Originally posted on CaregiversOnline.org

How much does it cost an applicant to enter Canada as a live-in caregiver (LCP)?

As per new regulations governing the hiring of LCP, all costs should be shouldered by employers but for a suspicious agency like one called Sampaguita International Recruitment Agency, it costs thousands. This, even after the passage of Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (EPFNA) that prohibits recruiters from charging any fees to foreign live-in caregivers, either directly or indirectly.

In a letter of complaint sent to Labour Attache Francisco Luna and filed in the Ministry of Labour, Jeramy C., a nurse from the Philippines accused Sampaguita International Employment Agency, operated by one Letty Domingo and her assistant Jossie Bayaua of defrauding him of 6,500CAD for purposes of finding him an employment in Canada as a live-in caregiver.

Jeramy alleged that Sampaguita agency promised to find him an employer in Canada within processing times of 5-6 months only. In return, he was asked to pay a placement fee of 6,500 CAD in an installment basis: a down payment of 3, 500 CAD upon submission of application and another payment of 3,000 once the LMO and contract is ready.

Jeramy paid in full in January 2012, nine months after he filed his application but as of this writing, he didn’t receive any copy of an LMO or an employment contract despite the promises and assurances made by the agency.

The same complaint was also forwarded to this writer by Jeramy’s friend, named Twinkle who filed an application with the same agency and paid a total of US 2,500.

A request for interview by this writer with the said agency was denied.

Where it all began

Jeramy got to know Sampaguita agency when he was still working as a nurse in England and got in touch with Helen* (name withheld for safety and privacy purposes) in Facebook. Helen is Jeramy’s classmate in college who is working as a live-in caregiver in Ontario. She mentioned that she knew Jossie Bayaua, who is an assistant to Letty Domingo, owner of Sampaguita agency. She said the agency is in need of applicants for a caregiver position. Jeramy expressed interest and Helen passed his information to Jossie.

Jeramy then communicated with Bayaua through her Facebook account in which she also asked if he knew others who are interested in applying. Jeramy passed the information to his other friends including Twinkle who applied, too. She asked her aunt who resides in the US for help in paying the down payment which her aunt readily agreed. Her aunt paid Domingo a total of US2, 500 through a manager’s check.

Both applicants submitted their applications and resume sometime on September 2011. Both were assured that they have employers.

Three months after, Jeramy said the agency was not able to come up with a contract and an LMO in the excuse that the Human Resource and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) is slow in processing papers. Five months later, Jeramy decided to withdraw his application because he was granted a tourist visa in Vancouver but Helen explained that his application is already in process and that his LMO has been released. But he did not  receive any LMO or contract even after another month later. This prompted him to call Domingo who explained that his LMO has been released but since he said he was withdrawing his payment, she cancelled her appointment to the “connection” thus, the non-issuance of the LMO. During the conversation, she was able to convinced Jeramy again that he has an LMO so he paid another CAD 3,000.00 as full payment.

Another month later and no sign of LMO as well. Jeramy then called Domingo and learned that he still doesn’t have an LMO so he decided to ask for a full refund. Jeramy alleged that during the conversation, Domingo was upset and blamed him and Helen forthe loss of LMO. She stressed that she lost her “connection” when he asked for a refund.

Jeramy nevertheless insisted for a refund at that point on which Domingo replied that she will refund it with all her expenses deducted and that it is not easy to refund his money.  She also threatened him that she can have him deported out of Canada and that he can’t implicate her because it was not she who received his payment.

In Twinkle’s case, her aunt Jennny who served as her representative and who paid her for down payment said her doubts against the agency were confirmed when Domingo called her to ask for Twinkle’s final payment of US2, 500.

“I asked for a copy of the LMO and the contract, and she started getting nasty,” she said.  To prove that there really is an employment offer for Twinkle, Domingo sent her a copy of a page 5 of a contract and asked that Twinkle sign it so they can pay the remaining balance.

But Jenny said, “I refused. I said to her that how could anybody sign a contract that has only page 5 on it? She started making a lot of excuses and she even denied that she received the cheque I sent her.”

There is no LMO and contract for Twinkle as of this writing, too.

Jeramy and Twinkle decided to file their complaints under the EPFNA.

And there are the other victims…

A further interview with those involve in this case also brought out some interesting stories. In an interview with Helen, the friend who recommended the agency and the liaison between Jeramy and the agency, she revealed that she too, was a victim in this tale of fraud.

Helen’s tears flowed when she realized that she unwittingly aided an illegal activity by recommending applicants to Sampaguita agency. She thought she was only helping a friend.

She admits that she is stressed out these days because of Jeramy’s case. Her relationship with the agency soured when she began inquiring of the real status of Jeramy’s application. She claimed that Domingo got upset and threatened that her involvement with them can jeopardize her status in Canada.

Helen arrived in Canada as a live-in caregiver. She met Domingo through Jossie, a person she knew well. They introduced themselves as the Sampaguita Recruitment agency and asked her if she has friends who are interested to work in Canada. They assured her that they can help them get work.

“I believed them. I know Jossie well. I was excited so I told my friend, Jera, and some others about the agency.”

As a liason between Jeramy and the agency, she received Jeramy’s down payment in her bank account.

“Immediately after Jeramy texted me that he wired the money, I withdraw it cash and handed it over to Jossie,” she explained, “I asked for receipt but Jossie laughed at me and told me that you never meet a placement agency who gives you receipt.”

Helen took that as “normal” but she admits it bothered her. “I only held to my belief that I know Jossie personally and believed that she will not deceive me.”

It is with this blind faith that she also recommended another relative to the agency who made a down payment of 900 CAD for a work in Canada. He withdrew his application for a month. In this case, she was also asked by Domingo to find a replacement.

“Ate Letty asked me to find a replacement applicant since the one I recommended withdrew. And I am supposed to fill that up since she lost 900CAD,” she narrates.

She was able to recommend another applicant and everything seemed well between them until Jeramy expressed his doubts after he did not receive any LMO nor contract as promised even after he paid in full.

“Before the second payment was made, I asked them (Domingo and Jossie) in behalf of Jeramy to show me the LMO. Ate Letty and Jossie assured me. I wanted to see it to make sure but was not able to meet them that one time due to prior engagement. So I never got to see a proof that an LMO for Jeramy exists. So when Jeramy called Ate Letty that he decided to withdraw his application and asked for a full refund because he lost faith on them, Letty started blaming me for what happened.”

Helen also said that she was told by Jossie and Domingo not to contact them anymore and asked her to refund Jeramy a total of 1, 400 CAD out of her own pocket.

Another friend Gerlie*, said she feels the same way. Gerlie said she was asked by Bayaua and Domingo to refer anybody who is interested in working in Ontario as mushroom pickers. Three of her friends from Saudi Arabia applied last year and paid CAD 3,000.00 each. Not one of them received any contract or LMO yet. And yet, Gerlie is still hoping that her friends will receive it.

Gerlie is also working as a live-in caregiver. She shared that both she and Helen, aside from Domingo and Bayaua, didn’t know a soul in Ontario when they first arrived.

“We have no relatives here and we didn’t know anything. I guess we were perfect prey to be used in their shady activities,” she mused.

Both Helen and Gerlie said the same thing:  “Meeting Letty Domingo was the worst thing that happened to me in Canada. I wish I’ve never known her.”

The Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (EPFNA) which came into force in March 22, 2010, prohibits recruiters from charging any fees to foreign live-in caregivers, either directly or indirectly; prevents employers from recovering placement costs from the live-in caregiver; prohibits employers and recruiters from taking a live-in caregiver’s property, including documents such as a passport or work permit; prohibits a recruiter, an employer, or a person acting on their behalf from intimidating or penalizing a live-in caregiver for asking about or asserting their rights under the Act and requires recruiters and, in some situations, employers to distribute information sheets to live-in caregivers setting out their rights under the EPFNA and those provisions of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) considered to be of particular relevance.

Violations of this Act may lead to a fine of 50, 000 or more and imprisonment.

OTTAWA — The federal government seems to be having a tough time delivering on a promise to live-in caregivers who were told in December that they no longer would have to wait for an open work permit once their contract is up.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced with fanfare that the government had introduced processing changes that would ensure foreign nannies who had completed the requisite two years of work would be able to get their open work permits almost immediately once they’d applied for permanent residency, rather than being forced to wait some 18 months.

Five months later, however, stakeholders say many caregivers are still waiting and officials aren’t able to offer any concrete timelines.

“They’re trying to make it quicker but there’s no estimation of time as to when (caregivers) will receive (the open work permit),” one Citizenship and Immigration call centre agent told Postmedia News.

Another agent blamed “too much volume” for delays and noted it wouldn’t be unusual for somebody to wait four months — but 10 months, and certainly 18 months, would be out of the ordinary, adding they were instructed not to provide specific timelines.

Manuela Gruber Hersch, president of the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada which seeks to set ethical standards for the industry, said she’s spoken with a number of concerned caregivers in recent weeks.

Shortly after Kenney’s announcement, caregivers were receiving their open work permits within two or three weeks, she said, but many are now waiting much longer. Moreover, the issuing of permits seems to be inconsistent as some get it in two months, while others can wait eight.

Call centre agents she’s spoken with have suggested there are not enough staff members to keep up with demand and that the government was wrong to make a promise it couldn’t keep.

“It’s just a pattern, right, with Kenney. Promising the moon and he can’t deliver at the end,” Gruber Hersch said, noting some caregivers quit their jobs anticipating their open work permit would be in hand before long.

“Ultimately, this inconsistency of open work permits puts great stress on families and caregivers because they can’t plan their lives accordingly. Families need to have consistent and secure childcare in place and the caregivers need to arrange for their lives after being a caregiver.”

Government officials insist the average processing time as of April 25 was about 71 days and that open work permits are still being issued 18 months sooner than they used to.

While officials say it’s hard to state exactly how many open work permit applications remain in the queue awaiting processing, they say there were 2,367 permanent residence applications as of April 25.

Caregivers enter Canada as temporary foreign workers and become eligible to apply for permanent residence once they’ve completed two years, or 3,900 hours of work, within a four-year period.

At that point they become eligible to apply for permanent residency and an open work permit.

The open work permit is the reason many decide to leave their families behind and commit to living with and caring for a Canadian family. Once they have it, they’re free to live wherever they like, seek work in any field and, after becoming permanent residents, sponsor their relatives.

The processing change announced in December ultimately meant caregivers no longer would have to wait for initial approval of their application for permanent residence before being eligible for an open work permit.

Kenney indicated at the time that the change would “help caregivers settle into their new life in Canada while they wait for their permanent resident applications to be processed.”

tcohen@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/tobicohen

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

TorontoLiveInCare.com’s Sharon Taylor was interviewed for the article which explores “nanny poaching” that is occurring in Toronto.  Unfortunately, 3 months after the article has been posted, we are still hearing the same stories as the market of locally available live-in caregivers continues to dwindle.

Originally published in the Toronto Star, February 13, 2012

These days, it scares Jodi Kaplan to let her live-in caregiver, Rose Pablico, out of her sight because of the rampant “nanny poaching” across Canada, especially in Greater Toronto.

Since 2010, fewer foreign live-in caregivers have been admitted to Canada, partly due to the declining applications by Canadian families who are now required to pay for all recruitment fees incurred and partly a result of Ottawa’s slower processing and tighter screening.

The shortage of live-in caregivers has been exacerbated since mid-December when the federal government issued 14,000 open work permits to nannies who met the employment hours to apply for permanent residency.

The open work permits allow nannies to work outside of an employer’s home and in the field they choose, and many have since given their two-weeks notice and left their jobs.

“The flood of open work permits has evaporated the local nanny market right across Canada. Nanny poaching is becoming rampant. When nannies arrive from overseas, they are more likely to leave because they know they have five families waiting,” said Manuela Gruber Hersch of the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada.

“It is now a nanny’s market. It will become worse before it will get better.”

The number of live-in caregivers arriving in Canada has plummeted by 40 per cent from its peak of 13,773 in 2007 to just 8,394 in 2010. Currently, average processing time to get an overseas nanny is 15 months, 17 months for the Philippines, the main source country.

Sharon Taylor, owner of Toronto’s Execu-Nannies, a placement agency since 1988, said she has seen shortages before but never to this extent.

“We go for weeks when we don’t have one live-in candidate who just arrives and registers with us,” said Taylor. “Since December, we’ve had a lot of (registered) caregivers calling us to change their status to live-out.”

While Taylor is happy the nannies can move on to their own professional fields and get closer to reuniting with their families after toiling as live-in caregivers for a minimum of two years, she is sorry for her many clients scrambling for help to care for their young children and elderly relatives at home.

Filipina nurse Ruby Primero came to Canada in 2008 as a caregiver but just got her open work permit in December after a year’s delay due to a backlog.

The 40-year-old has returned to school for her Ontario nursing licence — and is eager to have her three sons and husband join her in Toronto soon. “I am now closer to my dream,” she said.

Toronto financial portfolio manager Erika Rubin’s nanny gave her notice in mid-December after she got her open permit. The nanny has been kind enough to stay until a replacement is found, but Rubin said she has had no luck in her search so far.

“I have called a bunch of agencies but they can no longer find girls for me to interview,” said Rubin, mother of a 6-year-old boy and two girls, ages 2 and 9. Her husband also works full time in the financial sector.

“Not only can’t they find me someone local in Canada, there is nobody left for me to interview overseas.”

Ottawa’s new legislation that requires employers be responsible for all of a nanny’s expenses have made it costly for Canadian families, especially in a time of shortage, employers say.

Investments into importing someone from abroad could go down the drain if the nanny is “poached” by another family after arrival, said Carolyn Newman, a vice-president of a creative production company. Her current nanny is expected to get her open permit in a couple months.

“My sister-in-law got her nanny (from abroad), but she left her and moved to Ottawa because it’s closer to her sister,” said Newman, who has two boys, a 5-year-old and an 18-month-old. “If the government is going to eliminate this program, give us a proper national day care strategy.”

Live-out caregivers are not an option, not only because their pay, in the range of $14 and $18 an hour, is much higher than the minimum wage of $10.56 for their live-in counterparts, their hours are also less flexible, especially when care is needed overnight.

The industry group’s Gruber Hersch said the shortage has driven up wages and families who live in sprawling suburban neighbourhoods and have multiple children are left behind as nannies can afford to pick better working conditions.

Kaplan, a single mother with a boy, 13, and girl, 10, said she and her nanny have been approached by strangers in malls and grocery stores near their home in Victoria, B.C., looking for live-in caregivers.

“She has had four serious offers. One even offered her $20 an hour to steal her away. It is a real problem,” said Kaplan, who uses a wheelchair after an accident nine years ago.

“I’m glad she is still with me. But it is only fair that a family that has already paid for the nanny to come get to keep the nanny.”

To safeguard Canadian families’ interests, employers said, the government must put conditions in place that would require a nanny to stay with the employer who brought them here or repay the expenses if they don’t stay for the full term.

“I’m extremely supportive of the women to make sure they are not brought here fraudulently and do not end up in an abusive situation,” said Rubin, the Toronto mother of three. “But they have no obligation to stay for two days, not to mention two years.”

Although the law now stipulates employers pay the recruitment costs, Pura Velasco of Toronto’s Caregivers Action Centre said enforcement is still lacking and many unscrupulous recruiters still charge hefty fees to prospective caregivers to get them here.

Whenever caregivers switch employers, they must re-apply for new labour market opinions and update their work permits, and both processes can take months, said Velasco.

In order to avoid delays in applying for their permanent residency, she said most live-in caregivers do stay with their employers for the full term.

“The shortage of live-in caregivers does not change the power relationship between employers and caregivers. These caregivers still come here on temporary permits and their status is tied to their employers,” said Velasco.

“If employers want to keep their nannies, they must treat them well.”

Meanwhile, the immigration department said it has no plan to make changes to the caregiver program.

“We must keep in mind that the caregivers receiving open work permits have already lived up to their obligations,” said immigration spokesperson Nancy Caron.

“When Canadian employers hire a foreign national through the program, they are aware that the caregiver will become eligible to apply for permanent residence after two years.”

By Manuela Gruber Hersch, ACNA Canada

Canada’s live-in caregiver program has been successful for decades. However, changes in April 2010 designed to protect foreign caregivers and a decreased quota of permanent residence applications for 2012 have many in the industry concerned about the program’s future.

The live-in caregiver program allows Canadian families to hire a caregiver from abroad to look after, for instance, young children, aging parents or disabled people in the home. The Canadian government has carved out a pathway to permanent residency that caregivers may choose to apply for after completing a certain number of hours of work within four years of entering Canada through the live-in caregiver program.

The government has targeted allowing 8,000 to 9,300 live-in caregivers to become permanent residents in 2012. That’s down from 12,000 to 16,000 in 2011.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says that the permanent residency quota is being cut due to a reduction in demand. Yet according to many employment agencies, demand for caregivers is still high.

The perception of reduced demand has been created by changes to the program and longer processing times. Last year’s changes put much of the onus on the families hiring caregivers to pay the upfront costs of bringing them to Canada. Many families, for example some single parents or mothers on maternity leave, have become reluctant to pay recruitment fees, airfare, temporary health insurance, and immigration consultant fees for a caregiver from across the globe whom they have never met and with whom they have no guarantee if the relationship will work out. In some situations, caregivers accept jobs in rural areas then, upon arrival in Canada, leave to find a more appealing location.

Some question whether asking employers to bear the large financial burden is a hidden tactic to slowly and quietly eliminate the program. To make it more fair to families, the government should consider spreading fees out after the caregiver has arrived and it has been established that the family does in fact have care in place.

There are 29,000 live-in caregiver program permanent residence applications in the pipeline and frustrated caregivers are waiting longer to receive their permanent residence status while they are apart from their own families. It’s a different scenario from the one Mr. Kenney promised in December 2009, when he said caregivers would now have a faster and easier path to permanent residency.

Caregivers are also still waiting for the much advertised “blacklist of employers,” unpublished since April 2010. Missing too is the new information packages for live-in caregivers announced in December 2009.

To truly protect caregivers, the program needs a monitoring body to ensure that caregivers are protected and employers follow the rules. We need to monitor the program a lot better to guarantee that this very unique and highly complex program works for both parties.

Caregivers are also frustrated by the increased wait for their stage approval (open work permit) from six months to 18 months. Citizenship and Immigration Canada call centre agents tell some caregivers that the reason it is taking so long is that once they get their open work permit they stop working as a caregiver, which coincides with the feeling that the government is trying to deter families from hiring overseas.

Cumbersome and complicated

At end of the day, the program provides Canadian families a care solution for their children, elderly, or disabled loved ones. Families use the program due to the shortage of Canadians interested in this type of work. Yet, statistics show that 11,231 caregiver work permits applications were approved in 2008 and only 2,702 in the first half of 2011.

We anticipate further decline as families are refusing to risk their money and become fed up with the very cumbersome and complicated process including the extremely long processing times. However, Canadians haven’t stopped having children. The regulations of late have put the industry into a state of flux and possible hiring families have simply put off the decision until more certainty as to the fairness of the program can be redefined.

If Mr. Kenney wants to keep the integrity of the live-in caregiver program, he should look at the statistics supporting the use of placement agencies. They would demonstrate that reputable caregiver agencies have legitimate, fair employers who follow labour standards, no hidden family reunification, long-term placements, and approved applications that are not clogging up the immigration system.

CIC has reduced targets for the program in order to focus on other immigration programs. But while the live-in caregiver program is a small part of overall immigration targets, it is disproportionately important to working Canadians and Canada’s aging population and should be exempted from target reductions. It is too vital of a program to Canadian families!

Don’t we want both parents to contribute to Canada’s economy or does this government want moms to stay home? Dual-income families put more money into the economy and raise our national tax revenue base. Today you need two income earners just to have an average standard of living. We also know that seniors stop spending money once they move into a care facility; shouldn’t we support our seniors to remain at home as long as possible with the help of a private caregiver?

If Mr. Kenney intends to keep the live-in caregiver program alive, he must make immediate remedies, but, most importantly, bring all parties to the table and come up with truly balanced reform this time.

But watching Minister Kenney continue to promote his significant live-in caregiver program improvements to the House immigration committee on Nov. 24, it is clear that he seems delighted where the program is going.

We just hope the Canadian government has alternate plans for working parents and the approaching silver tsunami.

Manuela Gruber Hersch is the president of the Association of Caregiver & Nanny Agencies Canada and has been operating a caregiver agency since 1996. She came to Canada as a live-in caregiver from Austria and employs a live-in caregiver for her two daughters.

editor@embassymag.ca

OTTAWA — Immigrants admitted through the government’s foreign live-in caregiver stream say they’ve been duped by the immigration minister, who touted the program’s success and certain growth prior to the May election, only to claw back on the number targeted for permanent residency next year.

Although the government maintains 98 per cent of live-in caregivers eventually become permanent residents, last week Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said fewer people were qualifying for the program, adding that it was one of two streams poised to take a hit in 2012 as the government freezes overall immigration while boosting certain economic streams.

It’s a far different tune than the one Kenney was singing last year.

“I predict that the live-in caregiver program will be a growing and important part of our immigration system in the future,” Kenney told a group of mostly Filipino nannies in a March 2010 video posted on YouTube.

It’s passed around among caregivers and advocates who have turned to an online forum and Twitter to voice their concerns.

“Kenney promised the moon and now ignores cries of caregivers for help,” says one Twitter post.

“How can you do this to us? Just like that, why would caregivers not qualify for PR? You said we contribute to Canada’s families,” says another.

Catherine Manuel, a live-in caregiver and volunteer with the GTA Caregiver Action Centre, said in an interview that she’s worried the government may be phasing out the program and questioned whether Kenney is a “turncoat” whose pre-election musings were little more than a ploy for votes.

The Filipino native — about two-thirds of live-in caregivers come from the Philippines — said the caregiver community was “blooming” when she first applied but that it’s been “a mess” for the last three years.

Critics say changes to the program adopted in April 2010 aimed at protecting caregivers from exploitation are part of the problem. The changes have actually cast a chill over the market, they say, making it onerous and risky for employers to hire live-in nannies who look after both young children and the elderly.

“Families now have to cover all the recruitment fees, the airfare, temporary health insurance for the first three months and also an immigration lawyer or immigration consultant,” said Manuela Gruber Hersch of the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada, which represents matchmaker companies and seeks to set standards for an industry that has suffered a bad rap in recent years.

Caregivers, however, are free to work for somebody else once they clear customs, she said, adding they often do, whether it’s because the family isn’t a good fit or because they want to be closer to friends or relatives.

“People want to hire a nanny but they ask ‘what guarantee do I have that this person is actually going to work for me,’” she said.

It’s a contributing factor toward declining numbers, she says, but the need for caregivers remains high given Canada’s aging population and the absence of a national childcare program.

She believes the government is deliberately trying to slow down or phase out the program — and if so, she urges Canada to consider an au pair program that would allow young people to enter the country for a couple of years to work with families, gain experience and perfect their language skills.

“Canadians don’t want to be nannies or caregivers,” she said. “We need some sort of program because I don’t see any change in that.”

Immigration lawyer Rafael Fabregas said the solution is to eliminate the two-tier system that currently exists for live-in caregivers, where the nannies must first obtain temporary foreign-worker visas and work as live-in caregivers for at least two out of four years before they and their families can seek permanent residency.

Instead, he believes Canada should offer immediate permanent residency to foreign caregivers on condition they work in the field and live with their employer for a set period of time, which could vary depending on whether it’s a rural or urban setting.

“For example, a caregiver who works in Toronto will require three years of work experience, while a caregiver who works in London will only require two years of work experience,” he suggested.

“This approach would give an incentive to caregivers to find employers who are outside the major city centres and adjacent suburbs.”

Not only would it get rid of a perpetual backlog in applications for permanent residence, Fabregas said it would “level the playing field” for both employers and caregivers. Employers will get timely access to a pool of candidates who are already in Canada, while caregivers will have their families around for support and be able to walk away from a bad situation knowing doing so won’t hurt their chance of becoming a permanent resident.

He also urges the government to make it a “lottery system” like the one used in the United States for Green Cards.

“Make available a certain number of permanent resident visas annually. If the quota is met, they can try again next year,” Fabregas said, adding the number ought to be based on labour market needs.

“Such a system would be far better than what we currently have.”

Kenney unveiled immigration targets for next year that show a reduction in the number of live-in caregivers who will be granted permanent resident status.

According to the figures, Canada has set a target of 8,000-9,300 for 2012. This year’s target range was 12,000-16,000, while Canada accepted nearly 14,000 live-in caregivers as permanent residents in 2010.

Statistics also show a significant drop in the number of temporary foreign worker visas issued to live-in caregivers. In 2007, Canada approved 11,876 applications compared to just 7,185 in 2010. Between January and June of this year, just 2,702 visa applications were approved.

The current wait time for both temporary foreign worker visas and permanent residency for live-in caregivers is 18 months.

That’s about how long caregiver Leo Roxas has been waiting.

The Filipino father, 28, has been looking after his employer’s three children for about two-and-a-half years and is hoping to be among the approximately 9,000 live-in caregivers who will be granted permanent residency in 2012.

He luckily landed a kind and generous employer but would like to be able to bring his wife and three-year-old son to Canada as soon as possible.

Eventually, he also wants to go back to school.

“My employer is really nice to me, the kids really love me but I also miss my family back home,” he said, adding many in his situation “really want to do other things other than caregiving.”

tcohen@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/tobicohen

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s plan to accept 10,000 more skilled workers into Canada next year is a sound one, and so is the government’s overall target of 255,000 newcomers. Some other changes make less sense, and may be motivated by politics, more than economics.

Mr. Kenney acknowledged that the seven-year backlog to sponsor grandparents and parents has become unmanageable, and announced a two-year moratorium on applications. In the meantime, however, he will increase the quota by 10,000 over two years, to 25,000, and introduce a two-year multiple-entry visitor’s visa for these family members.

To compensate, there will be a lower quota in other categories, including live-in caregivers. The target is 8,000-9,300, compared to 10,500-12,500 in the past two years.

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Why would a country with a declining fertility rate and the expected mass retirements of baby boomers want to recruit yet more older people? “The government has it backwards,” says Sergio Karas, an immigration lawyer.

While family reunification is a goal for Canada’s immigration program, family-class newcomers already make up two-thirds of all those accepted. Parents and grandparents are unlikely to create economic growth and will have more health needs.

Live-in caregivers are a category that should be expanded. They perform a key role in the labour market: caring for children in a country with no national daycare policy, and looking after the elderly. There is already a shortage of quality care for the aged, a problem that will grow in years to come with the country’s demographic shift.

Canada’s live-in caregiver program is unique in the world, and allows caregivers to apply for permanent residency after living with a family for two years, caring for either children or the aged. It has real weaknesses, such as long application-processing times, abusive employers and nannies being recruited for “fake” jobs, but the program itself remains sound.

The government would be wise to put resources into having it run more smoothly, and make sure that well-qualified caregivers are recruited to bona fide jobs and that their permanent residency applications are processed in a timely fashion. As the population ages, Canada will need more of them.

SOURCE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canada-needs-more-caregivers-please/article2226252/

The government also is expecting a decline in the number of people who come to Canada as part of the live-in caregiver program “because fewer people are qualifying,” he said.

The overall point of the article is to stress the positive moves the Conservative government is making to shape the type of immigrants that Canada welcomes.  However, we are still seeing a vital, urgent and necessary need for child care solutions in Canada ignored.

In fact, we’ve found that families are being denied access to sponsorship for trivial reasons and are generally being given the run-around by Service Canada.

One thing for sure is that the demand for Live-In Caregivers has not decreased.  Agencies represented by the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies Canada (ACNA) still report that the demand is far outweighing the supply of locally available candidates.  Overseas sponsorship is becoming even less of an option to fill the lack of labour already in Canada because of timelines that typically double the posted processing times on Citizenship and Immigration’s website.

It can also be argued that maybe caregiver from outside of the country are choosing other places to go in the world because of the dysfunctional nature of the Canadian Live-In Caregiver program.  Once finished a 24 month program (required to be completed within 48 months), there are currently 36 months of processing to finalize Permanent Residency, and even more time if they are sponsoring family members.  You read that right: it takes 3 years of processing after completing a two year program here.

Despite backlash from caregiver groups and advocated, culminating in a large meeting in Mississauga, Ontario earlier this year, the government has broken promises and ignored the community it relied upon for support in the last Federal election.

Canadian families feel they are also being ignored when the need for these caregivers is absolutely crucial and their government representatives are doing nothing to ensure that supply meets the demand.

1 1/2 years later, we are taking a look back and discussing ways to move forward for actual protection because, let’s face it.. we are worse off than we were before.  Double the processing times, on average, for caregivers and families in regards to LMOs, work permits, initial PR assessment (open work permits), final Permanent Residency and family reunification.  Abusive agencies and families moving to a “black market” unscrupulous industry.  Worse than that, the Conservative Immigration Minister has been silent on the issue after rallying the Filipino Canadian community to provide overwhelming support for his party in the last Federal election.

Today we met with a foreign Live-In Caregiver who has been put through the ringer and her story is shocking and shows exactly why agencies need to be regulated and enforcement needs to be taken seriously.  We’d like to share her story with you.

After working in the United Kingdom for 6 years, this nanny heard the stories of a good life in Canada and decided to come here to improve her skills and settle in one of the greatest countries in the world.  What happened next could well have tarnished that image in her mind, but instead she remains positive and says “the past is the past.. we have to move forward.”

Recruited to Ontario by a Toronto-based agency, the nanny accepted a job offer and left the UK to work for a seemingly nice family outside of the GTA.  After a year, she was told they were relocating, which they did often, and the nanny decided not to move with them.  The employer, a police officer, defaced the nanny’s work permit in anger by writing INVALID on it, which worried the nanny immensely.  Despite this encounter, she went back to the agency the brought her to Canada to find a job.

When the nanny went back to her agency, she was told they didn’t have any employers willing to hire in Ontario, which is common for companies that deal only with overseas recruitment.  She was shipped out to British Columbia without speaking to the new family and without viewing any sort of contract for the employment arrangement.  Upon arrival, she was shocked to realize that she would be making $2 less per hour than her job in Toronto due to the difference in minimum wages between the provinces.  Of course, her agency did not inform her of this.  The nanny may well have stayed with the family if the original promises of LMO and work permit paperwork processing were adhered to.  Unfortunately no paperwork was done and she was in a foreign country with no job, no family, no friends and no place to go.

Having been left to fend for herself, this nanny connected with a family in B.C. who took her in and provided food and shelter.  She helped look after their children and the household as a favour because she had absolutely nowhere else to go and could not find a job through her agency based in Toronto.  In exchange, this family provided her reference; after almost 2 years in Canada with three different families, this character reference would be the only one she acquired despite her hard work.  Of course, she eventually had to leave because she needed full time paid work to support herself but she will be forever grateful to this family for taking her in and providing her assistance.

Desperate to find a new job, she broke ties with her Toronto-based agency, despite threats from them saying she could only work with them because they brought her to Canada.  Her next agency encounter would not be much better of an experience for her though.  After contacting a local BC agency, she was put into a job with a family without first meeting the agency or the family at all.  To this day, she has never met any representative from the agency, never had an in-person interview and received few details of the job before she was placed there.

Being a smart foreign caregiver in Canada, the nanny asked about her LMO and work permit paperwork and the agency indicated that they don’t retain an immigration consultant because they don’t want to charge their families more money.  The families are left to do the paperwork on their own, probably with a bit of instruction from the agent, but as is common with companies who don’t retain the proper individuals to process the now very complicated immigration documents, the family failed to produce an LMO and she had to leave the family.

Coming back to the Toronto area, she attempted to find a job on her own through online services but she was exposed to the endless “trials” that unscrupulous agent and employers arrange.  The job was not secure, no papework was processed, but this time she learned quickly and left the job after only a few weeks.

This story not only underlines the fact that absolutely nothing has changed in the federal Live-In Caregiver Program, except for good employers paying more money to follow the rules.  Nannies are still being abused, families are still receiving poor information and guidance from rogue agencies, and those who are trying to adhere to the new regulations are finding  it very difficult when competing with the “black market” agencies and families.

A reputable agency could have shown the nanny in this story that…

- Families cannot take or deface your work permit; that is your document to have
- Agencies cannot force you to work strictly with them despite what threats they make
- Nannies and caregivers have the right to see their contracts before they start to work
- Agencies should be open and accessible to nannies for assistance and guidance
- Agents who never meet you, despite being in the same city, have no level of screening

We question how any caregiver agency can refer applicants to their clients without meeting them, or at least seeing them via video messaging, and still call themselves reputable.  While the nanny in this story is a fabulous person and employee, the agency puts their family at risk and shows no level of screening to either the employer or employee.

Our suggestion, which is shared by the Association of Caregiver and Nanny Agencies (ACNA) Canada, is to regulate agencies and enforce business practices throughout the industry so that the abuses of the Live-In Caregiver Program are stopped.  Immigration Minister Jason Kenney would much rather see agencies completely wiped off the map, but left to its own without any regulation, the industry will only experience more widespread abuse including lack of paperwork processing, poor job standards, and no support for the nannies or families who are trying to do things right.

We urge the Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to start talking about the LCP again, help ACNA regulate agencies in Canada and start responding to the caregivers about the exorbitant processing times they are experiencing!

5. Always keep good records of your experiences, including but not limited to obtaining detailed reference letters from your employers.  When applying to an agency or marketing yourself personally to new employers, this type of information is invaluable for your agent or new employer to make a good assessment of your experience, qualifications and abilities.  Your “portfolio” is one of your biggest assets in the search for new employment.

4. Maintain good relationships with your past employers so they are willing to speak as your reference.  Even if you have disagreements, if you stay a long time in a job, the family obviously saw something great about you and trusted you in the job.  However, some caregivers leave jobs on bad terms after long employment relationships.  This can often be unavoidable with abusive employers, but you need to take every step possible to ensure they are willing to speak on your behalf.  Showing years of experience in Canada with nobody to attest to it can be a red flag to employers who are looking for somebody new.

3. Upgrade your credentials in your spare time.  Some take Personal Support Worker courses, others take Early Childhood Education or Assistant courses.  For child care related applicants, we recommend exploring courses such as the one offered by the Mothercraft Insitute.  For elderly and disabled care applicants, look in to Health Care Aid training courses as sometimes Personal Support Worker curriculum is very basic and not as attractive to employers.  Updating your CPR and First Aid credentials on a regular basis is also a great asset.

2. Apply for USA travel VISAs.  One of the most attractive assets to a family is the ability for a nanny to travel with them to the USA or tropical destinations, and the USA travel VISA facilitates transit through or entry to most destinations.  Other specific VISAs for different countries can also be obtained throughout the course of employment if needed.

1. Get your drivers license and practice, practice, practice.  To give you an idea, at our agency we have tons of live-out non driver applicants but almost no live-out non-driving jobs.  If you are a newcomer to Canada, get started with your driving certification and practice as soon as possible.  If you are planning the transition to live-out but have not yet started to learn to drive, start right away!  You will get a better salary, have access to many more jobs and will experience benefits of the ability to drive for errands, personal trips, and work related activities.  Families often have multiple children in different schools as well as activities, so your driving experience will come in very handy and just may be the deciding factor between you and another applicant they are considering.

Hope this helps!  As usual, don’t hesitate to contact us at 416-221-6000 to ask any employment related questions.

While we don’t think a strike from work is feasible as many would jeopardize jobs, we think that protests are completely in order because of the lies told to these caregivers when they supported the Conservative Party’s Jason Kenney.

LCPcaregver writes “..does it not piss you off that all the fake politicians promised the filipino caregiver groups the moon and now after the election it is all forgotten and actually getting worse?”

Cebu Gal accurately describes caregiver struggles:

I think a protest is an excellent idea to be heard.  To me, the live in caregiver program is a total mess on different levels.

1.) Long processing times for caregivers for open work permits and PR
2.) I know several caregivers who are still having a 2nd medical in Canada before applying for PR
3.) Very hard to find employers with the current road blocks. While it may sound good for caregivers to pay 0 , it is not realistic I think….. My husband’s friend has a sister in SE Ontario who says that the employers are ” missing” and everybody wants to hire a local nanny.
4.) Processing times for local caregivers are taking up to four months, how can a nanny not legally work for 4 months.
5.) Problems with prov. health insurance in many provinces
6.) If you sponsor your family and one of them is sick, the caregiver won’t qualify for PR.

I doubt that the Government will kill the LCP but I have heard a few times that they may switch caregivers over to a regular 4 years like other temporary workers.

Laranel comments “i don’t know know why is it so hard for them to issue a work permit for us, what all i am asking is a work permit so i can work legally…there are very few employer who are willing to sponsor and to pay extra to hire a nanny….”

Please note that Laranel is already authorized to work in Canada!

Now we are seeing a group called Nannies On Strike on Facebook and various Twitter accounts such as CaregiversTakeAction popping up calling for a demonstration in major cities in late September. Lawyer Rafael Fabregas is holding a talk at a Thornhill church to talk with caregivers and it sounds like many in the GTA will attend to voice their concerns.

Our question is why is Jason Kenney not listening? This is starting to get ugly and the Immigration Minister would benefit by talking again with caregiver groups and the Association of Nanny and Caregiver Agencies to discover how caregivers are still suffering and how agencies and families are trying to cope with this dissatisfaction.