NOTEBOOK: Something fishy in LCP ‘changes’
NOTEBOOK: Something fishy in LCP ‘changes’
By Hermie Garcia
The Philippine Reporter
First things first. Our sincere wishes to all our readers, friends, fans and foes, advertisers and competitors, long lost colleagues and relatives — Happy New Year of happiness, wellness, prosperity, peace with justice, forgiveness with remorse and reconciliation. If that’s not a mouthful, I don’t know what is.
Now back to this business of commentary.
We attempted to do a yearender this issue but the task was so daunting during a holiday season of combined socializing and inertia. So we came up with a selection of photos with accompanying significant events. We’re not saying these are the most significant events of the year in Toronto for the community. We were limited by the availability of the photos. We confess, there were some important events we did not cover in our paper but what we came up with is not bad. Next time, we’ll do a better job with enough editorial planning for a yearender.
And we’re talking only of a yearender. Overall, our editorial and news coverage has become stronger in the past year. Our coverage of the hot caregiver issues have particularly been consistent and comprehensive.
The years before 2009 we covered a lot about the issues of the Jeffrey Reodica case, the community center controversies, deprofessionalization or access to professions and of course the song and dance festivals, the concerts and the arts. But this past year, the caregiver isssues were at front and center. And justifiably so because the caregivers issues and campaigns occupied a lot of space and airtime in the mainstream media too.
To those who are taking seriously these issues, I suggest you scrutinize the recently announced changes in the Live-In Caregiver Program. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said during the Dec. 12 by-invitation-only press conference that the specific changes would be available in a website and interested parties may make comments within 30 days for further input into the proposed changes.
See Dyan Ruiz’s article “Let your voice be heard on LCP” of this issue for details on how to give your comments.
In the meantime, a few important “fine prints” were unearthed by our analytical reporter. And these have the makings of becoming contentious issues in the ensuing debates and discussions on whether the newly announced LCP changes are worth celebrating.
One is the much talked about removal of the second medical examination required of caregivers applying for permanent resident status. The late Juana Tejada became the symbol of this campaign in the past year because she was a victim of this unfair requirement. She campaigned hard despite her debilitating illness. She was granted the status, with a few others who were similarly sick with cancer.
But back to the “fine print”. It turned out that even as the second medical exam was “removed,” it was replaced by a “medical reassessment” which sounds like a new name for a second medical.
A more stringent requirement has emerged from this issue. It turns out, Canadian authorities will be determine if an LCP applicant will cost Canada’s health system about $5,000 a year for five years (total of $25,000) in which case the applicant will be rejected at the outset and can never set foot in Canada as an exploited caregiver.
But is a caregiver’s services not worth $25,000 to the Canadian government? If you count the unpaid overtime, the unspecified work routinely performed on a daily basis, the undefined work hours, the sometimes unlivable conditions (some are made to sleep in the laundry room), the unused unemployment insurance payments, the long years of separation from children and family, all these and more — Canada owes more than maybe four times this amount in five years of suffering endured by these caregivers. That is, not including the deskilling of mostly nurses, physiotherapists and other professionals who work as caregivers in Canada. This alone consigns them indefinitely to low-paying jobs after they graduate from the LCP if they do.
Even Jason Kenney admits that the work of these caregivers under live-in conditions, is not palatable enough to be taken in by most Canadians. He’s right. How many Canadians are willing to be semi-slaves tied to their employers’ homes 24 hours a day, five or six days a week?
But I digress. Let’s go back to the loopholes. Another item unearthed by reporter Dyan Ruiz: “the LCP workers’ 3900 hours ‘may not be in respect of more than one employer or household at a time’.”
Does this mean if a caregiver worked for two employers in 22 months, only her hours worked for one of those two will be counted towards the 3900 hours total?
If it doesn’t mean that, what else could it mean? If this is the case, the announced changes make the LCP even more exploitative to the caregivers. Why? Because under the old system, all the months (excluding overtime, of course) worked under whatever number of employers within three years are counted. Under the new system, only the hours worked under one employer or household, within 22 months, will be counted.
There may be more loopholes and fine prints that may escape our attention at this time. My point is, let’s be vigilant. We have clever people on the other side of the negotiation table, although it’s hardly a negotiation that’s going on now. (We were “consulted” a few months ago. Most of those consulted by Kenney in his office in Toronto pushed for permanent resident status for caregivers. The position papers of many caregiver advocate groups and the caregivers themselves wanted landed status, removal of the live-in requirement and the employer-specific feature of the LCP. Kenney came back empty-handcd on these basic demands. Instead he verbally expounded on his own version of changes which are now, in their written form, look like tricky provisions of a complicated document.)
Now is the time for the advocates, the caregivers and the community and its allies to discuss and debate these announced “changes”. There’s very little time before the 30 days run out from Dec. 19.
My thinking is this. As long as the three basic features of the LCP are untouched, no basic change will happen in the lives of the caregivers. These are the roots of their exploitation and some of these are already being identified by public officials in Canada. The Auditor General has mentioned the live-in requirement is fundamental to the employer’s inclination to abuse. MP Don Davies and MLA Mable Elmore are urging for permanent resident status for caregivers. The Parliamentary Standing Committee tasked to study this issue on temporary foreign workers has recommended a conditional landed immigrant status for caregivers. So why is the Conservative government hell-bent on resisting these changes?
I wouldn’t know the exact answer to that. Ask Kenney and his advisers or the employers lobby groups that continue to effectively hide in the bushes.
Comments (1)