National Post (National Edition)
Level the playing f ield for educated immigrants
If you've spent any time in taxis, you've probably met the proverbial over-educated but underemployed immigrant: the lawyer or doctor toiling away as a cab driver because he's been unable to qualify as a professional here. Canada admits these immigrants into the country — in large part on the strength of their credentials. To what extent does it then owe them help in landing professional jobs when they arrive?
For fairly obvious reasons, the government can't guarantee educated immigrants jobs in their occupation of training; it can't even offer this to Canadians educated here. But surely it does owe them a level playing field — that is, a process for becoming licensed and employed that's roughly comparable to the one Canadian-educated professionals face. Foreigners shouldn't be penalized because their credentials are foreign.
I recently completed a report exploring the barriers foreign lawyers face entering Canada's legal profession, which was commissioned by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and Centre for International Governance Innovation. Based on my research, including interviews with foreign lawyers, immigration officials, regulators and employers, it is clear that Canadianand foreign-educated lawyers are not currently operating on a level playing field. While both groups must complete equivalent educational, exam, and experiential requirements, foreign lawyers must fulfil these requirements in circumstances that make it significantly more difficult to succeed.
And very few do succeed. Consider the table below, which reflects the findings of a 2010 Statistics Canada study of 2006 census data that evaluated how well individuals “matched” to their occupations of training. Canadian-educated lawyers are far more likely to practice as lawyers than foreign lawyers: 69 per cent matched to legal jobs versus only 12 per cent of foreign ones. (This low rate crept up only slightly — to 13.3 per cent nationally — in a 2014 study that replicated the 2010 study's methodology using 2011 National Household Survey data.)
Admittedly, some of these foreign lawyers may not match to legal jobs for reasons of aptitude. We know that many foreigneducated lawyers are Canadians who go abroad — usually to the U.K., U.S., or Australia — for law school. At least some were likely unable to get into Canadian law schools, and, by extension, may struggle to pass Canadian licensing requirements when they return. There's nothing wrong with these individuals not practicing here: Canada's legal profession has no obligation to dilute its standards to match lower ones elsewhere.
But there's good reason to believe many foreign lawyers are not becoming lawyers in Canada for reasons of circumstance, rather than ability. They face numerous barriers that Canadian-educated lawyers do not.
To name some key ones: foreign-educated lawyers face an uncertain and lengthy licensure timeline (it can take several years, if not longer, to complete the licensing process—particularly for individuals from civil law jurisdictions.) They don't have access to generous student loans, so they're often working fulltime while studying (which affects exam pass rates). They're frequently studying without support from professors or peers. They're generally not eligible to participate in job “fairs,” which facilitate Canadian lawyers' entry into the profession. And they often lack the learned mannerisms that are critical for finding employment. Any one such barrier — and these are only some — may not be insurmountable. But taken together, they can frustrate competent foreign lawyers' efforts to practice here.
This is a problem, both for reasons of fairness and lost opportunity. Canada loses out when its human capital is under-utilized. We need workers to fill low-skill jobs — like driving cabs — but we don't want high-skilled workers in these jobs when they can add more value elsewhere. Canada is also foregoing an opportunity to address its “access to justice” problem (i.e. where “ordinary” Canadians can't afford lawyers). If the supply of lawyers rose, their fees should fall, making legal services more affordable.
Fortunately, many barriers can be addressed. Immigration officials and regulators should inform immigrants of the professional — and especially language — requirements they'll need to meet, and should help them fulfil as many as possible before immigrating. They should also provide detailed labour market reports, to help immigrants make informed decisions about where to settle to maximize their odds of finding professional employment.
Governments should offer micro-loans to enable eligible foreign professionals to move quickly through the licensing process. The $5,000 bursaries available through Ontario's Bridging Participant Assistance Program is one example, although loans shouldn't be arbitrarily capped at $5,000. Financing should rather be scalable to the aggregate costs of licensure for a profession.
Law societies should offer alternatives to articling (the experiential requirement all law graduates must complete). Ontario's relatively new Law Practice Program, for instance, ensures foreign lawyers can fulfil this requirement even if they can't line up articling jobs. Other provinces should create similar programs, or partner with Ontario's LPP to offer theirs through one institution.
And provinces should follow Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia's lead and create fairness commissioners — agencies mandated to narrow gaps in licensing outcomes between Canadianand foreign-trained professionals.
Canada goes to great lengths to admit educated immigrants. This is great, but would be much more laudable if it also created the conditions for these individuals to work as professionals when they arrive.