Live In Caregiver Case Study

The Live-In Caregiver Program of Canada

Canada’s Live-In Caregiver Program offers foreign caregivers the opportunity to work and live in Canada. The program’s intent is to encourage immigration while simultaneously addressing caregiver shortages. However, working and live-in conditions are not ideal. The majority of people applying for the LCP are women of color, who come from lower income/source countries, like the Philippines. These women are often marginalized because of their vulnerable status. Despite providing employment opportunities, the LCP is an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that threatens the status and wellbeing of migrant women, working as domestics in Canada.

Migrant domestic workers in Canada have typically

been women. This fact reflects “Western society’s long-held belief that women should take responsibility for the maintenance of the domestic sphere” (Hodge 62). Child care, elder live-in care, cooking and cleaning are just some examples of responsibilities domestic workers must fulfill. During the early 1900s, European women from countries like Ireland and Finland were used to fill in the shortage of domestics/caregivers in Canada (Canadians for an Inclusive Canada). Considering the demand, their work was not only desired but valued as well (CIC). These women were generally given permanent residency as soon as possible and were able to assimilate easily into Canadian society. This was seen as an ideal system because Canadian women were then able to enter the workforce.
After the Second World War, there was yet another increased demand for caregivers. The post-war economic expansion and shortage of domestic workers led the Canadian government to recruit women from Barbados and Jamaica (CIC). However, there was a racist undercurrent to the process. The Caribbean caregivers were not given permanent residency and “were considered ‘reserve labor’” (CIC). This insecure employment, made by the exclusionary policies of the Canadian government, caused much unhappiness within the Caribbean caregiver community (CIC). Thus, the Caribbean Domestics Scheme was created in 1955, giving a “limited number of caregivers under the program the ability to apply for permanent residency after one year working in domestic service” (CIC). However, the scheme was restrictive, allowing only single, childless women to apply (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 4).
Instead of improving the situation, the policy made it harder for migrant women to qualify for work. Despite the high demand for caregivers, domestic/care work was considered “disposable” and ‘low skill’ (CIC). Caribbean domestic workers were ‘worth” less than their white counterparts, earning about $150 less per month (Macklin 17). They also experienced workplace abuse and discrimination, which was largely due to their precarious status.
In 1981, The Foreign Domestic Movement (FDM) was born out of concern for migrant workers’ rights. The “improved” program was “the next vision of this labor import” between source and host country (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 4). It allowed “caregivers the right to apply for permanent residency after working in Canada for twenty-four months” (CIC). However, the program did not eliminate the exclusionary and discriminatory policies. Therefore, a call for a more progressive program was needed.
The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) was thus established in 1992. The intent was to fill in the shortage of affordable child and elder live-in care work while organizing the international flow of labor (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 5). The program allowed for the following:
If women migrate to Canada and complete 24 months of live-in caregiver work in a government-approved employer’s home within a three-year period, then these women have the right to apply from within Canada to become permanent residents.

Since they have already proven their ability to work and live in Canada, live-in caregivers have their applications almost automatically approved. For migrant women, this eventual acceptance as a permanent resident constitutes the main appeal of the LCP. (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 5)

The LCP is an ideal program for many migrant women because it permits them to enter into Canada as independent immigrants, without most of the “skills”, education and capital requirements (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 5). The Live-in caregiver program provides them with one of the very few opportunities to not only live but to work in Canada as well. This may appear to be an attractive feature for those considering employment overseas. However, the LCP comes with two restrictive features: “the live-in requirement and the caregivers’ precarious temporary immigration status” (Santos

139).
About five thousand people migrate to Canada through the Live-in Caregiver Program a year (Hodge 62). The majority of these migrants applying for the LCP are women of color, who come from lower income/source countries. And of these women approximately eighty percent of them are from the Philippines (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 5). These migrants are part of a transnational migration system, controlled by receiving countries (host) and sending countries (home) (Reed 469). These human migration flows are considered transnational because “they challenge traditional conceptions of cultural identity and territorial community” (Reed, 470). Both host country (Canada) and home country (the Philippines) share bilateral linkages. These linkages regulate the movement of people across borders and help to maintain national state boundaries (Reed 470). They also create formal labor agreements or temporary foreign worker programs (Reed 470). The movement of people across borders, to fulfill a neoliberal agenda, is part of the largely capitalist system of globalization.
Most of the times, people are influenced by the push-pull factors, which influence their decision to migrate (Reed 470).

Push factors may include, poverty, political and/or social justice issues in a person’s home country. Pull factors tend to be ideal economic and employment factors that attract migrants, usually coming from developing nations to Western countries such as Canada. Temporary foreign workers programs, such as SAWP and LCP, allow many of these individuals, seeking a better life, to find employment overseas. The LCP, however, is part of a very informal migration system (Reed 474). In the Philippines, for example, the system is run by, Filipino communities and private recruitment agencies (Reed 474). These institutions play a key role in influencing decisions and facilitating entry into

Canada.
Under the policy framework of managed migration the process is controlled by, receiving and sending governments. Not surprisingly, they are largely influenced by economic purposes (Reed 471). Temporary foreign worker programs “show how governments use the practice of managed migration to create a permanent source of temporary foreign workers and to regulate these flows” (Reed 473). Essentially, the intent is to maximize economic benefits. Worker remittance flows (sending money in payment) plays a key role within the global finance framework for economic development (Reed 477). Host country benefits from this system because it is an effective way of filling in labor shortages, while sending countries, such as the Philippines, are able to stabilize their economies by relying on these workers to send back remittances.
Although the Live-in Caregiver program appears to be beneficial for economic development, it actually deepens inequalities in both the Canadian and global context. The treatment of women as economic commodities further exacerbates the inequalities they experience. This is because the program is inherently racist as well as sexist. In fact, “women coming through the program are triply marginalized by race, class, and gender” (Hodge 62). This is why acknowledging intersectionality is important when analyzing the Live-in Caregiver Program. When looking solely at gender, we see that the feminization of domestic work (created by the patriarchy) means the economic and social value of women’s labor is undervalued and “is belittled by the “labor of love” mystification” (Macklin 15). Women are expected to fill in the motherly/caregiver roll according to society’s standards. Because of the belief that women’s work is “natural” or “low-skilled labor,” domestic workers tend to get paid very low wages.
The idea of “a common experience with gender” must be challenged, as well as exposing social inequalities and power relations if we wish to further explore this problematic policy (Hodge 61). Women of color from lower-income countries, working as caregivers/ domestics are exploited because of their vulnerable status. They are also associated with “feminine” traits and are considered to be “naturally hardworking” and “good with children (Hodge 64). In one study, employers confessed to showing a preference for hiring workers from countries like the Philippines, for reasons mentioned above (Atanackovic & Bourgeault 341). These beliefs allow Canadian women employers to rationalize the subordination of women of color “by using the same stereotypes the patriarchy has used against women generally” (Hodge, 65).
Canadian women employers are able to enter the workforce thanks to the services of these migrant women. Many of them are mothers but must leave their children behind to care for others. Meanwhile, their very own children may be taken care of by a nanny belonging to a lower class, instead of being taken care of by their fathers. This is a cycle that marginalizes women according to their gender, race, and class. At the end of the day, it appears that it is the woman’s responsibility to take care of household matters.
The “live-in” requirement of the program may cause migrant workers to experience isolation, powerlessness, invisibility, loneliness and “especially vulnerable to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by their employers” (Hodge 62). Filipina women, in particular, experience numerous accounts of human rights violations. Examples of these violations include inadequate standard of living, unfair labor conditions and little to no access to effective judicial and administrative remedies (Santos 138). According to one domestic worker, the LCP is a “dehumanizing” program that “systematically erodes your self-esteem” (Santos 138).
Employers are actually required to provide private accommodation to the caregiver. However, privacy and proper living conditions are not always granted. Unfortunately, voicing their complaints and concerns may be difficult to do. For some, reaching out is a risk that could lead to deportation. For others, who have the resources/connections to do so, may be met with criticism. These women, who “demand their workers’ rights” are often deemed “greedy” for doing so (Hodge 63). Some are even charged a one hundred dollar fee and are in danger of being considered problematic when applying for immigrant status (Hodge 63).
Many women coming through the program are highly educated but are unable to find work in their chosen fields due to “unrecognizable foreign credentials” (Hodge 63). Other women, who do not have the same wealthy and educated backgrounds, are unable to apply for the program because of high migration costs and the strict educational requirements. Difficulties will persist if they are able to become caregivers but wish to upgrade their skill and education level. Their demanding schedules and working conditions provide them with little time and money to do so (Hodge 63).
In November 2014, the conservative government, under Stephen Harper, had made changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program. Chris Alexander, the Minister of Immigration at the time, claimed that the changes would “provide greater protections to caregivers and quickened processing times” (Tungohan 2015). However, the promises to the Filipino and migrant communities, concerning work and live-in conditions, were not made. In fact, “the new changes have made caregivers more vulnerable to employer abuse, have increased processing times, and have resulted in ninety per cent rejection rate for new caregiver applications” (Tungohan 2015).
As well, caregivers seeking permanent residency “will no longer have universal access to permanent residence status after working in Canada for two years” (Black). These workers will also have to apply under two categories (caring for children or caring for people with high medical needs) (Black). In order to even qualify, they need to have at least one year-post secondary education in Canada “or a foreign diploma or certificate that has been given equivalency here” (Black). On top of all this, caregivers must pass a language test in either English or French (Black). The program’s strict requirements are the reason why there has been such an increased rejection rate. Considering the situation many of the migrant women find themselves in, how is it possible for them to find the time and resources needed to qualify? This program is largely problematic because it continues to use and marginalize vulnerable women.
Over the years, there have been a number of non-governmental organizations that have fought for the rights of these domestic workers. INTERCEDE is an example of a grassroots movement that looks at a variety of caregiver issues, such as, “child care skills, financial management, violence against women, human rights, family reunification, immigration and citizenship laws” (Santos 144). This organization is able to work with domestic workers’ and help improve their situation as best they can, using its education and training component (Santos, 144). PINAY, the Quebec Filipino Women’s Association, is another example of a non-profit organization. Its goals are advocacy, human rights promotion and social change (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 6). They are able to achieve this by empowering Filipino women, and bringing in domestic workers, LCP workers and their supporters together (Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, & Cheung 6). These organizations are important to start conversations and to educate people on the implications of foreign worker programs, such as the LCP. Grassroots movements are necessary because their priorities are fundamentally for the people. Ultimately, achieving meaningful change for domestic workers is the end goal.
The LCP is an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that threatens the status and wellbeing of migrant women, despite providing employment opportunities. Migrant women working as domestic/caregivers in Canada are negatively impacted by the requirements and working/live-in conditions posed by the Live-In Caregiver Program. They are treated as economic commodities through a system that marginalizes them and devalues their work based on their gender, race and class. This system is problematic and certainly violated their human rights. Now, with the Liberal government in charge, it is important that they genuinely hear and respect the voices of these many women for these women seeking justice. It is important that they feel empowered provided with adequate resources. We must also educate ourselves about these immigration policies and support migrant workers if we wish to make meaningful change happen.