As part of our commitment to enriching the learning experience for our MPP students, we were privileged to host a diverse group of guest speakers this winter and spring. These experts brought their unique insights from across the public policy landscape, offering students valuable opportunities to engage with real-world issues during informal lunchtime sessions held between classes.听
Marie-Jo毛lle Zahar听
In January, we welcomed Marie-Jo毛lle Zahar (MJ), an academic voice in the field of peace and conflict studies, a scholar-practitioner with deep roots in the University of Montreal and a lived connection to Lebanon鈥檚 civil war, Zahar鈥檚 career has been driven by an enduring question: 鈥淲hy were we killing each other, and how could it be stopped?鈥� Her answer is anything but conventional.听
Growing up amidst Lebanon鈥檚 turbulent civil war, Zahar witnessed firsthand the chaos and devastation of entrenched conflict. Yet, rather than accept the narratives offered by politicians or media, she chose to look deeper. 鈥淲ar was treated like an inevitability,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ut what fascinated me was how systems of violence became systems of governance.鈥� This inquiry shaped her groundbreaking research on non-state armed actors鈥攇roups often dismissed as 鈥減roxies鈥� or 鈥渓awless militias.鈥� Zahar turned that narrative on its head, arguing that these groups were, in fact, engaged in what she calls 鈥渟tate mimicry,鈥� creating complex organizations to establish legitimacy. Her dissertation explored how this institutionalization altered their willingness and ability to negotiate, challenging stereotypes and forcing policymakers to reconsider their approaches to conflict resolution.听
She became deeply skeptical of power-sharing agreements, a cornerstone of many peace processes. While celebrated for promoting democracy and stability, Zahar argued these agreements often achieve the opposite. 鈥淧ower-sharing doesn鈥檛 heal divisions; it cements them,鈥� she asserted, pointing to Lebanon and Bosnia as examples of how these frameworks institutionalize sectarianism and create governance deadlocks. For Zahar, this critique is a call to reimagine peace processes that don鈥檛 simply manage conflict but seek to transform its root causes.听
Conrad Sauv茅听
In February, Conrad Sauv茅, President and CEO of the Canadian Red Cross, shared insights into the changing landscape of disaster response in Canada and the organization鈥檚 evolving role amid growing climate risks.听
Reflecting on the Red Cross鈥檚 historic legacy鈥攆rom providing food parcels during the World Wars to its status as a pan-Canadian nonprofit鈥擲auv茅 emphasized the organization鈥檚 unique position. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 see ourselves as a typical NGO,鈥� he explained. Rather, the Canadian Red Cross functions as an independent auxiliary to the state, with an annual budget ranging from $600 to $800 million. This relationship enables them to deploy expertise internationally while strengthening domestic disaster capacity.听
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Red Cross initially questioned its role but soon took on major responsibilities, including managing quarantine operations for those entering Canada. Over the past decade, domestic operations have dramatically increased, now comprising 89% of activities, with the rest focused internationally.听听
Canada鈥檚 disaster response has proven strong in reaction, but Sauv茅 stressed the need for a proactive 鈥渃ulture of preparedness.鈥� He noted that while the federal government lacked a comprehensive review during COVID-19, provinces are increasingly building their own emergency reserves鈥攕ometimes in siloed ways鈥攈ighlighting a fragmented national approach.听
Conrad Sauv茅 also emphasized the urgent need to address the disproportionate impact of disasters on Indigenous communities, whose vulnerability is deeply connected to colonial histories and geographic marginalization. He called for inclusive, equity-centered approaches to ensure that disaster response and preparedness efforts effectively reach those most at risk.听
Paul Wells听
In April and leading up to Canada鈥檚 recent federal election, journalist Paul Wells discussed 鈥渢he most interesting election鈥� he鈥檇 covered in his long career. Having reported on ten federal elections, Wells noted that this one was different鈥攏ot because of a singular dramatic event, but because of 鈥渄eeper shifts reshaping Canadian politics and how the country fits into an unstable global landscape.鈥澨�
At the center of Liberal hopes was Mark Carney, the former head of two central banks. Carney had the international stature and credentials, but, as Wells recounted, 鈥淗e told a stranger he doesn鈥檛 want to campaign 鈥� he just wants to be prime minister.鈥� That reluctance showed. He paused his campaign twice, citing events in the U.S. under Trump, a move that 鈥渞aised eyebrows even within Liberal circles.鈥� Carney鈥檚 reputation for running high-pressure offices where disagreement wasn鈥檛 welcome might have suited central banking, Wells argued, 鈥渂ut leading a political party... would demand more flexibility and openness than Carney had shown so far.鈥澨�
In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre had been positioning himself for years. 鈥淗e鈥檚 a formidable debater and a skilled demagogue,鈥� Wells said plainly. Raised in a working-class household and deeply committed to conservative politics since his youth, Poilievre鈥檚 popularity in Ontario and Quebec had been consistently underestimated. His rhetoric鈥攍ike threatening to defund 鈥渨oke鈥� universities or aligning with Elon Musk鈥攊nvited comparisons to Trump, but Wells emphasized that Poilievre had found a way to channel economic frustration into a message that resonated across broad swaths of the electorate.听
What made this election truly distinct, Wells argued, was the context. 鈥淐anada needs to make large decisions and shifts on the order of what you need to do after a war,鈥� he said. With the country emerging from the pandemic, grappling with geopolitical uncertainty, and navigating economic instability, there was a question of whether Canada would actively shape the international landscape or simply respond to it.听
Sarah Kapnick听
听
听
听
听
听
听
In May, Dr. Sarah Kapnick offered a compelling account of her journey from pure mathematics to climate science and ultimately into the financial world as a climate strategist. Dr. Kapnick, who most recently served as a managing director and senior climate scientist at J.P. Morgan and was previously the Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) , spoke candidly about how her early passion for game theory and research at Princeton shaped her trajectory.听
鈥淚 couldn鈥檛 devote my life to something where no one understood what I was talking about,鈥� she reflected, explaining her shift from theoretical math to the tangible, high-stakes world of climate finance. Encouraged by honest advice that transformative work often lies outside traditional spaces, Kapnick pursued a PhD and embraced interdisciplinary approaches to climate modeling and impact prediction.听
Her career has since spanned NOAA鈥檚 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, where she focused on climate variability and water security, to advising investment strategy at J.P. Morgan. There, she helped clients prepare for a new climate reality, one in which relying on historical models leaves systems 鈥� and assets 鈥� dangerously exposed. 鈥淧lanning based on the past will not protect you in the future,鈥� she cautioned.听
Kapnick also highlighted the importance of tailoring communication across sectors. Whether working with investors or food security experts, she emphasized the need to translate complex climate insights into actionable strategies. 鈥淓ven if people have strong beliefs, you need to understand their market, their priorities,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he science of communication is as rigorous as the science itself.鈥澨�
Peter MacLeod听
听
听
听
听
听
听
听
In May, Peter MacLeod, founder and principal of MASS LBP and one of Canada鈥檚 leading voices on deliberative democracy, spoke about the evolving relationship between governments and the public. Since founding MASS in 2007, MacLeod has led more than 200 major policy projects across Canada, pioneering tools like Civic Lotteries and Citizen Reference Panels to reshape how ordinary people engage with complex policy issues.听
Reflecting on two decades of experience and the participation of over 2,000 Canadians in deliberative processes, MacLeod emphasized that the typical town hall model often fails to create meaningful dialogue. He described how public meetings tend to heighten emotional volatility鈥攙oices tremble, nerves dominate, and constructive contributions get drowned out. The lesson for officials, he warned, is often misread; they see only anger and polarization. 鈥淲e need better ways to work with the public,鈥� he argued, 鈥渨ays that invite calm, informed discussion rather than confrontation.鈥澨�
MacLeod traced the roots of Canada鈥檚 modern deliberative experiments to British Columbia in 2004, where a broken electoral outcome led the provincial government to try something unprecedented. Rather than convening a traditional royal commission, BC launched the first modern Citizens鈥� Assembly in Canada. Ordinary people were asked to devote several weekends to explore electoral reform. The result? A recommendation for change that won 58% of the public vote鈥攋ust shy of the 60% threshold needed for implementation. Still, the momentum sparked interest beyond the province, prompting Ontario to follow suit.听
Throughout the discussion, MacLeod stressed the need for public imagination, for creating structures where citizens can engage meaningfully鈥攏ot just shout from the sidelines. In an age of democratic fatigue, MacLeod鈥檚 vision offers a hopeful blueprint, not for abandoning institutions, but for deepening them with the voices of the people they serve.听
Kai Koizumi
听
听
听
听
听
听
In May, Kai Koizumi, who previously served as the Principal Deputy Director for Policy for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, emphasized that science policy should be guided by a clear vision鈥攂oth personal and societal鈥攁nd that this vision should shape how science and technology are used to tackle global challenges. He used the CHIPS and Science Act as an example of how policy can drive scientific progress, noting its goal to boost domestic semiconductor research and manufacturing in the U.S. He pointed out that policies need to align with both economic and non-economic goals, and that evaluating long-term impact鈥攅specially in areas like health and security鈥攊s just as important as measuring economic outcomes.听
A key challenge, he noted, is reconciling the short-term priorities of politics with the long-term nature of scientific research. Sustaining long-term support for research often depends on convincing policymakers that the investment will pay off in the future. Koizumi also spoke about the importance of addressing social and economic inequality through science policy, arguing that recognizing inequality as a core value is the first step in designing effective and equitable policies.听
Koizumi reflected on how policy visions often need to adapt over time due to political changes, economic shifts, or crises like pandemics. He argued that policy is less about fixed rules and more about continual negotiation and adjustment. To achieve meaningful impact, he said, institutions need to shift their culture to reward collaboration, long-term thinking, and outcomes that serve the public good鈥攁nd policy can help drive that change.听
This semester鈥檚 guest speakers offered a wealth of knowledge drawn from their diverse experiences across the public policy field. Their presentations and conversations gave MPP students a deeper understanding of how the concepts they learn in the classroom translate into practical, real-world impact.听
