Critics want crackdown as nannies exploited
Robert Cribb
Dale Brazao
Toronto Star
March 17, 2009
Comments on this story (30)
The federal government must prosecute nanny recruiters that prey on vulnerable foreign caregivers, say opposition politicians, industry insiders and the nannies themselves in response to a Star investigation.
“The government has a moral obligation to charge (them),” said NDP immigration critic Olivia Chow. “(Prime Minister Stephen) Harper's Conservatives are either soft on crime or asleep at the switch.”
A weekend Star investigation found hundreds, perhaps thousands, of foreign caregivers have paid $5,000 or more for jobs in Canada during the past decade jobs that too often turn out to be fake.
Faced with what is for them a crushing debt, some are forced to work illegally, others are deported and some end up suicidal.
Jim Karygiannis, a Liberal MP on the citizenship and immigration committee, says Canada must get tough with fraudulent recruiters.
“We are not going after the traffickers because it costs too much money to prosecute and they only end up getting a slap on the wrists. The most vulnerable are the caregivers and if we deport them or ask them to leave, (we) sweep the problem under the rug.”
Instead of prosecuting rogue agencies, federal officials have, to date, focused on deporting nannies based on a 2007 Federal Court ruling that found caregivers with bogus contracts cannot stay in Canada even if they find a legitimate job.
Once nannies arrive in Canada, it's up to provinces to enforce labour laws. All four western provinces ban agencies from charging nannies “placement fees” for Canadian jobs, but the practice is common in Ontario. Some fees here reach as high as $10,000 for jobs that don't turn up, the Star found.
Asked if Ontario would consider tougher regulations around nanny recruitment agencies, a spokesperson for the labour ministry was noncommittal. “The province is studying options to determine whether additional protections are needed for foreign workers,” Susan McConnell said in a statement.
Last week, federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney acknowledged problems with “large number of unscrupulous” agencies that exploit caregivers. “I know there have been cases of abuse and I've asked my officials for recommendations on how to tighten it.”
Governments have failed to protect caregivers lured to Canada for phantom employers, says Agatha Mason of Intercede, a non-profit agency that counsels domestic workers. “It's just evil,” Mason says of the fees firms charge for jobs that don't materialize. “It's a scary thing when you are in a new country … and you have nobody to turn to.”
The Star found some agencies, such as Rakela Care International in Thornhill, take passports from nannies who arrive to find promised jobs don't exist. Nine nannies who came to Canada through Rakela Spivak's agency told the Star they were housed in basements and apartments, sleeping on floors, sometimes 12 to a room.
Spivak, who owns the agency, told the Star she runs a reputable business, only takes passports for “safe keeping,” and can't be responsible if employers decide they no longer want a nanny once they arrive.
Filipina Lester Lagat says she paid Toronto recruitment firm Jinkholm International $2,500, but “when I arrived, (agency owner Heron Tait) told me someone else went to my employer and she like this person so she doesn't need me anymore.”
Lagat ended up going to two different agencies, which cost her nearly $1,500 more. “I knew I couldn't fight with (Tait). I was afraid. I didn't have any papers.”
Tait admits Lagat's job disappeared and says it isn't his fault if an employer changes their mind.
Jennifer Wolff, owner of the Edmonton-based Nannies from Heaven, which places caregivers in homes across the country, says she's been warning federal officials for over a year about fraud in the Live-in Caregiver Program. Long delays in processing foreign nanny applications are prompting unscrupulous firms to import caregivers for bogus employers, she said.
“Not only does this seriously jeopardize the integrity of the Live-in Caregiver Program, it puts these desperate caregivers at risk,” Wolff wrote to the Canadian embassy in Hong Kong in 2007. “How can such individuals even attempt to abide by Canadian rules when agencies are preying on them?”
The Star found some agencies compel nannies to open accounts into which all their pay is deposited until placement fees are repaid.
Diamond Personnel owner Audrey Guth has an “affiliate” financial arm that finances the debt of nannies who can't afford her firm's fees. A promissory note nannies sign with Somerset Financial (which Guth acknowledged is owned by her husband) requires nannies to open a bank account and “deposit all paycheques (there) until … the loan is fully repaid.”
Somerset Financial charges 18 per cent interest, a figure that is “high,” Guth agreed. “I'm not a social service. I'm here to make money. … It's a 100 per cent risk for me and there are girls that walk. There's nothing illegal about it.”
The reporters can be reached at nannytrap@thestar.ca or 416-945-8674.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More:
Nannies trapped in bogus jobs
Federal agencies fail to protect nannies
Toronto Star
Comments on this story are moderated
|
Login to Comment
Commenting Guidelines
expandContent
Blame the radical-left-wing-socialists and politicians who protect the 'rights' every criminal, drug-addict, thief who lives here and enters the country.
Submitted by JMJ at 11:37 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator
Other side of the coin
The nanny and caregiver program is very valuable to my family. We are fortunate to have a wonderful lady look after my Mother who has Alzheimer's. Our caregiver goes to English classes, was provided with driving lessons, and is treated like family. Without the help of our caregiver my Mother would be in a facility. My problem at the moment is that our caregiver's contract will run out in about a year. So I am trying to jump through all the hoops that HRDC wants in order to legally obtain a new caregiver. One of which is to advertise the job. I have contacted about half of the applicants thus far and none want the job of a live-in caregiver. This progam can be a win/win situation both for the caregiver and the Canadian family; but the process for obtaining a caregiver is so onerous that families turn to these agencies without knowing how the agency treats the caregivers. Somehow the rotten apples in the business need to be removed, and the process simplified for real families.
Submitted by Blue Bird at 10:09 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
Agencies
After reading the third of these articles I did a little research into the employment agency industry. It turn out that no employment agency is required to be licensed in Ontario and therefore can do as they please including charging for placements. The only time that an employee gets protection is when they are finally legally employed. These agencies used to be licensed but this requirement stopped some time ago. I have to wonder what kind of province we live in when a government eliminates the requirement for the agency business to be licensed which in turn takes away any powers the government may have had to stop the abuse of people. Could it be that commercial interests are more important than those of the citizen ???
Submitted by Pinoy64 at 3:26 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
The nanny program is in large part….
….used to “jump the regular immigration application que” and to immigrate to Canada without skills. Harper has opened the doors to a virtually flood of unskilled “temporary” workers. The problem is that these workers are not so temporary as both visa students (who are also allowed to work) and temporary workers are allowed to apply from “within” Canada for permanent residency after two years. This is simply a backdoor immigration program raising the raw numbers of arrivals last year to 460,000 rather than the 240,000 immigrants most Canadian's think arrive. Further the Harper Government had absolutely no business bringing in temporary workers when the Feds are entirely incabable of overseeing a competently run exit program!
Submitted by rvguy79 at 3:12 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a moderator
save a few $
I am a filipino born here in the late 1960's. I have children of my own, and left work to look after them. On the other hand, I have known neighbours, co-workers and clients who have hired filipino nannies. Quite frankly, they hired filipino nannies because of the quality of service that they get for the price. You can't beat it. Some argue that they are giving these women a chance at a better life. While this may be true in some cases, more often than not it feeds those unscrupulous types who take advantage of this poorly monitored program and many of my fellow filipinas are hurt in the process. In the very least I am thankful that this issue is finally coming to light. Parents .. if you are considering hiring a filipino nanny to save a few $, do your due diligence and seek out the reputable agencies before doing so, or better yet, look after your own kids!
Submitted by sn68 at 2:41 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
Why not bring back the Employment Agency Act and revise it?
Submitted by 2ulp4 at 2:19 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
Good agencies do exist!
It is with true sadness that I read of the nannies being lured to Canada with false hopes and being subjected to such violations. It never ceases to amaze me how humans are somehow able to set aside their morals and standards when it comes to foreign workers. When it comes to selecting an agency, there are several signs that sepereate the legitimate legal agencies from the rest. Such signs include recruitment in multiple countries, awards and recognition from organizations in the field, knowledgable staff, and realistic placement times of at least 4 months (taken from “Nanny Agencies: Which one?”, published on Knol and Free Press Release)
Submitted by Jared.K at 2:04 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
Canadian Nannie
Canadians don't want this type of job that's why Canada is importing labour from other countries.
Submitted by humanity at 1:02 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Alert a moderator
Making it illegal will just result in illegal nannies!
Look at what happened in the US. Almost every household employee is an illegal. Agencies should definitely be heavily regulated – or the entire agency endeavor should be taken over by the government. On the other side – from personal experience I can tell you that *not* all the nannies come here with the purest of intentions. At the end of the day there are some crooks on both sides of this issue. As far as wages are concerned – they earn a better wage and generally better conditions compared to someone who works at a Tim Horton's for example.
Submitted by pcbrand at 1:01 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a moderator
Changes
It's very sad to note that a lot of Canadians do not have any idea what caregivers/nannies got through and treat them like second class citizens.
Submitted by Eilat at 12:43 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Alert a moderator
To Terry Wants Justice
The cons have been running this country for 3 years and now you want to blame to previous Liberal government. This is getting ridiculous for the cons supporters to blame previous government when there are problems and take credit for policies that were created by previous government.
Submitted by onefatman at 12:35 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Alert a moderator
Who came up with this stupid program anyway?
No Canadian family can wait for 1 year for their sponsored nanny to pass the immigration screening. This program exist to mostly provide an immigration path for those who can't qualify otherwise.
Submitted by Gary12 at 12:30 PM Tuesday, March 17 2009
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Alert a moderator
Page 1 of 3
