Editorial | No whitewash of farm work review

Finally, Karl Samuda, the labour minister, did what this newspaper urged him to do, and what he ought to have done in the first place – without our prodding. He announced that there will be an investigation into the complaints by Jamaicans in Canada’s seasonal farm work programme of poor living conditions and ill-treatment on the job. This will be a joint effort of the Jamaican and Canadian governments.

But even as we welcome this move, we urge Mr Samuda to ensure that this mission arrives at no predetermined conclusions, especially a whitewashing of the scheme. The membership of the team has to be balanced, including all interests and not merely government officials.

Separately, Minister Samuda should use this as an opportunity for a comprehensive review of how Jamaica manages the farm work scheme, including its oversight in Canada.

There is little doubt that in a country with insufficient jobs and low wages, that most Jamaicans consider the Canadian farm work scheme – and other seasonal employment arrangements in the United States – important to the island. Each year, up to 10,000 Jamaican men go off to work on Canadian farms, mostly to harvest fruits and vegetables, and to help prepare for next season’s planting.

The pay, by the standard of similar work in Jamaica, is good. Many workers build homes, send their children to school, and even save a little. Indeed, a farm work ticket is highly coveted. But people who go on these jobs work hard, and mostly live a highly regimented existence. They can be sent home for almost any perceived infraction.

ILLEGAL ACTION

Indeed, as the Canadian high commissioner to Jamaica, Emina Tudakovic, noted in February – as a batch of workers prepared to head for Canada and Mr Samuda mused about doubling the number of recruits – it is important that “workers know, for example, that if the employer says if you don’t do X-Y-Z [or] I am going to send you back to Jamaica, that they can’t do that”.

“You have a work permit, and if you want to change your employment you have to go to the government of Canada; but we stress that if an employer takes away your passport, they are not allowed to do that,” she said. “That’s illegal!”

Last month, a group of Jamaican farmers in Canada sent an anonymous letter to Mr Samuda complaining of ill-treatment. The complainants wrote: “We are treated like mules and punished for not working fast enough. We are exposed to dangerous pesticides without proper protection, and our bosses are verbally abusive, swearing at us. They physically intimidate us, destroy our personal property and threaten to send us home.” Very much what Ms Tudakovic said could happen to workers who didn’t toe the line.

The accusations in the letter were not new. They have been made for decades by labour rights groups in Canada, though not necessarily with respect to Jamaican workers. Six years ago, for example, this newspaper reported on plans by the advocacy group Justice for Migrant Workers to stage protests to highlight the concerns of migrant workers.

Mr Samuda’s initial response to last week’s complaints was to dismiss them out of hand. On a recent tour of selected Canadian farms, he had witnessed excellent conditions and relationships. He also noted that some workers remained in the programme for decades. Why would anyone who was uncomfortable go back year after year?

The same rhetorical question was posed by Jamaica’s chief liaison officer in Canada for the programme, Kenneth Phillips. He branded the critics misguided publicity seekers.

This newspaper cannot pronounce the veracity of the complaints, even as we note that several current and former farm workers came forward, some openly, to corroborate many of the allegations.

TOO COMFORTABLE

Messrs Samuda and Phillips appear to have conflated working on a job, even diligently at it, with deep love of your employment. But as The Gleaner suggested on Saturday, you might stick it out without complaint if there is no other job and you have bills to pay.

Indeed, it probably says much, bearing in mind High Commissioner Tudakovic’s admonition, that last week’s letter was anonymous. And it is also a reason why the design of the fact-finding mission, and how it goes about gathering its information, is important. The workers who want to speak frankly, yet maintain their jobs next season, have to be afforded that opportunity if the mission is about truth – and a better scheme. The fact-finders should be wary, too, of sprucing up for visitors.

In the midst of the debate, one farm worker, speaking in Jamaica, raised the issue of the liaison process, including the tenure and long-term residence of the overseers – matters upon which we are not in a position to comment.

It is, however, often a concern in diplomacy that a diplomat who is posted too long in his assigned country may become too comfortable with his hosts and conflate their interests with those of the state he represents. It becomes an issue of goal displacement – of which Jamaica should be cognisant.