Immigration Is National, but Integration Is Local

In Canada, immigration is often framed as a federal and provincial policy issue. The federal government sets annual immigration targets and admission requirements, while provinces share immigration selection powers by nominating candidates through Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). However, once newcomers arrive in Canada, integration does not happen automatically through federal or provincial policy. It takes shape in everyday local settings: cities, neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools, libraries, community centres, and transit systems. Yet because municipalities and local institutions have limited formal authority over immigration, they are not typically designed or resourced to coordinate newcomer integration. This is why Local Immigration Partnerships, or LIPs, play an essential role.

LIPs are sometimes difficult to explain because they are not direct service providers. Instead, they work in the space between organizations. They bring service providers, local governments, employers, educational institutions, and community groups into conversation. Their role is less about serving one client at a time and more about helping the local settlement system understand itself. That role is easy to underestimate. Coordination often looks less concrete than direct service delivery. A service map, a needs assessment, a partner dialogue, or a community consultation may not appear as urgent as helping a newcomer prepare a resume or apply for a job, but without this behind-the-scenes coordination, local systems can become even more fragmented. Organizations may duplicate work, miss emerging needs, or respond to newcomer challenges in isolation.

My research compared LIPs in Surrey and Vancouver, with a focus on their way of operation. The comparison showed that LIPs in Canada do not operate in a uniform way. They may share a broad mandate, but their work is shaped by local context, institutional history, and the needs of their communities.

Surrey LIP operates as what I describe as a pragmatic coordinator. Its work emphasizes service mapping, partner engagement, needs assessments, and practical information-sharing. Surrey is one of British Columbia’s rapid population-growing settlement destinations for newcomers and, notably, received more than half of the Syrian refugees who arrived in the province. This makes settlement service needs both urgent and significant. This is where Surrey LIP’s contribution is particularly important. By coordinating local knowledge and available resources, Surrey LIP helps community partners understand what is happening on the ground: who is arriving, what barriers newcomers face, where service gaps exist, and how organizations can respond more effectively. This work is not highly visible to the public, but it is fundamental to more effective coordination and responsive reactions to settlement needs.

Vancouver LIP operates through a different but equally important coordination logic, which I describe as “Public awareness facilitator”. Compared with Surrey LIP’s emphasis on local research, service mapping, and practical knowledge-sharing, Vancouver LIP places greater emphasis on public-facing engagement, consultation, and equity-oriented dialogue. Its work connects newcomer integration with broader local conversations about inclusion, anti-racism, gender equity, Francophone inclusion, and belonging. This does not mean that Vancouver LIP is less concerned with coordination. Rather, its coordination work is expressed through convening, agenda-setting, and the construction of shared priorities among local actors.

The different operational models of Surrey LIP and Vancouver LIP suggest that LIPs do not simply implement a federal program in a uniform way. Instead, they interpret and adapt the federal-level LIP model according to local context. In Surrey, rapid population growth and the urgent demand for settlement services make a pragmatic coordination model particularly effective. Surrey LIP’s emphasis on local service mapping, needs assessment, and practical knowledge-sharing responds directly to a city where service needs are imminent and where community partners require timely information to engage in. Vancouver’s context leads to a different emphasis. The city has a longer institutional history of newcomer support, a more complex newcomer profile, and higher media and international visibility. These conditions make public-facing engagement, equity framing, and awareness-building especially relevant to Vancouver LIP’s work. The contrast shows that LIPs are not passive extensions of federal policy. They are local interpreters of a national program, translating broad settlement objectives into coordination strategies that make sense in specific urban contexts.

If Canada wants immigration policy to succeed, local coordination cannot be treated as an afterthought. Federal targets may determine how many newcomers arrive, and provincial nominee programs may influence where they settle, but the quality of integration depends heavily on what happens after arrival. This requires local actors to understand changing community needs, share knowledge, coordinate resources, and build collective responses. The Surrey and Vancouver cases show that LIPs are important precisely because they translate broad federal settlement goals into locally meaningful action. Their authority may be limited, but their coordinating role is essential. Without this local layer, immigration policy risks remaining a national framework disconnected from the everyday realities of settlement.

The full research paper provides a more detailed discussion of the comparative analysis, including the local contexts of Surrey and Vancouver, the operational models identified in the study, and their implications for newcomer settlement coordination. The full text is available here: https://summit.sfu.ca/item/40521

Tianyu Zhu is a policy researcher specializing in immigration governance, newcomer integration, and local public administration. He holds graduate degrees from Simon Fraser University and Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. His recent work studies how cross-sector collaboration supports newcomer employment and settlement outcomes. Prior to that, Tianyu worked in public affairs and government relations consulting, supporting policy analysis and stakeholder engagement. His broader interests include immigration policy, urban governance, and intergovernmental relations.