WORKING PAPER #7       Moving  the  Temporary  Labour  Migration  Debate  to  the  Fundamentals:     Employer/Agent-­‐Bonded  Migrant  Workers  as  Victims  of  State  Violations  of  Human  Rights             Eugénie  Depatie-­‐Pelletier*           June  2015     *  Eugénie  is  completing  the  doctoral  program  at  the  University  of  Montreal  Faculty  of  Law  and   coordinates  the   CÉRIUM/REDTAC-­‐(im)migration   research   network.   Since   2006,   she   conducted   studies   and   collective   discussions   on   immigration   and   migrant   workers   protection   policies   within   academic   circles,   and   worked   as   expert   for   the   benefit   of   non-­‐governmental   organisations,   Canadian   and   Chinese   public   agencies,   as   well   as   international   organisations.   Her   current  research  focus  on  State  restrictions  in  Canada  to     foreign  workers’  right  to  liberty,  right   to  physical  and  psychological  integrity,  right  to  equality,  and  freedom  of  association.  

2  

         

 

  Moving  the  Temporary  Labour  Migration  Debate  to  the  Fundamentals:     Employer/Agent-­‐Bonded  Migrant  Workers  as  Victims  of  State  Violations  of  Human  Rights   The   name   of   the   employer   is   stamped   in   the   passport   of   the   worker,   and   he   is   prohibited   from   working   for   another   employer   (…).   (…)   [H]uman   dignity   is   not   satisfied   (…).   The   right   to   liberty,   for   its   part,   is   violated   (…)   [T]he   ‘change   of   employer   procedure’   (…)   cannot   negate   this   violation.   (…)   [W]e   cannot   avoid   the   conclusion   (…)   that   the   restrictive   arrangement   has   created   a   modern   form   of   slavery.     Justice  Levy  (unanimous  decision),  Supreme  Court  of  Israel,  20061  

  For   analytical   purposes,   foreign   worker   admission   regimes,   including   guest/temporary   foreign   worker   programs,   cannot   be   conceived   as   homogenous   policies   and   must   at   least 2  be   differentiated   on   two   dimensions:   (a)   the   imposition   upon   arrival   -­‐   or   not   -­‐   of   a   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   (of   an   administrative   barrier   for   the   migrant   worker   to   freely   change   employers   or   placement   agents),   and   (b)   the   exclusion   –   or   not   –   from   access   to   permanent   legal   status   (Satzewich  1988:  chapter  1).  Accordingly,  temporary  labour  migration  regimes  may  be  divided                                                                                                                   1  Kav  LaOved  Worker's  Hotline  v.  Government  of  Israel  –  see  also  the  last  section  of  this  article.   2

 At   least   two   other   key   variables   for   categorizing   temporary   foreign   worker   programs   would  

need   to   be   acknowledged   in   any   comprehensive   analysis:   the   recognition/denial   right   to   live   with  child(ren)/partner,  as  well  as  non-­‐‘white’  countries’  workers’  eligibility  to  the  program  (see   ‘’anti-­‐racism’’  approaches  below).        

 

3  

into  the  following  broad  categories  :  (1)  ‘unfree  (im)migration’  regimes  (under  which  migrants   are  expected  to  settle  but  may  be  deported  during  the  initial  period  of  ‘unfreedom’)  -­‐  such  as   the  current  Canadian  Caregiver  Programs  (Valiani  2014),  (2)  ‘unfree  migration’  regimes  (under   which  migrants  are  imposed  a  condition  of  ‘unfreedom’  during  the  total  duration  of  their  stay  in   the   country   of   employment)     -­‐   such   as   the   current   Canadian   Seasonal   Agricultural   Worker   Program  (Glassco  2012),  and  (3)  ‘free  migration’  regimes  (under  which  migrant  workers  are  free   to  choose  another  employer/placement  agent  but  are  excluded  from  access  to  permanent  legal   status)   -­‐   such   as   most   current   Canadian   International   Youth   Programs   open   for   unskilled   workers   of   preferred   countries   (Depatie-­‐Pelletier   2008).   To   these   classical   categories,   we   may   add   a   fourth   one,   the   (4)   ‘free’   (im)migration   regimes,   to   cover   for   the   schemes   under   which   foreign   workers   eligible   for   permanent   legal   status/permanent   resident   status   are   initially   admitted  as  ‘free’  temporary  migrant  workers  to  allow  an  incorporation  into  the  labour  market   before   the   completion   of   the   treatment   of   permanent   status   application   files   -­‐   such   as   the   current   Canadian   NAFTA   or   GATTS   professionals   admission   programs   (Helly,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   and  Gibson  2014).     In   this   context,   leaving   out   because   of   space   constraints   the   other   four   ‘temporary’   migrant   workers   fundamental   issues   of   State   recognition/denial   of   (a)   the   right   to   live   with   child(ren)/partner,  (b)  the  access  to  a  permanent  legal  status  allowing  international  mobility,  (c)   the  access  –  including  from  abroad  –  to  employment  insurance/workers’  compensation/pension   benefits,  and  (d)  the  access  to  a  permanent  resident  status  eventually  allowing  to  vote  and  be   elected,  this  article  focuses  exclusively  on  one  key  aspect  of  current  temporary  labour  migration      

 

4  

programs:   (im)migrant   workers’   state-­‐imposed   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   (State   restrictions   of   the  right  to  freely  change  employers  or  placement  agents.)     More  precisely,  I  aim  to  demonstrate  that  (1)  most  conceptual  frameworks  developed  so  far  to   inform   the   theoretical   debate   on   ‘temporary’   (im)migrant   workers’   rights   restrictions/abuses   associated   with   temporary   labour   migration   schemes   are   derived   from   an   incomplete   sociology   of  'unfree'  (im)migrant  workers’  rights  violation  -­‐  under  which  is  overlooked  the  central  function   of  the  State  restriction  of  the  right  to  freely  choose  another  employer.  This  is  highly  problematic,   since  (2)  theoretical  frameworks  concerned  with  temporary  labour  migration  need,  at  least,  to   cover  the  fundamentals:  ‘unfree’  temporary  (im)migrant  workers  not  only  face  State  restrictions   of  socioeconomic  and  sociopolitical  rights  (and  thus  rights  abuse  and  exploitation  by  agents  and   employers),  they  are  also  victims  of  State  violations  of  human  rights.       1. The  right  to  freely  change  employers  as  a  ‘mere’  citizenship/economic  right   According   to   most   theoretical   frameworks   developed   to   evaluate   temporary   labour   migration   programs,   specific   groups   of   (im)migrant   workers   see   restricted   their   right   to   choose   another   employer   -­‐   and   are   thus   put   in   a   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   –   (1.1.   ‘’Politically   correct’’   perspectives)   because   of   a   legitimate   nationalist   labour   market   policy   leading   to   the   worst   abuses   given   insufficient   State’s   efforts   to   protect   the   labour   and   social   rights   of   ‘unfree’   migrant   workers,   (1.2.   “Pessimistic”   perspectives)   because   of   a   legitimate   nationalist   labour   market  policy  leading  to  the  worst  abuses  given  the  State’s  incapacity  to  protect  meaningfully   the   labour/social   rights   of   ‘unfree’   (im)migrant   workers,   (1.3.   ‘’Utilitarian’’   perspectives)  

   

 

5  

because  this  right  restriction  is  simply  too  problematic  to  be  meaningfully  incorporated  within   dominant   (costs-­‐benefits)   temporary   labour   migration   policy   analysis,   or   (1.4.   ‘’Anti-­‐Racism’’   perspectives)   because   of   racist   immigration   policies   legitimizing   the   worst   work   conditions   (‘unfreedom’)  for  as  much  as  possible  (non-­‐citizen)  non-­‐white  labourers.     1.1.  The  ‘’Politically  correct’’  perspectives   ‘Politically  correct’  theoretical  frameworks  –  including  the  traditional  ‘rights-­‐based  approaches’   (i.e.   Piché   2012),   implicitly   or   explicitly   rely   on   the   following   premise:   the   right   to   change   employers  is  a  citizenship  right  that  the  State  may  or  may  not  grant  to  non-­‐citizens  as  part  of  a   labour   market   policy   –   in   accordance   with   the   international   convention   on   migrant   workers   under  which   States  are  recognised  a  (vague)  right  to  limit  temporarily  migrants’  access  to  the   labour   market   (UN   General   Assemblee   1990:   art.   52).   Under   these   theoretical   frameworks,   systemic   ‘unfree’   migrant   workers’   rights   violations   are   usually   associated   with   State’s   insufficient  efforts  to  protect  migrants’  rights:  inefficient  enforcement  policies  (i.e.  Hastie  2011),   unfit   rights   protection   mechanisms   or   rights   education   initiatives   (i.e.   Murphy   Fries   2012,   Gesualdi-­‐Fecteau  2013),  and/or  labour,  employment  and  immigration  legislations  not  yet  fully   adequate  to  meet  the  (im)migrant  workers’  needs  (i.e.  Nakache  and  Kinoshita  2010).     1.2.  ‘’Pessimistic/idealistic’’  perspectives   On  the  contrary,  theoretical  frameworks  that  I  classify  as  ‘Pessimistic’  (i.e.  Fudge  and  MacPhail   2009,   Byl   2010,   Cole   2010,   Fudge   2010,   Fudge   and   MacPhail   2011,   Dauvergne   and   Mardsen   2014a)   –   or   at   least   ‘idealistic’   (i.e.   Walzer   1983,   Hogan   2008,   Provencher   2012,   Lind   2013,      

 

6  

Dauvergne  and  Marsden  2014b)  –  equally  assuming  that  the  right  to  freely  change  employers  is   a   ‘mere’   labour/socioeconomic   right   that   the   State,   under   the   rule   of   law   in   ‘liberal   democracies’,   is   legally   entitled   to   deny   to   non-­‐citizens   –   converge   towards   a   different   conclusion:   (‘unfree’)   migrant   workers’   (labour/socioeconomic)   rights,   and   thus   State   actors   who’s   function   is   to   acknowledge   or   protect   them   (legislative   bodies,   enforcement/protection   agencies  and  courts),  cannot  be  of  much  help  to  prevent  systematic  abuse  and  exploitation.  In   the   words   of   Dauvergne   and   Marsden   (2014b:529):   ‘’Part   of   the   ideological   function   of   rights   in   this  setting  is  to  distract  from  the  underlying  subordination  of  temporary  workers.’’     1.3.  The  ‘’Utilitarian’’  perspectives   The  ‘Utilitarian’  perspectives  are  best  represented  by  the  approach  finalized  by  Martin  Ruhs  in   his  recent  book  The  Price  of  Rights  (2015).  He  recognizes  that  any  State’  restriction  of  the  right   to   change   employers   is   highly   problematic   -­‐   even   temporarily:   ‘the   effective   protection   of   migrant   rights   (…)   requires   at   least   some   portability   of   temporary   work   permits,   enabling   migrants   to   change   employers   whenever   necessary’   (2015:174-­‐175).   He   chooses,   however,   to   formally   exclude   this   common   and   problematic   right   restriction   from   his   in-­‐dept   46-­‐country   analysis   –   and   is   thus   able   to   argue,   in   agreement   with   other   ‘utilitarian’   views   such   as   Bell’s   (2006)   and   Mayer’s   (2005),   that   (all   ‘migrant   rights’   are   ‘citizenship   rights’   and   therefore   that)   a   State  may  legitimately  restrict  any  ‘migrant  right’  temporarily  (to  facilitate  the  fulfillment  of  its   labour  market  policy  goals),  and  migrants  may  legitimately  waive  any  ‘migrant  right’  temporarily   (to  secure  an  employment  opportunity  abroad.)        

7  

  1.4.  The  ‘’Anti-­‐racism/discrimination’’  perspectives  

’Anti-­‐racism/discrimination’   perspectives,   on   the   contrary,   usually   fully   acknowledge   the   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   imposed   by   States   to   specific   groups   of   temporary   (im)migrant   workers   (i.e.   Satzewich   1988,   Satzewich   1991,   Satzewich   1993,   Schecter   1997,   Mysyk   2000,   Sharma  2006,  Sharma  2008,  Vosko  and  Fuller  2008,  Mize  and  Swards  2010,  Perry  2012).  From   these   theoretical   frameworks   generally   follow   a   conception   of   past   and   modern   migrant   workers’  ‘unfreedom’  as,  mainly,  a  State  violation  of  non-­‐citizens’  right  to  equality  /  right  to  not   be  discriminated  on  the  basis  of  race/ethnic  group/country  of  origin  (and/or  gender.)     2. Overlooked:  State’s  violation  of  ‘unfree’  (im)migrant  workers’  right  to  liberty     (2.1.)   Authorities   currently   maintain   a   long   tradition   by   supplying   employers   with   deportable   ‘unfree’   (im)migrant   workers,   and   Canada’s   example   is   highly   revealing   in   this   regard.   (2.2.)   A   variety   of   norms   may   be   used   to   impose   a   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   to   specific   groups   of   (im)migrant   workers,   as   the   Canadian   normative   framework   demonstrates.   (2.3.)   As   the   Canadian  migrant  workers  studies  reveal,  most  academic  attention  has  focused  so  far  on  ‘unfree’   temporary   foreign   workers’   incapacity   to   meaningfully   exercise   many   labour,   socioeconomic   and/or   sociopolitical   rights.   (2.4.)   However,   non-­‐governmental   organizations   have   started   to   document  the  association  between  the  right  abuses  of  ‘unfree’  (im)migrant  workers  and  state   restrictions   of   human   rights.   (2.5.)   State   restrictions   of   the   right   to   freely   change   employers   does   not   only     pose   major   challenges   for   the   exercise   of   labour   and   other   citizenship   rights   -­‐  

   

 

8  

they   violate   migrant   workers’   human   rights,   and   in   particular   their   right   to   liberty   and   to   security/integrity/dignity.     2.1.  The  Old  tradition  of  admitting  (im)migrants  as  unfree  workers:  The  Case  of  Canada   Historians   (i.e.Tinker   1974,   Look   Lai   1993,   Pinfold   2007),   and   in   particular   Cindy   Hahamovitch   (2003,  2011),  documented  in  great  details  authorities’  old  tradition  of  supplying  employers  with   ‘unfree’  (im)migrant  workers  –  when  the  slave  trade  was  formally  ‘regulated’,  but  also  after  its   abolition  within  the  British  empire  in  1807.       Victor  Satzewich  (1988)  provided  us  with  highly  relevant  specifics  drawn  from  the  Canadian  case.   In   particular,   under   New   France   and   British   North   America   (1534-­‐1867),   ‘habitants’,   slaves,   indentured   servants,   foreign   convicts   and   Chinese   employer/agent-­‐bonded   ‘coolies’   were   incorporated   as   permanently   or   temporarily   ‘unfree’   permanent   immigrants.   When   the   Canadian   authorities   gained   a   relative   autonomy   from   the   British   Empire   in   1867,   ‘unfree’   immigration  regimes,  in  particular  for  indentured  servants  (domestic  workers  from  Great  Britain,   etc.)  and  Chinese  employer/agent-­‐bonded  ‘coolies’,  were  kept  in  place  until  1923.  But  in  1940,   during   WWII,   Canadian   authorities   started   again   (until   1968)   to   supply   specific   sectors   with   immigrants   under   a   temporary   condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   (German   war   prisoners,   Polish   war   veterans,  European  refugees,  European  domestic  workers,  European  students,  etc.).       When   Canada’s   pro-­‐white   permanent   settlement   policy   officially   ended   in   1966,   the   federal   authorities   stopped   the   Assisted   Passage   Programs   (under   which   migrant   workers   were   offered      

9  

 

a  loan  by  the  Canadian  government  to  cover  for  the  cost  of  migration)  and  launched  Canada’s   first  temporary  foreign  worker  program  -­‐  under  which  migrant  workers  (initially  on  ‘blacks’  for   Jamaica)   would   now   be   admitted   without   a   path   to   permanent   status.   This   allowed   the   State   not  only  to  ensure  Canada’s  old  tradition  of  supplying  employers  with  ‘unfree’  workers,  but  also   to   limit   as   much   as   possible   the   permanent   settlement   of   ‘non-­‐white’   migrant   workers.   However,  according  to  an  internal  federal  document  (Satzewich  1988:1  ),  this  was  not  an  easy   decision  for  the  Canadian  government:   It  may  well  be  argued  that  implementation  of  such  a  law  is  an  infringement   of   the   freedom   of   the   individual   and   abnegation   of   human   rights   which   cannot  be  justified  in  a  democratic  country.  It  involves  applying  a  control  and   regimentation  to  immigrants  which  would  be  unacceptable  to  Canadians  (…).   The   denial   of   opportunity   of   a   man   [sic]   to   better   himself   is   difficult   to   defend   (...)   as   we   are   proud   of   the   freedom   experienced   in   Canada   (…),   it   would   not   be   feasible   to   impose   a   contract   which   would   amount   to   virtual   slavery.  (...)  it  is  difficult  to  force  immigrants  to  remain  at  farm  work  as  this   would  closely  approximate  forced  labour.   The   federal   authorities   decided   however   to   further   limit   the   permanent   settlement   of   non-­‐ white   workers   by   expanding,   in   1973,   this   employer-­‐driven   ‘unfree’   guestworker   regime   to   all   employment  sectors  and  countries  of  origin  (Sharma  2006).  In  1991,  in  parallel  to  this  general   scheme   (and   to   dozens   of   ‘exceptional’   ‘free’   temporary   labour   migration   programs   –   the   International   mobility   programs),   Canada   re-­‐open,   after   almost   thirty   years,   an   ‘unfree’   (im)migration  program  (under  which  migrant  workers  employed  as  live-­‐in  caregivers  could  apply      

 

10  

from  Canada  for  permanent  legal  status  after  24  months  of  ‘unfree’  employment)  –  which  was   recently   expanded   to   cover   all   temporary   foreign   workers   employed   in   a   skilled   occupation   (Valiani   2015)   or   sponsored   by   a   provincial   government   (Houle,   Emery   et   al.   2011,   Nakache   and   Daoust  2011).     2.2.  Example  of  employer/agent-­‐tying  norms  imposing  ‘unfreedom’:  the  Canadian  case   In  Canada,  conditions  of  ‘unfreedom’  are  imposed  through  various  employer/agent-­‐tying  norms   –   all   having   the   possibility   of   nullifying  de   facto   the   worker’s   capacity   to   (leave   an   abusive   work   environment  and)  freely  choose  to  work  for  another  employer  (Depatie-­‐Pelletier  and  Dumont-­‐ Robillard   2014:177-­‐183):   (1)   employer-­‐tied   temporary   residency   status   (domestic   workers   of   diplomats   or   foreign   citizens,   short-­‐term   and   possibly   unskilled   foreign   workers   employed   in   Canada   by   a   foreign   company   admitted   as   business   visitors,   etc.),   (2)   employer-­‐tied   work   permits  (and  Quebec  certificate  of  acceptation),  (3)  state-­‐imposed  work  contract  clauses  which   forbid  the  work  any  other  employment  in  the  country  -­‐  unless  the  transfer  is  authorized  by  the   employer  (SAWP  workers),  (4)  state-­‐imposed  work  contract  clause  allowing  the  employer  to  ask   for   the   premature   repatriation   of   the   worker   (SAWP   workers),   (5)   state-­‐validated   work   contract   clauses   which   allow   a   placement   agency   to   represent   the   worker   in   all   matters   related   to   residence   and   work   in   the   country   (Guatemalan   workers   in   Canada),   (6)   state-­‐validated   employers-­‐controlled   placement   practices   which   allow   the   immediate   repatriation   or   future   blacklisting  of  workers  who  tried  to  exercise  a  right  in  Canada,  (7)  the  denial  of  the  right  to  live   with   child(ren)/partner   for   workers   under   any   theoretical   possibility   to   become   eligible   for   permanent  legal  status  (such  as  workers  employed  as  caregivers  in  Canada  –  who  unfortunately      

11  

 

often   stay   in   highly   abusive   employment   to   prevent   any   delay   of   reunification   with   their   children),  and/or  (9)  a  time  limit  to  cumulate  the  period  of  employment  required  to  be  eligible   for   permanent   legal   status   (forcing   some   workers   to   stay   in   highly   abusive   workplace   to   complete   this   requirement).   Finally,   (10)   the   obligation   of   payment   in   advance   by   the   employer/agent  of  part  of  migration  costs  –  having  them  not  only  feel  compelled,  but  also  more   or  less  consciously  entitled,  to  create,  if  necessary,  temporary  conditions  amounting  to  forced   labour   in   order   to   make   sure   that   they   will   profit   as   planned   from   the   worker   they   ‘bought’   (Ashby  2007).     In  this  context,  a  condition  of  ‘unfreedom’,  in  one  form  or  another,  is  currently  imposed  by  the   Canadian  authorities  to  about  one  third  of  (im)migrant  workers  admitted  annually  as  temporary   foreign   worker:   part   of   the   limited   (im)migrant   workers   admitted   temporarily   without   work   permit   (see   paragraph   above   –   element   1),   plus   the   workers   admitted   under   one   of   the   Temporary  Foreign  Workers  Programs  [TFWPs]  (see  Figure  1  below).     Figure  1   2015  Categories  of  foreign  workers  admitted  in  Canada  (and  statistics  2013)     Source:  Citizenship  and  Immigration  Canada  2015     2.3.  ‘Unfree’  migrant  workers  and  scholars’  bias  toward  labour/social  rights  violations  

   

 

12  

Academic   studies,   including   in   Canada,   have   mostly   focused   on   the   limitations,   for   ‘unfree’   migrant   workers,   to   exercise   labour,   socioeconomic   and/or   sociopolitical   rights   –   in   particular   under   labour   standards   and   housing   legislations   (i.e.   Rivet   1998,   Valarezo   2007,   Preibisch   and   Fairey  2008,  Hanley,  Choudry  et  al.  2009,  Nakache  and  Kinoshita  2010,  Tomic,  Aguiar  et  al.  2010,   Gayet   2011,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   2011a,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   2011b,   Faraday   2012,   Noiseux   2012,   Carpentier   2013,   Gesualdi-­‐Fecteau   2013,   Soussi   2013,   Gallié   and   Bourbeau   2014,   Gallerand,   Gallié  et  al.  2015),  under  health  and  safety  legislations  (McLaughlin  2009,  Gravel  and  Raynault   2010,  Hennebry  2010,  Nakache  and  Kinoshita  2010,  Sargeant  2010,  McLaughlin  2011,  Faraday   2012,   Hennebry,   Preibisch   et   al.   2012,   Gravel,   Bernstein   et   al.   2014,   Gravel   and   Premiji   2014,   Hanley,  Gravel  et  al.  2014,  McLaughlin,  Hanley  et  al.  2014),  under  labour  relations  legislations   (i.e.   Hanley   2008,   Roy-­‐Cregheur   2011,   Russo   2011,   Faraday,   Fudge   et   al.   2012,   Boivin   2013,   MacDonald   and   Gabriel   2014,   Ortiz   2014,   Vosko,   Preston   et   al.   2014),   under   recruitment   legislations   (i.e.   Preibisch   2008,   Giroux-­‐Gareau   2011,   Faraday   2014,   Valarezo   2014)   or   with   regard  to  employment  insurance  or  tax  credits  (i.e.  Nakache  and  Kinoshita  2010,  Larre  2012).     Major  obstacles  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  health  care  have  also  been  documented  (Hanley   2008,   Amar,   Roberge   et   al.   2009,   Hennebry   2010,   Hennebry,   Preibisch   et   al.   2012,   Hanley,   Gravel   et   al.   2014),   as   well   as   in   the   access   to   a   meaningful   social   integration   process   (i.e.   Stasiulis  and  Bakan  2002,  Basok  2004,  Preibisch  2004,  Spitzer  and  Torres  2008,  Vosko  and  Fuller   2008,  Goldring,  Hennebry  et  al.  2009,  Tungohan  2009,  Valiani  2009,  Flecker  2010,  Goldring  2010,   Trumper  and  Wong  2010,  Marsden  2011,  Goldring  and  Landolt  2012,  Hennebry  2012,  Tungohan,  

   

 

13  

Davidson   et   al.   2012,   Basok,   Bélanger   et   al.   2013,   Goldring   and   Landolt   2013,   Goldring   2014,   Helly,  Depatie-­‐Pelletier  et  al.  2014,  Seidle  2014,  Vosko,  Preston  et  al.  2014,  Valiani  2015).     2.4.  ‘Unfree’  temporary  migrant  workers:  documenting  slavery-­‐like  work  conditions   Scholarship  focusing  on  the  impact  of  the  ‘unfreedom’  imposed  by  the  State  of  employment  is   relatively   rare   across   the   globe.   Independent   non-­‐governmental   organizations,   and   in   particular   Amnesty  International  (A.I.)  and  Human  Rights  Watch  (HRW),  have  however  recently  stepped  in   and   are   currently   publishing   an   expending   documentation   detailing   the   slavery-­‐like   work   conditions   of   ‘unfree’   (im)migrant   workers   and   the   association   between   rights   abuse   and     employer/agent-­‐tying  norms  –  in  the  Arabic  States  (HRW  2004b,  VERITÉ  2005,  A.I.  2007,  HRW   2007,   A.I.   2008,   HRW   2008,   VERITÉ   2010a,   HRW   2010b,   HRW   2010c,   A.I.   2011,   HRW   2012,   VERITÉ  2012,  I.L.O.  2013,  A.I.  2013b,  A.I.  2014c,  A.I.  2014d,  A.I.  2014e,  A.I.  2014f,  A.I.  2014g)  and   in  Asia  (HRW  2004a,  HRW  2005,  VERITÉ  2005,  A.I.  2006,  A.I.  2009,  A.I.  2010,  HRW  2010b,  VERITÉ   2010b,  HRW  2011,  VERITÉ  2012,  A.I.  2013a,  A.I.  2014a,  A.I.  2014b,  A.I.  2014d),  but  increasingly   also  in  countries  claiming  to  be  ‘free  and  democratic’  societies  such  as  the  U.S.A.  (HRW  2001,   SPLC   2008,   HRW   2010a,   VERITÉ   2010c,   G.W.J.A.   2012),   the   U.K.   (HRW   2014,   Kalayaan   2014),   Ireland  (MRCI  2004,  MRCI  2010),  in  Italy  (A.I.  2012a,  A.I.  2012b),  Sweden  (I.L.O.  2012),  or  Israel   (VERITÉ  2012,  HRW  2015).     2.5.  State  violations  of  ‘unfree’  migrant  workers’  human  rights   Historical  analysis  force  the  conclusion  that  the  right  to  freely  change  employers  represent  far   more   than   a   ‘mere’   economic   or   citizenship   right.   It   was   permanently   denied   to   slaves,   and      

 

14  

regularly   to   serfs.   While   it   is   still   denied   by   governments,   even   if   only   for   a   pre-­‐determined   period  of  time,  to  specific  groups  of  (im)migrant  workers  following  a  long  global  tradition,  the   context  has  evolved:  the  international  community  now  agrees  on  fundamental  human  rights  –   starting  with  the  right  to  liberty  and  security  of  the  person  (UN  General  Assemblee  1948),  and   on  the  necessity  to  abolish  practices  similar  to  slavery  such  as  servitude,  and  in  particular  debt   bondage  (UN  General  Assemblee  1956).  Since  1948  –  or  before  (Ontiveros  2007)  –  all  individuals’   right  to  liberty  has  been  incorporated  within  most  national  normative  frameworks.     The  theory  of  capabilities  (i.e.  Provencher  2012)  is  useful  to  understand  why  the  restriction  of   the  right  to  freely  change  employers/placement  agents  is  not  a  ‘simple’  labour  right  violation:  it   entails  a  major  obstacle  to  the  exercise  of  all  labour,  socioeconomic  and  sociopolitical  rights  –   but   also   a   barrier   for   the   exercise   of   various   fundamental   rights.   In   Canada,   so   far   employer/agent-­‐tying   norms   imposed   to   migrant   workers   have   been,   in   particular,   identified   (not  only  as  a  violation  of  some  migrant  workers’  right  not  to  be  discriminated  on  the  basis  of   country  of  origin  –  see  section  1.4.,  but  also)  as  major  obstacles  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  to   liberty   (Langevin   and   Belleau   2000,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   2008,   C.D.P.D.J.   2011,   Le   Ray   2011,   Carpentier   2013,   Dumont-­‐Robillard   2013,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   and   Dumont-­‐Robillard   2014,   Gallié   and   Galerand   2014),   of   the   right   to   physical   integrity   (Langevin   and   Belleau   2000,   Oxman-­‐ Martinez,  Hanley  et  al.  2004,  C.D.P.D.J.  2011,  Carpentier  2013,  Dumont-­‐Robillard  2013,  Depatie-­‐ Pelletier   and   Dumont-­‐Robillard   2014),   of   the   right   to   psychological   integrity   (Langevin   and   Belleau   2000,   Oxman-­‐Martinez,   Hanley   et   al.   2004,   Khan   2009,   C.D.P.D.J.   2011,   Cheung   2011,   Dumont-­‐Robillard   2013,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   and   Dumont-­‐Robillard   2014,   Gallerand,   Gallié   et   al.      

15  

 

2015),   and   of   the   freedom   of   association   (C.D.P.D.J.   2011,   Carpentier   2013,   Depatie-­‐Pelletier   and  Dumont-­‐Robillard  2014).     In  2006,  a  first  court  decision  addressing  the  correlation  between  a  norm  imposing  a  condition   of   ‘unfreedom’   to   migrant   workers   and   the   respect   of   their   human   rights,   written   by   an   unanimous  Supreme  court  of  Israel  (Kav  LaOved  Workers’  Hotline  vs.  Government  of  Israel  2006:   263,  286,  300-­‐301,  308,  313-­‐315),  concluded  explicitly  that  employer-­‐tied  work  permit  regimes   amount  to  modern  slavery:  

 

[E]mployer[s   are]   required   to   obtain   a   permit   (…)   from   the   Foreign   Workers   Department   (…).   The   (…)   worker   (…)   is   prohibited   from   working   for   another   employer   (…)   [H]uman   dignity   is   not   satisfied   because   the   restrictive   employment   arrangement  violates  the  freedom  of  action  of  the  individual  and  his  autonomy  of   will.  The  right  to  liberty,  for  its  part,  is  violated  because  the  individual  is  denied  the   possibility   of   choosing   the   identity   of   the   party   that   enters   into   an   employment   contract  with  him,  and  because  he  is  compelled  —  by  the  connection  between  the   act  of  resignation  and  the  serious  harm  that  accompanies  it  —  to  work  for  another   against   his   will.   (…)   [T]he   ‘change   of   employer   procedure’   (…)   cannot   negate   this   violation.  (…)  [T]he  fact  that  the  state  does  not  have  a  duty  to  allow  foreign  workers   in  does  not  mean  that  once  it  has  decided  to  do  so  it  may  do  so  upon  any  conditions.   (…)   [T]he   rights   that   are   being   violated   as   a   result   of   the   restrictive   employment   arrangement   derive   from   the   humanity   of   the   individual,   and   they   are   not   rights   that  belong  to  the  state  which  it  may  give  or  withhold.  (…)  [W]e  cannot  avoid  the   conclusion   —   a   painful   and   shameful   conclusion   —   that   the   foreign   worker   has   become   his   employer’s   serf,   that   (…)   the   restrictive   arrangement   has   created   a   modern   form   of   slavery.   (…)   [T]he   state   itself   (…)   pierced   the   ears   of   the   foreign   workers  to  the  doorposts  of  (…)  the  employer  who  ‘imported’  them  (…).  The  foreign   worker  has  changed  from  being  a  subject  of  the  law  (…)  into  an  object  of  the  law,  as   if   he   were   a   kind   of   chattel.   (…)   According   to   the   restrictive   arrangement,   the   foreign   workers   have   become   work   machines   (…).   (…)   There   are   rights   that   were   intended  to  protect  a  worker,  and  even  if  he  wishes  to  do  so,  a  worker  may  not  and   cannot   waive   them.   (…)   And   (…)   so   too   we   cannot   recognize   arrangements   that,   even   though   they   are   not   slavery   in   the   classic   sense,   nonetheless   have   certain   aspects   that   were   characteristic   of   slavery   when   it   existed.   (…)   We   will   not   allow   arrangements  that  involve  a  violation  of  human  dignity  (…)  even  if  prima  facie  they   were  originally  created  —  at  least  in  part  —  for  the  benefit  of  that  person.    

 

 

16  

This   strong   precedent   allows   us   to   conclude   that   State-­‐violation-­‐of-­‐migrant-­‐workers’-­‐human-­‐ rights   frameworks   are   not   only   scientifically   and   theoretically   sound;   they   are   also   politico-­‐ legally  necessary  and  highly  promising.  This  being  said,  on  the  basis  of  past  ‘unfreedom’  regimes’   abolition,   it   is   important   to   acknowledge   that   meaningfully   addressing   slavery’s   unfinished   business   (employer/agent-­‐tying   norms   still   ‘temporarily’   imposed   by   States   to   (im)migrant   workers)   implies   a   combination   of   numerous   long-­‐term   theoretico-­‐politico-­‐legal   processes.   Theoretical   analysis   (and   legal   battles)   concerned   with   State   violations   of   migrant   workers’   human   rights   do   not   amount   to   misplaced   faith   into   the   rule   of   law   (and   probable   repetitive   failures)  –  they  appear  to  be,  on  the  very  contrary,  parts  and  parcels  of  an  upcoming  decades-­‐ long   but   inevitable   radical   global   reform   of   temporary   labour   migration   programs   (MigrantWorkersRights-­‐Global  2015).     Bibliography   A.I.  2006.  South  Korea:  'Migrant  workers  are  also  human  beings'.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa25/007/2006/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2007.  Gulf  Cooperation  Council:  Protect  Domestic  Migrant  Workers  from  Abuse.  Amnesty   International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde04/001/2007/en/  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   A.I.  2008.  Isolated  and  Abused  Women  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  Jordan  Denied  their  Rights.   Amesty  International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde16/002/2008/en/   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   A.I.  2009.  Disposable  Labour  Rights  of  Migrant  Workers  in  South  Korea.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa25/001/2009/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2010.  Trapped:  The  Exploitation  of  Migrant  Workers  in  Malaysia.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa28/002/2010/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2011.  False  Promises:  Exploitation  and  Forced  Labour  of  Nepalese  Migrant  Workers.   Amnesty  International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa31/007/2011/en/   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)      

 

17  

A.I.  2012a.  Italy:  Exploited  Labour  Migrant  Workers  in  Italy's  Agricultural  Sector.  Amnesty   International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/020/2012/en/  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   A.I.  2012b.  Italy:  “We  wanted  workers  but  we  got  humans  instead”:  Labour  exploitation  of   agricultural  migrant  workers  in  Italy.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/021/2012/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2013a.  Exploited  for  Profit,  Failed  by  Governments  Indonesian  Migrant  Domestic  Workers   Trafficked  to  Hong  Kong.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/029/2013/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2013b.  The  Dark  Side  of  Migration  Spotlight  on  Qatar's  Construction  Sector  Ahead  of  the   World  Cup  DarK.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde22/010/2013/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2014a.  Bitter  Harvest:  Exploitation  and  Forced  Labour  of  Migrant  Agricultural  Workers  in   South  Korea.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa25/004/2014/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2014b.  Hong  Kong  Submission  to  the  Legislative  Council's  Panel  on  Manpower  -­‐  'Policies   Relating  to  Foreign  Domestic  Helpers  and  Regulations  of  Employment  Agencies'.  Amnesty   International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/005/2014/en/  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   A.I.  2014c.  India  Exploited  Dreams:  Dispatched  From  Indian  Migrant  Workers  in  Saudi  Arabia.   Amnesty  International,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/025/2014/en/   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   A.I.  2014d.  Abusive  labour  migration  policies:  Submission  to  the  UN  Committee  on  Migrant   Workers.  Amnesty  International,   https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior42/002/2014/en/  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   A.I.  2014e.  ‘My  Sleep  is  My  Break'  Exploitation  of  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  Qatar.  Amnesty   International,  http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/mde220042014en.pdf  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   A.I.  2014f.  No  Extra  Time:  How  Qatar  is  Still  Failing  on  Workers'  Rights  Ahead  of  the  World  Cup.   Amnesty  International,   http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/mde_220102014_0.pdf  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   A.I.  2014g.  “I  Already  Bought  You”  Abuse  and  Exploitation  of  Female  Migrant  Domestic  Workers   in  the  United  Arab  Emirates    Amnesty  International,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/uae1014_forUpload.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   Amar,  Maxime,  et  al.  2009.  Les  travailleurs  agricoles  migrants  mexicains  et  guatémaltèques  de   l’Île  d’Orléans  -­‐  Portrait  des  besoins  de  santé,  de  l’accessibilité  et  des  trajectoires   d’utilisation  des  services  de  santé.  Québec,  Centre  de  santé  et  de  service  sociaux  de  la      

 

18  

Vielle-­‐Capitale,  http://www.csssvc.qc.ca/telechargement.php?id=655  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   Ashby,    Bryce  W.  2007.  Indentured  Guests  -­‐  How  the  H-­‐2A  and  H-­‐2B  Temporary  Guest  Worker   Programs  Create  the  Conditions  for  Indentured  Servitude  and  Why  Upfront   Reimbursement  for  Guest  Workers'  Transportation,  Visa  and  Recruitment  Costs  is  the   Solution.  U.  Mem.  L.  Rev.    38:  893.  https://litigation-­‐ essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&am p;amp;srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=38+ U.+Mem.+L.+Rev.+893&key=5c92166d9d866800006cee8fc564376e  (Access   date:  2011-­‐09-­‐20)   Basok,    Tanya.  2004.  Post-­‐National  Citizenship,  Social  Exclusion  and  Migrants  Rights:  Mexican   Seasonal  Workers  in  Canada.  Citizenship  Studies    8(1):  47-­‐64.   http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1362102042000178409  (Access  date:  April   2,  2015)   Basok,    Tanya,  et  al.  2013.  Reproducing  Deportability:  Migrant  Agricultural  Workers  in  South-­‐ western  Ontario.  Journal  of  Ethnic  and  Migration  Studies    40(9):  1394-­‐1413.   http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369183X.2013.849566  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   Bell,  Daniel.  2006.  Beyond  Liberal  Democracy:  Political  Thinking  in  an  East  Asian  Context.   Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press.   Boivin,  Louise.  2013.  La  régulation  juridique  du  travail,  le  pouvoir  stratégique  et  la  précarisation   des  emplois  dans  les  réseaux:  trois  études  de  cas  sur  les  réseaux  de  services  d’aide  à   domicile  au  Québec,  Ph.D.  en  relations  industrielles,    Université  de  Montréal,    Faculté  des   Arts  et  des  Sciences.   Byl,    Yessy.  2010.  Temporary  Foreign  Workers  in  Canada:  A  Disposable  Workforce?  Canadian   Issues  (Spring):  96-­‐97.   C.D.P.D.J.  2011.  La  Discrimination  systémique  à  l’égard  des  travailleuses  et  travailleurs  migrants.   Commission  des  droits  de  la  personne  et  des  droits  de  la  jeunesse,   http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/publications/Avis_travailleurs_immigrants.pdf  (Access  date:  April   16,  2015)   Carpentier,  Marie.  2013.  Le  phénomène  du  travail  étranger  temporaire  envisagé  sous  l'angle  de   la  discrimination  systémique.  XXe  Conférence  des  juristes  de  l'état,  Montréal,    Éditions   Yvon  Blais,    183-­‐218.   Cheung,    Leslie.  2011.  Living  on  the  Edge:  Addressing  Employment  Gaps  for  Temporary  Migrant   Workers  Under  the  Live-­‐in  Caregiver  Program,  M.SW.,    Montreal,    McGill  University,     School  of  Social  Work.  http://www.migrantworkersrights.net/en/resources/living-­‐on-­‐the-­‐ edge-­‐addressing-­‐employment-­‐gaps-­‐for-­‐t  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Citizenship  and  Immigration  Canada.  2015.  Facts  and  Figures  2013  —  Immigration  overview:   Permanent  and  temporary  residents.  Ottawa,  Citizenship  and  Immigration  Canada.   http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/menu-­‐fact.asp  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   Cole,  Neil.  2010.  Send  Them  Home  Packing:  A  Critical  Political  Economy  Analysis  of  the  Canadian   Temporary  Foreign  Worker  Program,  M.A.,    Ann  Arbor,    University  of  New  Brunswick,          

 

19  

Dauvergne,    Catherine  and    Sarah  Mardsen.  2014a.  The  ideology  of  temporary  labour  migration   in  the  post-­‐global  era.  Citizenship  Studies    18(2):  224.   http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13621025.2014.886441#.U6mc09x7bT4   (Access  date:  2014-­‐06-­‐24)   Dauvergne,  Catherine  and    Sarah  Marsden.  2014b.  Beyond  Numbers  Versus  Rights:  Shifting  the   Parameters  of  Debate  on  Temporary  Labour  Migration.  Int.  Migration  &  Integration    15:   525–545.   Depatie-­‐Pelletier,  Eugénie.  2008.  Under  legal  practices  similar  to  slavery  according  to  the  U.N.   Convention:  Canada’s  “non  white”  “temporary”  foreign  workers  in  “low-­‐skilled”   occupations.  10th  National  Metropolis  Conference,  Halifax,  April  5,   http://www.migrantworkersrights.net/en/resources/under-­‐legal-­‐practices-­‐similar-­‐to-­‐ slavery-­‐according-­‐  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Depatie-­‐Pelletier,  Eugénie.  2011a.  2011  Federal  Reform:  Making  the  Canadian  Migrant  Workers   Pay  if  Employer  Found  Abusive.    In  Mistreatment  of  Temporary  Foreign  Workers  in   Canada  :  Overcoming  Regulatory  Barriers  and  Realities  on  the  Ground,  edited.    Montréal:   Quebec  Metropolis  Center:  7-­‐26.   Depatie-­‐Pelletier,  Eugénie.  2011b.  Normes  du  MICC  pour  l’embauche  de  travailleurs  étrangers   temporaires  (ou  comment  éviter  l’application  des  lois  du  travail  au  Québec  en  2011).  66e   congrès  des  relations  industrielles  de  l’Université  Laval,  «  Immigration  et  travail  –   s’intégrer  au  Québec  pluriel  »,  Québec,    Departement  de  relations  industrielles  de   l'Université  Laval,  http://www.rlt.ulaval.ca/congres/congres66/documents/5-­‐Depatie-­‐ Pelletier_66%20RI%20UL.pdf  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Depatie-­‐Pelletier,  Eugénie  and    Myriam  Dumont-­‐Robillard.  2014.  Interdiction  de  changer   d'employeur  pour  les  travailleurs  migrants  :  Obstacle  majeur  à  l'exercice  des  droits   humains  au  Canada.  Revue  québécoise  de  droit  international    26(2):  163-­‐200.   http://rs.sqdi.org/volumes/RQDI_26-­‐2_6_DepatiePelletier-­‐Robillard.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   Dumont-­‐Robillard,  Myriam.  2013.  Garantir  un  réel  accès  à  la  justice  efficace  aux  travailleuses   domestiques  migrantes  :  obstacles  systémiques  et  conceptualisation  du  droit  -­‐   perspectives  canadiennes  et  internationales,  LL.M.,    Université  de  Montréal,    Faculté  de   droit.   Faraday,    Fay.  2014.  Profiting  from  the  Precarious  -­‐  How  recruitment  practices  exploit  migrant   workers.  Metcalf  Foundation,  http://metcalffoundation.com/publications-­‐ resources/view/profiting-­‐from-­‐the-­‐precarious-­‐how-­‐recruitment-­‐practices-­‐exploit-­‐migrant-­‐ workers/  (Access  date:  2014-­‐04-­‐10)   Faraday,    Fay,  et  al.,  Eds.  2012.  Constitutional  Labour  Rights  in  Canada  -­‐  Farm  Workers  and  the   Fraser  Case.  Toronto:  Irwin  Law.   Faraday,  Fay.  2012.  Made  in  Canada:  How  the  Law  Constructs  Migrant  Workers’  Insecurity.   Toronto,  Metcalf  Foundation,  http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-­‐ content/uploads/2012/09/Made-­‐in-­‐Canada-­‐Full-­‐Report.pdf  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Flecker,    Karl.  2010.  Building  a  Disposable  Workforce  Through  Temporary  Migration  Policy.   Canadian  Issues/Thèmes  canadiens  (Spring/printemps):  99-­‐103.   http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/cdn_issues_CITC_mar10_e.pdf  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)      

 

20  

Fudge,    Judy  and  Fiona  MacPhail.  2011.  Temporary  migration  and  precarious  employment  in   Canada:  illustrations  from  the  restaurant  sector.  Regulating  for  Decent  Work:  Regulating   for  a  Fair  Recovery  Geneva,  June  6   Fudge,  Judy.  2010.  Precarious  Migrant  Status  and  Precarious  Employment:  The  Paradox  of   International  Rights  for  Migrant  Workers.  11-­‐15,  Metropolis  British  Columbia,   http://www.isv.liu.se/remeso/konferenser-­‐och-­‐workshops/labour-­‐rights-­‐as-­‐human-­‐ rights/commissioned-­‐ papers/1.342814/JudyFudgePrecariousMigrantStatusandPrecariousEmployment.pdf   (Access  date:  April  16,  2015)   Fudge,  Judy  and    Fiona  MacPhail.  2009.  The  Temporary  Foreign  Worker  Program  in  Canada:   Low-­‐skilled  Workers  as  an  Extreme  Form  of  Flexible  Labour.  Comparative  Labour  Law  and   Policy  Journal    31(1):  5-­‐46.   G.W.J.A.  2012.  Visas,  Inc.  Corporate  Control  and  Policy  Incoherence  in  the  U.S.  Temporary   Foreign  Labor  System.  Global  Workers  Justice  Alliance,   http://www.globalworkers.org/our-­‐work/publications/visas-­‐inc  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   Gallerand,    Elsa,  et  al.  2015.  Travail  Domestique  et  Exploitation  :  Le  Cas  des  Travailleuses   Domestiques  Philippines  au  Canada  (PAFR).  Laboratoire  de  recherche  sur  le  droit  du   travail  et  le  développement,  Université  McGill,   http://www.mcgill.ca/lldrl/files/lldrl/15.01.09_rapport_fr_vu2.5.11_0.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   Gallié,    Martin  and    Andrée  Bourbeau.  2014.  Des  logements  provisoires  pour  des  résidents   provisoires  ”  :  la  privation  du  droit  au  logement  des  travailleurs  agricoles  migrants  au   Canada.  Cahiers  du  GIREPS:  47.  http://www.gireps.org/publications/des-­‐logements-­‐ provisoires-­‐pour-­‐des-­‐residents-­‐provisoires-­‐la-­‐privation-­‐du-­‐droit-­‐au-­‐logement-­‐des-­‐ travailleurs-­‐agricoles-­‐migrants-­‐au-­‐canada/  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Gallié,    Martin  and    Elsa  Galerand.  2014.  L’obligation  de  résidence  :  un  dispositif  juridique  au   service  d’une  forme  de  travail  non  libre.  51,   http://interventionseconomiques.revues.org/2203  (Access  date:     Gayet,    Anne-­‐Claire.  2011.  La  conformité  de  l’obligation  contractuelle  des  travailleurs  agricoles   de  maintenir  un  lien  fixe  avec  leur  employeur  avec  l’article  46  de  la  Charte  des  droits  et   libertés  de  la  personne  du  Québec  interprétée  à  la  lumière  du  droit  international,  LL.M.,     Montréal,    Université  de  Montréal,    Faculté  de  Droit.   http://www.migrantworkersrights.net/en/resources/la-­‐conformite-­‐de-­‐l-­‐obligation-­‐ contractuelle-­‐des-­‐tra  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Gesualdi-­‐Fecteau,    Dalia.  2013.  Les  droits  au  travail  des  travailleurs  étrangers  temporaires  «  peu   spécialisés  »  :  (petit)  voyage  à  l’interface  du  droit  du  travail  et  du  droit  de  l’immigration.   Textes  des  conférences  de  la  XXe  Conférence  des  juristes  de  l'État  (2013),   http://www.conferencedesjuristes.gouv.qc.ca/textes-­‐de-­‐ conferences/pdf/2013/Dalia_Gesualdi_Fecteau.pdf  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Giroux-­‐Gareau,    Émilie.  2011.  L'encadrement  juridique  des  intermédiaires  intervenant  dans  les   migrations  transfrontalières  de  la  main-­‐d'oeuvre  :  le  cas  des  travailleuses  domestiques  au   Canada,  LL.M.,    Montréal,    Université  du  Québec  à  Montréal,    Departement  de  Sciences      

 

21  

juridiques.  http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/3981/1/M11987.pdf  (Access  date:  April  11,   2015)   Glassco,  Clare.  2012.  Harvesting  power  and  subjugation:  Canada's  Seasonal  Agricultural  Workers   Program  in  historical  context,  M.A.,    Ann  Arbor,    Trent  University,    History.   Goldring,    Luin.  2014.  The  alarming  new  blueprint  for  Canadian  citizenship  and  immigration   policy.  The  Broadbent  Institute,  http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/en/blog/alarming-­‐ new-­‐blueprint-­‐canadian-­‐citizenship-­‐and-­‐immigration-­‐policy  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Goldring,    Luin,  et  al.  2009.  Temporary  worker  programs:  North  America’s  second  class  citizen.   Canada  Watch  Spring  36-­‐37,   http://robarts.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/03/CW_2009_MrO.pdf  (Access  date:  April  10,   2015)   Goldring,    Luin  and    Patricia  Landolt.  2012.  The  Impact  of  Precarious  Legal  Status  on  Immigrants'   Economic  Outcomes.  IRPP  Study,   http://www.irpp.org/fr/show_study.php?id=404&utm_source=All&ut m_campaign=Thinking+Ahead+novembre+FR&utm_medium=email  (Access   date:  April  20,  2015)   Goldring,    Luin  and    Patricia  Landolt.  2013.  Producing  and  Negotiating  Non-­‐Citizenship:   Precarious  Legal  Status  in  Canada:  University  of  Toronto  Press.   Goldring,  Luin.  2010.  Temporary  Worker  Programs  as  Precarious  Status:  Implications  for   Citizenship,  Inclusion  and  Nation  Building  in  Canada.  Canadian  Issues:  50-­‐54.   http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/cdn_issues_CITC_mar10_e.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,   2015)   Gravel,    Sylvie,  et  al.  2014.  Les  mesures  de  santé  et  sécurité  au  travail  auprès  des  travailleurs   étrangers  temporaires  dans  les  entreprises  saisonnières.  Perspectives  interdisciplinaires   sur  le  travail  et  la  santé  (Pistes)    16(2),  http://pistes.revues.org/3912  (Access  date:  April  15,   2015)   Gravel,    Sylvie  and    Stéphanie  Premiji.  2014.  Travailleurs  migrants  :  une  histoire  sans  fin  de   cumul  des  précarités  de  statut,  d’emploi  et  de  conditions  de  santé  et  de  sécurité  au  travail.   Pistes    16(2),  http://pistes.revues.org/3631  (Access  date:  April  1,  2015)   Gravel,    Sylvie  and    Marie-­‐France  Raynault.  2010.  Équité  en  matière  de  santé  et  de  sécurité  au   service  des  travailleurs  migrants  temporaires  :  problématique  du  remplacement  de  la   main-­‐d’oeuvre  canadienne.  Canadian  Issues/Thèmes  canadiens  (Spring/printemps):  68-­‐69.   http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/cdn_issues_CITC_mar10_e.pdf  (Access  date:  April  3,   2015)   Hahamovitch,    Cindy.  2011.  No  Man's  Land:  Jamaican  Guestworkers  in  America  and  the  Global   History  of  Deportable  Labor.  United  States  of  America:  Princeton  University  Press.   Hahamovitch,  Cindy.  2003.  Creating  Perfect  Immigrants:  Guestworkers  of  the  World  in  Historical   Perspective.  Labor  History    44(1):  69-­‐94.2011-­‐08-­‐05)   Hanley,    Jill.  2008.  Social  condition  of  SAWP  agricultural  workers  as  it  influences  their   relationship  with  their  employer.  Unpublished  work   Hanley,    Jill.  2008.  Who  is  Temporary?  Migrant  Domestic  and  Agricultural  Workers's  Access  to   Social  Rights  in  Quebec.  10th  National  Metropolis  Conference,  Halifax,     Hanley,    Jill,  et  al.  2009.  Fight  back.  Workplace  justice  for  immigrants.  Winnipeg:  Fernwood   Publishing.      

 

22  

Hanley,    Jill,  et  al.  2014.  Pathways  to  Healthcare  for  Migrant  Workers  :  How  Can  Health   Entitlement  Influence  Occupational  Health  Trajectories  ?  Perspectives  interdisciplinaires   sur  le  travail  et  la  santé  (Pistes)  16,  2,  http://pistes.revues.org/3980  (Access  date:  April  2,   2015)   Hastie,  Bethany.  2011.  By  Any  Means  Necessary  :  Towards  a  Comprehensive  Definition  of   Coercicion  to  Address  Forced  Labour  in  Human  Trafficking  Legislation,  LL.M.,    Montreal,     McGill  University,    Faculty  of  Law.   Helly,  Denise,  et  al.  2014.  Lessons  from  Canada:  The  Economic  Necessity  to  Make  All   Guestworker  Regimes  '2-­‐Step  Immigration  Program  Facilitating  Just-­‐In-­‐Time  Integration   and  Circular  Migration'.  International  CRIMT  Conference,  Montreal,   http://www.migrantworkersrights.net/en/resources/lessons-­‐from-­‐canada-­‐the-­‐economic-­‐ necessity-­‐to-­‐make-­‐  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Hennebry,    Jenna  L.  2010.  Not  Just  a  Few  Bad  Apples:  Vulnerability,  Health  and  Temporary   Migration  in  Canada.  Canadian  Issues/Thèmes  canadiens  (Spring/printemps):  74-­‐75.   http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/cdn_issues_CITC_mar10_e.pdf  (Access  date:  April  20,   2015)   Hennebry,    Jenna,  et  al.  2012.  Health  Across  Borders  —  Health  Status,  Risks  and  Care  among   Transnational  Migrant  Farm  Workers  in  Ontario.  CERIS,   http://www.ceris.metropolis.net/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/03/Health-­‐across-­‐ Borders.pdf  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Hennebry,  Jenna.  2012.  Permanently  Temporary?  Agricultural  Migrant  Workers  and  Their   Integration  in  Canada.  26.  Montreal,  Institute  for  Research  on  Public  Policy,   http://irpp.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/assets/research/diversity-­‐immigration-­‐and-­‐ integration/permanently-­‐temporary/IRPP-­‐Study-­‐no26.pdf  (Access  date:     Hogan,  Alicia  Paulina.  2008.  Managing  migration  for  development?  The  promise  of  temporary   worker  schemes,  M.A.,    Washington,  D.C.,    Georgetown  University,    Development   Management  and  Policy.   Houle,    France,  et  al.  2011.  L'acces  au  statut  de  resident  permanent  pour  les  travailleurs   temporaires  oeuvrant  sur  le  territoire  quebecois.  University  of  New  Brunswick  Law  Journal,   http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=263439976  (Access  date:   April  2,  2015)   HRW.  2001.  Hidden  in  the  homes:  Abuse  of  domestic  workers  with  special  visas  in  the  United   States.  Human  Rights  Watch,  http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/06/01/hidden-­‐home   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2004a.  Help  Wanted:  Abuses  against  Female  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  Indonesia  and   Malaysia.  Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/indonesia0704full.pdf  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   HRW.  2004b.  Bad  Dreams:  Exploitation  and  Abuse  of  Migrant  Workers  in  Saudi  Arabia.  Human   Rights  Watch,  http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/saudi0704.pdf  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2005.  Maid  to  Order  Ending  Abuses  against  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  Singapore.   Human  Rights  Watch,      

 

23  

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/singapore1205wcover.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2007.  Exported  and  Exposed:  Abuses  against  Sri  Lankan  Domestic  Workers  in  Saudi  Arabia,   Kuwait,  Lebanon,  and  the  United  Arab  Emirates.  Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/srilanka1107webwcover.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2008.  “As  If  I  Am  Not  Human”  Abuses  against  Asian  Domestic  Workers  in  Saudi  Arabia.   Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/saudiarabia0708_1.pdf  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   HRW.  2010a.  Tough,  Fair,  and  Practical:  A  Human  Rights  Framework  for  Immigration  Reform  in   the  United  States.  Human  Rights  Watch,  Tough,  Fair,  and  Practical:  A  Human  Rights   Framework  for  Immigration  Reform  in  the  United  States  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2010b.  Slow  Reform:  Protection  of  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  Asia  and  the  Middle  East.   Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wrd0410webwcover.pdf  (Access  date:   April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2010c.  Without  Protection  How  the  Lebanese  Justice  System  Fails  Migrant  Domestic   Workers.  Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0910webwcover.pdf  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2011.  “They  Deceived  Us  at  Every  Step”  Abuse  of  Cambodian  Domestic  Workers  Migrating   to  Malaysia.  Human  Rights  Watch,   http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/cambodia1111webwcover.pdf  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2012.  For  a  Better  Life:  Migrant  Worker  Abuse  in  Bahrain  and  the  Government  Reform   Agenda.  Human  Rights  Watch,  http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/09/30/better-­‐life   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2014.  Hidden  Away  Abuses  against  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  in  the  UK.  Human  Rights   Watch,  http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/uk0314_ForUpload.pdf  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   HRW.  2015.  A  Raw  Deal  Abuses  of  Thai  Workers  in  Israel's  Agricultural  Sector.  Human  Rights   Watch,  http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/israel0115_ForUpload.pdf  (Access   date:  April  2015)   I.L.O.  2012.  A  Case  Study  of  Thai  migrant  workers  exploited  in  Sweden.  International  Labour   Organization,  http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-­‐-­‐-­‐asia/-­‐-­‐-­‐ro-­‐bangkok/-­‐-­‐-­‐ilo-­‐ manila/documents/publication/wcms_182264.pdf  (Access  date:  April  1,  2015)   I.L.O.  2013.  Tricked  and  Trapped  Human  Trafficking  in  the  Middle  East.  International  Labour   Organisation,  http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-­‐-­‐-­‐arabstates/-­‐-­‐-­‐ro-­‐ beirut/documents/publication/wcms_211214.pdf  (Access  date:  April  10,  2015)   Kalayaan.  2014.  Still  enslaved:  The  migrant  domestic  workers  who  are  trapped  by  the   immigration  rules.  London,  Kalayaan,   http://www.kalayaan.org.uk/documents/tied%20visa%202014.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,   2015)      

 

24  

Khan,    Sabaa  A.  2009.  From  Labour  of  Love  to  Decent  Work:  Protecting  the  Human  Rights  of   Migrant  Caregivers  in  Canada.  Canadian  Journal  of  Law  and  Society  /  Revue  Canadienne   Droit  et  Société    24(1):  23-­‐45.   Langevin,    Louise  and    Marie-­‐Claire  Belleau.  2000.  Trafficking  in  Women  in  Canada  :  A  Critical   Analysis  of  the  Legal  Framework  Governing  Immigrant  Live-­‐in  Care  givers  and  Mail-­‐Order   Brides.  Ottawa,  Status  of  Women  Canada  Policy  Research  Fund,  http://dsp-­‐ psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/SW21-­‐83-­‐2001E.pdf  (Access  date:  2011-­‐05-­‐27)   Larre,    Tamara.  2012.  Families  Separated:  The  Case  for  Extending  Dependent  Tax  Credits  to   Temporary  Migrant  Workers.  Windsor  Review  of  Legal  and  Social  Issues    31(65):  75.   Le  Ray,    Marie.  2011.  Migration  temporaire,  injustices  durables:  Le  cas  des  travailleuses  et   travailleurs  étrangers  «  temporaires  »  au  Canada.  Centre  Justice  et  Foi,   http://cjf.qc.ca/userfiles/file/VE/Rapport_Travailleurs-­‐temporaires_2011.pdf  (Access   date:  April  15,  2015)   Lind,  Michael.  2013.  Immigration,  yes.  Indentured  serfdom,  no.  The  dark  side  of  immigration   reform:  A  new  "guest  worker  program"  that's  as  close  as  we  may  get  to  modern  slavery.   Salon,  http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/immigration_yes_indentured_serfdom_no/   (Access  date:  April  1,  2015)   Look  Lai,    Walton.  1993.  Indentured  Labor,  Caribbean  Sugar:  Chinese  and  Indian  Migrants  to  the   British  West  Indies,  1838-­‐1918.  Baltimore:  Johns  Hopkins  Univ  Press.   MacDonald,    Laura  and    Christina  Gabriel.  2014.  ‘Domestic  transnationalism’:  legal  advocacy  for   Mexican  migrant  workers'  rights  in  Canada.  Citizenship  Studies    18(3-­‐4):  243-­‐258.   Marsden,    Sarah.  2011.  Assessing  the  Regulation  of  Temporary  Foreign  Workers  in  Canada.   Osgoode  Hall  L.  J.  (49):  39-­‐70.   Mayer,  R.  2005.  Guestworkers  and  Exploitation.  Review  of  Politics    67:  311-­‐334.   McLaughlin,    Janet.  2011.  Falling  through  the  Cracks:  Seasonal  Foreign  Farm  Workers'  Health   and  Compensation  across  Borders.  The  IAVGO  Reporting  Service  21,  1,   http://www.injuredworkersonline.org/Documents/ONIWGconfMcLaughlin.pdf  (Access   date:  2011-­‐08-­‐22)   McLaughlin,    Janet,  et  al.  2014.  Travailleurs  immigrants  et  santé  et  sécurité  du  travail  -­‐  Numéro   spécial.  Pistes    16(2),  http://pistes.revues.org/3631  (Access  date:  2014-­‐06-­‐24)   McLaughlin,  Janet.  2009.  Trouble  in  our  Fields:  Health  and  Human  Rights  among  Mexican  and   Caribbean  Migrant  Farm  Workers  in  Canada,  Doctor  of  Philosophy,    Ottawa,    University  of   Toronto,    Graduate  Department  of  Anthropology.   MigrantWorkersRights-­‐Global.  2015.  About  Us.  Migrant  Workers  Rights  -­‐  Global,,   http://www.migrantworkersrights.net/en/pages/about  (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   Mize,    Ronald  L.  and    Alicia  C.  S.  Swards.  2010.  Consuming  Mexican  Labor:  From  the  Bracero   Program  to  NAFTA.  Toronto:  University  of  Toronto  Press.   MRCI.  2004.  Private  Homes  A  Public  Concern:  The  Experience  of  Twenty  Migrant  Women   Employed  in  the  Private  Home  in  Ireland.  http://mrci.ie/wp-­‐ content/uploads/2012/10/Private-­‐Homes-­‐A-­‐Public-­‐Concern-­‐2003.pdf  (Access  date:  April   20,  2015)   MRCI.  2010.  Protections  for  Migrant  Domestic  Workers  Employed  by  Foreign  Diplomats  in   Ireland:  Time  for  Reform.  Migrant  Rights  Centre  of  Ireland,   http://web.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Political%20Division/Forum%202010/written%20c    

 

25  

ontribution%20migrant%20rights%20centre%20ireland%202010.pdf  (Access  date:  April  20,   2015)   Murphy  Fries,    Erin.  2012.  Seeking  the  Land  of  Milk  and  Honey:  The  International  Labour  and   Human  Rights  of  Temporary  Foreign  Workers  in  Canada,  LL.M.,    Lund  University,    Faculty   of  Law.   Mysyk,  Avis.  2000.  Manitoba  Commercial  Market  Gardening,  1945-­‐1997:  Class,  Race  and  Ethnic   Relations.  Regina:  Canadian  Plain  Research  Center.   Nakache,    Delphine  and    Sarah  Daoust.  2011.  Provincial/territorial  nominee  programs:  An   avenue  to  permanent  residency  for  low-­‐skilled  migrant  workers?    In  Legislated  Inequality:   Temporary  Labour  Migration  in  Canada,  edited  by  P.  T.  Lenard  and  C.  Straehle.    Montreal:   McGill/Queens  University  Press:  158-­‐177.   Nakache,  Delphine  and  Paula  J.  Kinoshita.  2010.  The  Canadian  Temporary  Foreign  Worker   Program:  Do  Short-­‐Term  Economic  Needs  Prevail  over  Human  Rights  Concerns?  Montreal,   Institute  for  Research  on  Public  Policy,  http://irpp.org/wp-­‐ content/uploads/assets/Uploads/IRPP-­‐Study-­‐no8.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Noiseux,    Yanick.  2012.  Mondialisation,  travail  et  précarisation  :  le  travail  migrant  temporaire  au   coeur  de  la  dynamique  de  centrifugation  de  l'emploi  vers  les  marchés  périphériques  du   travail.  Recherches  sociographiques    LIII(2):  389-­‐414.   http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1012406ar  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Ontiveros,  Maria  L.  2007.  Noncitizen  Immigrant  Labor  and  the  Thirtheen  Amendment:   Challenging  Guest  Worker  Programs.  2010-­‐15,  University  of  San  Francisco  Law  Reaseach   Paper,  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1017092  (Access  date:  April  1,   2015)   Ortiz,    Anaid  Karla.  2014.  Los  Trabjores  Agricolas  Temporales  Mexicanos  y  Guatemaltecos  en   Quebec  y  la  Union  de  Trabajadores  del  Comercio  y  la  Alimentacion,  Master,    Università   Nacional  Autonoma  de  Mexico,    Political  Science.   https://www.academia.edu/6754529/Los_Trabajadores_Agricolas_Temporales_Mexicano s_y_Guatemaltecos_en_Quebec_y_la_Union_de_Trabajadores_del_Comercio_y_la_Alime ntacion  (Access  date:  2014-­‐04-­‐16)   Oxman-­‐Martinez,    Jacqueline,  et  al.  2004.  Another  look  at  the  Live-­‐in  Caregivers  Program.  24.   Montréal,  Centre  Metropolis  du  Québec  -­‐  Immigration  et  métropoles,   http://im.metropolis.net/research-­‐policy/research_content/doc/oxman-­‐ marinez%20LCP.pdf  (Access  date:  April  16,  2015)   Perry,    J.  Adam.  2012.  Barely  legal:  racism  and  migrant  farm  labour  in  the  context  of  Canadian   multiculturalism.  Citizenship  Studies    16(2):  189-­‐201.   Piché,  Victor.  2012.  “In  and  Out  the  Back  Door”:  Canada’s  Temporary  Workers  Programs  in  a   Global  Perspective.    In  The  New  Politics  of  International  Mobility  :  Migration  Management   and  its  Discontents,  edited  by  M.  Geiger  and  A.  Pécoud.    Osnabrück:  University  of   Osnabrück  Press:  113-­‐132.   Pinfold,    John.  2007.  The  Slave  Trade  Debate:  Contemporary  Writings  For  and  Against.  Oxford:   Bodleian  Library.   Preibisch,    Kerry.  2008.  Interrogating  racialized  global  labour  supply:  An  exploration  of  the   racial/national  replacement  of  foreign  agricultural  workers  in  Canada.  Canadian  Review  of   Sociology    44(1):  5-­‐36.2011-­‐08-­‐04)      

 

26  

Preibisch,  Kerry      and    David  Fairey.  2008.  Cultivating  Farmworkers  Rights:  Ending  the   Exploitation  of  Immigrant  and  Migrant  Farmworkers  in  BC.  Canadian  Centre  for  Policy   Alternatives  -­‐  BC  Office,   http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs /bc_2008/bc_farmworkers_full.pdf  (Access  date:  2011-­‐05-­‐27)   Preibisch,  Kerry  L.  2004.  Migrant  agricultural  workers  and  processes  of  social  inclusion  in  rural   Canada:  Encuentros  and  desencuentros.  Canadian  Journal  of  Latin  American  &  Caribbean   Studies    29(57/8):  203-­‐239.   http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Migrant+agricultural+workers+and+processes+of+social+i nclusion+in...-­‐a0147115052  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Provencher,    Martin.  2012.  Les  Programmes  de  Travailleurs  migrants  temporaires:   Développement,  domination,  ou  les  deux?  Constat  de  la  CDPDJ:  Récents  développement   dans  la  recherche  sur  le  préjudice  systémique  subi  par  les  travailleuses  et  travailleurs   migrants  au  Québec,  Montréal,  7  décembre,   http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/Provencher_2014_WP3.pdf  (Access  date:  April  3,   2015)   Rivet,  Michèle.  1998.  Le  travailleur  étranger  au  Canada  :  à  l'avant-­‐poste  de  la  précarité?  McGill   Law  Journal    43:  181.   Roy-­‐Cregheur,    Maud.  2011.  La  gestion  de  la  main-­‐d'oeuvre  dans  le  secteur  agricole  et  le  sous-­‐ secteur  horticole  au  Québec  entre  1638  et  2010,  M.Sc.,    HEC-­‐Montréal,    Department  de   Gestion  des  ressources  humaines.   Ruhs,    Martin.  2015.  The  Price  of  Rights.  Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press.   Russo,  Robert.  2011.  Case  comment:  Temporarily  Unchained:  The  Drive  to  Unionize  Foreign   Seasonal  Agricultural  Workers  in  Canada  -­‐  A  Comment  on  Greenway  Farms  and  UFCW.  BC   Studies  (169):  131-­‐141.   Sargeant,    Malcolm.  2010.  Layers  of  Vulnerability  in  Occupation  Health  and  Safety  for  Migrant   Workers:  Case  Studies  from  Canada  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Policy  and  Practice  in   Occupational  Health  and  Safety    7(2):  51.   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415371  (Access  date:  2011-­‐05-­‐27)   Satzewich,    Victor.  1988.  Modes  of  Incorporation  and  Racialiazation:  The  Canadian  Case,  Ph.D.,     Glasgow,  UK,    University  of  Glasgow,    Sociology.   Satzewich,    Victor.  1991.  Racism  and  the  Incorporation  of  Foreign  Labour.  Farm  Labour   Migration  to  Canada  since  1945.  London  and  New  York:  Routledge.   Satzewich,    Victor.  1993.  Migrant  and  immigrant  families  in  Canada:  state  coercion  and  legal   control  in  the  formation  of  ethnic  families.  Journal  of  Comparative  Family  Studies    24(3):   315-­‐338.   Schecter,    Tanya  M.  1997.  Race,  class,  women  and  the  state:  The  case  of  domestic  labour  in   Canada,  M.A.,    Canada,    McGill  University  (Canada),    Department  of  Political  Sciences.   http://www.nlc-­‐bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape11/PQDD_0005/MQ43944.pdf  (Access  date:   2011-­‐05-­‐27)   Seidle,    Leslie.  2014.  The  exploitation  of  temporary  foreign  workers.   http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2014/06/03/the-­‐exploitation-­‐of-­‐temporary-­‐foreign-­‐workers/   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)      

 

27  

Sharma,    Nandita.  2006.  Home  Economics:  Nationalism  and  the  Making  of  Migrant  Worker  in   Canada.  Toronto:  University  of  Toronto  Press.   Sharma,  Nandita.  2008.  Citizenship  and  the  Disciplining  of  (Im)migrant  Workers  in  the  United   States.    In  Refugees,  Recent  Migrants  and  Employment:  Challenging  Barriers  and  Exploring   Pathways,  edited  by  S.  McKay.    London:  Routledge:  29.   Soussi,    Sid  Ahmed.  2013.  Le  travail  migrant  temporaire  et  les  limites  des  normes  du  travail   nationales  et  internationales  :  que  faire?  Journée  d’action  globale  contre  le  racisme  et   pour  les  droits  des  migrants  refugiés  et  personne  déplacée,  Montreal,   http://www.ciso.qc.ca/wordpress/wp-­‐ content/uploads/PresentationSidAhmedSoussiTMT_17_dec2013.pdf  (Access  date:  April   15,  2015)   Spitzer,    Denise  and    Sara  Torres.  2008.  Gender-­‐Based  Barriers  to  Settlement  and  Integration  for   Live-­‐In-­‐Caregivers:  A  Review  of  the  Literature.  Toronto,  CERIS,   http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/WKPP%20List/WKPP2008/CWP71.pdf   (Access  date:  2011-­‐08-­‐23)   SPLC.  2008.  Close  To  Slavery  :  Guestworker  Programs  in  the  United  States.  Montgomery,   Alabama,  Southern  Poverty  Law  Center,   http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/static/SPLCguestworker.pdf   (Access  date:  2011-­‐09-­‐21)   Stasiulis,    Daiva  and    Abigail  B.  Bakan.  2002.  Negotiating  the  Citizenship  Divide:  Foreign   Domestic  Worker  Policy  and  Legal  Jurisprudence.    In  Women's  Legal  Strategies  in  Canada,   edited.    Toronto:  University  of  Toronto  Press:  237-­‐305.   Tinker,    Hugh.  1974.  New  System  of  Slavery  the  Export  of  Indian  Labor  Overseas  1830-­‐1920.   Oxford:  Oxford  Univ  Press.   Tomic,    Patricia,  et  al.  2010.  Housing  Regulations  and  Living  Conditions  of  Mexican  Migrant   Workers  in  the  Okanagan  Valley.  Canadian  Issues/Thèmes  canadiens  (Spring):  78.   http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/cdn_issues_CITC_mar10_e.pdf  (Access  date:  2011-­‐07-­‐ 22)   Trumper,  Ricardo  and  Lloyd  L.  Wong.  2010.  Temporary  Workers  in  Canada:  A  National   Perspective.  Canadian  Issues:  83-­‐89.   Tungohan,    Ethel,  et  al.  2012.  Filipinos  in  Canada:  Disturbing  Invisibility.  Canada:  University  of   Toronto  Press.   Tungohan,  Ethel.  2009.  Making  Migrants  Matter:  Non-­‐citizens  and  Political  Membership.   Political  Studies  Association  Annual  Conference,  Manchester,   http://www.academia.edu/1208716/Making_Migrants_Matter_Non-­‐ citizens_and_Political_Membership  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   UN  General  Assemblee.  Supplementary  Convention  on  the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  the  Slave  Trade,   and  Institutions  and  Practices  Similar  to  Slavery.   http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/slavetrade.htm  (Access  date:  April  20,  2015)   UN  General  Assemblee.  International  Convention  on  the  Protection  of  the  Rights  of  All  Migrant   Workers  and  Members  of  their  Families.  http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3980.html   (Access  date:  April  15,  2015)   UN  General  Assemblee.  The  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights.   http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)      

 

28  

Valarezo,    Giselle.  2007.  Out  of  necessity  and  into  the  fields:  Migrant  farmworkers  in  St  Rémi,   Quebec,  M.A.,    Kingston,    Queen's  University,    Geography.2011-­‐08-­‐04)   Valarezo,  Giselle.  2014.  Offloading  Migration  Management:  The  Institutionalized  Authority  of   Non-­‐State  Agencies  over  the  Guatemalan  Temporary  Agricultural  Worker  to  Canada   Project.  Journal  of  International  Migration  and  Integration  1-­‐17   Valiani,    Salimah.  2009.  The  Shift  in  Canadian  Immigration  Policy  and  Unheeded  Lessons  of  the   Live-­‐in  Caregiver  Program.  Ottawa,   http://www.ccsl.carleton.ca/~dana/TempPermLCPFINAL.pdf  (Access  date:  2011-­‐07-­‐26)   Valiani,    Salimah.  2014.  Briefing  Note:  An  analysis  of  the  recently  reformed  Live-­‐in  Caregiver   Program  in  Canada.  http://salimahvaliani.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/briefing-­‐note-­‐an-­‐ analysis-­‐of-­‐the-­‐recently-­‐reformed-­‐live-­‐in-­‐caregiver-­‐program-­‐in-­‐canada/  (Access  date:  April   2,  2015)   Valiani,    Salimah.  2015.  The  Rise  of  Temporary  Migration  and  Employer-­‐Driven  Immigration  in   Canada  :  Tracing  policy  shifts  of  the  late  20th  and  early  21st  centuries.   http://www.yorku.ca/raps1/events/pdf/Salimah_Valiani.pdf  (Access  date:  2014-­‐04-­‐03)   VERITÉ.  2005.  Protecting  Overseas  Workers  Research  Findings  and  Strategic  Perspectives  on   Labor  Protections  for  Foreign  Contract  Workers  in  Asia  and  the  Middle  East.  VERITÉ,   http://www.verite.org/sites/default/files/images/Protecting%20Overseas%20Workers.pdf   (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   VERITÉ.  2010a.  Indian  Workers  in  Domestic  Textile  Production  and  Middle  East-­‐Based   Manufacturing,  Infrastructure,  and  Construction.  VÉRITÉ,   http://verite.org/sites/default/files/images/HELP%20WANTED_A%20Verite%CC%81%20R eport_Indian%20Migrant%20Workers.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   VERITÉ.  2010b.  Vulnerability  to  Broker-­‐Related  Forced  Labor  among  Migrant  Workers  in   Information  Technology  Manufacturing  in  Taiwan  and  Malaysia.  VÉRITÉ,   http://www.verite.org/sites/default/files/images/HELP%20WANTED_A%20Verit%C3%A9 %20Report_Workers%20in%20Taiwan%20%26%20Malaysia.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,   2015)   VERITÉ.  2010c.  Immigrant  Workers  in  US  Agriculture:  The  Role  of  Labor  Brokers  in  Vulnerability   to  Forced  Labor.  VÉRITÉ,   http://www.verite.org/sites/default/files/images/HELP%20WANTED_A%20Verite%CC%81 %20Report_Migrant%20Workers%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf  (Access  date:   April  2,  2015)   VERITÉ.  2012.  Labor  Brokerage  and  Trafficking  of  Nepali  Migrant  Workers.  VERITÉ,   http://www.verite.org/sites/default/files/images/Humanity%20United-­‐ Nepal%20Trafficking%20Report-­‐Final_1.pdf  (Access  date:  April  2,  2015)   Vosko,    Leah  F.  and    Sylvia  Fuller.  2008.  Temporary  Employment  and  Social  Inequality  in  Canada:   Exploring  Intersections  of  Gender,  Race  and  Immigration  Status.  Social  Indicators  Research     88(1):  31-­‐50.2014-­‐04-­‐21)   Vosko,    Leah  F.,  et  al.  2014.  Liberating  Temporariness?  Migration,  Work,  and  Citizenship  in  an   Age  of  Insecurity.  Montreal  &  Kingston:  McGill-­‐Queen  University  Press.   Walzer,  Michael.  1983.  Spheres  of  Justice.  New  York:  Basic  Books.