Paper presented at the 24th World Congress of Political Science, Poznan, July 23-28, 2016.

Intergovernmental Relations, Minority Nacionalism and the

Policies of Integration of Newcomers in Quebec and Catalonia (1995-2011).

Jessica Bensa

Professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica of Perú Group of Research on Institutions,

Policies and Citizenship (GIPC). jbensa@pucp.pe

This research focusses on the effects of intergovernmental relations on the policies of integration of newcomers in two case studies with minority nationalism such as Quebec and Catalonia, from 1995 to 2011. After characterizing the model of IGR and the minority nationalism in both case studies, the paper focusses on the contents and the design of the policies of reception and language, as well as on the governance of the policies. The conclusion is that the presence of a thick identity and the claim for preserving their language and culture, pushed Quebec and Catalonia to develop their own intercultural approaches for the integration of newcomers. While Quebec’s interculturalism intends to differentiate from the multicultural pan-Canadian approach, Catalonia has built an intercultural model of integration facing a unitary and homogeneous definition of the Spanish identity. Competitive relationships with the federal or central government, and the characteristics of the immigration system in both countries, have lead to a process of devolution and/or decentralization of the policies of integration. Notwithstanding, two quite different models of governance of the integration policies have emerged in both case studies: a top down model in Quebec and a bottom-up model in Catalonia. Keywords: Immigration-Intergovernmental Relations-Minority Nationalism-Public Policies-Governance. 1. Introduction: Why Quebec and Catalonia? The research problem and

methodology. Quebec and Catalonia hold minority nationalism and a history of competitive relations with the federal or central state of Canada and Spain. These relations have been important for the development and evolution of federal arrangements1 in both countries, also they have made their impact on public policies. The field of immigration is crucial, regarding to the centrality of national identity and language recognition in both societies. Differentiated models of integration where launched by the Quebec and Catalonian governments in order to guarantee the loyalty of newcomers. Notwithstanding, these efforts and the devolution or decentralization of the policies of integration from the federal

                                                                                                               1 While Canada is a federal country, Spain experienced a process of “federalization” since 1978.

or central government, were translated in to two different models of governance: a top-down model in Quebec and a bottom-up model in Catalonia. Since the “quiet revolution” Quebec experienced a process of modernization, separation of state and religion, development of welfare policies and the rise of a secular and civic nationalism. The claim for national recognition, identity and language protection, pushed negotiations with the federal government for jurisdiction on the policies of immigration. Since 1970, Quebec’s thick identity and the linguistic differences with the rest of Canada, were expressed by the development of an intercultural model of integration in competition with the federal pan-canadian multiculturalism (Mc Roberts, 1997; Redondo, 1996; Seidle, 1998; Gagnon & Iacovino, 2007). Between 1971-1991, Quebec and the federal government signed several agreements on immigration that introduced a “de facto” asymmetry on the Constitutional provisions. The “McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay” agreement (1991) led to the devolution on the policies of integration as well as on the selection of “Economic Class immigrants”. This devolution opened a process of decentralization and several further agreements were negotiated between Ottawa and the rest of provinces, although none of them equals the devolution obtained by Quebec. On the other hand, Catalonia has been one of the most developed regions of Spain and a land of settlement for domestic immigrants. This situation led to a claim on the preservation of identity and the protection of Catalan language. Thus, integration of domestic immigrants has been an issue on the political agenda since the 1950s, bringing language policies at the center of the debate. Although, if compared to Quebec, Catalonia does not hold the same competences and funding for its immigration policies, the Autonomous Community has developed a pioneering approach to the integration of newcomers in Spain, based on social cohesion and the dissemination of Catalan language. In that effort nationalist, center right and also leftist parties have converged with few nuances. Given the characteristics of the Spanish Immigration regime- which is reactive and with a wide margin for illegal immigration (López, 2005)- Catalonia has built its policies facing mostly a unitary view of Spain instead of in opposition to a coherent Spanish model of integration. The Autonomous Community has therefore claimed for a bigger share of the budget and power to manage the integration of newcomers and to exert some control over the flows. In 2006 a reformed Statute of Autonomy was enacted and some competences on integration of newcomers were recognized. Since then, the Generalitat intended to strengthen the model of integration by developing an incipient regulatory framework which involved local governments in order to achieve greater coherence on the policies. In this paper, both case studies are analyzed in order to understand how do intergovernmental relations, and decentralization or devolution, have had an influence on the policies of integration of newcomers, particularly regarding to contexts of minority nationalism and asymmetric federal developments. Thus the research focuses on Quebec and Catalonia and their relations with the federal and central government, as well as on the relation with Montreal and Barcelona, the two great metropolis of settlement for newcomers. The role of civic society and non governmental organizations has been also analyzed. The

main research questions are: What is the influence of Intergovernmental relations and devolution on the policies of integration of newcomers in Quebec and Catalonia between 1995-2011? What models of multilevel governance have been established for the policies of integration in both case studies? And what are the main characteristics of the Quebec and Catalonian models of integration of newcomers? The starting point for the analysis of the Catalonian case study was set in 1999 because of the rise of the immigration policies at the Spaniard political agenda and the debate and enactment of a new immigration Bill (LODEX 4/2002), in a context of increase of the extra European-community flows. Regarding to the Quebec case study, the starting point was set in 1995, right after the last referendum of free association with Canada that led to a political debate on the loyalty of immigrants to the Quebec nation. The ending point of the research was established in 2011, due to the election of new governments in Quebec, Catalonia and Barcelona, and also regarding the economic crisis and the separatist tensions in Spain, which rested centrality to immigration issues on the political and public agenda. The research employed the qualitative method based on the application of 47 semi-structured interviews with key respondents and stakeholders at the different levels of government between 2010-2013 in Quebec and Ottawa and in Catalonia and Madrid. The analysis of legislation, governmental documents, political and intergovernmental agreements has been also included.

2. Intergovernmental Relations, federal arrangements and the policy of immigration in Canada.

The policy of immigration was not included in the dual division of powers provided by the British North American Act of 1867 (BNA). Section 95 of the BNA defines federal and provincial authority over immigration policy as concurrent, although the Federal government and Parliament have the final word to enforce regulations and bills. Section 91(25) of the BNA, grants exclusive powers to the federal government on the naturalization of foreigners, citizenship and admission of new immigrants in Canada. Section 132 also provides exclusive authority over foreign relations, including the selection system at the immigration offices abroad. Also, since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, section 6 (2) of the "Charter of rights and Freedoms" guarantees to all Canadians and permanent residents the right to move and settle in the province of their choice (Kostov, 2008 pp. 92-93). Until the postwar the policy of immigration was dominated by the federal government, but since then, and particularly in recent decades, Canada has experienced an accelerated process of devolution and decentralization. The result has been an immigration system organized by a set of asymmetric

                                                                                                               2 Original acronyms in Spanish and French have been employed for all the Bills and Institutions mentioned in this paper.

intergovernmental relations which is probably the most complex of the world (Banting, 2012). Being an “Anglo-Saxo regime of immigration” (Lopez, 2005), the decisions regarding the immigration policies in Canada play a central role in federal and provincial politics. Immigration is closely related to economic development and to the capacity of each province to retain their political influence in parliament. There is also a well established link between immigration policies and the nation-building process based on the extended idea that newcomers will become further canadian citizens. Given the importance of immigration, the regional distribution of immigrants has been a key issue in Canada. Over the past half century flows have concentrated mostly in three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec), which received 90% of new residents, by 2000, 60% of them settled in Ontario. This gave rise to a claim of the other provinces in order to receive a fare proportion of newcomers to guarantee their economic and political weight in the federation (Banting. 2012, p 84). Regarding to Quebec, this claims also included the need to mantein the relative proportion of the Francophone community inside the federation.

The last immigration agreement between the federal government and Quebec, "L'Accord McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay" (1991), was signed during the negotiations to achieve Quebec’s acceptance of the patriated constitution, and in the middle of two independence referendums launched by the Quebec government. After the failiure of the Meech Lake (1987) and Charlotte Town (1992) agreements, the immigration treaty of 1991 allowed Quebec to play a key role on the planification of the immigration flows to the province. It also guaranteed the right to select “econocmic class immigrants” and asylum seekers for humanitarian reasons. Moreover the agreement provided a devolution of the policies of reception and settlement in the province. The services subject to devolution should correspond to those offered by the Canadian government in the rest of the country. In return Quebec gets a financial compensation which is updated annually (Government of Quebec, 1991, pp. 2-6.).

3. The Intergovernmental relations, the State of Autonomies an the policies of immigration in Spain.

According to the 1978 Constitution, immigration is an exclusive competence of the central government related to border control and the legal and administrative situation of foreigners (Art 149.1.2 EC. 1978). The first Organic Law of Immigration (LOE 5/1985) adopted in the context of the entry of Spain into the European Union, reinforced this border-control orientation. Since the late 1980s the rise of immigration flows demanded the intervention of Autonomous Communities in the provision of social services for newcomers. In 2000, the new Law on Rights and Freedoms for Foreigners (LODEX 4/2000), referred to the need of a "proper coordination of all the governments with jurisdiction over the integration of newcomers "(Montilla, 2006; LODEX, art. 68, 4/2000). From then on, the concurrence of autonomous and central government policies on integration of newcomers has pushed the development of intergovernmental relations on the immigration field (Roig, 2006). In 2009, a

new reform of the LODEX 4/2000 opened a "third phase" on this relations, by recognizing the participation of the Autonomous Communities and local governments on the integration of newcomers formerly introduced by the reforms of the Statutes of Autonomy in 2006 (Aja, 2012). The Lodex 4/2000 established a High Council on Immigration Policy (CSPI) regarding coordination, where Central state and Autonomous Comunities had representation an local governments participated as observers. Nevertheless CSPI’s agreements could not be binding on issues related to Autonomous Comunities jurisdiction. Indeed since 2004, the socialist government created a paralel “Tripartite Commision” (government, employers and labor unions) which adquirer greater protagonism on immigration debate in detriment of the CSPI. All this factors fostered mistrust on the central government and diluted the CSPI oportunity to promote greater participation of the Autonomous Communities on national decisions regarding immigration policy. Autonompus contributions were mostly discussed through the press or by the internal party structures (Roig, 2006).

In 2007 a Sectoral Conference on Immigration (CSI) was created and by 2009 it replaced the CSPI. The CSI was a vertical cordination and cooperation body led by the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Immigration. Central government and Autonomous Commnities (AC’s) participated at the CSI, local governments were also included as observers through representatives of the Federation of Municipalities. Several interviewed for this research argued that the CSI was mostly a formal space for validating previous agreements and exchanging points of view. Thus the effectiveness of CSI relied on the bilateral relations of the central state with each AC. They also pointed out that during the socialist government (PSOE), a “dramatization of the conflict” was central to the strategie of the Popular Party AC´s at CSI, setting important limits to horizontal or interautonomous coordination. As for the relationship with Catalonia, informants agreed that it was cooperative, althought it relied largely on bilateral relations. Indeed PSOE’s government strategie of intergovernmental coordination prioritized common issues avoiding deeper discussions on the model of integration, language or identity and many problems were solved by technical cooperation avoiding the politicization of multilateral bodies (Int: 10: 2013, Int: 11:2013).

In 2005 a Fund for the Reception and Integration of Immigrants (FAI) was launched by the socialist government introducing elements of cooperative federalism. The FAI offered € 120 millions in to 2005 which increased to € 180 millions by 2006 and € 200 million for the following years until it was reduced to € 70 million in 2010 and then eliminated by 2012 due to the economic crisis. The FAI trasnfers were conditioned to a few axes of action set by the Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Integration ( PECI ) of the national government (Roig, 2006). The FAI was equaly distributed for education and integration of newcomers. The ACs (which have the responsibility for education) received a 50% of the share, while municipalities received the other 50% in order to fund the services of reception and integration of newcomrs. There was a basic allowance to each Autonomous Community (10 % ) and then the rest of the fund was distributed according to the number of registered non-EU workers

affiliated to social security. As for the part of educational support, the distribution of the fund within Autonomous Comunities was based on the number of non-EU children enrolled at school (60%) and those comig from non-Spanish speaking countries (40 %). The details of the sharing were concretized through agreements between the Ministry and each AC ( Aja, 2012 pp. 474-475

Municipalities participated only as observers at both the CSPI and CSI. Even if socialist government introduced elements of cooperative federalism from 2004 to 2011, this relationship ocurred through the ACs who received and distributed the FAI funding within municipalities. Alongside the central government launched a program to subsidize directly the municipalities with best practices on integration of necomers. This grant program was one of the main issues of friction with the government of the Generalitat that appealed to the Constitutional Court, several years later the appeal was favourably resolved buy the Court. The development of IGR on immigration policies in Spain can be explained as a transition from a system of “central government hegemony” towards a model of "cooperative federalism" (Spiro, 2001). But this greater involvement of the Autonomous governments in the decision making process regarding to immigration policies, found its limits on the characteristics of the IGR and also on the features of the Spanish migration regime. This resulted in a strong contradiction between centralism regarding to the control of flows and decentralization regarding the policies of integration, although this polarity was partially mediated by the AC’s (Giménez, 2002 p. 2). The effects of the economic crisis truncated these elements of cooperative federalism launched until 2010, also the migration issues lost centrality in the Spanish political agenda. 4. The policies of Integration of Immigrants in Quebec. From 2006 to 2010, Quebec received 238.553 newcomers. 21.7% of them belonged to the category of family reunification and 11% were refugees. 61.7% of newcomers were francophones; 37.4% dominated French and English, although only a 24.3% were Francophones. In 2010 the economic class immigrants accounted for 69,5% of the flows. Their places of origin were: North Africa (32.7%), Asia (27%), America (21.3%) and Europe (18.9%). The main countries of birth for newcomers were: Algeria, Morocco, France, China and Colombia. They had an average schooling of 14 years and 34% of them reached a 17-year schooling (MICC, 2010). Recent flows to Quebec are characterized by a preponderance of people from developing countries and an increase of visible minorities, ( 9% of the Quebec population and 16% of the population of Montreal declared to belong to that category). Unlike the rest of the country where Asian immigration is the largest group, in Quebec immigrants from North Africa (33%) are predominant, the differences can be explained because of the emphasis on the preservation of French language (Germain & Trinh, 2010)

Quebec intercultural model The development of an intercultural model for the integration of immigrants in Quebec responds to two tensions: the first tension has been the will to differentiate from the canadian multicultural model promoted by the federal government of Premier Trudeau in the context of repatriation of the constitution. This tension was expresed on the rise of nationalist claims leading to two referendums on free association with Canada (1980 and 1995). The second tension links with the different emphasis placed by the Quebec Liberal Party (PL) and the nationalist Parti Québécois (PQ) on the political discourse about the integration of newcomers. The PL emphasizes the integration and recognition of cultural communities holding a closer approach to Canadian multiculturalism. It’s strategy is mainly directed to the removal of barriers to integration, emphasizing recognition of individuality and promoting a social contract based on the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec. On the other side, PQ emphasizes the centrality of building a civic concept of the Quebec citizenship based on the membership to a common public culture where French is the shared language. The nationalist discourse became stronger after the failure of the last separatist referendum (1995) by a few thousand of votes, which were attributed to the loyalty of naturalized immigrants to the federal government. Despite these two tensions, several interviewed for this research argued that there was only a difference of emphasis on the programs and policies of integration of immigrants launched by both parties (PL and PQ). Also they explained that the differences between the canadian multiculturalism and the Quebec interculturalism were minimal regarding their programs and policies on the field. Thus the arenas of confrontation of this two models would be mainly discursive, political and academic ( INT 3 , 2010; INT: 1: 2010; INT: 4 2010; INT5 : 2010; INT: 6: 2010 ). Since the “Quiet Revolution” the provincial government of Quebec has launched a gradual strategie to build citizenship and national belonging in opossition to the pan-Canadian nationality promoted by the federal government. In this effort Quebec has emphazised the primacy of the provincial government on the policies of identity (Gagnon, 2009). A key element of the Quebec model has been a public discourse on the French language as the main vehicle for the preservation of identity. In this context the integration of newcomers is crucial to the fate of the Quebecois nation (Gagnon, 2009). According to Mc Andrew (2005) the intercultural approach has been closely linked to Quebec’s identity and opposed to multiculturalism. Nevertheless intercultural and multicultural policies in recent decades have much in common: a strong commitment to diversity, considered the main feature of collective identity and a definition of equality, equity and human rights anchored in their respective Charters of Rights and Freedoms. The major differences between the two approaches would be only a matter of emphasis: a) that interculturalism has tended to be more liberal and less community-based in its policies, especially regarding equality between men and women, or religious freedom and b) that interculturalism has focused on language policies and has had a weak

recognition of the persistence of inequalities, ethnic inequities and racism at least until the “crisis of reasonable accomodations”. 3 For Nugent (2006 p. 29-32) the emergence of interculturalism can be explained by three elements: a) demographic trends: Quebec is less diverse than Canada as a whole, which makes canadian policies appear as permissive and less cohesive. b) The cultural factor: multiculturalism is considered as relativist and weak which expresses a perception of Canada that emphasizes a-culturalism. This idea is supported on the believe that the Canadian multiculturalism is based on a denial of the idea of culture, especially when compared with Quebec’s thicker identity. Thus, although integration policies are similar, the culture of Quebec and the rest of Canada (ROC) are different, which leads to a perception of a differentiated policy of integration. c) Historical issues: for some sectors in Quebec multiculturalism is perceived with hostility and considered an approach built specifically to deny the national status of Quebec by introducing many factions in the Canadian cultural universe. Thus, the “Canadian mosaic” appears as antithetical to the Quebec vision of a nation made of two former cultures and nations. Quebec’s interculturalism is based on the following developments: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec (1975) and the political statements: “So Many Ways of Being a Quebequer” (1981), “Let’s Build Quebec Together” (1990) and the “Policy Statement on Immigration and Integration” (1990). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec is virtually identical to the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" with only one difference: the mention of linguistic discrimination. The statement of 1981, was adopted after the first referendum, and emphasized the inclusive nature of the Quebec citizenship, recognizing pluralism and defining three main objectives: to ensure the development and the specificity of cultural communities, to promote the recognition of their contribution to the collective heritage of Quebec, and to promote their integration in public life. As in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988) it recognizes cutural difference as a common heritage. While both policies are similar, Quebec includes the exclusivity of French as the common language. Thus, the Declaration of 1990 (“Let’s Build Quebec Together”) , considered the cornerstone of Quebec interculturalism, establishes a moral contract between Quebec society and immigrants based on: a society where French is the common language of public life, a democratic society where participation and contribution of everyone is welcome, a pluralistic society, open to multiple relationships within the limits imposed by the respect of democratic values and the need for community exchange (Nugent, 2006 p. 24-31) In 2008 , after the recommendations of the "Commission Bouchard -Taylor", the MICC launched a series of preventive measures on civic teaching of the                                                                                                                3 In 2006 Quebec experienced a Crisis of Reasonable Accommodations” due to the outbreak of a growing social unrest with some events linked to diversity. In 2008 the government of Quebec created a Commission on Reasonable Accommodations named the “Bouchard-Taylor Commission” with the mandate to diagnose the problems and set recommendations..

language (“francisation”) and integration within a policy framework called "To Enrich Quebec, Better Integration”( MICC, 2008 ). The manin goals were to promote an open actititude of Quebecers to diversity, accelerate the employment of immigrants, promote mobilization and shared action, ensure a better response to the needs of labor employers, give more support to community organizations and to regional and municipal agreements (MICC, 2008a pp. 7-37) A new Policy Statement was approved in October, 2008 " Diversity: An Added Value”. Plan of Action to Promote the Participation of Everyone to the Benefit of Quebec”, 2008-2013 " ( MICC , 2008b ). This document proposes to launch a declaration of commitment to the quebecers common values in order to get the certificate of acceptance for immigrantion to Quebec. These values were defined as: the French as a common language, freedom and democracy, secular state, pluralism, the rule of law equality of men and women, respect for the rights of others and general welfare ( Germain & Trinh, 2010 pp. 15-16; MICC, 2008 pp. 13-21 ) . Language policy The key instrument to understand Quebec 's language policy is the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101). This Bill defines French as the official language determining its use in all domains of public life, but without excluding English and other languages from the private life of citizens. In addition Bill 101 intend the " francisation" of society in all its public dimensions by linking the use of language to civic participation and equal opportunities. Thus it declares French as the language of instruction for all young Quebecers except those who have a vested right regarding the schooling of their parents ( Pagé, 2010 p. 6-7 Béland, 2006 pp. 90-93 ).

Quebec’s framework for the policies of language is completed with A) The Policy Statement “Let’s Build Quebec Together (MICC, 1990), which declares French as the first characteristic of Quebec society and sets the "francisation" of immigrants as the main goal. In addition, French is associated with two characteristics of the host society: democracy and pluralism, officially granting a civic character to the language (Pagé, 2010 p. 8). B) The document "A Quebec For All Its Citizens" prepared in 1995 by the Council of Intercultural Relations (CRI), refers to the adoption of French as a common language closely linked to the full and complete integration of immigrants into society. C) In the document of the High Council of French Language (CSFL) "French: The language of Social Inclusion" (2008) this tie appears reinforced by the suggestion of various measures to facilitate the integration of immigrants into the labor market ensuring social cohesion under the slogan "The francisation of success". Besides, the CSFL recommends to set a structure to coordinate the actions of all social and public organizations involved in the "francisation" of immigrants in order to eliminate duplication, an to streamline the use of resources harmonizing the whole process of linguistic and social integration (Pagé, 2010; CSLF, 2008 p. 14). In 2008 the Plan “Having Succes Together in French was aprooved, incorporating many of the CSLF recommendations.

In 2010, the MICC employed two approaches aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the francophon reality in Quebec: a) A "Francisation” of immigration, optimizing the proportion of Francophones in the selection of newcomers, (who have risen from 37% in 1991 to 64% in 2009) and b) the “Francisation” of newcomers through French clases for beginners and for reinforcement. The MICC destinated a budget for "francisation" policies of C$ 62 million (Pissoneault, 2010). Also, the MICC and the Ministry of Education (MELS) worked to harmonize their “Francisation” services in order to set a common basis for evaluating French skills and a framework program for teaching the language. The MICC, the MELS and the Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity (MESS) offered unique access to the "francisation" services, whereby decisions on financial assistance to beneficiaries and the choice of the most appropriate institution to do the job will has been centralized since 2010-2011 (Cantin, 2010 p. 149). The Policies of Integration of Newcomers in Montreal A large proportion of Quebec’s immigrant population is established in Montreal (86.9 % by 2006) with a much higher concentration than in other cities like Toronto (68.3 %) and Vancouver ( 74.2 %) ( Chiasson & Koji, 2011 ). Between 2003 and 2007 Montreal received 32,000 newcomers per year. According to the 2006 census, approximately 490.200 immigrants lived within the territory of the city of Montreal, representing 30.7 % of those who arrived between 2001 to 2005. The city of Montreal has Luanched welcoming policies since the late 1980s, mainly focusing on the development of harmonious relations and the socio-economic integration of immigrants. This multicultural approach has been considered a hallmark of Montreal when compared with other cities (Chiasson & Koji , 2011). In 1988 the city established the Intercultural Bureau of Montreal to provide information on municipal services in several languages, which later became the Bureau of intercultural Affairs holding the mandate to promote harmonious interventions. The Bureau was replaced by a Direction of Social Diversity, which was in charge of the first reception policies in 2011. Montreal has developed a framework of interventions, which emphasizes respect for human rights, intercultural relations and dialogue, as well as the elimination of racism and xenophobia. In 1989 the city brought out a "Declaration Against Racial Discrimination" and in the last two decades has celebrated the "International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination" (March 21). Montreal also launched the "Declaration of Montreal for Cultural Diversity and Inclusion" (2004) and the Charter of Rights and Responsibilities of Montreal, 2006). In 2003 the city created a consultative body: the Intercultural Council of Montreal (CIM) composed by 15 people from ethnocultural groups and francophone Quebecers nominated by the council. This body is an advisory committee but sometimes also makes lobby. While provincial programs are generally aimed at immigrants as individuals, Montreal stresses the work with communities and neighborhoods (Chiasson & Koji, 2011). Between 2007-2010 the city published the document "Strategic Planning of Ethno-Cultural Diversity", that sets a new municipal policy from the perspective of competition among cities for the

atraction of skilled immigrants (Ville de Montreal: 2007, p 3 Chiasson & Koji: 2011). The city of Montreal funds 37 projects by agreements with the MICC (C$ 4.5 million). Some projects are set up by the city and others in collaboration with partners such as the Municipal Housing Office of Montreal (OMHM) that manages the public housing stock, and community organizations. The city also has two programs for supporting diversity with a funding of C $ 500,000: one of them supports community activities and the other is for the promotion of festivals and cultural events. There are additional programs not specifically aimed at integration issues but linket to the fihght against poverty and social exclusion, ( for exmaple the agreement with the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity (C$ 24 million) or an economic agreement between MICC-Montreal International and the “CRE”4 of Montreal in 2009-2011 to promote permanent residence of specialized temporary workers in the Greater Montreal area (Germain & Trinh, 2010 p. 24,25). Also, Montreal has very close and interdependent relationships with different NGOs at the community level such as Centraide, Lucie et André Chagnon Foundation, and the Foundation of Greater Montreal. At the neighborhood level, there are 30 tables of coordination between government and social stakeholders that contribute to the municipal policie making (Chiasson & Koji, 2011 p. 172). Municipal interventions have six priorities: economic development, integration into the labor market, housing, services to citizens and communities, fight against discrimination, exclusion and xenophobia, leadership ahead of other governments and partners. In addition Montreal plans to exercise leadership in the governance of the reception of newcomers into its territory emphasizing the importance of partnerships and coordination with different governmental actors and NGOs. In this strategy neighborhoods or districts, play an important role and the city government works closely with them (Chiasson & Koji, 2011). Althought regarding to this point, people interviewed for this research argued that since the merger and urban separation that occurred between late 1990 and 2000, Montreal would have lost the ability to design a coherent and strong policy. Being fragmented between the power given to districts on the one side and power of the regional level (CRE) on the other side, the city has found important limits for assuring the governance of its integration policies (Int: 8: 2010; Int: 7: 2010). As Germain & Trinh (2010 p. 23) explain, the protagonism of neighborhoods on the intercultural policies has been a result of the mergers of 2000 and the subsequent division of part of the municipalities of the Island of Montreal in 2006. The effects of this "devolution" would not be clear yet, but in any case they have increased the complexity of the governance of the policies of integration at the local level. An example was the delay of the “Action Plan of the Montreal Region” (L'île de Montreal) in 2006, which after an extensive consultation process was finally launched in 2009. Thus, the result of this process would be an “adhocratic” model of governance in which all participants have authority to make decisions, shaping a model mostly based on a trial and error system.

                                                                                                               4  Regional  Council  of  Elected  Representatives.  

5. The Governance of the Policies of Integration of Newcomers in Quebec The main difference of Quebec’s policies compared to other Canadian provinces is the limited role given to NGOs regarding to the integration of newcomers. Quebec’s government direct intervention was reflected in the budget of the Ministry of Immigration (MICC), (which distributes the funds received by the agreement with the federal government). While Canada invests 70 % of its funds for the integration of immigrants through funding for NGOs, Quebec allocates 93.7 % of its funds to public intervention or invests this budget through consortia with other public or civil organizations (CIC, 2009-10; Reichhold , 2010 p. 40 ) (Table 1).

Most of MICC’s intervention on the integration of newcomers is focused on four programs carried out by partnerships or agreements with different contributors (Germain & Trinh, 2010 pp. 18- 19): A) The PANA, "Host Program for Newcomers” supports through 67 community agencies that provide host services and adaptation to the labor market, mobilizing a triennial investment of C$ 7.7 million per year (MICC, 2009 pp. 2-6). B) The PRI, “Regional Program on Integration” which works through partnerships with regional and municipal authorities and 18 community agencies. The aim is to support concerted actions of local and regional partners in order to "increase the contribution of immigration to the demographic, economic, social and cultural development of Quebec" (MICC, 2009 p.2). c) The PARI: "Program of Support of Intercultural Relations" provides financial support to non-profit organizations working in the development and maintenance of harmonious relations between ethnocultural communities in the province. This inciative currently comprises 64 projects (Chiasson & Koji, 2011 pp.161,162). D)The PILI, “Program for the Linguistic Integration of Newcomers” which suports French training at schools, universities and community organizations. This program operates through three-year service agreements with recognized institutions by the Ministry of Education (MELS) (MICC, 2010 pp. 2-4). Indeed, there is the “Program of Finacnial Support for the Linguistic Integration of Newcomers” (PAFIL) which provides financial contributions to full-time participants. The relationship of the provincial government with the associations and NGOs is facilitated by an umbrella platform named Table of Concertation of the Organizations Serving Refugees and Immigrant People (TCRI), created in 1979. TCRI has an agreement with the Quebec government to exercise exclusively advocacy of cultural communities, NGOs and the voluntary sector in

Table 1: Comparative of Budget Allocated to NGOs for the integration of Newcomers 2008-2009 (Canadá & Quebec).

C$ % of Budget

Quebec 16 Millones 6,3

Canada 1,3 Billones 70

Reference: Reichhold, 2010, p. 40

favor of newcomers. In 2001 due to the pressures of TCRI, the Quebec government approved a policy on its relations with the associations. One of the main demands of the organized civil society has been the access to information about the distribution of the funds for integration of newcomers that MICC receives from the federal government since the 1991 agreement. These funds are distributed among the various ministries, being difficult to identify how much of the budget is actually spent on integration of immigrants, in addition to the difficulty of evaluating the results of this investment. Since 2005, in response to this pressure, the Quebec government took accountability in the National Assembly about the investment of these funds (INT: 2: 2010). Table 2 shows the distribution of funds whitin the provincial government and the main programs launched by the Ministries.

Table 2: Budget transfers from MICC to the other Ministries (2010-2011) Ministries C$ Programs

MELS* 78,5 M

Services for the integration and French language training of newcomers at the Adult Training Centers and at the Professional Training Centers. Other programs: Integration Policies at School (The School of the Future), School Commission projects at the local level (Welcoming and Supporting Immigrant Students) and Intercultural Proximity at the School Environment.

MSSS** 12,2 M Regional Program of Reception and Integration For Asylum Applicants (PRAIDA).

MESS*** 75 M “Program to support Integration of Newcomers and Visible Minorities at the Labor Market” (PRIME). And 78 partnerships with organizations in 11 regions

Total: 165 M

* Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sports ** Ministry of Health and Social Services *** Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity Reference: TCRI: 2010.

In addition to this centrilized strategy, the Quebec government has established partnerships with cities and regions. But while Montreal is the city with the largest number of immigrants, the government prioritizes the funding of the regional programs with the aim of preventing the emergence of a division between a multicultural and multiethnic metropolis (Montreal) and the rest of the province, populated by white people (INT : 1: 2010). Since 1999, with the “Plan of Action for the Reception and Integration in French for the newcomers at the Districts of Montreal” the MICC has increased its partnerships with local partners. This Plan is coordinated by the Bureau of Intercultural Affairs of the City of Montreal. In 2010 there were two emblematic projects: “Living the mixiture” (a set of projects in collaboration with the Municipal Housing Office of Montreal) and "Contact: The Pleasure of Books”" ( a porgram launched by public libraries aimed at children and their immigrant parents). Between 2004-2007 annual or tri-annual agreements were signed with the municipalities of Quebec. Also regional plans have been developed with the Regional Conferences Elected (CRE) grouping the set of local partners. The

strategy of regionalization of immigration focusses essentially on these agreements between the MICC and local authorities. By 2009 there were 11 regional action plans and about 15 agreements with the CRÉs (MICC, 2008; Germain & Trinh, 2009 ). Regarding to the TCRI, this table brings together 127 community organizations that make advocay for refugees and immigrants of any legal status in Quebec. TCRI is involved o the integration and establishment of all categories of newcomers in terms of services, support, financial support, sponsorship, reflection and solidarity (TCRI, 2008; Germain & Trinh, 2010 p.29). TCRI strategy has been to develop better tailored services to compensate for what they consider is an inadequate governmental response to the needs of newcomers. According to some of the interviewed for this research, recognition of the autonomy of civil organizations took many years as they remained controlled by the government through funding sources. And yet they are often considered as entities providing governmental services to the point that MICC refers to them as "agents of consortia" and incorporates its activities within the governmental targets. TCRI argues that the dynamics of these relations would be at risk because of a traditional, hierarchical and compartmentalized style of governance which is based on funding and focused on a costs and benefits short-term approach. From this perspective, community organizations would be caught between the economic vision of immigration of the government and the challenges associated with increasing cultural diversity in Quebec. They also argue that this situation would have been documented by the Bouchard-Taylor commission. In their opinion, Quebec’s governmental approach leads to an increased fragmentation among various governmental actors with sectoral priorities on the design and management of policies and programs, resulting on an increasement of the rigidity of governmental programs and setting problems for the understanding of the specific needs of newcomers (Reihchhold, 2010; INT: 2: 2010) 6. The Policies of Integration of Immigrants in Catalonia Catalonia is one of the regions with the highest proportion of immigrants in Spain. Between 1999 and 2011 the immigrant population increased from 144,925 to 1'185,581 people, rising from 3% of the population to 18.9 % in 2010 (Generalitat of Catalonia, 2006 p.15). But the territorial distribution was not homogeneous: by 2010, 25% of foreigners were concentrated in the metropolitan area of Barcelona and this amount increased to 32% by 2014 (Generalitat of Catalonia, 2010 pp. 15-17; 2014 p. 24). From the “Catalonian Way of Integration” to the Public Common Culture. The former policies of integration laucnhed by the government of President Jordi Pujol (CiU) (1980-2003), were focussed on the domestic migrants through their access to the welfare services and the educational system, but avoiding any targeted services. The model was definied as a civic conception of citizenship expressed in the slogan "Catalan is everyone who lives and works in Catalonia and wants to be a Catalan" (Pujol,1954). During the 1990s, this former approach was used to address the new flows of non-Community

immigration (Davis, 2008; Gil, 2006). From 2003 to 2010, the new leftist government of the Generalitat called "Tripartite" (Catalan Socialist Party (PSC), Esquerra Republicana (ER) and Green Initiative for Catalonia (IVC)), introduced some changes on the model to emphasize pluralism, equality and citizenship; claiming for an intercultural model that would promote the participation of immigrants in a "common public culture", where Catalan would be the main vehicle of communication and debate. In 1993 a first “Interdepartmental Immigration Plan” (1993-2000) was approved. One of its objectives was to "enhance the participation of newcomers in the national construction of Catalonia welcoming its contribution to the collective identity and heritage" (Generalitat of Catalonia, 2000). That same year, an Immigration Advisory Board was created with representatives from government agencies, NGOs, associations and unions. In 2000, in the context of approval of the new Spaniard Law of Immigration (LODEX, 4/2000), several regional plans of integration of immigrants were launched at the Catalan territory in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare of the Generalitat; Municipal Councils of Integration and Coexistence were also launched. In addition a Secretariat for Immigration was created at the Generalitat with the mandate to approve a new immigration plan. The main objectives were to "coordinate and support all actions of the Catalan Government on immigration and build a "Catalan way of integration" which would materialize in the Interdepartmental Plan 2001- 2004 (Gil, 2006 p. 138). The Plan of Immigration of 2001 combined the defense of human rights, the access to the services of the welfare state and the defense of the social rights of newcomers with a defense of a Catalonian identity within Spain that should be embraced by the newcomers (Davis, 2008 pp.14-15). Between 2003 and 2009, the "Tripartite" government approved three new Plans of Integration of Newcomers and for the first time introduced a budget and impact indicators. The new plans changed the tone of the former speech but not its general lines. The support to language policy remained the same, but the Tripartite aimed to disrupt the notion of citizenship linked to nationality by stressing the values of plurality, equality and civic engagement. Concepts such as “resident citizenship” and “common public culture” were introduced to emphazise civic integration and the integrative function of the Catalan language (Zapata, 2012; Davis, 2008). . In 2006 a new Statute of Autonomy included an article on immigration granting exclusive powers on integration to the AC (art .138) and assigning reception tasks to the Catalan government as well as the power to grant work permits. The provisions of the new Statute were later expresed on the Catalonian Bill of Reception (2010 ) that establishes standard procedures for the services of integration of newcomers. This Bill set three fields of intervention: language trainigng, job training and assistance and knowledge of local society. This development of the Statute of Autonomy can be undertstood as an evolution towards a new model of immigration diferenciated to the 60s strategie that was mostly focussed on domestic immigrants. The new Bill also aimed to recognize and integrate the participation of municipal governments in to the Generalitat’s

strategie for the integration of the newcomers to the Catalonian nacion (Davis, 2008; Zapata, 2012). An Migration Agency was also created in order to manage effectively the network services on integration of 101 local authorities, social entities, associations and providers of services "(Bill 10/2010 art. 30-34)

Regarding the political level, a National Pact for Immigration (PNI) between all political parties and social actors (with the exception of the “Popular Party” and “Citizens”) was achieved. The PNI highlighted the singularity of Catalonia in a multinational Spain. Thus from 2007 to 2010, Catalonia evolved from an policy based on plans for integration towards makingits own legislation and political agreements. This change was the beginning of a new phase defined by political and administrative startegies aimed at strengthening the National Pact for Immigration and the development of notions such as the "common public culture" and the "resident citizenship" (Zapata, 2012 p.157). The PNI had a Monitoring Committee to assess the implementation of its measures. It was composed by members of the government appointed by the Interdepartmental Commission, the Permanent Committee of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration and the signatory parties. It also envisaged a permanent working group acting like a second-level body that would develop monitoring measures and make budget proposals. The PNI had a budget of €3,880 million for 2009-2012.

The Policies of Language. Language policy is at the center of the policies of integration in Catalonia and dates back to the linguistic normalization initiated by the former Government of Convergencia I Unió since 1980. Moreover the Municipality of Barcelona leaded by the socialist Party (PSC) pionered an educational policy that promoted the mandatory use of Catalan as a mechanism to ensure social cohesion and social mobility for the domestic migrants coming from the rest of Spain. One year after the first Statute of Catalonia was passed, the Generalitat approved the "Decree of the Catalan Language" establishing a minimum amount of education in Catalan at public schools of three hours per week in all basic levels. The Decree also allowed public schools to decide weather to increase this minimum. This controversial decision ocurred in a context while a Bill of Harmonization of the Autonomous Communities (LOAPA)5 was being discussed at the National Parliament. In 1980 a Directorate of Language Policy was established as part of the Department of Culture of the Generalitat. By 1983 this Department approved a White Paper definingt its main objectives as: "the generalization of the Catalan language, the promotion of its use at different social environmnets and the need of changing some language attitudes and practices that are setting obstacles to the normalization of Catalan "(Mc Roberts, 2001 pp. 142-143). The actions of the Directorate of Language Policy

                                                                                                               5 This Bill (LOAPA) approved in 1981 aimed to reduce the asymmetries between the historic Autonomous Communities such as Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia (and also Andalucía which acceded by referendum to the fast way process of devolution) and the rest of Autonomous Communities.

focussed on the "normalization" of Catalan6 until it adquired the same status as Castilian (McRoberts, 2001 p.143). The Bill of Linguistic Normalization (LNL: 7/1983 ) had the following goals: a) to support and promote the use of Catalan by all citizens , b ) to promote the official use of Catalan, c) to normalize the use of Catalan in all media and social communications, d ) to extend the knowledge of Catalan. In addition the Bill established a privileged role for the Catalan language at all the institutions of the Generalitat, the education system and the mass medias (McRoberts, 2001). Nevertheless this Bill looks modest when compared with Quebec’s Bill 101, because in Spain it was unconstitutional to declare the Catalan as the only official language in Catalonia. In 1989 a Consortium for Language Normalisation (CPNL) was created between the Government and 19 municipalities. The Consortium was aimed at the promotion and use of the Catalan language. In 2010 the Consortium included 97 municipalities, 37 county councils and the Girona Provincial Council. Its activities were decentralized through a territorial network of 22 centers organized in a county and local territorial network. In 1995, the Government approved a new Plan for Linguistic Normalization which set goals in seven sectors including the socio economic and business environment for the first time. In 1997 a new Bill on Linguistic Policy was passed, replacing references to linguistic normalization by the "use of language" including both languages Catalan and Castilian. This Bill also defined Catalan as the the main language of all Catalan institutions, especially those of the Generalitat and local government, as well as the preferred language for education and for other institutions including those of the Spanish administration in Catalonia (LPN 1/1998, art 1,2,4,5 , 6.25; McRoberts, 2001 pp. 156, 157). By 2005 , the Department of Education passed the Plan of Language and Social Cohesion (LIC), which aims to promote and strengthen social cohesion, intercultural education and the Catalan language in a multilingual context. Its specific goals were: a) to consolidate the Catalan language as the backbone of a multilingual project, b) to promote intercultural education based on equality, solidarity and respect for the diversity of cultures within a framework of dialogue and coexistence, and c) to promote equal opportunities to avoid any kind of marginalization (Generalitat de Cataluña, 2005 pp.19-20). The new Statute of Autonomy passed in 2006 established a much more extensive regulation on language: Catalan is recognized as the official language of Catalonia, and twenty articles devoted to its regulation were included (the 1979 Statute had only two articles and a transitional provision). This increase was due to the inclusion of all the provisions formerly set by the Bill of Linguistic Policy ((LPL 1/1998).

The Policies of Integration of Immigrants in Barcelona                                                                                                                6 With the exception of a brief period in the 1930s the Catalan language has been historicaly considered illegal since 1714 until the Constitution of 1978 (McRoberts, 2001 p. 143).

Since 1989, long before the Generalitat adressed the integration of non-EU newcomers, the City of Barcelona assumed the duties of reception and integration by articulating a platform of civil society organizations (Red Cross, the Professional Asocciation of Lawyers and the unions) . This network provided legal advice, refugee support and language aide for newcomers ( Int: 9). In 2001 a Political Commission of Immigration was created at the City of Barcelona, with representation of all political parties. In 2002 the first Immigration Plan (PMI ) was approved, and an inter-party agreement was established in order to prevent the misuse of immigration as an electoral weapon. The main principles of this agreement were: equality, cultural diversity, coexistence , social cohesion, universality (with exception of the first reception services), transversality and participation (Ayuntamiento de Barcelona , 2002 p. 89). In 2005, a reform of the national regulation on immigrationin granted new powers to local government in family reunification and also in the expenditure of a report concerning the level of atachmetn of the immigrants to the host society. Furthermore, the creation of the Fund for the Reception and Integration of Immigrants (FAI) provided the local government with ressources for their services of reception and integration. In this context, the City Council of Barcelona created a technical cabinet to implement new measures and passed a document with the Bases of Reception of the City, giving support to specific projects, enhancing the reception networks in different districts and providing legal, labor and language support. The agreement with the associations of SAIER7 and the financial support to the Intercultural Mediation Services were reinforced. Also a new Center of Language Reception was created in the Catalonia’s Place. The new Statute of Catalonia passed in 2006 recognizes a number of powers to the Generalitat regarding social services for the integration of immigrants (EAC, 2006 Art. 138). Since 2011, when the Generalitat assumed those powers several functions were delegated into the local government such as: the report on attachment to the host society, the decision on the adequacy of the housing to apply for family reunification, the evaluation of the level of integration in order to grant the renewal of temporary residence.

In 2007 the figure of a Commissioner for Immigration and Intercultural Dialogue of Barcelona was created. Its mandate was to strengthen the cross-coordination on integration policies between different areas of government at the sectoral and territorial level. In 2008, a new local interpartidary agreement on immigration was signed, followed by a new Plan of Immigration. The new Plan for Immigration (PTI 2008-2009) recognizes the theoretical principles and the overall framework of the previous plans. Among the new challenges for the reception of newcomers the plan refers to: the need to avoid segregation and the emergence of new inequalities, to promote dialogue, exchange and positive interaction between citizens, to promote access to Catalan as an instrument for

                                                                                                               7 Service for the Attention to Immigrants and Refugees.

integration and social cohesion, to promote the integration of youth and second generations, the prevention and regulation of conflicts, the need to promote social mobility, to combat rumors and topics on immigration, the management of religious plurality, the implementation of policies of equality between men and women, the importance to combat discrimination and racism (Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 2008 p.70). The PTI also provided a strategy of territorialisation regarding to the policies of integration, strengthening the role of districts in the reception and integration of immigrants, supporting their integration plans and prioritizing coordination on immigration policies and collaboration with districts through participation in the Transversal immigration Board and by the Committee and the Commission of Territorial Government. It also intends to design specific projects and comprehensive strategies in some neighborhoods with the highest percentage of immigrants. (Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 2008 pp.43-70). One of the strategies to reach the Pact on Immigration within the different political parties at the local government, was to avoid all the issues linked to language and the philosophies of the integration of newcomers. Those issues were referred to a future Plan of Interculturlism. According to the Commissioner for Immigration of the city, the "Barcelona Intercultural Plan 2009" emerged from a process of cross discussion between all departments of local government and an extensive participatory process. As defined in the Plan the intercultural approach is based on three basic principles: equality, recognition of diversity and positive interaction (Ayuntamiento de Bareclona, 2009 pp. 5-6.). The Barcelona Interculturality Plan acts as an umbrella briinging together and and giving conceptual tools to a set of public and civil society interventions at the territory. 7. The multilevel governance of the Policies of Integration of immigrants

in Catalonia.

Until 2011 there were five bodies in charge of the management, coordination and collaboration on immigration policy at the Generalitat of Catalonia. At the executive level, the first was the Secretariat for Immigration dependent of the Department of Social Action and Citizenship and responsible for defining the policies and proposing criteria to promote coordinated actions in all areas of intervention of the Government concerning immigration. On the other hand the Interdepartmental Commission on Immigration, established in 2001, was responsible for the coordination and monitoring of all the interventions on immigration. This Commission employed a transversal approach to coordinate sectoral action of the Departments of the Generalitat, collaborated in the design and management of their respective public policies, monitored and proposed actions to the different departments of the Generalitat according to the Plans of Immigration. Regarding intergovernmental cooperation the Government had two bodies : the Joint Commission of the Generalitat and the Local Governments and the Bilateral Sub-Commission Generalitat-Central State. The first Commission was responsible for facilitating a framework of cooperation and coordination between the autonomous administration and municipalities. It was composed by

an equal number of members of each administration and assumed the functions that they decided. Indeed the Secretariat on Immigraton of the Generalitat also promoted a similar working group bringing together representatives of the Generalitat, the Catalan Association of Municipalities and the Federation of Municipalities of Catalonia. This working group was responsible for analyzing and comparing issues related to the management of diversity. Meanwhile the Generalitat - Central State Bilateral Subcommittee was established since 2006 by the new Catalan Statute and worked until 2011 with a variable frequency depending on the needs of both governments.

The relationship between the Generalitat and local governments was based mostly on the financial support of its interventions through budget transfers and subsidies from the Generalitat to different sectors. Another funding mechanism were the consortia or partnerships, such as the Education or language Consortiums. Since the adoption of the Fund for the Reception and Integration of Immigrants (FAI) the Generalitat distributed 60% of the Central state transfers to municipalities, which must meet some requirements such as having an immigration plan, and including a catalog of activities designed by the central government on the National Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Immigration (PECI).

Finally, the relationship with the entities and civil society was canalized through the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration created in 2008. The Bureau was responsible for the external consultation and participation of organizations in order to encourage the participation of immigrant and returnee population and also of the whole population in the monitoring of migration issues and in the pormotion of the inclusion of newcomers into civil society (Zapata, 2009). It was composed of a plenary dealing with strategic matters and chaired by the head of the Ministry of Immigration. In addition the Board had a permanent commission to follow up the policies of the Plan of Immigration and other activities related to local, national and European policies. It also had the dutie to encourage and boost the working groups and territorial tables on immigration. (This working groups were five: legal issues, local issues, economic and social actors, refugees, women and immigration). The Generalitat funded NGOs and association activities in the following areas: reception programs (basic language skills, work and social environment, housing aid for vulnerable people, translation and interpretation), equal opportunity programs (training, social inclusion, literacy, improving individual capacity), integration programs (promoting participation and cultural activities, promoting coexistence in public spaces, management of linguistic, cultural and religious plurality). Regarding the City of Barcelona, the interparty pacts between 2003 and 2010 led to the creation of a Political Committee which was responsible for defining the integration policy through an Immigration Plan. Additionally there was a technical cabinet that monitored the actions included on the Plan. As in the case of the Generalitat, the policies of integration were conceived transversally, designing a technical cabinet in charge of interdepartmental coordination. The intercultural policy of Barcelona has been strategically left out of this plan, so that the political debate on these issues did not prevent the commitment of the

interparty local agreement. This has led to the design of a further Intercultural Plan and to the appointment of a Commissioner for Immigration and Interculturality, responsible for the promotion and coordination of all the policies of the municipality at the territorial level ( with the ten districts)

The rise of immigration flows, conducted to a differenciated development of the social services of integration at the neighborhoods and districts of Barcelona, depending on the characteristics and settlement patterns of the newcomers. From the first Local Pact, the Barcelona City Council aimed to territorialize its policies, by incorporating and providing consistency to the best practices of the territory. The Barcelona’s Intercultural Plan aimed to take advantage of the existing networks to implement a “Barcelona’s model” for the integration of diversity. This process however was incipient, and brought out a tension between greater coherence and coordination of policies and the need of learning from the innovation and creativity of the territorial and civil interventions. From 2005 to 2006, after the creation of the FAI by the central government and the New Statute of Autonomy, a process to achieve a greater institutionalization of the policies of integration was launched by the Generalitat of Catalonia. It was expresed on the development of Bills (such as the Bill of Reception) and the effort to strengthen the instruments of cooperative federalism (grants, financing, distribution of FAI) in order to develop a more coherent and comprehensive Catalan approach for the policies of integration. This new strategy includes more explicit contents on identity and language, and the development of central concepts such as “resident citizenship” and “common public culture”. Moreover the Generalitat was pushing for a greater level of centralization and control over the policy contents, which has led to a certain level of resistance from the city of Barcelona, involved in its more openly intercultural model which relies on an extensive network of civil society and organizations on the territory. Nevertheless most of this tension with the Generalitat strategie was limited to the conceptual level and didn’t prevent intergovernmental collaboration which was also boosted by the creation of the FAI by the central government. Finally, it is important to point that most of the interviewed appointed that regarding to the governance of the policies of integration, the influence of European Union was very limited, mostly linked to the debate on ilegal flows ant border control.

Conclusion Between 1995 and 2011, nationalism and the presence of a thick identity pushed Quebec and Catalonia to develop their own intercultural models of integration of newcomers in competition with the Federal and central government. Catalan and French language were central to the definition of Quebec and Catalonian philosophies of integration in an effort to combine the protection of their languages with a civic definition of citizenship. In this process the characteristics of the federal and the State of Autnonomies arrangements, the IGR patterns and the systems of immigration of Canada and Spain were crucial to the development of the Quebec and Catalonian policies and models of integration.

While Canada is a federation, Spain experienced a process of federalization, which remains unfinished. Even if Canadian federation has a dual distribution of powers, immigration was established by the BNA as a concurrent policy. Indeed the policies of immigration are crucial to the Canadian federation where the provinces compete for getting a better share of the newcomers selected by a point system based on their skills. Patriation of the constitution in 1982, nationalist claims expressed into two referendums and the need to keep Quebec in the federation, lead to the signature of the 1991 agreement on immigration that established the devolution of all integration policies, the selection of economic class immigrants and a generous financial compensation. Curiously the devolution of power and funding to the province has led to a very centralized model of governance of the policies within Quebec. This top-down model is aimed to assure the loyalty of immigrants to the Quebec nation by establishing a direct relationship between the programs and the provincial government. In this process civil society and local governments are considered partners of the provincial government but have limited autonomy and resources to launch their own strategies and iniciatives. Regarding to Catalonia, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 defined immigration as a central government power linked to the control of borders, citizenship and naturalization. But the Autonomous Communities had to deal with the integration of newcomers as they had jurisdiction on social services. The increase of the immigration flows by the 1990s led to the formal recognition of the role of the autonomous Communities and the local governments on the integration of newcomers, it also forced the development of cooperative instruments and intergovernmental relations. Due to the characteristics of the Spanish immigration system (reactive and permissive with illegal flows) the ACs and local governments had to deal with the integration of an increasing number of newcomers on their territories. This situation and the lack of resources were in the base of the development of a bottom-up system that relied in the participation of a network of NGOs and civil society for the provision of services. The participation of civil organizations on the provision of services for newcomers also prevented the local and autonomous governments from establishing targeted services that will probably be misunderstood by the local citizens. With the creation of a Fund for the Reception and Integration of Immigrants in 2006, the central government boosted a process of cooperative federalism. The access to the Found transfers and the approval of a new Statute of Autonomy in 2006 offered an opportunity to the Generalitat for developing a more comprehensive policy anchored in the concepts of common public culture and resident citizenship. Nevertheless, the city of Barcelona which has pioneered the policies for the integration of newcomers since 1989 had its own intercultural model based in an extensive network of NGOs and associations related to the integration of newcomers. After the arrival of the economic crisis in Spain and the drastic decrease of migration flows, the FAI was eliminated and the policies of immigration lost centrality. Also the separatist tensions between Catalonia and the Central government in the hands of the Popular Party has frozen any coordination and communication between both levels of government.

References:

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2002). Plan Municipal de Inmigración de Barcelona, 2002-2007.

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2007) Bases de acogida de la ciudad.

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2008). Barcelona Ciutat Educadora. Plá d’Acció 2008-2011.

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2008). Plan de Trabajo por la Inmigración , 2008-2011.

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2008). Projecte Educatiu de Ciutat de Barcelona, disponible en: www.bcn.cat/educacio/pec

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2008). Plenario del Plan Educativo de Ciudad 2008-2011, disponible en: www.bcn.cat/educacio/pec

! AYUNTAMIENTO DE BARCELONA (2009). Plan Barcelona interculturalidad.

! AJA, E (2012). Inmigración y Democracia, Madrid: Alianza Editorial. ! BANTING, K (2012) “Federalism and Immigrant Integration in Canadá”,

en: JOPPKE, C, SEIDLE, L (2012): Immigrant Integration in Federal Countries, McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 79-111.

! BÉLAND, P, (2006). “Les langues publiques: une nouvelle analyse de la situation” en: Georgeault, G, Page, M, Le Français, langue de la diversité québécoise. Une réflexion pluridisciplinaire, CREQC, 2006 (pp. 77-106).

! CANTIN, L, (2010). “Ensuring Quicker, Increased and Better Access to Franch Language Services to Newcomers” en: Our Diverse Cities, Nº7, SPRING, 2010. (pp. 145-159).

! CHIASSON, G, KOJI, J (2011), “Quebec Immigrant Settlement Policy and Municipalities: Fine-tunig a Provincial template, en: TOLLEY E, YOUNG, R (eds.), Immigrant Settlemetn Policy in Canadian Municipalities, McGill-Queens University Press, (pp.148-191).

! CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE, (2008). Le Français, langue de cohésion sociale. Gobierno de Quebec. Disponible en: http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/publications/avis202/a202.pdf

! DAVIS, A, (2008). Multination Building? Immigrant Integration Policies In The Automonus Communities Of Catalonia And Madrid, Paper presented to ESRC Workshop “Narratives on focietal steering to promote integration and inclusión,” 14 March, 2008, Sheffield. Disponible en: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/13094/Andrew_Davis_Multination_building_Madrid_Catalonia.pdf

! GAGNON, A, Iacovino, R (2009). “Interculturalism: Expanding the Boundaries of Citizenship, en: GAGNON, A (ed) (2009). Quebec, State and Society, pp. 369-388.

! GAGNON, A, IACOVINO, R, (2007). Federalism, Citizenship and Quebec. Debating Multinationalism, University of Toronto Press.

! l’immigration et à l’admission temporaire des aubaines: Accord Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall. disponible en: http://www.midi.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fr/divers/Accord-canada-quebec-immigration-francais.pdf

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (1983). Ley de Normalización Lingüística, (LNL 7/1983 )

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (1998). Ley de Política Lingüística, (LPN 1/1998)

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUNÑA (2001) Plan Interdepartamental 2001-2003.

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA (2006). Plá de Ciutadanía I Inmigració 2005-2008, Barcelona, disponible en http://benestar.gencat.cat/web/.content/01departament/08publicacions/ambits_tematics/immigracio/03publiforacoleccio/anteriors/08placiutadaniaimmigracio05-08/2006placiutadania05_08.pdf

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (2005). Plan para la lengua y la cohesión social. Educación y convivencia intercultural. Departamento de Educación, diponible en: http://debateeducativo.mec.es/documentos/plan_lic_cataluna.pdf

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (2006) Ley Orgánica 6/2006 de reforma del Estatuto de Autonomía de Cataluña.

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (2008). Pacte Nacional per a la immigració: un Pacte per viure junts i juntes, disponible en: http://www.gencat.cat/eapc/revistes/RCDP/Documents_interes/RCDP_40/4A_Pacte_Nacional_Immigracio_ca_doc_final_rcdp40.pdf

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (2010). Plan de ciudadanía e inmigración 2009-2012.

! GENERALITAT DE CATALUÑA (2010). Llei d’Acollida de les Personnes Immigrades i de les Retornades a Catalunya, 10/2010, del 7 de maig.

! GERMAIN A, Trinh, T (2010) “L’immigration a Québec. Un portrait et des acteurs”, Working paper CMQ:IM 43:38p.

! GIL, S (2006). Las argucias de la integración. Construcción nacional y gobierno de lo social a través de las políticas de integración de inmigrantes. Los casos de Cataluña y Madrid. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Tesis Doctoral, septiembre, 2006, disponible en: http://www.flacsoandes.edu.ec/web/imagesFTP/6670.tesis_sandra.pdf

! GIMÉNEZ-REYNA, E, FERNANDEZ, J (1999). “Análisis de los principios definitorios del sistema de financiación autonómica: evolución del modelo. Las singularidades forales del País Vasco y Navarra: en: MAP (ed) (1999). El funcionamiento del Estado autonómico, pp. 281-328.

! KOSTOV, C, (2008). “Canada- Quebec Immigration Agreements (1971-1991) and Their Impact on Federalism, en: The American Review of Canadian Studies; Spring, 2008, 38 (p. 91-103).

! LOPEZ, A (2005). Inmigrantes y Estados: La respuesta política ante aa cuestión migratoria, Anthropos. Editorial, Barcelona.

! Mc. ANDREW, M (2005) “ Québec Immigration and Intercultural Policiy: a Critical Asessement” en: International Conference on Multiculturalism, Public Policy and Problem Areas in Canada and India, December, 2005, New Delhi.

! Mc.ROBERTS, K, (1997). Missconceiving Canada. The Struggle for National Unity, Oxford University Press.

! Mc.ROBERTS, K, (2001). Catalonia: Nation Building Without A State, Oxford University Press, Canada.

! MICC (2008) Enoncé politique: Pour enrichir le Québec. Integrer mieux, Quebec.

! MICC (2008). Enoncé politique: La diversité: une valeur ajouté. Plan d’action pour favoriser la participation de tous `a l’essor du Québec, Quebec.

! MICC, (2009-2010a.) Programme D’Integration Linguistique pour les Immigrantes, PILI.

! MICC (2009-2010b) Programme D’Accueil des Nouveaux Arrivants PANA, Gouvernement de Québec.

! NUGENT, A, (2006). “Demography, National Myths, and Political Origins: Perceiving Official Multiculturalism in Quebec”, In Canadian Ethnic Studies, 38: (3) pp. 21-36.

! PAGÉ, M (2010). “L’integration linguistique des immigrants au Quebec” IRPP, Nº3, febrero.

! REDONDO, I (1996). Análisis Histórico Político del Federalismo Canadiense, UCM, Madrid.

! REICHHOLD, S, (2009). “Do Community-Based Organizationd Serve the People or the State? en: Our Diverse Cities, Nº 7, Spring, pp. 37-41.

! ROIG (2006). “Las relaciones intergubernamentales en la Inmigración”, en: AJA, E, MONTILLA, JA & ROIG, E: Las comunidades autónomas y la inmigración, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, pp. 77-152.

! SEIDLE, L (2010). “ Intergovernmental Immigration Agreements and Public Accountability” en Policy Options, julio/ agosto 2010, vol 31, Nº 7, IRPP, Montreal (p. 49-53).

! SPIRO, P (2001). “Federalism and Immigration: Models and Trends” en International Social Science Journal, Nº167, pp. 67-73, Marzo, 2001.

! STEPAN, A (2005). “Federalism and Democracy Beyond the Us Model”, en: en: KARMIS D/ NORMAN, W (eds) (2005). Theories of Federalism. A Reader, Macmillan pp. 255-268.

! TCRI. (2008). Rapport D’activités 2007-2008 disponible en: http://tcri.qc.ca/publications/publications-rapports-activite/132-rapport-d-activites-2007-2008

! TCRI (2010). Cap sur l’integration, 2010, disponible en: http://tcri.qc.ca/volets-tcri/accueil-integration/publications-accueil-integration

! TCRI (2010). “Revue de Presse 2009-2010, disponible en: http://tcri.qc.ca/volets-tcri/accueil-integration/publications-accueil-integration

! TCRI (2010). Raport d’activités 2009-2010, Montreal: TCRI. ! VILLE DE MONTREAL (2007) Planification stratégique en matière de

diversité etnoculturelle (2007-2010). Direction de la Diversité Sociale. Montreal, June.

! ZAPATA, R (2012). “Federalizing Immigrant Integration Policies in Spain”, en: JOPPKE, C, SEIDLE, L (2012): Immigrant Integration in Federal Countries, McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 135-160.