected weekly at a minimum

Visitor access to accommodations

The Government sought feedback on a proposal to make accommodations “accessible to the public”.

Although stakeholders generally supported the inclusion of this requirement in principle, they identified the following areas for further consideration:

• employers, provincial/territorial government officials and public health units, noted that making accommodations accessible to the public would create bio-security risks that could be too high to manage.
• since accommodations are private property, mandating public access overlooks employers’ liability concerns
• municipalities, provincial/territorial government officials and public health units requested further analysis on how this requirement could be properly enforced and monitored
• migrant worker support organizations advised complementing this requirement with an explicit prohibition on employer control over visitor access, with special protections provided when TFWs invite legal support, medical service providers and community groups
• requirements should explicitly mandate an entrance/exit that allows easy access to public access areas
• amend wording to clarify that buildings are not to be open to the public at large, but only to the friends and families of workers; and
• include requirements that address accessibility needs for disabled or injured workers, visitors, staff, inspectors

Wi-fi and phone service

To further support workers’ ability to access resources and improve mental health, the Government of Canada sought feedback on a proposal to require “access to phone service and free internet will be provided where available”.

The inclusion of the new requirement was widely supported by stakeholders who noted that communication technologies are a basic necessity. These stakeholders, including migrant worker support organizations, municipalities, provincial/territorial government officials, and public health units suggested the following enhancements to this requirement:

• amend the current wording that employers only need to provide phone and internet services “where available”. This could lead to some arbitrarily deciding to make phone service and internet unavailable
• add language to ensure that workers can access the phone and/or internet without the assistance of employers, and can use both without fear of surveillance, monitoring or interference; and
• specify the amount of data and/or internet speed required

Some of these stakeholders, along with employers, also raised concerns regarding employers’ ability to provide these services free of charge:

• in rural and remote areas, internet cannot be guaranteed or can only be accessed at very high cost. This will result in significant costs for employers if they are expected to provide it free of charge
• costs could be mitigated if workers were charged a portion of expenses for variable and/or non-essential services, or if funding was provided
• employers noted that workers generally had their own mobile phones, so the provision of landlines would not be necessary; and
• they also stated that workers should be responsible for acquiring their own cell and/or data plan; only the provision of wireless internet was necessary

Access to transportation

As part of the Government’s consultation, stakeholders were asked to identify other approaches to further enhance a workers’ freedom of movement and accessibility to resources.

In response, multiple stakeholder groups including migrant workers support organizations, provincial/territorial government officials, public health units, academia, unions and labour groups stressed the need for workers’ access to transportation that is not regulated by employers, to access healthcare, remittances, and community support. They suggested the following:

• mandating that TFW accommodations be located close to public transportation access, where available
• explicit requirements for employers to provide regularly scheduled trips to and from nearby communities, shuttle buses and/or bikes where appropriate; and
• in cases of medical emergency, workers must be able to access independent, third-party transportation to medical care

Provinces/territories, municipalities and public health units on pre-arrival inspections

As mentioned previously, employers wishing to access the Primary Agriculture Stream must submit a housing inspection report with their application to the Stream that indicates that an official authorized at the provincial/territorial or municipal level, has inspected accommodation(s) for TFWs at least 8 months prior to their application, and found them compliant with applicable provincial, territorial or municipal legislation.

Since these pre-arrival inspections are conducted under the authority of provinces and territories, it is imperative that the Government of Canada coordinates with these governments to ensure the effective pre-arrival oversight and compliance with new minimum requirements. To this end, the Government sought feedback on whether a list of authorized provincial/territorial inspectors could be created, who must be used by employers to conduct TFW Program housing inspections. The following feedback was received from provinces/territories:

• there are various compliance and enforcement regimes, which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within a province/territory. Whether it is feasible to create a list of authorized inspectors employed and/or managed by provincial governments will need to be further discussed
• proposed federal requirements are not aligned with current provincial/territorial regulations on accommodation requirements. Provincial/territorial and local inspectors cannot enforce new federal requirements without the proper provincial/territorial regulatory authority
• provinces/territories will require information sharing agreements and memoranda of understanding to support the coordination of inspections
• provinces/territories require clear delineation and/or regulatory oversight over the division of roles and responsibilities regarding inspections. Once clarified, appropriate training is required; and
• provincial/territorial and local resource constraints must be considered, especially in rural/remote areas

To mitigate costs, provinces/territories suggested a number of options, including:

• outsourcing inspections to private agencies
• allowing employers to self-document and submit evidence via geo-dated photo documentation
• include regional inspectors on the list, not just provincial/territorial inspectors
• to reduce the burden, adjust timelines for pre-arrival inspections from 8 months prior to an employer’s application to the TFW Program to 12 months; or
• have the federal government take responsibility for inspecting requirements that are above current provincial/territorial regulations

The following feedback was received from municipalities and public health units:

• municipalities disagreed with the use of private inspectors for the purposes of LMIA approvals
• some fire chiefs and public health units suggested mandating pre-arrival inspections and sign-offs by each municipal agency responsible for their respective area (for example, fire, building, septic). Some public health units did not think they should be the sole approval agency and fire chiefs/associations stated that public health officials did not have the technical expertise or authority to adequately inspect and enforce fire regulations. Fire chiefs also suggested sharing the location of TFW accommodations with fire departments to allow for education, inspection and advanced planning in the event of an emergency; however
• submissions also suggested that some municipalities were understaffed and would be unable to process requests in a timely manner.

Generally, all stakeholders were open to having further discussions on the topic of inspections and believed that this consultation process could provide an opportunity to properly coordinate and align inspections by all three (3) levels of government.

Post-arrival inspections

The Government of Canada can launch inspections up to 6 years from the first day of a TFW’s employment if there is reason to suspect TFW Program non-compliance, previous non-compliance, or by random selection. When an employer fails to meet program requirements or does not cooperate during an inspection, a range of consequences can be imposed, such as administrative monetary penalties, and bans from using the TFW Program.

Stakeholders including migrant worker support organizations, academia, unions and labour groups, noted that cases of non-compliance could go undetected by the Government of Canada because many TFWs were reluctant to make complaints against their employer for fear that their employer may terminate their work contract, thus losing present and likely future employment in Canada. To mitigate this concern, these stakeholders suggested the following:

• pre-arrival accommodation inspection should be done a maximum of 3 to 8 weeks before TFWs arrive, as opposed to the current requirement of 8 months prior to an employer’s application to the TFW Program. This will ensure that accommodations reflect TFWs’ living conditions better, and also give enough time to correct infractions
• in addition to the pre-arrival inspections, accommodations should be inspected at least once or twice each season. These inspections should be unannounced and conducted once all TFWs have moved in
• inspections should include confidential interviews with TFWs
• penalties must be severe enough to deter non-compliance, and compensation must be awarded to TFWs in cases of substandard accommodations
• an anonymous complaints portal should be developed to receive, triage and translate workers’ complaints, or third-party complaints (for example, migrant worker support organizations); and
• effective anti-reprisal protections should be put in place

While a few employers perceived additional inspections as a sign of a lack of trust, the majority supported strengthening the consistency and quality of inspections, and suggested the following:

• more unannounced inspections when TFWs are present. Alternatively, inspections could include phone calls with TFWs
• employers who are non-compliant should be denied access to work permit programs until infractions are corrected
• more frequent inspections must be given to employers found non-compliant, while less frequent inspections should be given to compliant employers; and
• employers across Canada should be held accountable under the same standards

Figure 1. Distribution of Dwelling Type by Region.

Note: *Rest of Canada excludes Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. 6 reported dwellings did not indicate dwelling type, n=2408.

• 83% of reported dwellings house TFWs who work in greenhouse, nursery and floriculture production, fruit and tree nut, vegetable and melon, and livestock farms. Across all farm types, dorm/bunkhouses represented 23% of all dwellings. Dorm/bunkhouses represented 28% of dwellings in greenhouse, nursery and floriculture production and vegetable and melon farming. 26% of fruit and tree nut dwellings were classified as dorm/bunkhouses. A higher percentage of livestock TFW dwellings were single-family homes than in other sectors (58%)

Figure 2: Distribution of Bed Type, by Dwelling Type. N=2,374

Note: 127 dwellings which did not provide answers for bed type and/or dwelling type, n=2,374.

Figure 3: Availability of controlled heating and cooling in reported dwellings

Note: Controlled Heating, n=2,364 and 50 blank. Controlled Cooling, n=2,332 and 82 blank.