by Metta Spencer
published in the Hill Times, October 22, 2007

Question: In a government, which cabinet ministry has responsibility for the “peace file”?

Answer: Usually none.  Although numerous agencies within a democratic government (including Canada’s) do determine the prospects for peace or war, no single one of them is assigned peace as its specific responsibility. No minister has the “peace portfolio,” and no one is authorized to coordinate the efforts of the various governmental branches.

But that is changing.  Now, in Canada and at least 23 other countries, campaigns are burgeoning for the creation of a “Department of Peace” at the cabinet level. Even in the United States such a bill before Congress has been gathering support. Moreover, in three countries (Nepal, the Solomon Islands, the Philippines and imminently Costa Rica) this innovation is already a reality.

The Canadian proposal, called the “Canadian Department of Peace Initiative,” is jointly coordinated by a former diplomat, Dr. Bill Bhaneja, and Dr. Saul Arbess. Already the campaign has nine chapters (in Victoria, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, plus a Canada-wide chapter for youth), including 19 organizations representing 120,000 Canadians — or three million, if you count all members of the United Church.

Proponents of the plan claim that it may not even require new funding — money beyond that already appropriated for ongoing peace-related activities in seven or more federal departments. The proposal would consolidate agencies and/or coordinate policies within these bodies, keeping peace in the forefront of cabinet-level deliberations. Peace is already an issue in policies concerning, e.g., national defence, justice, immigration and citizenship, overseas development assistance, human rights projects, disarmament, peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding projects, and even  social conflicts among communities in Canadian society. Though some departments of government — notably National Defence — have a voice in those decisions, alternative points of view are not necessarily expressed. The minister heading the new Department of Peace would be expected to be a voice for peace.

Activists have fanned out across Canada, promoting the Department of Peace idea to local organizations, many of which have signed on as supporters (e.g. Physicians for Global Survival, Science for Peace, the Canadian Peace Alliance. and the aforementioned United Church of Canada). The campaigners are also visiting their members of parliament, and have secured the approval in principle for the idea from the NDP and the Green Party, plus leading members of other parties, including former Senator Douglas Roche and former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy.

There are critics, of course. Some who have misgivings about the proposal base their skepticism on their doubts that the Harper government will support it. Other skeptics point out that the Department of Peace will always be appointed by, and accountable to, the government of the day. Therefore, they say, the policies of such a department would hardly differ from those produced by Canada’s existing federal structure. If that is the case, then a Department of Peace could only introduce symbolic changes, such as  expressing the Canadian commitment to peace more frequently and authoritatively.

And, say the critics with regret, such changes may be worthwhile — but not greatly so.

The campaigners recognize these arguments, but are more hopeful about the impact their initiative will make. They base their hope on a new innovation within the proposal: Parallel to the Department of Peace there shall be a commissioner who will work closely with an independent advisory body, reporting directly to parliament concerning the issues confronting the department. This advisory group shall comprise members of well-established Canadian civil society organizations known for their ongoing peace work. The commissioner will consult with this group frequently throughout the year, keeping their concerns high on the agenda of the department.

There are already precedents for such civil society advisory groups, e.g. today in the ministry of environment and previously when the Disarmament Ambassador maintained such a consultative group.

Another important innovation in the proposal is this unusual concept: The Department of Peace shall support a new Civilian Peace Service, whose staff will function in conflict zones around the world. Trained for peace work in universities and other institutions, these individuals will obtain professional certification for their expertise in conflict resolution before being sent abroad to help prevent violence, keeping “hotspots” from becoming war zones. The models for such an organization already exist, for several NGO groups already are working abroad, staffed with volunteer peaceworkers.

Finally, the campaigners envision domestic functions to be carried out by the Department of Peace. Not only will it develop a peace education curriculum for all levels, from kindergarten up, but it shall support conflict resolution programs in communities across Canada that are marked by inter-group strife. In all these ways, the department will stimulate a culture of peace throughout Canadian society.

Late in September, Canadian members of the Department of Peace campaign traveled to Japan for a summit conference. Twenty-one delegations, representing all five continents, were present, though a few delegations were refused visas and could not attend. During five days of workshops in Kiserazu, Dr. Arbess and another Canadian delegate, Penny Joy, showed how a Department of Peace would function in relation to other existing ministries. Then the summit moved to other Japanese cities, meeting Diet members, university students, and the public. In Hiroshima Mayor Akiba addressed them, offering encouragement for the project.

Back in Canada, the activists are again visiting politicians and local leaders, spreading the basic ideas behind their campaign. They hope to raise the issue in the debates among candidates during the next election.

Metta Spencer is a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Toronto.