Announcing the Schedule for the 2017 IAP2 North American Conference

THE SCENE IS SET!

ANNOUNCING THE SCHEDULE FOR THE

2017 IAP2 NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE!

More than 40 sessions! Three pre-Conference workshops! Something new: Pathways! The schedule is now set for the 2017 IAP2 North American Conference, September 6 – 8 in Denver, Colorado.

Read the full Schedule-at-a-Glance here.

Visit the conference page on the website.

This year’s theme, “Pursuing the Greater Good – P2 for a Changing World”, couldn’t be more timely, and once again, you have an opportunity to consider that theme from a variety of angles and share perspectives and insights.

The pre-conference workshops cover three important topics for P2 professionals: “Bringing More People to the Table”, “Digital Engagement” and “Transportation and P2”.

Pathways are “deep dives” into specific topics; three-hour discussions where you get to set the agenda, co-create and co-host. Those taking part will be able to set the physical and intellectual environment where a small group of people can tackle big questions that ultimately contribute to the field. With Pathways, you can expect an experience that is in-the-moment, dynamic, engaging … and demanding!

From now until June 30, you can take advantage of the early-bird price: US $550 for members and $700 for non-members. For that, you get:

  • workshops or field trips, Wednesday, Sept. 6
  • the welcome reception, Wednesday, Sept. 6
  • all sessions and pathways
  • continental breakfast
  • lunch and lunchtime activities
  • the Core Values Awards gala, Thursday, Sept. 7 – dinner, entertainment and a chance to applaud the best in the business

Conference Scholarships. We want to make sure as many people as possible can participate in a conference on participation, so once again this year, we’re excited to offer scholarships. Full-time students, non-profit staff members, new community advocates and active members of AmeriCorps may apply to have their conference fee covered. Download the application form here.

Are you with an organization that supports P2? Sponsoring the IAP2 North American Conference is a great way to get your corporate or organization message out to the P2 community and at the same time, demonstrate that you believe in the IAP2 principles. We have a variety of options that can fit your marketing budget, including exhibit space, program mentions and presenting sponsor for lunches and the Core Values Awards gala! Download the sponsorship package here. (Standalone Sponsorship Form)

So don’t delay – reserve today! The last two Conferences – Montréal and Portland, Oregon – sold out quickly, and with the Conference theme, the pathways and the presentations, you do not want to miss this! What’s more, our host hotel, the Westin Downtown, is offering a special Conference rate – US $189/night – for those who book by August 6.

See you in the Mile-High City!

2016 IAP2 North American Conference – a Bursary’s-eye View – 2

Two of the winners of bursaries to attend the 2016 North American Conference were Manel Djemel, a doctoral candidate in environmental design at University of Montréal, and Charlie Carter, a staff member at the Ontario Centre for Excellence in Child and Youth Mental Health. They took on the job of gathering the notes and ideas generated from the Opening Plenary: a World Café on the central theme of the Conference.

charlie-profile-pic-workCharlie Carter

The opening plenary of the 2016 IAP2 conference used a World Café to explore three questions: Why should we care about public participation? What would happen if we stopped caring? Can we get more people to care?

Why should we care about public participation?

There are practical and philosophical reasons for why we should care about public participation. Conference participants linked public participation to democracy, citizenship and community. There was a shared sense that it’s simply the right thing to do – that people have a right to participate in decisions that affect them and our political system and society would not work without the involvement of an engaged public. Expanding on this point, many participants said we should care about public participation because it’s part of community building and engenders trust. The kind of face-to-face interaction that can occur in public engagement provides avenues for empathy and collaboration, while reducing the risk of people feeling alienated or disgruntled. S’il y a plus de participation il y aura moins de gens qui domine!

At a practical level, many people shared the belief that public participation is fundamental to elegant design and better decision making, especially because experts are not always right. Public participation can drive innovation and build support and ownership of difficult decisions.

Some comments reflected a theme that occurred at other times during the conference: that public participation is sometimes just a public relations exercise.

What would happen if we stopped caring?

Not caring could lead to increased community conflict, undermine community cohesion and polarise people. Ultimately there would be less democracy as government would make decisions, often on assumptions and without thoughtful consideration of sustainable change. Without any public voice, decisions would be unbalanced and trust would diminish further.

At an applied level, if public participation professionals stopped caring then participation would largely be tokenistic or people simply wouldn’t be heard. There could be more isolation, apathy, litigation, and civil disorder.

The point was made that even if we care now, many of these things are already happening – especially for those on the periphery and who don’t have a collective voice or access to power.

Can we get more people to care?

There was agreement that we can get more people to care and there are methods to help build buy-in. The engagement process needs to make it easy for people to participate, ensure enough time, meet people where they are and be based on respect and empathy for different perspectives. Those doing the engagement can model this and demonstrate a genuine desire to listen and hear. Communication about the process should be honest about how the public will influence decision making. While we don’t need everyone to care, we need to listen and act with integrity.

Feedback loops are essential. They share how input affects decisions and add to the regular communication about the relevant issues and process. Feedback loops are about sharing successes as well as failures – and give an honest report on who owns the outcome.

==

manel_djemelManel Djemel

À l’occasion de la conférence nord-américaine de l’AIP2 Montréal 2016, un World Café a été organisé lors de la séance plénière d’ouverture. Cet espace d’échange et de partage fut une opportunité pour les conférenciers de communiquer et échanger autour de trois questions sur à la participation publique. Afin d’assurer la pérennité de leurs participations, ils ont esquissé leurs idées sur les supports papier fournis par les soins des organisateurs.

Pourquoi devrions-nous nous préoccuper de la participation du public?

Fut la première question autour de laquelle débattaient les conférenciers. Les opinions étaient divergentes et s’intéressaient essentiellement à l’aspect conséquentialiste de la question. L’argument principal fut la construction de la communauté de la citoyenneté. Toutefois, une résistance apparait quant aux résultats escomptés, vu que parfois les parties prenantes expriment la volonté de participer, sans toutefois que cela matérialise les objectifs dressés en amont.

La durabilité des décisions est aussi un argument en faveur de l’intérêt qu’il faut accorder à ce processus. Cet aspect requiert une attention particulière essentiellement vu qu’il nous engage en tant qu’acteur et citoyen pour assumer une responsabilité prospective (Jonas, 1998) à l’égard des générations futures. C’est aussi un aspect d’une éducation à promouvoir chez eux, afin qu’ils puissent construire leur avenir en adoptant des approches éthiques et participatives.

La construction saine des communautés repose sur la mise en place d’une atmosphère de confiance et de partage. Cela développe le sentiment d’appartenance et la volonté d’engagement chez le citoyen. C’est aussi un moyen de faire place à un plus grand nombre de parties prenantes pour s’exprimer et contribuer au projet. L’intelligence collective est alors, un des facteurs à prendre en considération lors de l’élaboration des projets. Il s’avère que le citoyen est parfois plus informé et conscient des enjeux de développement du projet que les experts qui peuvent parfois ne pas détenir toute l’information. Cette approche permettrait alors de : i) concevoir un « Design élégant », accepté et approprié par les citoyens, ii) permettre la collaboration entre les différentes parties prenantes du projet afin de pallier à la complexité et aux incertitudes générées par les projets, iii) permettre l’autonomisation des communautés et l’instauration d’une culture communautaire intégrée.

La prise de décision est aussi une des préoccupations primordiales dans le débat. Adopter une approche participative est un des piliers du système politique actuel, qui permet une meilleure délibération, et une démocratisation des processus. Les commutés contribuent à cet effet à la construction d’une décision réfléchie et plus responsable.

L’aspect éthique de la participation publique est perçu dans nombreuses recommandations qui évoquent l’empathie, le partage, la prise en compte des dimensions humaines et personnelles, la confiance et la responsabilisation. Toutes ces notions évoquent l’importance de la participation publique dans la construction d’une culture décisionnelle vertueuse et responsable.

Que se passerait-il si nous arrêtons d’en prendre soin?

Fut la deuxième question autour de laquelle s’articulaient les arguments qui pourraient être regroupés en 4 catégories : les aspects philosophiques et éthiques, la prise de décision, les risques sociétaux et la responsabilité rétrospective.

Le souci de l’apathie apparait sous plusieurs aspects et dans différents argumentaires. C’est une crainte généralisée de perdre l’enthousiasme du citoyen et sa démission de la sphère sociale. En effet cela intensifie le sentiment d’outrage et augmente ainsi l’isolement des parties. L’exclusion des parties prenantes et des citoyens du processus de prise de décision aurait des répercussions majeures sur le processus démocratique et sur la qualité des décisions. Ces dernières seraient précipitées, rapides et non réfléchies. Les instances politiques, n’ayant pas une vision éclairée des aléas des projets, des politiques locales et des enjeux du milieu, prendraient des décisions hypothétiques et surréalistes.

Délaisser la participation publique mène à une sous-représentation des communautés et leur exclusion de l’arène décisionnelle. A cet effet, les instances détentrice du droit de décision prendraient des décisions moins durables, et moins équilibrées. Ces risques sont aussi importants dans une prescrive ou cela génère des conflits potentiels et souvent une situation de statuts-co difficilement gérable. La polarisation, est aussi un des aspects évoqués qui luis aussi génère un risque d’échec des projets vu que les voix ne soient pas exprimées et que la participation soit symbolique. Ce qui augmente les risques de révoltes, de désordre civil, de protestations et de manque de cohésion dans la communauté.

La préoccupation du futur et la responsabilité prospective sont aussi une préoccupation générale. Il s’avère que nous devons nous préoccuper non seulement des processus et approches actuelles, mais aussi d’assurer une éducation de participation, de partage et de collaboration. Abandonner la participation publique représente alors une menace sur notre capacité à pourvoir changer le monde et une menace de souffrance face à la perte du sens de l’organisation et de l’esprit commentaire.

À la question pouvons-nous obtenir plus de gens qui s’intéressent ? La réponse fut une affirmation généralisée. Cette perception positive et optimiste de l’avenir s’est traduite par des arguments qui mettent de l’avant l’importance d’engager le processus participatif en amont des projets et de permettre aux acteurs de s’en approprier et s’y identifier.

L’exploration des pistes et moyens passait par des recommandations de partage des expériences ayant du succès et exprimer l’impact positif de participation publique sur la décision. En effet, sensibiliser les acteurs en leurs exposants des modèles de réussites et d’échecs aide à les inciter davantage à s’engager et à construire une culture de collaboration et de partage.  Le temps est un facteur important dans le processus participatif. Les délais et l’implication anticipée encouragent les citoyens à s’engager et facilitent ainsi le processus de recrutement.

Accroitre l’intérêt pour la participation chez les différentes parties prenantes dans les projets passe essentiellement par une politique d’information efficace et transparente. Ces démarches consistent essentiellement à la mise en place de procédure qui favorise de rejoindre les parties prenantes dans leurs lieux (travail, résidences, quartiers, villes, etc.) et de leur exposer les avantages du processus et son impact sur leurs intérêts. La vulgarisation des discours et la simplification des moyens sont un facteur important de réussite de ces démarches qui contribuent à une meilleure compréhension non seulement des enjeux, mais aussi des risques de leur désengagement sur la prise de décision.

Susciter l’intérêt d’un plus grand nombre d’acteurs passe aussi par leur responsabilisation et l’exploration de pistes de recherche d’un meilleur droit et d’une accessibilité accrue à la prise de décision.  La démonstration des valeurs et du respect de la dimension humaine dans le processus participatif accentue l’implication et la volonté de faire part du projet et de la décision.

Les objectifs escomptés par cette approche de stimulation de la participation donnent lieu à une culmination du niveau d’analyse et de conception, ainsi que celui des compétences et d’intégrité. Encourager les acteurs à s’engager dans la participation publique permet une ouverture disciplinaire et de meilleures conditions de prise de décision concertée et réfléchie.

En conclusion l’épreuve du World café a donné lieu à un foisonnement d’idées d’argument et de partage d’expérience. Prendre part de cette expérience fut une opportunité d’expérimenter les avantages de l’exploration de l’intelligence collective et les bénéfices de cette approche participative et de partage.

Références 

Jonas, H., (1998), Le principe responsabilité : une éthique pour la civilisation technologique; traduit de l’allemand par Jean Greisch. Paris : Flammarion 1998, c1990.

President’s message – Oct. 2017

Post-Conference Ruminations

bruce
Bruce Gilbert, IAP2 President

According to participant evaluations from the recent Montreal IAP2 conference most attendees thought the event was a tremendous success. They described it as worthwhile, educational, fun, refreshing and well-organized. I am one of those people. I loved the event. It had a vibe that is difficult to describe or explain. Somehow it felt comfortable and safe while being challenging and daring at the same time. Kudos once again to the organizers who made it all possible.

What I most liked about the conference was that it allowed me to rub shoulders with people different from me. It exposed me to new ideas. It forced me to reflect upon my practice and to question some of my assumptions about P2. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and caused some vague foggy ideas about P2 floating around in my mind to come into focus. With this in mind, below I ruminate on two of my key insights or learnings from the conference. Each is worthy of considerable discussion and debate. Who knows – one or both might even make for an interesting if not raucous future webinar or conference session?

Social movements are important manifestations of P2, but do we care enough about them?

Effective public participation does not always rely on convenors, P2 professionals and organized P2 activities. As case studies from Quebec reminded me, sometimes citizens can just decide that its time to participate. They don’t wait for any decision-maker to invite them to any carefully organized table. They don’t need or want to be facilitated or managed by P2 professionals, although movement organizers can usually be found working behind-the-scenes. In such instances, citizens demand to have a seat at the decision-making table often to the chagrin of decision-makers.

Social movements that bubble up from the grassroots may be messy for some, but they are also important. They demonstrate participatory democracy-in-action. They make change happen. They give people hope and remind them of their responsibilities as citizens. Some practitioners may consider such movements to be ‘outside’ of our well-established professional ‘P2 framing’. I think it is, or should be, framed ‘inside’. Indeed, I think this dimension of grassroots civic participation gets short shrift in our P2 practitioner world.

Some questions I would like us to consider and hopefully discuss in this regard are: Is there a role for professional P2 practitioners in social movements? If yes, how and where can/should we get involved? What is the role of the P2 practitioner when decision-makers ‘brush off’ the empowered and advancing publics? Do we lose credibility among those with the resources to pay us – such as government decision-makers – when we work to support social movements that challenge the status quo (and which often do not have resources to pay us)? Doesn’t our own ‘need to earn a living’ put us on the side of the status quo, and if yes are we happy there? How can we make our skills and abilities available to those who need support but cannot afford to pay?

Decision-makers are important to P2, but where are they?

A big part of any P2 practitioner’s job is to find effective ways to connect the views, ideas and insights of the public (citizens and/or stakeholder groups/interests) with decision-makers. As such, practitioners often serve as brokers or mediators between two groups (i.e., those with something to say and those who decide things). In my view we spend most of our P2 practitioner time talking about how to engage the former not the latter. Clearly, most of our P2 focus is on tools, techniques and approaches for engaging the public.

But what about the decision-makers? Aren’t they – particularly the senior ones – absolutely essential for effective P2? Don’t they also need to be sold on and fully supportive of P2 for it to be meaningful and effective? If they are actually the beneficiaries of P2, as we so often state, why aren’t they more enthused about P2? Why are so few of them members of IAP2? Why were so few at the conference? Why are P2 budgets so often the first to get cut in times of corporate or government restraint? Do senior executive and politicians really care about P2, or are they just doing enough to get by?

In my view, we need to urgently engage decision-makers at the highest levels in a dialogue about P2 with emphasis on its value to them, their organization, society and democracy. But when we do this we will also need to be honest with them bout the limits of P2. We will need to acknowledge that P2 is not the solution to every problem. We will need to be prepared to hear that P2 can cause problems for decision-makers especially when wildly divergent public views on a topic ensure that at least some forces will become hostile to the decision-makers once a decision on a matter is finally taken.

When it comes to government decision-makers, we will need to be ready to discuss how the somewhat uneasy ‘mash-up’ of representative and participatory democracy unfolding in Western societies since the 60s has caused and is causing problems for some (many?) elected officials. Simply put, most politicians see their role as ‘representing, advocating and speaking for their constituents’. As such, for some elected officials at least, P2 can be seen as a threat. Some believe that their role is diminished or lessened when outside P2 professionals arrive to gather input from the people (“Hey – that’s my job!”). In their eyes, an uninvited P2 participatory democracy ‘guest’ has ‘barged into’ the traditional and well-established representative democracy system that they actually signed up for.

Suffice to say, there are some skeptical decision-makers out there and we need to talk to them. We need to help them understand how P2 does not demand a weakened role for them, but rather requires that politicians play a more mature and facilitative role. If we do our job well, and help them to develop the skills they will need in their new roles, many will likely be delighted to discover that decision-makers who champion effective P2 also often do extremely well on voting day.

Thanks for your time! Reactions, counterpoints, rants and comedic-responses all gratefully accepted!

Sincerely,

Bruce

Thank you to our volunteers!

IAP2 Canada and IAP2 USA would like to thank the following committees for their hard work and commitment to excellence:

L’AIP2 Canada et l’AIP2 E-U souhaitent remercier les comités suivants pour leur travail acharné et leur poursuite de l’excellence:

North American Conference Steering Committee

Comité directeur, Conférence nord-américaine

Hugo Mimee, co-chair/co-président – Hydro-Québec

David Pensato, co-chair/co-président – The Distillery

Anthea Brown – Bang The Table

Natalie Henault, MNP

Julie Reid Forget – Transfert Environnement et Société

Amelia Shaw, staff/membre du personnel, IAP2 Canada &  IAP2 USA

Sponsorship Committee Comité Commandites

Julie Reid Forget – Transfert Environnement et Société

Natalie Henault – MNP

Anne Harding – Suncor

Hugo Mimee – Hydro-Québec

Program Committee Comité programmation

Isabelle Verrault, Coordinator/Coordinatrice – Hill+Knowlton

Anthea Brown, Coordinator/Coordinatrice – Bang The Table

Anik Pouliot – Office de consultation publique de Montréal

Janis Crawford – Hydro-Québec

Susan Freig – Freig & Associates

Isabelle Lachance – Transfert Environnement et Société

Stéphane Bérubé – Santé Canada

Stefanie Wells – Office de consultation publique de Montréal

Constance Ramacière – BRAC

Comité Saint-Laurent

Alexandra Boileau, Coordinator/coordinatrice – Transfert Environnement et Société

Simon Chauvette, Coordinator/coordinateur, Hill+Knowlton

Jimmy Duchesneau – Association pour la protection de l’environnement du lac Saint-Charles et des Marais du Nord (APEL)

Anick Patendaude, Consultante indépendante

Alice Miquet – La Maison d’Aurore

Sara-Maude Boyer, Ville de Montréal

Frédéric Marois – Mobili-T

Lindsay Wiginton, Pembina Institute

Our Conference volunteers Les bénévoles de la Conférence

Valerie Andreetta                                                Jessie Larouche Couture

Matthieu Bardin                                                  Gabriel Larue

Anis Belabbas                                                       Marie-Ève Maillé

Sophie Blanchet                                                   Frédéric Marois

Maxime Boutaghou Courtemanche              Michelle Reimer

Sara-Maude Boyer-Gendron                           Sylvain Rodrigue

Alex Fortin                                                             Anne Roudaut

Laurence Goulet-Beaudry                                 Yvonne Suarez

Olivier Trudeau                                                     Florence Vuille

Stéfanie Wells                                                        Élise Naud

Johanne Savard                                                      Danny King

 

Conférence nord-américaine 2016 de l’AIP2

IAP2_Conference_FRAlors … était-ce une simple question rhétorique?

Il semble que 241 personnes travaillant dans le domaine de la P2 n’étaient pas de cet avis, puisqu’elles étaient présentes lors d’une conférence qui affichait complet au Sofitel de Montréal, en septembre. Venues du Canada, des États-Unis, de l’Australie, de la France et de la Suisse, elles ont tenté de trouver des réponses à cette question et aux autres sous-thèmes proposés, tels que « Pourquoi les gens devraient-ils s’y intéresser? », « Comment pourrions-nous faire en sorte que plus de gens s’y intéressent? » et « Que se passerait-il si les gens cessaient de s’y intéresser? ».

img_8172Dès la séance d’ouverture, présentée sous forme de world café sur ce thème, et tout au long des séances traitant de sujets tels que l’engagement des collectivités autochtones, la dynamisation de processus de P2 à l’aide de communications plus captivantes et la mise en application de principes de participation publique à la suite de la catastrophe survenue à Lac-Mégantic, tout comme dans les discours des conférenciers invités, la conférence a su trouver des réponses à ces questions et lancer de nouvelles discussions.

Il va sans dire que cette conférence a permis de mobiliser une quantité de connaissances exceptionnelle. Pour ceux qui n’ont pas pu y assister, nous avons publié en ligne les différentes séances présentées tout au long de l’événement, ainsi que les ressources, les diapositives et les descriptions des séances. Vous trouverez également en ligne les vidéos de nos deux conférenciers invités, J-P Gladu, du Conseil canadien pour le commerce autochtone, et Dicki Chhoyang, anciennement membre de la première Administration Centrale Tibétaine.

img_8138Ce fut un événement très agréable, une occasion de discuter des enjeux qui nous préoccupent, de renouer avec d’anciens amis, de faire de nouvelles connaissances et de se ressourcer en côtoyant des gens qui partagent notre passion de la P2. Et puisque l’événement était organisé à Montréal, ville cosmopolite par excellence où tout est sans cesse en mouvement (à l’exception de la circulation sur la rue Sherbrooke!), les participants ont pu profiter d’une foule d’activités dans leurs temps libres.

Bien entendu, rien de tout cela n’aurait été possible sans le travail des bénévoles. En effet, quelque 45 personnes ont œuvré au sein du comité directeur, du comité de programmation et du Comité Saint-Laurent – responsable des événements locaux liés à la conférence, et ont apporté leur aide tout au long de la conférence, à la table d’inscription et dans de nombreuses autres occasions. Nous sommes très reconnaissants envers chacune de ces 45 personnes et souhaitons les remercier chaleureusement pour toutes les heures qu’elles ont consacrées à cette conférence.

The 2016 IAP2 North American Conference

IAP2-LogoInUse-JAN2016 (1)So … was that a rhetorical question?

Apparently, 241 people involved with P2 didn’t think so: turning out for a sold-out conference at the Sofitel in Montréal at the end of September. They came from across Canada and the US, and from Australia, France and Switzerland to discuss and come up with answers to that question and the sub-topics – Why should people care? How can we get more people to care? And What would happen if people stopped caring?

img_20160929_131203235From the opening plenary, which featured a world café on the theme; through the sessions, which covered topics such as: engaging Indigenous communities, spicing up a P2 process with more exciting communications and putting P2 principles to work following the Lac Mégantic disaster; to the keynote speeches; the conference found answers to those questions and opened up new discussions.img_7883

There was a lot of knowledge being mobilized, so for those of you who missed it, we’ve posted the session presentations online, along with resources, slides and session descriptions. There are also the videos of our two keynote speakers, J-P Gladu of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business and Dicki Chhoyang, formerly of the Central Tibetan Administration.

It was, in all, a Really Good Time: a chance to talk shop; see old friends again and meet new ones; and get refreshed while hanging out with people who “get” P2. And with it all happening in exciting, cosmopolitan Montréal, where things are always moving (except traffic on Sherbrooke Street), there was plenty to do during the “down-time”.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the volunteers: no fewer than 45 people worked on the Steering Committee, the Program Committee, the Comité Saint-Laurent, which was responsible for local, conference-related events, and helped out during the conference itself on the registration table and in other capacities. We are grateful to every one of them for the hours they put in.

==

Truth and Reconciliation: A Crisis Management Plan Template from Canada

(a view from south of the border by Debra Duerr, IAP2 USA Conference Participant)

I’m thinking about the deplorable dissolution of respect and empathy for other people in our country these days. Who isn’t, right? Here’s a brave conflict resolution strategy from our northern friends that we could do well to take seriously.

I’m exceedingly fond of Canada, having grown up a slingshot distance over the mighty Niagara. And so I appreciate the many fine things our neighbors have given us: (1) hockey, (2) everything else including poutine, curling, moose, tuques, refugee Albertans in January, Stan Rogers and Loreena McKennitt, an excuse to speak French, the polar vortex, and fine airports so we can go visit them.

But at our recent IAP2 conference in Montreal I learned about a new gift that could top them all (except perhaps hockey). Ever the more sensitive and kind species living on North America, the Canadians have taken it upon themselves to recognize and face head-on the subject of colonialism and the resulting cultural genocide of its aboriginal people over the last four centuries. They call it Truth and Reconciliation. Can anyone think of two more powerful concepts?

debra-duerr-1The implications for us Americans are equally powerful, when we observe our history with Native Americans, the Black Lives Matter movement, the current political discourse over immigration and immigrants, the whole issue of environmental justice. What wounds does “mainstream” America need to mend, and how could we begin?

Here’s what the Canadians think it requires, in their Principles of Reconciliation:

  • Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires public truth sharing, apology, and commemoration that acknowledge and redress past harms.
  • Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust building, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources.

And, oh by the way, they’ve actually developed an amazing compendium of action items to reveal Truth and start Reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Offers 94 Calls to Action), which were actually printed in the national media.

Do we have it in us/U.S. to remodel our community interactions in a humanistic way?

Learn more at: National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation http://nctr.ca/reports.php

“honoring the truth, reconciling for the future”