Aug 1, 2025
As temperatures rise globally, the brunt of climate change is not borne equally. In India’s urban centres, extreme heat is endangering the health and livelihoods of millions of informal workers, ranging from street vendors to waste pickers and construction labourers. These marginalized groups often lack access to basic protections, including shade, water, sanitation, and health benefits. In Canada, migrant farmworkers face similarly dangerous conditions while harvesting the country’s food supply under intensifying heat waves.
While separated by geography and policy frameworks, both groups are caught at the intersection of climate exposure and systemic precarity.
India: Informal Workers at the Frontlines of Heat Stress
India’s 2024 summer heatwave was one of its most severe in decades. Between March and June, at least 40,000 heatstroke cases and over 100 confirmed deaths were recorded nationally (Reuters, 2024). Temperatures in Delhi topped 49°C during the day, with nights remaining as intense at a minimum of 36°C. [The Economic Times] For informal workers, who form over 80% of India’s urban workforce, the heatwave was not just a weather event; it was a crisis of survival.
According to a 2019 study by Das and E. Somanathan, each 1°C increase in temperature correlates with a 14–19% drop in daily net earnings for informal workers in Delhi (Environment for Development). The situation remains as dire today. On the worst days, losses reached nearly 40%. A fruit vendor named Sarabjeet Singh, working near Delhi’s Red Fort, said, “There are no customers from 12 to 4 pm. Income drops, but expenses go up—we spend more on water, juices, and medicine” (The Economic Times). Even on the seemingly considered “peak” hours of Indian markets, the heat drives both vendors and customers into retreat. Foot traffic slows to a crawl, and sales of perishable goods like fruits and vegetables suffer immediate losses due to spoilage. Vendors like Singh are forced to remain at their stalls in stifling conditions with little hope of covering daily costs.
While Heat Action Plans (HAPs) have expanded across Indian cities in recent years, their effectiveness in protecting informal workers remains uneven. Ahmedabad led the way as the first city in South Asia to adopt a HAP with early warning systems and public cooling centres (PreventionWeb). In 2025, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issued an updated advisory calling on all cities to integrate informal workers (especially women) into their heat response strategies, including provisions for shaded workspaces, water stations, and adjusted work timings (Indian Express, 2025). Many municipal HAPs now recognize informal workers as a high-risk group. However, implementation often falls short. In Delhi, only around 20 water coolers had been installed by mid-June, which is far short of the 3,000 promised in the city's summer action plan. Eco-friendly bus stop shelters, also part of the plan, were reportedly nowhere to be seen during peak heat (Times of India, 2025).
The lack of integration between urban planning and heat adaptation leaves informal workers exposed to life-threatening risks. A 2025 report by Greenpeace India, "Ground Zero: Climate Experiences among Informal Workers in Delhi," found that street vendors faced income losses of up to 40% during extreme heat, as customers vanished and midday conditions became unbearable. Simultaneously, medical expenses rose by 14%, creating what the report calls a “climate-health-economic nexus.” At the launch of the Workers’ Collective for Climate Justice, Sandeep Verma of the Youth Organization for Democratic and Help in Action stated: “City infrastructure needs to match the adaptation needs of everyone. Vendors, who work outside through the heatwave, are in urgent need of cooling centers, shaded areas, water, and medical care to survive this heatwave season.” (Greenpeace India).
Some cities are piloting targeted solutions. In parts of Delhi and Ahmedabad, misting stations, temporary shaded zones, and free drinking water stalls have been introduced in high-footfall areas. But the coverage remains patchy. The NDMA’s latest heatwave preparedness advisory encourages municipal bodies to include informal workers in risk assessments and mitigation efforts, but without dedicated funding or enforcement, these plans remain aspirational.
Canada: Migrant Farmworkers and the Invisible Cost of Climate Exposure
In Canada, where agriculture increasingly depends on migrant labour, extreme heat is also creating unsafe and precarious working conditions. The 2021 “heat dome,” the deadliest weather event in Canada to date, gripped British Columbia and resulted in the death of over 619 individuals. (Government of Canada) Since then, summers in southern Ontario, the Okanagan Valley, and the Prairies have brought more frequent heatwaves, with humidex values reaching over 40°C.
A 2023 pilot study by the University of British Columbia and RAMA (Radical Action with Migrants in Agriculture) monitored housing conditions for migrant workers in British Columbia’s Okanagan Valley. Indoor temperatures in employer-provided bunkhouses reached up to 42.8 °C, often exceeding outdoor levels. Workers were frequently denied the use of air conditioning units due to rising electricity bills, and many reported that even basic heat mitigation measures were discouraged. A migrant worker recalled how reflective plastic linings on the orchard floor trapped heat, making the area unbearable to work in. When he asked to remove the sheets during peak afternoon hours temporarily, his employer refused, prioritizing crop yield over worker safety. The study noted that this experience was representative of how structural power imbalances leave workers vulnerable to extreme heat without recourse (University of British Columbia).
These conditions reflect broader structural vulnerabilities. Migrant farmworkers in Canada often live in employer-provided housing exempt from standard tenancy protections, leaving little recourse if conditions are unsafe. Work permits tied to a single employer can discourage reporting of heat-related illnesses, leading to underreporting and a fear of retaliation (Saanich News). In some documented cases, workers slept outside on porches or in the fields when indoor temperatures became unbearable at night (et al.).
The lack of national enforcement worsens the risk. Although provinces like British Columbia and Ontario have issued heat stress guidelines, Canada lacks binding federal standards that guarantee cooling breaks, shaded rest areas, or access to water. The contrast is stark when compared to states like California, where law mandates these basic protections once temperatures exceed critical thresholds (Farm Journal). Canada’s current reliance on employer discretion leaves too many workers exposed with no fallback.
Some progress has emerged through grassroots organizing. In 2023, over 400 mushroom workers in British Columbia unionized, marking the most considerable farmworker organizing effort in Canadian history. (CBC News) Advocacy groups, such as the National Farmers Union (NFU), have called for “climate-proofing” labour policy, including binding workplace protections, ventilation standards in bunkhouses, and access to emergency medical care. NFU’s “Weathering the Harvest” campaign emphasizes that extreme heat is not just a workplace hazard but a systemic risk to the food system and human rights (National Farmers Union).
Civil society in British Columbia and Ontario has stepped up where governments have lagged. Organizations like RAMA and Migrant Rights Network have distributed fans, offered know-your-rights workshops, and launched policy campaigns demanding national housing standards. They argue that immigration reform is key to heat adaptation: if migrant workers could switch employers or hold open work permits, they could leave unsafe environments.
Provincial and federal governments have yet to make meaningful changes. Heat stress is still not formally defined as a workplace hazard in most provinces, and housing standards remain unevenly enforced. Farmworkers are among the least likely to benefit from climate adaptation funding, even though they are among the most exposed.
Comparing Two Systems of Risk
Though vastly different in legal frameworks and income levels, India and Canada share one alarming truth: their most heat-exposed workers have the least power to protect themselves.
In India, the informal economy excludes workers from most labour protections. In Canada, migrant status and closed work permits restrict workers’ ability to advocate for their safety. Both groups lack reliable access to cooling, rest, and income protection during climate extremes. And both are largely absent from national climate adaptation strategies.
India’s Heat Action Plans have begun to recognize vulnerable populations, but implementation remains patchy. Canada’s approach, meanwhile, has yet to formally recognize heat as a workplace hazard in many provinces. In both cases, systemic change will require integrating worker protections into broader climate policies and acknowledging that resilience must start at the margins.
The policy challenges in both contexts raise broader questions about climate justice. Who is deemed essential, yet treated as expendable? Whose safety counts in national adaptation plans? And who bears the costs of climate-related inaction? The answers so far suggest a structural inequity, where those most vulnerable are excluded from both protection and decision-making.
The International Labour Organization has called for the inclusion of occupational heat stress in global labour standards. Canada and India, as signatories to ILO conventions, could move toward establishing national benchmarks, such as mandatory heat breaks, medical coverage for heat-related illnesses, and climate-linked insurance for informal and migrant workers. Civil society in both countries has already shown what this could look like. It’s time for governments to follow suit.
Conclusion
From Delhi’s markets to Ontario’s orchards, heatwaves are not abstract projections; they are a lived emergency. For workers without formal recognition or legal protections, rising temperatures translate into lost wages, deteriorating health, and growing inequality. Both countries show early signs of adaptation through insurance pilots, grassroots organizing, and advocacy. But these are stopgaps, not solutions.
As extreme heat becomes the new normal, so must a new definition of workplace safety, one that protects not just productivity, but people. If climate justice is to mean anything, it must begin with those whose labour sustains our economies but whose voices are too often excluded from the climate conversation.
The workers enduring record heat under tin roofs and plastic-covered orchards are not passive victims of climate change; they are among its first responders. Recognizing their rights, responding to their needs, and reshaping systems around their realities is not just ethical governance. It is essential for climate resilience.
Comparing Two Systems at Risk (Alternative/Extended vers)
India and Canada sit at opposite ends of the income spectrum. Still, their systems reveal a shared pattern: the most heat-exposed workers—whether informal or migrant—remain structurally excluded from protections designed to promote climate resilience.
In India, over 80% of the workforce is employed informally, lacking access to legally mandated workplace protections, such as sick leave, wage compensation, and regulated working conditions. While major cities have pioneered Heat Action Plans (HAPs), these efforts are often non-binding and lack enforceability. Even when informal workers are acknowledged as vulnerable groups, policies rarely include concrete benefits, such as mandatory rest shelters or income substitution for missed workdays. Implementation is frequently stalled by bureaucratic fragmentation, underfunded municipal bodies, and a planning culture that privileges formal, salaried spaces over the informal economy.
Canada, in contrast, has a formal labour system governed by Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) laws and provincial labour ministries. But for tens of thousands of seasonal migrant agricultural workers employed through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), those legal protections are effectively out of reach. Migrants tied to single-employer work permits face direct retaliation for raising safety concerns. Employer-provided housing is often unregulated, with reports of indoor temperatures reaching 42.8°C and air conditioning forbidden. While Canadian OHS regulations include general clauses to “protect workers from harm,” they fail to define heat as a workplace hazard with enforceable cooling standards, leaving heat stress mitigation largely to the discretion of employers.
This is not just an administrative gap; it is a structural design. In both countries, the workers most exposed to extreme temperatures are relegated to the margins of policymaking. Neither India’s National Disaster Management Authority nor Canada’s federal climate adaptation framework has committed to targeted funding mechanisms for these populations. When informal or migrant workers are mentioned, it is typically through broad vulnerability categories, without guaranteeing their rights, benefits, or protections.
The result is a convergence of risk under different banners. In India, informality often leads to invisibility in the law. In Canada, migrant dependency generates silence through fear. In both systems, precarity is not incidental but embedded. Civil society groups, from Greenpeace India’s Workers’ Collective for Climate Justice to Canada’s Migrant Rights Network, have stepped in to fill gaps through mutual aid and policy advocacy. Their work highlights a fundamental truth: climate resilience cannot be achieved without structural reforms that centre labour rights, housing justice, and equitable access to health protections.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) has identified occupational heat stress as one of the most urgent climate-linked threats to worker health. Canada and India, both ILO member states, have an opportunity to adopt national frameworks that define heat exposure as an occupational hazard. This would mean enshrining rest breaks, shaded workspaces, cooling infrastructure, and emergency healthcare access into law, not as best practices, but as binding entitlements.
Adaptation cannot be left to the discretion of employers or the capacity of overburdened municipal bodies. As climate extremes intensify, the absence of enforceable worker protections will only deepen inequalities. To reverse this trend, climate policy must shift from technocratic resilience planning to rights-based adaptation that sees informal and migrant workers not as vulnerable groups to be managed, but as frontline actors whose safety and dignity are foundational to just climate futures.
Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/unrelenting-heatwave-kills-five-indian-capital-2024-06-19/
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/climate-leadership-ahmedabads-6th-heat-action-plan
https://climatejustice.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2024/08/FINAL-RAMA-Report.pdf
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mushroom-farm-union-1.7258993
https://www.nfu.ca/weathering-the-harvest-voices-from-the-frontlines-of-canadas-climate-crisis/