Correct Answer: how Canada should change its program for live-in caregivers
Passage Reference: We believe the recent reforms point in the right direction. We also believe they are not yet enough.
Why this is correct: The editorial says the recent reforms to the live-in caregiver stream point in the right direction but are not yet enough. It ends by saying how the program should change.
Tips: For a “mainly about” question, read the writers’ view at the end of the first paragraph. Then see what the last paragraph asks for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- why nurses from abroad should work in hospitals: Cabral trained as a nurse, but the editorial is about caregivers who work in private homes, not about hospital staff.
- how families can choose a good caregiver: No advice is given on choosing a caregiver. The piece discusses the rules of the program.
- whether caregivers should pay for their own inspections: Inspections are discussed, but nobody suggests that caregivers should pay for them.
Correct Answer: Linus Beattie
Passage Reference: a standard contract, a help line and open work permits for those waiting on residency have “changed lives.”
Why this is correct: Linus Beattie says a standard contract, a help line and open work permits have “changed lives.”
Tips: Read each speaker’s view of the recent reforms. Look for someone who uses strong, positive words about what has already happened.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Nanette Cabral: Nanette Cabral says the wait for residency still hurts most and wants family reunification first. So she does not say the changes are already working.
- Georgina Haywood: Georgina Haywood talks about how inspections should be done. She does not judge the recent changes.
- Ibrahim Duff: Ibrahim Duff says an open permit means little to some caregivers. They may have to find a new job and a new bed on the same day. So he doubts the changes are enough.
Correct Answer: caregivers who spent years apart from their children
Passage Reference: caregivers raise other families’ children while their own grow up on video calls, and she wants family reunification to come first
Why this is correct: Cabral says the wait hurts most because caregivers’ own children grow up on video calls. So caregivers who spent years apart from their children would support her call for family reunification first.
Tips: Find what Cabral says “hurts most”. The right choice is evidence that makes that reason stronger.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a drop in calls to the caregiver help line: Fewer calls to the help line would suggest the reforms are working, which is Beattie’s view rather than Cabral’s.
- families who cannot afford a caregiver: Families priced out of care fit the editorial’s point about underfunded child and elder care, not Cabral’s concern about separated families.
- a study showing permits help caregivers leave: Evidence that open permits help caregivers leave bad jobs would back Beattie’s claim that the reforms have changed lives.
Correct Answer: inspectors would visit homes only by appointment
Passage Reference: She supports inspections, but only by appointment
Why this is correct: Haywood supports inspections, but only by appointment, so that a frail person is not surprised by strangers at the door.
Tips: Find the word “but” in Haywood’s lines. The words after it, and the reason after “so that”, show her condition.
Why the other options are wrong:
- inspectors would never enter private homes: Haywood supports inspections. She only wants them booked ahead.
- caregivers would live outside the employer’s home: Haywood never suggests that caregivers move out. Her condition is about how inspections happen.
- every family would pay for its own inspection: Haywood never mentions who pays for inspections.
Correct Answer: argue for faster residency and better-funded public care
Passage Reference: Caregivers should receive permanent residency on arrival or within their first year
Why this is correct: The editorial calls for permanent residency on arrival or within the first year. It also wants more public money for child care and elder care.
Tips: For purpose, read the last paragraph, where the writers give their own view. Notice the two big changes they ask for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- praise the reforms as a complete solution: In the first paragraph, the writers say the reforms point in the right direction but are not yet enough.
- warn families against hiring caregivers: The writers never warn families against hiring. They want the program improved.
- report on the history of the program: Notice that the writers do not trace how the program began. They argue for changes now.
Correct Answer: stops at the front door of a private house
Passage Reference: “the law stops at the front door of a private house.”
Why this is correct: Cabral says caregivers enjoy the protection of ordinary labour law, but “the law stops at the front door of a private house.”
Tips: The comment names Cabral and talks about the law. Look for her quoted words about the law in the second paragraph.
Why the other options are wrong:
- treats caregivers more harshly than others: Cabral says caregivers enjoy the protection of ordinary labour law, not harsher rules.
- changes too often for anyone to follow: Cabral’s point is that the law does not reach inside the home, not that it changes too often.
- was written only for hospital workers: Cabral never says the law was written for hospital workers. She says caregivers enjoy the protection of ordinary labour law.
Correct Answer: close to three years
Passage Reference: some caregivers wait close to three years
Why this is correct: In the first paragraph, you can read that more than 70,000 applications sit in the queue. Some caregivers wait close to three years.
Tips: The comment asks how long some caregivers wait. Look in the first paragraph and do not mix up the wait with the number of applications.
Why the other options are wrong:
- about six months: The first paragraph describes waits of close to three years, far longer than six months.
- less than one year: Residency within the first year is what the editorial wants, not what happens now.
- more than ten years: The longest wait mentioned is close to three years.
Correct Answer: pay caregivers while they look for new work
Passage Reference: He wants a federal fund that pays caregivers while they look for new work
Why this is correct: Duff, the labour lawyer, wants a federal fund that pays caregivers while they look for new work.
Tips: The comment calls him the labour lawyer. Find his lines and read what his federal fund would pay for.
Why the other options are wrong:
- help caregivers train as nurses here: Nursing comes up only in Cabral’s own story. Duff’s fund is for caregivers between jobs.
- cover the cost of home inspections: Duff wants inspectors able to arrive unannounced, but his fund pays caregivers, not inspection costs.
- fly families to Canada each year: Family visits are never part of Duff’s proposal. Reunification is Cabral’s concern.
Correct Answer: many employers are elderly or disabled
Passage Reference: many employers are themselves elderly or disabled
Why this is correct: Haywood, who speaks for families that employ caregivers, points out that many employers are themselves elderly or disabled.
Tips: The comment calls her the families’ spokesperson. Find what she “points out” about the people who hire caregivers.
Why the other options are wrong:
- most employers live in large cities: Haywood says nothing about where employers live.
- few employers read the standard contract: The standard contract is part of Beattie’s list of reforms. Haywood does not mention it.
- employers already inspect their own homes: Haywood talks about inspections by officials, not checks by employers.
Correct Answer: more public money for child and elder care
Passage Reference: More public money for both would do more for caregivers and the families they serve than any permit.
Why this is correct: The editorial ends with its biggest point. More public money for child care and elder care would do more for caregivers and the families they serve than any permit.
Tips: The comment is about the writers’ own call. Look at the last two sentences, where they name a harder truth and their answer to it.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a cap on the number of caregivers: The writers never propose limiting the number of caregivers.
- higher fees for families who hire: The writers want more public money, not higher fees for families.
- a new help line in every province: A help line already exists and is one of Beattie’s reforms. The editorial does not ask for new ones.
