http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5280365

Alex Atamanenko was joined at a press conference on Nov. 30 by fellow peace advocates, along with Elizabeth May of the Green Party and Liberal Jim Karygiannis to herald the introduction later in the day of his Private Member’s Bill. Atamenko’s bill is a slightly amended version of retired NDP MP Bill Siksay’s bill from the last parliament, notable for the non-partisan support it had gathered.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=583

Principles of Peace gain broader recognition

October 16, 2009

-Deborah Froese

WINNIPEG, Manitoba — What if peace were held as the organizing principle for society? What if non-violent conflict resolution, rather than defence and offence, shaped national and international strategies for peace? What if military “boot camp” for soldiers focussed on intensive training in violence prevention, mediation, and reconciliation instead of physical prowess, aggression and weaponry?

Mennonite Church Canada is taking an active role in promoting a culture of peace, including non-violent conflict resolution, within Canada and abroad. A Private Members Bill tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on Sept. 30, 2009 (Bill C-447) calls for the creation of a Canadian Department of Peace, headed by a Cabinet-level minister. This, in part, results from efforts of the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative (CDPI), a grassroots organization with whom Mennonite Church Canada has partnered in this initiative.

Under the concept of peace as an organizing principle in society, the mission of the Department lists a myriad of actions and principles ranging from non-military peace-making to the development of human potential and the promotion of justice, and the development of a peace-keeping, peace building and peace-making Canadian civil peace service.

Tabled by MP Bill Siksay (Douglas-Burnaby) and seconded by the MP Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt), Bill C-447 447describes the intended department’s work as that which is “dedicated to peace-building and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.”

“It is a long, long way from being passed in the House of Commons,” says Janet Plenert, Executive Secretary of Mennonite Church Canada Christian Witness – though she is encouraged by the bill. “We know from the experience of the Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation bill that such a bill will likely need to be reintroduced multiple times over many years.”

Despite her pragmatic view of Bill C-447’s potential in its current form, Plenert is hopeful that it will initiate ongoing discussions about peace as a viable alternative to war and a fundamental approach to societal behaviour and response. She says that a strong and vocal grassroots movement supporting the principles of the bill will give it more weight and increase the potential for future implementation.

Bill C-447 arrives at a time when Mennonite Church Canada is taking deliberate steps to bring concepts of non-violent peace into the public arena. Over the past year-and-a-half, General Secretary Robert J. Suderman has addressed the Canadian Council of Churches twice on the topic of “Peace in the Public Square” to favourable response. Delegates to Mennonite Church Canada’s Annual Assembly in June 2009 voted to support a proposal of the same name, which encourages congregations across the country to share the message on a larger, more public scale.

In response to that vote, Mennonite Church Alberta is poised to offer messages of peace on billboards and Light Rapid Transit posters beginning in mid-November 2009. Other tools of communication suggested by Mennonite Church Canada include writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, engagement in Remembrance Day activities that communicate peace as a viable alternative to war, and supporting conscientious objection to military taxation (www.consciencecanada.ca).

“If each congregation initiates one act of peace in the public square over the next four years,” says Suderman, “we will have 1,000 acts of peace.”

Additionally, a new Mennonite Church Canada web site to share ideas and news about making biblical peace a reality is under development.

CDPI is a member of the global movement known as Global Alliance for Department of Peace/Ministries for Peace, with citizen groups in 40 countries, including the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, India, Israel and Palestine who are seeking Peace Ministries. In recent years Nepal, Soloman Islands and Costa Rica have established Peace Departments. Mennonite Church Canada and CDPI hope to see Canada, with its rich peacekeeping tradition, follow in their footsteps.

For more information on Peace in the Public Square, search www.mennonitechurch.ca

By Patricia Philip

Campaigning for a Department of Peace

Little media attention has been

given to the Harper government’s

massive rebuilding of the Canadian

military, outlined in its

Canada First Defence Strategy,

which will allocate $490 billion to

military spending over the next

20 years.

That’s the message delivered

by well-known author and journalist

Linda McQuaig to the

national annual general meeting

of the Canadian Department of

Peace Initiative (CDPI), April

17–19 in Hamilton, Ontario.

In her keynote address, After

Afghanistan: Reinvigorating

Canada’s Role as a Global Peacebuilder,

Ms. McQuaig presented

a chronology of events and facts

to demonstrate just how far Canada’s

government has moved in

recent years from being a world

leader in global peacekeeping to

a nation that has bought into the

U.S. doctrine of war.

The conference, with its theme

this year of Building a Culture of

Peace in Canada and the World,

attracted 40 participants, including

several from the Quebec

Chapter of CDPI, Citoyennes

pour un Ministère de la Paix

(CMP). The CDPI is a federation

of chapters, each having local

autonomy within the framework

of the agreed-upon goal of promoting

a Canadian Department

of Peace.

The conference featured status

reports on various CDPI projects

under way for the past year. An

important session brought delegates

into conversation with MPs

from all political parties (except

Conservatives) on the theme of

Building a Culture of Peace in

Canada and the World. We also

heard from the current initiative

for a Hamilton Culture of Peace

Commission. There is strong

interest at Hamilton’s City Hall

in working actively with peacerelated

groups.

Participants considered CDPI’s

strategic planning and action

plan for 2009-10. While the longterm

goal remains the establishment

of a full Department of

Peace, an interim step will be to

lobby for the creation of a secretary

of state or junior minister

for peacebuilding and conflict

prevention at the federal level.

The conference heard encouraging

news from each region of

Canada that inroads are being

made. Plans are under way to

set up a CDPI branch in Halifax.

One of the biggest challenges is

to engage and increase youth

participation by developing

peacebuilding as a professional

career path. More outreach initiatives

need to focus on electronic

communications as a way of

getting out the message.

Patricia Philip is a member of

the Executive of WFMC Montreal Branch

Published in the National Post, October 1, 2009

OTTAWA — A federal New Democrat has teamed up with a Liberal to propose the creation of an army of peace professionals within a new federal department to resolve violent conflicts within Canada and around the world.

The idea was introduced through new legislation tabled Thursday by NDP MP Bill Siksay, seconded by Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis. Siksay said the proposed department of peace could change the role of the Canadian military, but not necessarily replace it.

“In a utopian vision of our world, maybe that will be possible some day but certainly we see this as an area that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves,” said Siksay at a news conference.

“The inclination to seek a non-violent solution to conflict isn’t always the first action that people take in our society and around the world.”

Siksay’s private member’s bill was modelled after a proposal by an advocacy group that suggests Canada needs more trained experts to promote peace in its diplomatic corps as well as in the military.

Bill Bhaneja, a co-chair of the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative, said the proposed department could employ hundreds of professionals who would promote a culture of peace in the government’s policies and actions, as well as help to resolve conflicts in a non-violent way.

“These peace professionals would be different from the diplomats and from the soldiers,” said Bhaneja. “Right now we have suits and boots on the ground, but we don’t have people who are trained to resolve conflicts at the cutting edge where the problem is taking place.”

He said his group has also submitted its proposals to the Harper government which replied it was satisfied with existing policies and practices.

Siksay said it was unlikely that the legislation and its proposals would get adopted in the near future in Parliament since it is a private member’s bill. Government legislation gets priority for debates in Parliament while opposition bills are debated in order based on a random draw.

But Bhaneja said he was encouraged by recent meetings with Liberals and New Democrats who appear to be more interested by the establishment of a ministry of peace, following other countries such as Nepal, Solomon Islands and Costa Rica.

When I tell Gus I’ve arranged a discussion at the Ottawa Shambhala Centre about forming a federal Department of Peace, my friend’s response is less than enthusiastic: “Great. Just what we need. Another bureaucratic sinkhole to swallow taxpayer dollars.” That’s Gus for you. He meditates, and has been my meditation student for the past several years, but he’s also a no-nonsense guy who always says exactly what he thinks. In his early forties, barrel-chested, his 6-foot-3 frame topped off by thinning red hair, Gus spent eight years in the military before leaving it to train as a physicist. He’s hardheaded, he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and scientific logic is his religion. Even when I disagree with him I have a grudging respect for his opinion, because he’s often right.

I’m not surprised that Gus won’t come to the meeting with me, but I am surprised by the size of the crowd. I’d expected maybe a dozen wild-eyed idealists, but there are at least 50 people present — all reasonably sane-looking and including a former mayor of Ottawa. Seniors, boomers, yuppies, DINKs, loners and members of Generations X, Y and Z are all represented. Many have never before entered the Shambhala Centre.

The fellow giving the talk is Bill Bhaneja. In his sixties, slim and relaxed, he’s a retired diplomat from the Canadian Foreign Service and was until recently a senior research fellow at the University of Ottawa. He was born in India, and as a child once saw Mahatma Gandhi at one of the open-air, multifaith prayer meetings that the great man held every evening in New Delhi. Bhaneja appears earnest yet practical minded; serious, but with a glint of gentle humour in his eyes.
One of the first things he says is that the proposed Department of Peace will entail “no new money.” I’m sceptical at first: How will that work? The idea, I learn, is to draw together the many existing peace- and justice-related portfolios scattered among seven federal departments, including the obvious ones, such as CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency), Defence and Foreign Affairs, as well as Citizenship and Immigration, Health Canada, IDRC (International Development Research Center) and Justice, and combine them under a single umbrella. The reason: In none of the seven departments is peace given any kind of priority.

Without its own minister, the peace viewpoint usually goes unheard at the Cabinet level. So gathering together all the kindred spirits would give peace its own spokesperson: a senior minister. This new Cabinet member would be in a position to pursue an official mandate of peace and to offer a counterpoint to the views of other departments, such as Defence. As Bhaneja explains, “Presently, there is no such focused advice or viewpoint available inside the Cabinet to countervail the view that conflict can only be resolved through war.”

Two countries have already established Departments of Peace: the Solomon Islands and Nepal. Costa Rica is expected to announce a Department of Peace and Justice this year. Granted, these are not major players. Still, civil society organizations in 35 countries, including the United States, are actively looking at the possibility.

In early 2007, the newly elected U.S. House of Representatives reintroduced a bill to create a Peace Department. In the previous term, over 60 members of Congress had endorsed the bill. Shortly afterward, a political blitz in Washington saw 700 supporters (including luminaries such as Deepak Chopra and author Marianne Williamson) pay 220 visits to representatives and senators in support of the bill.

One fascinating aspect of the U.S. drive is that it’s nonpartisan, with supporters from all parties. The same is true in Canada. The New Democratic and Green parties support the idea in principle, and many Liberal Party MPs have expressed support or interest. Moreover, support in Canada is widespread, and growing quickly; supporters have already formed chapters in 10 major cities. On the long list of official boosters are Lloyd Axworthy, former minister of foreign affairs, and retired senator Douglas Roche, a former Canadian ambassador of disarmament and Conservative MP. Organizations that support the idea include the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Pugwash Group, a women’s Nobel Peace Laureates organization and the United Church of Canada — the largest Protestant denomination in the country with 3 million members.

Perhaps its most unique policy element is the proposed Civilian Peace Service, a concept that goes well beyond traditional peacekeeping. For many years, Canada has been respected around the world for its blue-helmeted peacekeepers — an idea pioneered by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, the only Canadian ever to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. But the country’s peacekeeping has fallen on hard times. While the number of peacekeepers in the world is currently at a high of about 70,000, Canada’s share has dwindled to a paltry 60 or so. It now ranks below 50th in the world, and its reputation is fading fast. In fact, the country’s police services now provide more peacekeepers than its military does.

Yet Department of Peace supporters stress that in the global arena, peacekeeping tends to work better than war. It may be a messy, chaotic and difficult job, but the conflicts it has staved off, or lessened the impact of, far outnumber its failures. War now seems like an increasingly ineffective method of resolving disputes. In his 2005 book, “The Utility of Modern Warfare,” Rupert Smith, once the deputy supreme commander of NATO, stated that since 1946, every time Western nations have become involved in a foreign war, they’ve become completely bogged down. Instead of achieving a swift, decisive victory, they’ve spent from 15 to 20 years struggling to bring the conflict to an end. This was true in the Balkans, Congo, Northern Ireland, Cyprus and, of course, Vietnam and is true in Iraq and Afghanistan — all infamous sinkholes of money, resources and young lives. Modern wars always seem to end up at the negotiating table only after needless slaughter of soldiers and civilians. Hence the Department of Peace philosophy: Why not negotiate right at the beginning of the process, if possible?

That’s where the Civilian Peace Service would come in — deploying an “army” of perhaps 2,000 negotiators, trained in conflict prevention and resolution, in hot spots around the world. These people would not be development officers, foreign service specialists, soldiers or traditional peacekeepers. They’d be a new breed — peace professionals.

Is the notion of a Department of Peace too idealistic? In a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed, Robert Koehler called the initiative “radical common sense.” He added, “The rationality of peace tends to just sit there — ho hum, what else is new? — while the headlines go off in our faces. Are we doomed to a violent politics, with all its news drama and illusion of instant transformation?” Considering the “suicidal” mechanisms of war and violence that “powerful interests, even government itself, seem locked into,” Koehler views a Department of Peace as a positive step. “It would signal our collective interest in making a start,” he wrote.

Bhaneja says that building peace “will require institutions, not just speeches.” To make it work, he adds, “you have to be an idealist at heart, but a realist in the mind.”

After that first meeting with Bhaneja, I sent Gus materials about the initiative, including its Web address. I didn’t believe he would actually bother to check it out. So I was astonished when, a few weeks later, he sent me an e-mail: “I read recently that you can only change the world by changing your own mind. And right after I read that, I read the documents you sent about the Department of Peace. I’ve gone through them, and I’m convinced. How can I help?”

For more information on the proposed Department of Peace, visit www.departmentofpeace.ca.

MARK FRUTKIN is the author of three books of poetry and seven of fiction, including Fabrizio’s Return, winner of the 2006 Trillium Book Award and shortlisted for the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for Best Book, and Atmospheres Apollinaire, which was shortlisted for the Governor General’s Award, the Trillium and the Ottawa Book Award. He lives in Ottawa.

When the prime minister seeks advice on military intervention or diplomatic initiatives, the experts of two departments are at his disposal. But when he wants an advocate for peace, where in government does he turn?

“At the macro level, when the prime minister needsadvice when making policy or program choicesaround peace, there is a big vacuum,” Bill Bhanejalaments. “There is no strategic focus for peace ingovernment.”

Bhaneja, a former senior policy advisor for science and technology with Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is part of asmall group of former politicians, public servants and academics who believe an institutional element is missing within government and are calling for a Department of Peace to stand equal with National Defence and Foreign Affairs on matters of international intervention.

This might sound like the marching call for activist organizations.But such grassroots collections, though vocal in theirrhetoric, each tout their own “little piece of peace, but not acoordinated strategy focused on peace in government,” Bhanejasays.

Though the group has its origins in the arms control movement,the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative (CDPI) isnon-partisan. If the late 1960s and early 70s were a period ofgrowth for internal policy guidance – the introduction of economicand science councils, new ministries – today that philosophyhas given way to policy advice by think tank and otherexternal advisors. “What we are saying is that, in the 21st century,we need capacity within the machinery of government toensure new ideas get through,” says Bhaneja, a University of Ottawa Senior Fellow (2003-2007) who began his public servicecareer in 1976.

Among the Society’s supporters are Senator Douglas Roche,former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, Dr. GeraldCaplan, a leading authority on genocide prevention, and MurrayThomson, co-founder of Project Ploughshares. CDPI,which has eight chapters across the country, has also drawnendorsement from some 20 national organizations, includingthe Canadian Pugwash Group, Council for Canadians, Physiciansfor Global Survival, United Church of Canada and theWorld Federalist Movement.

And they are not alone. Over the past four years, an internationalalliance has been gathering steam. To date, 24 countriesincluding Australia, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US have sproutedorganizations calling for the creation of departments or ministriesof peace.

How would such a department work? The CDPI campaignlays out 10 objectives that could comprise its mandate based onthe guiding principles that it would work towards building aculture of peace and developing a capacity for resolution of conflictthrough non-violent means.

To meet those objectives and build Canada’s reputation as a genuinepeace builder, the department would require five key components,what Bhaneja calls five pillars for a sustainable peace: anoffice of peace education; an office of human rights; anoffice of nuclear disarmament; an office of civilianpeace service to provide funding and trainingfor developing Canadian expertisein mediation, resolutionand reconciliation in conflictareas; and an office forconflict resolution inCanada for family orcommunity violence –an acknowledgementto practice at homewhat you preach abroad.”You need the same kind ofbroad expertise to resolve all ofthose things,” he said.

DEVELOPMENT

The department, he adds, would also be a prime destinationfor graduates of academia’s many conflict resolution programsand an obvious way for the government to attract young,activist talent.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Building such a bureaucracy requires building a constituency.Over the past three years CDPI has presented the concept to thepublic and politicians of all stripes. The idea has been endorsedby the Green Party and accepted in principle by the caucus ofthe NDP. Conservative MPs have been reticent but the 22 Liberalswho have heard the pitch have “responded pretty well,”says Bhaneja, who holds a PhD in public policy from the Universityof Manchester. “They soon realize we’re not talkingabout meditation and yoga – this is a serious policy for conflictresolution. We’re trying to make them comfortable with idea,but then it is up to them. This is a long term issue.”Though the concept has not registered any strident opposition,some have questioned the name – Bhaneja admits he’d readilyaccept Department of Peace Building and Human Security orPeace Building and Disarmament – and the need for a full departmentwhen perhaps a secretary of state within Foreign Affairs orthe Privy Council might suffice. Most have revised their opiniononce the initiative is explained, he said. “It’s the absence of thatcore concept that is causing the problem. If you water down theprofile in government, then people forget the issue.”One might expect opposition from the military but Bhanejanotes that some of the strongest proponents of prevention ofkilling are military. Senator Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general who lead the United Nations mission in Rwanda, has notendorsed the initiative but has become one of the best knownadvocates on prevention of genocide and nuclear disarmament. And British general Rupert Smith, former supreme allied commanderof NATO, has made the case that industrialized warfareno longer exists, that conflicts are now timeless and foughtamong the people.

“Smith writes that the western forces have not won any warsince the Second World War unless one considers Grenada andFalklands as wars. Since 1946, he argues, every time Westernnations have become involved in a foreign war, they have, insteadof a swift, decisive victory, got bogged down spending decadesstruggling to bring the conflict to an end. This was the case in theBalkans, the Congo, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and, of courseVietnam. There are still American troops in Korea, almost 60 yearsafter the US first became involved. So the profound question arises,why do military advisers continue with this cover up, encouragingtheir political masters to seek military solutions to globalconflicts without explicitly making clear the enormity of the costsinvolved,” Bhaneja asked. “In Afghanistan, Gen. Hillier has said itwill take us more than 10 years [to rebuild].”One of the 10 objectives for the proposed department’s mandatewould be providing training for military and civilian governmentpersonnel to administer post conflict demobilizationand reconstruction in war torn societies. The objective is in linewith an argument by Thomas Barnett, a strategic planner andmilitary advisor, and author of The Pentagon’s New Map, to createan American department of global security. He also calls fora division of the US military into a smaller, lethal force capableof waging war and larger, more complex force capable of buildingpeace. “We need a military that will wage peace just as effectivelyas it now wages war,” he writes.Rather than following the military into failed states, Bhanejabelieves a Peace Department’s primary mission would be to wardoff conflict before it begins. “We are advocating that, just as wehave a cadre of foreign service officers, a cadre of developmentofficers and military personnel, we should have a 1000-1500 personcadre of ‘conflict resolvers’ who will work on prevention inCanada and as part of a multilateral UN rapid emergency force.”We were very pleased to see Foreign Affairs introduce the Stabilizationand Reconstruction Task Force, and one hopes thatwill expand. But it shows there is a need. Something is missing ingovernment.”

If the concept seems a challenge for nations born of military conflict, Bhaneja has a counterpoint: “In Nonkilling Global Political Science,author Glenn Paige gives statistical evidence that only 2% ofhuman population has ever killed anyone. And those 2% often havemental health problems. But for 2%, we have built this massivestructure based on fear. It’s a perceived threat from within our culture. That is why it’s so important to have a focal point within governmenton how to develop a culture of peace.When people askhow much a department of peace would cost, we say, just 2% of thesecurity or military envelope. And that’s about $400 million. It canbe done; it’s just a question of political will.”

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.

In August 2006, Focus magazine ran an article about the Department of Peace concept, written by Lesley Marian Neilson. The complete article is available to download in PDF.