Although Canada sees immigrants as permanent settlers and admits most of them as permanent residents, Canada also permits entry on a temporary basis (Boyd, 2006, p.2). Such entries include visitors, embassy personnel and other foreign government officials and persons in transit (Boyd, 2006). Still, from the government’s point of managing immigration and/or benefiting from temporary immigrants, the three main categories of interest are: refugee claimants whose appeals for permanent status are waiting to be approved (already discussed above), students, and those admitted for a short period of time for purposes of employment (Boyd, 2006).

Students

The number of people who come to study in Canada has drastically increased over the past decades, ranging somewhere between 130,000 and 150,000 students per year (CIC, 2007; Boyd, 2006). In order to be eligible to study in Canada, an international student must: 1) have been accepted by a school, college, university or other educational institution in Canada; 2) prove that he has enough money to pay for his tuition as well as support himself during his stay in Canada; 3) be a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and as such, not pose a risk to the security of Canada; and 4) satisfy an immigration officer that he will leave Canada when his study period is over (CIC, 2007). Although this fourth requirement seems to imply that CIC makes sure that students go back to their country of origin upon completion of their studies, the policy efforts are not really concentrated on students’ return. On the contrary, with the declining number of Canadians joining the labour force policy efforts have been concentrated on “growing its international student population-and getting them to stay and work when they graduate” (CIC News, 2006, Oct). International students are seen as being “young, educated and attuned to life in Canada:” and as such “represent Canadian immigrants of choice, with no settlement-integration costs and strong potential to contribute to Canadian labour force.”(CIC News, 2008, Mar). Also, changing are the rules about hiring foreign students after they graduate. In particular, according to new Service Canada operational guidelines, employers can avoid demonstrating recruitment efforts for Canadians if they intend to hire foreign graduates (CIC News, 2006, Oct). Such guidelines acknowledge the need to facilitate the process of hiring of these skilled workers and ensure their permanent stay in Canada (CIC News, 2006, Oct).

Temporary Workers

In Canada, the temporary worker visa category is intended to address labour shortages in “skilled sectors and “lower skilled sectors” (Boyd, 2006). According to data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s report Facts and Figures 2006: Immigration Overview—Permanent and Temporary Residents, the number of foreign workers on temporary visas increased from 102,608 in 2005 to 112,658 in 2006 and this increase is arguable a result of deliberate policy (Boyd, 2006). Indeed, Canada has seen foreign workers as beneficial to its economy since the days when Chinese labourers were imported to build the transcontinental railroad. In the past, the Canadian government’s policy was tailored to ensure hiring of foreign workers subject to a “Canadian first policy” (Rekai, 2002, p.9). This policy aims to make Canadian employer canvass a domestic market first before deciding to employ a foreign worker (Rekai, 2002). Today, such policy is replaced by a wider set of criteria that recognize a greater range of benefits that may be obtained by hiring a foreign worker (Rekai, 2002).

Some foreign-born workers who intend to work in Canada need work permits whereas others do not depending on the type of the work s/he will be doing upon coming to Canada (CIC, 2007) (see Table IV.3 for a list of the jobs for which a temporary work permit is not needed). A foreigner applying for a temporary work permit may do so from inside, outside and upon entering Canada and under a general program (i.e., Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program) or as part of a sector-specific program (such as, for instance, Live-in-Caregiver Program or Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (Elgersma, 2007).

In any case, the employer of the applicant determines if he is eligible (CIC, 2007). Sometimes, the employer needs to get a labour market opinion from Human Resources and Social Development Canada which confirms that the employer can place a foreigner at certain job to fill a gap (CIC, 2007). If the applicant qualifies for a work permit and has provided all the necessary documents, his application for a work permit will get an approval (CIC, 2007). Visas differ with respect to requirements for employers and employees, duration, and eligibility for permanent residency (Elgersma, 2007). Programs targeted at highly skilled workers have a shorter list of requirements for both employer and employee (e.g., with respect to housing arrangements) (Elgersma, 2007). As already mentioned, the temporary visa holders are found both in highly skilled and low skilled sectors, with IT and health representing the former and agricultural workers and domestics representing the latter (Boyd, 2006).

Although Canadian published or on-line statistics are limited when it comes to number of temporary immigrant professionals in health care field, from the data we do have, it is evident that there is a number of temporary health care professionals currently residing in Canada. Despite the fact that in Canada care workers are not among top five sectors of temporary migration flows (i.e, primary industries, sales and services, natural and applied sciences and social science, education and government) there is an upward trend in terms of their numbers (Boyd, 2006). For instance, in December 2004 there were 4,611 temporary health professionals in Canada, up from nearly 1,500 in 1996 (Boyd, 2006). Seasonal agricultural workers account for the greatest number of temporary visas issued, followed by live-in caregivers (Elgersma, 2007).

Live in Care Program (LCP)

The Live-in Caregiver Program, or LCP, is a uniquely Canadian immigration program which is a variant of its economic class system. The demand for domestic workers in Canada has developed over last five decades, undoubtedly coinciding with proliferation of women entering the workforce and restructuring of healthcare, resulting in nationwide demand for live-in childcare and eldercare workers (Cohen, 2000). According to the Canadian Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, or CIC, the LCP exists only to fill the shortage of caregivers who live in the residence of their employers (cited in Oxman-Martinez et al., 2004). The purpose of the LCP is to remedy the shortage of live-in caregivers by allowing foreigners to work in these roles. The term “live-in caregiver” as defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations is “a person who resides in and provides child care, senior home support care or care of the disabled without supervision in the private household in Canada where the person being cared for resides”.

In order to work as a live-in caregiver, one must first apply directly to CIC. The current requirements include: a job confirmation letter from a Canadian employer, a written contract with the employer, successful completion of an equivalent of Canadian secondary school education, at least six months of recognized formal full-time training in a field related to the job, or at least one year of full-time paid work experience (including six months with one employer) in the field related to the job in the past three years, good knowledge of English or French (our two official languages) and a work permit before entering Canada (CIC, 2009).

The LCP was developed in 1992 to replace the Foreign Domestic Movement Program (FDM) which was in effect from 1981 to 1992. The FDM was intended to fill the need for childcare, whereas LCP was designed to also address the need for care for those who are elderly, disabled or sick (Langevin & Belleau, 2000). The LCP differed from FDM mainly in two areas. First, the training requirements were raised such that the applicant must have completed the equivalent of a Canadian high school education and one year of paid work experience in a field related to the job prior to entering Canada (Arat-Koc, 1999). Second, extra requirements for obtaining landed immigrant status were added, including the completion of a total of two years of full-time employment in Canada as a live-in caregiver within three years after being admitted to Canada. According to Oxman-Martinez and colleagues (2004), the eventual acceptance as a permanent resident constitutes the main appeal of the LCP. Since the educational and capital requirements of Canada’s current immigration laws do not permit many women to enter the country as independent immigrants, the LCP represents one of the few ways for women without capital – social or economic – to come to Canada.

Although the number of people who come to Canada under LCP is substantially smaller when compared to some other immigration categories (such as family class), the increasing trends testify to its growing significance in solving the problem of shortages of elderly and childcare workers. The inflow of foreign workers who come to Canada under LCP has increased gradually from around 2,000 in 1996 to 6,244 in 2005 (CIC, 2006).The total stock of workers in the LCP in 2005 was 19,224. In 2007, there were 6,717 persons admitted under Live- in Caregiver Program, exceeding the planned range of 3,000- 5,000 announced in 2007 plan outlined by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC, 2008). According to the statistics released by CIC for the years ranging from 1996 to 2006, the vast majority of workers coming through LCP (83%) were women from the Philippines, followed by those coming from Britain (2.3%), Slovakia(1.6%) and Jamaica(1.7%) (as cited in Spitzer and Torres, 2008). The actual number of migrant care givers is not covered in the official statistics because an unidentified number of illegal immigrants – those who have come here as visitors or students and overstayed their time limited visas (Cohen 2000) – could be working in this sector. As the demand for immigrant live-in caregivers is unlikely to diminish, it has been forecasted that a significant percentage of international migration by women may occur clandestinely (Langevin & Belleau, 2000).

While some positive changes have been made to the LCPs, the previous research has documented certain difficulties that arise with regards to such a programme. In particular, the programme has come under sharp criticism from some commentators for failing to bring any radical improvement in the status and condition of foreign domestic workers in Canada (Arat-Koc 1999; Stasiulis & Bakan 2005). Arat-Koc (1999) characterized LCP as a programme that requires more from domestic workers, without offering them rights and privileges available to other workers, and further that it enables Canadian employers to obtain higher qualified labour for less pay. Some of the dimensions of the key criticisms are discussed below.

Temporary Status and 24-month Work Period

One of the main concerns about LCP is the temporary nature of the work. During the period that a worker spends as a live-in caregiver, her status is temporary: she is neither immigrant nor visitor. In this period, she must work only in home of the employers whose name appears in her work permit. Changing employers requires crossing a number of administrative and financial barriers. In addition, there may be other complications resulting from illness, pregnancy or birth of a child during the period of temporary status that may jeopardize an LCP worker’s status. In these circumstances, live-in caregivers must obtain a medical certificate to justify taking time off for medical reasons and in order to complete the 24 months of work; in the case of the birth of a baby, she will have to find child care, which constitute a significant financial obstacle (Langevin & Belleau, 2000). This precarious status of the live in caregiver creates a situation of vulnerability where caregivers can become prone to abuse. The conditionality of permanent status on a good work record deters women working in unfair or abusive settings from reporting their employers. The time required for obtaining a new work permit and the 24–month work requirement means that women are less likely to leave unsatisfactory work situations for the fear of losing the possibility of permanent status.

Live-in Requirement

The obligation to live in the home of the employer can also lead to increased vulnerability. This vulnerability can take different forms including unpaid and excessive working hours (in most cases, being on call 24 hours a day), violations of privacy, restrictions on personal movement and freedom of association, isolation, greater dependence on employers and sexual harassment (Langevin & Belleau 2000; Stiell & England, 1997; Grandea & Kerr, 1998). Such vulnerability often results in higher levels of dissatisfaction and distress among live-in caregivers, sometimes leading to erosion of mental health among this group of workers (Stiell & England, 1997; Rivet 1998; Grandea & Kerr, 1998). In 2003, Supervisory Committee on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women criticized the LCP for the systemic discrimination faced by its participants (Buhler, 2006). The Commission recommended reconsidering the live-in requirement and ensuring that live-in care-givers have adequate social security protection.

Impact on Migrants’ families

Immigrants entering Canada with landed immigrant status are allowed to bring their immediate family into Canada. In contrast, there is no provision for bringing family members of workers’ families under the LCP, resulting in the separation for an extended period of time. Cohen (2000) documents how the inability of domestic workers to immigrate to Canada with spouses and children results in the destruction of traditional family roles, creating serfdom-like work situations in which family relations are maintained transnationally for years. Studies have also shown that a period of prolonged family separation also causes strain on live-in caregivers’ families upon reunification (Spitzer, Torres, et al.2007; Cohen, 2000; Pratt, 2006). For instance, in her study of the family reunification experiences of 23 Vancouver households after years of separation while the wife/mother was registered in LCP, Pratt (2006) revealed three common experiences: 1) marital discord; 2) strained relations between parents and children; and 3) poor job prospects for children. Ironically, most of the women come as caregivers to support their families back home; sending remittances home – particularly in the case of the Philippines - is considered to be very important (Stasiulis & Bakan, 2005).

Race and Gender Issues

Several authors have highlighted the racial and gender hierarchies underpinning the LCP (Arat-Koc, 1999; Hodge, 2006; Bakan & Stasiulis, 1997). Changes in the racial/ethnic composition of migrant domestic workers have been accompanied by policy changes that had differential outcomes for domestic workers with different nationalities. As the main source of domestic workers shifted from Western Europe to the Caribbean and later the Philippines, immigration policies also became less favourable - the status of the workers were gradually reduced from permanent residents to temporary workers. At the same time, the LCP also reinforces the gender division of labour devaluing domestic work as unskilled. Racism is also noticeable in the differential treatment received by domestic workers from different parts of the world (Arat-Koc, 1999; Stiell and England, 1997). In fact, in her examination of the racial stereotypes of Filipina and British nannies presented by nanny agents in Vancouver, Pratt (1997) finds that these stereotypes come to structure the work conditions of each group of domestic workers. Further, it has been argued that LCP is exploitative because it uses labour from low and middle income countries while very few Canadians are willing to do the work of a live-in caregiver. Policymakers argue that special immigration programme for foreign domestic workers give them an opportunity to come to Canada, and rather than being exploited they are ‘privileged’. Arat-Koc (1999) points out that such paternalistic language is possible only because the reference point is women of colour from Third World countries.

Lack of Credential Recognition

There is good data to indicate that the skills and the education level of many caregivers who come to work in this live-in programme are more than the required level. A survey revealed, for example, that eighty percent of LCP participants from the Philippines had college degrees (Bulatlat, 2006). Another estimate shows that the number of nurses from the Philippines who come to Canada under the LCP is increasing (cited in Langevin & Belleau, 2000, p. 37). Some of these women come through the programme because they are unable to have their foreign credentials recognized to work in their chosen fields (Bourgeault 2008, Parrenas, 2001). The issue of recognition of credentials is particularly discouraging for live-in caregivers because they are unable to afford the time or money to upgrade their education or skills to enter other professions due to work conditions (Hodge, 2006). Consequently, many of these more educated immigrant live-in caregivers experience a significant de-skilling upon coming to Canada and few of them find a way to go back to their previous occupation (Pratt, 1999; Pratt & PWC,2003; Hodge, 2006;). In the research conducted by Pratt and PWC (2003) in her sample of fifteen live-in caregivers, only one was successful in returning to her nursing career.

In sum, although the LCP constitutes only a small part of Canada’s immigration programme, it is becoming an important component to the caregiving context which forms the backdrop to our study. The programme tries to fill the shortage of domestic caregivers in Canada by bringing in workers, who are overwhelmingly women from low or middle income countries. As we have seen, previous studies have shown that the requirements of the programme, such as the live-in requirement for a 24-month work period, place the caregivers in a particularly vulnerable position. It is the promise of a status of permanent residency and eventual citizenship that may persuade these caregivers to remain in unfavourable working conditions. Another important issue identified by previous research is that due to the raising of the eligibility criteria, the number of the caregivers with higher skills and education is increasing.