CAFLP Conference Recap: Toward Local and Socially Sustainable Food Systems

Image by Laura Hanek, Swoop Media

The 9th annual Canadian food law and policy conference, held under the theme “Made in Canada : Regulating Local Food in a Global World,” offered an opportunity to explore a range of central issues in Canadian agriculture and food systems within a shifting international context.

Among the various roundtables on the program, the panel “Eating Local : Regulating the Movement of Goods and Workers in Canada” provided a deep dive into the nuances and complexities of regulating Canada’s agricultural system when it comes to local products and the interprovincial movement of food goods. In particular, the panel addressed the issue of employment and living conditions in Canada for foreign agricultural workers.

Moderated by Katrina Coughlin, partner at Gowling WLG LLP, the discussion featured Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Public Affairs & Corporate Counsel at the Canadian Meat Council, and Myriam Dumont Robillard, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of the Université de Montréal.

“Made in Canada” labels on food packaging: guidelines but no strict regulation

The panel opened by asking what “local food” actually means. Claims such as “Product of Canada” or “Made in Canada” on food products are voluntary, and the use of these terms is not subject to strict regulation. While such claims must not be false or misleading and must comply with existing guidelines, Katrina Coughlin noted that the absence of precise and binding regulation leaves room for interpretation and divergent approaches. This raises the question of how consumers can navigate these claims and make informed choices. The panel therefore examined the meaning and scope of these claims, as well as whether their use should be more tightly regulated.

Facilitating interprovincial trade: potential impacts on food safety standards

Lauren Martin then turned to the issue of interprovincial trade in food products, set against the backdrop of tense international trade relations. The One Canadian Economy Act (Bill C‑5), adopted on June 26, 2025, aims, among other things, to reduce internal trade barriers for goods and services between Canadian provinces. If food products were to be included in this legislation, sections 7 and 8 of the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act (the first part of Bill C‑5) could have important consequences for the food sector. Section 8 states that, in the context of interprovincial trade, a product that meets provincial standards is deemed to meet any comparable federal requirement. As Lauren Martin emphasized, many questions remain about how food products will be treated under this system, and specifically, whether they will be fully, partially, or not at all excluded from its scope. If the law were to apply to food products, it could have a major impact on food safety standards. The regulations stemming from Bill C‑5 will therefore need to be examined closely, as they could significantly influence the future movement of food products between provinces and internationally.

Martin offered the example of red meat, which is subject to a multi‑tiered inspection system: some facilities follow provincial standards, while others adhere to federal ones. According to her, provincial standards vary, and requirements, along with traceability throughout the supply chain, are more stringent under the federal system. Currently, 95% of red meat is produced in federally regulated facilities. But if provincial standards gain greater recognition under Bill C‑5, this could affect both interprovincial and international trade by calling into question the coherence of Canada’s overall approach to food safety.

Closed work permits in agriculture: a pressing need to better protect and offer improved prospects to foreign agricultural workers

The panel then turned to the issue of closed work permits for foreign agricultural workers, mentioning the Canadian beef sector as one example within the broader discussion. The conversation highlighted both the complexity and the structural nature of the problem. It also underscored the need to rethink the regulatory framework governing agricultural labour in order to develop a model that ensures the economic viability of agricultural enterprises while reducing the risk of harm to workers.

Reliance on foreign workers to meet agricultural labour needs is not unique to Canada; similar patterns exist in Europe and the United States. The specific nature of agricultural production often requires a large workforce for short, seasonal periods, which makes labour demand highly variable. Faced with difficulties recruiting domestically, governments respond to the needs of agricultural sectors by establishing temporary migration schemes, often through agreements with other countries.

In Canada, the number of foreign agricultural workers increased by 11.9% between 2020 and 2021, a significant rise linked to the lifting of COVID‑19 pandemic restrictions. More broadly, the need for temporary foreign workers in agriculture and food processing continues to grow. In 2024, just over 78,000 temporary foreign workers were employed in primary agriculture and more than 42,000 in the food and beverage processing industries. These workers come primarily from the Caribbean and Latin America, notably Mexico, Guatemala, and Jamaica.

These roles often involve difficult working conditions, and migrant labourers are particularly exposed to abuse. In both Europe and North America, migration policies make it very difficult to report mistreatment, as workers fear losing their jobs or being excluded from seasonal programs the following year.

In Canada, the system of closed work permits for temporary foreign agricultural workers has raised concerns from the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery during his visit to the country. In his 2023 end‑of‑mission statement, Special Rapporteur Tomoya Obokata warned that the Canadian temporary foreign worker program may give rise to contemporary forms of slavery for migrant agricultural workers. He emphasized that the closed work permit system creates a relationship of dependency between employers and employees, leaving workers vulnerable to exploitation. Reporting abuse is particularly difficult given that many workers live in employer‑provided housing.

During the panel, Myriam Dumont Robillard first recalled that societal choices regarding the social dimension of agriculture will shape the sector’s economic prospects, and that these two dimensions must therefore be analyzed together rather than in isolation. This is an ethical question tied to Canadian food production: if local consumption is encouraged, it is equally important to ensure that foreign agricultural workers are treated ethically and with dignity within the Canadian legislative framework, especially given that they represent a significant share of the workforce in agriculture and food processing.

Her intervention also provided an opportunity to revisit the historical development of Canadian migration policy. The element of dependency between employee and employer, combined with discrimination based on country of origin, has long been a central feature of this policy. For example, migration models in the 1950s and 1960s viewed migrant workers from Western Europe as desirable and beneficial. These workers could choose their employers and acquire land, whereas workers arriving from Eastern Europe, who were less favourably regarded, were eligible only for closed work permits tying them to a single employer. They did, however, have access to a pathway to permanent residency. Workers from other regions, such as those from Latin America and Jamaica, also held closed permits but were not eligible for permanent residency.

This example highlights the existence of a categorization of migrant workers based on discriminatory factors linked to origin and ethnicity. Today, this explicitly discriminatory criterion has been replaced by criteria that appear more objective at first glance, relying in particular on levels of qualifications and education. Yet behind these seemingly neutral standards, discriminatory dynamics based on origin persist in practice, since agricultural labour, performed largely by migrant workers from the Caribbean and Latin America, continues to be classified as “low‑skilled” work, which does not provide access to permanent residency.

Myriam Dumont Robillard also emphasized that this issue is structural: the aim is not to blame individual farmers who rely on foreign labour, but rather to question a system that offers no pathway to permanent residency and that leads to violations of labour standards, abuses, and workplace accidents. The topic is especially timely, as a class action recently authorized by the Quebec Superior Court, brought by the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers, seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality for closed work permits.

Lauren Martin likewise considers the absence of a pathway to permanent residency to be a particularly problematic aspect of the current system and shares the view that it rests on a discriminatory understanding of the value of work and qualifications. In the red‑meat sector, the need to hire foreign labour is constant. Producers in this industry have long supported the possibility of granting access to permanent residency, especially since the current system is costly for farmers, who must bring in temporary workers year after year. Martin stresses that these workers are highly skilled in their activities; it is therefore up to society as a whole to rethink its perception of agricultural labour so that it is no longer devalued or considered unskilled, and so that agricultural workers are better recognized within immigration policy.

Finally, the Q&A period addressed the effectiveness of two mechanisms currently in place to prevent and remedy abuse. First, a program allows workers who have experienced abuse to apply for an open work permit, enabling them to seek employment elsewhere. However, this status is granted only for a short period and solely in emergency situations; once a worker finds a new employer, they fall back under the closed permit regime. It is also important to note that many workers simply do not dare to turn to unions or initiate procedures to report abuse, fearing the loss of their job or their status. Second, inspections of working and living conditions are carried out within agricultural enterprises. In this regard, Special Rapporteur Tomoya Obokata noted in his end‑of‑mission statement that these inspections are irregular and often conducted remotely, or, when carried out on‑site, announced in advance, allowing employers time to prepare. He also reported having been informed that some inspectors cooperate with immigration authorities to identify and deport undocumented workers.

In sum, the panel provided an opportunity to explore a range of current issues related to the theme of “Made in Canada.” The discussion of closed work permits for migrant agricultural workers also echoed the 2024 ACDPA conference, where the issue was presented through the film Richelieu, which portrays the living and working conditions of migrant agricultural workers on a farm in Quebec. The situation remains urgent, and the outcome of the ongoing class action, and its potential impact on how agricultural labour is valued, will be particularly important to watch.

Sources relating to the issue in Canada:

Castell Roldán, E Zoe & Yessenia Patricia Alvarez Anaya, “Migration and Dependency: Mexican Countryside Proletarianization and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program”, 2022) 46:2 Dialectical Anthropology 163–182.

Gabriel, Christina & Laura MacDonald, “Citizenship at the Margins: The Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and Civil Society Advocacy”, (2011) 39:1 Politics & Policy 45–67.

Hennebry, Jenna L & Kerry Preibisch, “A Model for Managed Migration? Re-Examining Best Practices in Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program”, (2012) 50 International Migration 19–40.

In Europe:

Corrado, Alessandra & Francesco Saverio Caruso, “Essential but Exploitable: Migrant Agri-Food Workers in Italy and Spain” (2022) 24:2 European Journal of Migration and Law 193–216.

Iossa, Andrea & Niklas Selberg, “Socio-Legal Aspects of Labour Market Segmentation in the Agri-Food Sector in Sweden: Spatio-Temporal Dimensions” (2022) 24:2 European Journal of Migration and Law 241–264

Siegmann, Karin Astrid, Julia Quaedvlieg & Tyler Williams, “Migrant Labour in Dutch Agriculture: Regulated Precarity” (2022) 24:2 European Journal of Migration and Law 217–240