The Expendables: Community Organizations and Governance Dynamics in the Canadian Settlement Sector

PROOFREADING INSTRUCTIONS Dear Contributor, Enclosed please find page proofs for your article scheduled to be published in: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE / Revue canadienne de science politique Follow these procedures: 1. Carefully proofread your article. This will be your final proofreading before publication. Check especially for the spelling of names and places as well as the accuracy of dates and numbers. 2. Please choose one of the following options when making corrections: a) Print out the

b) Citing page and line number, make a list of corrections and respond by email. 3. Clearly mark any necessary corrections on the page proofs. Changes are limited to typographical and factual errors. Rewriting or other stylistic changes are not permitted. Contributors may be charged for excessive author alterations.

North America), by fax or by email to:

Diane Davis Journals Department Cambridge University Press Phone: 212-337-6541 Fax: 212-337-5959 Email: [email protected]

Please note that delay in returning your proofs may require publication without your

corrections. Thank you for your prompt attention to these proofs.

Sincerely, Diane Davis Production Editor

proofs and mark corrections on the relevant pages and send in your changes by fax; or

4. Return proofs within 48 hours by first class mail (air mail express if outside

To order reprints or offprints of your article or a printed copy of the issue, please visit the

Cambridge University Reprint Order Center online at: www.sheridan.com/cup/eocIf you have any questions, please feel free to contact the editor or the Cambridge

Journals Department.

QUESTIONS

1. Not in references.

2. Something odd here.


4. An appropriate point at which to describe your interviewees andthe dates of the interviews.



7. Correct?


9. needs fixing

10. Not cited in text.

6 6

CJP46~1! 00045Q 101 05003013 11:52 AM

�

�

�

CJP00045q

The Expendables: Community Organizationsand Governance Dynamics in the CanadianSettlement Sector

NICHOLAS ACHESON University of UlsterRACHEL LAFOREST Queen’s University

Since the 1990s, governance processes have shifted significantly as mostgovernments in industrialized countries began emphasizing the need forgreater participation of third sector organizations in the process of designand delivery of public policy ~Agranoff, 2006; Brugue and Gallego, 2003;Kendall, 2009!. While most of the literature has focused on the state andchanges in administrative structures ~on the resdesign of bureaucratic unitssee Brugue and Gallego, 2003; Hunold, 2001!, we know comparativelylittle on how shifts in governance have affected patterns of engagementof community organizations. What is unique about community organiza-tions is that they are both agents in the delivery of services and vehiclesfor the expression of collective interests. Shifts in governance are com-pelling organizations to make tradeoffs between these two roles. This paperis particularly concerned with the impacts of this shift in governance onthe role and place of community-based organizations as a critical vehiclefor the acquisition and expression of citizenship. The emerging patternin contemporary liberal democracies is a move away from interest grouprepresentation and a public sphere organized around demands for exten-sions of rights, for example, to something much more constrained ~Lafor-est, 2012; Smith, 2005!.

In order to examine how these broad dynamics are affecting com-munity organizations on the ground, the paper adopts a case studyapproach focusing on the field of immigrant settlement. This field pro-vides a fruitful area of investigation because identity issues have tradi-

Nicholas Acheson, School of Criminology Politics and Social Policy, University ofUlster, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, BT327 0QB, Northern Ireland UKRachel Laforest, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 138 Union, Suther-land Hall, Kingston ON, K7L 3N6

6 6

CJP 00045 1020 05010013 11:52 AM

�

�

�

CJP00045

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politiquePage 1 of 20 doi:10.10170S0008423913000450

© 2013 Canadian Political Science Association ~l’Association canadienne de science politique!and0et la Société québécoise de science politique

Q1

tionally intersected with service delivery in this area. It is also welldocumented that since the mid-1990s, the settlement sector in Ontariohas evolved into a para-state system under new governance arrange-ments ~Richmond and Shields, 2004; Sadiq, 2004!. The effects of thesenew governance dynamics which call for a devolution of settlement ser-vices and greater collaboration between governments and communityorganizations have had their greatest impact at the municipal level. Theobjective of this article is to examine how community organizations havenavigated and adapted their practices to the new governance arrange-ments, with a particular focus on the city of Ottawa.

While Ottawa’s immigrant population has grown at a faster pace thanthe rest of Canada, the local situation in Ottawa has been consistent withnational and provincial trends. In 2006, 178,545 immigrants were livingin Ottawa, representing almost a quarter of the population ~22.2%!. It isestimated that one in five persons ~22%! in the city is foreign born and19 per cent belong to a visible minority group ~Statistics Canada Cen-sus, 2006!. It is also estimated that immigrants will account for 27 percent of the population and visible minorities 28 per cent by 2017 ~Statis-tics Canada, 2010!. What is more, Ottawa has a small but well developedand co-ordinated settlement sector. Being in the nation’s capital, the sec-tor has a long history of interacting with various levels of government,making it an interesting case study from the perspective of governance.

For this research, total of 16 qualitative semi-structured interviewswere conducted with key informants involved in immigrant settlement inthe region of Ottawa between 2009 and 2010. In order to have a compre-hensive and in-depth overview of the evolving nature of government sec-tor relations, we conducted nine interviews with senior executives fromcommunity organizations and seven interviews with federal, provincialand municipal officials in the area. Most of the respondents had workedin the immigrant settlement field for over a decade and could speak tothe changes in representation first hand. We adopted a grounded theorytechnique to gain insight into how organizations described their experi-ence around political representation and to build theoretical understand-ing of how organizations were adapting to governance dynamics. Key toour analysis are the discourses which framed competing claims anddefined actions to be considered and assigned responsibilities for differ-ent players. Analyzing discourses in this way makes it possible to askhow patterns of representation evolve through organizational practice. Thestudy also involved the collection of relevant minutes, correspondence,reports and other secondary documentation. Drawing on this existing lit-erature and empirical research, this paper explores the way governancearrangements have impacted the advocacy and service delivery roles ofcommunity sector organizations in the field of immigrant settlement overthe past decade.

6 6

CJP 00045 2020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:2

�

�

�

2 NICHOLAS ACHESON AND RACHEL LAFOREST

Q2

Q3

Q4

Our research found that, in Ottawa, the governance system hasshifted from community organizations being given credibility and legit-imacy based on their voice and whom they represent, to a new systembased on what they do. This shift has altered the nature of claims beingmade in the political arena and ultimately, has constrained the space forcitizenship building. It has focused community groups away from a “stateof being” to a “state of doing.” What makes this new paradigm a sig-nificant departure from earlier forms of politics articulated around thepolitics of recognition or the politics of identity is that organizationaldynamics have now become the defining feature of the relationshipbetween civil society and the state. It follows that when one strips groupsfrom their deep-seated identity base, it is easier to supplant them andtreat them as tools that are expendables in policy dynamics. Their expend-ability has rendered them more vulnerable to the pressures of gover-nance. What is surprising about this trend, however, is the extent to whichcommunity organizations themselves serve to buttress and underpin thegovernance narratives that sustain their expendability through the exer-cise of their own organizational agency. These findings raise a numberof important issues confronting the community sector in Canada, whichhave a direct bearing on its capacity to fully engage in the policy pro-cess and which have tended to be obscured in the literature because ofthe strong focus on service delivery dynamics at the expense of moreexpressive functions.

Abstract. An emerging pattern of governance in contemporary liberal democratic welfare statesis a move away from interest group representation and a public sphere organized around demandsfor extensions of rights to something much more constrained. This article asks how such aprofound shift in representation has occurred through governance spaces that are co-constructedby community organizations. It examines the case of Canadian immigrant settlement wherebeliefs about citizen representation, the role of the state and the nature of the public spherehave undergone profound change, leaving immigrant organizations as either marginal playersor fully incorporated in state sanctioned immigrant service provision. Drawing on documentaryevidence and interviews with immigrant organizations and public officials in Ottawa, it showshow immigrant organizations have actively interpreted their interests in the light of this chang-ing web of beliefs to co-construct a new policy regime that favours organizational interests overcitizen participation.

Résumé. Au cours des dernières décennies, une des tendance de gouvernance qui se desssinedans la plupart des États providence est que l’espace de représentation politique et de la défensedes droits collectifs est devenu de plus en plus restraint. Cet article examine comment ce change-ment a pris forme dans des espaces de gouvernance qui sont de plus en plus marqués par uneinteraction dynamique de coconstruction des politiques publiques. L’analyse est basée sur uneétude de cas d’organismes communautaire oeuvrant dans le domaine de l’intégration des immi-grants dans la ville d’Ottawa. L’analyse de documents et les entrevues qualitatives révèlent queles organismes ont stratégiquement redéfinis leurs intérêts en matière de représentation poli-tique et ont contribué à la coconstruction d’un nouveau régime de gouvernance qui privilégieles intérêts organisationnels au-dessus de la participation citoyenne.

6 6

CJP 00045 3020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:3

�

�

�

Governance Theory and Citizenship

Governance can be viewed as a narrative to which is ascribed a particu-lar form of interaction between state and civil society ~Daly, 2003; New-man, 2007!. These discursive practices give rise to a particular vision ofrepresentation, access and belonging, thereby affecting the expressionsof citizenship. New institutionalists have long argued that policy fieldsare comprised of networks, which are self-sustaining rule-governed enti-ties ~Rhodes, 2007!. Their identity, or internal coherence, is cementedthrough adherence to a set of norms and values that determine the termsof participation in the network, who does what and when within it, anddetermine the ends to which the efforts of the network are directed. Theseinstitutional policy fields, it is argued, are sustained by “a relatively endur-ing collection of rules and organized practices ... that prescribe appropri-ate behaviour for specific actors in specific situations.” Rules are followed,it is argued, because they seem appropriate, natural, expected and legit-imate ~March and Olsen, 1989, 2006: 4!.

Once established the narratives that underpin or account for theserules become fixed in the structures within which the networks operate.Over time, this interaction is embedded into institutional arrangementsand practices that lead to a particular articulation of social forces,known as the structure of interest representation ~Mahon, 1977!. Thisstructure is sustained by adherence to the narratives that define the pur-poses of the field and the appropriate roles of the various actors. Byexamining the conditions under which organized interests come togetheraround broader systems of meaning that define their role and place inthe policy field, our understanding of group politics in polity can beenriched.

The rise of networked governance has been associated with a narra-tive of change from government to governance in a process that has hol-lowed out the state as power has moved down and sideways to a plethoraof quasi-government institutions and arrangements comprised of non-government as well as government actors ~Rhodes, 2007!. The orthodoxview that there has been a diffusion of power in networks has come underattack from two directions ~Bevir and Rhodes, 2010!.

First, it is argued that it underestimates the residual power of thestate. Empirical studies have consistently shown that state agencies retainthe power to determine the rules that govern networks in policy fieldsand the narratives that sustain their legitimacy ~Davies, 2011!. Govern-ments continue to steer the ship of state through a process of metagov-ernance ~Newman, 2005! whereby they define the context in whichnetwork actors negotiate with one another, who should be included andthe terms of inclusion in a process that has proved to be “less a hollow-ing out of the state than a complex and variegated shift in the pattern of

6 6

CJP 00045 4020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:4

�

�

�


rule” ~Bevir, 2010: 89!. Metagovernance occurs through the use of reg-ulatory instruments such as charity law ~Phillips and Smith, 2011! andthe imposition of contract-based funding regimes, including judgmentsabout capacity to be a fit provider of public services ~Carmel and Har-lock, 2008!, but also and more insidiously perhaps, sustaining the fictionthat the meaning of social problems is beyond contestation and is a mat-ter for technical expertise alone. All of this might imply merely that whilepower structures within policy field networks may be unbalanced theynevertheless can continue to operate so long as the rules are properlyunderstood and applied.

But second, and more fundamentally, the framing of new forms ofgovernance as rule-bound networks not only tends to hide underlyingpower structures, it also misunderstands agency. The treatment of net-works as empirical objects of study freezes their components in timeand cannot account for agency as a source of change ~Bevir and Rhodes,2010!. Instead, in decentring analysis by focusing on the social construc-tion of institutions “through the ability of individuals to create and acton meanings” ~Bevir, 2010: 85!, attention shifts to practices as the prod-ucts of situated agency. Some new institutionalists have conceded theimportance of agency and moved toward actor-centred institutionalismin order to better account for social change ~Crouch, 2007; Streeck andThelen, 2005; Thelen, 2003!. While acknowledging the role of power,these theorists break away from path dependency by noting the role ofredundant capacity in the paths not taken that can be mobilized ininstances where the costs of not changing come to outweigh the costsof change ~Crouch, 2005!. Here concepts like “layering” and “conver-sion” are used in order to break away from path dependency and cap-ture how the institutional context affects agents and their choices. Still,this approach presents the institutional context as fairly stable and chang-ing incrementally, and it also tends to assume that calculating the costsand benefits of possible change is relatively unproblematic. Addressingthese problems, Bevir and Rhodes ~2010! elaborate the concept of situ-ated agency as the capacity of individuals to exercise agency and adoptbeliefs and practices but always in the context of existing webs of belief.Based on an interpretivist epistemology, they understand institutions, notas the fixed embodiment of rules and norms but as “sites of contingent,open-ended struggles over meaning” ~Bevir and Rhodes, 2010: 59!, con-ducted by situated agents through actions that, when they coalesce intoan identifiable pattern, constitute a practice ~75!. Practices can only beunderstood with reference to the webs of meaning and belief that informthe interpretations of the agents situated within them, including the waysin which they understand their interests. While real, power in this viewis exercised and becomes visible through the way it constrains, or shapesagents’ interpretation of their interests ~76!.

6 6

CJP 00045 5020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:5

�

�

�

The Expendables 5

In this account, governance narratives are contested in that althoughgovernments as holders of both financial and legitimacy resources havesignificant influence, they cannot determine their primacy without theactive co-construction, or agency, of other actors through, at the veryleast, implicit assent. Community groups have their own strategic inter-ests in mind. The credibility that can come with funding and the legiti-macy that comes with being a trusted deliverer of a public service canbuy influence in the given policy field itself, or in adjoining fields or inother layers of government. Not surprisingly then, groups may choose toadjust their modus operandi to gain credibility and legitimacy or newplayers can emerge dislodging those that are not willing to adapt to thenew context. These dynamics of ebb and flow are pivotal to understand-ing how the politics of governance are conducted and are at the centre ofthe analysis proposed in this paper.

A shift in web of beliefs can be vividly illustrated in the field ofimmigrant settlement in Canada. In the 1970s and 1980s, the narrativeof social citizenship was a driving force behind how interests were orga-nized. Now, organizational dynamics and the instrumentality of orga-nized interests to the process of governance drive the nature of therelationship between state and civil society. What has happened, we argue,is that this new narrative has recast the structure of representation amongnew immigrants in ways that have not only left community organiza-tions more expendable but have recast citizenship as a personal respon-sibility rather than through recognition and membership of a communityby means of the enjoyment of social and political rights ~Lister, 2010!.What needs some explanation is how such a profound shift in represen-tation has occurred through governance spaces that rely on the activeparticipation of community organizations as co-constructors of thosespaces with the continuing assent of those organizations in changes thathave deeply compromised their rights to participate and, it might beadded, their missions. Our argument is that while hard state power wasnecessary to collapse the old policy, narrative and active metagover-nance techniques are required to underpin its replacement, and it is theactive exercise of situated agency of the community organizations inthe policy field that sustains it.

A State of Being: Who and Why?

In Canada, as in many liberal countries, the late 1940s were marked bythe rise of a post-war social policy agenda that became the blueprint forthe welfare state as we know it—one that embraces values of inclusion,participation, social protection and rights protection. Recognizing the needfor a pan-Canadian approach to social policy that would enable Canadi-

6 6

CJP 00045 6020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:6

�

�

�


ans, regardless of their provincial ties, to the same rights and benefits,social welfare efforts quickly tied into nation-building goals. The wel-fare state was to provide a safety net and security for all citizens in timesof need. In that sense, citizenship found expression in an enjoyment ofthese rights gained through membership in a national community. Thisvision of social security extended to the establishment and protection ofpolitical and civil rights. It recognized that the federal government had arole in regulating social relations. What is more, political participationwas envisioned as an additional social protection against risks.

This paradigm for citizenship shaped policy discussions and dynam-ics well into the 1980s. It opened the policy door to identity-based socialactors, like women and visible minorities, seeking recognition in the polit-ical arena. Indeed, some vital segments of the Canadian population atthe time, such as women’s groups, visible minorities and linguistic minor-ities, did not have access to sufficient resources in order to secure ordefend their social rights. The federal government therefore encouragedthe development of intermediation structures and processes that wouldincorporate these marginalized actors in the national policy process. AsJenson notes, “Part of the post-war story, albeit quite a controversial one,involved a new role for the federal government as an active representa-tive of all Canadians, constructing tighter social bonds among individualCanadians ... The federal government’s financial clout and willingness tospend, especially through conditional grants, meant that this vision couldtake shape” ~2004: 3!.

Not surprisingly by the late 1980s, a key feature of the post-warsystem of representation in Canada was the development of a plethora ofcommunity groups that gravitated around the federal government, andthe national scene began to serve as a pole of attraction for collectiveaction. Community groups were regarded as spaces where citizens couldattain and practise skills of citizenship. From the 1970s to the 1980s, thepolitical climate was therefore favourable to actors of civil society, par-ticularly those involved in advocacy and public education. The secretaryof state, under the Citizenship Branch, specifically provided operationalfunding to national organizations engaged in representational activities~Jenson and Phillips, 1996; Pal, 1993!. Three programs were key: theOfficial Language Minority Groups ~OLMGs!, multiculturalism, and thewomen’s program. Not only was core funding made available to supportorganizations that advocated on behalf of these marginal groups, butaccess to the federal government was also institutionalized for these orga-nizations through a number of programs ~Jenson and Phillips, 1996; Pal,1993!.1

In the field of immigration, this new approach to citizenship foundexpression in multiculturalism adopted as an official policy in 1971. Thismulticultural policy consisted of four policy goals: to assist all Canadian

6 6

CJP 00045 7020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:7

�

�

�

The Expendables 7

cultural groups to grow and contribute to Canada; to overcome culturalbarriers to full participation in Canadian society; to promote interchangeamong all Canadian cultural groups; and to assist immigrants to acquireat least one of the Canada’s official languages ~Banting and Kymlicka,2010; Day, 2000; Pal, 1993!. The multicultural program distributed morethan $20 million in grants with almost $6.5 million directed at citizenand community participation ~Pal, 1993: 200!. Developing the capacityof new citizens to participate individually or collectively in Canadian soci-ety was a key priority. The federal government recognized ethnic identi-ties and the need for public institutions to accommodate these identitiesto ensure that they would not be excluded from the policy dialogue. Thefederal government adopted an integrative governance approach in deal-ing with various segments of the population. The underlying processincluded recognizing representatives, integrating them into state dis-course and structures, thereby legitimizing state policies and practices.Therefore, the government encouraged the co-ordination of voices andthe organization of interests because it facilitated the identification ofthese representatives and the institutionalization of dialogue.

Throughout the 1970s, the Multiculturalism Directorate promotedmany cultural retention programs aimed at helping ethnic groups to pre-serve their traditions, customs, folklore and languages to reinforce themulticultural image of Canadian society ~Bloemraad, 2006!. The federalgovernment also increased funding to agencies providing services forimmigrants and eventually created a series of programs such as the Immi-grant Settlement and Adaptation Program ~ISAP!, the Local Initiative Pro-gram ~LIP!, and the Local Employment Assistance Program ~Amin, 1987!.Although some of this funding was project based, operational fundingwas available through the Secretary of State and the Multicultural Ser-vice Program Grant. These funds enabled organizations to develop theirinfrastructure and engage in representational activities. As a result, immi-grants started to organize themselves and have an impact within main-stream institutions ~Leah, 1989: 166!. Many of these organizations weremono-ethnic and focused their activities on representing the interests oftheir constituency. By the late 1970s, umbrella organizations, like theOntario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants ~OCASI!, formed acrossCanada to act as a collective voice for immigrant settlement organiza-tions and in the process had become powerful lobby groups with accessto the highest levels of government. Among other things, they called forgreater access to services, more equitable allocation of funding and rep-resentation in the decision-making process.

It follows from the surge of these citizenship-building programs thatmost of the demands made in the political arena in the 1970s and 1980swere identity-based claims; claims based on shared experiences of injus-tice articulated around specific constituencies. “Who” and “why” claims

6 6

CJP 00045 8020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:8

�

�

�


centre on identity, purpose and vision. They require organizations to artic-ulate their needs and to give meaning to the situation. Identity-basedclaims seek out the recognition of the particular character that distin-guishes a group from others, in a way that highlights their unique designand life circumstances. In that sense groups representing particular con-stituents cannot easily be replaced in the political arena. Each group hasa fair crack at making the case for their presence at the policy table.

Dismantling the Citizenship Regime

By the early 1980s, the political climate began to turn and multicultur-alism programs came under question and received some criticisms fromthe main right-wing political parties. The rise of populism in the early1990s, which first became obvious with the electoral surge of the Reformparty in 1993, was a reflection of a broader neoliberal discourse thatchallenged the structure of representation, particularly the position ofinterest groups and social movement organizations. The Reform partywas calling for the end of funding for the multiculturalism program onthe grounds that cultural preservation was a matter of personal choiceand that the federal government should be promoting national cultureinstead ~Reform Party of Canada, 1990!. As the Reform party gainedground in the polls, and in an effort to narrow the gap, the ProgressiveConservative party adopted a similar policy position at its 1991 conven-tion. Abu-Laban and Stasiulis argue that “the combined effect of parti-san debates on issues of multiculturalism and immigration has been tochallenge the state0political elite consensus on the merits of pluralismthat has existed over the past two decades” ~1992: 374!. They go on toargue that “at best, what is left is a discourse emphasizing individual asopposed to group rights through the subsumption of the pluralist notionof multiculturalism under the individualist notion of citizenship” ~1992:372!. In Canada, this discourse was particularly salient in the fallout ofdiscussions surrounding the 1987 Meech Lake Accord and the spectreof Quebec’s possible separation, which both reinforced the fragile stateof “national unity” in Canada.

By the mid 1990s, governance systems had shifted quite signifi-cantly. Governments were under pressure to reduce costs and increaseperformance. New public management ideas were spreading and ques-tioning old ways of providing services. Both the federal government andthe Ontario recognized the need to work collaboratively to better utilizecommunity organizations in order to deliver immigrant settlement ser-vices. By the mid-1990s, the multiculturalism program had effectivelydisappeared and with it the main source of money for culturally spe-cific grassroots associations in immigrant communities. Although multi-

6 6

CJP 00045 9020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:9

�

�

�

The Expendables 9

Q5

culturalism remains formally a Canadian government policy, it wasrelegated to a minor function with a small budget within the Depart-ment of Heritage.2

In the field of immigration, the 1990s fiscal retrenchment exerciseoriginally reduced federal and provincial funding for settlement pro-grams. Drawing heavily on contractual arrangements and purchase-of-service agreements, governments began to rely increasingly on regulatoryprovisions as they delegated more service delivery responsibility to com-munity organizations ~Richmond and Shields, 2004!. Governments alsomoved away from core funding to project-based funding ~Abu-Laban andGabriel, 2002: 114; McAndrew et al., 2008!. As these governance dynam-ics unfolded, Sadiq argued that the settlement sector evolved into a “para-state system” characterized by a two-tier dependency. In the first tier, heobserved large multi-service organizations that are financially depen-dent on government and, in the second tier, small ethno-specific organi-zations that are financially dependent on these multi-service organizations~Sadiq, 2004!.

Our research revealed that the settlement sector in Ottawa was indeedaffected by similar trends over this period. The type of funding avail-able to community organizations both shifted decisively from multicul-turalism to settlement services and from a grant to a tightly specifiedcontract culture, subject to close audit oversight. The new funding con-text constrained both the political and discursive opportunity structure.Organizations under study emphasized that claims making on the basisof cultural recognition became more tenuous as policy making on thebasis of multiculturalism retreated, both politically and discursively. Forexample, a respondent noted: “We used to have a very vibrant and knowncommunity of ethnic or sort of cultural associations that were fundedsignificantly by the then Ministry of Multiculturalism and what’s hap-pened is that there was a big public outcry against, you know, fundingethnic dances and ... it wasn’t seen to be sufficiently useful, and it wasmore divisive as opposed to productive” ~emphasis added!. It also becameharder for small mono-ethnic organizations to compete with large multi-cultural organizations for these contracts ~Richmond and Shields, 2005!

Another important shift occurring in Ottawa was that the new fund-ing regime did not recognize the legitimacy of advocacy activities. Insteadtightly specified contributor agreements narrowly defined how moneycould be spent. a process one of the respondents described as a “prettypernicious takeover.” Many of the organizations that we interviewedrepeatedly referred to groups that had seen their funding rescinded becausethey engaged in advocacy or criticized government. One respondent notedthis shift, stating that “in the ’80s, people were very comfortable talkingabout advocacy and engaging with it—there was the anti-racist move-ment, the anti-racist secretariat and so on. Since the ’90s the Ontarian

6 6

CJP 00045 10020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:10

�

�

�


government slapped the anti-racist secretariat. The federal governmentemployment equity has deteriorated. So we have all started to be afraid.”Two respondents mentioned specifically the example of the Canadian ArabFederation that had recently lost $2 million in funding “because the chair-person has said something derogatory about the Ministry of Citizenshipand Immigration.” Further echoing previous comments, one noted, “Wehave all started to be afraid.” It is interesting to note that we saw thesame phrasing emerge through out the interviews in reference to the fearof funding cuts and reprimands which they share as a collectivity.

The threat of losing government funding is very real for organiza-tions working in immigrant settlement because there are very few othersources of funding on which they can rely. Those that focus on deliver-ing services to visible minorities can obtain charitable status under thenew tax rules and may benefit from a rise of legitimacy and financialresources ~Levasseur, 2012!. However, fundraising campaigns are verytime consuming and the money raised cannot be spent to support advo-cacy work ~Moran and Phillips, 2001!. To be successful, immigrant set-tlement organizations must further focus on service delivery at the expenseof promoting political change.

These discourses reflect how advocacy was being delegitimized inthe 1990s. Already research has emphasized how the 1995 federal bud-get slashed funding for the provinces and reduced federal support foradvocacy to a shadow of its former levels ~Phillips, 2012!. In Ontario,the provincial government under Mike Harris successfully faced downmassive protests against new policies that had sought to restructure andreduce public services ~White, 2012!; community groups having playeda leading role in the protests were subsequently recruited into new formsof service delivery in a process that foreshadowed what was to befallimmigrant associations.

However, when we probe into local dynamics, it becomes evidentthat the advocacy chill has had a differential impact across the settle-ment sector. Stasiulus and colleagues argue that it has particularly con-strained the local and ethnocultural advocacy organizations in the fieldof immigrant settlement ~2011: 131!. Larger multiethnic organizationshave been spared. For example, OCASI, which is a province-wide orga-nization continues to be a strong voice for the settlement sector because“government generally finds it preferable to consult with one co-ordinatedvoice in the settlement sector rather than dealing with the cacophony ofa thousand disgruntled agency voices” ~Stasiulus et al., 2011: 110!. Inthe age of governance, a two-tier system such as that described abovefacilitates the institutionalization of exchanges with government, whilelimiting the harsh discordance of voice. Large multi-service organiza-tions become a buffer, funnelling resources to mono-ethnic organiza-tions in an ad hoc, informal manner.

6 6

CJP 00045 11020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:11

�

�

�

The Expendables 11

Q6

Indeed, in the Ottawa region, the creation of LASI is a great exam-ple of the development of this two-tier governance. Because settlementorganizations felt increasingly bound by government control through newgovernance arrangements, they created a separate organizational bodycalled Local Agencies Serving Immigrants ~LASI!3 through which theycould voice their interests and concerns without fear of repercussions inthe late 1990s. LASI has no formal structure or resources, but it is animportant forum to share information between agencies. Its effective-ness is derived from the long-term commitment of the chief executivesof the nine-member organizations to sustaining it and using it as the vehi-cle to facilitate public claims making on immigration issues and it hastaken time for it to achieve the weight it carries in public debate. It alsodepends on a shared belief in the Canadian approach to immigration andcitizenship that is not in itself being questioned.

The creation of LASI altered governance dynamics in Ottawa becauseit rechannelled social forces in a context where advocacy had become ataboo activity in Canada ~Laforest, 2012!. One CEO noted, “When I wantto say something critical of government I never say it in @my organization’s#name. I say it as @network name# . It is a coalition. You wouldn’t cut thefunding of nine organizations. Then there would be uproar.” One impor-tant effect has been to amplify the voice of immigrant communities in anenvironment where their own associations get little political recognition.This structure has enabled these organizations, enmeshed as they are inthe delivery of settlement services, to engage with the municipal govern-ment in particular in discussion of downstream issues such as education,youth crime and race equality that are, strictly speaking, outside their gov-ernment ordained remit, but that nevertheless affords them some oppor-tunity to express their wider missions.

Perhaps more importantly, the LASI structure has offered a layer ofprotection for second-tier mono-ethnic organizations that continue to strivefor greater social inclusion and integration. In fact, many organizationsinterviewed for this research mentioned that mono-ethnic organizationscontinue to be a vibrant instrument to foster social cohesion, yet theyperform their work in the shadows of large multi-purpose organizations.For example, one respondent noted that

The whole multiculturalism ministry has gone from being a ministry to a tinylittle department now. So all of that funding kind of dried up, so you won’t seea lot of official evidence of these organizations—but they exist. They exist,and they are doing lots of things and, you know, there are a whole raft of sortof ethnic oriented institutions—there are sort of friendly societies, there aresocial justice type things, there are religious groupings—you know there’s awealth of ... there are groupings that all they do is organize, kind of, money.So, there’s a wealth of organizations or comings together in these ethnicgroupings—communities of interest, you know, and they don’t necessarily, in

6 6

CJP 00045 12020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:12

�

�

�


Q7

the Canadian context, live in the same space but they certainly come togetherand do things a lot.

As a result, a significant feature of the structure of the immigrantsettlement community sector is the relative invisibility in the public sphereof most groups embedded in various immigrant communities. Recentresearch mapping the extent of community organizations in Canada sug-gest that about 6 per cent of the 45,460 organizations in Ontario have astheir principal beneficiary group, “specific ethnicity, culture or immi-grants,” or about 2,720 organizations ~Scott et al., 2006: 8!. The cat-egory includes immigrants with First Nation and minority ethnic groupsamong people born in Canada, but it nevertheless suggests a substantiallevel of organizing among recent immigrants. But in Ottawa, a city ofabout 800,000, none of the interviewees in the study, either in voluntaryorganizations or in the city government was able to give a clear accountof the identity or numbers of these associations, although some were will-ing to suggest that there were “a lot.” The absence of mapping at munici-pal level may itself be a measure of the perceived unimportance of theseassociations to the business of government in a city where more than 21per cent of the population is foreign born ~Statistics Canada 2009!. Intheir place is LASI, a shadow structure simultaneously dependent on thesettlement agencies, but securely separated from their funded activities.

The neo-liberal shift in governance narratives outlined here, showshow both the federal and provincial governments used hard power to estab-lish the new regime by destroying the funding relationship on which theold regime had rested and by ignoring the furious protests of organizedinterests in civil society, able to do so as a result of electoral support fora new underpinning narrative that pits “the people” against powerful inter-ests ~Laforest, 2012!. But more importantly, it has profoundly affectedthe identity of organizations to the extent that many have begun to shyaway from advocacy activities. It has created a real internal tension forcommunity organizations between “resolving immediate service issuesand developing broader advocacy” ~Richmond and Shields, 2004: 131!.The process of delegitimizing the representational activities of commu-nity organizations set the scene for the construction of new forms of rela-tionship and discourses built around organizational capacity to deliverservices.

Resistance and Situated Agency

By the turn of the century, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigrationdecided to withdraw completely from direct administration and deliveryof federal settlement programs by the end of the decade. Under the Cit-izenship and Immigration Canada ~CIC! settlement renewal project, ser-

6 6

CJP 00045 13020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:13

�

�

�

The Expendables 13

Q8

vice provision increasingly devolved to local community groups or lowerlevels of government through grant-making and cost-sharing arrange-ments. According to one official, “There were a number of efforts to useagreements as @a# tool of @a# modernized approach to governance withan emphasis on multiple actors, greater reporting, performance measure-ment.” These efforts resulted in devolution agreements between the fed-eral government and British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec that grantedthese provinces the power to design, fund and administer settlement ser-vices within their jurisdiction.4

As a result of lobbying from the Ontario government an agreementwas finally reached with the federal government in 2005 on the settle-ment of new migrants supported by a substantially increased budget forsettlement services. On the surface, the shift toward a new governanceapproach has not been met with resistance. For community organizationsin Ottawa, the new in-flow of money for settlement services brought onby Canada–Ontario Immigration Agreement ~COIA! has been welcome,given the significant cutbacks the sector had experienced in the 1990s. Theagreement also created enormous opportunity for the sector, bringing legit-imacy to the work organizations were doing on the ground, particularlyat a time when many organizations were struggling to survive. Our analy-sis revealed that the organizations benefiting from new influx of resourceswere those that were willing to position themselves as multi-purpose orga-nizations performing a wide range of functions and willing to scale up theiractivities to cater to a wide range of constituencies. Out of the nine high-profile immigrant settlement organizations in the area of Ottawa that weexamined, five of them have a long history in the field of immigrant set-tlement, yet four attained their current status in the last five years. Therise for some has been dazzling. One respondent notes in reference toCOIA that, “We’ve got a building boom because of that. So, maybe fiveyears ago our settlement budget was $50,000, it’s now $900,000.”

Along with this shift in resources and governance, we see a clearshift in identity within the sector. For example, one respondent notes,“The other family services, they’re more parochial—I might be a bit pejo-rative by saying that, but their budgets have not grown as quickly ...because the other agencies are much more traditional and have not sortof jumped on this diversity bandwagon because of the way they’re struc-tured.” In another case, an identity-based organization, founded to pro-vide mutual support in a highly marginalized new immigrant group madethe conscious decision to reconfigure as a mainstream service providernoting, “You have to be open with yourself. You have to be serving every-body.... An ethnic organization ... being only for @name of ethnic group#is not going to go nowhere ~sic!.” Still another respondent notes, “It cer-tainly has reduced the sort of ambit of these organizations and it cer-tainly has reduced their independence significantly.”

6 6

CJP 00045 14020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:14

�

�

�


These examples illustrate that the successful organizations in thisnew field of immigrant settlement services are those that have exercisedagency to willingly adapt to the new governance requirements, but thatdoes not mean that they have also wholeheartedly uncritically adoptedthe underpinning narratives of this policy field. Already we are seeingsigns of a growing tension between service activities and advocacy activ-ities in the practices and structures of community organizations in Ottawa.

COIA changed the focus and nature of the relationship between thefederal government and community organizations. For one, under this newgovernance approach, the basic parameters of the relationship between thegovernment and community organizations became increasingly tied to spe-cific results and outcomes. The contracts offered to the immigrant serv-ing organizations, however, are highly specific allowing very littlef lexibility and giving very little scope to the individual organizationsinvolved to influence immigration policies and wider debates on the devel-oping role of immigrants in Canadian cities in Ontario where typicallybetween 30 and 50 per cent of the population is foreign born. These twogovernance shifts redirected the mindset of organizations and the natureof their exchanges with governments through a greater focus on the micro-level of delivery and implementation. Resources are bound to formalizeaccountability and monitoring procedures. These procedures were meantto enable a systematic comparison of settlement services based on an analy-sis of their achievements. As Wayland notes, this “shift from ‘communityagency’ to ‘service delivery agency’ has entailed a loss of autonomy toidentify and respond to particular, local settlement needs” ~2006: 17!.

Already we are seeing signs of this tension between service activi-ties and advocacy activities in the practices and structures of communityorganizations in Ottawa. Organizations have reported having to embracea very different kind of thinking in the new governance arrangement,one that emphasizes process and implementation issues. One respondentnoted “A lot of things that government used to do it has now down-loaded to the charitable sector to do. It’s buying services from the char-itable sector to do—but, in a sense, government regards the charitablesector as kind of a supermarket on which it places things on its shelves.You know, and in a sense, it doesn’t really regard that supermarket oper-ator as anything more than a supermarket operator—as a delivery vehi-cle, a delivery tool—it’s not, from a government point of view, you know,a vibrant constituency.” Clearly, the respondent does not feel that govern-ments are interested in the organization itself, but in what the organiza-tion is delivering.

Under this governance narrative, community groups describe them-selves as “instruments.” They obtain their legitimacy because they fulfilla certain function in service provision. If a group is a mere instrument, itcan be easily cast aside. The pressure community organizations feel is

6 6

CJP 00045 15020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:15

�

�

�

The Expendables 15

enormous. Governments will support groups that guide its efforts in prac-tical ways that achieve results, in ever-shortening time frames. The orga-nization has to become a rational, dispensable instrument in the productionof public services.

This new discourse has also affected the nature of interaction amongcommunity organizations in the settlement sector in Ottawa. Large multi-service organizations now relate to smaller organizations to help themdevelop capacity and provide infrastructure support such as leadershiptraining and bookkeeping skills. What is interesting to note is that the rela-tional dimension is purely functional; rather than grounded in bonds andshared identities. This means that organizations involved in collective pro-cesses identify with each other mainly as providers of services, not as rep-resentatives of immigrant communities. The encompassing narrative thatwe have observed is one of governance in the service delivery realmbecause settlement organizations are all broadly interested in these themes.

When we examine the themes that LASI advocates for, most of theissues pertain to improving and enhancing services by lobbying on issuesof funding, accountability and performance management. The concernssettlement organizations share and the claims that flow from these con-cerns, generally centre on organizational processes. The axis of repre-sentation is organizational and functional. Values such as inclusion,participation, social protection and rights protection are no longer driv-ing the articulation of interests. Organizations report purposely refrain-ing from assigning any broader meaning to their claims or making thempart of a sustained series of collective actions. This in turn influencesthe nature of claims that are seen as legitimate in the political arena.This means that organizations involved in these collaborative processesidentify with each other mainly as providers of services, not as repre-sentatives of immigrant communities. As a result, the questions andanswers that this new governance relationship elicits are focused, spe-cific and concrete. Not surprisingly, organizational processes and issueshave prevailed.

The discursive shift, while subtle, is important. The new paradigmfocusing on a “state of doing” evokes a very different relationship betweenthe federal government and the community sector; one where the govern-ment relates to an organization based on what it does and how, not basedon who it represents and why. Organizations in the Ottawa region reportfeeling more vulnerable in this relationship for they can easily lose theirfunding or contract and be replaced by another organization. The powerbase—the locus of action on which the legitimacy of the community orga-nization rests—is significantly different. Not surprisingly, communityorganizations in the field of immigrant settlement that we interviewedhave found it difficult to engage in identity politics that generally implieslonger-term solidarities and collective projects.

6 6

CJP 00045 16020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:16

�

�

�


Conclusion

The way that citizens represent themselves to the state is an importantcomponent in the construction of its citizenship regime. Understandingshifting forms of representation is important in light of the far-reachingpolicy changes that have developed since the 1980s. Initially, commu-nity groups were involved in governance to the extent that they pro-moted and encouraged the rights of citizens to full participation inCanadian society. But, as waves of neo-liberalism and new public man-agement practices shrunk the size of the state, the state turned to com-munity groups to restructure social provision ~Evans et al., 2005!. Whatwe are observing is a move away from identity- and interest-based pol-itics and a public sphere organized around demands for extensions ofrights to a more constrained governance regime where there is only spacefor the expression of claims made on organizational terms. This has sig-nificantly reshaped the nature of the relationship between citizens andthe state.

Governance practices for managing immigrant settlement in Canadasharply illustrate this pattern. They have profoundly reconstructed themeaning of citizenship and the representation of group interests in a pro-cess that has required the active co-construction of all the agents it hasinvolved. In our account of this process we have shown how at each cru-cial stage community organizations have acted on interpretations of theirinterests that have sustained these evolving practices and have driven awedge between their role in these practices and the representation of theirconstituencies. Our interviews suggest that webs of belief about immi-grants’ needs for services, the appropriateness of their agencies’ responses,the lack of alternative sources of funding and their understanding of thepotential for influence as a policy “insider” have formed these interpre-tations. Through their presence in these delivery fields, they both reinforceunderlying assumptions about the expression of citizenship and throughtheir operational decisions affect the ways in which their beneficiariesexperience their citizenship and the terms on which it is accessed. Per-haps because they are the ones that have emerged on top of the heap inthis newly constituted immigrant policy regime, the construction of thesebeliefs has served to sideline their beliefs about group interest represen-tation. Better to sup with the devil than to shout impotently from thesidelines.

Notes

1 The Women’s Program of Status Women of Canada had a budget of $9 million for1984–1985, and $12.8 million for 1985–1986, from which mainstream women’s groupscould secure operational and project funding. The budget for the multiculturalismdirectorate at the time was $2.6 million and its allocation was for all immigrants.

6 6

CJP 00045 17020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:17

�

�

�

The Expendables 17

2 In 2008, the multiculturalism program was moved to the department of Citizenshipand Immigration Canada.

3 LASI is a coalition comprised of the executive directors of settlement agencies: Immi-grant Women’s Services of Ottawa, Ottawa Chinese Community Service Centre, Jew-ish Family Services, Lebanese and Arab Social Services Agency, Ottawa CommunityImmigrant Services Organization ~OCISO! and the Catholic Immigration Centre.

4 With the exception of the Quebec agreement, these would be short lived. In April2012, the federal government announced its intention to terminate immigration agree-ments with Manitoba and British Columbia and to reassume management of the set-tlement program.

References

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen and Christina Gabriel. 2002. Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multi-culturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen and Daiva Stasiulis. 1992. “Ethnic Pluralism under Siege: Popularand Partisan Opposition to Multiculturalism.” Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Poli-tiques 18: 365–86.

Agranoff, Robert. 2006. “Insider Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Manag-ers.” Public Administration Review 66~1!: 56–65.

Amin, Nuzhat. 1987. A Preliminary History of Settlement Work in Ontario 1900-Present.Ministry of Citizenship. Available at http:00www.ceris.metropolis.net0Virtual%20Library0other0amim1.html ~January 13, 2013!.

Banting, Keith and Will Kymlicka. 2010. “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxietiesand Local Debates.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 23: 43–72.

Bevir, Mark. 2010. Democratic Governance. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Bevir, Mark and Rod A.W. Rhodes. 2010. The State as Cultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Bloemraad, Irene. 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in

the United States and Canada. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Brugué, Quim and Raquel Gallego. 2003. “A democratic public administration? Develop-

ments in public participation and innovations in community governance.” Public Man-agement Review 5~3!: 425–47.

Carmel, Emma and Jenny Harlock. 2008. “Instituting the ‘third sector’ as a governableterrain: Partnership, procurement and performance in the UK.” Policy and Politics36: 155–72.

Crouch, Colin. 2005. Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Insti-tutional Entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crouch, Colin. 2007. “Institutional change and globalization.” Socio-Economic Review 5:527–267.

Daly, Mary. 2003. “Governance and Social Policy.” Journal of Social Policy 32: 113–28.Davies, Jonathan. 2011. Challenging Governance Theory: From Networks to Hegemony.

Bristol: Policy Press.Day, Richard. 2000. Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity. Toronto ON:

University of Toronto Press.Evans, Bryan, Ted Richmond and John Shields. 2005. “Structuring Neoliberal Gover-

nance: The Nonprofit Sector, Emerging New Modes of Control and Marketization ofService Delivery.” Policy and Society 24~1!: 73–97.

Jenson, Jane. 2004. Catching up to reality: Building the Case for a New Social Model.Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Jenson, Jane and Susan D. Phillips. 1996. “Regime Shift: New Citizenship Practices inCanada.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 14: 11–36.

6 6

CJP 00045 18020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:18

�

�

�


Q9

Kendall, Jeremy, ed. 2009. Handbook of Third Sector Policy in Europe: Multi-Level Pro-cesses and Organized Civil Society, Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.

Laforest, Rachel. 2012. “Rerouting Political Representation: Canada’s social infrastruc-ture crisis.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 25~2!: 181–98.

Leah, Ronnie. 1989. “Linking the Struggles: Racism, Feminism and the Union Move-ment.” In Race, Class, Gender: Bonds and Barriers, ed. J. Vorst, T. Das Gupta, C.Gonick, R. Leah, A. Lennon, A. Muszynski, R. Ng, E. Silva, M. Steedman, S. Tran-sken and D. Wilkinson. Winnipeg: Between the Lines.

Levasseur, Karine. 2012. “In the name of charity: Institutional support and resistance forredefining the meaning of charity in Canada.” Canadian Public Administration 55~2!:181–202.

Lister, Ruth. 2010. “The Age of Responsibility: Social Policy and Citizenship in the Early21st Century.” In Social Policy Review 23, ed. C. Holden, M. Kilkey and G. Ramia.Bristol: Policy Press.

Mahon, Rianne. 1977. “Canadian Public Policy: The Unequal Structure of Representa-tion.” In The Canadian State: Political Economy and Political Power, ed. L. Panitch.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 2006. “Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism.’” In

The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Bindmanand Bert A. Rockman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McAndrew, Marie, Denise Helly, Caroline Tessier and Judy Young. 2008. “From HeritageLanguages to Institutional Change: An Analysis of the Nature of Organizations andProjects Funded by the Canadian Multiculturalism Program ~1983–2002!.” CanadianEthnic Studies 40~3!: 149–70.

Moran, Mayo and Jim Phillips. 2001. “Charity and the Income Tax Act: The SupremeCourt Speaks.” In Between State and the Economy: Essays on Charities Law andPolicy in Canada, ed. Jim Phillips, Bruce Chapman and David Stevens. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Newman, Janet. 2005. “Introduction.” In Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and thePublic Sphere, ed. J. Newman. Bristol: Policy Press.

Newman, Janet. 2007. “Governance as Cultural Practice: Texts, Talk and the Struggle forMeaning.” In Governance, Consumer and Citizens: Agency and Resistance on Con-temporary Politics, ed. Mark Bevir and Frank Trentmann. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Pal, Leslie A. 1993. Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism andFeminism in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Paquet, Gilles, and Robert Shepherd. 1996. “The Program Review Process: A Deconstruc-tion.” In How Ottawa Spends: Life Under the Knife, ed. G. Swimmer. Ottawa: Carle-ton University Press.

Phillips, Susan D. 2012. “Dual Restructuring: Civil Society and the Welfare State in Can-ada 1985 to 2005.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 25~2!: 161–80.

Phillips, Susan D. and Steve Rathgeb Smith, eds. 2011. Governance and Regulation in theThird Sector: International Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Rhodes, Rod A.W. 2007. “Understanding Governance Ten Years On.” Organization Stud-ies 28: 1243–64.

Richmond, Ted and John Shields. 2004. Third Sector Restructuring and the New Contract-ing Regime: The Case of Immigrant Serving Agencies in Ontario. CERIS Policy Mat-ters, no. 3. Toronto: Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration andSettlement.

Richmond, Ted and John Shields. 2005. “NGO–Government Relations and Immigrant Ser-vices: Contradictions and Challenges.” Journal of International Migration and Inte-gration 6 ~304!: 513–26.

6 6

CJP 00045 19020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:19

�

�

�

The Expendables 19

Q10

Sadiq, Kareem. 2004. The Two-Tier Settlement System: A Review of Current NewcomerSettlement Services in Canada. CERIS Working Paper no. 34. Toronto: Joint Centrefor Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement.

Scott, K., S. Tsoukalas, P. Roberts and D. Lasby. 2006. The Nonprofit and Voluntary Sec-tor in Ontario: Regional; Highlights of the National Survey of Nonprofit and Volun-tary Organizations. Toronto: Imagine Canada

Smith, Miriam. 2005. A Civil Society? Collective Actors in Canadian Political Life. Peter-borough ON: Broadview Press.

Statistics Canada. 2006. Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions. Census. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality.

Streeck, Wolgang and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Changein Advanced Political Economies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Thelen, Kathleen. 2003. “How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative HistoricalAnalysis.” In Comparative–Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. JamesMahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wayland, Sarah. 2006. Unsettled: Legal and Policy Barriers for Newcomers to Canada.Joint Initiative of Community Foundations of Canada and the Law Commission ofCanada.

White, Deena. 2012. “Interest Representation and Organisation in Civil Society: Ontarioand Quebec Compared.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 25~2!: 199–229.

6 6

CJP 00045 20020 05010013 11:52 AM PAGE:20

�

�

�


The Expendables: Community Organizations and Governance Dynamics in the Canadian Settlement Sector

Documents

Transcript of The Expendables: Community Organizations and Governance Dynamics in the Canadian Settlement Sector