Dyan Ruiz responds to Kenney’s ‘baseless allegations’

Dyan Ruiz responds to Kenney’s ‘baseless allegations’

Dear Honourable Jason Kenney,

I appreciate that your office has taken the time to write the letter commenting on the article I wrote entitled, “Resounding ‘NO’ to LCP changes.” I can truly say I am glad to hear that the government has been exposed to the contents of the article, which you claim contains “several false allegations.” Allow me to reply to the baseless allegations contained in your letter.

It is not stated in the article the government is opposed to any or all changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Notice the language of the article when I say “no major changes”, “resounding ‘No’ to substantial changes to the LCP,” and the “outlook on changes to the LCP may look dim given this response.” Major or substantial changes would address the oft-cited demands of LCP workers, advocates, and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the two reports presented to the House on May 6 and June 10, 2009.

Examples of major LCP changes would be:

-the granting of landed immigrant status or permanent residence upon arrival,

-the removal of the live-in requirement,

-the removal of employer specific work permits.
All of these recommendations were flat out denied in the Government Response, which is what is highlighted in the article. The repeated denial of these major recommendations was reverberant, or resounding, throughout the Government Response your Ministry submitted on August 19, 2009, the release of which was the main topic of the article.

The ‘No’ anticipated is the result of the vote on the May Standing Committee report, which is yet to come. Your colleague, Member of Parliament Ms Olivia Chow, pointed out the report will need to be considered in its entirety. The Conservatives specifically dissented on 10 of the recommendations, and criticized many more, in the minority report attached as an addendum to the May committee report. I did not anticipate the Conservatives would vote ‘Yes’ for recommendations they specifically disagreed with in the past, which is what is indicated in the article.

I hope I am shown a contrary attitude in the changes the government plans to announce in the unspecified timeline of “months ahead” in this current political climate where a non-confidence vote is only one hot button issue away. Hopefully, the actual proposed changes will not reflect the past actions or inactions, as the case may be, of the Harper government and your Ministry. Still to this date, there have been no changes to the LCP announced.

Research for the article was based exclusively on the following, official government documentation, namely the Standing Committee reports and the Government Response aforementioned, and the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Newsletter for May 2009. An interview with MP Chow, who is on the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration, was also used. Background research on advocates’ priorities was gathered from months of recent coverage by The Philippine Reporter.

Measures the government would like to make to improve the LCP, as described in the Government Response, were stated in the article, contrary to what you say in your letter. Measures like the expansion of the pilot project for voluntary monitoring, resulting in a grand total of 150 visits in two fiscal years, were discussed. Granted the effectiveness of the measures were assessed with skepticism, but harsher criticisms have been said by others.

In an interview with MP Chow on September 8, 2009, she stated Bill C-45, which was mentioned as a possible measure in the Government Response, is a “bogus bill” and “a complete waste of time.” Enacting Bill C-45 would mean the government can “deny entry to Canada to foreign workers who could be exposed to exploitation or abuse.” MacDonald Scott, lawyer for live-in caregivers suing their former employment agency in Ontario Superior Court, also denounced Bill C-45 at a press conference on October 6, 2009. Scott contended, “If you send you send the main witnesses in a potential situation of law-breaking home, aren’t you kind of cutting your investigation short?” He then continued with challenges to your Ministry and the Harper government to do their job as a legitimate government when it comes to the LCP.

I do not know where in the article it falsely implies that LCP workers are not given a “pathway” to permanent residence. The juxtaposition of different classes of immigrants was taken from the Government Response itself. I was merely explaining how the Government Response first talks of skilled and lower-skilled workers, then follows with a point that LCP workers are allowed to “transition” to permanent residence. LCP workers, unlike the ‘desired’ skilled workers who address long-term labour needs, do not have landed status upon arrival to Canada. LCP workers have valuable skills developed over years of training and experience. They fill long term needs to care for Canada’s children, elderly, and ailing. I was merely pointing out that LCP workers do not fit nicely in the categories laid out in the Government Response.

It is worth pausing to consider what “pathway” and “transition” are euphemisms for when it comes to conditions faced by caregivers while under the LCP. They are euphemisms for situations of uncertainty experienced by LCP workers while in the program. They are euphemisms for situations where caregivers are forced to live in strangers’ homes. The strangers are also the caregivers’ employers and they are the only people on LCP work permits who can show fulfillment of the two year work requirement to be qualified for permanent residence.

They are euphemisms for the two to three years of vulnerability imposed on LCP workers, when employers can easily threaten deportation caused by not completing the program. They are euphemisms for situations where caregivers, an overwhelming majority of which are Filipina migrants, can feel trapped by employers, who can easily exploit them with long hours of work doing unsanctioned jobs. Employers who may abuse the caregiver physically, sometimes sexually, because it is the word of employers in unchecked positions of power against immigrants who are not even granted the Fundamental Canadian Right of mobility.

When an LCP worker completes the program, it is a reflection of the resilience of the caregiver, who is showing tremendous determination to stay in Canada. It is not because the caregiver enjoyed the living conditions most Canadians refuse to abide under. If, as you point out, “Over 90 percent of live-in caregivers eventually apply for permanent residence and approximately 98 percent are successful,” then why can you not simply give caregivers what they want and deserve upon arrival?

Let me suggest a subsequent article for future reading published by The Philippine Reporter on October 1, 2009 called, “Voices for LCP changes speak out.” It is filled with direct quotations from current and former LCP workers, advocates from varied organizations, as well as the Liberal Press Release from September 23, 2009. Perhaps your office can take the time to indicate how “wrong” their criticisms are also, as you did with the Migrante Ontario statement.

The only thing I regret in the article is the typo in the third line. I am sure I express the opinion of many others when I say, I am looking forward to the announcement on the “substantial changes” to the LCP that are yet to come.

Sincerely,
Dyan Ruiz