Workshop Proposal for the 6th International Metropolis
Conference in Rotterdam (Nov. 26-30, 2001)
NGO's in the Face of
Immigrant and Refugee Reception and Settlement Dynamics: Is Their Role
Complementary or Alternative to Governmental Policies ?
What Role Do
NGO's Play?
Annick Germain, INRS,
and Stephan Reichhold, TCRI
Montréal
Introduction
It is tempting to believe that the answer to the question posed in the
title of this workshop is essential in itself and that complementarity between
the roles of governments and that of NGO's will be uncovered as a result.
However, there are a good many ways to answer this question and, above and
beyond the good intentions stated by all, it would be wrong to underestimate
the differences that divide them and the rationale that drives them in
sometimes opposite directions.
NGO's have always played a significant role in the
reception, settlement, and integration of immigrants and refugees. NGO's can be
considered to be key actors in the field of immigration and integration almost
everywhere, be they organizations established by immigrants or set-up by
host-country actors, mono-ethnic or multiethnic associations, or organizations
whose interventions include support services, protection of minority rights,
settlement services (housing assistance, access to employment, etc.),
intercultural exchange, or preservation of cultures-of-origin.
The role of NGO's varies from country to country
however, according to the relationships established via government intervention
and the current associative traditions in different societies. In countries
like France, where the State is entrusted with integrating citizens into
society, associations play a very different, if not more limited, role than in
countries, usually Anglo-Saxon, where integration is the preserve of
intermediary groups. As Geneviève Poujol writes, in one case the State thinks
that it must do everything and thus does not need associations, and in the
other it is more laissez-faire or else muddles through, knowing that it can't
do everything itself (Poujol, 2001).
It will thus be interesting to compare the experiences of all concerned.
This comparative analysis is even more appropriate as NGO's seem, at least in
Quebec, to be going through a period of significant change that notably affects
how their relations with governmental organizations are redefined. In fact, for
several years now, the State (Canadian as well as Quebecois) has modified its
relations with NGO's substantially on many levels, and this evolution is not
yet over. Going over the advantages and drawbacks of the different models
extracted from the lived experience of
various countries will then prove useful.
We will first present a general overview of changes in Quebec in order
to highlight the main issues that are pivotal to the redefinition of relations
between the State and NGO's. As these changes affect the entire associative
sector and not only immigrant-aid organizations, the reality of both the
associative sector as a whole and the immigrant-aid sector, which is a special
case within the social development field, must be accounted for.
Community organizations in
Québec
In Quebec, associative life
has generally been labeled 'community-oriented' since the mid 1970's. This term
closely defines that which is at the essence of community organizations, at
least in principle: their rootedness in their milieu. Whether they present
themselves as pressure groups (collective action for the defense of rights),
alternative service organizations, or as both, their relationship with their
milieu distinguishes them from public organizations. In France, on the other
hand, 'the essence of associative life' comes from volunteerism. Community
organizations in Quebec are also characterized by a collective dynamic that
differs from the individual philanthropy found in many countries. Nevertheless,
'community-oriented' is a label that is rather ambiguous, for it is not always
easy to define what community is being discussed (an interest group, community
adherence?).
Occasionally the line between community action and social action blurs, and
confusion sometimes also exists between the notions of community and society,
or civil society. Moreover, even the notion of community often relates to
homogeneity or identity and consensus (Godbout, 1999). One cannot be against
that which is community-oriented&
In the immigration field, the
Canadian and Quebec governments traditionally funded a certain number of
immigrant associations and immigrant-aid organizations. The former were seen as
organizations likely to serve a support function for immigrant communities
arriving in the country, strengthening the culture-of-origin and also
representing the country-of-origin to government authorities on occasion. The
vocation of immigrant-aid organizations was to assist new arrivals. These
organizations were often the initiative of more established immigrant groups
concerned with defending their rights and with helping people of their own
community and more generally, all new immigrants or refugees.
Associations that are
considered 'ethnic' are never, historically at least, identified with the
Quebecois community-based movement. Some of these associations still display
reservations towards this movement today. We will return to this point later.
In the mid 1980's a
significant movement towards the quasi-institutionalization of many of these
organizations began to take place on a broad scale, whether the sectors of
intervention of these organizations concerned immigration or not. This
institutionalization is the result of a twofold movement. On one hand, the ways
in which community organizations operate (they are more democratic and more
rooted in their milieu) have progressively infiltrated government systems.
The latter occasionally coopt community organizations in whole or in part
into newer organizations or else are inspired to create new ones in their
likeness (take the case, for example, of the CLSC's, Local Community Service
Centres, which were created on the heels of outreach clinics promoting
comprehensive approaches to care and prevention, or that of the CDEC's, the
Community Economic Development Corporations, or the Youth Employment Centres
established by Emploi Quebec). In passing, it is interesting to note that these
newer organizations, which are completely manufactured by the State,
occasionally profit from being labeled 'community-oriented action groups'. It
is not surprising later on to see attempts being made to define what is really
a community organization and what isn't! The appearance of the notion of
AUTONOMOUS community-oriented action movements corresponds with this concern.
On the other hand, the State decentralizes administration of certain social
programs and transforms certain community organizations into partners through
partnership service contracts. Certain responsibilities are delegated to local
associative networks, which for a good number of them implies a shift in
function or a change in tone: pressure groups (or groups that defend collective
rights) or relatively militant service groups become partners working in
concertation and occasionally in conflicting types of collaboration.
In the specific field of
immigration, a similar evolution is taking shape. The Quebec government's Ministère des
Relations avec les citoyens et de l' Immigration thus entrusts the
management of programs related to immigrant and refugee reception, integration,
and French language learning (this is Quebec here) to associations that it
defines as its partners through partnership service contracts. Some
organizations accrue much government funding this way and end up creating a
portfolio of activities that stabilizes them even further.
Furthermore, the two orders of
government, Canadian and Quebecois, tend to both be strongly diminishing the
support granted to monoethnic associations while urging them to broaden their client-base
to include all immigrants (thus to become multiethnic). This is what Denise
Helly and Marie McAndrew called the shift from the cultural to the civic:
support for the preservation of cultures-of-origin must give way to civic
participation in common affairs (Helly et al. 2000). It seems that less credit
is being given today to the role of ethnocultural 'communities' in the
integration process of new arrivals.
By financially supporting
certain organizations and entrusting them with the management of certain
programs aimed at immigrants and refugees, the State eventually ended up urging
organizations to redefine their missions, the clients they served, etc.
Moreover, governments also insisted that all NGO's (whether they deal with
immigration or not) work more and more in concertation, not only within
community networks, but also with public institutions and all relevant
partners. The Table de concertation au service des personnes immigrantes et
réfugiées (TCRI) is a good example. In the City of Montreal, Intersectorial
Consultation Boards have been set up in each district, where all the
associations and institutions in the neighbourhood 'that matter' can be found.
But it is interesting to note that among the spectrum of sectors that these
Boards, funded jointly by the municipality, the provincial government, and a
charitable organization, are concerned with (urban development, environment,
health, education, employment, economic matters, recreation, housing,
transportation, security, social and community life, etc), that immigrant
reception, settlement, and integration (or if we like, interculturality) does
not constitute a sector in itself. This means that the Consultation Boards will
not systematically try to recruit NGO's specializing in these issues (cultural
differences have always been defined as secondary in comparison with other
social problems, although the challenge that increasing cultural diversity
poses for management of these problems is not taken into account).
Nonetheless, an inventory of
all the ethnocultural associations selected to sit on the 20 Intersectorial
Consultation Boards of the City of Montreal reveals the presence of a
significant number of associations involved in immigrant-assistance on these
consultation authorities. But the nature of their representativity always seems
ambiguous: attempts are made to reunite organizations linked with social
problem sectors around the same Board, but not those linked with communities.
This concertation work calls
for energy and personnel that associations do not always have at their
disposal. A research project carried out in Montreal in this respect showed
that we are witnessing two different situations concerning the participation of
community organizations in neighbourhood collaborative proceedings: first of
all there is the situation of the large organizations, which have the time
and an accumulation of funding that allows them to frequent the Consultation
Boards in an assiduous fashion and so cannot be ignored; and then there are the
smaller, often monoethnic, associations which have little means and for whom
this type of collaborative work is too time-consuming and costly.
Autonomy : is it an
issue?
In short, the profile of
associations has changed a lot these past few years and these associations are
now speculating about the effect of all these changes. In particular, the issue
of the autonomy of community organizations has been around for a long time and
has become more pointed over the past few years.
The appearance of the
expression 'autonomous community-oriented action movement' testifies to this,
as it has arisen in response to the proliferation of organizations that are
more often products of the state than of the community. Although associations
have made gains in terms of visibility, importance (for some this includes the
volume of their activities), and in resources, has this not been at the cost of
their ability to define their missions, modes of organization, even their
rootedness in their neighbourhood? The more they are incorporated into the
State's sphere of influence, the more they can run the risk of distancing
themselves from their roots in the community. At least that's a hypothesis we
could make. Does the corporatist tendency not become real when we observe that
the State often favours dialogue with several recognized associations at the
expense of wider public debate? Is participative democracy taking the place of
representative democracy?
In the field of immigration,
associations set up by long-established immigrant groups make themselves heard
more often than do associations of recent immigrant groups (when they exist!).
But it is often these latter associations that must be reached in order to
organize aid and support networks, for it is often new immigrants who are the
most isolated and destitute. In addition, many of these immigrants mistrust the
institutionalized community network and the public apparatus as a whole, basing
this feeling on bad experiences lived in their country-of-origin. In effect, they
tend to perceive NGO's as agencies of the State.
The Canadian and Quebec governments
recently initiated reflection on the relations between NGO. s and
the State in collaboration with the entire associative sector: in the former
case, an agreement between the Canadian government and the volunteer
sector has been discussed, and in the case of the provincial government, a
policy proposal presented by the Secrétariat à l'action communautaire
autonome (Minister's Office for Autonomous Community-Oriented Action)
has been under discussion. The terminological differences can be noted, of
course, but in both these cases the State is making an attempt to recognize the
specificity of the associative sector, to respect the dynamics that are proper
to the sector, and to support the sector as a strategic actor.
Inspired by the British model
on the subject, the approach of the federal government is strongly backed by
large Canadian philanthropic organizations. The debate surrounding this
proposition has not really reached groups at the grass-roots level in Quebec.
The government is trying above all to set the parameters for greater national
consistency on a Canada-wide scale, and to encourage the support of NGO's for
governmental objectives.
The approach taken in Quebec
stems from the process of protest-oriented actions started by the
community-based movement in the 1980's. This process was supported and
validated by a large number of local and regional community organizations in
various sectors (women's issues, social services, housing, disabled persons,
literacy services, environment, immigration, etc). Resulting from an overall
policy of recognition and funding of community action, this approach has
recently been adopted by the Government of Quebec. One innovative measure
recognizes and funds organizations involved in the defense of collective
rights, while nonetheless respecting their autonomy vis-à-vis the government.
It could be said that this represents a compromise between the historic
protest-oriented actions of the community-based movement and the political and
strategic interests of the State vis-à-vis social movements.
In fact, NGO's 'room to
maneuver' could gradually be whittled away due to the pressures of
professionalization, ideological constraints, and the close program management
follow-up. Does the State not carefully select its partners, while trying to
ignore those who do not yield to its management criteria? In either case, there
is an entire section of civil society that no longer has the right to speak nor
the means with which to do so.
We might very well find
ourselves with a two-tier associative network having unhoped-for exclusionary
effects, since outreach to recent immigrants and refugees or to impoverished
immigrants is most often done by more or less disreputable or unknown
associations. This is notably the case with certain religious associations,
since firm secular policies prevent their being used as interlocutors. This is
also the case with (mono)ethnic associations that are considered to encourage
ghetto formation, since they favour the consolidation of cultures-of-origin
rather than the emergence of new citizens predisposed towards the State.
One might also wonder whether
the progressive incorporation of NGO's into the orbit of the State reflects the
image of a one-way only integration process; that of the quasi-assimilation of
immigrants. Ethnocultural associations here are no longer seen as actors likely
to contribute towards shaping new ways of doing things that might permeate all
society. Here, society will only absorb immigrants, it will not be transformed
through contact with them.
