Détails du document

Some of the immigration policy implications of our study address in particular the Live-in Caregiver Program. Although the LCP is effective in bringing immigrant care workers into the country, there are inherent challenges in this program that many have addressed in the literature and by those we interviewed in this study. As we noted above, there is a need for the training required for applicants to this program to be more clearly linked to cultural competency in the provision of older adult care as well as to employment standards to address the present mismatch between educational requirements and training of LCP and the context of care they will be providing. The requirements and training should be shifted to ensure that applicants gain useful knowledge, for instance of how to deal with problems of old age, how to be culturally sensitive to the client needs, how to identify and deal with different forms of abuse (both themselves and of their client) and whom to contact in the case they experience it, and how to cope with the death of a client rather than learning how to perform simple or outdated housekeeping tasks.

One policy shift that could address some of the negative features of the living/working conditions of immigrant care workers in the LCP would be to separate the care and immigration sponsorship relationship – with the latter being mediated by an agency at arm’s length from both client/family and worker. Such an agency could also assist in finding alternative placements so that the 24 month working requirement of the programme could be satisfied within the 36 months in the case of shifting employment (as a result of problematic working conditions for the worker or problematic care for the client). Also, the agency could be responsible for ensuring that workers are not overworked or subject to any kind of abuse and in turn could ensure clients also were not abused. This would help to address the vulnerable situation of LCP workers and their clients. Establishing such an arm’s length agency would also increase the accessibility of older adults to LCP workers beyond those who know of the programme and have family members who can apply for care workers on their behalf. This would aid vulnerable older adults in particular. Such an agency could also ensure that a client who does not know any of two Canadian official languages is matched with a caregiver who is fluent in the client’s native language. In this way, the Live-in Caregiver Program would better cater to the needs of Canadian multicultural clientele.

In sum, it should be clear from this examination that there is a need for immigrant care workers in Canada but that some key issues need to be addressed to better meet their needs and the needs of the older adult recipients of their care. Some of the changes deemed necessary are related to the immigration status of the care worker but others are more general concerns with the lack of status and attention that older adult care has garnered in the Canadian context. Indeed, the relative invisibility of the conditions of older adult care is mirrored in the invisibility of the work and living conditions of their immigrant care workers.