Corporate Services and

Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels

et du développement économique


Minutes 44 / Procès-verbal 44


Tuesday, 2 June 2009, 10:00 a.m.

le mardi 2 juin 2009, 10 h 00


Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest



Present / Présent :     Councillors / Conseillers S. Desroches (Vice-Chair / Vice-président),
R. Bloess, G. Brooks, D. Deans, E. El-Chantiry, P. Hume, R. Jellett, M. Wilkinson


Regrets / Excuses :    Mayor / Maire L. O’Brien (Chair / Président),
                                    Councillors / Conseillers R. Chiarelli, M. McRae,






Minutes 43 and Confidential Minutes 23 of Tuesday, 19 May 2009





Declarations of Interest

dÉclarations d’intÉrÊt    


There were no declarations of interest.







1.         2010 Proposed Budget Timetable and Process


ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0024                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


Responding to a question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to the proposed role of standing committees versus the proposed role of the Finance and Audit Committee, Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, explained the concept was that standing committees would review the budgets of the respective branches reporting to them and then make a recommendation to the Finance and Audit Committee.  However, because the standing committees would not see the entire City Budget, staff would put it all together for the Finance and Audit Committee.  Further, she indicated it would be important to have representation from each of the standing committees on the Finance and Audit Committee so that when there was discussion about a standing committee recommendation, there would be a member able to speak to it and explain the rationale for that recommendation.  


Speaking to the proposed public consultation process, Councillor Wilkinson submitted that it was not enough for members of the public to have an opportunity to attend standing committee meetings because these were held downtown during the daytime.  She stressed the importance of having ward consultation meetings.  Ms. Simulik clarified that because there would be the opportunity for public delegations to be heard at the standing committee level, staff would not be organizing multi-ward meetings as they had in the past.  However, the process still encouraged Councillors to have ward consultation meetings and that, if Councillors wished them to do so, staff would attend and assist with these sessions. 


In response to a question from the Councillor with respect to the proposed timetable, Ms. Simulik stated that, further to comments made at the previous meeting, staff had prepared a motion to amend the timelines so deliberations would be held the week of January 25 to 29, 2010. 


Councillor Brooks posed a follow-up question with respect to the proposed timetable, noting that there were 11 distinct communities within his ward and he normally conducted five or six budget consultation sessions.  Ms. Simulik reminded Committee that the intent was to table the Budget on December 9 with deliberations to be scheduled for the week of January 25 to 29 and that public consultation meetings could begin immediately following the tabling. 


Councillor Wilkinson reminded Committee that the initial intention was to try to ensure Council had more accurate year-end figures while at the same time trying to get the budget approved as early as possible in the year so programs could move forward.


Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson


WHEREAS Council has directed staff to develop a budget timetable that allows for the budget to be approved early in the first quarter;


AND WHEREAS staff have proposed a timetable that would see the 2010 budget tabled with Council on December 9, 2009 and would allow for approximately seven weeks of consultation, including optional Councillor-lead ward meetings before the budget is deliberated in the first week of February;


AND WHEREAS the proposed period of consultation provides for more time than has been incorporated in previous budget timetables;


AND WHEREAS Council wishes to ensure that the City’s budget is approved as early as possible in the first quarter to provide staff with sufficient time to undertake and deliver the City’s operating and capital programs;


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the budget timetable, as proposed by staff, be amended to begin the Budget deliberations during the week of January 25 to 29, 2010.




Committee then voted on the item as amended.


1.      That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee consider this report at its 2 June 2009 meeting and then forward it to Council for its consideration and approval on 10 June 2009; and


2.      That the process and timetable for developing and approving the 2010 draft tax-supported budget be adopted as detailed in this report and as amended by the following, subject to the creation of a new Standing Committee to deal with Audit and Finance issues as part of the upcoming governance review;


                  a)   That the budget timetable, as proposed by staff, be amended to begin the Budget deliberations during the week of January 25 to 29, 2010.


                                                                                                            CARRIED as amended







2.         Petrie Island ACQUISITION STRATEGY

stratégie d’acquisition de l’île petrie

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0031                                                                          Orléans (1)


Responding to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Gordon MacNair, Director of Real Estate Partnership & Development Office, explained the report did not provide a dollar figure for the proposed acquisition because staff was still in the process of negotiating a purchase in this regard.  He reminded Committee that the City’s policy was to acquire property on the basis of market value and confirmed that because these were not building lots, the market value would be considerably less than if these were waterfront building lots.  Further, he assured Committee that staff would report back on the negotiated purchase price.  


Following these exchanges, Committee voted to approve the report recommendation.


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the acquisition of two vacant properties located on Petrie Island based on the principles as outlined in this report.








ACS2009-CMR-REP-0032                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive this report for information.












ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0008                               city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


Councillor Cullen introduced this item by providing an overview of the report, reading the motion into the record, and stating his objective in bringing this matter forward; to re-establish the policy of the former City of Ottawa.


Councillor El-Chantiry introduced the following motion on behalf of Councillor Chiarelli:


WHEREAS Ottawa is the capital city of Canada and, as such, has a special responsibility to play host to events and gatherings that support the national interest and facilitate operations of national level programs and responsibilities;


AND WHEREAS it is in the national interest to ensure that Canada’s military service men and women are assisted in achieving the best possible state of readiness and protection while serving Canada at home and abroad;


AND WHEREAS it is in the national interest to ensure that the best possible protection and preparedness along with search and rescue capabilities are available to military personnel who serve Canada overseas and at home;


AND WHEREAS it is in the City's best interest that its local law enforcement and first responder agencies have the best possible access to equipment options that could assist in carrying out their roles;


AND WHEREAS a key element in the City of Ottawa’s economic development strategy is the promotion of functions that produce economic activity leveraged by Ottawa’s status as the capital city of Canada;


AND WHEREAS the CANSEC trade show is an exhibition designed to enable the supply of the best equipment and support for the men and women serving in Canada’s military, provides significant options for the City's first responder and law enforcement agencies and supplies significant economic activity to the City of Ottawa while assisting the fulfillment of Canada’s military responsibilities and programs;


BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa recognizes its role as host city for trade shows that help fulfill Canada’s national level responsibilities such as the CANSEC trade show;


AND THAT the City of Ottawa will continue to include consideration of the CANSEC trade show in its economic development strategies and practices and in its facilities allocation policies.


Councillor Cullen raised a point of order, noting that the motion introduced by Councillor El-Chantiry was a direct anti-thesis to the motion on the agenda and currently before Committee.  Therefore, in terms of procedure, he submitted it could not be moved as an amendment and he expected it would only be applied if the motion contained in the agenda failed. 


Vice Chair Desroches agreed, but asked the City Solicitor to comment on this.  Mr. R. O’Connor, City Clerk / Solicitor, confirmed that the motion was a direct anti-thesis to the report before the Committee.  Therefore, Committee would have to vote on the motion contained in the agenda.  If it failed, Committee could then vote on the motion introduced by Councillor El-Chantiry.  However, if the motion contained in the agenda was approved, the second motion would be redundant. 


Vice Chair Desroches ruled accordingly. 


At this juncture, Committee heard from the following public delegations.


Ms. Cathleen Kneen, Raging Grannies spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.  She referenced the Tulip Festival, for which Ottawa was famous.  She remarked the event was a strong reminder of the Ottawa’s culture as standing in support of the victims of war and not its perpetrators.  She submitted that, under the guise of security, the arms being displayed at fairs such as CANSEC were inadvertently finding their way into the hands of dictators, mercenaries and paramilitaries around the world who killed innocent women and children.  She felt it was a sham to say that the trade show was for the good of our security forces.  She maintained that Lansdowne Park was a public space and she informed Committee that the previous Wednesday, dozens of elderly women stood in front of the gates of CANSEC with a peace garden, popular theatre, skits and a great many songs, to show there was another way of being in the City.


Ms. Marian Sewell-Sneyd, indicated she was speaking as a parent, a grand-parent and a citizen of Ottawa, a peaceful city.  She suggested Ottawa set an example, as the capital of Canada and she indicated it was beyond her understanding that the City was talking about a military trade show.  She felt it was horrifying, shameful and disrespectful that those who attended the trade show were looking at guns, weapons and other methods of killing other human beings and that it must never happen again in this city.  She maintained that war did not work and this method of control was outdated.  She suggested going forwards instead of backwards next year by inviting people to a trade show about peaceful ways of dealing with conflict.  She felt this would set a better example and she challenged Council to take on such an initiative and to put Ottawa on the map as a peace-loving city. 


Ms. Valerie Stam indicated she was a resident of Hintonburg and was representing the Anglican Church of the Ascension.  Speaking in support of the motion presented by Councillor Cullen, she referenced three (3) countries in Africa and India, where she had lived and worked, and she described the atrocities she had heard described to her from the victims of war living in these countries.  She talked about the impact on the children living in these war-torn countries and circulated pictures drawn by these children.  In closing, she submitted that weapon fairs like the one held at Lansdowne Park only fuelled the activities taking place in countries such as the ones she described.  A copy of Ms. Stam’s presentation is held on file. 


Mr. Benjamin Gunn Doerge spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.  In doing so, he indicated he was a grade 11 student and represented hundreds of youth in Canada who were affected by gun violence each year and thousands of child-soldiers around the world whose childhood was taken away from them due to violence and wars fought with guns.  He expressed being confused as to why the City would agree to have an arms show at Lansdowne Park.  He discussed child-soldiers and how their young minds were manipulated more easily than adults.  He felt the trade show set a bad example for Canadian youth.  He remarked that Ottawa was the capital and as such, had a duty to send a message to other countries on the importance of not supporting gun violence.  He suggested that by not supporting arms trade shows, the City could help support families affected by war.  A copy of Mr. Doerge’s presentation is held on file.


Ms. Brenda Carr-Vellino, a resident of Old Ottawa South, indicated she was addressing Committee as the mother of two young children.  She referenced the death of Tori Stafford, noting the pain she felt related to this news was no different from when she saw photos of family members bowed in grief over the body of a child killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.  She stated this pain was increased by the knowledge that, through weapons exports, Canadians were implicated in parents’ grief and the loss of young lives.  She expressed dismay over learning that CANSEC was returning to Lansdowne Park and submitted that, while CANSEC advocates pointed to the marketing of equipment and technology for fire and police services, they failed to acknowledge that about two-thirds of the weapon components, technology and equipment being marketed were destined for foreign export.  She remarked that a majority of the Canadian public had consistently stood against Canada’s military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars in which children represented about 20% of the civilian casualties.  She talked about cluster bombs; the way these were used, the long-term risks associated with them, their impact on civilian populations and the fact that Canada was one of 96 governments having signed the Anti-Cluster Bomb Convention, which vowed to outlaw their use, production, transfer and stock-piling.  She reported that the previous week, while driving her children to school, she found herself in the difficult position of having to explain why two tanks on flatbeds were being driven into their neighbourhood.  She talked about the need to connect the dots between their desire to protect their own children with the same desires of parents around the world and likewise, to connect the dots between the weapons and system components exported by Canadians to war zones and the grievous losses theses caused to people’s lives.  In the name of all children, she urged City Council to recognize the humanitarian reasons for supporting the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. 


Ms. Joan Remple Bishop indicated she was speaking as a citizen of Ottawa, a mother, a grand-mother, and a representative of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).  She reported that since it was founded in 1915, WILPF had been working to understand and abolish the causes of war and to support human rights and general and complete disarmament.  She spoke to two basic points:  a need to be very clear about the goods being promoted and sold at military trade shows such as CANSEC 2009; and that military spending was taking money away from development, gender equality and the environment.  With respect to the first, she maintained this was equipment designed to take human life and she had a hard time seeing it as having anything to do with the defence of Canada or as being in the interest of herself, her children or her community.  Instead, she believed it had everything to do with making money by promoting militarism.  She talked about anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium, noting that many of the companies represented at CANSEC exported products that contributed to the delivery systems for such weapons.  Addressing her second point, she submitted that the war economy was the most lucrative business on the planet and that these vast financial resources could and should be invested in promoting sustainable development, education, health and housing.  Further, she posited that the distortion of the economy arising from military spending had a particular impact on women.  In closing, she read a statement from WILFP’s 94th anniversary: “Military security concepts and weapons profiteers bear enormous responsibility in killing our planet, impoverishing its people and changing our climate. While more people become impoverished, governments are wasting enormous resources on weapons and preparation for war.  Bombs, guns and landmines cannot be eaten, will not hinder a tsunami, a hurricane, a flood, a virus or water shortage.  These are our real security threats.  We can face and address them, but only if we organize, cooperate and put the human and economic resources currently going into weapons and war into human needs.”


Mr. Murray Thomson, Religious Society of Friends, indicated he had lived in Ottawa for 35 years but that he had also lived in many countries ravaged by civil wars, where people had become homeless or been killed by men with guns.  He posited they had not benefited by the trade of weapons.  He referenced the recent events in Sri Lanka and the Congo.  He discussed the United Nations’ session on weapons and standards, the special session on disarmament, which produced a unanimous final document.  He quoted the final document, which discussed the security system on arms provided by the Charter of the UN.  He reported being a Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) member and submitted that the arms race needed to get under control before it destroyed the planet.  In closing, he asked City Council to turn its back on the trade in weapons and the vehicles and machinery that delivered them.  A copy of Mr. Thomson’s presentation is held on file.


Mr. Ron Sweetman spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen, stating he found it morally unacceptable that Lansdowne Park had just hosted CANSEC 2009.  He talked about his father, who fought in World War One.  He indicated his father believed that wars were charades played out by innocent young people at the behest of older politicians and urged on by the death industries; the arms industry busy selling to both sides and reaping the benefits.  He felt inviting such companies to Ottawa to display their arms was an insult to the peace-loving citizens of Ottawa and to the memory of all the young Canadians killed in both world wars and in Afghanistan.  A copy of Mr. Sweetman’s presentation is held on file.


Ms. Carroll Holland, speaking in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen, indicated she was a community development worker and social activist who had lived in Ottawa for more than 40 years.  She talked about her travels up the Nile River, in the southern Sudan, and how she witnessed first-hand the poverty, disease and premature death that were the outcomes of prolonged hostility and war.  She maintained there was an onus on Ottawa to stand-up and collectively address systemic issues that diminished human life.  She noted the primary victims of today’s high-tech weapons were civilians, most of whom were women and children.  She submitted a substantial, concrete step would be for the City to renew the ban on arms trade shows on public property.  However, she felt the City should go further by participating in a community-organized peace week.  A copy of Ms. Holland’s presentation is held on file, to which she attached an article by Frances Moore Lappe titled “Hope is Not for Wimps”. 


Mr. Tim Page, President of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), stated he was born and raised in Ottawa and was proud to call it his home.  He explained CADSI was a not-for-profit national business association that represented over 800 technology-based companies across Canada, the majority of which were small and medium-sized enterprises and 225 of which operated in the greater Ottawa area.  Further, he report that CADSI was the owner of CANSEC, Canada’s largest technology show for defence and security products and services and that the majority of CADSI members and CANSEC exhibitors produced for both commercial customers and for defence and security markets.  In opposition of Councillor Cullen’s motion, he wanted to show Ottawa understood the importance of national security and public safety as well as the crucial role played by local industry in support of this.  He reminded Committee to consider that when men and women in uniform put themselves in harms’ way, the City had a collective responsibility to ensure they had the equipment and training to do their jobs effectively and safety.  He maintained that CANSEC was about showcasing to public sector customers at all three levels of government in Canada with identified needs, the technologies to meet those needs.  He noted this year’s CANSEC included interests to improve search and rescue capabilities, patrol the expansive maritime domain, the intelligence required to stop drugs, the protection of posts and borders, tools to support Canadians in times of natural disasters, personal identity and cyber-security threats as well as Canada’s contribution in support of international and NATO efforts to bring peace and stability to unstable corners of the world.  He indicated more than 7,500 people had attended the show and that the ratio was one to one in terms of industry representatives and public sector participants.  He gave the following examples of participants; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Corrections Canada, Transport Canada and the City of Ottawa’s police and fire services.  Guest speakers had included the federal Minister of Defence, the Minister of Industry and the National Security Advisory to the Prime Minister.  In closing, he submitted that Lansdowne Park was an ideal facility for CANSEC, noting the defence and security sectors employed 10,000 Ottawa area residents, generated $1B in annual review and paid taxes to the City of Ottawa.  A copy of Mr. Page’s presentation is held on file.


Responding to questions from Councillor Deans with respect to the trade show’s location, Mr. Page explained that for the past ten years, the event had been held at the Congress Centre.  It was moved to Lansdowne Park this year as a consequence of the renovations taking place at the Congress Centre, but also because of the increasing public sector demand for security and defence related materials.  He posited that if Lansdowne Park was no longer available, their options would be to move the show out of town because no other in-town facility responded to their current footprint requirement.


Councillor Deans then posed questions to get a sense of who the exhibitors were and who the customers were at the CANSEC show.  Mr. Page indicated the customers were the federal government, the Department of National Defence, security agencies, municipal police forces and fire departments, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMO, Border Services and the public health agencies.  He remarked that Canada had not invested in its naval vessels in some thirty years.  As a result, a lot of the show was around naval technologies and search and rescue capabilities.  To provide some examples, he referenced some of the exhibitors:  local companies producing protective equipment for police forces; Oakley, the sunglass company; John Deere, the tractor company.  He remarked that there were some 250 exhibitors at the show and of those, he suggested perhaps 5, no more than 10, would be what might be considered the pointy end of the stick as related to defence and security capabilities.  The show was awash with security-related, defence electronic-related capabilities designed to respond to the stated needs of the Canadian government, provincial governments and municipal governments across the country.


Councillor Deans wondered how this show fit into the purchasing needs of the municipal, provincial and federal governments; if it was their one annual opportunity to see the latest equipment and gear, or whether there were other venues for this type of interaction should the show not go forward in the future.  Mr. Page re-iterated the one to one ratio in terms of public sector participants and industry participants, submitting this was a sign that CANSEC was an extremely important show for purchasers of security and defence-related material at all three levels of government. 


In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Page re-iterated that CADSI represented some 800 Canadian companies and he confirmed that Bombardier, General Dynamics and Magellan Aerospace were companies represented at the CANSEC trade show. 


Councillor Cullen wondered if the presenter would be surprised to learn that some of the companies mentioned dealt with depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs and anti-personnel landmines.  In response, Mr. Page referred to Bombardier as an example, noting it was a well-respected global leader in the Canadian aerospace industry.  With respect to weapons such as the ones referenced, he remarked that the export of these from Canada was prohibited.  Further, he maintained the CANSEC trade show was designed explicitly to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian military and Canadian security agencies, therefore all exhibitors were pre-positioned their exhibits to respond directly to these domestic requirements.


Councillor Cullen argued CANSEC was a military trade show, yet the bulk of what was being produced by the aforementioned exhibitors was for export.  He felt this got to the nub of the question, which was international arms trade.  Mr. Page disagreed with the premise of the question, re-iterating that the purpose of the CANSEC trade show was to demonstrate capability available to first responders in Canada and to the Canadian military as they provided disaster relief support and search and rescue support, and as they attempted to assert Canadian sovereignty in the North.  He maintained these were the objectives of the Canadian government, as stated by the Canadian government and they were the objectives of municipal purchases, as represented by the participation of the Ottawa Fire Service and the Ottawa Police Service.


Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Page stated the sale of military exports from Canada was tightly controlled by the Canadian federal government.  He added that 50% of Canada’s trade in defence materials was exported and that 80% of it was exported to the United States because of the two countries’ shared responsibility for the security of North America.  He remarked that, because of this shared responsibility, the two countries’ industrial bases were largely integrated.


In reply to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Page advised that in addition to the visitors to CANSEC referenced previously (i.e. Canadian military and security agencies, police and fire services, etc.), there were some visitors from embassies of countries having embassies in Ottawa, the majority of which were NATO-related countries.  He explained that in today’s marketplace, there was a huge demand for communication technology to assist first responders and that these were the types of products, services and technologies on exhibit at the CANSEC tradeshow. 


Councillor El-Chantiry wondered how much of the show was focused on emergency planning and preparedness.  Mr. Page confirmed that there were emergency preparedness products on display, such as temporary shelters for quarantine and/or decontamination.


Councillor Doucet wondered why the public was not allowed to attend the CANSEC trade show.  Mr. Page submitted that the public was not buying military and security-related equipment.  Therefore, the show was geared to public sector customers. 


Councillor Doucet maintained he was part of a public-sector organization and that he reported to his electorate.  Mr. Page advised that, as a member of government, the Councillor would be eligible to attend and that he would ensure he was invited next year. 


Mr. David Luxton, President and CEO of Allen Vanguard, indicated he was presenting in a number of capacities: as an Ottawa supporter; as Chair and chief patron of the Canadian Tulip Festival; as Chair of the OCRI economic cluster for the security sector in the region; as a Board member of CADSI; and as President and CEO of Allen Vanguard, a $300M multi-national security company headquartered in Ottawa and employing some 600 staff in knowledge-based jobs.  He circulated a booklet, which described Allen Vanguard’s business and products, noting the company was a world leader in protective technologies to defend against lethal hazards like roadside bombs and dirty bombs containing radiological, chemical or biological materials.  He maintained that his company’s products saved lives and had absolutely no offensive uses.  He believed this was typical of most of the equipment on display at CANSEC, since the mission of the Canadian Forces was to play defence, not offence, and because much of this equipment was also required domestically by civil security agencies, including the City of Ottawa police and fire departments.  He acknowledged that there were a small number of weapons systems at CANSEC because, like it or not, military and police personnel had to protect themselves against those trying to kill them.  However, he maintained CANSEC was purely for Canadian forces and Canadian civil security agencies to view the offerings of CADSI members.  It was not some kind of international arms bizarre, as some had tried to construe.  He felt this characterization of the trade show was offensive to businesses such as Allen Vanguard.  He referenced the Tulip Festival as a poignant reminder of the link between security and civil society.  He stressed that without physical security, there was no possibility of civil society.  He indicated Allen Vanguard, like many other companies in this community, was trying to build businesses that facilitate physical security through purely protective technologies and that they counted on the sales to the Department of National Defence and Canadian security agencies as their anchor for export sales because the Canadian market for these technologies was too small, though it was critical for credibility when selling to the export market.  He submitted the centre of gravity for this was Ottawa, where the decision-makers were located.  Further, he re-iterated Mr. Page’s comments with respect to the growth of CANSEC and Lansdowne being the only practical venue.  In closing, he talked about the economic arguments in terms of the employment base, the commercial real estate base, the tax base and the importance of supporting a local industry that protected vulnerable societies.  He remarked for evil to prevail, all that was necessary was for good people to do nothing.  In that spirit, he submitted that companies and families in his industry applauded the positive action of the City in making Lansdowne available for CANSEC so that they could continue to do business with the Department of National Defence, domestic security agencies and emergency service providers.


Responding to questions from Councillor Hume with respect to the products his company was featuring at the trade show, Mr. Luxton indicated they had bomb disposal robots used to disrupt roadside bombs, bomb protection suits for personnel in both military and law enforcement, jammers to disrupt the remote detonation if improvised explosive devices and decontamination equipment.  He confirmed that, in addition to being used by the military, these products were sold to law enforcement agencies in Canada; the RCMP as well as provincial and municipal police forces across the country.  He stated he did not consider any of this equipment as offensive but rather, that he was proud of it because it saved lives everyday.  


Councillor Hume wondered if Allen Vanguard’s display was fairly consistent with what was on display in the rest of the pavilion in terms of content.  Mr. Luxton explained it was mostly information technology and protective equipment, similar to what Allen Vanguard sold. 


Councillor Bloess referenced some of the photographs contained in the brochure circulated by Mr. Luxton and he inquired as to some of the equipment used by the City’s own emergency response teams.  The speaker confirmed that Ottawa’s emergency services had a number of pieces of Allen Vanguard equipment.


Councillor Bloess asked about any other equipment produced by Allen Vanguard, other than what was reflected in the brochure.  Mr. Luxton acknowledged that the brochure may not contain photographs of all the equipment produced by his company.  However, he confirmed that all the equipment they produced was protective equipment.


Councillor Doucet referenced a photograph contained in the Allen Vanguard brochure, which depicted a vehicle used in combat theatres and submitted this did not look like something the City would buy for its police force.  Mr. Luxton clarified that his company only produced the seats for crew protection and survivability and he indicated it was not secret that the supplied these to the Canadian military. 


Mr. Vern Redekop indicated he was an associate professor of Conflict Studies at St. Paul University and lived in Blackburn Hamlet.  He framed the issue from the point of view of one’s ethical imagination; going forward in a way that would contribute to a better life for future generations.  He talked of being involved in a peace group while studying in California in the 1980’s and of meeting someone who told him there was no one more committed to peace than the pilots of B-52 bombers with nuclear weapons because they knew that if they ever went out on a mission, they would not have a country to which to return.  He reported being struck by the notion that everyone had to make common cause for the peace of humanity and that he wanted to respect those who took different perspectives as to how to achieve it.  However, he expressed the need to move humanity forward constructively.  He noted that symbols played a large role in how people shaped their future.  He maintained that Ottawa was no ordinary City; it was the capital of Canada and it was a leader within Canada, which was no ordinary country.  He remarked that on the global scene, Canada was seen as a country committed to peace.  Therefore, he posited that what happened in Ottawa was not only about people in Ottawa.  CANSEC was represented as an arms show and he submitted that, on the global scene, Ottawa hosting it but the City on the record as supporting the trade in arms.  He hoped Ottawa could move ahead constructively and he opined that having CANSEC on City property did not achieve this.  Mr. Redekop went on to talk about the impact of the existence of arms, noting that during the Cold War, there was a saturation of funding for the development or armaments.  He believed the arms themselves made a difference, opined that the arms trade itself was a profound ethical issue and wondered what would happen if there was a saturation of funding for peace and better relations.  He talked about the need to have dialogue groups and to build relationships. 


Councillor Cullen believed everyone could agree that warfare was not a good thing and that if there was an opportunity to contribute, in some symbolic way, to ending warfare, a civil society should do so.  Mr. Redekop responded affirmatively to both questions.


Ms. Elizabeth Bryce indicated she was speaking on behalf of the Global Partners Committee of Ottawa Presbytery in the United Church of Canada.  She advised that a number of years ago, she attended a photography exhibit by Yann Arthus Bertrand called Earth from Above and that the photographer’s photo captions had opened her eyes with respect to military spending surpassing all other budgets.  She referenced economic stimulation as a reason for holding arms shows at Lansdowne Park and Minister Mackay’s statements with respect to the defence industry offering great economic benefits.  However, she saw the bigger picture and submitted that education, healthcare and social assistance were greater priorities than military spending.  She felt Canada should be assisting developing nations, not assaulting them.  She maintained that municipal governments had a choice as to how they used their resources and she believed hosting CANSEC on municipal property sent a message that the City approved of making profits from nations at war.  She stressed that Lansdowne Park was a recreational space belonging to the people of Ottawa and she urged Council to send a message that Ottawa was a City working for peace.  A copy of Ms. Bryce’s presentation is held on file.


Mr. Gary Hauch indicated he was an Anglican priest speaking as a concerned citizen, a resident of Ottawa and on behalf of the Bishop of the Diocese of Ottawa.  He talked about being drafted by the US Army and serving in the medical corps in Vietnam.  Therefore, he was very conscious of the fact that he was alive because someone dropped a bomb on those who were mortaring his position.  However, he was also very conscious of the fact that he was alive because someone else was not.  He stated that, in Vietnam, he learned war was not the best way to solve conflict; it only escalated it.  He quoted a letter from his Bishop, sent to Ottawa City Council on March 10:  I believe it is the vocation of the people of faith to seek peace and wherever possible, to address injustice, oppression, and aggression by non-violent means. The proliferation of arms and expansion of weapons technologies in the name of security is counter to the conviction of many that violence and force exasperates tensions and tensions lead to an ever-expanding cycle of conflict.”  He felt this reflect his experience in Vietnam, where one of his jobs was to provide medial care to Vietnamese villages.  It reported that it took a long time to gain villagers’ trust and a very short time to lose it, whether because of a napalm strike close by, some bombs accidentally landing in the villages or simply by gunship targeting the enemy and also shooting children in the process.  He submitted this was what happened with collateral damage and that the same thing was happening in Afghanistan and other places.  He maintained that there had to be better ways of addressing injustice and conflict then through military escalation or technologies that shield us from the other rather than expose us to the face of the other.  He recognized that there were economic spin-offs, but he wondered at what cost and who would pay for it in the long term.  He stated that the Anglican Church was opposing shows like CANSEC on City properties and he was speaking in favour of the motion pub forward by Councillor Cullen. 


Councillor Cullen noted that the delegation represented his church and the Anglican Diocese and he wondered how many congregations this represented.  Mr. Hauch replied that it represented 100 congregations; about 26,000 Anglicans. 


Responding to a question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Hauch posited that most things could be used for good purposes and for not so good purposes.  He used the splitting of the nuclear atom as an example, noting it could be used to drop bombs or for nuclear medicine.  He indicated he had difficulties with spending so much money to develop security measures without spending nearly as much in developing more peaceful ways of addressing the same situation.  He felt soldiers would be safer if countries spent more time in negotiations than in actual warfare.


Councillor Wilkinson requested clarification on Mr. Hauch’s earlier statements with respect to representing Anglicans.  The speaker clarified that the Bishop and the majority of clergy were against CANSEC, therefore it was the Anglican Diocese’s position. 


Councillor Wilkinson believed the trade show was not about war, though it was being portrayed that way and although she agreed with comments made by the delegation, she suggested he would have to go to the federal government, which has responsibility for the military.  Having said this, she wondered if he was suggesting that in the meantime, Canada should not protect its soldiers.  Mr. Hauch acknowledged that Canada should protect its soldiers.  However, he re-iterated his belief that the best way to do so was through learning face-to-face means of reducing tensions.  He indicated he would have no difficulty with a trade show where only protective equipment was on exhibit. 


Ms. Hazel Jack represented the congregation and clergy of All Saints Westboro Anglican Church.  She advised that, over the years, All Saints had earned a reputation for supporting peace and justice issues.  The church shared premises and some outreach programs with the congregation of First United, which was known throughout the City for advocating for peace and working for justice.  She reported that when the parishioners of All Saints Anglican were asked to sign a petition calling on the City of Ottawa to respect the 1989 commitment to ban war-related shows on municipal property by stopping CANSEC 2009, the response was overwhelming.  Further, when they learned that two of their members were Raging Grannies and planned to spend the day at Lansdowne Park actively protesting CANSEC, they were quick to offer their blessing and ensure their support.  She submitted that for twenty years, citizens of Ottawa took pride in knowing that they had successfully banned the sale and display of war weapons on City property.  Moreover, they felt betrayed that the ban was no longer in place.  She was saddened to hear that Defence Minister Mackay had announced spending of $60B on weapons, considering how this money could be used to provide food, clean water, adequate housing, medical help and education to a suffering world.  She found it difficult to believe that pouring billions of dollars into coming up with new and more weaponry was the way to bring about peace.  For these reasons, and in the hope that other cities might follow the example, she strongly supported the resolution to ban all arms tradeshows from City properties.


Ms. Loris Jordan began by thanking Councillor Cullen for introducing the motion to ban trade shows from city facilities.  She stated that she represented the Ottawa branch of Ottawa Ploughshares, which came under the umbrella of the Canadian Council of Churches.  She advised that their motto was biblical and taken from Isaiah, Chapter 2, verse 4: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares”.  She indicated members of her organization had a clear understanding of peace as a call, binding on all people, institutions and governments to cherish the earth, to care for its resources and to protect life.  She submitted that peddling weapons of destruction and their hardware was the exact opposite.  She posited that there was a huge link between disarmament and development, that development was generally well supported and that a tradeshow depicting it would be welcomed.  She believed war was the greatest obstacle to human development.  To demonstrate this, she referenced countries suffering its effect; Rwanda, the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan.  She found it morally and ethically reprehensible to promote instruments for killing and she strongly objected to a tradeshow of this nature on City property.  She suggested security was not achieved by building a fortress in a fearful world.  Rather, it came as a consequence of peace and depended upon much more than military might.  It depended on the health of the environment, the welfare of individual citizens, a sustainable economy and responsible, natural institutions. 


Mr. Timothy Dear, President, DEW Engineering & Development, spoke against the motion introduced by Councillor Cullen.  He informed Committee that DEW Engineering & Development was an Ottawa-based firm founded in 1978 and focused mainly on defence.  He reported that the company’s ceramic-based armour saved Canadian lives and its vehicle re-life and re-roll programs provided troops with cost-effective alternatives to new vehicles.  Speaking to his company’s contribution to the local economy, he indicated that in 2008:  DEW Engineering & Development employed 190 people in Ottawa with a $10M payroll, which was expected to increase by about 20% in 2009 due to growth; purchased about $5M in goods and services from Ottawa businesses, which was also expected to increase by about 20% in 2009; paid $148,000 in taxes to the City of Ottawa; paid $433,000 in local utility bills; and generated many visits to Ottawa by clients from other jurisdictions.  He felt CANSEC served a vital role for his company, which sold many products and services directly to the Government of Canada.  He remarked that the trade show had allowed DEW Engineering & Development to meet with various officials, reconnect with existing partners and meet perspective partners.  He maintained the purpose of CANSEC was to allow Canadian companies such as DEW the opportunity to sell to Canadian governments at all levels.  He noted that Ottawa was home to the Department of National Defence headquarters, the RCMP, the Department of Public Safety, CSIS and other security and law enforcement agencies.  He encouraged Committee to oppose the motion, submitting that it did not serve to meet the objectives shared by everyone; safety, security and a peaceful society.  A copy of Mr. Dear’s presentation is held on file.


Responding to questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Dear advised that his company’s booth at CANSEC was used to showcase their level-four armour as well as medical shelters.  He confirmed that the show helped them to get ready for upcoming upgrades to the fleet because it allowed them to meet with General Dynamics to discuss their level-four armour in terms of mind and body protection and to ensure they understood what was available.  He also confirmed that if they were successful in obtaining the contract, a partnership between DEW and General Dynamics would enhance the safety of Canadian troops. 


Mr. Paul Hannon indicated he had been a resident of Ottawa for over 30 years and that, for 25 of those years, he had worked in the areas of humanitarian aid and international development.  He advised that he represented a coalition of Canadian charities and non-profit organizations called Mines Action Canada (MAC), which was an international leader working to eliminate the serious humanitarian, environmental and development consequences of landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war.  He reported that MAC’s three-dozen members were located across the country but were based in downtown Ottawa.  He noted their perspective on this issue was not just municipal, but national and international.  He recalled that in December 1997, the world came to Ottawa to sign a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.  To date, 156 countries had joined the landmine ban encompassed by that treaty, commonly known as the Ottawa Treaty.  He posited that while Canadians viewed Ottawa as the nation’s capital or hockey country or the site of the world’s longest skating rink, to millions of people around the world affected by anti-personnel landmines and explosive remnants of war, Ottawa meant hope.  Hope that weapons such as landmines and cluster bombs would never be used again and that the lives of at survivors might be rebuilt with dignity.  He opined that the Ottawa Treaty was not only a remarkable achievement, it was also a fantastic legacy for the country and for this city.  He believed this identity was welcomed and cherished by all citizens of this city.  He noted that at one time, cluster munitions and landmines were considered acceptable and were advertised as the perfect weapon.  Through decades of use, people had learned that they were not acceptable and the world had come together to ban them.  He thought everyone needed to keep this in mind when talking about where arms may be promoted.  He talked about being in Geneva the previous week to continue the work begun on the Landmines and Cluster Treaty.  He did not know whether anything that took place at CANSEC would be considered illegal under international treaties.  However, he maintained that as the landlord of the facility, the City need to be certain such activities did not take place.  Further, he felt that as the civic leaders of the nation’s capital, Council had a duty to ensure the city’s credibility and the country’s reputation were not tarnished or damaged.  For these reasons, he strongly supported the motion.


Responding to a question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Hannon indicated he could not speak to the activities that may have taken place at CANSEC 2009 or the arms and equipment that may have been displayed there.  However, he maintained the City had to ensure the arms that were on display were legal and acceptable under Canadian law and international treaties. 


In reply to a further question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Hannon stated that anti-personnel landmines were considered illegal under the Ottawa Treaty and any companies producing components for these had to be made aware that what they were doing was illegal under international law.  Further, he advised that domestic legislation made it a punishable offence.  In terms of cluster munitions, he remarked that it was a new treaty, signed on December 3rd, and would enter into force probably at the end of this year. 


Mr. Campbell Robertson posited that anyone who worked for international peace became aware of the effects of war on civilians and non-combatants.  He stated that Bristol Aerospace, which exhibited at CANSEC, produced CRV-7 warheads, the delivery system to disperse cluster bombs.  He remarked that cluster bombs exploded in mid-air to scatter hundreds of small bomblets over a wide area, many of which failed to explode and could lie dormant until disturbed.  He reported that more than 35 years after being dropped form a war plane, a bomblet had recently exploded, killing a woman and injuring three others.  Further, he advised that the conflict in Lebanon saw millions of bomblets dropped on southern Lebanon, that many did not explode and some even had eye-catching ribbons to attract attention.  In closing, he asked that Committee and Council return the previous City policy and ban weapons trade shows from municipal facilities.  A copy of Mr. Robertson’s presentation is held on file.


Mr. Stefan Cherry, Mennonite Central Committee Canada, explained that his organization was the relief, development and peace-arm of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Churches across Canada and that they had been working in these areas for over 100 years in over 55 countries, including Canada.  He represented hundreds of churches across Canada, five of which were located in Ottawa.  He very strongly support the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.  He posited that Councillors were in a difficult position of deciding whether to put profits or ethics in the forefront.  He believed everyone wanted peace.  However, there was disagreement as to how to achieve it.  He reported having spent ten years working in Africa and having been in conflict zones with bullets flying over his head.  Having worked in agricultural programs, he maintained it was difficult to train farmers to cultivate when they were missing a limb because of a landmine.  He noted that although the war was over in Mozambique, generations later, its effects were still being felt.  He agreed that there were many useful things being promoted at CANSEC, but he also believed there were weapons being promoted and that the primary purpose of weapons was to kill people.  He also talked about collateral damage, where innocent women and children were killed.  Based on his organization’s experience in the field and his faith conviction that all people were created in God’s image, he opposed the killing of people and he opposed the arms industry.  For these reasons, he supported Councillor Cullen’s motion.


Reverend Frances Deverell spoke as a citizen and as President of the Association of Unitarian Ministers of Ottawa.  She talked about climate changes and their catastrophic impact on the world in terms of there being more and more homeless people, people living in shelters or in camps and without the necessities of life.  As the world became more volatile, she predicted there would be more violence, more wars, more mass extinctions and genocides unless people found another way.  She quoted Olympia Brown, one of the first Unitarian ministers, who said “We can never make the world safe by fighting. Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children of God and must share the wealth of the world.”  She remarked that while Canadians may think they were selling these weapons to friends and allies, all too often, they ended up arming and training the next generation of dictators and terrorists.  She advised that Unitarian universalism had long been dedicated to the goal of world peace and justice for all.  She indicated that the organization cherished the worth and dignity of every child described by the previous speakers and every person; cherished the importance of the interdependent web of life on which every human being depended for daily sustenance.  She was concerned that the economies of Canada and of most of its western allies were built on lucrative military contracts.  She felt this was not a sustainable way for humans to live on this planet and referenced a need to build the economy and security on a new set of assumptions in order to be a civilized species.  She stated that the 1989 motion to ban military trade shows from City property was part of a larger movement by cities across the country to reduce militarism and to show a new way.  She suggested cities were the most likely targets for nuclear bombs; that wars were often fought in cities and the people who suffered the most were civilians.  She submitted that a society was not more secure when it built its economy on the production of military and nuclear weapons or when it destroyed the environment with landmines and cluster bombs.  She believed Canadian troops’ lives should be used to support the transition towards a peaceful, non-violent world and that Canada should build its economy on the restoration and protection of the eco-system and on human services such as healthcare and education.  In closing, she asked the City of Ottawa to take leadership and to set a new direction by not allowing military trade shows on any City property but particularly, by not allowing them at Lansdowne Park, which she described as a recreational property for the people of the City. 


Mr. Jordan Bishop represented Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, an organization founded by the late G.C. Gifford of Halifax.  He explained that most of the survivors of this organization were veterans of the Second World War.  He talked about high-tech weaponry, believing that CANSEC tended to be a celebration of high technology and high-tech weapons.  He noted the tendency, in recent years, had been for high-tech weaponry to target infrastructure and he asked that members of Council reflect on what would be involved if Ottawa was attacked in this way.  He referenced other cities around the world where electricity supplies, water purification systems and sewage disposal systems had been deliberately targeted.  He remarked that this had happened and would likely continue to happen as higher technology was developed, such as smart bombs.  He commented that smart technology had also been used for targeted assassinations.  He referenced an instance in Afghanistan where a wedding celebration was bombed because someone in Intelligence decided that a “big bad guy” was present.  He submitted that a large number of people were killed in order to get one and by doing so, the bombers had created two hundred new deadly enemies.  He believed this was the reality faced by the world and, although he supported the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen, he was not sure it would make a lot of difference in the amount of high-tech weaponry and arms being sold.  However, he maintained that the City of Ottawa would be better off without celebrating or glorifying military technology. 


Mr. Gordon Breedyk represented Civilian Peace Service Canada (CPSC) and spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file.  He indicated CPSC’s mission and vision was to develop a cadre of peace professionals and that the organization had been working very hard to increase the pool of people with skills, knowledge and expertise to act in this field.  He strongly supported the motion to prevent future military trade shows at City facilities and expressed the belief that society should be investing to find alternatives instead of investing in better military responses to conflict and better ways to kill and destroy.  He reported that in its work, the CPSC interacted quite a lot with representatives of the military and he submitted that they themselves wanted to avoid violent conflict and wanted to work with CPSC to find better ways.  He submitted that whether equipment was defensive or protective was missing the point; that society needed to prevent conflict by engaging in respectful dialogue.  He referenced a series of slides in his presentation, which talked about the average cost of conflict and he remarked that one violent conflict was equivalent to the value of annual development aid worldwide.  He believed this demonstrated that things were out of balance.  He posited that the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years could eliminate worldwide poverty, foster universal literacy, immunize every child, fight aids and achieve all the millennium development goals.  He re-iterated the need to find other ways.  Speaking to what this Council could do, he encouraged members to approve the motion before Committee and to support individuals in the community who might be putting together alternative means to achieve peace.


Mr. Lawrence Cumming represented the Southminster United Church in speaking in support of the motion before Committee.  He advised that a public rally had taken place at Southminster United Church in opposition to the CANSEC exhibition and stated he was pleased that his community association had expressed its opposition to the arms trade show on City properties.  He reported being a consultant in international development cooperation and was a previous chief executive officer of OXFAM-Canada.  He indicated he had worked in 35 countries and visited several more and that he had seen too much of the appalling consequences of wars such as the displacement of people, the graves of young soldiers and the innocent people killed, not only in the midst of conflict, but also in later years by landmines and cluster bombs.  He maintained that the arms trade fuelled war and that, while many of the products at the tradeshow had peaceful as well as military applications, the show’s military export character remained never far from the forefront.  He believed conversations at the trade show would lead to negotiations, which would lead to export deals.  In closing, he expressed his church’s view that this was not an appropriate use of public space.  A copy of Mr. Cumming’s presentation is held on file.


Councillor Doucet suggested there were two sides to the debate: the moral point of view that the sale of arms perpetuated and increased civil and human damage around the world; and the notion that this was just good business and that some of the equipment presented was needed for civilian disasters.  He believed these two points of view were poles apart and he wondered how to reconcile them.  Mr. Cumming acknowledged these were very difficult poles to reconcile and he indicated he was not against legitimate business or the sale of goods and equipment needed for peaceful purposes.  However, his contention was that the arms trade, which he believed was a large part of the CANSEC exhibition, did fuel violent conflicts, which caused great suffering in many parts of the world.  He submitted these were poles with which everyone wrestled but that he found himself closer to one side than the other. 


Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Cumming submitted that although Canadian companies may be selling their products only to allies, weapons found their way into the hands of both sides, though not always by legitimate or legal means.  He maintained that once arms were out of the hands of the sellers, it was difficult to control where they would end up.


Mr. Eric Schiller indicated he was a retired professor of engineering at the University of Ottawa and that when he was young, he had joined the Canadian army and served as a second lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Electrical Engineers Corps where he dealt with electrical and mechanical matters, including weaponry.  He advised that since then, he had become very suspicious of weapon sales, particular when these took place on municipal property.  He explained that whereas in the first World War, 90% of the people killed were soldiers and 10% were civilians, after decades of developing smart technology, most people killed by these offence weapons were now civilians.  He referred to this as collateral damage and remarked that, more and more, the enemy hid amongst civilians and as a result, when trying to get the enemy, most of the casualties were civilians.  Although he acknowledged that some of the equipment on display at CANSEC was harmless or defensive, he maintained that there were some offensive things as well and he asked Council to keep in mind that when they approved an arms trade show on municipal property, they were approving weapons that killed mainly civilians.  Further, he noted the trade show was billed as “Canadian Security”, yet even its administrators acknowledged that 50% of these arms were for export.  Therefore, he maintained this was not directly for the security of Canadians.  He believed most people were against the offensive weapons, which were at CANSEC and were fuelling exports.  Speaking to his reasons for objecting to this trade show being held on municipal property, Mr. Schiller submitted that municipalities did not declare war, federal governments did.  However, as wars became more and more urbanized, those who suffered most were people in municipalities.  In closing, he urged Council to take a stand and to support the motion before Committee. 


Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Schiller indicated he was not aware whether other cities had policies on this subject, though he had not heard of other municipalities having arms sales on their properties.  He confirmed that he was aware of the Mayors for Peace initiative, initiated by the Mayor of Hiroshima.  


Mr. David Gill advised that he represented several groups in the city, that he was a father and grandfather and that he also represented the next generation.  He reported having worked for the Department of National Defence for about nine years, which had provided him with the opportunity to learn about the military mindset.  He talked about working for a Colonel who told him there was only one kind of war.  He believed wars were changing and that the industry would go on one way or another.  He submitted the point was whether or not public funds and public property should be used to support it.  He showed a brief video depicting people suffering because of war and the caption “The earth is not dying.  It is being killed and the people who are killing it have names and addresses”.  He noted that a lot of pacifists had come to speak to Committee, many of them faith-based.  He put forward the existential view that we’re all condemned to choose and that each of us has a sphere of influence, though some had greater spheres of influence than others.  He talked about uranium mining, depleted uranium weapons and what happened when toxic substances got into the lifecycle of people’s environments.  He submitted these were all connected to the same story.  He made reference to former Mayor Marion Dewar, stating she taught him that everyone had to keep trying to preserve the integrity and to move towards peace.  He submitted that people either used their sphere of influence to move towards peace or they used it to move towards war.  He believed most realized that there were moral and ethical issues at play and that this was a matter of conscience. 


In reply to a question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Gill explained his belief that, as members of Ottawa City Council, Councillors used their sphere of influence to send a message in terms of the decisions they made.  Therefore the decision Council would make on this issue would send a message.


Ms. Debbie Grisdale indicated she lived in Old Ottawa South, had two teenage daughters, was an Anglican and am a member of the Ottawa Diocesan Centre for Peacemaking.  She reported having worked most of her adult life in international health, peace and disarmament and that twelve years ago, she helped welcome to Ottawa government representatives, NGO’s and landmine survivors from around the world for the historic signing of the Landmine Treaty.  Further, she advised that five years ago, she worked with Councillor Doucet and former Mayor Chiarelli’s staff to host a reception for the President of Mayors for Peace and that Ottawa had been listed as a member of Mayors for Peace for over twenty-five years.  She explained that Mayors for Peace was a fast-growing, non-partisan organization with nearly three thousand cities as members in 134 countries, including 25 cities from Israel.  She contended that there were economic benefits to peace and that a peace economy should be explored.  She opposed the global arms trade, which in 2006 was worth $1.6 trillion and fuelled wars and violent conflict .  She referenced a recent motion in the UK Parliament, which noted that for every dollar spent globally on conflict prevention, nearly two thousand dollars were spent on the procurement of military weapons.  Further, she advised that a significant body of research suggested the number of violent conflicts would increase in coming years due to climate change, environmental degradation, competition for resources and economic crisis.  She believed what the world needed was not more arms shows but an examination and understanding of what truly was security and a greater commitment to international development, conflict prevention and non-violent conflict resolution.  She stated she was opposed to CANSEC taking place on City property because she did not want any representation on public property paid for with her tax dollars.  In particular, she did not want it at Lansdowne Park because it was located in the heart of the City and was associated with home shows, the farmer’s market and other forms of family entertainment.  She maintained that CANSEC was not just about protecting and preparing Canadian first responders and military at home and abroad.  It was also about tanks, guns, weapons, weapon systems and their component parts and about making soldiers more lethal.  She believed arms-producing companies sold to both sides of conflicts and she re-iterated that she did not want them represented on City property.  In closing, she urged Committee to vote in favour of the motion outlined in the agenda. 


Responding to a question from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Grisdale explained that Mayors for Peace focused on the abolition of nuclear weapons but it was also supportive of cities’ efforts to engender peaceful communities and to honour the things that build peace within societies. 


Ms. Ria Haynan spoke in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion on behalf of the members of First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, which had strong connections with the United Nations (UN) through the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office in New York.  She remarked that the UN had proclaimed the year 2000 as the ‘International Year for the Culture of Peace’ and the period 2000-2010 as the ‘International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World’.  Further, she noted that under the section on peace and security, the document promoted “general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.  She submitted that a weapons trade show promoted exactly the opposite.  She talked further about the concepts promoted in the UN document in terms of education, training and consensus-building before picking up weapons as well as the eradication of poverty, which she described as a breeding ground for conflict and war.  In closing, she referenced a book by Deborah Ellis, which showed how children could be ahead of many adults in how they saw the world and she urged Committee to keep any weapon bazaars off City property.  A copy of Ms. Haynan’s presentation is held on file.


Mr. Andrew Jensen indicated he was from the Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church of Ottawa and that he was speaking as outgoing Chair of the Church in Society Committee and as the incoming Chair of the Justice, Global and Economical Relations Committee of the Presbytery.  He explained that Ottawa Presbytery was the largest presbytery in the United Church in Canada and that their Chair was a military reserve chaplain.  Therefore, he submitted that his organization understood this was a complex issue and that they supported Canadian troops in Afghanistan with spiritual aid and the comfort that could be provided through their chaplains.  He did not wish to re-iterated many of the things already said, though he advised that one concern had been raised by a member of the congregation who was afraid that showing support for the motion would mean showing a lack of support for representatives of the Canadian military.  He reported that another member of the congregation, who was a representative of the Canadian military, had provided assurances that this would not be the case and informed the congregation that the Canadian military could get the equipment it needed without such trade shows.  He was concerned by the notion that this was a take it or leave it proposition.  He noted that a lot of good things were said about the peaceful and protective use of equipment and he did not say anything preventing Council from banning weapons and weapon delivery systems but allowing all other equipment.  He believed this might answer some of the concerns raised.  In closing, he urged Committee to approve the motion but that if the motion was defeated, that the City find some middle ground on this issue. 


Mr. Helmut Kuhn explained that he lived in Ward 11 and was a member of a Unitarian church, which met in a local school.  He believed many of his church’s members, though not all, would support his presentation to Committee.  He reported that some years ago, he and his wife had the privilege of working in eastern and southern Africa, during years filled with hope and optimism for the African people.  He noted the three decades since the end of the Cold War had delivered a wrenching shift to the fortunes and well-being of many of the people with whom they had worked.  He indicated the core of his message to Committee was that the marketing of weapons of war, as represented at the CANSEC trade show, and the spread of these weapons around the world over the past thirty years had blighted almost every act of human kindness, compassion, solidarity and development assistance Canadians had ever extended to the people of Africa.  He maintained the source of these weapons was the international arms industry and that it mattered little if the weapons were sold to legitimate governments or not.  He posited that whatever weapons were added to the global supply simply meant more weaponry would filter down to unaccountable armies, petty dictators, warlords and even child soldiers in Africa.  He believed the world did not need more or better weapons because weapons did not make people more safe or secure.  What would make people more safe and secure was getting out of the business of weaponizing and getting into the business of helping people get equal access to food, health, productive work, respect for their human dignity and human rights.  He believed the motion before Committee could help further this objective.


Sister Hélène LeBrun indicated she was a nun with the Soeurs du Sacré-Coeur de Jésus and that she was speaking in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion.  She explained that she currently worked on the Social Justice Committee of SSCJ and had the chance to be a missionary in Peru for thirteen years ,where she worked in poor regions with indigenous peoples in the Andes.  Further, she advised that she was the session leader for the eastern Ontario Catholic organization Développement et Paix.  She reported that after all her travels, jobs and experience, she was convinced that if you want to change something, you have to start at the bottom.  She believed it was unfair for humanity, and for the citizens of Ottawa, to hold a war arms exhibition and spend so much money on marketing arms when people could easily be fed and lives could be saved.  She noted that Lansdowne Park was recognized as a cultural heritage site and she maintained it should not be used for war trade shows.  As a pacifist, a feminist and an ecologist, she was opposed to the military industry complex, the third most lucrative industry in the world after oil and drugs.  She remarked that the City of Ottawa was multi-cultural and could get passionately involved in establishing peace within its confines.  In closing, she urged Committee to create a model city by setting up social justice within its boundaries.  A copy of Sister Hélène’s presentation is held on file and is available in English and in French.


Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet, Sister Hélène expressed her belief that the City of Ottawa hosting such an event on its property gave a bad impression and that she would be discussing this issue with delegates when she attended the 5th Montréal Citizen Summit:  The City We Want, in Montréal the following weekend. 


Ms. Diane McIntyre represented the Canadian Voice of Women Peace and expressed support for the motion before Committee, noting she also supported the motion that came forward twenty-two years ago.  She remembered walking down Bank Street in protest of the ARMX shows and indicated she had hoped she would not have to continue protecting two decades later.  She believed the City of Ottawa had made a good decision twenty-two years ago by resolving that City property should not be used for marketing war.  She reported that every year, she went to the United Nations (UN) for the Commission on the Status of Women and every year she heard horrid stories about the effects of nuclear weapons as well as small weapons, cluster bombs and landmines.  She noted that the UN was formed to avoid wars.  She maintained that where there were weapons, military conflict and people carrying arms, problems just got bigger instead of being resolved.  She remarked that Ottawa had a reputation as being a peacekeeping city; the city where the landmines treaty was signed and where the Tulip Festival was held.  She believed Ottawa should promote peace and advocate for peace, not provide a show place for weapons.  She reported that the previous week, during the protest at Lansdowne Park, this public facility was surrounded by chain-linked fences and guarded by private security personnel.  As a result, people were challenged and those taking photographs were photographed.  She maintained that Lansdowne Park belonged to the citizens of Ottawa and should not be used for ventures precluding citizens from the space.  As one of the many taxpayers, she asked that her voice be heard and she re-iterated her request to not use City property to promote weapons. 


Quorum was lost at 2:45.  As a result, Vice-Chair Desroches asked the City Solicitor to walk Committee through the procedural next steps. 


Mr. O’Connor advised that pursuant to Section 19 of the Procedure By-law, the Chair could recess the meeting for a short period to determine whether quorum could be restored.  Should Committee be unable to restore quorum, the Chair could determine whether or not it was essential that the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the next regular meeting.  If, in the Chair’s opinion, it was essential that the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the next regular meeting, then the meeting would stand adjourned, not ended, to reconvene on the next day or at such other time and place as the Chair may announce.  However if, in the Chair’s opinion, it was not essential that the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the next regular meeting, then any unfinished business would be taken up at the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting. 


Given that Committee members had advised they would be leaving due to other commitments, Vice Chair Desroches felt it was very unlikely that quorum could be restored.  Further, based on the City Solicitor’s explanation of the procedural requirements and the unlikelihood that quorum could be achieved the following day, Vice Chair Desroches ruled that it was not essential for the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the next regular meeting.  Accordingly, this item was deferred. 


In addition, the following written submissions were received and are held on file with the City Clerk:

Ÿ         Bob Stevenson’s letter dated 24 May 2009;

Ÿ         Joseph Lance’s letter dated 24 May 2009

Ÿ         Rev. Frances Deverell’s letter dated 25 May 2009;

Ÿ         Penny Sanger and Blodwen Piercy’s letter dated 25 May 2009;

Ÿ         Nancy Lauder’s letter dated 31 May 2009;

Ÿ         Theresa Dunn’s e-mail dated 1 June 2009; and

Ÿ         Susan Preston’s e-mail dated 1 June 2009.


Whereas on April 19, 1989, the former City of Ottawa passed a Motion 11 to 1 resolving that Lansdowne Park and other city facilities not be leased to any future arms exhibitions;


And Whereas for the first time in 20 years a Canadian exhibition of military hardware and technology, called CANSEC 2009, took place at Lansdowne Park from 27-28 May; 


and Whereas the arms trade has little or no consideration of moral or humanitarian issues in that weapons can and have been used against civilians; and


and Whereas exports of Canadian military equipment and components end up in countries which persistently violate human rights;


and Whereas the international arms trade serves to increase militarization throughout the world and is inconsistent with arms limitations efforts;


and Whereas Lansdowne Park is a publicly supported recreation and trade show facility;


and Whereas, when Lansdowne Park was purchased by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, according to City Legal Services, the 1989 Council motion no longer applied to Lansdowne Park;


Therefore be it resolved that the City of Ottawa's 1989 Motion be applied to Lansdowne Park and all other city facilities, so that they not be leased to CANSEC or other such military exhibitions; and


Be It Further Resolved that the City of Ottawa call upon the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada to pass similar Motions to prevent the leasing of their facilities to such military trade shows.








ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0007                               city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


Vice Chair Desroches advised Committee that Councillor Cullen was prepared to have this item referred to Council without a Committee recommendation.  Accordingly, Councillor Bloess moved referral.


Moved by Councillor R. Bloess


That this item be referred to Council without a Committee recommendation.




That the Corporate Services & Economic Development Committee recommend to City Council:


1.      That the City of Ottawa request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to enact legislation amending the Municipal Elections Act to permit municipalities to prohibit corporate and trade union contributions to candidates for municipal councils, to be effective for the next municipal elections;


2.      That upon enabling legislation, City Council consider enacting a bylaw to prohibit corporate and union contributions to municipal candidates for Ottawa City Council, to take effect for the next municipal election;


3.      That the City of Ottawa request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide enabling legislation to permit municipalities to require that campaign surpluses accrued by municipal candidates be paid to the municipality at the end of the election period, to help defray the costs of the municipal election; and


4.      That the City of Ottawa request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide enabling legislation to permit municipalities to pass bylaws requiring municipal candidates to file a preliminary list of campaign contributions received with the City Clerk on Nomination Day (i.e. one month before Election Day).















Councillor Jellett indicated staff had prepared a technical amendment, which he was prepared to move.  He explained the motion would shift around the sources of funding for the requested reimbursement. 


Before moving to a vote, Councillor Wilkinson asked whether other non-profit groups paid fees such as the ones that were the subject of the current request.  Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, responded affirmatively. 


Councillor Wilkinson referenced the tables contained at pages 54 and 55 of the agenda package and asked staff to walk Committee through the fees that were and those that were not normally waived for non-profit groups.  Ms. Simulik went through the list, indicating there was precedent with respect to building permit fees, the parkland levy and development charges but that she was not aware of the City previously waiving or reimbursing engineering fees, site plan application fees or water service fees. 


Councillor Wilkinson indicated she was prepared to move an amendment to the motion, to reimburse for those fees the City would normally waive or reimburse, thereby reducing the total amount to be reimbursed in this case.


At this juncture, Committee heard from the following public delegation.


Ms. Vera Yuzyk, Director of Development, Beechwood Cemetery Foundation, advised that Beechwood Cemetary was established in 1873, was located in the heart of Ottawa, and that it was considered one of the most beautiful and historical cemeteries in Canada. She explained that: of its 160 acres, approximately 60 remained available for future use; for 136 years, Beechwood had provided a dignified and final resting place for over 75,000 Canadians from all walks of life, including many prominent Canadians and 26 former Mayors of Ottawa; and its 14,000 square foot facility featured a stately nine-sided sacred space area, additional reception rooms and a Hall of Colours.  She indicated Beechwood was committed to respecting and promoting the linguistic duality of Canada and that all their services were offered in French and English.  Further, the cemetary was open to all faiths and backgrounds and she submitted it was a true reflection of Canada’s identity as a multi-cultural and multi-faith society.  She reported that it:  was the home of the Chinese cemetery of Ottawa; was a national historic site, designated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada; and was owned and operated by the Beechwood Cemetery Foundation, which developed and maintained the National Military Cemetery and the RCMP National Memorial Cemetery.  She talked about the Foundation’s governance structure and some of the milestones it had attained over the past decade, including being recognized as the National Cemetary of Canada.  She explained that the sacred space area was designed after consultation with major faith leaders in order to better serve the needs of Canada’s diverse faith communities and that it was believed to be the first center of its kind in the world.  She maintained that the Beechwood Cemetary facilities continued to be expanded because the demand for services continued to grow.  She stated that, as a respected Ottawa national institution and Canadian charity, the Beechwood Cemetary Foundation was seeking a special reimbursement of the fees and charges totalling $111,693 paid to the City of Ottawa and she thanked Committee for considering the motion. 


Responding to a question from Vice-Chair Desroches, Ms. Simulik advised that removing the engineering fees, the site plan fees and the water service fees would result in a total reimbursement of $86,385.78.


While he understood colleagues asking about how other charitable organizations were treated insofar as the waiver or reimbursement of fees, Councillor Legendre submitted that there was no comparison for an institution such as Beechwood.  He reminded Committee that Ottawa was the nation’s capital and as such, occasionally took on responsibilities no other municipalities had.  In this case, Beechwood had taken on the responsibility of being the national resting place and he compared it to the United States’ Arlington Cemetary.  Beechwood was the resting place for RCMP officers fallen in the line of duty and for members of the military who died in Afghanistan, should they choose to be buried in the nation’s capital rather than their hometowns.  He re-iterated that Beechwood was unique, that the growth of its facilities reflected its role as the National Cemetary, and that therefore this request was unique.  He encouraged members to visit the facility, which was open to the community, and he asked that its unique national role be recognized through this gesture of support. 


Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Simulik confirmed that the amendment proposed by Councillor Wilkinson would reduce the amount reimbursed to the Beechwood Cemetary from $111,693 to $86,385 and that effectively, any such reimbursement would be a grant, the basis of which was the list of fees the Foundation had paid to the City since 2002.  She submitted that Council had the authority to award a grant for any amount it deemed appropriate.


Councillor El-Chantiry expressed some discomfort over the debate to add or subtract certain elements of the request.  He suggested that Committee and Council simply direct staff to pay a grant to the Beechwood Cemetary in the amount of $111,000 and allow staff to determine from which account(s) the funds would be drawn. 


Vice-Chair Desroches reminded members that Committee first had to deal with Councillor Wilkinson’s amendment.


Councillor Wilkinson recognized that this was an emotional issue.  However, she maintained that the report before Committee was based on fees.  She indicated the City had a policy with respect to reimbursing fees to non-profit groups and should be consistent in the treatment of such matters.  She suggested that if the City was not consistent with its policy in responding to this request, other non-profit organizations could come forward asking for similar treatment.  Further, she noted that because Beechwood was the National Cemetery, it had access to other grants, to which many other non-profit groups did not.  In closing, she re-iterated that the City should be consistent in the way it treated requests from non-profit organizations for the reimbursement of fees.


Councillor Hume believed the current policy was ad hoc and that there in fact was no policy framework defining how the City supported or did not support these types of institutions; that Council did what it wanted in response to any given request.  He submitted this was the problem.  He introduced a motion directing staff to develop a policy and process for responding to these requests, including criteria, upset limits for refunds, and sources of funding, and report back to Committee in September.  He recognized that the policy to be developed would not capture the current request.  However, he maintained that the City needed a comprehensive policy framework for dealing with such requests and that Council could then deal with the exceptional circumstances as they arose. 


At this juncture, Committee voted on the motion introduced by Councillor Wilkinson.


Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson


That the amount of the grant to the Beechwood Cemetary be reduced to $86,385.78, in line with amounts normally reimbursed to a non-profit organization, namely for building permit fees, parkland levies and development charges.




Yeas (2):        R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson

Nays (5)        G. Brooks, E. El-Chantiry, P. Hume, R. Jellett, S. Desroches


Committee then voted on the motion introduced by Councillor Jellett, which had been prepared by staff to amend the source of funding, based on the original request.


Moved by Councillor R. Jellett


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council, as an indication of its support for this national institution, approve the reimbursement of fees and charges totalling $111,693.29 as follows:


From 2009 Planning operating budget revenue account - $19,207.51;

From Water Capital Reserve Fund - $6,100.00; and

From City-wide Capital Reserve (Building permit fees & DCs) - $86,385.78.


CARRIED with Councillor M. Wilkinson dissenting


Moved by Councillor P. Hume


WHEREAS non-profit and charitable groups will undertake, from time to time, construction projects to expand or rehabilitate their facilities or build new facilities;


AND WHEREAS these non-profit and charitable groups will incur costs, including permit fees and fees for service paid to the City and either request these be waived or be reimbursed following completion of the construction projects;


AND WHEREAS revenue targets have been assigned to operating branches to avoid related activities being subsidized by taxpayers where it is more appropriate that the users cover the costs of operation;


AND WHEREAS some requests must be offset by general operating accounts or the City-wide reserve fund, thereby potentially creating a budget pressure where funding is limited or results in targets not being met;


AND WHEREAS there is no formal process for responding to such requests;


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to develop a policy and process for responding to these requests, including the criteria for a request to qualify, upset limit for refunds and source of funding, and to report back to Committee in September 2009.




In conclusion, Committee voted on the item as amended.


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:


1.   Approve, as an indication of its strong support for this national institution, the reimbursement of fees and charges totalling $111,693.29, as follows:


From 2009 Planning operating budget revenue account - $ 19,207.51;

From Water Capital Reserve Fund - $ 6,100.00; and

From City-Wide Capital Reserve (Building permit fees & DC’s) - $86,385.75; and


2.   Direct staff to develop a policy and process for responding to these requests, including the criteria for a request to qualify, upset limit for refunds and source of funding, and to report back to Committee in September 2009. 


                                                                                                            CARRIED as amended







A.        Capital Funding Support for Long Term Care Facilities

            Soutien du financement des immobilisations pour les installations de soins de longue durée

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0023                                city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville






B.         Update – Mitel Donation of VOIP equipment

Mise à jour - Don par Mitel d'équipement de Voix sur IP

ACS2009-CMR-OCM-0004                             city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville








The Committee adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.



Original signed by                                                     Original signed by

D. Blais                                                                      Councillor S. Desroches



Committee Coordinator                                             Chair