CITY
MANAGER’S OFFICE
BUREAU
DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL
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.
CARRIED
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.
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.
COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS
ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS
COUNCILLOR/
CONSEILLER ALEX CULLEN
4. USE OF CITY FACILITIES FOR Military
TRADE SHOWS
UTILISATION D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES POUR
LES EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL MILITAIRE
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.
DEFERRED
5. REFORMING OTTAWA'S
MUNICIPAL ELECTION FINANCES
RÉFORME DU FINANCEMENT DES ÉLECTIONS
MUNICIPALES À OTTAWA
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.
CARRIED
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).
referred
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
PREVIOUSLY
MOTIONS DONT AVIS A ÉTÉ DONNÉ ANTÉRIEUREMENT
COUNCILLOR
P. HUME
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.
LOST
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.
CARRIED
In conclusion, Committee voted on
the item as amended.
INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
Original signed by Original
signed by
D. Blais Councillor
S. Desroches
Committee Coordinator Chair
