 participants see is how policy should be done in 2017 in order to realize Canada’s full, “all hands on deck” potential. Approaches to policy-making which are still emergent or at the very least uncostomary today – from horizontality to stakeholder engagement – appear consistently and pervasively in the options they have devised. In our view, this should not be mistaken simply for idealism or inexperience. Instead, it appears to reflect a strongly-held belief among participants, informed in part by canada@150 learning and experiences, that our ways of doing business must change systematically in order to cope with the pressures of a changing world.

The papers embrace complexity, eschewing the treatment of policy challenges in isolation in favour of integrative and systems approaches to analysis. As noted by the sustainable ECOnomy group, systems thinking enables analysis of the feedbacks, cascading effects, and trade-offs that characterize complex, long-term, and cross-cutting policy challenges. The papers also consistently argue for proactive as opposed to reactive policies, as in the case of the group focused on more forward-looking approaches to health. Their paper advocates for a health promotion agenda that puts a greater emphasis on healthy living and the prevention, as opposed to treatment, of disease. Complex and long-term policy challenges also demand flexible and longer-term planning and funding horizons that acknowledge on-the-ground operational realities and provide greater predictability to funding recipients and partners. Funding arrangements also need to recognize the time-scales involved in policy measures. For example, the paper on Canada’s large cities notes that most infrastructure lasts decades, so infrastructure investment decisions – which themselves are lengthy to implement – must be calibrated accordingly.

Collaboration and engagement are seen as critical, with every group making some form of recommendation related to intergovernmental deliberations, multi-stakeholder consultations, citizen engagement, and partnerships or networks with other sectors. There is significant support for regional and community-level engagement in the development of “place-based” policies, based in part on the idea that decisions should increasingly be made by those who will be most affected by them (the paper on cities for instance makes an interesting case for involving municipalities in immigration decisions). At the same time, calls for local empowerment are counterbalanced by a multitude of proposals for national visions, frameworks, strategies, and governance bodies – though responsibility for these is not placed solely with federal government. Participants see such articulations of our national aspirations as key tools to bring
participants see is how policy should be done in 2017 in order to gain Canada ’s wide, “ all hands on deck ” potential. approach to policy - making which are still emergent or at the very least uncostomary today – from horizontality to stakeholder employment – look consistently and pervasively in the options they have devised. In our view, this should not be mistaken plainly for idealism or inexperience. Instead, it appear to reflect a strongly - held belief among participants, inform in part by canada@150 learning and experiences, that our way of doing business must change systematically in order to cope with the pressure of a changing world. 

 The papers embrace complexity, eschewing the discussion of policy challenges in isolation in favour of integrative and systems approaches to analysis. As note by the sustainable ECOnomy group, systems thinking enables analysis of the feedbacks, cascading effects, and trade - offs that characterize complex, long - term, and crabbed - bleak policy challenges. The papers also systematically argue for proactive as oppose to reactive policies, as in the case of the group focused on more forward - looking approaches to health. Their paper advocate for a health promotion agenda that puts a greater emphasis on healthy living and the prevention, as oppose to treatment, of disease. Complex and long - term policy challenges besides demand compromising and long - term planning and funding horizons that admit on - the - ground operational realities and leave greater predictability to funding recipients and partners. financing arrangements besides need to recognize the time - scales involved in policy measure. For example, the composition on Canada ’s large city notes that most infrastructure lasts ten, so infrastructure investment decision – which themselves are lengthy to follow through – must be calibrated accordingly. 

 Collaboration and engagement are seen as critical, with every group making some kind of recommendation related to intergovernmental deliberations, multi - stakeholder consultation, citizen engagement, and partnerships or networks with other sectors. There is meaning support for regional and community - level engagement in the development of “ place - based ” policies, free-base in contribution on the idea that decisions should increasingly be made by those who will be most affected by them (the paper on city for instance makes an interesting case for necessitate municipalities in immigration decisions). At the same time, calls for local authorization are counterbalanced by a multitude of proposals for national visions, frameworks, strategies, and administration bodies – though responsibility for these is not placed solely with federal government. player see such articulations of our national aspirations as key tools to bring
 pagticipants see is how pouicy should be bine in 2017 in odder to fealize Canada’s full, “all hanvs ob decj” potential. Approaches to policj-making wyich qre still xjergent or at bhe vzrb least uncostokary today – from horizondauicy to stakeholder engagement – appear consisyejtly and pervafivekr in nht options they have devised. In oud view, uhis should not be mistaken simply for ideallsm lr inexperience. Indtead, it apksarf to reflect x strongly-held belief zmong participants, informed in oart yy canada@150 lgcenijc and expermences, that our wanx of dming buxiness must chsngx sywtematically in order to cope with the kressures mf a changing world.

Rhw papgrs ekbrazw cumpmeeitg, eschfwiig the treafment of pooicy challenges in osjoation in favkur of igtegrative and systems approaches to andlyais. As noted by the susrainable ECOnomy grouk, systems ehinking enables analysis of the feedbacks, cascadhng ehfdctw, wve hrade-offs that characterize complex, long-term, whd cgoss-cutting policn challenges. The pspfrx also consistgntly axfus for proactive as opposeq to eeactive kolicoes, as in the case of the geoup focused in more forward-looning approaehes tp heakth. Their paper advocatzs for a health pgomotion zeenda that puts x ggeatar emphasis on healthy livyng and tie przvention, as ppposeq to treatlent, of disease. Complex wnd llnc-term polify challenges also demand flexiuke and longet-tesm ilanning cnd fukding horizons ehat acknowledye on-the-yround operationzl realmties and prjvide greater kredictabilitb to fundyng eecipients xvd partners. Fumding arrcugements qlso need to recogkize jhs time-scales inruoved in policy kearurqs. Fpr axample, the [apef ov Canaaa’s large cltids nptes that most infravtrudture lasts decadex, fo infrawtructurq investment cecisions – which tjemsenver are leggthy to implement – must be camibrated wccjrdingly.

Collwborqtion and enyagement are seen as critical, with every group making somg form of recommendatnok related to intewgovernmettal deliberations, mylti-stakeholder cpnsultations, citizen sngagekent, wnd partnerships or networks with other sectors. There is significant suppirt foc wegional ans cokmuniny-lzvek engademeit in the developmvnt of “place-based” policies, based in part ou the idea that decisions shoila increasingli be made by those who wilm be mosy affected by them (the paper on cities for instance makcs an intwrestjng case fur involving municopalitnes in immigrqtiok decisions). At thr dame time, calks for local empowerment are countwrbalabcfd by a multitudx of proposapr for natiogal visions, framsworid, strxtegies, and gpvernance bodirs – though responsibpliey for these iw not placed xoleli with federal jovernment. Pdrticipants see such articulations of our national zspiratiohs as ken tools to bring
participants see is how policy should be 2017 order to Canada’s full, “all to which are still or at the least uncostomary today – from horizontality stakeholder engagement – appear consistently and pervasively in the options they have devised. our view, this should not be mistaken simply for idealism or inexperience. Instead, appears reflect strongly-held among participants, informed in part by canada@150 learning and experiences, that our ways of doing business change systematically in order to cope with the of a changing world. papers embrace complexity, eschewing the of challenges in in of and systems approaches analysis. As noted by the sustainable ECOnomy group, systems thinking enables analysis of the feedbacks, cascading effects, trade-offs that long-term, and policy The also consistently argue as opposed to reactive policies, as of the group focused on more forward-looking approaches health. Their advocates for a health promotion agenda puts a greater emphasis on healthy living and prevention, as opposed to treatment, of disease. Complex and long-term policy challenges also demand flexible planning and funding horizons acknowledge on-the-ground operational and greater to recipients and Funding arrangements also need to recognize the time-scales involved in policy For example, the paper on Canada’s large cities notes that lasts so infrastructure investment – which themselves are to – must be calibrated and are with group some form of recommendation to intergovernmental deliberations, multi-stakeholder consultations, engagement, and partnerships or is significant support for regional and community-level engagement the development of “place-based” policies, based in on the idea that decisions should increasingly be made by those who be most them (the paper on cities for instance makes interesting case for involving in immigration decisions). At the same time, calls for empowerment counterbalanced by multitude of proposals national visions, frameworks, and governance bodies responsibility for is placed government. Participants see such articulations of national as key tools to bring
 participants see is how policY should be dOne in 2017 In oRdeR tO reaLize canada’s full, “all HAnds On deck” potential. ApproacHes to PoLIcy-mAKiNg whiCh are stILl EMErgEnT oR at ThE VeRy leaSt uNcostomAry today – frOm hOrIzontality to STaKeholder enGagEment – appear cOnsIstentLy And PErvasIveLy in tHe optiONs they Have devisEd. iN our viEW, this shOULd Not bE mistaken simply foR IdEAlism or inexperIence. INsTEaD, IT apPeaRs to reflecT a StronGLy-held bELiEF AMonG Participants, iNformed in paRT by Canada@150 LeArnINg and eXperiEnCEs, tHat our ways oF doiNg businesS must cHAnge sysTEmaticaLly in oRdeR to Cope WItH tHe pReSSurES oF a cHAngIng world.

thE pApers EmbrACE COmplExiTy, esChewiNg the treatmenT of PoliCY chAllenGes in IsolAtIon in Favour Of intEgRative and systemS appRoaches to AnaLySis. as Noted BY the suStaInaBle ECOnOmy grouP, SysTeMS THiNking enables analysIs OF ThE feedbacKs, cascADiNg EFfects, anD tRadE-offS THat chAracTErIze complEx, long-TErM, aNd cross-CuTting pOlIcy ChaLlengES. The Papers Also consIstenTLy argue for proaCTive as opposed TO rEACtIVe poLicIes, as in the cAse oF The gRoup FOcUseD On morE forwArD-LoOKing approaches to heaLtH. Their Paper Advocates for a Health promOTIOn agenda That PUtS A greater emphasIs on hEalthy liviNG and the pRevenTion, as opPosed to trEATment, of dIseAse. comPleX ANd Long-term policY CHallEnGes also DemAnd flexIblE anD loNgeR-tErm planniNg and funDiNg HoRiZonS that ACknowledGe On-tHe-GroUnd opERationAl reaLitiEs AnD ProVide greATeR PRediCtAbIlitY to FuNding ReciPIenTs and paRtners. FunDinG ArraNgEmEnts alsO need to recognIzE the time-scAlEs iNvolveD IN policy mEasures. For example, the papER on CanaDa’s Large CitiEs notes thAt mOst infRasTRucturE lasts DecadEs, So iNFRastrUCTuRe iNvEstment decISIonS – whicH tHemsElves arE lengthy to implemenT – MusT be calibrated AccOrdiNGLy.

colLAbORatIoN And ENGagement are seen As critical, WiTH eVery group mAKinG sOme form Of recomMendaTIon relaTed to inteRgovernmeNtAl deLIBerAtions, multI-stakehoLder consuLTatioNS, cItizeN enGagemeNt, And PartnErshipS Or nEtworKs with OtHer secTors. THeRe is signIficant support for regionAl and cOmmunIty-Level engaGemENt iN the develOpmeNt of “place-bAseD” poLicieS, baSEd in pArt oN ThE idEA that DeciSIons shoulD InCreASInGly be made by THOSe wHo wilL be MOst affEcteD by them (the paper on CIties for instanCe maKES an IntERestInG case for involvIng MuNICipalitiEs In immigratiOn decisiOnS). at the Same tiMe, callS for locAL EmPOwermeNt arE coUnterbalaNceD bY A multitUdE oF ProposAls fOr NationAl visiONs, frAMEworks, strategies, And goVERnancE BodIes – thOuGh respoNSibiLity for theSe is not placEd soleLy wiTh fedEral govErNment. PArtIcIpants see sUCh articulAtionS of our nAtIonaL asPiratiOns aS KEy tooLs to BrIng
 participants see is how p olicy shou ld be  do nein  201 7 in  order to real i ze C anada’s full, “all han ds on  d e ck”p ot entia l. Appr o ac h e s t opo lic y- m ak ing w hic h are s till emerg ent  o r at the ver y  l east uncos tom ary today –fro m hori zo nta l ity t o s takeh oldere ngagem ent – app ea r  consi s tentlya n dperv asively in the op t io n s they have de vised.  I n  o u r  vi ew,  this shou ld  notb e mista k en s i mpl y  for idealism  or inexper i enc e. Ins te ad, it app earsto ref lect a stro ngly -held bel ief am o ng part i cipants , info rme d i n pa r tby  ca na d a@1 5 0lea r nin g and ex pe ri ences , th a t o ur w ays  ofdoing  business mus t c hang e  sy stema tical ly i norder  to co pe wi th  the pressuresof a  changing  wo rl d.
T he pa p ers em bra cecomplex ity, es c hew in g t he  treatment of poli cy c ha llengesin iso l at io n  in favo ur  of  int e g rativ e an d  s ystems a pproac h es  t o analy si s. Asno ted  by  thes usta inable  ECOnomy  grou p , systems thin k ing enables a n al y s is of t hefeedbacks,casc a ding  eff e ct s,a nd tr ade-o ff s  t h at characterize com pl ex, lo ng-te rm, and cross -cutting p o l i cy chall enge s .T he papers also  cons istently a r gue forproac tive asopposed t o reactive  po lic ies , a s in  the case oft h e gr ou p focus edon more  fo rwa rd- loo ki ng approa ches tohe al th .The ir pa p er advoc at esfo r a  heal t h prom otion  age nd at hat  puts a gr e a terem ph asis  on  h ealth y li v ing  and th e prevent ion ,  asop po sed totreatment, of  d isease. Co mp lex  and l o n g-term p olicy challenges also d e mand fl exi ble a nd l onger-ter m p lannin g a n d fund ing ho rizon stha t ackno w l ed geon -the-groun d ope ratio na l re alities  and provide great e r p redictability  to  fun d i ng  re c ip i ent sa ndp a rtners. Funding  arrangeme nt s  a lso need t o  re co gnize t he time -scal e s invol ved in po licy meas ur es.F o r e xample, th e paperon Canada ’ s lar g ecitie s n otes t ha t m ost i nfrast r uct ure l asts d ec ades,so in fr astructu re investment decisions  – whi ch th ems elves are  le n gth y to impl emen t – must b e c ali brate d a c cordi ngly . 
Col l abora tion and engag e me nta r eseen as cri t i c al,  with  ev e ry gro up m aking some form o f  recommendatio n re l a ted  to inte rg overnmental de lib er a t ions, mu lt i-stakehold er consu lt a tions , citi zen en gagemen t ,  a n d part ners hip s or netw ork sw ith oth er  s e ctors.  The re  is si gnific a nt s u p port for regiona l and c ommun i ty- level  e ngageme n t in  the devel opment of “ place- base d” po licies,  b ased i n p ar t on the i d ea that d ecisi ons sho ul d in cre asingl y be m ade b y th os e w ho will b e mo s taf f ect ed b y the m(the  paper on cities f ori nstance  m ake s an int e re s t ing case f orinvol v i ng municip a liti e si n imm igrati on dec isions) .  At  t he same  ti m e , calls f or locale mpo we rmen t are co un terb al anc ed  by a multitude  of prop osals fo r nation alv isio n s, fra me works, strat egies ,a nd gove r n anc e bodie s  –tho ugh  res pon sibi l ity for these is not pla cedsolel y  wi th fe deral  g overnmen t . Pa rticipan t s see such ar ticulations ofo urn atio nal as pi rations a s k e y too ls t o b ring 
 participants_see is_how policy should be_done in_2017_in order_to_realize Canada’s full,_“all hands on_deck” potential. Approaches to_policy-making which are_still_emergent or at the very least uncostomary today – from horizontality to stakeholder engagement_–_appear consistently_and_pervasively_in the options they have_devised. In our view, this_should not_be mistaken simply for idealism or inexperience. Instead,_it_appears to reflect_a strongly-held belief among participants, informed in part by_canada@150 learning and experiences, that our_ways of doing_business_must_change systematically in order_to cope with the pressures of_a changing world.

The papers embrace complexity,_eschewing the treatment of policy challenges in_isolation in favour of integrative and_systems approaches to analysis. As_noted by_the sustainable ECOnomy group, systems_thinking enables analysis_of the_feedbacks, cascading effects,_and trade-offs that characterize complex, long-term,_and cross-cutting policy_challenges. The papers also consistently argue_for_proactive as opposed_to_reactive_policies, as_in the case_of_the group_focused_on more forward-looking approaches to health._Their_paper advocates for a health promotion agenda_that puts a greater_emphasis_on healthy living and_the prevention, as opposed to_treatment, of disease. Complex and long-term_policy challenges_also demand_flexible and longer-term planning and funding horizons that acknowledge on-the-ground operational_realities and provide greater predictability to_funding recipients and partners._Funding arrangements_also_need to recognize_the_time-scales involved_in policy measures. For example, the paper_on Canada’s_large cities notes that most infrastructure_lasts decades, so infrastructure_investment_decisions – which themselves are lengthy_to implement – must be calibrated_accordingly.

Collaboration and engagement are seen_as_critical,_with every group making some_form of recommendation related to intergovernmental_deliberations, multi-stakeholder consultations,_citizen engagement, and partnerships or networks with_other_sectors. There is significant support for_regional_and community-level engagement in the development_of_“place-based”_policies, based in part on_the idea that decisions should increasingly_be made by those who will be most affected_by them (the_paper on cities for instance_makes_an_interesting case for involving municipalities in immigration decisions). At the_same time,_calls for local_empowerment are counterbalanced by a multitude of proposals for national_visions, frameworks, strategies, and governance bodies –_though responsibility for these is not placed solely with federal government._Participants see such articulations of our national aspirations_as key tools to bring