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