Canada’s moral obligation to Juana Tejada

Canada’s moral obligation to Juana Tejada

Melchizedek Maquiso

(LETTER TO THE EDITOR)

The bright, sunny, Friday afternoon of June 27 appears to be a positive sign for Live-In Caregiver Juana Tejada. During a picket rally in front of Citizen and Immigration Canada (CIC) office in Toronto, one of the speakers on the makeshift rostrum announced the good news that Mrs. Tejada has been given an extension of her work permit until December 8 this year. This day also happens to be the caregiver’s birthday.

The rally turned out pretty well and it sure did got its message across. There were no police present which is a manifestation of freedom/democracy positively working in this country.

Tejada was originally slated for deportation on August 8 following CIC’s denial of her application for permanent residency when it was found out that she has cancer during a medical exam (which is one of the requirements to apply for permanent residency). She would’ve been a permanent resident by now if it were not for this cancer that was discovered back in 2006.

The case of Juana Tejada has garnered national media attention here in Canada – which only shows that her case has gone beyond the concerns and confines of the Filipino-Canadian community. Peggy Nash, a Member of Parliament (MP) representing a constituency in Parkdale-High Park in Toronto was also present in the demonstration to support the plight of Juana Tejada.

Despite the seemingly “good gesture” from the Canadian government to extend her work permit and effectively granting her a reprieve from deportation, it still is unfair not to grant her permanent residency.
After all, that’s basically the “grand prize” that any caregiver under Canada’s Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) aspires for after completing the mandatory 2 year requirement to be eligible to apply for permanent residence and eventually, Canadian citizenship.

Issuing an extension of Mrs. Tejada’s work permit won’t do any good for her considering the fact that her body afflicted with Stage 4 lung cancer is deteriorating as each day passes therefore the ability to work diminishes as well by the day. The Toronto Star even reported that less than 5% of people with a similar condition will manage to survive after 5 years.

My sympathies go to Mrs. Tejada. After all, we are both caregivers under the LCP. We have more or less the same set of reasons why we left the Philippines.

Just because the CIC case officer’s denial of her application was based on the argument that her “health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand to health and social services (of Canada)” doesn’t mean that there is no room for compromise. After all, it is assumed that when she left the Philippines (after undergoing required medical checkup for exit visa), she was given a clean bill of health and therefore it is logical to assume that she got the cancer while on Canadian soil. So shouldn’t at least the Canadian government share “this burden” by granting Mrs. Tejada permanent residence for her to continue her treatment?

Should the Canadian government uphold the decision of its immigration agency the CIC to deport Mrs. Tejada, it’s tarnishing its image as a guarantor of human rights and is espousing the inhumane treatment of its workers (albeit short of becoming its own citizens as in the case of Tejada).

The case of Tejada may be lost as far as legalities are concerned but there is still the power of moral persuasion that transcends the boundaries of law. And this should be the basis of the Canadian government to reverse its decision and cite this case a “moral obligation” to let her stay in Canada.

Melchizedek Maquiso
Stouffville, ON