Language planning and education of adult immigrants in Canada: Contrasting the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, and the cities of Montreal and Vancouver

Abstract

Combining policy analysis with language policy and planning analysis, our article comparatively assesses two models of adult immigrants' language education in two very different provinces of the same federal country. In order to do so, we focus specifically on two questions: ' Why
do governments provide language education to adults?' and ' How is it provided in the concrete setting of two of the biggest cities in Canada?' Beyond describing the two models of adult immigrants' language education in Quebec, British Columbia, and their respective largest cities, our
article ponders whether and in what sense demography, language history, and the common federal framework can explain the similarities and differences between the two. These contextual elements can explain why cities continue to have so few responsibilities regarding the settlement, integration,
and language education of newcomers. Only such understanding will eventually allow for proper reforms in terms of cities' responsibilities regarding immigration.

Full text

London Review of Education DOI:10.18546/LRE.14.2.10
Volume14,Number2,September2016
Language planning and education of adult immigrants in
Canada: Contrasting the provinces of Quebec and British
Columbia, and the cities of Montreal and Vancouver
CatherineEllyson
Bem & Co.
CarolineAndrewandRichardClément*
University of Ottawa
Combiningpolicyanalysiswithlanguagepolicyandplanninganalysis,ourarticlecomparatively
assessestwomodelsofadultimmigrants’languageeducationintwoverydifferentprovinces
ofthesamefederalcountry.Inordertodoso,wefocusspecicallyontwoquestions:‘Whydo
governmentsprovidelanguageeducationtoadults?’and‘Howisitprovidedin theconcrete
settingoftwoof the biggest cities in Canada?’Beyonddescribingthe two models ofadult
immigrants’ language education in Quebec, British Columbia, and their respective largest
cities,ourarticleponderswhetherandinwhatsensedemography,languagehistory,andthe
commonfederalframeworkcanexplainthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwo.These
contextualelementscanexplainwhycitiescontinuetohavesofewresponsibilitiesregarding
thesettlement,integration,andlanguageeducationofnewcomers.Onlysuchunderstandingwill
eventuallyallowforproperreformsintermsofcities’responsibilitiesregardingimmigration.
Keywords: multilingualcities;multiculturalism;adulteducation;immigration;languagelaws
Introduction
Canada is a very large country with much variation between provinces and cities in many
dimensions.Onesuchaspect,whichremainsacurrenthottopicfordemographicandhistorical
reasons, is language;morespecically,whyand how language planning and policyareenacted
throughoutthecountry.WhereastheprovinceofQuebecanditsmostimportantcity–Montreal
–hasFrenchastheonlyofciallanguage,thefederalgovernmenthasbothEnglishandFrench,
andmostprovincesandcitieshaveEnglishastheironlyofciallanguage.Furthermore,21.3per
centofCanadians,78.1percentofQuébécois,and1.3percentofBritishColumbianshaveFrench
astheirmothertongue(StatisticsCanada,2011a).
LinguisticdiversityacrossCanada isfurtherincreasedasaresultofcontinuinghigh rates
ofimmigration.Indeed,duringthepastdecade,Canadahasmaintainedoneofthehighestper
capitaimmigrationratesintheworld(CIC,2012).Closeto250,000immigrantsarriveeachyear,
settlingmostlyintheprovincesofOntario(42percentin2012),Quebec(19percentin2012),
andBritishColumbia(16percentin2012)(ibid.);andinthecitiesofToronto(32percentin
2010),Montreal(17percentin2010),andVancouver(14percentin2010)(FCM,2011).Asof
2011,morethanoneinveCanadians(20.6percent)wereforeign-born, a proportion well
aboveotherG8countrieslikeGermanyandtheUnitedStates(botharound13percentin2010)
(StatisticsCanada,2011b).
* Correspondingauthor–email:rclement@uottawa.ca
 ©Copyright2016 Ellyson,Andrew,andClément.ThisisanOpenAccess article distributedunderthe
termsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicence,whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,and
reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalauthorandsourcearecredited.

London Review of Education  135
Such high rates of immigration imply that important efforts and resources need to be
investedinthesettlementandintegrationofnewcomers,includinginprovidingeducationinthe
locallanguage.Indeed,manystudiesemphasizehowlocallanguageprociencyisacrucialpartof
integrationinthevariousspheresoflife(e.g.seeAdamuti-Trache,2012),includinginrelationto
transportationandhousing(Kilbrideet al.,2011),tothejobmarket(DerwingandWaugh,2012;
Chiswick, 2008),andtohealthcare(Ng et al.,2011; Battagliniet al.,2007; GagnonandSaillant,
2000;Olazabalet al.,2010;SoulièresandOuellette,2012).
WhileCanadianprovincesoperatewithinonesinglerelativelyinuentialfederalstructure,
theirdemographyandlinguistichistoryvaryinsuch awaythatonewouldcondentlyexpect
important variation in provinces’ language policies andin why and how language education is
provided to adult immigrants. Moreover, the Canadian constitution allocates education as a
provincialjurisdictionandimmigrationasasharedjurisdictionbetweenthefederalandprovincial
governments.
Takingintoconsiderationthecontextualelementsatplay,ourarticledescribesandtriesto
understandthesimilaritiesanddifferencesastowhyandhowlanguageeducationisprovidedto
immigrantsintwoverydifferentprovincesandtheirbiggestcities–theprovinceofQuebecand
thecityofMontreal,andtheprovinceofBritishColumbiaandthecityofVancouver.
Comparing adult immigrants’ language education: Framework, approach,
and context
Inthisrstsection,wepresenttheanalyticalframework,ourapproachtotheresearchquestions,
andthemaincontextualelementsatplaytounderstandvariationsinlanguagepolicyandplanning
inCanada.
The analytical framework
Adultimmigrants’languageeducationsitsatthecrossroadsofvariouspolicydomains:citizenship
andimmigration,education,economicpolicy,andemployability.AsGazzolaandGrinputit,‘just
likepublic policies are a responseto“publicproblems”, language policies can beviewedasa
responseto“languageproblems’’’(2010: 5).Asonecomponentofabroaderlanguagepolicy,
adultimmigrants’languageeducationcanbeassessedasanyotherpublicpolicy;thatis,inrelation
tothedifferentphasesofthepolicyprocess: policy formulation,implementation,compliance,
reaction, evaluation, modication(Morris,2010: 379–83).Similarly, researchersin theeld of
language policy and planning ask:‘What actors attempt to inuence what behaviour of which
peopleforwhatendsunderwhatconditionsbywhatmeansthroughwhatdecision-making process
withwhateffects?’ (Cooper,1989:8).Amongthemainandcentralgoals ofusingcomparative
approachesisthatof‘assessingrivalexplanations’onagivenpublicpolicy(Collier,1993:105).
The approach
Inordertoassessthetwomodelsofadultimmigrants’languageeducation,ourarticlefocuses
specicallyontwoquestions:‘Whydogovernmentsprovidelanguageeducationtoadults?’and
‘HowisitprovidedintheconcretesettingoftwoofthelargestcitiesinCanada?’

136  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
Why?
AreportbytheOttawaLocalImmigrationPartnershipdenessettlementandintegrationasa
continuumthatinvolves:meetingtheneedsoftheimmigrants(i.e.housing,education,nutrition,
andhealthcare);fullandgratifyingparticipationinthelabourmarketand/orlocaleconomy;civic
andcommunityparticipation;and a sense of belonging inthecommunity(Murphy,2010: 11).
Similarly, Omidvar and Richmond (2003) dene social integration as the‘realization of full
andequalparticipation intheeconomic, social,culturalandpolitical dimensionsoflifein[the
immigrants’]newcountry’(DerwingandWaugh,2012:3).Inevaluatingresearchonwhylanguage
educationisprovidedto immigrants,weprimarily note that prociencyinthe local language
isoneveryimportantaspect of settlementandintegration.Indeed, the‘lackofknowledgeof
one of Canada’s ofcial languages was still the most serious problem faced by refugees and
othereconomicimmigrants4yearsafterlanding’(Xue,2007,asquotedbyDerwingandWaugh,
2012:7).Moreover,‘acriticalingredientofnewcomers’activeparticipationinthehostsociety
aretheirlanguageskills’(Adamuti-Trache,2012:103).Inshort,threemainstreamsofreasonsas
towhylanguageeducationisprovidedtoadultimmigrantsarefoundintheliterature–thatis,
reasonsrelatingto:(1)citizenshipandnationalism;(2)jobs,industry,andeconomicbenetsof
immigration;and(3)socialwelfareandintegration(Cleghorn, 2000).
First, local language competency is often a marker of national identity and/or belonging
(Clarkson,2014),andthus prociencyin the local language isconceivedasaprerequisitein
orderto‘understandthenormsofthehostsociety[andto]likelygrowasenseofattachment
to[thehost society]’(Adamuti-Trache,2012:109).AsSimpson andWhitesideputit,‘theone
nation,onelanguageideologyisinterlacedwithotherbeliefsaboutnationalidentity,forexample
theideal that the nation stateshould be as homogeneousaspossible,and thata dimension
of that homogeneity is monolingualism’ (2015: 2). Following this ideology, prociency in the
local language alone would allow full belonging and participation in the community. Further,
immigration–andthuslocallanguageeducation–isrelatedtocitizenshipandnationalisminthe
contextofdecliningfertilityandcurrentpopulationageing.Abodyofliterature–oftenwritten
by francophones from Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick – stresses the importance of
francophoneimmigrationandoflinguisticandsocialintegrationofimmigrantsintofrancophone
communitiesinstoppingthesteadydemographicdeclineofthesecommunitiesinCanada(e.g.
seeBelkhodja,2008;Bursteinet al.,2014;Ferron,2008;Fourot,2016;FraserandBoileau,2014;
MarmenetCorbeil,1999;VatzLaaroussi,2008).Inordertoachievethisobjective,however,not
onlydoimmigrantshavetochooseFrenchastheirpreferredofciallanguage–andeventuallyfor
theirlinguistictransfer–buttheyhavetostayinQuebecorinotherfrancophonecommunities.
Learningthelocallanguagewouldthusbearststepforimmigrantstocontributeinthisgrand
collectiveobjective.Forotherauthors,‘adesiretolearnCanada’stwoofciallanguagesmaybe
groundedinimmigrants’pursuitofastrongersenseofbelonging’(BurtonandPhipps,2010,as
quotedbyMadyandTurnbull,2012:132),orofgreatereconomicwellbeing(PicotandSweetman,
2005,ibid.).
Second, adult immigrants’ language education is often justied as crucial in achieving
immigrants’fulleconomicpotential.Integrationonthejobmarkethasoftenbeensingledoutas
themostimportantaspectofimmigrants’integrationintotheirnewsociety.Studiesshowthat
immigrants’greaterlocallinguisticskillsareassociatedwithfewerdifcultiesndingajoband
higherearningsandproductivity(Chiswick,2008).Anotherreportstatesthat,in2003inCanada,
theemploymentratesforindividualswithpoorandweakliteracyinthelocallanguagewere57
percentand70percent,respectively,‘comparedto76%forthedesiredlevelofliteracy’(TD
BankFinancialGroup,2009:11).Finally,economistsarguethatgreaterlocallinguisticskillsare

London Review of Education  137
associatedwithincreasedproductivityofotherinvestmentinhumancapital,includingeducation
andtraining(Chiswick,2008).
Thethirdmain setofreasonsforprovidinglanguageeducationtoadult immigrants isas
aprerequisiteforgreatersocialwelfareandintegrationinthecommunity.Oneelementoften
emphasizedintheliteratureishowalackofknowledgeor prociencyinthelocal language
is connected to smaller and less diversied personal networks (Rose, 2006;Thomas, 2011).
Thesenetworksconveypoorer information,leading todisadvantagesina variety of spheres.
DamarisRose(2006)argues,forexample,thatimmigrantswithsmallerandmoreundiversied
networkshavegreaterdifcultiesndingsuitablehousing.Prociencyinthelocallanguagealso
haspositivebenetswithregardtoeducation.Parents’linguisticskillshavebeenassociatedwith
asimilarlevelofsuccessatschoolintheirchildren(Gouvernementdu Québec,2014;TCRI,
2011). Further, a higher level of language prociency is associated with greater engagement
inpost-secondaryeducationuponarrival(Adamuti-Trache,2012:109),whichinturnprovides
greaterjobsandsocialintegrationopportunities(DerwingandWaugh,2012:7).Lowlevelsof
locallanguageskillsalsohavenegativeimpactsonself-reportedhealth(Nget al.,2011:19)and
onimmigrants’accesstothehealthcaresystem(Battagliniet al.,2007;GagnonandSaillant,2000;
Olazabalet al.,2010;SoulièresandOuellette,2012).Lowlanguageprociencyisalsoidentied
asariskfactoroffamilyviolenceamongimmigrantwomen(Ahmadet al.,2004;Rinfret-Raynor
et al.,2013:6).Finally,studiesshowthatimmigrants’greaterlocallinguisticskillsareassociated
withgreaterpoliticalinvolvement(Chiswick,2008).
How?
Differences and similarities in the reasons why language education is provided to adult
immigrantsdonotnecessarilytranslateintocorrespondingdifferencesand similarities in the
waythiseducationisprovidedontheground.Indeed,whilethesereasonsmaydiffer(andcan
beexplainedpartly bythedifferencesindemographyandlanguagehistory),it ispossiblethat
manycomponentsremainthesameatthelevelofserviceprovision(andcanbeexplainedin
largepartbyacommonhistoryofsettlementservicesandfederalframework).Thus,whatlevel
ofgovernment–amongthefederal,provincial,andlocallevels–isresponsibleforprovidinglocal
languageeducationtoadultimmigrants?Whatactorsareconsulted inelaboratingandmaking
decisions over service provision?What language is taught? Finally, what actors are providing
languageeducationtoadultimmigrants?
In sum, beyond exploring to what extent reasons and motivations to provide language
educationtoadultimmigrantsvarybetweenprovinces,weexplorewhetherthesevariationsare
accompaniedbycorrespondingvariationsinhowthiseducationisprovided.
The context
Inadditiontodescribingthemodelsofadultimmigrants’languageeducationinQuebec,British
Columbia,andtheirbiggestcities,ourarticleponderswhetherandinwhatsensedemography,
languagehistory,andthecommonfederalframeworkcanexplainthesimilaritiesanddifferences
betweenthetwoprovinces.
Demography and language history
Asmentionedintheintroduction,demographyandlanguagehistoryvarygreatlyfromonepart
ofthe country toanother,potentiallyimpacting on language policy andplanning,and on the

138  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
language education provided to adult immigrants.Table 1 outlines the linguistic composition
inCanada,Quebec (andits largest city,Montreal), and British Columbia (and its largest city,
Vancouver)intermsofmothertonguesin2011.
Table1:Mothertonguebyprovincesandcensusmetropolitanarea(CMA)
Mother tongues
English French Other Multiple
Quebec Total 7.7% 78.1% 12.3% 1.9%
Montreal(CMA) 11.6% 63.3% 22.0% 3.1%
BritishColumbia Total 70.3% 1.3% 26.5% 1.9%
Vancouver(CMA) 56.0% 1.1% 40.3% 2.7%
Canada Total 56.9% 21.3% 19.8% 2.0%
StatisticsCanada(2011d)
Table 2shows that itis not onlythe proportion of people having French and anon-ofcial
languageastheirmothertonguethatvariesacrossCanadaandbetweencities,butalsothenon-
ofciallanguagesspokenthemselves.
Table2:MostspokenmothertonguesinMontrealandVancouver
CMA Montreal Vancouver
English 2(11.6%) 1(56.0%)
French 1(63.3%) 11(1.1%)
Spanish 4(2.9%) 9(1.4%)
Italian 5(2.9%)
Chinese(nototherwisespecied) 7(1.0%) 4(4.9%)
Cantonese 3(5.6%)
Mandarin 5(3.9%)
Punjabi 2(6.1%)
Tagalog 6(2.1%)
Arabic 3(3.4%)
Creoles 6(1.3%)
StatisticsCanada(2011d)
Indeed,whileChineselanguagesandPunjabiarebyfarthemostfrequentinVancouver,theyrank
muchlowerinMontreal.Conversely,Arabic,Spanish,andItalianarethemostspokennon-ofcial
languagesinMontreal.
Behind these numbers come important variations in terms of the linguistic history of
Canada.First,theoriginalsettlersandcolonizersofCanadacameverylargelyfromtwoEuropean
countries speaking different languages: French and English.Although aboriginal people and
languagesarenotdiscussedinourarticle,itisusefultoberemindedthatCanadawasestablished
byEuropeansettlersonalandinhabited,priortocolonization,byindigenouspeople.Oneimpact
of European colonization of the Canadian territory – beyond the dramatic decrease of the
aboriginalpopulationitself–hasbeentheneardisappearanceofmostindigenouslanguages.In
2011,only63,000personsdeclaredanindigenouslanguageastheirmothertongueinCanada,
andonly17.2percentofindigenouspersonsreportedbeingabletoconverseinanindigenous

London Review of Education  139
language.Further,theproportionofindigenouspersonsabletodosodecreasedby2percent
between2006and2011,while their populationgrewbyawhole20.1 per cent in thesame
period(StatisticsCanada,2011c).
TheBritishconquestofFrenchNorthAmericain1760wasfollowedbymultipleattempts
at assimilating French-speaking residents.Whereas the pursuit of the linguistic and cultural
assimilationoftheFrenchCanadianslessenedonceCanadawascreatedin1867,thedemographic
weightofFrenchasamothertongueamongtheCanadianpopulationhasbeensteadilydeclining.
Forexample,a1912regulationbannedelementaryschoolteachersfromspeakingFrench, for
whichOntario’spremierKathleenWynneissuedaformalapologytofrancophonesthroughthe
provinciallegislatureinFebruary2016:‘Regulation17showedadisregardforFranco-Ontarian
identityandequality,andonbehalfofthegovernmentofOntarioIofferanapology’(The Canadian
Press,2016).
Frenchspeakersrepresented29percentofthepopulationin1951and21.7percentin
2011.ForthecityofMontrealalone(notthemetropolitanarea),themajorityofresidentswith
Frenchasamothertonguehasbeendecliningaswell,from68percentin1951to52.4percent
in2011(DominionBureauofStatistics,1953;VilledeMontréal,n.d.)withtheproportionbeing
63.5percentfortheentiremetropolitanarea(StatisticsCanada,2016).Thedemographicweight
ofQuebecamongallCanadianprovinceshasalsobeendeclining,from27.9percentin1971,to
23percentin2015(ISQ,2015:23).Asaconsequence,Quebecseatsinthefederalparliament
decreasedfrom26.6percentin1976to23.3percentin2015(ElectionsCanada2010;Elections
Canada,2012).
Inadditiontoahistoryofconquestandasteadydemographicdeclineofbothfrancophones
acrossthecountryandofQuebec’sweightamongtheprovinces,thehistoryofsocioeconomic
inequalities experienced by francophones – even in Quebec – must be mentioned. Indeed,
untilthe1960s,despiteamajorityoffrancophonesintheprovinceofQuebec,thelanguageof
commerceandofworkwasmainlyEnglish.Indeed,francophoneswerelessinstructed, under-
representedamonghigherprofessionallevels,andgainedsmallerrevenues(DickinsonandYoung,
2008;PCO,1970).
Finally,asafrancophoneprovincewithinnotonlyamajorityEnglish-speakingcountry,butan
evenlargermajorityEnglish-speakingNorthAmericancontinent,Quebecstrugglestoconveyto
itsnewcomerstheimportanceofpreservingFrenchasthecommonlanguage.Untilthe1970s,
90percentofnewcomersto Quebec chose‘to integrate into the minority English speaking
community’(Bouffard,2015:50).TheappealofEnglishremainsunderstandabletoday,inacountry
and‘inacontinentwheretheoverwhelmingmajorityspeaksnotonlyadifferentlanguagebut the
languageofglobalization’(ibid.:49).
In sum, the history of conquest and of socioeconomic inequalities, the harsh reality of
linguisticdemographicdecline,andthehistoricaltendencyofimmigrantstointegrateintothe
anglophonecommunityhavehadverydeep impacts in Quebec.In that province,the fearof
Englishand–toacertainextent–ofotherlanguageshasbeenquitestrong,particularlyregarding
itsmostpopulatedcityandmainreceiverofimmigration:Montreal.
TheBritishColumbian linguistic history is very different.TheFrenchminorityhasalways
beenverysmallinnumber.Itaccountedfor1percentofthepopulationin1951andstilldoes
today.TheFrench–English struggle hasthusbeenmuchquieter – if not absent.Whereasthe
percentageofBritishColumbianswithEnglishastheirmothertonguehasdeclinedsubstantially,
most notably inVancouver (from 86 per cent in 1951 to 56 per cent in 2011), the English
language has never been fundamentally threatened. Compared to French in Quebec, English
remainsincontestablytherstofciallanguagelearnedbyimmigrantsinBritishColumbia. In
termsofdemographicweightamongCanadianprovinces,BritishColumbia’sgrewfrom10.2per

140  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
centin1971,to13.1percentin2015(ISQ,2015:23).Asaconsequence,BritishColumbia’sseats
inthefederalparliamentincreasedfrom7percentin1976to12.5percentin2015(Elections
Canada,2010;ElectionsCanada,2012).
In sum, we observe extremely different demographic and language histories in Quebec
andBritishColumbia.Thesemajordifferencescanclearlybeexpectedtohaveimpactsoneach
province’slanguagepolicyandplanning.
The federal framework and immigration
InCanada,beinga federation of provinces,jurisdictions are allocated to onelevelorshared
between two. Immigration is shared, whereas education and municipal affairs come under
provincialjurisdiction.
MajortransformationshavetakenplacewithregardtoimmigrationinCanada inthelast
decades.First,theimmigrantselectionprocesswasalteredfollowingtheadoptionoftheBillof
Rights1960, which made inevitable‘the removalofimmigrationregulationsrestrictingaccess
ofnon-Europeans’(CardozoandPendakur,2008: 23).Referencestoraceorregionsof origin
werethus replacedintheselection criteria withskillsandqualicationsand, incertaincases,
languagesspoken(ibid.).Second, the idea ofmulticulturalismemerged in the 1960sand was
formalizedintheCanadianMulticulturalismAct adoptedin1971.AllCanadianprovinceshave
sinceembracedimmigrationasasourceofhumananddemographic,aswellasnancial,capital
(Paquet,2016).Further,‘thefederalgovernmentandseveralofitsprovincialcounterpartshave
placed a priority on immigration matters in recent years, linking it to a multitude of other
prominent policy areas’ (Tolley et al., 2011: 3, as quoted by Gunn, 2012: 3). In other words,
questions relating to immigration were introduced in many policy domains outside that of
citizenshipand immigrationperse, includingeducation,work,andeconomy.Mostimportantly,
whereasprovincialgovernmentshadbeenquiteshytoundertakeresponsibilitiesregardingthe
shared jurisdiction of immigration, they have become more interested in the eld since the
1970s(Gunn,2012:3)andincreasinglyactivesincethe 1990s.Indeed,ledby theintervention
of the province of Quebec, all Canadian provinces have since, with the federal government,
signed bilateral agreements regarding immigration, adopted immigration policies, taken part
intheselectionofimmigrants, and contributedtotheestablishmentofvariousorganizations
promotinggreaterintegrationamongnewcomers(Paquet,2016).
Provinceshavefurtherdevelopedvariousprogrammesforthesettlementandintegration
ofimmigrants.Asdiscussedbelow,adultimmigrants’languageeducationisoneimportantaspect
ofthesemodels.Despiteallthis,thefederalagencyoverseeingsettlementandintegrationinthe
countryisCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada(CIC).AlthoughQuebec,Manitoba,andBritish
Columbia‘areresponsibleforthedesign,delivery,andadministrationofsettlementservices’,this
responsibilityistransferredwiththe‘objectiveofachievingcomparablenewcomers’settlement
outcomes’(CIC,n.d.(a)).Thebilateral accordshaveattributed Quebec a special rightforthe
integrationofnewcomersintheprovince. Financial compensations are providedforQuebec
toprovideintegrationandsettlementservices‘aslongastheycorrespondtothoseofferedby
Canadaintherestofthecountryandaslongasallpermanentresidentsoftheprovince,whether
theywereselectedbyQuebecornot,canhaveaccesstothem’(HouseofCommonsofCanada,
2010:1).

London Review of Education  141
Municipal affairs
In Canada, the 1867 Constitutional Act assigned to the provincial governments exclusive
jurisdictionovermunicipalities.Thus,municipalitiesarenotconstitutionallyrecognizedanddo
not–atleastformally–constituteanorderofgovernmentoftheirowninCanada(Young,
2009: 106). One impact of this provincially exclusive jurisdiction is that provincial-municipal
systemsvary considerablyacrossthe country.WhileCanadianmunicipalities haveno formal
responsibilities, except in Ontario, regarding education, healthcare, and social services – all
provincialjurisdictions–theyareoftenkeyactorsinimplementingfederalandprovincialpolicies
andprogrammes(ibid.:115).Immigrationisclearly one of the policy domainsinwhich local
governmentsandmunicipalitieshavebeenincreasinglyactive.Indeed,mostimmigrantstoCanada
chooseto settleinbigcities.The FederationofCanadian Municipalitiesstressedthatin2010,
two-thirdsofimmigrantssettledinCanada’sthreemostimportantmetropolitanareas:Toronto,
Montreal,andVancouver.In2011,17percentofimmigrantstoCanada(FCM,2011)and76per
centofimmigrantstoQuebecchosetosettleinMontreal(EmploiNexus,2016),makingup34.4
percentoftheresidentsofthecityofMontreal.Inthesameyear,14percentofimmigrantsto
CanadachosetosettleinVancouver(FCM,2011).
Inpractice,itmeansthat‘day-to-dayissuesof multiculturalism arerenegotiatedandsettled
in only a few cities’ (Good, 2008: 1).Thus, Canada’s biggest cities are active in the eld of
immigrationbecausetheyare‘therstpointofcontactbetweennewcomersandgovernment
due to the day-to-day dependence of immigrants on various local public services’ (Gunn,
2012:1).AccordingtoGood(2008),somemunicipalitieshavebeenveryresponsivetoincreasing
numbersofnewcomersintheirterritories–forexample,throughcontributing‘tocommunity
capacitybuildingbyfundingcommunityorganizationsthatserveimmigrantsandethno-cultural
minorities’;throughestablishing‘separateunitsintheircivilservicetofacilitateaccessandequity
in governance and service delivery as well as to manage diversity’; and through establishing
‘governancerelationshipsthatsupporttheireffortsinequitypolicy’,includingwiththebusiness
community(ibid.:7).
Despitethefactthatmunicipal‘front-lineserviceprovidersarekeyplayersinthesuccessful
settlement,attraction,andretentionofimmigrants,municipalitieshavebeenleftonthesidelines
ofimmigrantpolicyandfundingdecisions’(Gunn,2012:4–5),withseniorlevelsofgovernments
dealing more frequently with‘special-purpose non-prot societies’ (Kataoka and Magnusson,
2007:20).
Finally,althoughmunicipalitiesareformallyajurisdictionoftheprovinces,thereisageneral
trend towards moredirect relationships between municipalities and the federal government
(Andrew, 2014; Stoney and Graham, 2009).Multiple reasons explain this trend,including the
importanceofcontemporaryurbanchallenges,andtheexplosionofmunicipalcostsasapartial
consequence of decentralization and of relatively low recent investments in infrastructure
(Lalonde,2016).Reviewingtheliteratureonthetopicofmunicipal-federalrelationships,Lalonde
notes that most federal funding transits in provincial hands before landing in municipalities.
Furthermore,municipalities’rolesandrelationshipwithfederalagencieslargelydependonthe
relationshipbetweentheirrespectiveprovincialgovernmentandthefederalgovernment(ibid.).
Insum,whiletheCanadianfederalframeworkcanbeaunifyingfactor,itleavesroomfor
considerablevariation–forexample,in the elds of immigration and municipal affairs – and
evenforprovincialemulation.Thesepossibilitieshaveimpactsonlanguagepolicyandplanning–
and,mostimportantlyforus,intermsofwhyandhowlanguageeducationisprovidedtoadult
immigrants.

142  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
The analytical framework: A summary
Followingpolicyanalysisframeworksand,specically,languagepolicyandplanning,ourenquiry
intolanguageeducationforadultimmigrantscompareswhyandhowitisprovidedinQuebecand
BritishColumbia,twoverydifferentprovincesofCanada,andintheirbiggestcities.Ourultimate
goalis topondertheimpactsofdemography, languagehistory,andthefederal frameworkon
thesepolicies.Table3summarizestheelementsaddressedhere.
Table3:Analyticalframeworkandapproach
Describing and comparing Pondering the impacts of vectors of differences and
similarities
Why?Whatarethemainreasons
forprovidinglanguageeducation
toadultimmigrants?
• Citizenshipandnationalism
reasons
• Jobs,industry,andeconomic
benetsreasons
• Socialwelfareandintegration
reasons
Demography and language history
• Language’sminorityormajoritystatusinthecountryand
continent
• Language’spowerofattractionasrstofciallanguage
learned
• Language’sgrowthordeclineinCanada
• Province’sgrowthordeclineinCanada
• Otherhistoricalelements(historyofconquestandofsocio-
economicdomination)
Federalism as vector of differences
• Inrelationtoimmigration:
o Increasedprovincialintervention
o Bilateralaccordsbetweenprovincesandthefederal
government
o Provincialchoiceofcriteriafortheselectionof
immigrants(levelandtypeofskills,languagesspoken,
etc.)
• Inrelationtomunicipalaffairs
o Municipalitiesascreaturesoftheprovinces
Federalism as vector of similarities
• Inrelationtoimmigration:
o Billofrights
o MulticulturalismAct
o CICinterventions
• Inrelationtomunicipalaffairs:
o Municipal-federalrelationship
o Municipalitiesconceivedasalevelofgovernment
o Municipalities’exclusionofpolicydesign
How?Whatarethemaininternal
featuresofadultimmigrants’
languageeducation?
• Languagetaught
• Responsiblelevelof
government
• Languageeducationservice
providers
Language education for adult immigrants in Quebec, British Columbia, and
their respective largest cities
Withtheaboveframeworkandapproachinmind,wenowturntodescribingandcomparingwhy
andhowlanguageeducationisprovidedtoimmigrantsinQuebec,BritishColumbia,Montreal,
andVancouver.

London Review of Education  143
Language laws and ofcial languages
InordertoprotectFrenchoutsideofQuebec,andEnglishwithinQuebec,thefoundinglawof
Canada,the1867ConstitutionalAct,alreadycontainedlanguageprovisions,thebulk ofwhich
relatestochildren’seducation.TheActalsorecognizedbothFrenchandEnglishasformallyequal
inCanada.However,theconclusionofthereportoftheRoyalCommissiononBilingualismand
Biculturalism(alsocalledtheLaurendeau-DuntonCommission)heldbythefederalgovernment
ofCanada inthe1960semphasizedthatbilingualismhadbeen‘mostlysymbolic(stamps,bank
notes,etc.)andmeretranslationoflawsandcertainadministrativedocuments’(SLMC,n.d.(a)).
Respondingdirectlytothecommission’srecommendation,theOfcialLanguagesActof1969
statesthat:
TheEnglishandFrenchlanguages are the ofciallanguagesofCanadaforallpurposesof the
ParliamentandgovernmentofCanada,andpossessandenjoyqualityofstatusandequalrights
andprivilegesastotheiruseinalltheinstitutionsoftheParliamentandgovernmentofCanada.
(SLMC,n.d.(a))
Coherentwiththe notion ofa federation,the OfcialLanguagesAct applies onlytofederal
jurisdictions and institutions. Provinces can also be active in the accessory eld of language,
insofarastheyareinterveningwithinthescopeoftheirjurisdiction.
The province of Quebec and the city of Montreal
Montrealistheeconomicand cultural centre of the province of Quebec and also themost
populousfrancophonecityintheAmericas.Itspopulationisapproximately1.6million,andthat
ofGreaterMontreal,3.8million.QuebecistheonlyprovincetohaveFrenchasitssoleofcial
language.The second articleofthe city of Montreal’s charter categorically states that itis a
francophonecity(GouvernementduQuébec,2000).
Inresponsetoincreasinglyvocalandorganizedgroupsinfavourofvalorizingandprotecting
theFrenchlanguagewithinQuebec, thegovernmentadoptedin1974Quebec’srstlanguage
law:theLoi sur la langue ofcielle(LawoftheOfcialLanguage,Bill22).However,thisbill,requiring
publicsigns to be inFrenchandpromotingbilingualism,was considered unable to meetthe
linguisticchallengesthatQuebecincreasinglyfaced(BourhisandLandry,2002).Thegovernmentof
theseparatistPartiQuébécoisthusadoptedin1977themuchmorepowerfulCharte de la langue
française du Québec (Bill101).Thecharter’smainobjectiveswere:(1)tohalttheassimilationof
FrenchspeakerstoEnglish;(2)toensurethesocioeconomicpredominanceofthefrancophone
majority; and (3) to promote the assertion of the French fact (i.e. all that concerns French;
SLMC,n.d.(b)).Today,thecharterrequirescommercialsignstobepredominantlyinFrenchand
immigrantchildreninQuebectoattendFrenchschools,reversingtheimmigrants’tendencyto
sendtheirchildrentoEnglishschools(McAndrew, 2002:70).Manyother lawsinQuebec are
signicantintermsoflanguage,includingafewregardingmunicipalities–withMontrealamong
them–andimmigration(SLMC,n.d.(c)).
The province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver
VancouveristheeconomiccentreofthewesternprovinceofBritishColumbia.Whilethecity
itselfwashome to only 603,502 peoplein2011 (the eighth largest cityinCanada),Greater
Vancouver was home to over 2.3 million residents (the third largest metropolitan area in
Canada).Between2006and2011,thepopulationofVancouvergrewby4.4percent,whilethat
ofGreaterVancouvergrewby9.3percent(MetroVancouver,2012).Likemostotherprovinces

144  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
andcities,andcoherentwiththeverylowproportionoffrancophonesinboththeprovinceand
city,BritishColumbiaandVancouverhaveEnglishastheironlyofciallanguage.
British Columbia’s laws and programmes relevant to languages have been scarce, if not
whollyabsent.Infact,thelegislaturehasneveradoptedalanguagelaw.Theprovince’slegislation,
however,doescontainasmallnumberoflanguageprovisionsandreferencestolanguage.Most
ofthesedealwiththerequirementforpeopletounderstandandexpressthemselvesinproper
Englishandthepossibilityofusingatranslator.Otherreferencesareinsimpledeclarationsof
non-discriminationonthe groundsoflanguage,placeoforigin,and soon.The onlyreference
tolanguageinwhichthestatemakesacommitment involvesaboriginal languages.Indeed,the
FirstPeoples’Heritage,LanguageandCultureActis meant to‘supportandadviseministries
ofgovernmentoninitiatives,programsandservices related to Nativeheritage, language and
culture’(SLMC,n.d.(d)).
Immigrants’ settlement, integration, and adult language education
The federal government of Canada has provided language instruction for newcomers since
1947,atthe sametimeastheCitizenshipActwas adopted(CIMSS,2012:7; Cleghorn, 2000).
Thefocusoflanguage education was thuscitizenshipand,toacertainextent, assimilation to
theAnglo-SaxonandEnglish-speakingmajority(Ciccarelli,1997;Cleghorn,2000).AsCleghorn
notes,‘priortoQuebec’scontroloverimmigrationbeginninginthe1960s,languagetrainingfor
adultimmigrantswasEnglishonly’(2000:28).From1965tothemid-1980s,languageeducation
evolvedfromafocusoncitizenshipintotwodifferentstreamsofclassesfortwodifferenttypes
ofimmigrants.TheDepartmentofManpowerandImmigrationprovidedlanguageeducationto
immigrantsinthelabourforcewhiletheCitizenshipBranchoftheDepartmentofSecretaryof
State–withamuchsmallerbudget–providedlanguageclassestoimmigrantsnotplanningto
jointhelabourforce(ibid.:27–30).Althoughthefederalgovernmenthadbeenactiveinlanguage
educationsince1947,itextendeditsinterventiontosettlementservicesonlyin1979,withits
ImmigrantSettlementandAdaptationProgram.Untilthen,thesettlementandintegrationneeds
ofimmigrantsweremet–ifso–‘byvoluntaryorganizationssuchascommunitycentres,ethnic
organizations,churchgroups,andwomen’sorganizations’(ibid.:32).Alongwiththisprogramme,
and the current merged settlement and integration programme, CIC has been overseeing
immigrants’settlementandintegration.Itspreferredpatternofserviceprovisionhasbeen,and
remains,outsourcingtocommunityserviceproviders.
The province of Quebec and the city of Montreal
Asmentioned,Quebecbecamemoredirectlyinvolvedintheeldofimmigrationinthe1970s
and was then followed by the other Canadian provinces.The rst bilateral agreement on
immigrationbetweenthegovernmentofCanadaanda provincewas signed with Quebec in
1971.Withthecurrentagreement–Immigration:TheCanada–QuebecAccord–signedin1991,
Canadacommitsitself:
towithdrawfromthedeliveryofservicesforthereceptionandlinguisticandculturalintegration
andplacementsofimmigrants.CanadaprovidescompensationtoQuebecforsuchservices,as
longastheycorrespondtothoseofferedbyCanadaintherestofthecountry.
(Béchard,2011:3)

London Review of Education  145
TheyearlygrantassignedtothegovernmentofQuebecfortheseservicesamountedto$320
millionin2013–14.Whilesimilaragreementsexistwitheachprovince,noneismoreextensive
andmatchedwithasmuchfederalgrantsastheonewithQuebec(Béchard,2011).
Adultimmigrants’languageeducationiscalledfrancizationinQuebec,suggestingaprocess
throughwhichapersonappropriatesprogressivelytheFrenchlanguageuntilitbecomespartof
herorhisidentity.OnlyFrenchlanguageclasses–andnoEnglishones–areprovidedforfreeto
immigrantsinQuebec.Francizationclassesareavailabletoimmigrantsinvariousformatsandthey
mayqualifyforallowancesthat,incertaincases,evencovertransportationandchildcarecosts
(MIDI, 2015a). No comparable programme exists outside of Quebec to support immigrants
whileattendinglanguage classes(CIC,2012).Quebec’ssettlementandintegrationframework
includes two programmes of language education and of nancial aid for adult immigrants
(Programme d’intégration linguistique pour les immigrants and Programme d’aide nancière pour
l’intégration linguistique des immigrants);andtwoprogrammesforsettlement,perse(Programme
d’accompagnement des nouveaux arrivantsandProgramme régional d’intégration).
TheproportionofnewcomersknowingFrenchupontheirarrivalgrewfrom36.8percent
inthe1994–8periodto62.3percentforthe2009–13period(MIDI,2014a).It was58.6per
centin2015(MIDI,2014b:24).AnewimmigrationpolicywasadoptedbyQuebecinMarch2016
(MIDI,2015b),andthepreparatorydocumenttothepolicymadeclearhowmuchofapriority
francizationwasamongthevariousinterventionsinsettlementandintegration:
InadditiontotherecentincreaseofFrenchimmigration,thefrancizationofimmigrantpeople...
isoneofthestrategiesthattheGovernmentofQuebecimplementstoensuretheperennialityof
theFrenchfactonitsterritory,aswellasthesuccessfulintegrationofimmigrantpeople.
(MIDI,2014a:15,ourtranslation)
Thersttenetofthepolicyisthat‘immigrationplaysanimportantroleinboostingQuébec’s
prosperityandinthevitalityoftheFrenchlanguage’(MIDI,2015b).Francizationismeanttomake
these two priorities and objectives of the policy overlap. Indeed,‘immigrants’ ability to fully
participateinQuébecsocietyisdeeplyintertwinedwiththelanguageissue’(ibid.:5).
InQuebec–likeintherestofCanada–mostcontactsrelatingtoandservicesregarding
settlementand language education areprovidedbycommunityorganizations.Out of the 51
service providers listed on CIC’S website in Montreal, 43 (84 per cent) were community
organizations. The services they most frequently provided were: general French language
education(72.5percent);servicesforfrancophonenewcomers(54.9percent);andhelpwith
dailylife (31.4 percent). No municipal organization was,however, listed as serviceprovider,
includinglanguageeducationservices(CIC,n.d.(b)).
Whileevaluatingtheoutcomesoftheimmigrants’settlementandintegrationprogrammes
inQuebec,inrelationtosimilarservicesavailableacrossCanada,CICwrites:
TohelpindividualsprepareforlifeinCanadaandthecitizenshiptest,informationisoftenprovided
through settlement services, particularly via language training curricula. Language curricula in
Quebecalsofollowsthisapproach;however,thefocusisonprovidinginformationaboutQuebec
culture.
(CIC,n.d.(c))
Inretrospect,Paquet(2016)suggeststhatQuebec’sapproachtoimmigrationhasbeenholistic,
seenasacollectiveprojectinselectingimmigrantsovereconomicaswellassocialcriteria.
ThecityofMontreal,likemostregionsinQuebec,concludesimmigrationagreementswith
theprovince’sMinistryofImmigration,DiversityandIntegration(Ministère de l’Immigration, de la
Diversité et de l’Inclusion,MIDI)andthuscontributestoassessingneedsandplanningintervention
inthiseld.Municipalities–includingMontreal–arerarelymentionedinprogrammesregarding

146  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
immigrants’settlementandintegration.TherearenomentionsofMontrealandmunicipalitiesin
theImmigration:Canada–QuebecAccord.TheonlyreferencetothecityofMontrealintheMIDI
annualreportof2014–15isrelatedtotheobjectiveofregionalizingimmigration;thatis,reducing
the proportion of immigrants settling in Montreal. MIDI’s (2008) adult immigrants’ language
educationactionplan,Pour enrichir le Québec: Franciser plus, intégrer mieux(To enrich Quebec: Make
more French, integrate better),makesnomentionofmunicipalitiesorofMontreal.Oneopening
tocities’and regions’rolesinthe eld of immigration is, however,foundinthe preparatory
documenttothenewQuebecimmigrationpolicy.Itstatestheirrolein:(1)buildingwelcoming
andinclusivecommunities;(2)gatheringconcreteinformationandknowledgeonactualneeds
andchallengesasmetinday-to-dayactivities;and(3)workingagainstracismanddiscrimination
(MIDI,2014a:54).
Inabrief on immigrationmanagementsubmittedtothegovernmentofQuebecin2011,
thecityofMontrealaskedfor:(1)anofcialrecognitionofitsroleinimmigrants’settlement
andintegration;(2)anincreasedbudgetforthefrancizationofimmigrantsinMontreal;(3)the
automatic transfer to Montreal of 10 per cent of federal grants for immigrants’ settlement
and integration; and (4) increased budgets for immigrants’ social housing (Ville de Montréal,
2011:6).DespitethegovernmentofQuebec’srarementionofMontrealinimmigrationpolicies
andprogrammes,thecityhasbeenrelativelyresponsivetoimmigrationinthesensediscussed
by Good (2008). First, the city of Montreal has contributed to community capacity-building
through:fundingvariouscommunitygroups;beinganactivememberofvariouscollaborationson
immigration;adoptingacharterofrightsandresponsibility;andcreatinganinterculturaladvisory
council.Second,thecityhasaPland’accès à l’égalité à l’emploi(PAÉÉ).Third,thecityhascreatedthe
Nexusprogramme,whichisamunicipalprogrammeinMontrealthatprovidesbusinesseswith
information,tools,support,andreferencesregardingtherecruitmentandsustainedemployment
ofprofessionalstrainedabroad(EmploiNexus,2016).Hence,thecityintervenesthroughnot
onlycollaboratingwithserviceproviders,butalsobyfundingthem(VilledeMontréal,2011).
The province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver
The rst bilateral agreement on immigration between the governments of British Columbia
andofCanadawassignedin1998andthecurrentagreement–theCanada–BritishColumbia
ImmigrationAgreement–wassignedin2015.Contrarytotheprevalentmodelintherestof
Canada(exceptQuebecandManitoba),theaccordoperatesatransferofresponsibilityinthe
eldofsettlementandintegrationservices(Paquet,2016).However,whereastheImmigration:
Canada–QuebecAccordstipulates the federal government’s withdrawal from the deliveryof
services for the reception, linguistic and cultural integration, and placements of immigrants,
the Canada–British Columbia ImmigrationAgreement emphasizes collaboration, negotiation,
consultation,andcooperation,ratherthanstrictdivisionofauthoritybetweentheprovinceand
thefederalgovernment.Forexample,‘collaboration’/‘tocollaborate’isusedseventimes(none
in the Quebec accord); ‘negotiation’/‘to negotiate’ is used seven times (once in the accord);
‘consultation’/‘to consult’ is used sixteen times (none in the accord); and ‘cooperation’/‘to
cooperate’isusedvetimes(veintheaccordaswell).
TheyearlygrantassignedtothegovernmentofBritishColumbiaforthedeliveryofservices
forthereception,linguisticandculturalintegration,andplacementsofimmigrantsamountedto
$114millionin2010–11(DerwingandWaugh,2012:4)–aroundhalfofwhichwasallocated
to language education. In addition, federal funds were also allocated to Enhanced Language
Training, a smaller language education initiative (ibid.).WelcomeBC and the Settlement and
IntegrationProgram arethemainprogrammesthroughwhichsettlementintegrationhappensin

London Review of Education  147
BritishColumbia.TheWelcomingandInclusiveCommunitiesandWorkplacesProgram,andthe
VulnerableImmigrantPopulationsProgramcompletethepicture.
TheproportionofnewcomersspeakingeitherFrenchorEnglishwas73percentin2011–
12(GovernmentofBritishColumbia,2013),muchhigherthanthe proportionofnewcomers
speakingFrenchinQuebec.Initsannualreportof2011–12,WelcomeBCwritesthatlanguage
abilityiscriticaltothesuccessofimmigrantsintheprovince’slabourmarketandcommunities.
Accordingtotheprogramme,thoughmostnewcomersarehighlyskilledandeducated,‘alackof
Englishlanguageabilitycorrelateswithimmigrantunemploymentandunderemploymentwhich
coststheeconomyinproductivityandeconomicgrowth, and impacts immigrants’ successful
socialandeconomicintegration’ (ibid.:10).Furthermore,theyestimatethat‘a1%increasein
literacyproducesa2.5%increaseintheleveloflabourproductivityandthatevery1%comparative
increaseinnationalliteracyscoreswouldboostnationalincomeby$32billion’(ibid.:8).Inthis
explanationofwhylanguageprociencyisimportant,wenoticeaphrasingthatisnancialand
economic,ratherthansocialorcitizenship-related.
English language services for adults (delivered mostly by community organizations) and
Englishasasecondlanguage(deliveredbypubliclyfundedpost-secondaryinstitutions)arethe
main vehicles of adult immigrant training in the province (Government of British Columbia,
2013).Ofthe36 serviceprovidersinVancouverlistedontheCIC website,four wereinthe
educationsector,onewasaprivatecompany,andtheremaining31(84percent)werecommunity
organizations.Theservicestheyprovidedmostfrequentlywere:helpwithdailylife(72.2per
cent);helpndingjobs(41.7percent);mentoring(38.9percent);andgenerallanguageeducation
(30.6percent).Afewmunicipallibrarieswerealsolistedassettlementandintegrationservice
providers(CIC,n.d.(b)).Wenoticeherethatamuchlowerproportionofserviceprovidersoffer
languageeducationthanisthecaseinQuebec.
British Columbia’s settlement and integration policies and programmes refer more
frequentlytoVancouverand municipalitiesthandoesQuebec’stoMontreal.Forexample,the
importance of consulting municipalities and local governments is mentioned in the Canada–
British Columbia Immigration Agreement:‘The Parties agree to cooperate to work with
LocalGovernmentsinBritishColumbiatoexploreissuesrelatedtotheirrespectiveinterests
in immigration and pursue opportunities related to communities’ interests in immigration’
(Government of Canada, 2015).Whereas the city ofVancouver is not directly mentioned in
theBritishColumbiaImmigrationTaskForcereport,oneofitsrecommendationsis‘toengage
industry, local governments, and non-governmental organizations in settling and integrating
immigrants’(Ministerof StateforMulticulturalism, 2012:20).Furthermore,BritishColumbia’s
WelcomingandInclusiveCommunities andWorkplacesProgram‘has activelyrecognizedthe
roleandparticipationofmunicipalgovernmentsintheimmigrantsettlementprocess’(Dickson
et al.,2013:23).Municipalitieshavethus‘feltthatacloserpartnershipbetweenBCandmunicipal
governmentsofsomemajorimmigrantreceptioncitieshasbeenestablished’(ibid.).
In2014,VancouvernallyenteredintoanagreementwiththegovernmentofCanada’sCIC
‘toundertakeaLocalImmigration Partnership (LIP)’ (CityofVancouver,n.d.).TheVancouver
ImmigrationPartnership(VIP,2016)isarststeptowardsestablishing–withthecollaboration
ofdozensoflocalorganizationsandcommunityleaders–the veryrstVancouverImmigrant
Settlement and Integration Strategy. The VIP’s main focuses are: (1) the strengthening of
interculturalandcivicengagement;(2)thecreationofwelcomingandinclusiveworkplaces;and
(3)theassessmentofnewcomers’needsinareassuchashousing,health,andaccesstolocaland
municipalservices.
Vancouverhasbeenresponsivetoimmigration(CityofVancouver,2014: 14):rst,ithas
contributedtothecommunitythroughactivelyconsultingcommunitygroupsandleaders,funding

148  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
settlement and integration service providers, and creating the city’s MulticulturalAdvisory
Committee(2014).Second,thecitycreatedtheEqualEmploymentOfce,Vancouver.Third,it
establishedtheHastingsInstitute,acommunitycity-ownedcorporationthatprovidesemployment
equityand diversitytrainingtoprivate-andpublic-sector (non-municipal)organizationsbased
onprogrammesdevelopedforthecity(Good,2008).Furthermore,Vancouverdescribesitself
as one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities in Canada. Mayor Sam Sullivan
organizedin2007animmigrationtaskforceandelaboratedavisionaboutitsroleforthefuture,
toensurethat:‘Vancouver,workingwithotherlevelsofgovernmentandkeystakeholders,will
playavitalroleinthedevelopmentofbestpoliciesandpracticesrelatedtoimmigrationissues
atalocallevel’(Sullivan,2007).
Similarities and differences in why and how language education is provided to
adult immigrants
Wehavenoticedthat,while Canadian citizenship objectivesarenot wholly absent fromthe
discourseonadultimmigrants’languageeducation,thesecitizenshipandnationalismreasonsare
absolutelycentralinwhyfrancizationisenactedinQuebec.Inthefrancophoneprovince,andin
francophonecommunitiesacrossCanada,immigrationisseenasawaytoreversedemographic
declineandtorevitalizetheFrenchlanguage.Thusfrancization –alongwiththe selection of
French-speakingcandidatestoimmigration–isessentialtoattaintheseobjectives.Conversely,
thenancialandeconomic discourse is what is central inBritishColombia’sexplanations of
thebenetsofbothimmigrationandlanguageeducationtoimmigrants.Theeconomicandjob-
relatedreasonsarealsoincreasinglypresentinQuebec’sdiscourseonimmigrationandlanguage
education.
Similaritiesanddifferencesarealsonoticeablewithregardtoserviceprovision.First, only
FrenchistaughttoimmigrantsinQuebec. Conversely, inBritishColumbia,classesareformally
offeredinbothofciallanguages–whileinreality,Englishclassesaremuchmorereadilyavailable.
Bothprovinceshavebeneted,throughbilateralagreementsinimmigrationconcludedwiththe
federalgovernment,fromthetransferofresponsibilitiesandgrants.Quebec’sagreementis,however,
phrasedintermsofstrictdivisionofauthority,ismuchmoreextensive,andismatchedwithmore
grantsthantheonesignedbyBritishColumbia.Bothprovinceshavetheirownadultimmigrant
language education programmes. Municipalities in both Quebec and British Columbia have no
formalroleregardingimmigrationandlanguageeducation.ThegovernmentofBritishColumbia,
however,appearsindiscourseandactionmoreopenthanthatofQuebectorecognizetheroleof
municipalitiesinrelationtoimmigration.BritishColumbiaisalsolessopposedtotheestablishment
of a direct relationshipbetween the city ofVancouver and the federalgovernment. Similar to
the pattern of service provision preferred by CIC, most settlement, integration, and language
educationservicesareprovidedinbothprovinces(andbothcities)bycommunityorganizations.
Wenonethelessnotethatwhilelanguageeducationisprovidedbythevastmajorityofservice
providersinQuebec,itisemploymentservicesthatareavailablethroughthevast majorityof
serviceprovidersinBritishColumbia.Finally,whilenoMontrealmunicipalagenciesarelistedby
CICasofcialserviceproviders,theserolesareundertakenbyafewVancouverpubliclibraries.
Conclusion
Aswehaveseen,bothsimilaritiesanddifferencesexistbetweenQuebecandBritishColumbia
intermsoftheirrespectivelanguagepoliciesandplansand,inparticular,thelanguageeducation
giventoadultimmigrants.

London Review of Education  149
Citizenshipandnationalismreasonsaremoreobviouslycentralinexplainingwhylanguage
education is provided in Quebec compared to British Columbia.This difference can largely
be accounted for by the differences in demography and language history. Indeed, whereas
thedemographicweightof Quebec(andofFrench)inthecountryisdeclining,thatofBritish
Columbiaisontherise.ThepowerofattractionoflearningEnglishisalsomuchhigherthanthat
oflearningFrenchamongimmigrants.Further,immigrantstoQuebechavehistoricallybeenvery
eagertojointheanglophonecommunity,whereasnocomparablephenomenonwasexperienced
in British Columbia. In a way, demography and language history have prompted the Quebec
government to build a strict linguistic framework – explaining, for example, why immigrant
childrenarerequiredtoattendFrenchschoolsandimmigrantadultsarenotofferedthechoice
ofwhichofciallanguagetolearnuponarrival.Incomparison,languageissueshavehadverylittle
importanceinBritishColumbiawhereEnglishhasbeen,andremains,uncontested.Immigrants
arethusconceivedasasolutiontoQuebec’sandFrenchdemographicdeclineinCanada,but–in
thegovernmentofQuebec’sperspective–thebenetscanonlybecashedinifimmigrantsspeak
Frenchorgothroughfrancizationuponarrival.Bothprovinces,however,claimthatimmigration
andofferinglanguageeducationtoimmigrantsarebenecialtothejobmarketandtheeconomy.
Thefederalframeworkcanaccountforbothsimilaritiesandvariationsastowhyandhow
languageeducationisprovidedtoimmigrantsinQuebecandBritishColumbia.First,theadoption
bythefederalgovernmentofthe BillofRights andoftheMulticulturalismActhavehaddeep
impactsonimmigration policies acrossthe country, aswellasonthediscourse surrounding
immigration, settlement and integration, and language education. Second, CIC’s involvement
in settlement and integration services and preferred patterns of service provision – that is,
outsourcingtocommunityorganizations–seemtohavehadunifyingimpactsonthewaythese
servicesarestillprovidedtodayinbothBritishColumbiaandQuebec.
Thefederalframeworkcanalsoexplaincertainvariations.Indeed,theallocationofjurisdiction
toprovinces–forexample,municipalaffairs–andthesharingofothers–suchasimmigration
–haveallowed for variation and evenemulationamongprovinces. Quebec’sinterventionsin
immigrationhavethuspromptedalltheotherCanadianprovincestobecomeactiveinthiseld.
LinguisticcontroversiesandtenseQuebec–Canadarelationshavealsohadanimpactoncities’
involvementintheeldofimmigrantsettlementandintegrationintheprovince.Asimmigrants
establishmostly in Canada’s big cities,theyare in the prime locations whereadultlanguage
educationisprovided.Formally,municipalitiesare,however,provincialjurisdictionsandhaveno
ofcialroleinimmigrantsettlementandintegration.Thus,MontrealandVancouverintervene
mainly in this eld through their collaborations with service providers – mostly community
organizations–andseniorlevelsofgovernment.IncomparisonwithBritishColumbia–which
hasallowedVancouvertodeveloptheVIP,ofwhichCICisapartner–Quebechasseemedmuch
lesseagertorecognizetheroleandresponsibilitiesofMontrealwithregardtoimmigration,or
toallowdirectmunicipal-federalrelationsinimmigrationissues.
Thus, the Canadian experience in matters of language policy and planning – and more
specically,ofadultimmigrants’languageeducation–illustrateshowmuch these policies are
informedbycontext;inourcase,bydemography,languagehistory,andthefederalframework.
Whilethereislittledissentaboutthenecessityandpositiveoutcomeoflanguageinstruction,the
whyandhowaresubjectedtolocalcircumstances.Furthermore,whereasmostimmigrantsland,
learn,andworkinCanada’sbiggestcities–amongthem,MontrealandVancouver–thesecontextual
elementscanexplainwhycitiescontinuetohavesofewresponsibilitiesregardingthesettlement,
integration,andlanguage educationofnewcomers. Onlysuchacontextualunderstandingwill
allowforproperreformsin terms ofcities’responsibilitiesregardingimmigration.Giventhe

150  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
importanceofimmigrationforthedevelopmentandthrivingofcommunities,astronger,more
concertedactionatthelevelsofgovernmentandofcitiesisindicated.
Notes on the contributors
Catherine Ellyson studied political science at Université Laval, University of Ottawa, and University of
BritishColumbiainCanada.Sinceco-foundingtheresearchandevaluationrmBem&Co.in2012,shehas
workedwith cities,communityorganizations,andprivate businesses onlocaldevelopment,immigration,
women–menequality,citizens’participationinpublicdecisions,multilingualisminCanadiancities,andother
topics.She hascollaboratedwiththeLUCIDE network(LanguagesinUrbanCommunities–Integration
andDiversityforEurope)since2012.
CarolineAndrewistheDirectoroftheCentreonGovernanceattheUniversityofOttawa.Herresearch
interestscentreonthefunctioning of partnershipsthatbringtogether community-basedequity-seeking
groups,localsocial-servicedeliveryagencies,municipalgovernments,anduniversity-basedresearchers.She
sitsontheexecutivecommitteeoftheOttawaLocalImmigrationPartnership,ontheboardoftheCatholic
Centre for Immigrants, and on theViolence AgainstWomen standing committee of Crime Prevention
Ottawa.
RichardClémentisProfessorofPsychologyaswellasDirectorandAssociateDeanoftheOfcialLanguages
andBilingualismInstituteattheUniversityofOttawa.Hiscurrentresearchinterestsincludeissuesrelated
tobilingualism,secondlanguageacquisition,andidentitychangeandadjustmentintheacculturativeprocess,
topicsonwhichhehaspublishedextensively.HeisanelectedFellowofboththeCanadianandtheAmerican
PsychologicalAssociationsaswellasoftheRoyalSocietyofCanada.
References
Adamuti-Trache, M. (2012) ‘Language acquisition among adult immigrants in Canada: The effect of
premigrationlanguagecapital’.Adult Education Quarterly,63(2),103–26.
Ahmad,F.,Riaz,S.,Barata,P.,andStewart,D.E.(2004)‘Patriarchalbeliefsandperceptionsofabuseamong
SouthAsianimmigrantwomen’.Violence Against Women,10(3),262–82.
Andrew,C.(2014)‘Federalpoliciesonimmigrantsettlement’.InGraham,K.,andAndrew,C.(eds)Canada
in Cities: The politics and policy of federal-local governance.Montreal:McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press,
227–49.
Battaglini,A.,Désy,M.,Dorval,D.,Poirier,L.-R.,Fournier,M.,Camirand,H.,andFecteau,D.(2007)L’intervention
de première ligne à Montréal auprès des personnes immigrantes: Estimé des ressources nécessaires pour une
intervention adéquate.Montreal:Directiondesantépublique.Online.http://publications.santemontreal.
qc.ca/uploads/tx_asssmpublications/978-2-89494-571-1.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Béchard, J. (2011) Immigration: The Canada–Quebec Accord. Background paper, publication no. 2011-89-E.
Ottawa:LibraryofParliament.Online.www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-89-e.
pdf (accessed1March2016).
Belkhodja,C.(2008)‘Introduction:Immigrationetdiversitédanslescommunautésfrancophonesensituation
minoritaire’. InBelkhodja, C.(ed.) Immigration et diversité au sein des communautés francophones en
situation minoritaire. Thèmes canadiens/Canadian Issues.Montreal:AssociationforCanadianStudies,3–6.
Bouffard, P.(2015)‘Frenchlanguageeducationpolicy foradultimmigrants inQuebec’.InSimpsonJ.,and
Whiteside,A.(eds)Adult Language Education and Migration: Challenging agendas in policy and practice.
Abingdon:Routledge,49–65.
Bourhis,R.,andLandry,R.(2002)‘Laloi101etl’aménagementdupaysagelinguistiqueauQuébec’.Ofce
de la langue française du Québec. Online. www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/ouvrages/
amenagement_hs/ral01_charte_bourhis_vf_1.pdf(accessed6April2016).
Burstein, M., Clement, G., and Petty, S. (2014) Pratiques d’intégration prometteuses dans les communautés
francophones en situation minoritaire.Ottawa:CIC.

London Review of Education  151
Canadian Press(2016)‘PremierWynneapologizesfor1912regulationbanningFrenchinOntarioschools’.
Online.www.thecanadianpress.com/english/online/OnlineFullStory.aspx?lename=DOR-MNN-CP.
d2732aaf15964e269a42e66a46cec9da.CPKEY2008111303&newsitemid=36470080&languageid=1
(accessed1March2016).
Cardozo,A.,andPendakur,R.(2008)Canada’s Visible Minority Population: 1967–2017.Workingpaperseries.
Vancouver: Metropolis British Columbia. Online. http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/les/
wp/2008/WP08-05.pdf(accessed1March2016).
CentreforInternationalMigrationandSettlementStudies(CIMSS)(2012)‘Introduction: Stateoftheart
andfuturedirectionsinsettlementlanguagetraining’.International Settlement Canada:Special issue on
settlement language training, Spring. Online.www3.carleton.ca/cimss/inscan-e/v24_se.pdf(accessed1
March2016).
Chiswick,B.R. (2008) The Economics of Language: An introduction and overview.Discussionpaper no.3568.
Bonn:InstitutefortheStudyofLabor.Online.http://ftp.iza.org/dp3568.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Ciccarelli, S.B. (1997)‘ESL for nation-building:The origins of federally-funded ESL in Canada’. MA diss.,
OntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation/UniversityofToronto.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) (2012) Canada: Faits et chiffres 2012. Aperçu de l’immigration:
Résidents permanents et temporaires. Ottawa: CIC. Online. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/
collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2012-fra.pdf(accessed1March2016).
–– (n.d.(a)) ‘Strategic outcomes and program activity architecture’. Online. www.cic.gc.ca/english/
department/paa/activity-05.asp(accessed6April2016).
–– (n.d.(b)) ‘Findings’. Online. www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/grant-quebec/section4.asp
(accessed1March2016).
–– (n.d.(c)) ‘Language classes funded by the Government of Canada’. Online. www.cic.gc.ca/english/
newcomers/live/language.asp(accessed1March2016).
CityofVancouver(2014)‘CulturalCommunitiesAdvisoryCommittee’. Online.http://vancouver.ca/your-
government/cultural-communities-advisory-committee.aspx(accessed1March2016).
–– (n.d.) Vancouver City Local Immigration Partnership.Vancouver: Community Services. Online. http://
vancouver.ca/les/cov/vancouver-city-local-immigration-partnership-overview.pdf (accessed 6 April
2016).
––,MulticulturalAdvisory Committee (2014) Committee Term Summary. Online. http://vancouver.ca/les/
cov/council-of-councils-presentation-mac-2014.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Clarkson,A.(2014) Belonging: The paradox of citizenship. CBC Massey Lecture Series.Toronto:House of
AnansiPress.
Cleghorn,L.(2000)‘ValuingEnglish:Anethnographyofafederallanguagetrainingprogramforadultimmigrants’.
MA diss., University ofToronto. Online. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/14699/1/
MQ49781.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Collier,D.(1993)‘Thecomparativemethod’.InFinifter,A.W.(ed.)Political Science: The state of the discipline II.
Washington,DC:AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,105–20.
Cooper,R.L.(1989)Language Planning and Social Change.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Derwing,T.M.,andWaugh,E.(2012)Language Skills and the Social Integration of Canada’s Adult Immigrants.
Montreal: Institute forResearchon Public Policy. Online. http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/
research/diversity-immigration-and-integration/language-skills-and-the-social-integration-of-canadas-
adult-immigrants/IRPP-Study-no31.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Dickinson, J.A., andYoung, B. (2008) Brève histoire socio-historique du Québec. Montreal: Bibliothèque
Québécoise.
Dickson,H.,Lindquist,E.,Pollard,B.,andYan,M.C.(2013)Devolving Settlement Funding from the Government
of Canada: The British Columbia experience, 1998–2013.Edmonton:WesternCanadianConsortiumon
Integration, Citizenship and Cohesion. Online. www.amssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC_
CIC_Settlement_Report_July_23rd_20131.pdf(accessed1March2016).
DominionBureauofStatistics(1953)‘Table61:Immigrantpopulationbymothertongue,periodofimmigration
andsex,forcitiesof30,000andover,1951’.InPopulation. Cross-classications of Characteristics.Ottawa:
DBS.

152  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
ElectionsCanada(2010)‘HistoryofrepresentationintheHouseofCommonsofCanada’.Online.www.
elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/book&document=rep1&lang=e (accessed 6April
2016).
––(2012)‘Répartitiondes sièges àlaChambredes communesparprovince’. Online.www.elections.ca/
content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/allo&document=index&lang=f(accessed6April2016).
EmploiNexus(2016)Online.www.emploinexus.com/(accessed1March2016).
FederationofCanadianMunicipalities(FCM)(2011)Starting on Solid Ground: The municipal role in immigrant
settlement. Ottawa: FCM. Online. www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Starting_on_Solid_Ground_
Municipalities_and_Immigration_EN.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Ferron, C.(2008)‘Lesimmigrants:unesourcedevitalitépourlescommunautésdelangueofcielleen
situationminoritaire’.InBelkhodja,C.(ed.)Immigration et diversité au sein des communautés francophones
en situation minoritaire.Thèmes canadiens/Canadian Issues.Montreal:AssociationforCanadianStudies,
15–19.
Fourot,A.-C.(2016)‘Redessinerlesespacesfrancophonesauprésent:Lapriseencomptedel’immigration
danslarecherchesurlesfrancophoniesminoritairesauCanada’.Politiques et Sociétés,35(1),25–48.
Fraser, G., and Boileau, F. (2014) Agir maintenant pour l’avenir des communautés francophones: Pallier le
déséquilibre en immigration. Rapport conjoint.Toronto:CommissariatauxlanguesofciellesduCanada/
Commissariatauxservicesenfrançaisdel’Ontario.
Gagnon, É., and Saillant, F. (2000) De la dépendance à l’accompagnement: Soins à domicile et liens sociaux.
Quebec:Pressesdel’UniversitéLaval,L’Harmattan.
Gazzola,M.,andGrin,F.(2010)‘Criteria-basedcomparisoninlanguagepolicy:Principlesandmethodology’.
Working Papers of the DYLAN Project: Working Paper no.5 (Deliverable1.5),10–45.
Good,K.R. (2008)Cities of and for Pluralism: The role of Canadian municipalities in multiculturalism initiatives.
ExpertRoundtableonCanada’sExperiencewithPluralism.Ottawa:GlobalCentreforPluralism.Online.
www.pluralism.ca/images/PDF_docs/pluralism_papers/good_paper_pp7.pdf(accessed1March2016).
GouvernementduQuébec(1977)‘CharteroftheFrenchlanguage’.Online.www2.publicationsduquebec.
gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&le=/C_11/C11_A.html(accessed1March2016).
––(2000)‘ChartedelaVilledeMontréal’.Online.www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/
telecharge.php?type=2&le=/C_11_4/C11_4.html(accessed6April2014).
–– (2014) ‘Communautés culturelles’. Online. www.education.gouv.qc.ca/enseignants/aide-et-soutien/
communautes-culturelles(accessed1March2016).
Government of British Columbia (2013) 2011–12 Annual Report.WelcomeBC Settlement and Integration
Services. Online. www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs2011/471785/2011_2012.pdf (accessed 1
March2016).
GovernmentofCanada(1960) Canadian Bill of Rights.Online. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/
page-1.html(accessed1March2016).
––(1985)Ofcial Languages Act (4th Supp.).Online.http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/O-3.01.pdf(accessed
1March2016).
––(1991)Canada–Quebec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens.Online.www.cic.
gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/agreements/quebec/can-que.asp(accessed1March2016).
––(2015) Canada–British Columbia Immigration Agreement.Online.www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-
policy/agreements/bc/bc-2015.asp(accessed1March2016).
Gunn,A.(2012) Immigration and Multi-level Governance in Canada and Europe: The role of municipalities as
integration policy innovators. PolicyPaper.Canada–EuropeTransatlanticDialogue:Seekingtransnational
solutionsto21stcenturyproblems.Online.http://labs.carleton.ca/canadaeurope/wp-content/uploads/
sites/9/2012-12-paper-gunn-uvic-immigrantintegration-municipalities.pdf(accessed1March2016).
HouseofCommonsofCanada(2010)Best Practices in Settlement Services. Report of the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration.Ottawa: GovernmentofCanada.Online.www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/
Committee/403/CIMM/Reports/RP4388396/cimmrp02/cimmrp02-e.pdf(accessed6April2016).
InstitutdelaStatistiqueduQuébec(ISQ)(2015)Le bilan démographique du Québec. Édition2014.Quebec:
ISQ. Online.www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2014.pdf (assessed6April
2016).

London Review of Education  153
Kataoka,S.,andMagnusson,W.(2007)Settling the Unsettled: Migrants, municipalities and multilevel governance
in British Columbia. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association,
Seattle,WA, 26April 2007. Victoria, BC: University ofVictoria. Online. http://ppm-ppm.ca/Papers/
KataokaMagnusson2007.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Kilbride,K.M.,Farrell,P.,DiSanto,A.,andSadeghi,S.(2011)Speaking with Senior Immigrant Women and Sponsoring
Families: A rst-language investigation of the needs for holistic approaches to service.Toronto:CERIS–The
OntarioMetropolisCentre/RyersonUniversity. Online.www.ahrni-irras.ca/index.php?option=com_
sobipro&task=download.le&d=269.8165&sid=102&Itemid=115(accessed1March2016).
Lalonde,C.(2016)‘LesrelationsentrelespaliersfédéraletmunicipalauCanada’.Réseau Ville Région Monde.
Online.www.vrm.ca/les-relations-entre-les-paliers-federal-et-municipal-au-canada/ (accessed 6April
2016).
Mady,C.,andTurnbull,M.(2012)‘OfciallanguagebilingualismforallophonesinCanada:Exploringfuture
research’. TESL Canada Journal, 29 (2), 131–42. Online. http://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ981500.pdf
(accessed1March2016).
Marmen, L., and Corbeil, J.-P. (1999) Les langues au Canada: Recensement de 1996. Ottawa: Patrimoine
canadien/StatisticsCanada.
McAndrew,M.(2002)‘Laloi101enmilieuscolaire:Impactsetrésultats’.Revue d’aménagement linguistique.
Hors série (Autumn), 69–82. Online. www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/ouvrages/
amenagement_hs/ral01_charte_mc_andrew_vf_%2009-22_1.pdf(accessed1March2016).
MetroVancouver (2012)‘Census bulletins’.Online . www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/
data-statistics/census-bulletins/Pages/default.aspx(accessed1March2016).
MinisterofState forMulticulturalism(2012)British Columbia Immigration Task Force. Finalreport. Online.
www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/tourism-and-immigration/immigrating-to-bc/immigration_task_force_
web.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Ministèredel’Immigration,delaDiversitéetdel’Inclusion(MIDI)(2008)Pour enrichir le Québec: Franciser
plus, intégrer mieux.Mesures pour renforcer l’action du Québec en matière de francisation des immigrants.
Montreal:GouvernementduQuébec.Online.www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/mesures/Mesures-
Francisation-Brochure2008.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(2014a)L’immigration au Québec. Le rôle du ministère de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion et de
ses partenaires. Document de référence.Montreal: MIDI.Online. www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/
dossiers/DOC_RoleQuebecImmigration.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(2014b)Vers une nouvelle politique québécoise en matière d’immigration, de diversité et d’inclusion. Document
synthèse.Montreal:Gouvernementdu Québec.Online.www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/dossiers/
SYN_CahierConsult_Politique.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(2015a)Programme d’aide nancière pour l’intégration linguistique des immigrants2015–2016.Montreal:
GouvernementduQuébec.Online.www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/divers/Pali.pdf(accessed 1
March2016).
––(2015b)‘Politiquequébécoiseenmatièred’immigration,departicipationetd’inclusion’.Gouvernement
du Québec. Online. www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/fr/dossiers/consultation-publique.html (accessed 6 April
2016).
Morris,M.A. (ed.) (2010) Canadian Language Policies in Comparative Perspective.Montreal:McGill-Queen’s
UniversityPress.
Murphy,J.(2010)The Settlement & Integration Needs of Immigrants: A literature review.Ottawa:TheOttawaLocal
Immigration Partnership. Online. http://olip-plio.ca/knowledge-base/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
Olip-Review-of-Literature-Final-EN.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Ng, E., Pottie, K., and Spitzer, D. (2011) ‘Ofcial language prociency and self-reported health among
immigrants to Canada’. Health Reports, 22 (4), 15–24. Online. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/
collection_2011/statcan/82-003-X/82-003-x2011004-eng.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Olazabal,I.,LeGall,J.,Montgomery,C.,Laquerre,M.-E.,andWallach,I.(2010)‘Diversitéethnoculturelleet
personnesâgéesimmigrantes’.InCharpentier,M.,Guberman,N.,Billette,V.,Lavoie,J.-P.,GrenierA.,and
Olabazal,I.(eds.),Vieillir au pluriel: Perspectives sociales.Quebec:LesPressesdel’UniversitéduQuébec.

154  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
Omidvar,R.,andRichmond,T.(2003) Immigrant Settle ment and Social Inclusion in Canada.Working paper
series:Perspectivesonsocialinclusion.Toronto:TheLaidlawFoundation.Online.http://library.bsl.org.
au/jspui/bitstream/1/626/1/Immigrant_Settlement_and_Social_Inclusion_in_Canada.pdf (accessed 1
March2016).
Paquet,M.(2016)La fédéralisation de l’immigration auCanada.Montreal:Pressesdel’UniversitédeMontréal.
PrivyCouncilOfce (PCO)(1970)Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.Book
3.Ottawa:PCO.Online.http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.699863/publication.html(accessed8April
2016).
Rinfret-Raynor,M.,Brodeur, N.,Lesieux,É., and Dugal,N.(2013)Adaptation des interventions aux besoins
des immigrants-es en situation de violance conjugale: État des pratiques dans les milieux d’intervention’.
Collection Études et Analyses,45.Quebec:Centrederechercheinterdisciplinairesurlaviolencefamiliale
etlaviolencefaite auxfemmes.Online.www.criviff.qc.ca/upload/publications/pub_245.pdf(accessed
1March2016).
Rose,D.(2006)Housing Issues Facing Newcomers to Canada. BriefpresentedtotheParliamentofCanadaSenate
SubcommitteeonCities.Montreal:InstitutNationaldelaRechercheScientique–CentreUrbanisation
CultureSociété.Online.www.researchgate.net/profile/Damaris_Rose/publication/255624182_
HOUSING_ISSUES_FACING_NEWCOMERS_TO_CANADA/links/542e95d00cf29bbc126f2c0c.pdf
(accessed1March2016).
SimpsonJ.,andWhiteside,A.(eds)(2015)Adult Language Education and Migration: Challenging agendas in policy
and practice.Abingdon:Routledge.
Sitefor LanguageManagementinCanada(SLMC)(n.d.(a))‘Federallegislation andlanguagerights (1969
and1988)’.Online.https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=federal_legislation_1969_1988(accessed8April2016).
––(n.d.(b))‘CharteroftheFrenchlanguage’.Online.https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=qc_linguistic_law(accessed
8April2016).
–– (n.d. (c)) ‘Laws of linguistic signicance in Quebec’. Online. https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=qc_other_
legislation(accessed8April2016).
–– (n.d.(d))‘Language legislation in British Columbia’. Online. https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=prov_stat_bc
(accessed8April2016).
Soulières,M.,andOuellette,G.(2012)L’hébergement pour les personnes en perte d’autonomie au Québec: Des
enjeux et des parcours difciles pour les personnes concernées.Montreal:Regroupementprovincialdes
comités des usagers. Online. www.rpcu.qc.ca/pdf/publications/rpcu_etat_de_situation_2012-12-04.
pdf(accessed1March2016).
Statistics Canada (2003) 2001Census: Analysis series. Canada’s ethnocultural portrait: The changing mosaic.
Ottawa: MinistryofIndustry.Online.http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/96F0030X/96F0030
XIE2001008.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(2011a)‘Languematernelledétaillée–populationtotaleàl’exclusiondespensionnairesd’unétablissement
institutionnel’.Online. www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=F&Geo
1=PR&Code1=01&Data=Count&SearchText=quebec&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B
1=Language&Custom=&TABID=1#tabs2(accessed1March2016).
–– (2011b) Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada. National Household Survey 2011. Ottawa:
Ministry of Industry. Online. www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-
eng.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(2011c) Aboriginal Peoples and Language. National Household Survey 2011. Ottawa:Ministryof Industry.
Online.www12.statcan.gc .ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-011-x2011003_1-eng.pdf (accessed 1
March2016).
––(2011d)‘Populationbymothertongue,bycensus metropolitanarea, excludinginstitutionalresidents
(2011 Census)’. Online. www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo12a-eng.htm
(accessed6April2016).
 –– (2016) ‘Région métropolitaine de recensement de Montréal, Québec’. Online. www12.statcan.
gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-fra.cfm?LANG=Fra&GK=CMA&GC=462
(accessed6April2016).
Stoney,C.,andGraham,K.A.H.(2009)‘Federal-municipalrelationsinCanada:Thechangingorganizational
landscape’.Administration publique du Canada,52(3),371–94.
Sullivan,S.(2007)Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Immigration.Vancouver:MTFI.

London Review of Education  155
Tabledeconcertationdesorganismesauservicedespersonnesréfugiéesetimmigrantes(TCRI) (2011)
L’intégration des enfants et des jeunes immigrants de première génération au Québec: Perspective des
organismes communautaires au service des nouveaux arrivants.Rapport d’enquête.Montreal:TCRI.Online.
https://jeunesimmigrants.les.wordpress.com/2013/03/rapport-denquc3aate-jeunes-immigrants.pdf
(accessed1March2016).
TD Bank Financial Group (2009) Literacy Matters: Helping newcomers unlock their potential.Toronto:TD
Bank Financial Group. Online. www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/ca0909_literacy.pdf
(accessed1March2016).
Thomas,D.(2011)Réseaux personnels et adaptation sur le plan économique. StatisticsCanada.Online.www.
statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11592-fra.pdf(accessed1March2016).
Tolley, E.,Biles,J.,Andrew,C.,Esses,V.,and Burstein,M.(2011)‘Integrationandinclusion in Ontario:The
sleeping giant stirs’. In Biles,J., Burstein. M., Frideres, J.,Tolley, E.,andVineberg, R. (eds) Integration
and Inclusion of Newcomers and Minorities across Canada.MontrealandKingston,ON:McGill-Queen’s
UniversityPress,195–246.
VancouverImmigrationPartnership(VIP)(2016)‘VIPpartners’.Online.www.vancouverimmigrationpartnership.
ca/vip-partners/(accessed1March2016).
VatzLaaroussi,M.(2008)‘L’immigrationdanslesrégionsduQuébecetdanslescommunautésfrancophones
hors Québec: une volonté partagée, des contextes différents, des dés communs, des pistes à
transférer’. In Belkhodja, C. (ed.) Immigration et diversité au sein des communautés francophones en
situation minoritaire.Thèmes canadiens/Canadian Issues.Montreal:AssociationforCanadianStudies,33–7.
Ville de Montréal (2011)‘Mémoire sur la planication de l’immigration au Québec pour la période
2012–2015’. Online. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/d_social_fr/media/documents/
MemoireVilleMai2011.pdf(accessed1March2016).
––(n.d.)‘Populationselonlaconnaissancedeslanguesofcielles,agglomerationdeMontreal,2011’.Online.
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=6897,67887637&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
(accessed13June2016).
Xue,L.(2007)Portrait of an Integration Process: Dif culties encountered and resources relied on for newcomers in
their  rst 4 years in Canada. Evidence from three waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada
(LSIC). Ottawa: CIC. Online. www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/portrait-integr-process-e.pdf
(accessed1March2016).
Young,R.(2009)‘Canada’.InSteytler,N.(ed.)Local Government and Metropolitan Regions in Federal Systems.
Vol.6ofA Global Dialogue on Federalism.MontrealandKingston,ON:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,
106–35.

Related articles published in the London Review of Education
In this issue
Thispaperwaspublishedinaspecial featureonMultilingualism ineducationincosmopolitan
cities,edited by Dina Mehmedbegovic.Theotherarticles in thefeatureareasfollows (links
unavailableattimeofpublication):
Caporal-Ebersold,E.,andYoung,A. (2016)‘Negotiatingandappropriatingthe“oneperson,onelanguage”
policywithin thecomplexrealityofa multilingualcrècheinStrasbourg’.London Review of Education,
14(2),122–33.

156  Catherine Ellyson, Caroline Andrew, and Richard Clément
Mehmedbegovic, D. (2016) Editorial:‘Multilingualism in education in cosmopolitan cities: Insights into
LUCIDEnetworkresearch’. London Review of Education,14(2),119–21.
Menghini,M.(2016)‘Multilingualismandlanguagelearning:TheRomecityreport’.London Review of Education,
14(2),157–73.
Nicolaou, A., Parmaxi, A., Papadima-Sophocleous, S., and Boglou, D. (2016)‘Language education in a
multilingualcity:ThecaseofLimassol’. London Review of Education,14(2),174–85.
Elsewhere in this issue
Hamlin,D.,andDavies,S.(2016)‘Toronto:Anewglobalcityoflearning’. London Review of Education,14(2),
186–98.