The live-in loophole Comment
The live-in loophole Comment
Martin Collacott, National Post Published:Monday, June 08, 2009
The very public dispute over the treatment of foreign workers in the household of MP Ruby Dhalla raises questions about how well the live-in caregiver program (LCP) is working, both in terms of the best interests of those coming here under its provisions as well as the welfare of Canadians in general. The program is a peculiar hybrid since people who would not normally qualify for immigration apply to stay here permanently after completing two years of service as a live-in caregiver. Why is this possible? The short answer is that many applicants, particularly from lesser developed countries, are prepared to work long hours for low wages in order to obtain permanent residence in Canada. What this means, in effect, is that the relatively small number of affluent Canadians who can afford to bring in live-in caregivers from overseas are being underwritten by the taxpayers of Canada.
While little data is available on the downstream social and economic costs of the LCP, given the fact that the earnings of those who come to Canada through this program continue to be low even after obtaining permanent status, it is likely that the ultimate expense to the taxpayer considerably exceeds the benefits to the employers who brought them here. The LCP, moreover, is rife with problems. Two of our immigration offices where many of the applications are made -- Manila and Chandigarh -- have seen a major proliferation of local caregiver schools that exist either in name only or have questionable standards. Many appear to have been created solely for the purpose of getting people into Canada as live-in caregivers (or "nannies," as they are often called). Our office in Chandigarh, for example, has identified 69 "nanny schools" in the city of Jalandar alone and 160 altogether in Punjab province. Many of their graduates, moreover, are young men -- which is odd in a society where care giving is seen as women's work. Many are destined to work for relatives in Canada and it is suspected they are applying through the LCP because they would not qualify under any other immigration category. As a result of all this we have seen not only a dramatic increase in applications but also in the numbers actually admitted through the LCP -- rising from 6,741 MP Ruby Dhalla in 2004 to 13,840 in 2007, with the number of males increasing by more than 150% in the same period.
In parallel with this, the total of live-in caregivers and family members granted permanent residence status in Canada climbed from 1,988 in 2002 to 10,510 last year. Clearly the live-in caregiver program needs a major overhaul. The most obvious correction would be to admit only those who could qualify for permanent resident status in accordance with the standards used for skilled immigrants in general. If someone coming through this channel wants to work as a live-in caregiver and can find an employer, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing so. Since they have already been granted permanent residence status, they could not be coerced into working excessive hours or abused in other ways for fear of losing employment and their chance to stay here. Such a change could, of course, result in a reduction in the number of people coming from overseas to work as live-in caregivers. Would this necessarily be a bad thing? For some employers perhaps it would -- particularly those with large enough houses to accommodate a nanny and have them close at hand and available for service any time of the day or night.
An internal government document obtained through access to information indicates, however, that there are sufficient Canadian caregivers willing and able to meet the demand for live-out home care. One must, therefore, ask why we need to bring in so many live-in caregivers from overseas. In the event that the government decides to continue with a program of live-in caregivers from abroad, two fundamental changes should be made. First, the caregivers should come in strictly as temporary workers and be required to leave the country when their contract is completed. It makes no sense to allow people to stay here permanently who cannot meet normal immigration requirements.
Secondly, the government should put in place more explicit standards and guidelines to ensure that such temporary workers are not exploited and receive reasonable treatment from employers while in Canada. -Martin Collacott is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver and former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East.
Live-in caregivers are important
Re:The Live-In Loophole, Martin Collacott, June 8.
While I applaud the media for drawing attention to the flaws in the live-in caregiver program, there is a positive side to this story that is not being heard in recent media coverage. Many working Canadian families require child and elder care. Family circumstances -- including shift work, frequent business travel, children with special needs and elderly family members requiring companionship -- are among the reasons Canadian families seek live-in care. Abolishing this program would force the caregiver industry underground, with no hope of work standards being upheld. If filtered through the usual immigration stream, the process would take too long to benefit the families who need this service now.
I support stricter regulations and penalties for abusing the system, but I urge readers to realize the full potential of this program.
