Canada reluctant to promote Domestic Workers’ Rights
Canada reluctant to promote Domestic Workers’ Rights
AT THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE IN GENEVA:
By Ethel Tungohan
The International Labour Conference (ILC) took place at the United Nations’ Palais de Nations in Geneva, Switzerland from June 2 to 18, 2010. Organized by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the ILC is an annual gathering whereby UN member-states – along with representatives of employers’ and workers’ associations from different countries – discuss and debate labor issues.
One of the agenda items this year concerned the creation of a treaty that will ensure fair labor standards for domestic workers. If passed, the treaty will compel member-states to follow the standards outlined in the treaty; member-states that violate terms of the treaty then face international sanctions.
As a Filipina-Canadian researcher studying the activist pursuits of migrant domestic workers, I attended the meetings in order to witness the negotiations taking place and to see the role played by civil society activists in representing the interests of domestic workers. I discovered that while the Philippine government was proactive in pushing for stronger labor protections, the Canadian government was reluctant to support provisions that would hold them accountable to the treatment of domestic workers.
The negotiations during the conference were rarely monotonous, occasionally aggravating, and frequently acrimonious. The main points of contention concerned the desire of some countries to limit the scope of the proposed treaty to ensure that national standards on the treatment of domestic workers were prioritized. Maintaining the importance of national standards significantly weakened the treaty because this meant that countries with high instances of domestic worker abuse could hide behind claims of national sovereignty, negatively impacting the ability of the treaty to protect domestic workers’ rights. Violations of domestic workers’ health and safety could easily be justified by saying that national norms make it impossible to make these guarantees.
Canada supported attempts to weaken the treaty. For example, Canada insisted during the opening session that the treaty consist of a series of non-binding recommendations and reiterated its desire to keep the recommendations “general” rather than specific during the closing session, adding that existing labor standards should be preserved and that countries be given adequate “flexibility” when following the treaty.
Canada also took the lead on several occasions to undermine the treaty’s intention to protect domestic workers. It spoke out against proposals giving migrant domestic workers’ easy access to dispute settlement procedures, claiming that guaranteeing “easy” access “goes beyond the intentions of the convention.” More crucially, Canada condemned key initiatives that would significantly improve the situation of live-in caregivers entering Canada through the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP).
First, it countered attempts by some member-states to make the live-in requirement a negotiable component of domestic workers’ contracts by emphasizing that such a requirement is an important condition of employment, thereby ignoring statements made by workers’ representatives that the live-in requirement magnifies domestic workers’ experiences of abuse.
Second, it spoke out against attempts to hold employment agencies and employers accountable to domestic worker abuse. Interestingly, the necessity of protecting domestic workers against abusive employment agencies and employers was strongly upheld by the Philippine representatives, culminating in a heated debate between the Canadian and Philippine government representatives on the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal.
In the end, Canada’s efforts to narrow the scope of the treaty failed because most of the terms of the treaty passed, giving member-states the ability to vote on ratification during next year’s ILC.
Overall, Canada’s conduct during the proceedings showed that the promises of government representatives like Jason Kenney to protect live-in caregivers are limited; otherwise, Canada would be eager to uphold the protections offered by the treaty and would take a leading role in ensuring that domestic workers’ interests are protected. Indeed, it was peculiar to see Canada eagerly decrying even the most cursory attempts to protect domestic workers.
A brief conversation I had with one of Canada’s representatives, Daniel Delacroix, shows that perhaps the representatives were not prepared. When I asked Delacroix to explain the logic behind Canada’s initiatives, all Delacroix could tell me was that he was following instructions from Ottawa to do so. He also maintained that he “did not know” whether the proposed treaty would protect the interests of live-in caregivers.
It is therefore unsurprising that the civil society representatives I spoke to, which included representatives of groups like Human Rights Watch and Anti-Slavery International, felt that Canada was a “disappointment” during the sessions.
The Filipino community, alongside civil society activists, should therefore make a concerted effort to hold Canada accountable to their actions on the international stage. Because the ILC will once again discuss the treaty on domestic workers next year, it is imperative that we inform the Canadian government representatives the realities facing women who are part of the LCP. If you are part of an organization interested in doing so, please do not hesitate to contact me at ethel.tungohan@utoronto.ca for more information on how to lobby our representatives at next year’s meetings.
Comments (1)