Minutes: Canadian Peace Institute Meeting, Winnipeg, March 23, 2001

Dear CPREA members, 
Following, please find a copy of the minutes for this CPI meeting for your information.  Please forward a copy to anyone you think may be interested.
The Listserver is open for any discussions on a Canadian Peace Institute.  Therefore, if you wish to participate, please subscribe to the listserver.  To SUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message to: maiser@msvu1.msvu.ca .   Leave the subject blank and in the text type:   subscribe cprea .  You can also make your request known to the moderator fisklarry@hotmail.com and your name can be added.
Larry Fisk will prepare a brief CPI Summary and Proposal to introduce at the CPREA AGM workshop. We also need volunteers to help on the 3 Subcommittees.  The next meeting to present this work is planned at the CPREA Annual General Meeting Saturday, June 2, 2001 at Queens University in Kingston.  Please join us. 
Bob Stewart

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2001, 8:30 AM TO 5:30 PM
Introductory Information
Background information was available at http://www.peace.ca/educationpartnerships.htm for downloading/printing for advance reading as participants require.

Larry Fisk, Winnipeg, Menno Simons College fisklarry@hotmail.com
Esther Epp-Tiessen, Winnipeg, MCC Canada eet@mennonitecc.ca
Neil Funk-Unrau , Assistant Professor of Conflict Resolution (Transformation) Studies, Menno Simons College and CMU nfunkunrau@cmu.ca
Naomi Levine,Human Rights and Harassment Officer, Red River College and U of Winnipeg nlevine@rrc.mb.ca
Andrea Furlong, Winnipeg andreafurlong@hotmail.com
Caitlin Keyzer, Winnipeg ckeyzer@callisto.uwinnipeg.ca
Liz Hoffman, Winnipeg  ehoffman@mb.sympatico.ca
Margaret Maier, VANA, Winnipeg stm1899@mb.sympatico.ca 
David Hubert, Canadian Peace Foundation, Edmonton  dehubert@sprint.ca
Noemi Gal-Or, Vancouver, Kwantlen University College (also Thursday dinner) noemi@kwantlen.bc.ca
Anne Goodman Adelson, Toronto (also Thursday dinner)  anne.goodman@sympatico.ca
Lowell Ewert, Waterloo, Conrad Grebel College (also Thursday dinner)  lmewert@uwaterloo.ca
Bob Stewart, Calgary, Canadian Centres for Teaching Peace (also Thursday dinner) stewartr [at] peace.ca
By Telephone for part during the afternoon:
Rachel Goodman, Maharishi University, Ohio  rgoodman@mum.edu
Agenda Items
1. Introduction and approval of the agenda
The meeting commenced at 8:30 am. Larry Fisk (Canadian Peace Research and Education Association or "CPREA" and Menno Simons College) greeted the participants.  Canadian Mennonite University President George Rickhard (sp?) also visited briefly and welcomed the participants. The agenda was approved as circulated with no further additions. Bob Stewart facilitated the meeting.  The purpose of the meeting was to build on the work done in Hamilton and Vancouver to create a Canadian Peace Initiative and Institute.  Bob Stewart gave a summary of the proceedings of the Hamilton and Vancouver meetings.
2. The Programs of the Canadian Peace Institute
- Bob Stewart gave a presentation of 3 overheads (a conceptual map) addressing the current gap in "macro-peace education" (i.e. emphasizing the understanding of the 'big picture', and how the 'micro-peace thematic issues" fit in), in order to enable the "binding" of peace groups to pull in one common, supportive direction to achieve a common mission/vision.  A presentation on Macropeace is available online at http://www.peace.ca/macropeace.htm
- program structure/visions/issues has been the subject of a Programs Sub-committee, and Noemi Gal-Or tabled a document entitled "CPI - Programs & Accreditation Proposal" attached as Appendix 1
- Bob Stewart provided a very brief update on the results of the Peace Studies Survey: only 4 responses were received from Royal Roads University, University of Regina, Dalhousie University, University of Calgary, and University of Prince Edward Island.  These will be added to the existing inventory at http://www.peace.ca/univandcollegespeacestudiesprog.htm
- "going around the table", we obtained the following responses:
- possibly CPI should be a "coagulant" (this term evolved to a better descriptive: "yeast for peace")
- programs should be proactive
- if CPREA was vibrant then they would be doing this; rather than reinventing CPREA (which can be more difficult) we are inventing a new CPI (can be easier); does CPI have a better chance of success than CPREA?  we have a powerful mission statement
 - an Action Research School, where practitioners are driving as much as academics, interfacing with cutting edge new peace initiatives in the world
- not just another academic program (the "unschool")
- Menno Simons College is employing "service learning"
- to accredit CPI programs can be very time consuming, with a lot of energy expended, and not sure that is where we should be spending our energy
- we need to be an "Amway for peace" (i.e. pyramiding the education to the masses) - how do we capture the people (versus just impacting 30 students a year - it is the 30,000,000 people in Canada we want to impact)
- maybe a key role for CPI is connecting with all that is happening in peace education in Canada
- CPI role: transdisciplinary connectors; providing an umbrella approach to transcend the "stovepipe effects" (i.e. individual programs not conversant with each other)
- we are Peace Education Leaders; we want a "real good holistic peace education in Canada"; we have identified lots of gaps; as Leaders we have to have a vision and get on with it; today maybe none of us knows exactly what that looks like but we have to have a vision of how to get to it and it will continue to become clearer over the years
- Paul Redekop visited for a half hour and told the group how there is a growing demand for peace education from practitioners and a potential for a broader range of peace studies
- fill the informal education box; how we build peace education into the school curriculum
- Dave Hubert read a quotation with respect to applied peace education and a vision for Canada in global leadership in peace
- Noemi Gal-Or stressed the need to produce results and show advancement with our CPI work
- Lowell Ewert stressed the need for a "Centre for Applied Peace Studies", focusing far more on practice than academics; there are 175,000 NGOs in Canada, and we should research the cumulative impact of these groups on social development in Canada and what their peace education needs are (what is missing in Canada?); CPI's first job is to meet the incredible opportunity to provide the venue to help them get together within the next 2 or 3 years
- Anne Adelson indicated that we are talking about foundational work that CPI should be doing, and promoting the synergy (of human security in Canada)
- Liz Hoffman indicated that there are academic approaches, social activist approaches, and a combination of both
- Margaret Maier indicated that we have to work for peace on many fronts (eg. media, play, etc.)
- Esther Epp-Tiessen sought clarification that CPI is a partnership versus a program 
- Larry Fisk indicated that CPI should be a celebration of a counter culture (reminiscent of the 1960's)
- Rachel Goodman assured us that things will become clearer as we work on them and bring everyone together
- Lowell Ewert suggested that we take the following to the CPREA AGM:
1. encouragement for further exploration of the Program Subcommittee document, further exploration how it relates to other peace studies programs in Canada (there has been a significant change in the past year)
2. a program plan to find funding for someone to summarize the impact and peace education needs of the 175,000 NGOs in Canada
3. someone start articulating gaps between cross sector discussions (eg. between peace officers, healthy communities people, etc.)
- everyone agreed that CPI should carry on, wholeheartedly, inclusively, bridging between building peace at home and abroad
3. Resource Issues of CPI
- Bob Stewart indicated that CPI needed some seed capital, referenced the creation of a Canadian Peace foundation, Resource Subcommittee terms of reference and one example suggestion of a video for fund raising.
-  Dave Hubert was participating as a representative of the Alberta Society known as the Canadian Peace Foundation indicating that he has broached his Board on the possibility of us working together or letting us use the name.  Their next meeting is April 27 and he will report back at that time (and they want to be accommodating as our agendas are very complimentary).  He also cautioned us that they were unable to get charitable status because "peace is a political activity"
- Anne Adelson felt there were examples of how we can get around this problem
- Lowell Ewert informed us that 4 Kitchener Waterloo peace organizations are working towards a new building (Project Ploughshares, the Conflict Resolution Network/Family Mediation Canada, Centre for Family Business, and Conrad Grabel College); this represents quite a critical mass of peace organizations, and may be a complimentary opportunity for CPI to do something with them (the planned building is 10,000 square feet, about $1.25 million).
- Liz Hoffman indicated that there are different approaches to attract big money, and small money; one input that would be helpful is how much violence costs Canadians (military, hospitals, justice and corrections, etc.)
- everyone agreed that money was needed, and deferred to the Resource Subcommittee to work on that
4. Governance Issues of CPI
- Anne Adelson indicated the importance of structures for decision making, accountability and transparency
- Bob Stewart recapped previous meeting discussions which leaned strongly to a horizontal system.  Most of the peace people involved with CPI are peak performers, need little direction and support, are self-directed/supported, and hence a hierarchical system would be difficult to apply and probably makes less sense than horizontal.  All that is needed is a little facilitation to maintain focus (they might need a little more facilitation when they are doing new things they are not familiar with or used to).  I imagine all decisions would be by consensus (this may not mean 100% consensus, but as close as you can get).  Individuals can form teams to get tasks done, or do them individually, and then disband. 
- Lowell Ewert suggested a proposal be made to the CPREA AGM; you can never get it right the first time, mistakes will happen and you adjust
- Esther Epp-Tiessen suggested different categories of membership (individuals and institutions); see who joins and that will separate the "wheat from the chaff"
- people would have to be volunteers until such time as we have some financial resources
- how do we focus and get going? = that is the Leadership challenge
- a diagram of a structure was discussed and seemed suitable (modified that the structure would be expected to be fairly "flat" or non-hierarchical):
(responsive to needs)                      BOARD OF GOVERNORS                                       (policy issues)
                                                                      I---------------------------BOARD OF ADVISORS (high profile)
                                                           MANAGEMENT                                             (day-to-day operations)          
                                          I                           I                              I
                               PROGRAMS          RESOURCES          ADMINISTRATION       (subcommittees or "departments")
                                          I                           I                              I
(responsible to deliver)                 MENTORS ACROSS CANADA
- Anne Adelson discussed the Greenham Common model of 'modified' consensus used by Voice of Women, as an example to consider, with education on how to make it work properly
- Liz Hoffman suggested getting the top 6 or 7 governance models, to help guide us
- discussion was deferred on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding as it is premature to consider relationship issues among institutions, and we are not ready yet
- Dave Rushton had prepared a draft paper on how CPI credibility might be built with government partners (Appendix 2); this discussion was deferred again that it might be premature before Kingston; there was general agreement that government funding would be sought, but not to the detriment of CPI independence of thought and action
5. Action Plan
- Larry Fisk will prepare a brief CPI Summary and Proposal to introduce at the CPREA AGM workshop ("Re-envisioning Peace Education in Canada"), starting with the Summary prepared following the Hamilton meeting (reference http://www.peace.ca/summarydec15.htm ) and evolving with the benefit of the Vancouver and Winnipeg meetings.  Larry will bounce this off Dean Peachey and Paul Redekop, prior to asking Anne Adelson to critique it.  Then Bob Stewart and possibly other meeting participants will be consulted prior to June 2.  It should be circulated in advance of the CPREA workshop for advance reading
- Larry Fisk, Ann Adelson, Liz Hoffman and Bob Stewart met on Saturday to assimilate the results of the meeting and the following more detailed Action Plan Steps to be undertaken:
(1) CPI to act as a "yeast for peace" (it may sound corny but it is the best way we found to date to describe what we are trying to do); mentoring; do no harm
(2) CPI to facilitate the venues for discussion and mobilize peace educators' collective intelligence (Larry Fisk provided the example of how he went to a new class and asked them what they wanted to do for a course; it was a wonderful and liberating dynamic very similar to what we have been talking about for CPI)
(3) CPI to facilitate the creation of Canadian Peace Resource Centres (libraries, videos, computer stations); these would become peace tourism destination centres; it is not a 'political' activity and should be well received; library donations would be sought (eg. retirees)
(4) Bob Stewart offered to facilitate one or more workshops to provide a venue for the possible development of peace education courses in Canada in Macropeace, Leaders of Peace, Change Management, a National Culture of Peace Program, and the facilitating the development of African Centers for Peace Education and Training.
(5) CPI to research Canada's opportunity to help shape UNESCO
(6) CPI to encourage getting peace education on the political agenda (as versus being political); peace was not an issue in the recent Canadian, U.S. or Alberta elections and yet 95%+ Canadians say it is important
(7) CPI to approach one or more Peace Universities/Colleges in Canada to provide an annual venue for Peace Education Dialogues (Bob Stewart believes there may be a possibility of gaining support from service clubs such as Rotary, Lions, etc.); possibly as early as November 11, 2001; or possibly a July or August thing (timing has its' pros and cons)
(8) plan to start inviting individuals, mentors and institutional Members to join CPI (consider membership fee, etc.)
(9) look for funding for two projects: (a) inventory of the "175,000 NGOs in Canada, their impact on peace development, and their needs for peace education and training; (b) refinement of the inventory of peace education programs available in Canada
(10) the 2002 CPREA AGM to have a main them of "Re-envisioning Peace Education in Canada" (or some such thing to focus on CPI-type peace education developments)
(11) work towards a 2003 Symposium bringing together the "175,000 NGOs" to discuss their needs for peace education
(12) work towards using technology to bring the venues to the people who can not travel to the conferences (live web broadcasts; interactive; etc.)
6. Conclusion and Wrap-up
- Bob Stewart thanked the participants for their good work, and thanked Larry Fisk, Menno Simons College and the Canadian Mennonite University for their wonderful assistance (including hosting refreshments)
- Larry Fisk thanked Bob Stewart on behalf of the group for facilitating the workshop
- the meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.

Prepared by
Robert A. Stewart, C.A., C.M.C.

Noemi Gal-Or, CPI Program Sub-Committee, February 16, 2000


This proposal is based on deliberations at the Kwantlen meeting, Dec. 2001, and Janet's and Bob's suggestions.

Purpose of Sub-Committee

The purpose of the Programs Sub-Committee is to manage programs (courses and studies) necessary for the success of CPI. The term "management" implies planning, implementation, monitoring, reacting, and accreditation.


Larry Fisk, Noemi Gal-Or, Janet Hudgins, Joyce Lydiard, Sue McGregor, Derek Paul, Raj Ramanathapillai, Bob Stewart, Joy Warner.

Program Name

Peace Studies (with areas of specialisation)

Nature of program

Co-operative education

Degree Awarded

Master in Peace Promotion and Administration (MPPA)


Degree recognised by the Canadian Government in agreement with leading post-secondary institutions in and outside Canada.

Degree to be awarded by the CPI or CPI accredited institutions only.

Duration and Structure of Program

Total duration: 2 - 2 years

Structure:         1st semester:               Studies courses (lecture, seminars, tutoring) and exams (15 credits);

                       2d 7th semesters:      Orientation in Ottawa (?) and co-op placement;

                       8th semester:               Studies courses (lecture, seminars, tutoring) and exams (15 credits);

                       9th semester (optional): Submission of completed MPPA thesis and oral defence before a jury of 3 (2 academics

                                                          and 1 peace practitioner).

                       Yet to be determined: How many credits can be online.

Admission and Prerequisites

3d year completion of any university or university college discipline (60 credits) with a minimum 72 GPA for the total 60 credits.

Prior learning assessment: previous work experience criteria may be considered up to 20 credits equivalence. Criteria to be determined.

Minimum 2 languages. Criteria to be determined.


Tuition fees: to be determined.

Co-op semesters: payment to students by employer. Universal minimum payment requirement: to be determined.

Program Content

The program content will be based on our courses and program survey findings and on needs (e.g. as defined by Canadem). The CPI will articulate the courses and may create new courses.

There will be a choice among several streams targeting and distinguishing between:

  • Formal full-time education institutions (universities, colleges, secondary, elementary, kindergarten);
  • Adult and continuing education.

4 content pillars to be addressed at introductory and post co-op levels (24-19 credits):

  • The holistic perspective of peace (co-operative vs. competitive power, personal vs. societal transformation, environment, justice and fairness, etc.);
  • The public face of peace (global level, politics, media, culture);
  • Early warning (identification of challenges to peace);
  • Strategies of change (resolution, transformation/restoration, management, promotion, securing).

Specialisation (including 6-11 study credits during 1st and 8th semesters) to be determined by choice of co-op placement.

APPENDIX 2: DGR CPI Project - Building Credibility with Government, by David Rushton

OBJECTIVE: Under ACCREDITATON: Dave Rushton was asked to write up and circulate in draft his summary of how CPI credibility might be built with government partners (i.e. credibility; political interest in maintaining Canadian image; governance; maintaining independence; etc.)

WHY? What benefits to CPI?

  • Govt approval needed for accreditation?
  • Fed or also host provincial govt responsible for education?
  • Govt funding sought/required?
  • For core operating funds?
  • For peace action/research contracts?
  • For student bursaries etc?
  • Govt recognition needed:
  • To get CPI member institutions on board?
  • To draw faculty/students?
  • For international status?


  • International image coherence:
  • Canada promotes peacemaker image; a national CPI could strengthen that image.
  • Enhanced Canadian capacity:
  • Improved ability to draw students to peace studies?
  • More cooperation among Canadian peace researchers/educators?
  • More efficient use of resources?
  • Improved peace studies curricula?


  • High profile Cdns declaring support; board of governors / advisory council, etc:
  • Pearson family involvement (e.g., Senator Brandon Pearson)
  • Academics who were formal high profile feds (e.g., Lloyd Axworthy, Gordon Smith, Ed Broadbent? Warren Allmand?)
  • Trudeau family
  • Confirm no competition with existing peace related institutions and orgs seek individualized support agreements. The more direct benefit/coherence with their mandates the better.
  • Pearson Peacekeeping Institute, Cornwallis, NS
  • CPREA institutional members / connections
  • Police organizations
  • Oversight organizations (e.g.CACOLE: Canadian Organization for Civilian Oversight Of Law Enforcement)
  • Human rights organizations
  • Seek a link with all relevant government departments. Pre-contact work would involve reviewing their mandates to determine mutual needs/benefits between them and CPI:
  • DFAIT: e.g. John Holmes Fund, which promotes foreign policy research.
  • RCMP
  • CIDA Peacebuilding Unit (if CPI intends intl component, or re support for development of Canadian capacity)
  • IDRC: research on peace with international focus; Canadian research capacity development.
  • Canadian Centres of Excellence: First determine program status and whether CPI might qualify if funding available.
  • Alumni initiative: If CPI does not become a totally separate bricks and mortar operation but more a virtual institution which consists of accredited programs in member institutions, CPI could immediately consider alumni from those member programs as possible contacts for government liaison.
  • Diversified $ support: The days of non-government institutions being highly dependent on government funding seem to be over. IF government funding is a key reason for developing credibility with governments, then the more project-specific the government funding being sought the better.


  • Deborah Fletcher re her high power Toronto friend involved in PR/Communications?
  • Compare support campaign undertaken by International IDEA re Cdn support/membership.