-in Caregiver Program: Diagnostique and...
Transcript of -in Caregiver Program: Diagnostique and...
Canada’s Live-in Caregiver Program: Diagnostique and Policy Reform
Workshop: Transnational Migration of Care Workers: Challenges and Opportunities
International Metropolis Presentation
November 2014
The Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) is the only federal program that has a two-stage design to enable systematic transition from temporary to permanent residence
(1) It is part of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program:
– Entry of caregivers is driven by employer demand like any other temporary worker category
(2) It is a sub-set of the permanent resident economic stream:
– Once caregivers complete two years of live-in caregiver work in Canada, they can apply for permanent residence and include spouses/dependants, with guaranteed processing if requirements are met
– Almost all apply for permanent status, with an approval rate of 98%
• Top two employer uses for LCP in 2013 are for child care at 77%, and care for seniors at 13%
Unique migration flow
• The LCP is composed almost entirely of female Filipino citizens (95%)
Live-in Caregiver Program is unique among Canadian immigration programs
2
Labour market for caregivers appears to be in balance
• Demand for caregiving is high – especially with aging population – but no generalized shortage according to projections
LCP may be a convenient substitute to other daycare alternatives
• While LCP provides incremental cost savings for multiple children, LCP has a very small role in overall child care
– Serving only 0.5% of the 3.4 million Canadian families with children
Employer demand likely fuelled by program’s existence rather than “need” for live-in care
• Same needs could be met on a live-out basis (e.g., shift hours balancing parents’ work schedule)
Key program issues: No clear labour market rationale …
3
… Live-in requirement increases vulnerability …
4
LCP is the only government program where participants are told where they must sleep• No other OECD country has a comparable program
Live-in arrangement isolates caregiving women
• Blurs boundary of work and personal time
— Why the requirement to reside with the employer outside work hours?
• Caregiver must rely on employer for basic necessities (adequate accommodations, bathroom, and meals)
• Power imbalance discourages worker complaints against employer or refusing duties beyond caregiving
• Some evidence that some forms of abuse, such as excessive work hours and unpaid overtime, are widespread
LCP wages artificially low, with working conditions Canadians are unwilling to accept
• Live-out wage typically higher, with gap compounded by room and board deductions
• LCP prevailing wage is set around minimum wage of the province or territory, with no incentive for employers to offer more
• Promise of permanent residence often seen as “the price one has to pay” for sub-par working conditions
• Existence of program, where “living in” is seen as the “price” for immigrant status is believed to distort labour market/wages
Inconsistent and often low provincial/territorial standards
• In certain jurisdictions, caregivers can work up to 48 hours per week without being paid overtime
… Inherent inequalities …
5
… Not aligned with Government and immigration priorities …
6
Distinct LCP pathway out of step with Government objectives
• Permanent economic immigration is focused on high-skilled immigrants for future labour market needs (while acknowledging some areas of high demand for semi-skilled)
LCP permanent residents are achieving mixed results
• Source of reliable workers in lower skill/income occupations, but lower than average earnings compared to other economic streams – though high rates of employment and low use of social assistance
• Unlike the broader Canadian immigrant community, children of LCP immigrants do not on average attain higher levels of education than their parents
Not a solution for broader labour market needs
• Majority do not stay in health related fields
• Over half of live-in caregivers exit work in private households immediately upon obtaining permanent residence, and the remainder exit over time
Recent findings from Manila suggest that 66% of applicants were going to work for a Canadian Filipino employer, and 53% self-declared working for a family member
• Widespread anecdotal evidence that multiple Filipino families “share” LCPs
• Yet, Filipinos account for only 1.3% of the Canadian population
At the same time, family relationships are difficult to substantiate
• Intensive interviews of each application would be required to confirm whether an employer has a family relationship to a live-in caregiver – difficult to “prove a negative”
And in itself is not always problematic
• Some studies show caregiving needs tend to be met primarily through family
• Hiring a relative does not necessarily mean that the employer-employee relationship is not genuine
… Some using LCP as a “back door” to family reunification …
7
8
Unmanaged temporary entry of live-in caregivers, with limits on the number who can be finalized as permanent residents each year has created a backlog of caregivers waiting for permanent residence
• Current average processing time for permanent residence is 3-4 years, and getting longer
• About 9,000 work permits were received in 2012 – likely to result in about 12,000 future permanent resident applicants (when family members are included)
• Reducing inventory of applications significantly would displace higher-skilled permanent residents in Canada’s overall immigration plan
… and the backlog for permanent status is large and growing
These key program issues have led to unintended impacts
9
Family separation
• Applicants have already worked a minimum of two years as temporary foreign workers (TFWs) separated from family
• TFW period + current backlog = 5 to 7 year separation for parent and spouse/child, with attendant strains
• Even without backlog, three to four years of family separation is the norm
Backlog stands in the way of levels flexibility
• Space allocated to LCP is at a premium – rising demand for levels room in nearly all economic class programs
— In 2013, caregiving was the #2 occupation among permanent residents admitted, second only to registered nurses
• While Canada has several programs designed to facilitate economic immigration for high and medium skilled workers, we have none for foreign nationals in low-skilled occupations
• Would an improved program, with pathways to permanent residence for in-demand lower skilled occupations (including caregivers), be a better approach than the current two-step LCP model?
• Options could include one or more of the following:
— Remove the live-in component
— Cap yearly LCP intake at the temporary resident (work permit) stage
— Reduce the backlog by increasing annual LCP permanent applications processed
— Create a new program
Program reform is needed to address these issues
10
• Providing alternative pathways to permanent residence for a low-skilled caregiving clientele assumes there is a long term labour shortage in caregiving fields in Canada; yet, no data to support this assumption
• Issue of family separation is a key element requiring resolution under any reformed program
• Depending on option chosen, changes could be perceived as downplaying the importance of elder and child care in Canada
• Fairness to current LCP participants
• Disproportionate impact on the Filipino community given they comprise 95% of the LCP population
Considerations for the options
11
• In the last year, LCP reform has become an issue in public discourse
• Stakeholders have rightly created public pressure to reform the program and addresits key issues
Conclusion
12