Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Multicultural policy, programming, and planning : the collaborative future of Metro Vancouver's municipalities… Mendoza, Maureen Nov 30, 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2014_gradproject_Mendoza.pdf [ 522.46kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0075846.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0075846-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0075846-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0075846-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0075846-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0075846-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0075846-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0075846-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0075846.ris

Full Text

	  	   MULTICULTURAL POLICY, PROGRAMMING, AND PLANNING: THE COLLABORATIVE FUTURE OF METRO VANCOUVER’S MUNICIPALITIES AND SETTLEMENT SECTOR  by  MAUREEN MENDOZA  B.A. Sociology (Hons.) University of British Columbia, 2009 M.A. Sociology University of Toronto, 2010  A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFULLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming to the required standard   ......................................................    .....................................................    .....................................................      THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2014 © Maureen Grace Mendoza, 2014   	  	  2	  Acknowledgements  I would like to acknowledge those that both inspired and informed this project:  To Professor Penny Gurstein, for your guidance and trust. Penny, thank you for not only supervising my work, but also allowing me to be part of yours. My years at SCARP have been shaped outside the classroom with much gratitude to and respect for you. To Andrea Arnot, thank you for being my second reader – I look to learning from and serving with you as part of our ICP Team.  To the settlement staff and municipal key informants, your candor as well as your dedication serves as a reminder that though it may not always be acknowledged, it is always important to seek out work that is meaningful and worthwhile.   To my fellow SCARPies who have become friends and now colleagues, here’s to the long days at WMAX and for the longer days ahead putting our learning into practice.   To my family and friends, thank you for putting up with the girl who doesn’t know how to quit school: Mama, for having a faith greater than mine; Daddy, for always wanting me to be in the real world. To HD, for being there since grade one, and ML for being my soul sister. To RJN, for keeping me to the highest standards of work, community and love.  This project is dedicated to Canada’s immigrant and diaspora communities. May Canada be for you and your family what you dreamed it to be; and when it is not – perhaps that is often - may people serve you to make your dreams so.                 	  	  3	  Executive Summary  Multiculturalism has been a way to both vision and reconcile Canadian ethnocultural diversity, particularly in response to changing immigration demographics. The way multiculturalism has served as a settlement framework alongside immigration policy has changed over the years. This project examines how settlement agencies respond to shifting conceptualizations of multiculturalism in their organization. A parallel narrative highlights how municipalities -  directly or indirectly – take on responsibilities of settlement and immigration, and adopt policies in order to make their municipalities more attractive and accessible to immigrants and newcomers. Six case studies – three settlement agencies and three Metro Vancouver municipalities – seek to answer two primary questions: First, what are the specific roles, challenges and opportunities for growth that both immigrant service providers and municipalities face with respect to shaping multiculturalism services and policies? Second, what is the future of collaboration between the two with regards to immigrant settlement service delivery? What the case studies revealed was a complex and delicate understanding of the current and future of multiculturalism policy, one that transcends ethnocultural diversity as well as understanding that such policies primarily serve racialized minorities. It illuminated the desire of settlement agencies to be supported by municipal government, but also the constraint  - and sometimes hesitation - of this level of government to respond to immigrant settlement services more directly. The case studies brought into focus the rise and popularity of diversity and inclusion initiatives, largely driven by intercultural understanding. The report concludes by examining the importance of recognizing multiculturalism policies as part of social sustainability more generally. The project discusses the promise of Local 	  	  4	  Immigration Partnerships as one model that may bring settlement agencies and municipalities in collaboration with one another towards coordinated settlement service delivery. Lastly, the report discusses future research regarding effective collaboration, including attention to the intersection of immigration policy, impact of funding changes, and targeted services.                  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  5	  Table of Contents	  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	   2	  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	   3	  TABLE OF CONTENTS	   5	  1. INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW	   7	  Research Questions	   8	  Methods	   8	  Canada and Multiculturalism: A brief history and current debates	   9	  Building on Multicultural Policies	   12	  2. IMMIGRANT SERVICE PROVIDERS	   15	  2.1 Case Study #1: AMSSA	   15	  Safe Harbour: Expanding Diversity, Shrinking Multiculturalism	   16	  A Missing Link: Settlement Sector and First Nations	   18	  Building Intercultural Bridges	   19	  2.2 Case Study #2: MOSAIC	   21	  Inclusion: Responding to Changing Demographics	   21	  Settlement: Shared Responsibilities	   22	  Diversity Mandated by Multiculturalism	   22	  Interculturalism: Internalized Diversity	   24	  Settlement Sector: Policy Advocates and Community Assets	   25	  2.3 Case Study #3: Burnaby Multicultural Society	   27	  Downsizing Settlement	   27	  Multiculturalism to Diversity	   27	  Seniors Servicing	   29	  Settlement Programing: Informal Interculturalism and Democracy	   30	  Settlement Services: Public Amenity and Community Connections	   31	  3. CASE STUDIES: MUNICIPAL RESPONSES TO MULTICULTURALISM POLICY AND IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT	   33	  3.1 Case Study #1: City of Vancouver	   33	  Mandated Multiculturalism and Diversity	   33	  Canada, “The End of Multiculturalism”, and Majority Minorities	   34	  Programs vs. Policy: Addressing the Accessibility Divide	   35	  Programming and Initiatives	   36	  3.2 Case Study #2: City of Burnaby	   38	  	  	  6	  From Multiculturalism to Diversity and Interculturalism	   38	  Supporting Community Services	   39	  Funding Changes and Downloaded Responsibility	   41	  3.3 Case Study #3: City of Richmond	   44	  An Inclusive and Intercultural Richmond	   44	  Shared Responsibilities	   46	  Richmond: Majority/Minority	   47	  Richmond’s Caring Place and Community Service Collaboration	   48	  Future Directions	   49	  4. SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE COLLABORATION MODELS	   51	  Multicultural Policy in the Settlement Sector	   52	  Multicultural Policy in Municipalities	   53	  Immigration and Social Sustainability	   55	  Municipal Constraints and Opportunities	   56	  Models for Municipal and Settlement Sector Collaboration	   57	  Local Immigration Partnerships	   59	  REFERENCES	   66	  APPENDIX A: KEY INFORMANTS	   69	                     	  	  7	  1. Introduction & Literature Review  As both policy and process, multiculturalism – or more specifically Canadian multiculturalism – has been a way of understanding and also visioning an ideal nation that welcomes and celebrates cultural and ethnic difference and fosters diverse, yet inclusive communities. However, the way multiculturalism has served as a settlement framework alongside immigration policy has changed. Over the years, researchers and policy makers began to and increasingly still question if multiculturalism has become passé, if it is still relevant, or more extreme, if it has failed altogether. While this project is not an attempt at coming to a distinct conclusion regarding those questions, it does consider how multiculturalism – again as both policy and process – has changed, developed, and introduced other related frameworks to its traditional conceptualizations and applications.  This project examines multiculturalism policy changes from a specific context and parallel narrative: immigrant service providers in Metro Vancouver and the municipal governments that support and collaborate with them. After a brief overview of multiculturalism policy in Canada, I attempt to bring into focus how multiculturalism has shaped immigrant service providers in Metro Vancouver and their current programming and service delivery as they respond to and prepare for increasing cultural diversity.   This project seeks to understand multiculturalism at work in the age of diversity and with the rise of interculturalism, and other concepts such as diversity and inclusion. Further, this project attempts to observe how municipalities and settlement services interpret, create, and manage multiculturalism policy and programming leading to organizational and municipal “multicultural readiness”. At the end, this project outlines key considerations moving forward as 	  	  8	  settlement agencies and municipalities work more closely to establish collaborative policy, programming, and planning with regards to immigrant reception and integration. Research Questions   My research focused on three main questions:  1. What are the specific roles, challenges, and opportunities for growth that immigrant service providers play, encounter, and foresee with respect to the shifting conceptions of multiculturalism in their service delivery? 2. What are the responses, roles and responsibilities of municipalities in shaping multiculturalism, diversity, and interculturalism through planning processes generally and/or specifically in collaboration with immigrant service providers (and perhaps vice versa)? 3. What is the future of collaboration for municipalities and the settlement sector with regards to immigration and the delivery immigrant settlement services? Methods  This research was conducted in two ways: 1. A short literature review was conducted to contextualize and inform research questions and understand that current analysis of immigrant service providers with respect to multiculturalism. This includes a brief overview of multiculturalism policy more generally in Canada. 2. Six key informant interviews were held with staff of immigrant service providers as well as municipalities and institutions around Metro Vancouver. Interviews with immigrant service providers and municipal staff form the basis of my case studies. I have attempted to capture a range of services from one that supports interagency service provision and 	  	  9	  training, a regional service provider, as well as a small service provider in a suburban municipality. See Appendix A for a list of the key informants interviewed and their titles.   Canada and Multiculturalism: A brief history and current debates  Multiculturalism was formally adopted as a national policy in 1971 under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and has since been seen – both nationally and internationally – as a distinguishing attribute of Canadian society and maker of national identity (Ley 2007). Seen initially and primarily as a settlement and integration framework for immigrants, multiculturalism intended to make Canada a nation where all citizens are considered equally respected regardless of racial or ethnic background, language, or religious beliefs. In 1982, Canada’s constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written and consistent with the values of multiculturalism. By 1988, the Multiculturalism Act was legislated in parliament. The Multiculturalism Act stated that the multicultural heritage of Canada is to be preserved, that Aboriginal rights were to be recognized, that Canada would be a bilingual nation (English and French) and that all citizens would have equal rights, including the right to retain and speak in one’s mother tongue and practice cultural and religious traditions. In 1993, British Columbia followed by legislating its own provincial Multiculturalism Act (Bill 39). According to the act, multiculturalism in British Columbia serves to be the guiding framework by which citizens:  • Recognize race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origins as contributing to and enriching diversity; • Promote and experience racial harmony and cross cultural understanding; • Freely and fully participate in economic, social, cultural, and political life; • Respect their rights and responsibilities as citizens despite cultural differences; 	  	  10	  • Do not condone violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, culture, religion, heritage, ethnicity, or place of origin;  • Strive for a society free of racism, conflict and discrimination;  Further, British Columbia’s government is to “carry on government services and programs in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the [province’s] multicultural reality…” (Bill 39). Since Bill 39, some of British Columbia’s municipalities have chosen to enact their own multicultural policies. Graham and Scott (2010 Appendix E) outline three, linear stages of multiculturalism in Canada, drawing upon the previous work of other scholars (Ley 2007, Sandercock 2003): Demographic multiculturalism, symbolic multiculturalism, and structural multiculturalism. The first stage was to acknowledge cultural pluralism (rather than English and French biculturalism). The second stage recognized and celebrated cultural differences, where such diversity ensured that each person, regardless of cultural background receives equal status. The third stage, structural multiculturalism aims to progress and protect human rights. Kunz and Sykes (2007) outline the evolution of multiculturalism policy through the decades since the 1970s in the following table: Table 1: Evolution of Multiculturalism Policies  Ethnicity  Multiculturalism 1970s Equity Multiculturalism 1980s Civic Multiculturalism 1990s Integrative Multiculturalism 2000s Focus Celebrating differences Managing diversity Constructive engagement Inclusive Citizenship Reference Point Culture Structure Society building Canadian Identity Mandate Ethnicity Race relations  Citizenship Integration Magnitude Individual adjustment Accommodation Participation Rights and responsibilities Problem Source Prejudice Systemic discrimination Exclusion Unequal access, “clash” of cultures Solution Cultural sensitivity Employment equity Inclusiveness Dialogue/Mutual Understanding Key Metaphor “Mosaic” “Level playing field “Belonging” “Harmony/Jazz”  	  	  11	  However, the narrative of multiculturalism policy in Canada is both celebrated and contested. Multiculturalism has functioned as a nation-building policy that has taught society that immigrants deserve tolerance and full belonging in a pluralistic Canada. It has also been a idealized framework in which native-born citizens and immigrants mutually share a plural, yet common, Canadian identity. It was from these purposes and policies that settlement and integration agencies, programs, and services emerged to serve Canadian immigrants.  Today, the government of Canada calls multiculturalism “an inclusive citizenship” (CIC 2012). While the purposes of this project is not to highlight the extent to which immigrants and visible minorities have integrated – or not – into Canadian society, it is worth noting that the broad notions of inclusion and integration more or less refer to participation in, and access to dominant social, cultural, and economic institutions. Inclusion, however, is still interpreted in different contexts, particularly between the individual and institutional levels be it through economic and labour integration, religious affiliation and practice, political and civic participation, or bridged social networks and organizational membership.  Between 2008-2010, the Multiculturalism and Human Rights branch of the department of Canadian Heritage outlined multiculturalism priorities to direct the department’s policy development at the regional level, written by Will Kymlica (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2010). Two themes in particular, resonate most with the purposes of this project: the future of multiculturalism and multicultural readiness in service delivery. Kymlica suggests that the current dichotomized debate of multiculturalism – “celebratory and condemnatory” – needs to be reframed in order for Canada to move forward (p.5). Kymlica’s Citizenship and Immigration Canada report highlighted the need to research the future of multiculturalism and multicultural readiness in service delivery more generally. Specifically in BC, regional reports offered the 	  	  12	  desire to research multiculturalism in social services policy and planning – the only province to mention this research need explicitly. Building on Multicultural Policies  Municipalities have a role to play in developing Canadian multicultural policy in their local contexts. As Kristin Good puts it, municipalities are “places where multiculturalism is experienced” (2009:5), however “the ways in which immigration has affected municipal governance have received little attention” (2009:11).  Further, Wood and Landry (2008) set out the reminder that successful multiculturalism is not organic: “[Do not] take for granted that interaction will happen by chance. If we want it we must create the conditions for it to happen. At the same time though, we need programming with a light touch, building on shared interest and common curiosities and spaces to help people bridge the gap without forcing outcomes. Top-down interculturalism alone will not work”.  For the context of this report, I borrow Good’s definition of multicultural policy to mean “any policy, initiative, or practice that addresses ethnocultural barriers to equitable access to social, economic, and political institutions” (2009:51). By extension, interculturalism – a policy which many of the case studies examine – is connected to multicultural policy. Cantle describes interculturalism in the following way:  “Interculturalism  presents a new set of policies and programmes. It seeks to replace multiculturalism and provide a new paradigm for thinking about race and diversity. Multiculturalism may have had some success in the past but it has simply not adapted to the new age of globalisation and super diversity. Interculturalism is about changing mindsets by creating new opportunities across cultures to support intercultural activity and it’s about thinking, planning and acting interculturally. Perhaps, more importantly still, it is about envisioning the world as we want it to be, rather than be determined by our and separate past histories.”  While many debates and conversations regarding multiculturalism are ongoing, the purpose of this project explores how both Metro Vancouver’s settlement sector and 	  	  13	  municipalities currently create, interpret, and act upon multiculturalism policies both informally and formally. This inquiry extends to larger questions such as: how can cities be more inclusive? How can planners facilitate inclusivity? How can the planning profession account and plan for social diversity? These questions are not necessarily at the forefront of civil servants nor the settlement sector who respond to immediate settlement challenges: how do I secure adequate housing, or find a job, how do I improve my English literacy? The case studies will highlight that while interculturalism is the policy by which many currently subscribe to, its interpretation may be more nuanced than simply “replacing multiculturalism” as Cantle suggests. Significant research has been done on the social integration of immigrants, even in the Metro Vancouver context (Sandercock 1998, 2003, 2009). Research has also explored management of ethnic diversity within and across specific Canadian cities (Poirier 2004, Good 2009, Reilly 2009, Hymen et. Al 2011). Good notes that in municipalities, immigrant settlement and multiculturalism policies have blurred distinctions (2009:51). Edington and Hutton (2002) also undertook a comprehensive study of multicultural policies and strategic actions in Local government in Metro Vancouver. They document the important roles of local government in multicultural policymaking and programming. They also found that in their sample of 22 municipalities, only three municipalities had “frequent contact with immigrant resource centres” (p.14) – as the case studies point out, this lack of municipal/service sector connection has shifted over the last ten years. Researchers also argue that the definition and understanding of multiculturalism within community organizations and governments are not homogenous (Yan, Chau, Sanga, 2010). They note that governments have shifted interpretations of multiculturalism to speak to antiracism and discrimination (which is evident in the case studies of this report). Further, Yan et. al note that at the Federal and Provincial level, multicultural policy has shifted from portfolio to portfolio and is 	  	  14	  also reflective of whatever party holds office at any given time. Researchers also note that a broader notion of culture than what is currently “implicit in multiculturalism” is needed in order to plan for intercultural communities (Agyeman and Erickson 2012). Multicultural planning has also focused on making planning practices more inclusive to cultural diversity (Qadeer 2010, Sandercock 2003). However less research has been conducted on the collaborative efforts between municipalities and settlement agencies as a direct or indirect result of shifting policy changes and attitudes. More attention has been placed on how local governments can enact a multicultural agenda, as most legislative authority falls to senior levels of government. In February 2012, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities published a report highlighting the municipal role in immigrant settlement (FCM 2012). The report writes: “Getting immigration policy right has never been more crucial to the success of Canadians, this country and the communities we live in. Locally delivered services such as housing public transit, recreation and library services play a key role in helping new Canadians succeed… Municipalities are the front-line, first responders to many immigrants’ needs – yet have been given no formal role in developing federal immigration policies and programs”.  This key passage demonstrates that immigrant settlement (i.e responding to immigrants’ needs) is seen as directly related to immigration policy. While the expansion of settlement services is part of FCM’s recommendations, little emphasis or connection is given to the role of the settlement sector in relation to municipal immigration. The City is referred to as “front-line, first responders”, without specific mention of settlement services. The need for collaboration is simply stated by a report by Sarah Wayland for the Region of Peel: “There is virtually no ownership of long-term settlement issues, and thus, no funding of programs that promote the civic participation of new Canadians… other more mainstream human service agencies need to take responsibility for servicing diverse populations (Wayland: 16-17).  With this context, the next section highlights the current state of three settlement agencies in  Metro Vancouver. 	  	  15	  3. Immigrant Service Providers 	  This chapter focuses on case studies of immigrant services providers, also referred to as settlement agencies. These interviews focused on how organizations have shifted their servicing mandates over time, and the specific programming agencies take on in response to those shifting mandates.  2.1 Case Study #1: AMSSA  The Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies (AMSSA) is province-wide interagency that provides sectoral supports to 75 member agencies to develop inclusive communities, particularly socially and economically. AMSSA supports multicultural and intercultural focused activities. Established 36 years ago in Vernon, BC, AMSSA strives to be the collective voice of cultural communities. AMSSA’s key informant recalls that the Multiculturalism Act explicitly guided the organization during its formation. Member agencies – primarily immigrant settlement providers – rely on AMSSA for knowledge exchange, shared resources, and networking. AMSSA’s guiding principles include inclusiveness, integrity, mutual respect, equity, diversity and collaboration. AMSSA’s programming focuses on three main areas1: 1. Settlement and Integration: Supporting the work of immigrant service providers. 2. Multicultural Health: Promoting culturally appropriate and accessible health resources and services for immigrants and refugees 3. Diversity: Creating welcoming workplaces and communities free from all forms of discrimination 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1	  Taken	  from	  AMSSA’s	  Website:	  http://www.amssa.org/programs	  	  	  16	  One of AMSSA’s longest-running programs is Safe Harbour, which allows businesses, institutions, agencies and municipalities to support diversity and to take a stand against discrimination. In BC, over 1,000 sites are Safe Harbour Certified delivered by 17 agencies. Safe Harbour evolved out of anti-discrimination protocol in 2004 with the hopes that welcoming and inclusive workplaces and public institutions in turn create welcoming and inclusive communities. Workshops are delivered in order for worksites to be certified, and focus on all aspects of diversity, not just cultural. Safe Harbour locations indicate that the site is a safe place for anyone experiencing discrimination and has employees willing to uphold the commitment of respect for all.  The program targets institutions and businesses that have already committed to diversity initiatives, but also recognizes that it is also important to reach out to businesses that may not have longstanding diversity policies or training for their employees. As the key informant from AMSSA’s noted, “Non-Profits are more well versed talking about discrimination, inclusion than the average person from the business. Non-profits come on board quickly because they get it.” For AMSSA, promoting diversity requires individual and corporate reflection on bias, learning about the changing face of the community from a broad view of diversity, be it LGBTQ, seniors, or immigrants. Safe Harbour is an introductory workshop and agencies and municipalities who wish to change workplace culture would need to do further work in this area. Safe Harbour: Expanding Diversity, Shrinking Multiculturalism  AMSSA has explicitly moved from agency messaging of multiculturalism to diversity. For example, their annual “Multicultural Health Fair” program has been renamed to “Diversity Health Fair”. AMSSA recognizes that, generally speaking, the settlement sector is primarily focused on the needs of newcomers and immigrants rather than focused on building more 	  	  17	  exchange or dialogue. The key informant from AMSSA noted that the funding for multiculturalism over the years has “evaporated”, however funding for settlement has increased. Over the years, AMSSA’s funding for programming around multiculturalism, including anti-racism and discrimination, was threatened and eventually significantly reduced, with the exception of Safe Harbour. She considers why Safe Harbour’s “survived” and says, “Perhaps because it had a broader view of diversity, not just ethnocultural…”.  AMSSA’s key informant admits that many settlement agencies are still focused on the immediate needs of settlement and on ethnocultural diversity, and understand the importance of valuing differences under the multiculturalism framework. However, there are other dimensions of diversity - “intersecting diversity”, she notes -  that are equally important to recognize including marginalization and discrimination. She believes that programs like Safe Harbour and its “prodiversity” message is only effective if it addresses the experiences of marginalization and discrimination happening concurrently in a diverse society.  Of course promotion of diversity is not met without resistance. This is why, the AMSSA key informant explains, it is important for the agency to “Frame our language around business-case diversity”, to show leadership and values from understanding and embracing [how diversity] can be an advantage in the workplace”. One helpful tactic has been to draw upon Federal legislation, because workplaces are mandated to provide workforce representation from four groups under the act: women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal/First Nations.  The key informant is mindful that hiring for diversity is just the beginning: “You may hire for diversity, but if the workplace is not inclusive, there is the issue of tokenism. Safe Harbour is a good way to think about cultivating and inclusive workplace”. In this sense, promoting and recognizing diversity is just the first step in creating inclusive workplaces. AMSSA recognizes 	  	  18	  that adopting a diversity framework as a management policy can foster and develop institutional changes in ways multiculturalism may not.  Safe Harbour has also been well received in municipalities. In the City of Burnaby, AMSSA has worked with their equity office so that staff can receive Safe Harobour training and partnered on smaller diversity events. The program has been running for five years, and connect Burnaby’s non-profit sector to Safe Harbour. Additionally, New Westminster’s council agreed to adopt Safe Harbour City-wide in 2013. While that initiative was proposed by New Westminster’s Multicultural Advisory, the key informant notes that the committee knew that Safe Harbour was about different types of diversity, not just multiculturalism. For the most part, municipalities who adopt Safe Harbour do so in hopes of responding to rapidly changing demographics and to better educate staff and equip them to understand and serve their changing communities.	  A Missing Link: Settlement Sector and First Nations  The key informant from AMSSA also spoke to the importance of including Aboriginal and First Nations communities in conversation, planning and delivery of programs. The challenge of the settlement sector is that in its focus of newcomer needs, the bridge between Aboriginal communities is often missing. While this work is recently being adopted in agency work in Metro Vancouver, she notes that in smaller communities in the province like Duncan and Smithers have seen Safe Harbour as the primary way to build bridges between immigrants and First Nations communities. This is an illuminating feature of this case study: it is easy for agencies to continue the narrative of settlement and settler colonialism without introducing to newcomers indigenous histories and heritage. Over time, AMSSA has had to intentionally focus on supporting agencies to develop intercultural understanding of First Nations in Canada, not just for newcomers but also coordinators and staff, many of whom employ recent immigrants.  	  	  19	  Building Intercultural Bridges   While Safe Harbour helps workplaces and institutions to shift from a policy framework of multiculturalism to diversity, the key informant acknowledges that the shift is less explicit in agencies: “A lot of agencies have already done that shift. [They are] definitely focused on the building bridges piece… how do we get different people to talk to one another?” In the case of agencies, the objective is to support intercultural capacity and dialogue, recognizing that “diversity is a piece within interculturalism”. The key informant draws upon the work of Vancouver’s Collingwood Neighbourhood House – a model example in social planning, which has drawn the attention of researchers (Sandercock 2008): “I like the idea of the assets the community has, and bringing together people working in the community. The idea that they have intercultural assets already, it’s not something they have to learn in a course. What [the executive director] and her team does is help people realize they have the skills already, and then it’s a journey, that we’re all on this continuum”.  An asset-based approach to interculturalism is linked to diversity because differences are framed as being positive, community assets and that these differences present an opportunity for diverse communities to learn from, respect, and built trust with one another. Empathy, active listening and developing intercultural competence are seen as building blocks to understanding different viewpoints and values.  While AMSSA’s key informant felt that multiculturalism would remain as a framework for high-level policy, she was also hopeful about interculturalism, and that it would “picked up more and more at the higher levels” by decision makers. While interculturalism can be a muddy term, implying uncertainty and even fear, she believes that funding should be more direct to supporting agencies to understand and practice interculturalism. As a way forward, interculturalism brings communities together in dialogue, not to tolerate differences, but to openly talk about how diversity has impacted communities.  	  	  20	   In this interview, it was evident that the key informant felt the lens of interculturalism is necessary to address issues in communities as they occur, and to raise points of tension and conflict before it becomes a larger issue. At the time of the interview, AMSSA was planning intercultural dialogues between Aboriginal Elders, Immigrant Elders and youth from both groups to speak to how respect is demonstrated to elders and youth, and to explore difference and similarities. Another dialogue was also being planned to focus on interfaith, a subject that the key informant notes, is very well supported by EmbraceBC which is jointly funded from Federal and Provincial governments and has a Multicultural Advisory Council. Lastly, the key informant references the work of the director of Intercultural Understanding and Strategy Development at the University of British Columbia. She believes the description of younger generation immigrants and urban aboriginals as “cultural navigators”, who reject simplified multicultural identities and perhaps view the world with an intercultural lens without much thought, and therefore move through the world more fluidly, as an optimistic and refreshing way to view the future of interculturalism. Overtime, with enough “cultural navigators” collectively traversing themselves in everyday life, workplaces and public institutions can become more inclusive, more diverse – more intercultural.            	  	  21	  2.2 Case Study #2: MOSAIC  The Multilingual Orientation Service Association for Immigrant Communities (MOSAIC) has been serving immigrants and refugees (including refugee claimants) since 1976. MOSAIC’s key informant, a high-level staff member, attributes the organizations longevity to its ability to consistently evolve and develop by responding to the needs of the communities it serves.  Like many settlement agencies, MOSAIC assists newcomer clients in looking for work, learning English, and basic settlement needs. However they also provide secondary services such as legal advocacy, cultural connections, translation, and skills assessment. MOSAIC also has a research and development division to inform and guide policy-making and programming specific to immigrants and refugees. Inclusion: Responding to Changing Demographics   MOSAIC’s services are directly tied to the changing demographic of Metro Vancouver. Being prepared to design services and programs according to demographics is of chief importance to MOSAIC’s executive staff. In the interview, MOSAIC’s key informant referred to Metro Vancouver’s rise in Asian and South Asian immigrants over the last twenty years and that Europeans were no longer the main source of immigration. For MOSAIC, practicing inclusion is about modifying service delivery in accordance to the diversity of their clientele.  Inclusion at MOSAIC is also about including diversity in the workplace, including its own offices: “… Everybody talks about [diversity being good for business], but in reality we do face [the glass ceiling], where the majority of immigrants or refugees are not included in any form or shape of the leadership of businesses and organization… government is failing at diversity. Non-profits are failing. When we say failing, it is at the leadership level. If you look at the board, people who are volunteering or recruited to volunteer are… less diverse in their composition. We make every effort to include representation from the communities we serve.  	  	  22	  Like other employers, by specifically targeting a diverse board and staff composition, MOSAIC has embraced the “return on inclusion” as a basic business practice. Settlement: Shared Responsibilities   MOSAIC’s key informant views their services holistically, with servicing being only part of their work:  “As an organization, if we only focus on services it can be a band aid solution, it may not integrate [immigrants and refugees] into the community. We do a lot of work on public community and policy engagement so that people are aware of the issues immigrants and refugees face and aware of demographic changes so they can actually plan and design their services and programs to meet the change in demographics.”  While the organization provides many services expected of a settlement agency – finding jobs, supporting families with children, teaching English – settlement is not the only main agency objective. Instead, all efforts towards settlement and adjustment are done so in the hopes that full participation and integration are “the final outcomes”.  To achieve full participation and integration, settlement is seen as the outcome of a two-way process: newcomers make extra effort to adjust to their new life in Canada, but the host community also has the shared responsibility to adjust, support, and be welcoming of newcomers. MOSAIC sees itself as an intercessor, helping both sides to negotiate their responsibilities in the community as well as workplaces.  Diversity Mandated by Multiculturalism   The key informant from MOSAIC recognizes that Multiculturalism is a Federal and Provincial policy and views it as a “guide and feature that describes what Canada should look like with a change in immigration”. However, the key informant also acknowledges that multiculturalism should be inclusive of everyone, and that it cannot only speak of and to racialized communities: “If multiculturalism is only going to speak to the non-whites, then its not 	  	  23	  an inclusive policy.” Going further, the key informant believes that multiculturalism was meant to encourage diversity as a whole, and not simply meant to help serve minority groups. In this case, diversity is a verb as well as an adjective – it is practiced as much as it is descriptive. Diversity is an implementation tool, a practice put into action during daily life and interactions.   The organization once actively promoted multiculturalism, back when its funding was still under Heritage Canada. Educational components of their programming centred on multiculturalism and anti-racism, but no longer because of a “change in priorities”. The key informant described that with a shift to an inclusion and social framework, federal and provincial funding in the last four years has centered on “Welcoming and Inclusive Communities”, implemented at the municipal level, but funded by the Province.  Welcoming and Inclusive communities focus heavily on diversity in the workplace, and how diversity is used as a tool to encourage the recruiting, hiring, and retention of immigrant and newcomer employees. While education and awareness around multiculturalism and racism still underline their overall programming objectives, diversity initiatives move multiculturalism from a “nebulous ideology to practice”.  The shift from multiculturalism to diversity began to happen in MOSAIC in the 90s with a strategic planning process, where the organization realized that to sustain its goal of integrating newcomers into Canadian society, it had to recognize and address the systemic barriers people were facing. It regarded diversity as a tool for social cohesion. One of the strategic goals of that planning process was to promote multiculturalism so that both community members and policy makers could understand the importance of changing people’s views.   A few years later, diversity emerged from another planning process where the organization felt that while multiculturalism was required outward action, diversity came from “looking at ourselves”. MOSAIC recognized that in order to create diversity it would have to lead 	  	  24	  the way, to be a diversity employer by choice. The organization acknowledged that before they demanded change of others, they would be willing to take those changes us internally first. This has led to MOSAIC’s workforce being composed of 80% visible minorities, to ensure that it is “reflective of the communities we serve”. Interculturalism: Internalized Diversity  The key informant from MOSAIC mentions that multiculturalism and diversity no longer occupy it’s the organization’s key messaging: “We empower newcomers immigrants and refugees through leadership... In our values we don’t talk about diversity, we talk about respect, innovation, excellence and integrity. In our strategic goals, we don’t talk about multiculturalism or diversity because we now talk about ourselves internally. We have internalized multiculturalism and diversity, we believe.”  For MOSAIC, multiculturalism and diversity are no longer necessary terms to use – they are no longer explicit definitions and values, merely embedded and incorporated in the organizations mandate, values, and strategic planning.  Instead, MOSAIC believes it is concentrating on interculturalism and whether or not diversity has produced communities where people can come to not only know, but also understand, one another. Again, the organization shifted its gaze internally, and asked a number of its staff to take an intercultural competency tests, a “self assessment in your relationship with other cultural communities”. This test required staff to evaluate intercultural competency from a number of variables, including one’s comfort in communicating with others outside one’s own culture. This was done in order to see if MOSAIC was culturally competent to serve different communities. Having staff partake in intercultural training was an explicit commitment by MOSAIC’s executive staff. As MOSAIC’s key informant describes it: “It helps you explore your 	  	  25	  internal you – where am I in this continuum of growth, relationship, communication with others that are not in my cultural background”.   Interculturalism is about, at least for MOSAIC, everyday interactions and not policies. MOSAIC’s key informant also places intercultural understanding in high regard, saying it is such understanding that “keeps the organization moving”. However, the key informant is also cautious of making interculturalism only for racialized communities, and wonders where the dialogue makes room for other community groups such as the Aboriginal, queer, or disability communities. Lastly, MOSAIC’s key informant affirms that while interculturalism will be its driving force in the years to come, the foundation of the organization’s engagement will be based on multiculturalism, diversity and social cohesion. Without the latter, the former cannot thrive. “At the end of the day, if we don’t have social cohesion or inclusion, who suffers most? It’s the most vulnerable population… We believe that racialized communities, immigrants and refugees will pay the price for any social upheaval”. Settlement Sector: Policy Advocates and Community Assets   MOSAIC is extremely involved in municipal processes and policy making. The organization has representation on Vancouver’s Mayor’s Working Group on Immigration. The taskforce is not legislated by council, but a project the Mayor has chosen to take on, starting with past Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan and carried on by current mayor, Gregor Robertson. The group is used as a way of communicating to City Hall what is going on within the immigrant and refugee population in Vancouver and to identify significant priorities and issues. Other settlement agencies also have representation on the table. MOSAIC’s key informant knows that while Vancouver is not directly “in the business of service immigrants or refugees per se”, it is still 	  	  26	  encouraging to see the City “recognize that people become citizens… of a city before they become citizens of a country”.   As an organization, MOSAIC understands its role in social planning, and that understanding ones own neighbourhood is crucial in planning neighbourhoods and communities that support one another in immigrant settlement: “There are community centres, rec centres, parks… [are those places] accessible to these people? It is very important, and [they city] takes it very seriously.”  MOSAIC’s key informant commends the social planning work of the City of Vancouver and believes that its planners carryout work addressing multiculturalism and bring the immigrant and refugee newcomer lens into planning process, recalling a once created (but no longer existing) role of multicultural planner. The key informant also connects City of Vancouver’s Healthy City mandate to immigrant issues, as MOSAIC has been invited to the Healthy City planning table to bring in the immigrant and newcomer perspective into the design of a health city for all.  While the key informant does not feel MOSAIC is favoured over other agencies, they do feel well connected to and supported by City Hall and feels that “they would like [us] to be champions” of their initiatives in terms of designing, planning, visioning and engagement initiatives. However, there is also a level of sensitivity involved and the key informant accepts that engagement comes with a caveat: “You have to understand the majority of our clients are vulnerable it [referring to engagement] is not their priority. Their priority is probably to find work, job housing. Their priorities are finding education, accreditation. It’s very different [from City Hall]”.  	  	  27	  2.3 Case Study #3: Burnaby Multicultural Society  Burnaby Multicultural Society (BMS) is celebrating its 30th anniversary, with its inaugural year in 1984. Its founding members started the organization to bring more awareness to anti-racism. Since then, the organization evolved into more settlement service agency. Currently, BMS delivers immigrant programs and services as well as specialized seniors programming.  Downsizing Settlement   In 2004, BMS lost the majority of its provincial funding for settlement services in favour of servicing models that awarded funding to larger settlement agencies to streamline services. With this loss in funding, BMS had to rethink its mandate and goals, taking into account what funding was available and in reserves. From then, the organization became more volunteer-based, downsizing its staff. At its height, BMS staffed 10-15 case workers, counselors and management at any given time. Currently, it now runs with 3-4 staff and volunteers.   It is within this limited capacity that BMS continues to serve Burnaby. Because of its size, there are constraints in terms of programming and resources. Volunteers take on a lot more responsibility at BMS than they would at larger settlement agencies. They facilitate programing, including English or conversational classes. BMS’ key informant is thankful for the volunteers, acknowledging many are very highly educated, a handful with PhDs. Multiculturalism to Diversity    BMS’ key informant notes that in the past, societies like BMS and others settlement agencies may have meant to serve particular immigrant communities – what it did was “kept individuals in their particular groups”. Now, they “serve everyone”. Over the last few years, the organization has considered rebranding from multiculturalism to diversity to reflect the evolution of immigration in Canada and understanding of it. Multiculturalism may be outdated, and for 	  	  28	  BMS’s changing mandate, diversity captures differences, but more than that, strength in differences. Tolerance, once a popularized value attached to multiculturalism has given way to inclusion as such sayings and thinking of them have changed over time. As BMS’ key informant puts it:  “Some people in society say “I don’t want to be accepted, or it’s not acceptance it’s tolerance.” Tolerance to one person can mean I’ll put up with you… accommodation. I think society has sort of grown into more of I’ll accept you for who you are, and any differences, language differences or cultural differences, individuals would be more aware and appreciate what each one of us brings to society.”  Downsizing has not come without impact to its original mandate. The anti-racism focus the society initially started with was “put to the backburner”.  The society sees its work as shifting from settlement to integration. BMS’ key informant sees this shift in terms of funding as well, with an increase in funding for integration initiatives instead of immigrants “being in their own little circles of their own language”, referring to perceived outcomes of traditional multiculturalism. Siloed multiculturalism concern’s the BMS key informant, and feels that settlement services may not adequately contribute to integration of newcomers, observing a rising segregation within particular immigrant groups: “It’s understandable for new people to be in those language circles because the comfort level, the sense of social security they feel simply because they have lack of English knowledge, and it gives them social security. But the danger with that in the last number of years, is that some of these people may never learn English. Especially with the larger demographics – the Chinese, South Asian, maybe Korean, Filipino. The larger communities, they tend to have a fairly large economic base within themselves.”  The ability to communicate and have a working knowledge of English for BMS’ key informant is an important marker of integration, among many factors. The statement recognizes that in Metro Vancouver, immigrant communities are large enough that new immigrants may integrate into 	  	  29	  them so well, the transition into a larger “Canadian” society is no longer necessary for immigrant survival as much as it may have been in the past.   Seniors Servicing   With its smaller capacity, BMS has had to adjust its servicing scope. It has since shifted its programming to senior programs. BMS’ key informant noted that the society’s programs are attended by seniors who have been in Canada upwards of 30 years and yet still have very little - or “not speak a word” - of English. Again, this goes back to the how these seniors have not had to “leave” their communities. The key informant notes that seniors in general may be isolated, but immigrants even more so because of their language and cultural barriers. BMS has specifically targeted immigrant seniors for this reason.  BMS has launched Elder Abuse workshops, to raise awareness in Metro Vancouver. After its initial year of pilot programming, BMS secured $200,000 of Federal Funding (through New Horizons for Seniors Program) over the next three years to conduct Elder Abuse workshops in Punjabi, Chinese, Korean, and English-speaking elders with a primary focus on education and awareness:  “There’s a huge shift of seniors programs, because with the aging population – 30% increase in the next ten years in Metro Vancouver. It’s a huge shift to provide awareness, services. Not only is it for seniors in terms of elderly, but dementia and Alzheimer’s, providing awareness and services is a huge task.”   BMS’ outreach catered well to their multicultural mandate, offering workshops in English, Korean, Chinese, and Punjabi. Funding insured that the program could be advertised in local papers, community newsletters, ethnic media, promotional flyers and brochures. Word of mouth, existing clientele networks, and presence at community events also notified many seniors about their upcoming workshops. Previous senior attendees of the workshop go on to spread the word to other seniors. This worked to the organization’s benefit as many workshops - particularly 	  	  30	  those conducted in other languages - were well attended.  In its second year, BMS has done an excellent job building upon their initial foundation for elder abuse advocacy in Metro Vancouver specially and provided an example for other service providers hoping to provide education awareness to immigrant elders in particular. By targeting immigrant elders, BMS has recognized the growing, diverse population trends in the region, many of which face specific language barriers in order to access and participate in many public services and programming. This suggests that while every effort should be made to promote multicultural programming, certain topics such as elder abuse require language-specific sensitivity, which may be better on only achieved when the participants’ native languages are spoken. Settlement Programing: Informal Interculturalism and Democracy  A lot of intercultural building at BMS is informal rather than formal. BMS’ key informant points out that in their programming, people who may never usually cross paths come to know one another: “It’s amazing… they could come from parts of the world where they may be fighting each other, shooting each other because of their cultural differences, or language, or religion, whatever. But yet, we have people here from different parts of the world. They sit at the same table, they drink coffee and have discussions… They have things in common. They have in common that they need to improve their English.”  This observation points to the ability for settlement services to create common understanding, cultural exposure, and intercultural bridges. Settlement programing highlights differences, brings it to the table (literally and figuratively), and allows those differences to bring strangers together. BMS programming amplifies common understanding through shared experiences by facilitating community walks, introduction to community services, and learning about shared environment. 	  	  31	  Informally, these events move the organization towards interculturalism as people who may be divided come together around shared settlement experiences.  English classes, the key informant observes, gets their clients interested in their local communities. Classes will often read local newspapers, allowing open discussion. However, there is an explicit directive not to discuss individual politics or religion. BMS’ key informant says this is “out of respect for individuals” and that instructors, many of whom are volunteers are not in a position to “facilitate theological discussion, especially at that level where the purpose is English learning”. Where politics enters discussions is to promote democratic process and how government decisions affect individuals without endorsing individual parties or candidates: “ [Some class participants] have an introduction to democratic process and yet, there are people from other countries who have no voting [experience] at all. I think a very important aspect to introduce them to is their right to vote and how precious it is. That individuals have a voice and the ability to collectively make a difference as to who is elected. It’s a very important Canadian institution  - the right of individuals to vote.”  Settlement Services: Public Amenity and Community Connections   BMS also maintains its relationship with the City as a member of the Burnaby Intercultural Planning table as well as participation in City events. However, involvement in City-wide events do take up limited resources, including time and manpower.  Lastly, BMS’ key informant credits much of their capacity to receiving their site as part of a community amenity contribution, back in 1999 when the society moved from North Burnaby’s Brentwood neighborhood. Their lease solidifies their relationship with the City and space provision facilitates the delivery of services. Ideally, settlement agencies desire to be close to transit. With rising demand, space is not cheap – BMS’ key informant quotes a standard of $30 per square foot. Through community amenity contributions, BMS receives their space at a discounted rate, for which the agency is grateful: 	  	  32	   “We have to be thankful to the City to have an initiative, for non-profits, because it really does put a focus on delivering the services and in prime locations. Even other societies are getting new spaces… City of Burnaby has a good thing going with that. They give leeway to the builders; they allow them to do certain things… that really work well. It helps the agencies, and shows that Burnaby cares.”                               	  	  33	  3. Case Studies: Municipal Responses to Multiculturalism Policy and Immigrant Settlement  This chapter focuses on case studies of municipalities and how multicultural policy has impacted specific city programs, planning processes, or even policy itself.  3.1 Case Study #1: City of Vancouver   Population in 2011   603,502  Mother Tongue English: 51.7% Non-Official Language: 46.7% No Knowledge of either English or French 7.6% Canadian Citizen Canadian: 86% Non-Canadian: 14% Immigrant Status Non-Immigrant: 52.2% Immigrant: 43.8% Non-Permanent: 3.9%  Visible Minority Total Visible Minority: 51.8% Non-Visible Minority: 48.2%  1. Chinese: 53.4% 2. Filipino: 11.6% 3. South Asian: 11.5%  Sources: Statistics Canada, Census 2011 and National Household Survey 2011 The City of Vancouver takes an active position in the role of immigration and interculturalism. Over the years, it has shifted its traditional multicultural framework to broader notions of diversity and inclusion.  Mandated Multiculturalism and Diversity  The City of Vancouver’s key informant is quick to draw upon its broad framework of diversity in the city as both population and issue based. On one hand, diversity can be interpreted 	  	  34	  as a range in demographics – based on ethnic background or language. On the other hand, issue-based diversity can intersect with other layers of an immigrant’s identity such as sexual orientation, ability, or class. While there are Provincially and Federally mandated formal policies concerning multiculturalism, the key informant recognizes that the municipal level has “the least in terms of a mandated approach”.  Instead, the City chooses to adopt multicultural perspectives from a community-based perspective rather than and ideological or political one. The City has not “abandoned” multiculturalism, but rather recognizes that “multiculturalism doesn’t convey [fully]” their work. The key informant adds that multiculturalism is “the framework [through which] everyone understands diversity”. Therefore, in the City of Vancouver, multiculturalism is still the overarching framework, but diversity and interculturalism are the application to which multiculturalism is understood “on the ground”.  Canada, “The End of Multiculturalism”, and Majority Minorities  Back in the 90s, Vancouver’s social planning department undertook an extensive dialogue with community groups in order to understand how multiculturalism is understood in the context of living in a large city. For the city key informant, who was involved in the process, it brought into focus that the community understanding is “more deep, moreso than academia [or] governments may understand it to be… it’s not as restrictive”. By that, the key informant refers to broad notions of equality and equity, “recognizing differences in the broader spirit of working towards common goals, human rights, anti-discrimination”.  The city learned that on the ground, the presences of conflict and need for reconciliation was entrenched in citizens’ understanding of multiculturalism. However, conflict doesn’t characterize Vancouver’s multiculturalism as it may in European countries, and conflict is not the 	  	  35	  primary lens by which multiculturalism is viewed. The key informant suggested that the argument for the “end of multiculturalism” which emerged out of European countries is not reflective of a Vancouver reality: “ “Canada has a different reality in urban cities like Vancouver, whereas minorities and immigrants [have] so fundamentally changed the landscape, we don’t have to pit on against the other – you have to embed a lot of notions together, which is very different from how European cities see themselves.”  The key informant is also quick to note that in Vancouver, the traditional minority groups are often the majority, asking then, “who is melting into who”. This statement refers to the concept of cultural melting pot, which is interesting to note as Canada is considered to be more of a “cultural mosaic” than a melting pot. Other cities have large immigrant populations, but usually do not surpass the majority population. In Metro Vancouver, that balance and threshold is different and thus creates different dynamics that merit individual, municipal attention. Programs vs. Policy: Addressing the Accessibility Divide   In 1988, Vancouver’s city council adopted a Civic Policy on Multicultural Relations, outlining equal access to civic services for all. As an extension of this policy, the City takes on an active role in incorporating and equitable service lens into both programming and policy. For its services, the City recognizes the need to address the multi-lingual nature and needs of its constituents and how best they can access information and services from their own language. A great deal of understanding demographics is put into the city’s engagement initiatives and city staff ask fundamental questions: who are you reaching out to? Who is the point of contact? How do you define populations?  From a policy level, the goal is to recognize there are different levels of engagement and that so called “minority groups” each have different abilities and capacities to access systems, to 	  	  36	  speak up, and to participate in civic life. The key informant acknowledges that key accessibility issues are directly related to systemic issues as well as earlier versus new waves of migration: “For many communities, the issues are no longer based on colour, they are based on economy and class, the widening gap between and within communities are based on that. Educated, good jobs, you have less of those issues that are of concern to you, even if you are coming from a minority background. But it’s not necessarily so for everybody. How do you address those systemic inequalities that we observe within communities? [That’s] why communities need to come together for social justice… It’s fine to talk about issues, but unless you act on [them], they’re just there.”  Programming and Initiatives  Some major programming and policy undertakings include:  § Multilingual 3-1-1 Information Line: The City’s main information repository is accessible through multiple languages when citizens dial in to access answers to questions they may have, request non-emergency services, and share concerns around City issues. § A Multicultural Advisory Committee: Advises City Council on ways how multicultural communities can better access and participate in City Services. It works with city staff on events to celebrate diversity, and engages in outreach activities, and collaborates with other agencies to initiate and develop projects for multicultural communities.  § Mayor’s Working Group on Immigration: A mayor appointed task force which advises council on immigration issues. It was first formed by Mayor Sam Sullivan and retained by current Mayor Gregor Roberston. § City Newcomers Mentorship Program: This mentorship program was created in partnership with the Immigrant Employment Council of BC, to bridge immigrants to their fields of education, skills and experience. On newcomer is partnered with a City staff, who becomes their mentor. 	  	  37	  § Commemorative Events and Awards: City Hall Lights celebrate important cultural or religious holidays, as well as the City supports cultural events such as Diwali, Filipino Independence day, or Chinese New Year. § Diversity and Inclusion Awards (Formerly Cultural Harmony Awards): These awards were established in 1996, to recognize and honor the work of community members and organizations that worked to increase the understanding and acceptance of diverse communities.  § Dialogues Project: Was part of Vancouver’s Welcoming Inclusive Communities and Work Places Project, and was an intercultural initiative that brought together immigrant, First Nations, and Urban Aboriginal communities together to understand and strengthen relationships between Aboriginal and immigrant/non-Aboriginal communities.                   	  	  38	  3.2 Case Study #2: City of Burnaby   Population in 2011   223,218  Mother Tongue English: 43.5% Non-Official Language: 55.7% No Knowledge of either English or French 6.5% Canadian Citizen Canadian: 84.2% Non-Canadian: 15.8% Immigrant Status Non-Immigrant: 46.2% Immigrant: 50.4% Non-Permanent: 3.3%  Visible Minority Total Visible Minority: 59.5% Non-Visible Minority: 40.5%  1. Chinese: 51.8% 2. South Asian: 13.3% 3. Filipino: 9.8%   The City of Burnaby is a Municipality that has moved forward with intercultural initiatives and recognizes the role diversity and inclusion play beyond a traditional multiculturalism framework. However, council directives draw boundaries between intercultural and settlement work from a policy perspective, but those lines are blurred during day-to-day work. From Multiculturalism to Diversity and Interculturalism  Though the city has had standing multiculturalism policies since the 1986, it has since played “a passive role in the community”. In Burnaby, interculturalism is the “manifestation of a higher policy of multiculturalism”. Multiculturalism still holds power and association that the 	  	  39	  City works within its framework. So far there “hasn’t been any political desire to go back and rephrase [the multicultural policy]”. However the city key informant asserts definitively, “Interculturalism is how we operate, but all of our policies still says multiculturalism.”  From the city key informant’s personal perspective, it’s the bureaucratic hurdles of making the change from multiculturalism to interculturalism, when on the ground, “change has already happened… You have to go through council and that takes a long time”. However, corporate changes have been observed. There are clear language and image use policies, and there has been an organizational shift to create more access and inclusion for frontline staff and city services. From this perspective, access and inclusion promotes diversity management policy over formal multiculturalism policies. Further, the city supports interfaith bridging projects and diversity training, such as AMSSA’s Safe Harbour. In 2013, it joined Canadian Municipalities Against Racism and Discrimination (CMARD).  In terms of policy language, the shift from multiculturalism to diversity happened when the City’s Social Sustainability Strategy was being developed. The strategy outlines a wider understanding of inclusion, and that diversity is part of inclusion, particularly under its strategic priority #2: Celebrating Diversity and culture, where the strategy outlines actions the strengthening of cultural and religious harmony and a discrimination-and barrier-free community. Supporting Community Services   While the provision of immigrant settlement services is not officially mandated in the City’s social policy, diversity and multiculturalism is one of its social planning portfolios. Work in the portfolio includes supporting settlement agencies that carryout settlement work, acknowledging that the City does have a role in integrating immigrants. One way the city supports was to be a founding member of Burnaby’s Intercultural Planning Table (BIPT) in 2007. 	  	  40	  While the City’s formal participation and support has ebbed and flowed “based on how the table needs [it]”, the city provides support through developing funding application, research and outreach. BIPT is co-chaired by Burnaby Family Life, a non-profit that holds the funding and contract.  The City joined BIPT initially as something “more pragmatic than philosophic”. With a diverse community, at the time of BIPT’s formation, its population had just tipped to over 50% not being born in Canada. As that percentage continues to increase upwards of 60%, “it really captured people’s imagination and made the City feel like it needed to get involved more deeply with these types of issues”. At the time of BIPT’s inception, the city key informant describes the service sector having conflict, but that partnerships were being encouraged at funding levels so “that was difficult to play out on the ground” with infighting within the sector. There was a desire to find a space for communication. The city took on a facilitative role.  Quickly after the Terms of Reference were produced, an intercultural approach was articulated so that BIPT could be more than just logistical committee for increased coordination. The city key informant described this turning point when “the City started to educate itself and be educated about interculturalism”. The appeal of BIPT was that it appealed to citizens who moved to Burnaby a couple generations ago, as well as Burnaby newcomers: “it allowed everyone to participate, rather than rightly or wrongly, interpreting multiculturalism to mean only [racialized minorities]”.  The city key informant proudly describes the City as constantly working in partnership with BIPT and service organizations. As a fairly small and connected City, there are many intersections between recreation, arts, social planning, and social service organizations. They work closely on a daily basis, “much more closely than other municipalities”. More broadly, 	  	  41	  Burnaby supports non-profits with their needs, be it strategic planning, conversation about funding, and collaboration on events.  The connection between service agencies, and citizen groups more broadly, makes mobilizing engagement fairly easy, even if there is significant debate. The city key informant describes the positive climate for engagement: “It feels like there’s a community that knows each other, so they can be really civil even if there’s really deep divide over issues. It means we can get information out and we can mobilize on issues… We can’t reach everyone, but there’s a network… we haven’t had the same level of – so far, an it’s a healthy part of democracy – we haven’t had the same level of conflict you see around development plans, policies than other cities”.   Lastly, the city supports non-profits through providing space through discounted lease rates and grants. Some organizations are eligible for 50% discount off the market rate, especially if the majority of their clientele are citizens of Burnaby. Other non-profits that are located in Burnaby but serve beyond its borders can receive 25%. Funding Changes and Downloaded Responsibility  Burnaby’s key informant was quick to discuss anticipated changes to settlement funding, which has gone back to the Federal government starting April 2014. While at the time of interview, the impact of changes to servicing contracts were remain unknown, there was satisfaction with the ability of current provincial funding and concern with future federal funding: “I think [the provincial government] did a good job of bringing an intercultural perspective into the way funding was delivered and encouraging partnerships between service providers, and in allowing small grassroots organizations to flourish alongside the majority of organizations that are really quite sophisticated like MOSAIC or SUCCESS” I’m really concerned with the switch to CIC administering contracts, that while the amount of money, at least in theory isn’t going down, it’s the big guys that have won their contracts. And I know the smaller guys have lost like 80% of their funding, will probably fold.”  According to this city key informant, CIC funding appears to strictly focus on settlement with very little emphases on intercultural work, with a few exceptions. The key informant also voices 	  	  42	  concern for individuals who are no longer eligible for services, referring to anyone who does not have immigrant status (i.e. only those with a permanent resident number and valid residency identification). The perception that there is a stronger role for municipalities under CIC funding is “an opportunity as well as a concern”, as the City key informant feels as though the Provincial government entity is being skipped: “Local governments can be the most responsive levels of government, but also a fragmented approach to national policy implementation, particularly in Metro Vancovuer when we have so many small cities… [there are] capacity issues”.   In Burnaby’s case, the city’s new role in this new era of planning will go to its social planners, who already carry large portfolios and though they are “very much interested in this area, [they don’t consider themselves immigration experts and yet [are] being asked to be one… we’ll have to see how it unfolds”. What is clear though, is that managing settlement, diversity, and inclusion has become “very political”. Council does not want their staff engaged in settlement services, which they see as the responsibility of higher levels of government. However, belonging, access, inclusion is very much within local government jurisdiction and the intercultural thread of the work, out in the community, are where most staff energies will be focused. It will be – as the city’s key informant puts it – “a very delicate dance”: “I hear council on this one, partially because I’m not an expert (referring to immigrant settlement). I don’t feel entirely responsive to that role. And other cities, because they have different councils, or different staff, they have been more open to taking up that role, but for the political level, in our city, that’s not the direction I’ve been given”.  The city key informant brings into focus a clear dilemma: how does a city advocate for interculturalism without getting too involved in settlement? However, immigration and settlement is just one of many examples where either the provincial or Federal governments back away from funding, and local government is expected to act on the issue. For council, the key informant 	  	  43	  describes, “they look at is [immigration and settlement as one of many things [they’re] being asked to do”.                	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  44	  3.3 Case Study #3: City of Richmond   Population in 2011   190,473  Mother Tongue English: 37.9% Non-Official Language: 70.2% No Knowledge of either English or French 10.4% Canadian Citizen Canadian: 83.9% Non-Canadian: 16.1% Immigrant Status Non-Immigrant: 38.3% Immigrant: 59.6% Non-Permanent: 2.1%  Visible Minority Total Visible Minority: 70.4% Non-Visible Minority: 29.6%  1. Chinese: 66.8% 2. South Asian: 10.9% 3. Filipino: 9.5%  Sources: Statistics Canada, Census 2011 and National Household Survey 2011 Richmond’s key informant works in Community Services, the City’s department responsible for social planning which includes affordable housing, seniors, youth, childcare and access and cultural diversity. Through both strategy and policy development, the department works on practical ways to break down barriers to make services more inclusive to the community. An Inclusive and Intercultural Richmond   Richmond has worked hard to move forward with progressive intercultural building, building on both multiculturalism and diversity. It has developed Richmond’s Intercultural Advisory Committee (RIAC), which is the city’s official body on intercultural issues. It is composed of 	  	  45	  eighteen (18) members, half of which are organizational reps and the other half citizen appointees. Membership is based on application, which is then submitted to and ratified by council every two years. The key informant describes forming the committee as an intentional strategy: “We as a municipality and with our partners and community groups need to do something to create common ground, to find common purpose in community life, and that doesn’t necessarily happen – it taken an effort to make that happen.” Richmond’s key informant refers to a proactive role cities can take on to foster a sense of community and belonging. Though as a municipality, Richmond does not have an official mandate to do immigrant settlement. However, to execute municipal mandates, as city of immigrants, the City must take barriers to accessibility seriously. However, the key informant does feel the City has “ended up taking a role in settlement even though it wouldn’t necessarily be recognized”. This includes the creation of a Cultural Diversity coordinator as well as a Diversity Services Coordinator.  Despite not taking a formal role in settlement service provision, the City has mandated interculturalism as part of its social policies. In 2004, nearly ten years ago, the City adopted the Richmond Intercultural Strategic Plan (2004-2010), and more recently updated the plan as well as Work Program to 2015.  Consultation for the plan was a multi-year process, with consultation from the committee, social service agencies, public meetings and forums. The Plan outlines the intercultural vision for life in Richmond. This includes promoting pride in and acceptance of Canadian values and laws, diverse heritages and tradition, and participation in community life. Further, RIAC recognizes culture integrates thought, speech, and behavior, and is passed on through generations but is also evolving through traditions as well as current practices and trends. Richmond’s Intercultural vision is “For Richmond to be the most welcoming, inclusive, 	  	  46	  and harmonious community in Canada” to do this, RIAC embraces interculturalism as a “culturally interactive and vibrant process, and acknowledges it as the “next step for Canadian multiculturalism” (RIAC 2012).  Additionally, the City’s Social Development Strategy (SDS) was adopted in 2013, and is meant to guide social service delivery to 2022. It is a companion piece to Richmond’s Official Community Plan. Richmond’s SDS was written so that many of its components – values, strategies and actions – addressed supporting cultural diversity and interculturalism in the city. Specifically, the SDS’s 5th strategic direction, “Build on Richmond’s Cultural Diversity”, includes the following actions: § Action 16: Improve the City’s cultural competence through monitoring the intercultural sensitivity and inclusiveness of corporate policies and practices.  § Action 17: Improve employment opportunities for immigrants with foreign training and credentials. § Action 18: Increase awareness of and access to City employment opportunities by immigrant groups. § Action 19: Create opportunities to showcase Richmond’s cultural diversity and facilitate intercultural dialogue. § Action 23: Establish Targeted measures to prevent and respond to incidents of racism.  Shared Responsibilities  As the City takes on a clear position of interculturalism, it is important to understand how the municipality defines it. The key informant explained that interculturalism builds on the “idea that people from different cultural backgrounds can come together, share ideas about community life, and find common ground… that common experience of being Canadian.” There is also emphasis on shared responsibility in the intercultural framework, and that intercultural relationships include “mainstream, White Canadians” and not just visible minorities and/or immigrants. Accessing settlement services and integrating into community life then, is not 	  	  47	  the sole responsibility of immigrants and newcomers. It is also an institutional and mainstream responsibility. The City key informant describes this deeper level of intentional understanding:  “The City of Richmond has engaged in tackling barriers that may “stop newcomers from [accessing services]… as well as understanding what we (the City) does that might stop us from understanding [newcomer] needs”.  For the key informant, this is the underlying difference between multiculturalism and interculturalism: multiculturalism has been adopted as policies and practices directed at visible minorities. Interculturalism “builds on [multiculturalism], it’s not in opposition to it”, but its attention is not only on visible minorities and/or immigrants, it’s also about connection to and sharing responsibility with dominant, majority institutions and groups. Richmond: Majority/Minority  Richmond is a municipality with a “majority-minority” population, where a visible minority groups represent the majority of its population. This places the municipality in a distinct position, often in a position to broker contentious relationships and animosity between long-time residents and the influx of immigrants and newcomers in the last twenty years. Issues such as Chinese signage, and zoning of places of worship have become issues receiving much attention, and drawing criticism from community groups on both sides. RIAC continues to work to seek effective ways to build relationships and find understanding along side community groups. Another effect of a majority-minority municipality is that Richmond has had to rethink its public consultation and engagement processes. One effective engagement process the City experimented with was, recognizing language barriers, decided external groups to run consultations on their behalf in participants’ own languages. The key informant acknowledged that information received was much richer: “I think [it] brought in a different perspective to some of the feedback we were getting… it was more community based. We weren’t in the sessions at 	  	  48	  all.” With such a rich cultural diversity in Richmond, diverting from traditional engagement methods, some of which are not culturally normative for immigrant groups, and exploring more culturally sensitive methods has become a top priority for the City: “We get a lot of feedback and are very aware of the fact that a lot of people who come to Richmond, or who are born here don’t know what we do in municipal government, they don’t understand how different levels of government work together, we have quite a few people because we do city tours for new immigrants, we have people who come here who are very wary of government… you don’t go to City Hall unless you’re in trouble.”  The city is set on asset development and citizen-led engagement It has also taken on intercultural projects and the production its Newcomers guide, supported in multiple languages. The key informant also acknowledges that a lot of informal settlement is occurring within communities and not necessarily formal services, such as religious institutions and/or cultural groups. One of the more prominent intercultural bridging projects has been participating in interfaith dialogues and tours on Richmond’s famous “Highway to Heaven” on Number 5 Road, celebrated for having numerous and differing faith institutions in close proximity to one another (Dywer et.Al 2013).  Richmond’s Caring Place and Community Service Collaboration  The City maintains its strong support for settlement agencies like S.U.C.E.S.S, Richmond Multicultural Community Services, and non-profits in general. A lot of time and energy over the years has been put into providing accommodation for non-profits. A city-built and owned facility called Richmond Caring Place is one block away from City Hall, and houses a number of non-profits who manage the building’s daily operations. There is a strong commitment to support immigrant service agencies through amenity provision. Caring Place will be rebuilt and upgraded in the coming years. Additionally, the City provides seed money through small grants to some non-profits that do immigrant settlement as well as support in-kind, such as rooms for meetings 	  	  49	  and events and joint partnership around arts and cultural projects. One of those organizations, Richmond Multicultural Community Services, was Richmond’s major recipient of provincial Welcoming Inclusive Communities and Work Places (WICWP) funding and the City had a position on its board to oversee that project.  When asked about agencies being involved in the City’s planning processes, the respondent responds: “Absolutely [agencies are] involved in planning – ISS, SUCCESS, RMCS and Family Place, Refugee Bridging Project and settlement workers in the School District (SWIS workers), we work with them all the time. It’s an interesting model, because we’re the City, and we’re expanding rapidly, but there is still enough cohesiveness and cooperation within non-profit sector. Most people know each other, structure is in place to make sure it stays that way.”  One of the ways the City maintains cohesion between social services and non-profit sector is through the Richmond Community Services Advisory Council (RCSAC). The Council is managed by city staff, with non-profit administration. During RCSAC meetings, information and resources between agencies is shared and it is a coordinating tool for strategy development. Future Directions  While the City has gone to great lengths to improve and maintain its connection with settlement agencies, the key informant acknowledges that grants towards immigrant settlement are not large. It is mentioned that it is also “very unlikely [the City] ever will give big grants”, even though at times it has had pressure from organizations to take a more active roll and apply for grants on behalf of non-profits. Especially because the funding for settlement services has gone back to the Federal government, the financial responsibility is primarily seen as one beyond the municipal level.  At the time of research, the City was beginning to plan its first Intercultural Symposium to celebrate and showcase the City’s intercultural efforts, as well as to bridge the gaps between 	  	  50	  the community, City Hall, and researchers. Even though direct settlement services are not in the picture for Richmond, interculturalism will continue to be a steady policy guiding cultural diversity initiatives because, as the key informant eloquently puts it: “Canadian Values aren’t static, [they are] developing all the time, and we come to a realization that the view somehow that immigrant integration, and it’s more on the immigrant and their need to fit in, is a very old fashioned view that isn’t gonna work, particularly in a community where most people are immigrant anyway.”                           	  	  51	  4. Social Sustainability and Future Collaboration Models  The six case studies brought into focus a changing and complex interpretation of contemporary multiculturalism, one that considers diversity, inclusion, and interculturalism as frameworks that give structure and meaning to – at times – a seemingly nebulous Federal policy.  What these six case studies ultimately suggest is that multiculturalism policy and practice – whether they be access and inclusion strategies, intercultural dialogues and bridging projects, or diversity initiatives in the workplace and marketplace – point to the ultimate goal of strengthening social sustainability. What new iterations of multiculturalism policies hope to accomplish is to deepen the sense of belonging community members have, in hopes that immigrants and newcomers move beyond ethnic silos, and see diversity within community beyond ethnic origin. The table below highlights the narrative of each Case Study: Table 2: Multicultural Policy and Programming Comparisons Municipality/Settlement Agency Approach to Multicultural Policy and Programming AMSSA Sectoral, Settlement Agency Support Focus: Access, Diversity, Interculturalism Programs: Safe Harbour MOSAIC Delivers Settlement Services Focus: Immigration Advocacy and Policy Research Focus: Diversity and Interculturalism Burnaby Multicultural Society Delivers Settlement Services Focus: Multiculturalism and Diversity Programs: Targeted services and advocacy for Seniors City of Vancouver Focus: Access, Diversity and Interculturalism Multiculturalism as incomplete No Settlement Services, Policy and Engagement Focused City of Burnaby Focus: Inclusion, Interculturalism Multiculturalism as guiding framework for newer policies No Direct Settlement Services, Support Agencies City of Richmond Focus: Interculturalism Interculturalism as next step for Canadian multiculturalism No Direct Settlement Services, Support Agencies  	  	  52	  Multicultural Policy in the Settlement Sector  The three settlement agencies demonstrate both clear and subtle responses to changing multiculturalism policy, where strategic focus on access, diversity, and interculturalism offer more targeted and practical approaches. For AMSSA, as an inter-agency supporting the settlement sector, much of their efforts are concentrated on helping agencies carry out diversity policies, programs and initiatives. This includes the work of engaging the business communities and public institutions towards the “business-case for diversity” through their Safe Harbour: Respect For All program. AMSSA also specializes in supporting agencies engage in intercultural work, often in collaboration with municipalities. AMSSA promotes asset-based interculturalism, believing that the communities and neighbourhoods have the capacity to learn, grow, and create together. Finally, part of intercultural building includes linking the settlement sector to First Nation Communities, acknowledging that link is often missing between immigrants and newcomers.  MOSAIC is a large, multi-city immigrant settlement agency, and aside from settlement services, is active in conducting its own research, engagement and advocacy on issues affecting immigrants and newcomers. The agency also advocates for board diversity, recognizing the need to subvert existing institutions in order that they become more equitable. At MOSAIC, diversity and interculturalism are the “practical applications” of multiculturalism. The agency also goes beyond client services and is strongly represented in municipal planning processes, such as the Mayor’s Working Group on Immigration.  In contrast to AMSSA and MOSAIC, Burnaby Multicultural Society (BMS) is a smaller agency. Despite having ‘multicultural’ in its name, the organization has been strategically thinking of a rebranding towards diversity in order to reflect its changing mandate. BMS has also shifted its focus to seniors settlement and elder abuse advocacy, recognizing that while many 	  	  53	  seniors have been living in Burnaby and Metro Vancouver for more than thirty years, their integration has been segmented.  For these settlement agencies, it seems, the shift is not always explicit, and accompanying policy does not necessarily precede intercultural bridging projects or access and diversity initiatives. At times, multiculturalism still serves as a dominant way of understanding the result of increasing interculturalism and diversity. What each discussed, however, is the inability of multiculturalism as a framework to fully capture the outcomes desired within settlement agencies, that of genuine participation and belonging, and the acknowledgement of differences beyond ethnic ancestry, particularly for racialized minorities. Each agency key informant expressed concern for isolation of immigrant communities, and that the goal of multiculturalism should not be to solely be focused on differences of immigrant and newcomers, but shared responsibilities of the host community and its institutions to foster a sense of belonging to Canada.  All settlement agency interviews also expressed the desire to be included, but had no expectations to be favoured by, municipal planning processes. However, all agencies spoke to the need to collaborate with local governments, especially in regards to immigration and settlement issues. Agencies like BMS have also benefited from municipal policies that discount their spaces below market rate. Multicultural Policy in Municipalities   Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond all recognize the need for their municipalities to attract and retrain immigrants, as well as respond to the call of creating more welcoming and inclusive communities and workplaces. Municipalities have moved towards diversity, inclusion and interculturalism in order to foster belonging and participation, with the consensus that multiculturalism still underpinned the guiding principles of the succeeding policies. 	  	  54	  The City of Vancouver has taken great strides in adopting diversity as a lens for multiculturalism. The City also has invested time and resources in creating equitable access to city services. New policy approaches also consider changing demographics and “majority-minority” municipalities, suggesting that the current population settlement needs may be different from previous generations of immigrants. Further, this new demographic reality requires continued effort to create new forms of understanding and that acculturation and integration generates new forms of cultural “hybridization” as immigrants shape urban processes, such as land development. Vancouver has worked hard to create employment equity, immigrant mentorship, and taken a proactive role in understanding immigrant issues through the Mayor’s Working Group on Immigration as well as its Multicultural Advisory Committee. From an intercultural perspective, Vancouver has begun to bridge connections between immigrant communities. The Dialogues project, for example, explored opportunities for Aboriginal and Immigrant groups to learn from, share with, and connect to one another. In Burnaby, while immigrant settlement servicing is explicitly not in the municipality’s mandate, activities around fostering and inclusion and intercultural bridging are areas the city is willing to work within. The municipality sees itself as a convener between multiple agencies, especially when describing the initial formation of Burnaby’s Intercultural Planning table, which was a result of necessary coordination. Burnaby’s interview also highlighted the real concern of both municipalities and agencies regarding changes to settlement funding, where municipalities anticipate additional downloaded responsibility. While the City of Richmond has implemented intercultural policy for more than a decade,  Richmond’s interview also highlights the unfamiliarity, discomfort, and conflict present in communities as a result of immigration, and municipal responses to counter animosity directed at immigrants. Supporting the work of non-profits has been the model the City has chosen to follow. 	  	  55	  The municipality has also worked to change the perception of City Hall, from one as a place to avoid, to one that is open and meant to serve citizens.  Immigrant settlement services – finding employment, learning and/or developing English, finding primary housing – are still considered the work of the settlement sector. However, municipalities accept their role in facilitating the integration of immigrants both as key economic drivers as well as contributors to Canada’s rich cultural diversity. Municipalities vary in the extent to which councils involve themselves with immigration policy, however acknowledge the importance of accepting cultural difference and increasing accessibility to City Hall and municipal services – including cultural and recreational programming - as clear responsibilities.  Immigration Settlement and Social Sustainability  Either explicitly or implicitly, all interviews discussed how addressing immigrant integration through multiculturalism policies contribute to a community’s social sustainability. Accounting for diversity and strengthening relationships between people and groups through social policy has been one way that municipalities connect themselves to settlement processes even though direct services are not in their mandates. With this understanding, accepting that there may be “unsustainable” forms of multiculturalism and immigrant/newcomer reception that do not contribute to social sustainability may also shed light on the need to adopt more variation in policies, particularly from the common notion that traditional multiculturalism functions largely to accommodate visible, racialized minorities.  In addition to settlement sector and municipal interviews, one key informant interview was conducted with a diversity and inclusion specialist. The key informant interview highlighted, that from a municipal point of view, multiculturalism must – and slowly has – transformed from a passive to active process, whereby standalone multiculturalism policy is not a proxy for 	  	  56	  intentional and strategic action towards genuine integration, meaningful participation or the bridging of differences, he says: “This idea that by osmosis or proximity, people will get to understand each other I think takes away from the role that local governments can play in facilitating dynamic interaction and intercultural understanding.”  Using the social sustainability framework to guide immigrant integration is particularly useful as municipalities are already familiar with the concept of sustainability and incorporate them into their policies. Incorporating immigrant integration into existing or future frameworks of social sustainability policy maybe be standard practice in many Metro Vancouver municipalities, however implementing specific actions may be easier in some municipalities and councils over others, particularly when the lines of servicing and policy are blurred (i.e. fostering immigrant employment or particular immigration issues). The diversity specialist affirms that immigrant integration is only one piece to achieving social sustainability, but a very important one: “How do people interact, what’s the sense of community, how do people belong in their communities, how dynamic are the interactions between different groups of people, I feel like those are the goals of achieving a socially sustainable civil society, and immigrant integration and settlement is just one part of the more complex, overarching goal.”  Municipal Constraints and Opportunities   For municipalities, their future success and prosperity is directly tied to the prosperity of new immigrants. Newcomers become citizens of cities, not only immigrants of Canada. Municipal interviews highlighted that city staff understand that when newcomers struggle, they initially draw from the city’s resources before that of the provinces or federal governments. Further, municipalities realize that while their cities are increasingly more multicultural places demographically speaking – and will be even more so in the future – that does not necessarily equate to cities being more welcoming places. 	  	  57	  Given the constraints of downloaded responsibility and little (or no) extra resources accompanying new obligations, cities must continue to work within existing capacities with increasing demand. While some cities may not commit to direct settlement work, municipalities seem to be in consensus that they do have jurisdiction within creating welcoming communities, ones that are attractive to immigrants and newcomers to live, work, and increasingly invest in. This attraction and retention narrative underscores, at least for municipalities, the “business case” for diversity. This includes creating opportunities for professional networking and mentoring, supporting immigrant entrepreneurship, and specialized language training in particular sectors. However, as the diversity specialist cautioned against, welcoming newcomers to be part of Canada’s economic future is not the same as asking them to contribute to a municipality’s social sustainability.  Models for Municipal and Settlement Sector Collaboration  Perhaps the largest shift in multiculturalism policy has been one focused on the immigrant and newcomers to that of the host community, taking into account how non-immigrants and Aboriginal communities may feel and respond to immigration. The shared responsibility of the host community is one shared by both municipal governments and settlement sectors. While the settlement sector takes a service approach to shared responsibility, and municipal governments tackle their responsibilities from more of a policy perspective, both are working towards engaging host communities into mutual learning and understanding.  The interviews also revealed a strong push toward municipal and settlement sector collaboration, perhaps more now than ever. Municipalities may be keen to take on sectoral coalition building (i.e. Richmond’s Intercultural Advisory Committee, Burnaby Intercultural Planning Table, Vancouver’s Multicultural Advisory Committee), facilitating and coordinating 	  	  58	  relationships between agencies as well as providing support for immigrant settlement through small grants, reduced rents on city land, as well as participating in events in partnerships with the settlement sector. Municipalities are also seen as advocates to higher levels of government. Further, community amenity contributions are one example of how municipalities and settlement agencies can work together to create community inclusion through direct servicing needs. As mentioned in MOSAIC’s case study, the organization takes on research in order to advance knowledge about and advocacy for immigrant issues. In February 2014, MOSAIC published “Welcoming Communities: Collaborative Model for Vancouver: Suggestions for a Blueprint”2 with community partners in order to identify and build on essential elements critical to the success of collaboration initiatives, particularly planning tables. These key elements were developed from evaluating nine cities that have/or had some form of immigrant planning tables. They highlight these models being developed from collaborative processes. The report highlights main criteria: 1. Vision and Mission Statement 2. Membership Criteria and Composition 3. Governance Structure 4. Organizational Sustainability 5. Organizational Structure and Budget Management 6. Dynamic Leadership 7. Accountability and Evaluation 8. Information Sharing and Communication  These criteria outline a more formal arrangement between stakeholders, one that may not account for, but certainly builds on more informal supports municipalities give to the settlement sector such as support in-kind in the form of city spaces, or staff research and facilitation. This model certainly solidifies shared responsibility and can formalize the relationship between a 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  2 http://www.mosaicbc.com/sites/all/files/publications-public/Final%20Suggestions%20for%20a%20Blueprint%202014%2003%2026%20for%20Web.pdf 	  	  59	  municipality and local settlement agency. It also accounts for long-term planning, with an explicit mandate. This gives both parties agency to set planning priorities and focus on key needs of the community, be it increasing immigrant access to services or creating more employment opportunities for them. Local Immigration Partnerships    Diagram 1: Steps in the LIPS Process (CIC) Local immigration partnerships (LIPs) are currently the most adopted collaborative model between municipalities and the settlement sector. Adhering to MOSAIC’s blueprint criteria, LIP tables follow similar criteria. Starting in Ontario as pilot projects in 2008, LIPs tables are a nationwide initiative of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), created in hopes to – for better or worse – centralize settlement activities nationally. LIPs tables aim to be community-based partnerships to address newcomer settlement and integration.  According to CIC, The three main tenants of LIPs are to: 1. Systematize local engagement; 2. Support community-level research and strategic planning; and  Establish	  Partnership	  Council	  Create	  Terms	  of	  reference	  for	  Partnership	  Council	  Conduct	  research	  and	  establish	  a	  local	  settlement	  strategy	  to	  be	  implemented	  over	  three	  years	  Develop	  annual	  action	  plan	  to	  addresslocal	  priorities	  Implement	  the	  action	  plan	  annually	  	  	  60	  3. Improve coordination of effective services.  These shared services are both provided by the settlement sector as well as mainstream institutions. LIPs are generally a five year project, where the first two years are devoted to forming the table, undertaking community asset mapping and surveying of community needs, and developing a local immigration settlement strategy. The following three years are devoted to implement actions stated in the settlement strategy. LIPs tables have been considered successful models in Ontario, where federal governance oversees local action planning, and where municipalities and the community are co-producers in developing localized strategies for immigrant integration and servicing specific to community needs and capacities.  At the time of interviews settlement funding was still provided by the provincial government, and municipalities and immigrant service agencies alike anticipated the impact of changes as funding switched over to Citizenship and Immigration Canada in April 2014. As of September 2014 all three municipalities had formed LIPs tables. In Vancouver, the City of Vancouver held the LIPS contract, whereas in Burnaby and Richmond, non-profits were the lead agencies. Table 3: Municipal Participation in Local Immigration Partnership  Municipality Member of Local Immigration Partnership Vancouver YES – Partnership Lead Burnaby  YES – Member (Partnership Lead: Burnaby Family Life) Richmond YES – Member (Partnership Lead: Richmond Multicultural Community Services      	  	  61	  5. Conclusion and Research Recommendations  Identifying the roles, challenges, and opportunities for immigrant service providers as well as the responses and responsibilities of municipalities in a changing immigration landscape has been less about explicit answers and more about identifying general trends. On one hand, the settlement sector still sees their primary roles as community-based service providers, but that is increasingly changing. Aside from the services they provide, settlement agencies are involved in advocacy beyond their service roles, particularly in increasing diversity, promoting equitable inclusion in all levels of society and mainstream institutions. The interviews revealed a growing and firm acknowledgement that immigrant settlement outcomes contribute significantly to the social sustainability of organizations and municipalities alike.  Municipalities find themselves coordinating services and strengthening partnerships within the settlement sector as well as bridging the settlement sector and immigrants to other mainstream institutions, particularly through employment initiatives. For municipalities, limited existing resources must be leveraged in the community as well as advocated for to higher levels of government. Immigration and settlement traditionally being the funding responsibilities of Provincial governments (and now the Federal government), municipalities in Metro Vancouver have not been willing to take an active role in immigrant settlement service provision. According to some municipal interviews, some municipalities may even be hesitant to move in this direction and see this as a “downloaded” responsibility. Rather, municipalities have embraced their role in immigrant settlement integration, not settlement provision. Settlement workers are first responders and face the day-to-day challenges of immigrant settlement. Intercultural learning and bridging are common experiences in settlement programming, where newcomers come to know and be known, encountering cultural differences 	  	  62	  in ESL classes, servicing workshops, and everyday conversations and interactions. What these interviews revealed was increasingly close, but delicate, relationships between immigrant service providers and municipalities, one of blurred lines, shared responsibilities, but also limited resources and capacity on both sides. Both are impacted by and beholden to changes to settlement funding. As municipalities and settlement agencies alike retain the “spirit of multiculturalism” as they take on greater initiatives concerning diversity, inclusion, and interculturalism, both will continue to be impacted by ever changing immigration policies.   The future of multiculturalism policy and municipal/settlement sector collaboration continues to evolve. Some major development and continued trends will continue to shape future research regarding effective collaboration including:  § Intersections between Multicultural policy and Immigration policy: The interviews highlighted that multiculturalism policy is impacted by immigration policy, and that often one is embedded in the discourse of the other. Debates around concepts like Sanctuary City – where cities employ “don’t ask don’t tell” philosophy towards servicing undocumented immigrants – have increased. How will increasing efforts to require proof of residency during service delivery affect the lives of migrants without permanent status (i.e. Temporary Foreign Workers, Live-in-Caregivers, and Refugees)? How might these new immigrant “classes” disrupt the notion of  “welcoming and inclusive communities” and will municipalities and service organizations create policies around the servicing of non-status immigrants, particularly when immigration policy is Federal jurisdiction? § Demographic Changes: As cities and neighbourhoods across Metro Vancouver continue to experience a change in demographics to “majority/minoritiy” municipalities, how might existing and new tensions manifest and be addressed? 	  	  63	  § Impact on Funding changes: With the Federal Government now funding immigration settlement, how will the settlement sector and municipalities respond? How will the Local Immigration Partnerships change the way settlement services are planned for and delivered in municipalities? § The balance of grassroots and policy planning: How might cities be challenged to adopt community-based planning with regards to immigrant integration, and how might the settlement sector be involved in more formalized planning processes? How might staff in both sectors continue to be trained and learn to foster, manage, and implement diversity? § The Next Interculturalism: What is next in the multicultural spectrum, after interculturalism? Will intercultural policies be the next hallmark iteration of multiculturalism policy, or will other policies emerge and become more widely adopted? § Targeted Demographic Services: How might municipalities and the settlement sector respond to and collaborate on specific needs within immigrant communities. For example, how might employment opportunities for immigrant youth be addressed, or how can local governments help settlement agencies in servicing isolated seniors?  § Biases in Programming: What are the dangers and pitfalls in some cultural competency training? How might certain diversity and inclusion training reify stereotypes if not facilitated correctly? § Issue-based Multicultural Policies: Aside from general inclusion and integration policies, future evaluation on programs and policies dedicated to address certain settlement issues are needed. For example, how do education policies support newcomer students or health services develop cultural competency training for its workers? How might the intersection of faith and public policy address social inclusion through 	  	  64	  settlement sector programming? Further, how does public space and design account for intercultural connection or how will municipalities zone for cultural spaces such as places of worship? § The Role of the Planner: If planners are not immigration experts (as suggested in the City of Burnaby Case Study), but are being asked to be so, what information, training, and expertise do they need and from whom could they receive it? What role can agencies play to educate planners? It seems as though collaborations between the settlement sector and municipalities are a necessary and obvious response to servicing the needs of immigrants and newcomers. Shifts over time highlight that both sides have moved away from policy solely focused on visible minorities, and adopted a more holistic approach to multiculturalism through adopting diversity and inclusion frameworks.   For settlement agencies, the day-to-day work continues with clients, specific programs, and tighter servicing regulations from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. For municipalities, immigration settlement is just one issue amongst other pressing issues. In Metro Vancouver, the opportunity for the collaboration between both groups exhibits optimism as well as pressure. Settlement services rely on and desire support from municipalities. Local governments can take on more proactive roles, but not without extended resources from senior levels of government. A promising model in Metro Vancouver would Local Immigration Partnerships, but their effectiveness still remains to be observed as they take hold in municipalities across the province. The case studies presented in this project are by no means comprehensive but rather abridged, unable to include every program or initiative, but draws out key areas unique to the agency or municipality. While the settlement outcomes of immigrants also hinge on institutional and systemic changes beyond the control of both municipalities and settlement providers, the 	  	  65	  success of current and future immigrants and newcomers will rely on the success of collaborations at both the grassroots and municipal level.  Settlement agencies are often the voice to City Hall and decision makers about immigrant needs. As stated, newcomers are often focused on immediate settlement needs rather than civic engagement or social inclusion, which broader policy promotes more frequently. Future planning may need to reconcile the differing short and long-term goals of settlement, the former addressed primarily by settlement agencies and the latter by municipal government. The roles and challenges may be different from one agency or municipality to the next, but one common thread is woven throughout all the case studies: immigrants need and deserve to settle, belong, and participate in Canadian life. Multicultural policy, programming and planning all hinge on this common thread, and will continue to depend on this shared vision moving forward.   	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  66	  References	   Agyeman, Julian, and Jennifer Sien Erickson. 2012. "Culture, recognition, and the negotiation of difference some thoughts on cultural competency in planning education." Journal of Planning Education and Research 32(3): 358-366.  Bill 39. 1993. Multiculturalism Act. Retrieved July 24, 2014. (http://www.leg.bc.ca/35th2nd/1st_read/gov39-1.htm  Brock, Samara. 2009. “Changing the Mind of the City: Preparing the Public Sector for a Multicultural Society.” Pp. 67–112 in Where Strangers Become Neighbours, Urban and Landscape Perspectives. Springer Netherlands.   Cantle, Ted. 2012. Interculturalism: for the era of cohesion and diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)  Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2012. “Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship.” Retrieved July 24, 2014. (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp).  Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2012. “The Current State of Multiculturalism in Canada and Research Themes on Canadian Multiculturalism 2008-2010”.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “Local Immigration Partnerships Handbook” Retrievewed July 24, 2014. (http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/index/Local-Immigration-Partnerships-Handbook.pdf)  Dywer, Claire, Justin KH Tse, and David Ley. 2013. “Immigrant integration and Religious Transnationalism: The Case of the ‘Highway to Heaven’ n Richmond BC’.  Metropolis British Columbia, Working Paper Series.  Edgington, David and Thomas Hutton. 2002. Multiculturalism and local government in Greater Vancouver. RIIM Working Paper Series No. 02–06, Vancouver.  Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2011. “Starting on Solid ground: The municipal role in immigrant Settlement”.  Good, Kristin R. 2009. Municipalities and multiculturalism: The politics of immigration in Toronto and Vancouver. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  	  	  67	  Graham, Scott and Matt Thomspon. 2010. “Engaging and Re(Framing): Multicultural Stakeholder Perspectives on Metropolis BC Research Directions For Metro Vancouver.” Social Planning and Research Council of BC.  Hyman, Ilene, Agnes Meinhard, and John Shields. 2011. "The Role of Multiculturalism Policy in Addressing Social Inclusion Processes in Canada." (2011).  Kunz, Jean L. and Stuart Sykes. 2007. "From mosaic to harmony: Multicultural Canada in the 21st century." Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative.  Ley, David. 2007. Multiculturalism: A Canadian Defense. RIIM working paper series no.  07-04. Vancouver: Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis.  Poirier, Christian.  2004. "The Management of Ethnic Diversity and Comparative City Governance in Canada." Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba.  Reilly, John. "Municipal roles in immigrant integration: the Edmonton experience." Our Diverse Cities: Prairies Region 6 (2009): 156-160.  Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. Integrating immigrants: The challenge for cities, city governments, and city-building professionals. Vancouver: Vancouver Centre of Excellence.  Sandercock, Leonie. 2008. Where Strangers Become Neighbours: Integrating Immigrants in Vancouver, Canada. New York: Springer.  Statistics Canada. 2012. Burnaby, British Columbia (Code 5915025) and British Columbia (Code 59) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 1, 2014).  Statistics Canada. 2013. Burnaby, CY, British Columbia (Code 5915025) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011 National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 10, 2014).  Statistics Canada. 2012. Richmond, British Columbia (Code 5915015) and British Columbia (Code 59) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 1, 2014).  	  	  68	  Statistics Canada. 2013. Richmond, CY, British Columbia (Code 5915015) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011 National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 1, 2014).  Statistics Canada. 2012. Vancouver, British Columbia (Code 5915022) and Greater Vancouver, British Columbia (Code 5915) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 1, 2014).  Statistics Canada. 2013. Vancouver, CY, British Columbia (Code 5915022) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011 National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, 2013. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed November 1, 2014).  Walks, R. Alan, and Larry S. Bourne. 2006. "Ghettos in Canada's Cities? Racial Segregation, Ethnic Enclaves and Poverty Concentration in Canadian Urban Areas." The Canadian Geographer 50(3): 273-297.  Wayland, Sarah. 2010 “Integration of Immigrants Through Local Public Services” Region of Peel Immigration Discussion Paper.   Wood, Phil and Charles Landry. 2008. The Intercultural City: Planning for Diversity Advantage. Ch. 7: “The City Through an Intercultural Lens”. USA: Earthscan.  Yan, Miu Chung, Shirley Chau, and Dave Sangha. 2010. “An Exploratory Study of How Multiculturalism Policies Are Implemented at the Grassroots Level.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 41(3): 49–75.  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  69	  Appendix A: Key Informants  AMSSA, National Safe Harbour Coordinator MOSAIC, Executive Director Burnaby Multicultural Society, Executive Director City of Vancouver, Social Planner City of Burnaby, Social Planner City of Richmond, Cultural Diversity Coordinator University of British Columbia, Director of Intercultural Understanding 	  	  	     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0075846/manifest

Comment

Related Items