NCA OCI for Vancouver and Calgary!!

[TheCryptozoologist]

2 hours ago, hiya said:

Sounds to me that your idea of a "decent-to-good" law school can only be found in Canada or the US, and absolutely nowhere else. Wild.

Also here's a fact-check for you: NCA candidates, on top of obtaining a law degree and possibly having years of work experience under their belt, are given a number of NCA exams they have to write (ranging from 5-16) - the syllabi of which are solely based on updated Canadian common law - and after that, they have to fulfil the same articling requirement and take the Bar exams just like you do. If that's not high enough a barrier, I don't know what is.

"awkward fits", "pushy, transactional and not really able to read the room", "substituting a lack of knowledge with personality jockeying"

Is solely relying on a mix of anecdotal evidence and exaggerated generalisation in an attempt to bring a point across also one of the 'skillsets' we lack that we have to substitute with personality jockeying? If so, I, an insecure foreigner, will have to respectfully pass on picking up that skill.

So, tl;dr, the ultimate yardstick to determining the worthiness of a foreign trained lawyer in assimilating to the Canadian legal community is.... *drumroll* .... whether or not we simp for one of the Justices. Will put this down on my To-Do list.

Glossed over this response earlier and I legit apologize. I like to have opinions, but many times they are terrible and need fixing. I can be a stubborn person but actively try to keep an open mind as best I can. 

21 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Just stop dude. Nobody believes that you were referring to non-Anglophone Europeans when you were taking a shit on “non-Western” lawyers who lack the social and moral duty or scholarly intensity of so-called Western lawyers. We all know who you were referring to and backtracking now isn’t helping.

I honestly don't know why your logic always leads to extremes like concluding I'm racist. I can talk alot of shit about American culture and mannerisms since I am quite intimately familiar with it, but I don't hate them. I can also say what ways American culture is objectively superior to everything else and why its the greatest nation in the world. 

[ZineZ]

1 hour ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

But there is a handful of non-Western lawyers who didn't go through that, and who will for example immediately interrupt everyone so they can be heard. Some places just don't consider that rude, but to us it comes off as not being reflective or attentive. Most of them granted have not been in this country long and not use to how it is here.

Even if we remove the problematic undertones of your comment, this same situation exists with Canadian trained lawyers. This isn't a NCA problem, it's an issue generally with people being shitty. I could list off a number of high-profile lawyers who all engage in the exact same tactics despite their Canadian education. 

As has already been pointed out, I'd encourage you to spend more time around NCA lawyers before making such generalizations.

[Diplock]

Leaving aside whatever the heck happened with this topic more recently, the real issue with the OP's expectations isn't the tone in which he expressed himself, but rather with missing the transition from being a student to being a worker in the competitive employment marketplace. You think this is a debate about what kinds of rules might be required to keep things "fair" and you miss the point that no one even pretends to give a shit about "fair" anymore at all. Of course there's still the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" and that matters. But as long as employers stay on the "legal" side of that line, any proposal to police who they can and can't interview, and can and can't hire, is ludicrous. And you really need to get past whatever kind of hang-up prevents you from immediately seeing it.

I could write for paragraphs, because this is a peeve of mine. But it blows my mind how law students can train for, aspire to, and in many cases work at jobs in corporate law firms - where the work constantly revolves around "rule of the marketplace" - and then completely miss the fact that the same reality applies to them. I mean, it's really quite obnoxious if you think about it, but even leaving aside the impression it creates in others, it's also very unhelpful. When you blind yourself to that reality, you'll be less good at navigating your own circumstances, and possibly less good as an advocate if you miss it anywhere else.

Anyway. Don't waste your energy trying argue about how you should be protected against people who are potentially more experienced and more qualified than you are wanting the work that you want. That's how the world works. Get better at it and grab it before someone else does. And if you really can't stand it, look into alternatives to capitalism and a marketplace economy.

[spacecadet]

Hey everyone, I'm new to the forum. I am an NCA Candidate from India and here's my take on this issue.

Immigration to Canada is unavoidable unless there's another radical solution to an ageing population. The country needs young workers to pay taxes so that retirees can continue to benefit from social programs. At the same time, people from other countries are willing to leave comfort behind only for the opportunity to live and work in a more stable and prosperous nation. Most lawyers in my country, including myself, will generally have a better lifestyle in India than if we were to immigrate. Yet, some of us decide to make a move and start over in Canada because we genuinely love the country and all it has to offer.  

I agree that the culture in India is a bit more "confrontational." And the difference in culture and resulting "friction" is an undeniable reality of immigration. A Candian in the Netherlands might be equally surprised at how blunt the Dutch are. But over time, most immigrants adopt local norms and customs. NCA candidates are pretty young for the most part, and it takes a certain level of maturity to hone in on and understand cultural differences. It takes some time. That being said, we have a lot in common and the differences are minor in the grand scheme of things. Also, there can be a bit of a double standard since we view white people migrating from rich countries as "expatriates" and coloured people migrating from developing countries  as "immigrants." This happens in India as well since we have a bit of a colonial hangover. For instance, a white blue collar worker from the UK may be viewed more favourably than a brown Indian engineer. And while the UK lad getting loud when he drinks is funny because "that's their culture," the Indian worker is "transactional" because he believe in putting his head down and working. I digress, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Yes, some of us are "transactional" and focused on money. That's partly cultural and partly out of necessity. But I don't see that as degrading the value of the bar in any way. Some immigrants have seen terrible things and may be even more sympathetic to social causes and giving back to society. In any event, the market will sort that out. If there's room for ill-trained ITLs to do mindless work, you should find something more meaningful. ITLs can't be competing for your job and be underqualified at the same time. Law firms are not that stupid. Let the market worry about competence. I've never heard of brain surgeons complaining about immigrants taking their jobs (go figure).

Many ITLs are extremely competent despite the shortcoming and disadvantages of our legal system. We have some fantastic lawyers in India who are recognized internationally (Harish Salve, Rohinton Nariman, Maneka Guruswamy etc.). I'd urge you to look them up to get an idea of what Indian lawyers are capable of. I mean we run most of the big tech companies in the US so I'm sure we're doing something right. We idealize judges and justices in the same way you do. We want to be great lawyers and do good things for society or make a killing on Bay Street just like you do. Why would you think that we're going to stop caring once we cross a border? Those of us who are passionate about advocacy and the law will continue to be that way regardless of what country we're in. 

Some of us with years of experience in common law jurisdictions will report to fresh graduates when we qualify in Canada. For instance, I spent a better part of a decade researching case law, drafting pleadings and going to court in India (a strong common law jurisdiction and former British colony with much in common with the Canadian legal system). I'm confident that my transferrable skills should equate to at least 2-3 years of Candian work experience. But that's not the case. And I'd need a 100,000+ CAD salary in Toronto to have the lifestyle that I currently have in India. I'm willing to leave behind comfort and start from scratch only for the opportunity to live and work in Canada and to be able to call it home one day. I could sit and complain about how firms are exploiting ITLs and how the process is unfair, but that thought has never crossed my mind. It is what it is. Firms are businesses, and we live in a globalized world. If the market dictates that I need to start over, that's just what I'll have to do.

Also, there is no separate pool for NCA candidates. We are competing for the same number of summer/articling positions. About 22 firms (mostly Bay Street) took part in the 2021 Summer ITLNCA Toronto OCI process. Each participating firm will hire maybe 1 and at most 2 NCA candidates. That's barely any competition for Candian JD students. Just think about how strange it is to want to work at a firm that most likely has a global presence while harbouring resentment when the firm hires internationally trained lawyers. In any event, Candian JD's are much better placed to find work. My humble suggestion is to embrace your peers and work with them while understanding that ITLs will make the Toronto bar better overall. We are truly "comrades in arms."

And together, we can worry about AI taking all our jobs.

Edited September 6, 2021 by spacecadet

[Diplock]

5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

-snip-

I have a terrible memory for individual posters on the board. Over time, they tend to blur and I have a better memory for themes and subjects than I do for individual posters. But I have to say, that's a hell of a strong first impression you just made. For any number of reasons. If you can translate that positive attitude into practice here in Canada, I believe you'll do well. And if you need to call in a favor here, feel free to. Not that I can do much for the average poster here - most of which are interested in "business" law, large firms, etc. But I'm useful at some things.

I'll add, if we're talking about legal culture from South Asia, that the little I know or have learned includes this point we haven't discussed yet. Similar to the U.S., there are few brakes on entry to the profession, meaning there's a lot of competition at the bottom of the legal market. Nearer the top, the genuinely good and successful lawyers will be broadly similar in their circumstances to our own marketplace. But nearer the bottom, you have U.S.-style scrambling for subsistence level legal work, plus South Asian culture weighing in, plus the fact that those low-on-the-totem-pole lawyers are working for low-on-the-totem-pole clients in countries where the divide between rich and poor is stark. I mean, maybe I've read too much Rohinton Mistry, but I imagine what it's like to serve poor and unsophisticated clients in Canada (which I do) and then I add what I know about India, Pakistan, etc. and I end up with a picture that seems incredibly difficult.

I've also heard law is not a well-respected profession there, likely because of the bottom of the marketplace examples, raised above. Successful lawyers are successful, of course. But you also see lawyers (I've heard) setting up shop literally on the stairs of the courthouse and serving anyone who they can serve. Doesn't create the impression of a profession you're as eager to see your children follow.

Anyway, the reason I say all that is because assuming I'm correct in what I know, think I know, and can reasonably extrapolate, it adds up to a situation where "lawyer from India" can mean a much wider range of things than "lawyer from Canada" is likely to mean. And anyone who has formed direct impressions about that might be wise to take it into account.

I absolutely invite correction about any of the above from anyone who knows better than I do.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Diplock

[TheCryptozoologist]

On 9/5/2021 at 5:07 PM, Diplock said:

Leaving aside whatever the heck happened with this topic more recently, the real issue with the OP's expectations isn't the tone in which he expressed himself, but rather with missing the transition from being a student to being a worker in the competitive employment marketplace. You think this is a debate about what kinds of rules might be required to keep things "fair" and you miss the point that no one even pretends to give a shit about "fair" anymore at all.

Anyway. Don't waste your energy trying argue about how you should be protected against people who are potentially more experienced and more qualified than you are wanting the work that you want. That's how the world works. Get better at it and grab it before someone else does. And if you really can't stand it, look into alternatives to capitalism and a marketplace economy.

I just am going to disagree with you, the problem of neoliberalizing the job market and seeing everyone as commodity is exactly this mentality that creates the current right-wing nationalism and 'anti-globalism' sweeping the world. Canadian citizens aren't inherently just employees in a global marketplace, they are supposed to have a role in a system and believe they have empowered stakes. It use to be that we had skilled trades jobs that buffered against immigration, and for several areas there is a deep need (e.g. rural foreign doctors or health care aides are still very much needed).

Nowadays we are seeing the most jaded generation and the making of a splintered society and immigration competing against Canadian-trained employees in all areas. For example engineering, medicine and computer science is seeing constant immigration since a permanent resident rarely speaks out. 

If we want to understand the right-wing revolts that swept Brexit and Trump enablers into power, we need to understand that people want to believe they have a role and stake in this system. If we outsource every job, or give it to visa holders who will do it for cheap its just a recipe for far-right views to grow. 

A subreddit like reddit.com/r/Canada might be an extreme, right-wing xenophobic place according to many, but I think its a good indication when the ongoing trend among Canadians has been increasingly opposed to immigration.

11 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Hey everyone, I'm new to the forum. I am an NCA Candidate from India and here's my take on this issue....

Immigration to Canada is unavoidable unless there's another radical solution to an ageing population. The country needs young workers to pay taxes so that retirees can continue to benefit from social programs. At the same time, people from other countries are willing to leave comfort behind only for the opportunity to live and work in a more stable and prosperous nation. Most lawyers in my country, including myself, will generally have a better lifestyle in India than if we were to immigrate. Yet, some of us decide to make a move and start over in Canada because we genuinely love the country and all it has to offer.  

And together, we can worry about AI taking all our jobs.

I still don't see your point when living standards for millenials and younger people have already started collapsing. I see pretty widespread discontent from liberal, leftist urbanites who did STEM degrees and did all the things right, because they still can't buy a house or really do anything or have kids. The few of us in the Professions who believe "I Got Mine, I'm Fine" are as disconnected as ever from how others are feeling. An over-supply of labour is contributing to big declines in real wages because it rebalances towards those in power. But just as we saw the government giving benefits to people during COVID, I don't see why we can't apply the same to old age benefits without needing to downgrade the living standards for everyone already here. 

For what its worth, I come from a refugee/immigrant background and not opposed to it necessarily.  I am generally quite progressive and a deep believer in assimilationism. But I despise the common trope that dismisses any anti-immigration views as xenophobic or bigoted. And I really mean this when I say that Canada is failing to integrate immigrants properly. I mean, I've lived for months at a time in parts of the Deep South going through immigration for the first time, and also have friends/colleagues from Europe going through sharp rises in xenophobia due to failed integration.

In Canada if you go to a city overwhelmingly composed of immigrants from 2-3 sources, its easy to see just how much social segregation there is. Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. Part of it is since US policy doesn't favor creating ethnic enclaves and self-segregation the same way Canada does. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Rashabon]

You really need to fuck off.

[ZineZ]

19 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

In Canada if you go to a city overwhelmingly composed of immigrants from 2-3 sources, its easy to see just how much social segregation there is. Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. Part of it is since US policy doesn't favor creating ethnic enclaves and self-segregation the same way Canada does. 

Yikes. 

[TheCryptozoologist]

14 minutes ago, ZineZ said:

Yikes. 

This sounds controversial, but I talk about this topic with a fairly diverse group of friends I travelled with who've experienced both sides of the border. Studies have shown concentrating people from specific backgrounds in just one area weakens assimilation, and in turn undermines things like labor market participation. Spreading them out encourages assimilation on the other hand. And it makes sense e.g. new housing policies in Denmark which reverses the previous policy of just housing people from the same immigrant group with each other. In Canada its easy to see language groups concentrating in just one area as opposed to the city broadly. 

Another hidden thing is American nationalism arguably is very drummed up in their culture, but I think we can adopt more pro-active strategies even if it flies in the face of our "mosaic" cultures ethos. I think this is honestly achievable without compromising on First Nations and French Canadian cultural and language rights. 

EDIT: Since this is very off-topic I will also stop responding to this thread. Goodluck everyone, I guess! 

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Darth Vader]

36 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

For what its worth, I come from a refugee/immigrant background and not opposed to it necessarily.  I am generally quite progressive and a deep believer in assimilationism. But I despise the common trope that dismisses any anti-immigration views as xenophobic or bigoted. And I really mean this when I say that Canada is failing to integrate immigrants properly. I mean, I've lived for months at a time in parts of the Deep South going through immigration for the first time, and also have friends/colleagues from Europe going through sharp rises in xenophobia due to failed integration.

In Canada if you go to a city overwhelmingly composed of immigrants from 2-3 sources, its easy to see just how much social segregation there is. Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. Part of it is since US policy doesn't favor creating ethnic enclaves and self-segregation the same way Canada does. 

Lol, dude. What the hell are you talking about? Have you been watching the news? Why are Black people being gunned down in the streets if everyone "just becomes American even in the isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation." I have BIPOC friends that lived in Canada and the US that tell me they would be afraid to walk around in these rural parts in America and Texas. No one is going to be afraid walking around Sudbury. You have a deep belief in assimilationism? What about the residential school system then? God, thankfully you were not born in a time when you could have caused real harm to society. 

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, Darth Vader said:

Lol, dude. What the hell are you talking about? Have you been watching the news? Why are Black people being gunned down in the streets if everyone "just becomes American even in the isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation." I have BIPOC friends that lived in Canada and the US that tell me they would be afraid to walk around in these rural parts in America and Texas. No one is going to be afraid walking around Sudbury. You have a deep belief in assimilationism? What about the residential school system then? God, thankfully you were not born in a time when you could have caused real harm to society. 

To be fair, the legacy of slavery of African-Americans and forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples in Canada are really whole different cans of worms raising their own issues apart from discussion of how to integrate recent immigrants.

[TheCryptozoologist]

6 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

Lol, dude. What the hell are you talking about? Have you been watching the news? Why are Black people being gunned down in the streets if everyone "just becomes American even in the isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation." I have BIPOC friends that lived in Canada and the US that tell me they would be afraid to walk around in these rural parts in America and Texas. No one is going to be afraid walking around Sudbury. You have a deep belief in assimilationism? What about the residential school system then? God, thankfully you were not born in a time when you could have caused real harm to society. 

Very different topic, but American police brutality and racism are still big problems that need to be fixed. We don't have this problem to that extent here thank god. I am talking specifically about integration into American culture and identity from source countries, which America does well e.g. the way they integrate all of its different immigrant groups in the past.

I use to date a black/mixed girl from a small town in the South who would describe the weirdly harmonious ways in which blacks and whites would be quite integrated and neighborly. Of course there is ever-present racism, and its a social dynamic that I simply will not understand. Cultural attitudes and everything else e.g. towards religion and other things isn't different between the groups.

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[CleanHands]

2 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Very different topic, but American police brutality and racism are still big problems that need to be fixed. We don't have this problem here thank god.

This is representative of a terrible attitude of smugness and complacency in Canada about police misconduct and lack of accountability which is actually quite pervasive here as well. We definitely have those problems (just of course not in a completely equivalent way to the States).

EDIT - Okay, you caught yourself and edited the post. lol

Edited September 7, 2021 by CleanHands

[Thrive92]

Although I disagree with just about everything you state in this thread @TheCryptozoologist, I am at least glad that you are willing to speak out your opinions in regards to a matter that is unpopular by a large margin by the rest of the society. It is always difficult to say publicly of unpopular opinions, especially if your unpopular opinions are factually incorrect and supportive of hate and far - right/left ideology.

Having your personal opinions be heard is an integral part of a healthy democratic society, even if the personal opinion ironically promotes censorship and denunciation of free speech.

Now, onto your opinions that you try to front as facts:

33 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Nowadays we are seeing the most jaded generation and the making of a splintered society and immigration competing against Canadian-trained employees in all areas. For example engineering, medicine and computer science is seeing constant immigration since a permanent resident rarely speaks out

Definitely not true, not in all areas. I do not know much about computer science, but in engineering there is no way that a foreign - trained engineer is able to be hired that simply by Canadian employers. The certifications that they must achieve alone hinder most of those who have the potential to practice engineering here, as well as the employers who would rather hire a local with no headaches about visa issues and related paperwork. I am only assume pharmacy and MD is the same.

 

38 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

If we want to understand the right-wing revolts that swept Brexit and Trump enablers into power, we need to understand that people want to believe they have a role and stake in this system. If we outsource every job, or give it to visa holders who will do it for cheap its just a recipe for far-right views to grow. 

Examining how fear and insecurity plays major roles in right - wing revolts, Brexit and Trump's rise to power is what is needed in order to understand these topics. Ironically, some of those who were staunch supporters of Brexit, like those in the fishing industry, are now regretting their decisions as they thought that Brexit would mean that all of the British waters would then be exclusively reserved for British fishermen/women, which was not even close to being true. It's insecurities like that that incite these radical decisions that does nothing more than harm.

Again, we are not outsourcing every job, nor are we giving every job to visa holders -- not even close. The fact that those in the far - right are pushing these untrue narratives into people who may have lost or are insecure about their jobs shows exactly how fear plays a critical role in promoting radical sociopolitical views. This is a similar tactic used by the KKK in the US -- they would focus on towns that heavily relied on one declining sector of industry or commerce (like a coal - town), and encourage them to take the view that overseas cheap sources of energy or other substitutes have led them to this situation.

I still remember when Trump mentioned how he was looking into making iphones and other apple products in the United States, only for the story to be never mentioned again later on in his presidency. It's fearmongering of false beliefs like you harbor that cause these revolts.

48 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

 I am generally quite progressive and a deep believer in assimilationism.

This makes no sense.

48 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

In Canada if you go to a city overwhelmingly composed of immigrants from 2-3 sources, its easy to see just how much social segregation there is. Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. Part of it is since US policy doesn't favor creating ethnic enclaves and self-segregation the same way Canada does. 

It's because America's perspective on immigrants is for them to assimilate into American culture; aka "the boiling pot". This is why even the white French nations and their American descendants who were fluent in French in Louisiana were discouraged from using their native tongue as it is not "american".

The Canadians specifically do not want this -- we are actively opposed to this form of "assimilation", and promote separate but equal cultural perspective for immigrants. aka "the cultural mosaic". So it is not that we are trying to assimilate immigrants and failing, its that we are literally avoiding that approach altogether.

If you do not like this, then it is not the responsibility of the state to cater to your views that are pretty much on the fringe (or at the very most, a minority).

55 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

For what its worth, I come from a refugee/immigrant background and not opposed to it necessarily.  

 

23 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I talk about this topic with a fairly diverse group of friends I travelled with who've experienced both sides of the border

 

10 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I use to date a black/mixed girl from a small town in the South who would describe the weirdly harmonious ways in which blacks and whites would be quite integrated and neighborly.

I am genuinely curious when I ask you this, but what is it with those who are anti - immigration having this incessant need to sprinkle the topic with people that you know who are BIPOC/immigrants/refugees?

Do you think that provides more validity or assurance for your side of the argument? I'm really curious and not trying to be insulting

[Thrive92]

31 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

EDIT: Since this is very off-topic I will also stop responding to this thread. Goodluck everyone, I guess! 

Don't go now man. Not when just about every single point you have mentioned are being fact checked as being incorrect and false!

[ZineZ]

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

This sounds controversial, but I talk about this topic with a fairly diverse group of friends I travelled with who've experienced both sides of the border. Studies have shown concentrating people from specific backgrounds in just one area weakens assimilation, and in turn undermines things like labor market participation. Spreading them out encourages assimilation on the other hand. And it makes sense e.g. new housing policies in Denmark which reverses the previous policy of just housing people from the same immigrant group with each other. In Canada its easy to see language groups concentrating in just one area as opposed to the city broadly. 

Another hidden thing is American nationalism arguably is very drummed up in their culture, but I think we can adopt more pro-active strategies even if it flies in the face of our "mosaic" cultures ethos. I think this is honestly achievable without compromising on First Nations and French Canadian cultural and language rights. 

EDIT: Since this is very off-topic I will also stop responding to this thread. Goodluck everyone, I guess! 

It's not about whether it sounds controversial, but about how incorrect some of your assumptions are.

Before I even delve into the rest of it, just a reminder that these "ethnic enclaves" have existed in both the United States and Canada for as long as any of us can remember. There's a reason why we have areas of Toronto which are referred to as "Little Portugal, Little Italy, Chinatown" etc. And the same exists in the United States - including in major cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Boston. This idea of a situation where language areas are just "broadly dispersed" isn't historically accurate and also isn't practical. You're ignoring realities including needing adequate support (from the community, from family members and from government services), rent pricing, and the needs of the specific group (religious sites, grocery stores etc). The idea that a new immigrant will just randomly end up in Cabbagetown isn't realistic. 

On another note, this conversation is also bizarre when you consider how diverse most downtown communities are in major cities. Are you suggesting that more non-POCs need to move to Brampton? 

That being said, I'm going to spend time on a few things you've said in particular:

3 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Nowadays we are seeing the most jaded generation and the making of a splintered society and immigration competing against Canadian-trained employees in all areas. For example engineering, medicine and computer science is seeing constant immigration since a permanent resident rarely speaks out. 

This is fascinating set of professions to choose as study after study has shown that we still have a critical shortage in medicine, a historical (and continuing) shortage in engineering and an ongoing shortage generally in the number of people in tech. Perhaps the reason a "permanent resident rarely speaks out" is related to the fact that there is still ample demand for their services. If you're arguing that we need to encourage more Canadian born folks into these professions, sure - but find better examples instead. 

 

3 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. 

Studies have shown that immigrants will have strong ties with Canada, in some ways more than non-immigrants:

Quote

For every national symbol, immigrants were more likely than non-immigrants to believe that they were very important to the national identity. The difference in the appreciation of national symbols was greatest for the national anthem, where 75% of immigrants viewed it as very important, compared to 61% of non-immigrants. Despite the difference, the Charter and flag were considered the leading national symbols by both immigrants and non-immigrants.   

Quote

Similar to immigrants’ perception of national symbols and shared values, feelings of pride were heightened among immigrants. Not only were immigrants more likely to say they were very proud to be Canadian (64% versus 60%),Note13 they were more likely to express pride in most Canadian achievements. The greatest differences in specific achievements related to pride in Canadian economic achievements, treatment of all groups in society, the social security system and the way democracy works. In all these areas, the proportion of immigrants feeling proud or very proud was at least 16 percentage points higher than the proportion of non-immigrants.

Would you like to come up with a policy plan to bolster feelings of pride amongst non-immigrants? 

 

3 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

 If we outsource every job, or give it to visa holders who will do it for cheap its just a recipe for far-right views to grow. 

Outsourcing is an entirely different conversation. But the idea that "visa holders will do it for cheap" is also debatable as we've seen during COVID that many of the positions done by immigrants are ones that Canadian born folks won't take up.  I've used agriculture as an example, but this is an ongoing issue throughout Canadian industry. it isn't necessarily tied to immigration - but in some cases around whether we're actually educating students about where shortages lie. 

 

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Spreading them out encourages assimilation on the other hand.

I've already discussed this above, but I'm also curious about how you "spread them out". You're espousing a lot of opinions that bring up deep and unanswered policy questions in terms of actual practicality.  Especially when other studies have discussed how POC networks can help people find employment opportunities.

 

 

 

 

[Pantalaimon]

Engineering has a very similar foreign credential problem to law. Most of the foreign-educated engineers that I worked with chose to re-do the engineering equivalent of articling (except for engineers it's four years long) rather than deal with the engineering version of NCAs.

[spacecadet]

7 hours ago, Diplock said:

I believe you'll do well. And if you need to call in a favor here, feel free to.

Thank you for your kind words, and I may take you up on that offer! I generally enjoy talking to lawyers with different backgrounds, and that's probably all that I'd ask of you.

8 hours ago, Diplock said:

I'll add, if we're talking about legal culture from South Asia, that the little I know or have learned includes this point we haven't discussed yet. Similar to the U.S., there are few brakes on entry to the profession, meaning there's a lot of competition at the bottom of the legal market. Nearer the top, the genuinely good and successful lawyers will be broadly similar in their circumstances to our own marketplace. But nearer the bottom, you have U.S.-style scrambling for subsistence level legal work, plus South Asian culture weighing in, plus the fact that those low-on-the-totem-pole lawyers are working for low-on-the-totem-pole clients in countries where the divide between rich and poor is stark. I mean, maybe I've read too much Rohinton Mistry, but I imagine what it's like to serve poor and unsophisticated clients in Canada (which I do) and then I add what I know about India, Pakistan, etc. and I end up with a picture that seems incredibly difficult.

 

Your assessment of the South Asian legal market is accurate as far as India is concerned. I cannot speak for other South Asian countries, and there's a stark difference between India and some of our neighbours. We have it a lot better in India.

Also, consider the fact that many Canadians do not have adequate access to justice and yet there are newly minted lawyers who are unable to find work that they like. This is a nuanced and complex issue, and I would not necessarily conclude that having lawyers at the bottom of the totem pole necessarily increases the quality of the justice system overall. But I query if the poor are better off with some representation, or are they better left unrepresented? At a minimum, an ill-trained lawyer can still stand up for you in court and voice your issues which many underprivileged folks cannot do by themselves.

8 hours ago, Diplock said:

I've also heard law is not a well-respected profession there, likely because of the bottom of the marketplace examples, raised above. Successful lawyers are successful, of course. But you also see lawyers (I've heard) setting up shop literally on the stairs of the courthouse and serving anyone who they can serve. Doesn't create the impression of a profession you're as eager to see your children follow.

 

That's not the entire picture though. We've had a reform in legal education over the last few decades with the introduction of National Law Schools and 5-year integrated programs in India. There are private universities like Jindal and Christ who are doing an equally good job. They provide excellent legal training, and many of these grads end up working at Indian firms that look and function like any other Bay Street firm (for instance, Amarchand, Khaitan and Trilegal are some excellent Big Law type firms in India). A lot of them also work for QCs who have some of the poshest offices here. An Indian Senior Advocate (QC) can earn more than a UK QC, with many raking in CAD 3,000-12,000 a day. Adjusted for purchasing power parity, many senior Indian lawyers make closer to CAD 9,000-36,000 a day! That's A LOT of money to run an office and pay juniors. 

Many well-educated individuals are keen to enter the profession in India, and a career in law in India can be as prestigious and rewarding as being a lawyer in the UK or Canada. I should add that being moderately successful as a lawyer is equally hard in both countries. Like some Bay Street lawyers, I'd probably advise my nieces or nephews to get an MBA instead because the profession overall can feel thankless and unfair even at the highest levels.

Keep in mind that India is a massive country with a stark divide between the rich and poor. And yes, many lawyers set up shop in any nook or corner and try and solicit work by hanging around a court complex. But that's not what well-educated middle-class grads will end up doing. The poor and rich have different experiences with the justice system and therefore view the profession differently. You sum it up perfectly when you say that a "lawyer from India can mean a much wider range of things than a lawyer from Canada is likely to mean." Though I must add that lawyers at the bottom of the totem pole in India are very unlikely to make it to Canada. Most of us have a reasonably good education and are just looking to work in a more advanced country. 

[spacecadet]

5 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I still don't see your point when living standards for millenials and younger people have already started collapsing. I see pretty widespread discontent from liberal, leftist urbanites who did STEM degrees and did all the things right, because they still can't buy a house or really do anything or have kids. The few of us in the Professions who believe "I Got Mine, I'm Fine" are as disconnected as ever from how others are feeling. An over-supply of labour is contributing to big declines in real wages because it rebalances towards those in power. But just as we saw the government giving benefits to people during COVID, I don't see why we can't apply the same to old age benefits without needing to downgrade the living standards for everyone already here. 

 

Your point about rising costs without a proportional increase in wages is a reality for many countries, and we've seen the same thing happen in India. But I fail to understand how and why that should completely override Canada's immigration policy. Demographics is the best and most reliable predictor of economic growth, and Canada needs young immigrants to pay for all the social programs you have in place. Just look at Japan's decline in recent years to see what a closed-door immigration policy and a perfect mono-culture with an ageing population will do to an economy. Your government isn't doing this for fun. Policies are often about balancing competing interests, and while you offer critiques, you do not provide any alternatives or solutions that address Canada's ageing population. 

To be fair, you did mention one option: funding healthcare through infinite money printing and inflation. I don't think I need to explain why that sounds like a terrible idea. You speak as if policymakers haven't considered a broad range of options before making a decision. You'll need a bit more evidence to argue that there are other feasible alternatives to immigration for Canada. And while I'm no economist, the consensus seems to be that immigration is vital for solving this problem. I hope my point is clear since this presumption underlies most of what I've said. If we disagree on this issue, then we will tend to disagree on anything else that follows. Let's clear this up, shall we? 

5 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

In Canada if you go to a city overwhelmingly composed of immigrants from 2-3 sources, its easy to see just how much social segregation there is. Its different from the American experience where everyone just becomes American even in the most isolated parts, and with common values and belief in the nation. Part of it is since US policy doesn't favor creating ethnic enclaves and self-segregation the same way Canada does. 

The debate between multiculturalism and the melting-pot is interesting, and I don't think we have any reasonable way to ascertain what will be better in the long run. Both are unique social experiments with downstream effects that will take decades to manifest.

To me, Canada's model is very promising. We've got overarching ideas that bring everyone together (the Charter, for instance) while allowing individuals to hold on to their culture. My personal view is that Charter values should trump any cultural dictates, and most Indo-Canadians would likely subscribe to this view. They did not come this far to live in a regressive society.

That being said, celebrating differences and allowing people to cluster in geographic "enclaves" organically could even act as a pressure valve. I follow a few "Indians in Canada" type YouTube channels, and all of them seem to appreciate Canadian values, and they invariably go out of their way to educate viewers. They also love going to a specific part of the city to eat Indian food, meet folks who speak their language or celebrate a festival.

In any event, citing the American melting-pot model as an ideal is disingenuous. The US is literally the most polarized and divided country on earth. Right-wing nationalism is on the rise in many parts of the world, including India, where we do not see much immigration. IMHO, immigrants are just a convenient scapegoat for larger structural problems that governments are struggling to address. Sure, I'd be concerned if immigrants were trying to impose Sharia law as some did in Europe. But that's not what is happening in Canada. If your definition of "assimilation" means that Indo-Canadians need to eat bland food, then it's never going to happen. And how do you expect people to assimilate if you want to exclude immigrants from practising law? Do you seriously think that educated South-Asians will move to another continent and strip themselves of their identity only to drive a truck?

Comparing Canadian multiculturalism to US-type "segregation" is also disingenuous and conveniently ignores both nations' history and current reality.

Edited September 7, 2021 by spacecadet

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 hours ago, ZineZ said:

The idea that a new immigrant will just randomly end up in Cabbagetown isn't realistic. 

Ironically, Cabbagetown was named for the Irish immigrants that populated the area in the 1840s, who were said to be so poor that they grew cabbage in their front yards. 

You’re hard pressed to find any areas of Toronto that aren’t intricately linked with the specific immigrant groups that populated them. In addition to the ones you’ve mentioned, Roncy has the Poles, the Junction has the Irish (followed closely by many of the other non-English speaking immigrants), the Danforth is obviously Greek. 

The question tends to be more about how recent the immigration occurred than whether or not it did. 

And the areas that wouldn’t be called “ethnic enclaves” are really just affluent white enclaves. Leaside, for example, started as a model town for largely affluent whites. And who can forget all the restrictive covenants designed to keep immigrants out of areas like the Annex.

The idea that immigrants have, until recently, spread themselves around the city and not settled into distinct neighbourhoods is obviously false, in both the US and Canada. The difference is that now the immigrants have different skin tones, and that makes some people uncomfortable. 

[spacecadet]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:21 AM, goonersfc said:

Not just years of experience, but most of them get a master's degree as a source furthering their stay in the country (I think we all know the way in which Osgoode has been dishing out their 'OsgoodePD' LLMs left, right and centre). 

But isn't that precisely what ITLs need to "assimilate" with Canadian legal culture? I've heard that Osgoode does a fair bit to prepare ITLs for the Canadian legal market. And obviously, the usual Canadian Common Law LLMs that most ITLs take will not be as valued as other LLM programs. Bay Street firms are aware of this reality.

Also, the Osgoode LLMs are not the only immigration route for lawyers. There are plenty of ways to make that happen under the current point score immigration system.

Edited September 7, 2021 by spacecadet

[goonersfc]

On 9/7/2021 at 3:07 AM, spacecadet said:

But isn't that precisely what ITLs need to "assimilate" with Canadian legal culture?

I never said anything about the need for foreign lawyers to "assimilate" in the local legal culture. If you ask me, if you have a few years of work experience in a common law country law firm, you are (in fact) at an advantaged position. Others have clearly disagreed, though.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 3:07 AM, spacecadet said:

I've heard that Osgoode does a fair bit to prepare ITLs for the Canadian legal market.

My impressions of Osgoode's PD courses and programs are based on my experience of working as a TA for an Osgoode prof. There is a huge difference in Osgoode and OsgoodePD- and everyone knows this- including the professors and the administration. The prof I worked for did everything 'to get out of' taking the weekly class for OsgoodePD, but couldn't. And I am not sure if you have have made this comments had you been at the campus, even once or twice. LLM folks don't have access to the our CDO, which they are almost always complaining about.    

 

On 9/7/2021 at 3:07 AM, spacecadet said:

There are plenty of ways to make that happen under the current point score immigration system.

The way I see it, having and not having a master's degree from Canadian institution makes a difference of 30 points in your Skilled Immigrants PR program, which seems substantial.

[PalomaBlanca]

On 9/7/2021 at 3:07 AM, spacecadet said:

 I've heard that Osgoode does a fair bit to prepare ITLs for the Canadian legal market. 

From what I've heard, there's very little that law schools can do for ITL legal careers, despite their best intentions. The formal recruit that is supposed to eventually land you an associate position is structured to facilitate a smooth transition from school to job for JD students, and it starts as early as summer positions for 1L. Articling students are frequently hired a year in advance and mainly from their positions as 2L summer students. As a result, it is not accurate that the CDO or the LLM administration can do very much to "prepare" ITLs to enter the Canadian legal market. ITLs doing LLMs are on entirely different timelines than their JD counterparts: they are in a 1-year program and literally ready to write the bar as soon as they finish their coursework. It does not make much sense for them to invest in 1L and 2L positions and to sit and wait around a year for articling to commence.

[Pantalaimon]

Isn't there an NCA specific recruit in Ontario?

Regardless, there's more to the legal market than firms that participate in the recruit. CDOs could absolutely do more for ITLs if they cared to.

[spacecadet]

On 9/9/2021 at 9:26 PM, goonersfc said:

I never said anything about the need for foreign lawyers to "assimilate" in the local legal culture. If you ask me, if you have a few years of work experience in a common law country law firm, you are (in fact) at an advantaged position. Others have clearly disagreed, though.

My impressions of Osgoode's PD courses and programs are based on my experience of working as a TA for an Osgoode prof. There is a huge difference in Osgoode and OsgoodePD- and everyone knows this- including the professors and the administration. The prof I worked for did everything 'to get out of' taking the weekly class for OsgoodePD, but couldn't. And I am not sure if you have have made this comments had you been at the campus, even once or twice. LLM folks don't have access to the our CDO, which they are almost always complaining about.

The way I see it, having and not having a master's degree from Canadian institution makes a difference of 30 points in your Skilled Immigrants PR program, which seems substantial.

They disagreed for good reason because firms don't care about your foreign work-ex except in exceptional cases. I can vouch for that based on my research and conversations with ITLs. Many small to mid-size firms expressly ask for Canadian work-ex and degrees in job listings. I've seen a wide variety of ITLs (both with and without work-ex) getting OCIs ƒrom Bay Street firms. Ultimately these firms will only hire one or maybe two ITLs. 

OsgoodePD does help ITLs with resumes, cover letters, and the OCI process. Also, there is a difference between the full-time OsgoodePD LLMs (Canadian Common Law/International Business Law) that most ITLs take and the many part-time specialized LLMs geared towards practising Canadian lawyers.

While an LLM does add 30 points, three years of legal work-ex is enough to apply for permanent residence (as I did).

I get why you're stressed, but I think you're overstating the impact ITLs can make on the market (which I understand is already saturated). Immigration probably adds the same number of lawyers that another law school in Toronto would. And I know that many were/are opposed to new law schools opening up in Toronto. But you also need to factor in that both liberals and conservatives subscribe to an economic immigration policy. That article you cited only referred to increasing the number of new immigrants invited each year, not scrapping economic immigration.

You've got nothing to worry about if you're Bay Street material. I'll concede that foreign work-ex could make a difference for non-Bay Street firms in some cases, but that's still an exception.

On 9/10/2021 at 11:21 PM, Pantalaimon said:

Isn't there an NCA specific recruit in Ontario?

The ITLNCA Network functions like a Canadian law school CDO and coordinates the OCI process for ITLs. You can find more information here: https://itln.ca

On 9/7/2021 at 10:54 AM, spacecadet said:

Though I must add that lawyers at the bottom of the totem pole in India are very unlikely to make it to Canada. Most of us have a reasonably good education and are just looking to work in a more advanced country. 

I'll add a bit of nuance to my previous post. The competency of Indian ITLs will probably vary more than Canadian-trained lawyers and law students. There are a few reasons for this. First, the barriers to entering the legal profession in India are relatively low (like the US). Second, lawyers doing well in India are less likely to consider moving to another country where they will most likely start from scratch. You would probably see more high-calibre lawyers migrating if Canadian firms recognized their work-ex. Some of India's best lawyers have worked or studied abroad for a bit but came back to make the most of the home turf advantage. You have that advantage. 

ITLs probably add more competition at the very bottom of the "totem pole" than at the top. And if you're competing at the bottom, it is up to each individual to upskill and stand out. That's why you mostly hear blue-collar workers and not brain surgeons complaining about immigrants taking their jobs.