Ottawa urged to scrap live-in caregiver program

(According to Kelowna.com or follow the link: http://www.kelowna.com/2009/12/24/ottawa-urged-to-scrap-live-in-caregiver-program/)

“Advocates for immigrant nannies are calling on Ottawa to scrap a program that has allowed tens of thousands of women to immigrate to Canada.

In a bid to address problems of overwork and underpayment in the field, Ottawa is proposing changes to the live-in caregiver program, which allows the mostly Filipina workers to apply for permanent residence after working as domestic help for two years. Changes include a mandatory contract with duties, benefits, hours and holidays, having employers pay for travel to Canada and increasing the time to complete the two-year requirement to four years.

The program traps Filipina women in low-pay jobs where they’re vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and keeps women separated from their families, advocates from the Philippine Women Centre of B.C. said Wednesday.

Gloria Remirata, who became a live-in caregiver in 2000, was separated from her three children for six years after leaving them in the Philippines with her sister, which she called “the most difficult decision I made in my life.”

At a conference Wednesday, she wept recalling how she had missed their birthdays and graduations.

Ayex Bathan, separated from her mother for six years, said the program isn’t worth the toll it has on families, calling it exploitative, anti-woman and racist.

Advocate Leah Diana said Ottawa should remove the requirements that caregivers live at their employers’ home, work for two years before applying for residence and be contracted to a specific employer. Caregivers should be allowed to immigrate as permanent residents with their families to fill shortages in domestic work in the same way other immigrant workers can to work in other fields, they said.

But Paragon Personnel owner Ed Carmona said killing the program would put an end to a fast-track immigration process for unskilled workers who couldn’t otherwise qualify to immigrate to Canada and deprive Canadians of nannies.

“You tell me how many Canadians would be willing to be a live-in nanny for minimum wage of $8 an hour?” he said.

He said if they didn’t live in, they couldn’t afford the rent on minimum wage, and a $15 hourly wage would make nannies prohibitively expensive for average families.

Email reporter Susan Lazaruk at slazaruk@theprovince.com”

It is proposed that all live-in caregivers no longer be required to complete a medical examination when they apply for permanent
residence. Instead, the medical examination completed to qualify for the initial work permit/temporary residence as a live-in caregiver
would be assessed for excessive demand in anticipation of the applicant applying for permanent residence under the LCP
rather than just for temporary residence.

By eliminating one of the two medical examinations and requiring that live-in caregivers, at the time of their application for a work permit, be assessed with a long-term view in anticipation of their application for PR status under the LCP, administrative processes would be streamlined and cost savings for live-in caregivers could be achieved. The examination at the work permit/temporary resident stage would continue to screen for infectious disease and the chance of contracting such a disease after arriving in Canada would be minimal.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

1. Section 30 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations1 is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Exception (2.1) A foreign national who has applied for permanent resident status and is a member of the live-in caregiver class is not required to submit to a medical examination under subsection (1).

2. (1) The portion of paragraph 113(1)(d) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(d) they entered Canada as a live-in caregiver
and for at least two of the four years immediately
following their entry or, alternatively, for at least
3,900 hours during a period of not less than
22 months in those four years,

(2) Subsection 113(2) of the Regulations is replaced
by the following:
Calculation (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d),
(a) the periods of two years and 3,900 hours may
be in respect of more than one employer or
household, but may not be in respect of more
than one employer or household at a time; and
(b) the 3,900 hours are not to include more than
390 hours of overtime.

For more info go to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-12-19/pdf/g1-14351.pdf.