Latest update December 12th, 2024 1:00 AM
Mar 13, 2017 Letters
Dear Editor,
This is a follow up to my letter of February 7 in KN, titled, “February is Black History Month.” I examined in that letter Canada’s Domestic Foreign Workers Programme. I now continue the discussion. In 1956, when Canada added British Guiana to the list of territories participating in the domestic workers scheme, it was stipulated that girls of East Indian origin could not be included in the quota. This denial of Indo-Caribbean women as domestic workers caused some embarrassment for Trade Commissioner C. E. S. Smith as his counterpart in British Guiana, Labour Commissioner J. F. Ramphal, was of East Indian origin. “I had a little embarrassment when discussing our programme with him as he is of East Indian origin and asked whether girls of his origin would be accepted in our group of 30. Fortunately, the ban did not last much longer. By June of the same year, Mr. Ramphal was informed that the Minister of Immigration had confirmed that the ban on recruiting domestic workers from Asian origin had been eliminated.
As has been afore-stated the domestic scheme came about neither as a measure of good will towards the Caribbean nor as a means of boosting the trading relationship between Canada and the Caribbean, but rather that the Caribbean was a last resort as a recruitment region for domestic workers and was selected because of the dwindling supply of European domestics and the growing demand for domestic help in Canada.
Further evidence revealed that on the eve of the commencement of the Caribbean domestic scheme, Canada made a final desperate attempt to revive the European domestic scheme but met with limited success. Citizenship and Immigration refused to commence a domestic scheme with the Caribbean. Instead, they lowered the standards in a last desperate effort to lure European domestics into Canada. The proposal from the Immigration Branch was to increase the age limit from forty-five to fifty years. The qualifications and experience required for selection were to be relaxed to the extent that applicants could be chosen even if they never did domestic work outside their home.
It was therefore the inability of Europe to meet the demand for domestic servants which forced Canada in 1955 to make an exception to its decades-old immigration policy of excluding black people. The so termed ‘first wave’ of the domestic scheme ran from 1955 to 1967 and was based on a special quota arrangement, where each participating territory was granted a particular quota of girls for migration into Canada.
Canada also adopted more stringent measures with the Caribbean domestics than it did with those from Europe. It was stipulated that the women must be between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-five, a condition was never attached to the contracts of European domestic workers. This age range ensured that Canada would get women who were strong and healthy and who would be capable of providing many years of service, and would be less likely to be a burden on the health system. It was important that they be single so that they could work without the interruption of having a family.
Being single would also save money in social provisions such as housing, schools, hospitals, transportation and other infrastructural facilities. Applicants had to be in good physical and mental health and undergo complete medical pre-screening in accordance with the standards laid down by the Department of National Health and Welfare in Canada. What was kept a secret from both the participants of the 1955 group and the governments of Jamaica and Barbados was that on arrival in Canada, the women would be met by a team of doctors who would proceed to take a sample Wasserman test, to detect the presence of syphilis. According to a letter dated October 25, 1955, from Director of Immigration to the Chief, Administration Division: “It, therefore, would be appreciated if you would advise Dr. Frost in advance of the arrival of these people at Dorval in order that he may arrange for his doctors to do the sampling.”
Dr. Frost ordered the test because of the high percentage of syphilis in the West Indies. When asked why the test could not be done in the islands he stated that their condition could change prior to their arrival. He further stated that a test may show positive for syphilis when the individual may only be suffering from yaws which also creates a positive reaction but is not syphilis. While Dr. Frost may have been genuine in his intention, this move further supported the notion about blacks being sexually promiscuous.
Another significant stipulation was that the women had to be unmarried, for it was the thinking of the immigration officials that the spouse of a domestic worker would likely be unskilled. Canada was trying to protect itself from an influx of unskilled coloured dependents that could enter through the sponsorship route as it was legal for a Caribbean domestic worker with Canadian Citizenship to sponsor her spouse, fiancé (e), parents, grandparents, children and siblings. Canadian officials were concerned, if not alarmed, that Caribbean domestics had started sponsoring relatives soon after they had been in Canada for one year. Their main concern was the swelling of the unskilled labour force in Canada.
Yvonne Sam
Dec 12, 2024
Kaieteur Sports- Team Guyana is set to begin their campaign at the 2024 FIBA 3×3 AmeriCup tournament today with back-to-back matches against Haiti and the Cayman Islands in Group A qualifiers....Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In the movie, Saturday Night Fever, Tony Manero‘s boss offers him a raise after he... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The election of a new Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS),... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]