USAPING MIGRANTE: Deconstructing the Live-in Caregiver Program

USAPING MIGRANTE: Deconstructing the Live-in Caregiver Program

The collective voice of all live-in caregivers is much needed now. I know for a fact, based on some interviews and consultation meetings, this workforce sector is crying for changes. No, the live-in caregivers are crying literally for changes in the LCP system. Now is the right time to push whatever essential changes they need. Now is the right time to cry for some relief.

There is an on-going campaign for making fundamental changes to the federal Live-in Caregiver Program being spearheaded by the Coalition for the Protection of Caregivers’ Rights (CPCR). The campaign aims at demanding fundamental policy changes from both federal and provincial governments. Lobbying is of course the main approach to reach the policy makers, but part of the campaign is an array of action-for-change strategies such as participatory research, advocacy, and building alliances, among other things.

Before I talk about the campaign itself and what changes the coalition is trying to pursue, I want to give you a synopsis of the evolution of the domestic worker program in Canada. This is necessary to understand the context of what has been happening now in the community. In the analysis I am using “deconstruction” – not in its strict philosophical sense – to demonstrate the incoherence of the current system.

The book Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives describes the brief history of domestic worker program in Canada, or the LCP, as it is known today. During the time of the Confederation to the late nineteenth century, most of the domestic workers migrating to Canada were from rural areas of some European countries. The reason for this was the Canadian government promoted Canada as a British country with booming economic alternatives, thus it offered a better life. The recruits from there were then the “preferred” female migrants. Here we can see that, historically, domestic workers to Canada have not always been women of colour (visible minority groups as we understand now). However, most of the recruits since then were women. This fact reflects the patriarchal Western belief that women should take care of the domestic work. The marginalization of women was present ever since the beginning of the system. In fact, it was intrinsically embedded in the rationale of the system.

In the 1920s, Canada recruited women from Northern Europe under the Servant-Turn-Mistress Program, and deployed them to the Canadian Northwest territory not only as domestic workers but also as future wives of farmers. Under the Empire Settlement Act of 1923, the Canadian government offered financial assistance to European women who wanted to come as domestic workers, and granted them permanent residency upon arrival. The demand for migrant workers increased because of this, and the domestic workers became a middle-class status symbol.

The Cold War made migration for European women difficult. This was the reason that triggered Canada to accept “non-preferred” workers from countries such as Jamaica, Greece and Barbados. Canada treated this acceptance as goodwill to these nations. This was the beginning of the new group of workers, who were predominantly women of colour, coming to Canada. Between 1950 and 1954, domestics came mostly from Germany, Italy and Greece. In 1955, Canada and the UK signed the West Indies Domestic Scheme. Also in 1955, Black women were allowed with restriction in numbers to enter Canada. The point system, which was also applied to domestic workers but with different criteria, was first introduced in 1967. The Employment Authorization Program was established in 1973. This was a scheme where temporary work permits were issued to allow domestics into the country for a specific period of time. This program did not allow domestics to apply for landed status because they were tagged as “temporary workers.” This restriction caused workers and advocates to demand changes thru lobbying. Thus in 1979, the Canadian government introduced a new policy called the Foreign Domestic Movement (FDM). Under this program, the domestics could apply for permanent residency after a minimum of two years of continuous work plus the requirement of “demonstrated self-sufficiency or the potential to achieve self-sufficiency.”

The current LCP is a variation of the FDM. It requires caregivers not only to live in their employers’ homes, but also hold the equivalent of a Canadian Grade 12 education with qualified domestic trainings. This educational requirement is easy for most Filipinos, but if we look at it deeper, this restriction is effectively excluding many women (and men) from economically marginalized countries from migrating to Canada due to lack of education – Western style. This apparently reflects the continuity of systemic racism embedded in this particular Canadian immigration policy. Reading the short history above also reveals the sexism in the policies.

The restrictions of the LCP usually leave caregivers susceptible to abuse. One factor that exacerbates the conditions is the “live-in” requirement. Your workplace is also your home which is owned by your employer who is also your boss – is an equation tantamount to powerlessness. Implementation of work contracts have always been eclipsed by this presumed equation, which in effect pressured caregivers to keep mum and stay for fear of deportation or denial of immigrant status. In this situation, caregivers are vulnerable to physical, emotional and sexual abuse by their employers.

Perhaps the number one complaint of caregivers is working long hours without pay. I know one who was working from seven in the morning until midnight when her lady-employer arrived from parties. Long work hours, no extra pay, lack of sleep – is an equation tantamount to exploitation. But it happened, and it happens until now. Its cause is because caregivers are living-in their employers’ houses. The owner of the house is the ruler inside the house. You cannot usually say no to the ruler because s/he is your employer – your boss. The live-in requirement is in fact a recipe for cruelty. It is a bondage that traps caregivers to modern-day middle-class houses for fear of not getting the “golden ticket” – to be able to sponsor all her loved ones. The fear is real because of the fact that visas of caregivers are tied or specific to particular employers. When caregivers screwed up, their visas will be screwed up too. How then to get out of this situation? To be concluded. (Comments are welcome at usapingmigrante@gmail.com.)