dÉclarations
d’intÉrÊt
Councillor
McRae made the following declaration of interest:
I, Councillor Maria McRae, declare a potential,
perceived conflict of interest on Item 1, Use of City Facilities for Military
Trade Shows, as a person with who I have a personal relationship may be
perceived to benefit from the outcome of the vote.
Moved by Councillor R. Jellett
WHEREAS the change in meeting date from
Tuesday, June 16th to Monday, June 15th and Tuesday, June 16th resulted in
staff being unable to finalize, print and distribute to members of Council the
CSEDC Agenda 45 in time to meet the requirements outlined in Section 77(11) of
the Procedure By-law, being By-law 2006-462;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporate Services
and Economic Development Committee suspend to rules to consider all the items
listed in CSEDC Agenda 45 at its meeting of June 15 and 16, 2009.
CARRIED
POSTPONEMENTS
AND DEFERRALS
REPORTS ET RENVOIS
COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS
ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS
COUNCILLOR/
CONSEILLER ALEX CULLEN
1. 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
(Deferred
from the meeting of 2 June 2009/Reporté de la réunion du 2 juin 2009)
Further to her declaration of
interest, Councillor McRae did not participate in any of the discussions on
this item.
Committee heard from the following
public delegations:
Mr. Trevor Haché spoke in support of the motion
put forward by Councillor Cullen. He
referenced a CBC report on the Canadian government planning to spend $490
billion on its military in the next twenty years. He explained that because of this, Canadians were left to wonder
where money would come from to improve public transit, to make education more
accessible and affordable and to improve infrastructure. He wondered how Ottawa expected to receive
Federal government funding to upgrade its sewage system when so much money
would be spent on military. He remarked
that Ottawa’s Mayor owned a company that profited from war and he felt the
Mayor’s support of the reversal of the ban was appalling and scandalous. He believed Mayor O’Brien was in a conflict
of interest. He noted that some of
Canada’s more respected citizens were peace activists and that they also
happened to be politicians. As
examples, he referred to Tommy Douglas and Marion Dewar. He felt the question of peace and was not
something that should be decided along political lines and reminded Committee
of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned the nation of the military industrial
complex. Mr. Haché concluded his
presentation by urging Committee to listen to the delegations and to support
their requests to ban military tradeshows on City property. A copy of his presentation is held on file.
Councillor Doucet asked Mr. Hache to expand on
the conflict of interest he saw between Mayor O’Brien and the current
report. In response to this Vice Chair
Desroches noted that the Mayor was not present, therefore Committee would not
be dealing with that issue. He
maintained that the issue before Committee related to the tradeshow policy and
asked Councillor Doucet to keep his questions to that topic.
Councillor Doucet felt the Mayor’s
presence was not required to discuss whether or not it was a conflict of
interest for him to be part of a company exhibiting at CANSEC and profiting
from it. Councillor Jellet asked the
City Solicitor to comment on the matter.
He added that the Mayor was on a leave of absence and was not currently
taking part in the discussion on the substance of the issue. Councillor Desroches agreed with Councillor
Jellet. However, he noted that the City
Solicitor was not currently in the room but that he would ask him to comment on
this matter upon his return.
Mr. Richard Sanders began his presentation by telling
Committee he had produced many reports, which he sent to City Councillors about
the CANSEC exhibitors and their specific products and how they ended up in war
zones. He spoke in support of the motion
put forward by Councillor Cullen. He
explained that he had worked for the Ottawa Peace Resource Centre, which was
funded by the City of Ottawa. He worked
full-time to oppose Canada’s role in the arms trade and was aware of Canadian
companies contributing to mass-murder, exploitation, repression, human rights
violations, and the over-throw of legitimate democracies around the world. He stated that in 1989, he had started an
organization called the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade and its first campaign
was to oppose a major military tradeshow in Ottawa called ARMX. He mentioned that the organizers of ARMEX
had claimed that their exhibition was about training and simulation and that it
was all about Canadian Arms Forces.
They did not want the public to know that 60 different embassies in
Ottawa sent delegations to ARMX. Mr.
Sanders claimed that the City was now facing the same situation with CANSEC and
that its organizers did not want the public to know what it was really
about. He referenced the Committee
meeting of 2 June 2009 and how supporters of CANSEC spoke of defence and
security. He remarked that in 1989, few
people believed the bogus claims that were made by the organizers of ARMX and
that Marion Dewar was one of these people.
He recalled that Ms. Dewar had known the trade show was about war and
had MC’ed a rally at the trade show gates.
Mr. Sanders indicated he was not against defence, firefighting or
disaster relief but he was against war.
He concluded by stating that if Committee voted to welcome these
tradeshows back to City property, it would be a major embarrassment to the
citizens of Ottawa, Ontario and the country.
Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet,
Mr. Saunders described some of the products designed and/or manufacturer by
companies that had exhibited at CANSEC and how these products were used around
the world. Specifically, he talked
about Magellan Aerospace, General Dynamics and Calian Technologies.
Responding to a series of questions from
Councillor Deans, Mr. Sanders indicated he was not against defending Canada and
that every country had the right to defend itself; and that he was not against
the use of military forces for defence.
Having been advised of the City Solicitor’s
return, Councillor Doucet asked if there was a conflict of interest when a
member of Council was profiting from the sales of a product in a municipal
facility like Lansdowne Park. Mr.
O’Connor explained that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allowed
for two individuals to declare a conflict of interest, the member in question
and a judge. He suggested a discussion with regards to whether or not a
particular Committee member had a potential conflict of interest was not
appropriate for either Committee or Council to engage in with respect to its
rules of procedure.
Responding to follow-up questions from
Councillors Doucet and Holmes, Mr. O’Connor re-iterated that a declaration of a
conflict of interest could only come from an individual or from a judge ruling
on it if someone took a member to court.
Ms. Penny Sanger, a member of Educating for Peace, spoke in
support of Councillor Cullen’s motion.
She explained that Educating for Peace was a group that worked with the
Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa and the Ottawa Carleton School
Board to expand and promote the teaching of Peace Education in Ottawa schools.
She stated that for more than forty years, she had lived in downtown Ottawa,
not far from Lansdowne Park, and had attended many functions there. She referenced the Lansdowne Live proposal,
suggesting many citizens were not opposed to the proposal but wanted more
options. She talked about her vision
for Lansdowne Park; food stalls, ferris wheels and other amusements but no drug
dealings, no weapons sales and no strip shows.
Ms. Sanger read a letter on behalf of Nancy Covington, Past President of
Physicians for Global Survival, which was also in support of Councillor
Cullen’s motion. A copy of Ms. Sanger’s
presentation and of Ms. Covington’s letter are held on file.
Mr. Jan Heynan, a resident from Bay ward and an
engineer, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He explained that the products shown at
CANSEC were technically very sophisticated and produced after much engineering
work. Most were made for military
attack purposes. He added that someone
who pushes the button is just as guilty as the person who made the bomb that
exploded as a result. Mr. Heynan
explained that during his career as an engineer, he had to decide whether to
take a job, with the decision being driven by interests other than technical or
financial. He talked about working for
Boeing Aerospace, which was an exhibitor at CANSEC, and not accepting a
position on the team for the planned B-1 bomber. He stated that, in terms of economics, he could only see negative
results of weapons production due to the fact that resources were wasted in
their production, exacerbated by destruction of assets when the weapons are
actually used. He added that war only
increased gaps between the rich and the poor.
Mr. Heynan conveyed his dismay of the 1989 policy being ignored and told
Committee how his son was arrested during the 1989 protests of ARMX. He concluded by referencing Marion Dewar and
how she was a strong proponent on the ban of AMRX. He felt her memory was being dishonoured. A copy of Mr. Heynan’s presentation is on
file.
Councillor Doucet referred to
differences between the current Council to Marion Dewar’s Council. He asked Mr. Heynan how he would account for
that and if it had something to do with the current Mayor. The speaker stated that he was at Committee
as an engineer, not as a politician, though he believed politics was a big
factor in it as well as the influence of military industry lobbyists.
Mr. Stanko Vuleta spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. In doing
so, he talked about the war against Yugoslavia in 1999; its duration, the
weapons used, and the lives affected.
He went on to mention other death statistics from the war, in contrast
to the motion put forward by Councillors Chiarelli and El-Chantiry, which
called for a need for protection and military responsibility. In conclusion, Mr. Vuleta spoke of his
hometown in central Bosnia. He
explained that today, the town had no industry and was languishing in virtual
poverty due to the war and that he hoped a similar fate would not befall on
Ottawa. A copy of Mr. Vuleta’s
presentation is held on file.
Mr. Frank Cserepy, a resident of Kanata South, began
by telling Committee he had been a peace activist since he was eighteen years
old. He thanked Councillor Peggy
Feltmate for her written confirmation stating she would support the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He stated
that none of the public delegations at Committee were under the dillusion that
their efforts would stop Canada’s export sales of military hardware. He explained that out of $5.6 billion in
Canadian exports between 2003 and 2005, $5.1 billion went to 39 countries
directly involved in carrying out wars, invasions, forced occupations and
perpetrating human rights abuses. He
noted that many people were employed in the export industry and the spin-off
effects of their wages affected many communities and businesses. However, he asked Committee to bear in mind
that in terms of the damage caused by the exported products in the 39
countries, they made the tobacco industry look like a candy factory by
comparison. He submitted that
collateral damage was not collateral at all.
It was the lion’s share of the devastation caused by military weapons
whenever and wherever they were used.
He talked about being 6 years old in 1945 and being told to get under a
table in the basement of his home in Budapest because an air raid siren had
sounded. His family was spared but his
neighbour’s house got a direct hit and everyone inside was killed. He spoke of living in the countryside of
Hungary when the Russian Army was liberating it and he remembered playing with
his friends in a field when he came across an egg-shaped metal object. He picked it up and threw it. When it landed it exploded. Mr. Cserepy pleaded with Committee to
consider the cost of an innocent life when debating whether or not to ban arms
shows at Lansdowne Park. A copy of Mr.
Cserepy’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Jo Wood spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. She spoke
to a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with a case study of Magellan
Aerospace. She provided a description
of Magellan Aerospace, taken from the CANSEC website, including reference to
the CRV-7 rocket weapon system. The
description went on to mention that the CRV-7 was the most accurate, unguided
rocket system available and included rockets, launchers and warheads of various
models for a range of mission options and platform types. She described particular warheads produced
by Magellan Aerospace, their capabilities and uses. She noted that weapons were not always used as they were
intended. Having described these
weapons, she advised that she considered them to be offensive applications and
she asked whether Committee believed these were defensive. She brought up how the supporters of CANSEC
claimed the tradeshow was for first responders and if the show were banned,
there would be nothing to help first responders. She indicated she believed in tradeshows for first responders on
City property, but that these should not be organized by CADSI or mingled with
weapon systems. In closing, she noted
that CADSI received almost $200,000 in 2008 for international trade promotion
and that this tradeshow was primarily promoting the international weapons
trade. She urged Committee to support
the motion to ban arms tradeshows from City property and suggested this
symbolic gesture was important as a way to try to keep the amount of war
spending in balance.
Ms. Diana Ralph, co-chair of
Independent Jewish Voices, spoke on behalf of the organization, which represents Jews across
Canada who support social justice and universal human rights. She expressed support for the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. She
explained that Independent Jewish Voices opposed the Israeli government’s
occupation of Palestinian land and its oppression of Palestinian people, its
genocide siege of Gaza and especially its military assault on civilians in
Gaza. She urged Councillors to prevent
CANSEC from leasing facilities in Ottawa.
She submitted that war was Israel’s main industry and that Isreal was the
only nuclear power in the Middle East.
She stated that in the last year, Israel had used the people of Gaza as
guinea pigs to test and eventually market new, horrific weapons specifically
designed for assaults on urban civilians.
She told Committee that Canada sold hundreds of millions of dollars of
component parts for Israeli weapons and security devices and that fifty
military exporters had supplied a wide range of essential components and/or
services for three major US weapons systems that were used by the Israeli Air
Force. She referenced the Ottawa-based
Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) and how many
Canadian companies, which produced weapons components, were members of this
organization. She added that the
primary role of CADSI was to organize CANSEC, Canada’s top military
tradeshow. She talked about CADSI as
organizing a Canada/Israel Industry Partnering Mission in 2004 to advance
partnerships between Canadian and Israeli companies. She felt Canada’s growing military ties with Israel were
threatening the lives of Palestinians as well as Canada’s own sovereignty,
reputation, civil liberties and internal politics. Ms. Ralph concluded by asking Committee to shutdown CANSEC. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Councillor Deans raised a point of
order, stating that although she understood the issue raised by the delegation,
it was not the City of Ottawa’s issue.
She explained that the City’s issue was about the use of Lansdowne Park
for military tradeshows and the discussion was currently going far beyond the
scope of local government. She asked
the Chair how he intended to proceed in this regard.
Vice Chair Desroches reminded all
the delegations that Committee was dealing with a City policy with respect to
the use of City facilities. He asked
that the delegations’ remarks be focused on the matter and that foreign policy
issues were a stretch.
Mr. Bruce Rosove began by telling
Committee that some of the delegations before him had brought him to
tears. He spoke in support of the
motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
He believed the current debate was about ethics and making a statement;
the statement being what Ottawa stood for.
He asked Committee if Ottawa stood for promoting violence and supporting
armies around the world. Mr. Rosove
quoted Martin Luther King with respect to violence begetting violence and
suggested the only way violence could be stopped was through love. He believed arms magnified violence and that
Canada was losing its peaceful reputation.
Mr. Rosove then read a section from a novel dealing with a man losing
his wife due to war and violence. He
indicated his point was that arms mad people hate and created fear and
resentment. Mr. Rosove submitted that
banning arms tradeshows in Ottawa would show that at least one city in Canada
thought it was wrong to use these arms.
He concluded by referred the speakers at the previous Committee meeting
who had supported the CANSEC tradeshow.
He recalled that every one of them claimed there were no arms at CANSEC
because they knew people did not want to think of Ottawa as having arms at
their tradeshows at Lansdowne Park. Mr.
Rosove concluded that even the people who made arms knew it as wrong. He asked Committee to make Ottawa a place
where arms shows could not happen.
Councillor Deans re-iterated that the current
issue was not about solving the arms race or solving the conflict in the Middle
East, which were well beyond the City’s scope.
She asked the delegation what kind of symbolic message would be sent to
the men and women of the Canadian military if the City banned military
tradeshows during a time when Canada was actively at war. Mr. Rosove explained that his understanding
of what Canada was doing in Afghanistan was not active combat, but that Canada
was there to create peace.
Mr. Koosma Tarasoff, a photojournalist and writer, spoke
in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He explained that his ancestors were exiled
from Russia to Canada more than a hundred years ago because in Russia, they
burnt their guns in a mass protest against militarism and wars. He stated that today, more people around the
world recognized that war was institutionalized murder and that the military
industrial complex was a threat to society, as President Eisenhower had warned
years ago. He referenced the
military-academic complex as well, suggesting that the ingenuity of the world’s
scientists was misplaced in the unethical industry of war and that they were
occupied in inventing better ways of killing people. He quoted a writer from Regina, Saskatchewan who said that there
was money to be made in the peace industry.
He then referenced the latest Federal budget, which spent more money on
defence than the environment, education, fisheries and oceans, Health Canada,
justice, human resources and international aid combined. He explained that as a photojournalist with
accreditation to write about CANSEC, he was turned away at the exhibit
gates. He referred to CANSEC as a
racket whose goal was to make money on the back of dead bodies. He believed peace was rightly a municipal
issue and that it was time for the City of Ottawa to develop a green,
non-violent mentality and become a peace-building leader for other cities. He concluded by stating that banning the
arms show would be a first step in this direction. A copy of Mr. Tarasoff’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Paul Harris, a member of St. Patrick’s Catholic
Church and a father of three children and three grandchildren, spoke in support
of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He focussed his presentation on collateral damage; the killing of
children in wars and conflict around the globe and its link to arms sales. He stated that modern wars were killing
children callously and more systematically than ever before. He referenced the United Nations’ estimates
that about 550 million arms weapons were currently in circulation worldwide and
submitted that these weapons killed hundreds of thousands of people each year,
including children. He talked about
Magellan Aerospace marketing and selling one of the deadliest weapons on the
planet; an air ground rocket missile with multiple warheads that had been
recently used in Iraq. He maintained
that non-combatants could not avoid being shredded by the cluster bombs this
weapon produced. Mr. Harris then
presented Committee with statistics of children as war victims in the past ten
years, which illustrated that on average more than 2000 children were being
killed, maimed or disabled each day by armed conflict. He concluded by stating that arms sales lead
to the death of children and pleaded with Committee to put an end to arms shows
in the City of Ottawa. A copy of Mr.
Harris’ presentation is held on file.
Ms. Evelyn Voight spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. She asked
members to pretend this was a poor city overseas, which for twenty years had
banned arms shows on its grounds, that the City found itself with a new Mayor
who had links to an arms dealer and, under that Mayor’s watch, the ban was
overturned. Outraged citizens then demanded that the 20-year ban be
respected. She asked Committee what
they would think of if they heard of such a city overseas and what they thought
residents expected them to do. In terms
of what to do about trade shows, she felt the answer was easy; ban any firm
that dealt, either directly or indirectly, in weaponry and/or produced any
components that could be used as instruments of war or killing. She concluded her presentation by reading
three poems in regards to CANSEC. A
copy of her presentation is held on file.
In response to a point of order
raised by Councillor Chiarelli, Vice Chair Desroches again reminded the
delegations to focus on the policy issue before Committee.
Ms. Ramila Swann, President of the
Serbian Heritage Society of Ottawa, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. She felt the overturn of the ban was a mere
legal technicality, which did not respect the spirit of the policy. She explained that Canadians of Serbian
descent knew only too well the devastation caused by weapons of war. She referenced the fact that Serbia was
bombed for 78 days in 1999, leaving 3,500 dead and about 10,000 wounded. The bombs did not discriminate by age or gender
and had destroyed schools, hospitals and television stations. The bomb that destroyed the national
television station in Belgrade and killed over thirty journalists, was the work
of a Canadian fighter pilot. She
insisted that it was the civilians who paid the price of war. She submitted that when Canada signed the
treaty to abolish landmines, it appeared to be returning to core Canadian
values. She quoted Errol Mendes,
professor of international law at the University of Ottawa, who wrote that
Canada missed an opportunity for a second legacy in promoting human-rights
legal standards around the world and that Norway was now working towards an
Oslo Treaty to ban cluster bombs. She
maintained that if arms shows were banned, Canada’s armed forces would still
have access to whatever weapons they felt were needed. Ms. Swann concluded by urging Committee to
return the ban on military tradeshows and to make a statement that Ottawa
promoted peace, not war. A copy of Ms.
Swann’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Wendy Foster spoke in support
of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. She explained that her sons were scheduled to speak but did not
want to miss their school field trip.
She felt the debate had come down to an ideological choice between
political violence and peace. She
believed Council had to decide what statement it wanted to make. Further, she submitted it was not within
Council’s jurisdiction to risk violating international law. She suggested the City send a message to the
Canadian military families that it would like to protect them. She remarked that the Canadian value of
being peacekeepers had been well entrenched since 1945 and that the nation
wanted to return to this status, which would in turn be the best way to protect
the citizens of Ottawa and Canada. She
stated Lansdowne Park could be used to promote peace and have peace shows as
opposed to a political violent show.
Mr. Kevin d’Entremont, Executive Director of GTEC,
Canada’s government technology event, spoke in opposition to the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He
explained that GTEC was a leading international convention focused on
showcasing industry solutions to government and bringing industry and
governments at all levels together on a level playing field to discuss the
challenges of serving citizens better.
He stated that the event had a following of over 7500 attendees each
year, including Deputy Ministers, Ministers and executives from government and
industry. He suggested events dealing
with major issues like public safety and security simply could not exist
legitimately without the engagement of a significant public sector
audience. He added that CANSEC was an
event supported by both industry and government because it was based on the
fact that public safety and security issues were a current global reality that
Canada had prioritized as a G8 nation.
He recognized that every Canadian was entitled to an opinion, but that
public safety and security also touched policing, fire protection, public
health and other issues that no one would consider offensive. He expressed concern over the motion to ban
an event he believed was designed and developed under the watchful eye of a
leading national association and with the engagement of Canadian national
institutions. He felt approving the
motion would send a negative message to hundreds of companies and thousands of
employees across Canada. He concluded
by stating that as the nation’s capital, Ottawa was the right place for major
issues to be debated and Council had recently committed $175M to support the
re-development of the Ottawa Convention Centre and Lansdowne Park. He asked Committee to defeat the
motion. A copy of Mr. d’Entremont’s
presentation is held on file.
Councillor Doucet asked Mr.
d’Entremont if he was telling Committee that safety services could not function
or obtain equipment without an arms sale in Ottawa. Mr. d’Entremont maintained his message was that the event
went far beyond arms and that other services and technologies were showcased at
CANSEC.
Councillor Doucet asked if Mr.
d’Entremont was suggesting that the City’s support was important to CANSEC’s
continuation in Ottawa. Mr. D’Entremont
stated that CANSEC was a legitimate event, run by a legitimate
association. However, not being from
CANSEC, he maintained he could not respond directly to the Councillor’s
question.
Ms. Anne Healey, Executive Director
of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, spoke in opposition to the motion put forward
by Councillor Cullen. She began by
providing Committee with information regarding the industry AUVS represented. She explained that unmanned systems were
components or platforms used to perform dangerous, dull or dirty work and that
these robotic systems were used in land, air, sea and space environments for a
multitude of applications. She provided
examples of robotics performing dangerous missions such as reconnaissance in
Afghanistan, neutralizing unexploded ordinances, and performing underwater
surveillance around the perimeter of Canada’s Frigates. She submitted that the industry kept men and
women in the Canadian Forces safe, had been adapted for use in civil and
commercial markets in terms of fighting forest fires and providing critical
infrastructure surveillance. She added
that the industry employed almost 4000 Canadians and that the citizens of Ottawa
and of Canada had an obligation to provide the men and women of the Canadian
Forces with the necessary tools to carry out their duties as safely as
possible. Ms. Healey concluded by
asking that Committee consider the broader implications of the motion before
them. A copy of Ms. Healey’s
presentation is held on file.
Councillor Bloess asked if members
from Ms Healey’s association were exhibitors at CANSEC. Ms. Healey responded affirmatively.
Ms. Lois A. Wright, a constituent from the Kitchissipi
Ward, advised that she had been a resident of Ottawa for seventy-two years and
loved the city. She spoke in support of
the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
She explained that she was proud to be a citizen of Canada, where the
nation’s and its capital’s symbol was the parliamentary Peace Tower. She expressed support for gun control laws
and suggested Council should not support or condone the marketing and promotion
of guns, bombs and other articles of war.
She asked Committee to observe two minutes of silence to remember why
the nation’s and the city’s commitment to peace should continue.
Vice Chair Desroches explained that
the point of public delegations was for members to hear from residents. He suggested that if Ms. Wright did not have
anything further to add, Committee would move on to the next speaker. Ms. Wright concluded by stating that she
supported the report and Councillor Cullen’s motion and she urged Council to do
so as well. A copy of Ms. Wright’s
presentation is held on file.
Mr. Bill Skidmore spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He talked
about missing the protest against ARMX in 1989 because he was on a plane ride
back to Ottawa. He reported that during
this plane ride, he met an old friend who was working for the Calgary Economic
Development Authority and was trying to convince the AMRX organizers to hold
their next tradeshow in his city. He
submitted that companies participating in CANSEC habitually attempted to
justify their activities by saying they were building Canada’s industrial base
and playing a key role in maintaining Canada’s security. However, he believed these companies were
concerned about cuts to military spending.
He remarked that most people celebrated the end of the Cold War, but that
these companies were greatly worried by its impact on their bottom line. Mr. Skidmore talked about spending time
in war zones such as South Africa and the Middle East where he witnessed the
impact on human beings of modern war technology. He spoke of a colleague who had been traumatized by war and who
panicked when a helicopter flew overhead.
In closing, he pleaded with Committee to ensure that City facilities
were not used to promote a vested financial interest in selling weapons or
components of military hardware. A copy
of Mr. Skidmore’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Bill Bhaneja, a resident of Sandy Hill, stated
that he took great pride in Ottawa, which had become a world leader in its
pronouncements for a culture of peace in line with the declarations of the
United Nations. He referenced the Human
Rights monument, which was located on the doorsteps of City Hall and where
non-violent leaders such as Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and the Mayor of
Hiroshima had been welcomed. He
submitted it was cities around the world that bore the brunt of war and that
peace happened because of decisions made in cities. He suggested Councillors were mistaken if they believed arms
sales were the market of the future. He
insisted that holding CANSEC in Ottawa did not show the City’s commitment to a
culture of peace, but the opposite. He
urged Council to honour the 1989 ban. A
copy of Mr. Bhaneja’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Fred Cappuccino, a Unitarian minister, stated that
he had been a minister for sixty-three years and had served ten different
congregations. He spoke of his wife
Bonnie and how they had 21 children, 19 of which were adopted. He explained that his wife had started Child
Haven orphanages in India, which cared for eleven hundred children. He added that throughout his wife’s travels,
government officials had professed their love of Canada to her and he talked
about how travellers felt safer with Canadian flags on their backpacks. He suggested this had all changed when
Canada joined George Bush’s war on Afghanistan. He referenced the numerous countries the United States had bombed
since World War Two and quoted a prophet who said “Whoever causes one of these
little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
hung around his neck and be thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42). In closing, Mr. Cappuccino urged Committee
members to support the motion before them.
A copy of his presentation is held on file.
Mr. Allan Shields began by suggesting that the City
had to start some place and had to abolish tradeshows. He spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He
believed the City needed to overcome the arms dealers who were making munitions
to kill families. He stated that since
2003, 1.3 million innocent civilians had died in Iraq and to allow the arms
dealers to showcase in Ottawa was to approve what they were doing. He explained that Canadian military
equipment ended up in countries that continually violated human rights. He warned Committee to be very careful of
the way they voted as they could be opening the door to evil. He referenced the fact that North Korea had
nuclear weapons and would sell them to the highest bidder sooner or later. He believed Iran would do the same and he
urged Committee to ban arms dealers from having tradeshows in Ottawa. He spoke of being in school in the 1950s and
feeling fear when sirens would sound and children would scramble to get beneath
their desks. He once again asked
Councillors to support the motion. A
copy of Mr. Shield’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Samuel Bolton spoke in support
of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He stated that when he first heard of the CANSEC tradeshow in
Ottawa, he did not have a problem with it.
However, he reported that the day before the show, he saw a tractor
trailer pull into Lansdowne Park with a tank on its back and this had caused
him concern. He indicated he was not
comfortable with tanks and weaponry on display in his neighbourhood or anywhere
else in his community or city. He felt
arms tradeshows betrayed the reputation of his neighbourhood and the character
of Ottawa, the nation’s capital. He
remarked that the City had banned these tradeshows twenty years earlier and
therefore he felt CANSEC was insulting public will and democracy. He went on to mention the CANSEC website,
which boasted that they “recognize the importance of national weaponry and
continental security”. While he
understood the need for weaponry for protecting troops overseas, he did not
understand how weapons such as white phosphorous had any role in
peacekeeping. He maintained that the
City could make money in other ways.
Although he did not oppose economic growth or freedom of business, he
believed in conserving Canada’s image as a peaceful and peace-respecting nation
and, most importantly, he believed in conserving the value and dignity of human
life over the economic interests tied to the arms trade. A copy of Mr. Bolton’s presentation is held
on file.
Ms. Karen Raddon started by recognizing that the
Committee faced a difficult choice and that, historically, Canada had been seen
as a peace-making nation. She explained
that Canada was currently the seventh largest military exporter in the world
and was the top military exporter to the United States. She expressed her belief that CANSEC was an
opportunity for weapons manufacturers to promote their technology to a global
market and that the motive of the show was business and profit. She talked about being 6 years old in 1989,
when Council banned military trade shows at Lansdowne, and the impact this had
on her in terms of her belief in an effective democratic process. She believed banning military trade shows
would help to raise citizens who would display peaceful values, exercise
non-violence in their own lives, and expect the same from their
governments. She felt it was Council’s
role to serve as an example to the citizenry and that when Council listened to
the citizens of Ottawa, it reaffirmed their faith in democracy and promoted
further participation. She maintained
that only by demonstrating effective democracy could Ottawa empower citizens of
other countries to exercise their rights and engage in peace processes. She submitted that if CANSEC was allowed to
stay at Lansdowne Park, it would diminish Canada’s reputation as a peacekeeping
country. She then read part of a
statement by Malalai Joya former Afghan MP and winner of many awards. In closing, she suggested that banning
CANSEC would make a strong statement and that Committee had been given an
opportunity to decide Canada’s image. A
copy of Ms. Raddon’s presentation is held on file.
Councillor Doucet noted Committee
members had expressed two different views on the debate; that the City did not
have any role in foreign affairs and that Canada’s military efforts in
Afghanistan would be damaged if the City withdrew its support for an arms sale
in Ottawa. He asked the speaker to
comment on this. Ms. Raddon suggested
that regardless of whether or not CANSEC was allowed to continue on municipal
property, the Canadian military knew how to obtain the equipment it needed and
would continue to do so. She submitted
that CANSEC was about profits and business.
Councillor Doucet asked Ms. Raddon
if she believed the soldiers in Afghanistan would feel disadvantaged or feel
badly if Council decided not to provide a venue for arms sales. The delegation responded in the negative.
Ms. Margaret Nelson spoke on behalf of the Ontario
Association of Social Workers, Eastern Branch, which included more than four
hundred members, most of whom work and live in Ottawa. She expressed support for Councillor
Cullen’s motion, explaining that as a social worker, her role was to alleviate
suffering, promote healthy and peaceful communities and advocate on behalf of
those who were the most oppressed and silenced. She submitted that she was fulfilling all three aspects of her
social work role by demanding a total ban on exhibitions of war on publicly funded
property. She noted stated that CANSEC
was Canada’s foremost arms industry exhibit and that its goal was to foster
international trade in products and services fuelling wars around the
world. She believed CANSEC exhibitors
were manufacturing and selling goods that directly threatened peace and caused
untold suffering. She urged Committee
to maintain the City’s historical refusal to help spread the mechanisms of war
on all publicly funded city facilities and to embrace Canada’s role as a
peacemaker, committed to ending war. A
copy of Ms. Nelson’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Leroy Sanders began by telling Committee that he
was raised by a Quaker family and that his grandfather was very disturbed when
he decided to join the Canadian Forces during World War Two. When he was nineteen, he was sent to India
where he witnessed the starvation of millions of people as a result of the
war. He explained how this bothered him
and how, in recent years, he had discovered that Americans had promoted the rise
of Hitler to power. He expressed his
dislike for how the arms industry affected the entire world and suggested
members of Council had an obligation to use their conscience to decide whether
they should let the arms shows continue on City property.
Ms. Fran Schiller, a resident of Councillor Bedard’s
ward, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. She told Committee that she was a Canadian
citizen but had grown up in Indiana.
She added that in 1965, she and her husband went to Georgia to work with
Martin Luther King’s organization to help register black voters. She advised that they then travelled to
Tanzania for three years as volunteer teachers under Mennonite Central
Committee and later returned to Africa with their two children to teach and
work there for five more years. She
referenced President Eisenhower’s warning to Americans about the
military-industrial complex; that every gun, warship and rocket stole from the
poor. She went on to quote Robert Fisk,
President Kennedy and President Obama and their common beliefs on obtaining
peace. Ms. Schiller strongly urged
Committee to support Councillor Cullen’s motion and stated that everyone needed
the courage and imagination to look into the future and to work for a different
world, a world where leaders and the people throw their efforts into diplomacy
and negotiation, not annihilation. She
concluded by pleading with the Committee to keep Lansdowne Park for the City’s
children and grandchildren. A copy of
Ms. Schiller’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Marlene Hewitt spoke on behalf of the Ottawa
Friends of Malalai Joya. She explained
that Ms. Joya was elected democratically to the Afghan parliament and was an
active, outspoken critic of the warlords who formed the majority of that
body. She read a letter written by Ms.
Joya to the people of Ottawa in which she urged the people of Canada, and
especially the citizens of Ottawa, to not allow their soil to be used for
displaying weapons used daily against the poor people of Afghanistan, Iraq and
other countries. A copy of Ms. Hewitt’s
presentation is held on file.
Mr. Kevin Doyle indicated he had married a refugee who had fled war and that he had
worked with refugees, therefore he know the impact of war. Further, he advised that he came from
Maritime Canada so he some of the military families and what they thought of
being overseas in active battle. He
maintained that among the military families and the soldier, there was a
longing to return to normal life. He
told Committee of how the children in Petawawa were being conditioned to being
called out of class when a tragedy happened overseas and how a child who was
called out of class because her mother was running late panicked because she
feared the worst. He maintained this
was what Canadian families were going through and he suggested that the City of
Ottawa could make a symbolic gesture.
The following written submissions were received
and are held on file:
Ÿ
e-mail from Bill Janzen dated 15 June 2009;
Ÿ
e-mail from Janet Elizabeth Harris dated 15
June 2009;
Ÿ
e-mail from Ida Henderson dated 12 June 2009;
Ÿ
e-mail from Louise McDiarmid dated 11 June 2009; and
Ÿ
e-mail
from Sue Smee dated 7 June 2009.
Councillor Doucet referenced a petition signed
by over 3,000 residents from across Ottawa.
He asked Committee to look at the petition and see all the people who
objected to the arms trade show. He
added that there were also fifteen hundred signatures from people outside of
Ottawa, which suggested that people from across the nation were watching what
this Council was doing on this issue.
He maintained that, symbolically, a lot was riding on this issue. He stated that the war in Afghanistan would
not stop if this City refused to support an arms sale on City property. It would not stop the Canadian Army from
getting the arms it needed. However, it
would send a message to every City on the planet that the City of Ottawa did
not want to participate in the extension of war.
Councillor Chiarelli explained that as
Committee was debating this issue the main story on CFRA Radio was that
Canada’s 120th soldier had been killed in Afghanistan. He maintained that Ottawa was the national
capital and the seat of the defense department in Canada, the department
responsible for equipping Canadian troops and protecting them. He submitted that in order to do this, the
department needed to have access to options and procurement possibilities. He
felt that, as a national capital, Ottawa should facilitate this role. He suggested that the precedent of turning
down this show could quickly expand to other areas and Federal government
functions. He insisted that Ottawa
behave as a national capital and let the federal government conduct its
business.
Councillor El-Chantiry felt the comments
Committee had heard from the public delegations were outside of what the City
could actually do and outside of its responsibility. He reminded Committee that what they were debating was if
military trade shows could be held in City facilities. He asked Committee to put the debate back
into that perspective. He stated that,
as a person who grew up in the Middle East, he was very grateful for the
Canadians and their equipment.
Councillor Bloess referenced the public
delegations and the disturbing images that were shown. He felt there was an effort made to suggest
that however someone on Committee voted, this would be a vote for or against
war. He stressed that this was not the
case and that there was not one person on Committee who supported war. He maintained that what Committee was
discussing was whether or not an exposition could take place on City
property. He talked about being born in
a post-World War Two refugee camp and, as a child, playing in places that were
ruins of war. He did not wish this on
anyone. However, he argued that it was
a far leap from that description and what Committee was currently
considering. He concluded by stating
that it was not appropriate to ban these military tradeshows, but to put limits
on what they may display.
At this juncture Committee voted on Councillor
Cullen’s motion, as outlined in the agenda package:
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.
LOST
YEAS (0):
NAYS
(7): R. Bloess, G. Brooks, R.
Chiarelli, E. El-Chantiry, P. Hume, R. Jellett, S. Desroches
Committee moved on to consider the motion
introduced at the previous meeting by Councillor El-Chantiry on behalf of
Councillor Chiarelli:
Speaking to the motion, Councillor Hume
proposed to amend the wording to remove the specific references to military
trade shows, thereby making it more generic in terms of national-level
events. Councillor El-Chantiry accepted
this as a friendly amendment.
Committee then voted on the revised motion.
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
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 which 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 that is 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 and which provides
significant options for the City's first responder and law enforcement agencies
and which 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 recognize its role as host city for trade shows that help fulfill
Canada’s national responsibilities;
AND THAT the City of Ottawa continue
to include consideration of national level trade shows in its economic
development strategies and practices and in its facilities allocation policies.
CARRIED
as amended
CITY COUNCIL
CONSEIL
MUNICIPAL
2. MID-TERM GOVERNANCE REVIEW
Examen de mi-mandat
sur la gouvernance
ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0043 city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Vice Chair Desroches
reminded members that this item had been referred to Committee for the purpose
of hearing public delegations. He noted
a number of the delegations registered to speak were representatives of
Advisory Committees and as such, he proposed allowing them 10 minutes each for
their presentations. Before proceeding
to the delegations, he invited the City Clerk to set the stage.
Mr. Rick O’Connor,
City Clerk and Solicitor, noted the Vice Chair had already set the stage
insofar as the representations from Advisory Committees. He confirmed this was an opportunity to
receive public input and for members to ask questions of the delegations. He explained the matter would then be
returned to full Council for debate on June 24th.
Responding to a
question from Vice Chair Desroches, Mr. O’Connor stated the intent was not to
deal with any motions or to debate the question at the current meeting and that
such discussions would be held at the following week’s Council meeting.
In reply to a
question from Councillor El-Chantiry, the City Clerk and Solicitor indicated he
had not planned on making a presentation.
Committee
heard from the following public delegations:
Mr. Pierre Boivin,
Results-Based Scorecards Inc., referred to documents circulated to Committee members: Results-Based Scorecards Governance System;
an example of a governance scorecard; and a draft proposal to Council for the
implementation of a governance system.
He then provided a brief overview of his experience in this area, mainly
in the federal public service, and spoke to the executive summary of his
proposal to Council. He believed the
governance report prepared by staff identified a need for metrics with regards
to governance and submitted this was what his proposal addressed. Copies of Mr. Boivin’s submissions are held
on file.
Responding to questions
from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Boivin confirmed he was proposing to sell a service
to the City and that he had not approached procurement staff. However, he reported having met with the
City Clerk in January. He explained
that he had wanted to start with the governance level and would welcome suggestions
as to whom he should contact.
Ms. Irene Mlambo and
Ms. Christine Santele, City for All Women Initiative (CAWI), spoke to a document prepared and
submitted by CAWI titled The Peach Paper Re-Visited, June 2009. In doing so, they provided an overview of
CAWI’s response to the mid-term governance review and outlined the organizations
recommendations with regards to same. A
copy of their submission is held on file.
Responding to a question
from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to suggestions for an application form
to be used in recruiting members for advisory committees, Ms. Mlambo suggested
CAWI would have to get back to members on that.
Councillor El-Chantiry
referenced CAWI’s recommendation with respect to training for members of
advisory committees. He believed the
City Clerk’s office already did this but that the sessions were not necessarily
well attended. He recognized the
importance of training, noted that CAWI had been successful in this area, and
wondered if CAWI representatives could make some suggestions in this regard. Ms. Suzanne Doerge referenced meetings and discussions
held with respect to the white papers and noted that advisory committee members
did not always understand how City government worked or how decisions were
made. Therefore, she talked about the
need to impart a basic understanding of how City government worked and skills
around chairing meetings as well as to facilitate meetings amongst the advisory
committee chairs.
Councillor El-Chantiry
understood the type of training that could be useful to advisory committee
members. However, he re-iterated his
concerns were that when staff did organize sessions, these were not well
attended. Therefore, he wondered how
the City could ensure participation.
Ms. Doerge suggested putting the question to the Advisory Committee
Chairs who would be presenting.
Ms. Jenny Gullen,
Coordinator, People for a Better Ottawa, referenced her organization’s written
response to the City’s mid-term governance review, which had been circulated to
all members of the Committee. Speaking
to this submission, she explained the organization’s composition, listed its
goals insofar as changes to the current municipal governance structure, and
expressed support for a motion approved by Council in July 2007 to take a tripe
bottom line approach to budget and policy development. She also spoke to the aspects related to the
standing committee structure and public engagement. A copy of Ms. Gullen’s written submission is held on file.
Councillor Wilkinson
referenced the speaker’s recommendation that the City hold meetings in an open
and transparent manner. She maintained
that the City already did this; that all standing committee meetings were open
to the public, people could attend and speak directly to members of Council. Ms. Gullen suggested having an assessment
done to determine the extent to which public delegations felt Committees were
accessible.
Councillor Wilkinson
raised the issue of ward councils, as referenced in the delegation’s written
submission, and indicated she would be going a pilot of this. She inquired as to the speaker’s views in
this regard. Ms. Gullen indicated her
organization held a public forum on May 23rd and with respect to
ward councils, people felt these could be a good idea, as long as they were
done in a way that promoted inclusion.
Responding to a question
from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to encouraging participation, Ms. Gullen
suggested working through existing voluntary sector organizations in the
community.
Councillor Wilkinson
noted that the presenter had spoken against having the Audit, Budget and
Finance Committee develop the budget, which was contrary to what the City was
trying to do. She explained what was
proposed, in terms of standing committees’ involvement in the budget process and
then inquired as to the speaker’s views.
Ms. Gullen supported the basic principle of having public engagement
from the very beginning and then transparency and openness throughout the
budget process. She indicated her
organization’s fear was that the Audit, Budget and Finance Committee could
become more closed; a world onto itself.
Responding to questions
from Councillor Chiarelli with respect to budget processes, Ms. Gullen
acknowledged that even with a budget process that involved residents from the
beginning, there would always be some people who felt the need to comment on
the draft budget. She submitted that
was politics. However, she maintained
she was suggesting a need for a more constructive process where the City worked
hard to engage people at the beginning; a budget based on an understanding of
residents’ needs rather than being based on financial constraints. She believed starting at the beginning was a
better process because it would become a consultation as opposed to a
confrontation. She remarked that there
were models for development a more bottom-up budget process and she suggesting
that the City engage some of the voluntary sector organizations in developing
such a process. She submitted that when
people felt they had been heard at the beginning and that their opinions were
respected, there was much less chance of anger and confrontation at the end.
Mr. Essam Hamed,
Joint Chair, French Language Services Advisory Committee, referenced the recommendations
already submitted by the FLSAC with respect to the City’s governance structure,
which largely flowed from the Advisory Committee’s last appearance before the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee when it presented a
series of recommendations aimed at giving French language services a higher
profile within the City. He talked
about the need to actively offer quality services in both official languages in
every aspect of City activities and offered examples when this had not been the
case. He referenced the proposed
creation of a Board of Health and he maintained the need to affirm that it
would be subject to the City’s Bilingualism Policy. He reminded Committee that implementation of the Bilingualism
Policy was a shared responsibility of Council and staff. He suggested the third objective identified
in the White Papers could have referenced the francophone community as a target
group. He recommended welcoming meeting
participants in both official languages, having bilingual hosts for events and
providing documents in French and in English simultaneously. He expressed support for the recommendations
submitted jointly by the City’s advisory committees and suggested: that the
City encourage all of its advisory committees to seek to achieve equitable
representation within their memberships by recruiting francophones; that all of
the City’s decision-making entities meet the requirements of the Bilingualism
Policy; that the selected governance model always reflect the fact that Ottawa
has a Bilingualism Policy; and that strategic planning processes ensure an active
offer of services in both official languages.
A copy of Mr. Hamed’s written submission is held on file.
Responding to questions
from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Hamed agreed that the current Bilingualism Policy
was pragmatic and that, to a certain degree, it served residents well. With respect to the proposed Board of
Health, he indicated the FLSAC had exchanged some correspondence in an attempt
to address its concerns and that the respect had not be satisfactory.
Mr. Rob Sproule,
Chair, Business Advisory Committee, provided a written submission, a copy of which is held on file. He expressed excitement over the changes
being implemented, which he felt would lead to a dramatically improved
municipal government. He commended
Council for moving forward on this and staff for putting together the process
and putting the concepts into words. He
remarked the process was putting forward an enhanced role for advisory
committee and he believed that, as this was implemented, the City would see a
stronger pool of candidates coming forward to participate on advisory
committees. Notwithstanding that, he
supported the notion of increased orientation and training for advisory
committee members, noting this was a complex environment. He submitted that getting good advice from
advisory committees required a two-way dialogue, which he felt had been missing
for the past several years. However, he
believed that as the new governance structure was implemented, different forms
and approaches of public input would evolve.
In closing, he again congratulated members of Council and staff on a job
well done and he encouraged the continuation of these efforts.
Responding to comments
from Councillor McRae with respect to the need for training advisory committee
members, Ms. Leslie Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk, confirmed that to date, the
City Clerk’s office had conducted advisory committee orientation, but not
training. However, one of the things
staff had learned early on was that an orientation was not enough. Therefore, she advised that staff had begun
a very productive dialogue and a new direction with the advisory
committees. She indicated staff would
be working with the advisory committees to talk about how best to train them
for their roles and how best to train the chairs. Further, she suggested that once this was successful, it could
potentially be opened up to community associations in order to enhance public
involvement and public knowledge about how to be engaged.
Councillor McRae,
appreciate that and pleased to hear you talk about community associations. Was just speaking with the City Solicitor
this morning about how some run like independent organizations and don’t offer
transparency and don’t know how to conduct themselves. That’s why I’m glad Mr. Sproule raised this
issue because, when you look at how important the advisory committees’ role is,
it’s also important for advisory committee members to know what their role
is. Have talked to many chairs who say
they get new members on and members think they’re here to provide legislation
and go off on a political bent when that’s not what the role of an advisory
committee is.
Mr. Sproule added that,
as the process evolved to the point where there was a city-wide strategic plan
and standing committees had actions plans to achieve Council’s goals, it would
become easier and more effective for advisory committees to plug into this
process and become more productively engaged.
Ms. Sheila Perry,
Vice-Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC), suggested the principles of good
governance were key. She talked about:
the importance of training advisory committee members in terms of getting to
know how things worked; the need for dynamic communication between the PRAC and
its standing committee, the Community and Protective Services Committee; the
PRAC’s role in terms of the development of the City’s Parks and Recreation
Master Plan; mechanisms for communicating with the community, including recent
improvements in terms of web based tools; the importance of seeing where
advisory committee workplans fit into the bigger picture; members’ terms and
the fact that when members were appointed for one-year terms, it was taken up
by a learning curve; the need to involve youth; and the need for training. A copy of Ms. Perry’s written submission is
held on file.
Mr. Roger Beauchesne,
Chair, Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee (RCAC), suggested planning was paramount for any well
managed organization and he believed the system has been broken for some
time. He referenced the City’s
Transportation Master Plan, which listed cycling as Council’s number two
priority and remarked that no money was assigned to this priority in at budget
time over several years. Therefore, he
maintained that there was a disconnect between planning and budgeting. He noted the City had approved a Cycling
Plan the previous year but in the last budget, there had been no mention of the
Plan’s prime objective nor was there a mention of the $26M allocated. He stated very little money was presented. He wondered why the City would spend money
to create plans if these were to be shelved.
He reported that starting last November, the RCAC had worked to prepare
a workplan, that all members had participated and that he was very pleased with
the quality of the document. He
indicated the previous week, he had received an e-mail saying the workplan
would no longer be required. He felt
this sent a message. He maintained
plans were important, that they created expectations, but that they needed
money and staff in order to be implemented.
In conclusion, he expressed his belief that Council was on the right
track and he urged members to continue their outstanding work.
Vice Chair Desroches
noted that any time the City did a new road widening, it included cycling
facilities. Therefore, he felt there
was progress being made and he did not want to leave the impression that
nothing was being done with respect to trying to improve cycling facilities
throughout the City. In response, Mr.
Beauchesne listed examples of what he referred to as disconnects in terms of
cycling infrastructure.
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee receive public delegations with respect to the Mid-Term
Governance Review, as referred by Council at its meeting of 10 June 2009.
RECEIVED
OTTAWA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
CONSEIL D’ADMINISTRATION DE
LA BIBLIOTHèE PUBLIQUE D’OTTAWA
3. NEW CENTRAL LIBRARY
SITE
NOUVELLE
BIBLIOTHEQUE CENTRAL - EMPLACEMENT
ACS2009-CMR-OCM-0005 city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve the entire city block,
bounded by Lyon, Albert, Bay and Slater as the recommended site for the
location of the new central library;
2.
Establish a 2009 capital funding
authority in the amount of $26 million for the new central library project as
outlined in the Financial Implications section of this report;
3.
Subject to approval of
Recommendations 1 and 2, authorize and direct the Real Estate Partnerships and
Development Office to:
a) Obtain all necessary appraisals and surveys
of the properties known municipally as 388, 400, 408, 414 Albert Street and
156-160 Lyon Street (the “Lands”), shown as Parcels “A” to “E” on Document “1”
attached and described as follows:
·
Parcel “A”: 156 - 160 Lyon Street north - PIN 041140009,
041140010 - Part Lot 16 and Lot 17, Plan 3922 south side of Albert Street,
owned by Benjamin Feinstein;
·
Parcel “B”: 388 Albert Street - PIN 041140011, 041140012
- part lot l6, south side of Albert Street, Plan 3922, owned by Irene and Bruno
Kaczmarek;
·
Parcel “C”: 400 Albert Street - PIN 04114008 - Part lots
14, 15 South side of Albert Street and Lots 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17 north side of
Slater Street, Plan 3922 except part 2, 4R-10209, owned by The Civil Service
Co-operative Credit Society Limited;
·
Parcel “D”: 408 Albert Street - PIN 041140366 - Lot 13
south side of Albert Street, Plan 3922, owned by 1470475 Ontario Inc.; and
·
Parcel “E”: 414 Albert Street - PIN 041140365 - Lot 12
south side of Albert Street, Plan 3922, owned by 1470475 Ontario Inc;
b) Acquire the Lands by
negotiation and agreement; and
c) Report
back to Committee and Council prior to finalizing and executing all documents
and agreements arising from the acquisition of the Lands; and
4.
Deem the notice given of the budget
amendment in the 12 June 2009 editions of the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit to
comply with the Notice By-law.
CARRIED
CITY
MANAGER’S OFFICE
BUREAU
DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL
CITY CLERK’S BRANCH
RECEIVED
CARRIED
Councillor Wilkinson asked that this
item be deferred until the next meeting, stating that because the report came
out late, representatives from Mitel had not hade an opportunity to review it
properly.
Councillor Deans wondered whether
any legal issues would arise with respect to the awarding of the contract if
the item was deferred. In response, Mr.
Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor, indicated he did not believe a
two-week deferral would result in any difficulties.
Councillor Jellet referenced the
morning newspapers, which contained a reaction from Mitel. Therefore, he wondered why they would need
two more weeks before coming to Committee.
Following these exchanges, Committee voted on the deferral motion.
Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson
That consideration of this item be deferred
until the next meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee.
CARRIED
That the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee:
1. Lift the
“suspension” of the Voice of Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) procurement process
approved at its meeting of April 7, 2009; and
2. Recommend
to Council it approve that the procurement process continue through to its
conclusion of contract negotiations and award with the preferred proponent,
Bell Canada/Cisco Systems, pursuant to existing delegated authority.
DEFERRED
7. Financing
of the City Portion of Infrastructure Stimulus Projects
Ms.
Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which
served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Councillor El-Chantiry
expressed concerns with respect to the City’s ability to complete projects
within the prescribed timelines and the potential for costs to rise given the
limited number of people and/or companies able to do the work. He wondered what mechanisms would be in
place to safeguard against price gouging in the market. Ms. Simulik indicated staff were very
cognisant of this issue and she suggested part of the answer was the use of
standing offers because these had fixed prices attached to them. Secondly, she advised that when staff went
out to tender for the construction components of these major projects, they
would be looking to ensure they stayed within the respective budgets and would
compare the costs of stimulus projects to those of previous projects. Finally, she noted that because the list was
public, everyone was aware of the upset limits for these projects. However, should there be any issues in this
regard, she stated staff would come back to Council to get direction on how to
proceed; whether to put in the extra money from City resources, whether to not
do the work, or whether to slow down other work in order to accommodate the
stimulus projects.
Councillor El-Chantiry
referenced the federal Auditor General’s expressed concerns with respect to
this process and he wondered whether the City’s Auditor General was working
with staff in Infrastructure Services to make sure projects were not
blind-sided by market demands. Ms.
Simulik indicated the City’s Auditor General had expressed his intention to
audit the projects in the end. Otherwise,
she deferred to the Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and
Community Sustainability. Ms. Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability, indicated she was not aware of specific discussions with the
Auditor General in terms of ensuring the City received competitive bids. However, she maintained the department was
in that business, would be monitoring the bids received, and would know if they
were not receiving competitive bids. If
this were to happen, she submitted the City may have to rethink its
strategy. Although she did not think it
would happen, she acknowledged it as a valid comment.
Councillor El-Chantiry
again referred to concerns expressed by the federal Auditor General with respect
to the amount of projects to be undertaken and the need to ensure the quality
of the work. He inquired about
monitoring mechanisms and what other jurisdictions were doing in this regard. Ms. Schepers noted there were two aspects to
the question; ensuring the quality control was consistant and the ability to
complete projects by the March 2011 timeline.
She advised that staff would be following normal practices in terms of
oversight, though she acknowledged that it would be a challenge to attract, develop
and retain the resources to do that oversight.
She noted that the stimulus package would introduce a lot of money into
the marketplace and it would pose a challenge.
However, she noted that other parts of the market were down, therefore
staff would be monitoring it but did not expect to see spikes.
Councillor El-Chantiry
wondered if staff could be directed to work with the Auditor General’s office,
before the next Council meeting, to monitor what other municipalities were
doing in this regard.
In terms of giving
direction to staff, Vice Chair Desroches remarked that some of the standing
procedures and rules would be relaxed a bit in order to accommodate the terms
of the federal and provincial stimulus package. Therefore, he wondered if a counter balance to that would be to
have timely reporting to Committee in terms of how the program was rolling out
and whether staff was seeing some unusual pricing in the sector. He wondered if this would satisfy Councillor
El-Chantiry’s concerns. Councillor El-Chantiry
responded affirmatively.
Councillor El-Chantiry
referred to the list of projects to be undertaken, noting that only 0.4% of the
spending would go towards rural road upgrades yet, in terms of debt financing,
rural residents would be paying 12% of the bill. He suggested the City needed to be able to community to residents
how and why this was taking place. Ms.
Simulik explained that of the $36M to be financed, $16M would be for Transit,
which rural residents did not pay.
Therefore, rural residents would not get the full brunt of the debt
servicing.
Responding
to a follow-up question from Councillor El-Chantiry with respect to the other
$20M, which would go towards road projects and for which rural residents would
pay, Ms. Simulik explained these were primarily large growth roads in the
City’s perimeter. Therefore, although
she the number of projects in specific rural wards was small, she expected
rural residents would use perimeter growth roads such as Hazeldean, moreso than
downtown residents.
Councillor El-Chantiry felt Commications staff would work on
communicating this to residents because if was an important file and a lot of
money would be going into it. Further,
he expressed the need for the City of Ottawa to work with other municipalities
to make sure there were mechanisms of accountability in place.
Vice-Chair Desroches pointed out that this was a stimulus package. It was about stimulating the local economy,
which would have City-wide benefits.
Councillor Deans
remarked that any time the City received money from upper tier governments for
infrastructure, it was good news.
However, she expressed concerns with the way it was being rolled out and
referenced the City Treasurer’s earlier comment about possibly slowing down other
projects. She wondered what projects
could potentially be slowed down. Ms.
Simulik indicated no projects would be slowed down in 2009. She referred to the list of major
construction work and the timelines and cashflow for same, she advised that
most of the work would take place in 2010.
Therefore, if the construction industry did not have the capacity to do
both the stimulus package work and other planned work in 2010, she felt it
would be logical to suggest delaying some of the other projects in order to
maximize the amount of money the City would receive from the federal and
provincial coffers.
Councillor Deans
maintained it was still a considerable worry if any of Council’s projects or
priorities were to be deferred or delayed as a result of this package and she
expressed a desire to receive more information on this in order to understand
what could be jeopardized. She then
inquired about the City’s debt financing capacities or advisability and the
impact of the stimulus package in this regard. Speaking to the first issue, Ms. Simulik explained that the
federal and provincial governments were proposing one-quarter of the funding in
2009 and the other three-quarters in 2010 and 2011. Therefore, as Council started the 2010 capital budget process,
staff would be able to provide information with respect to the impact in 2010
or whether all the work could get done.
With respect to the debt financing, she explained that the debt the City
would be putting on the books was referred to as revolving debt whereby each
year, a certain amount of debt was retired and replaced. Therefore, she maintained this would not be
incremental debt to the City. It would
simply be front-ending the amount of debt the City would normally issue in a
5-year period and issuing it in the first couple of years of that 5-year
window. As a result, the last couple of
years of the 5-year window would see the City having a reduced capacity;
perhaps $10M or $20 instead of $40M in each of those years.
Councillor Deans raised
the issue of resources and capacity to get the work done. She was concerned that the City did not have
enough internal resources to manage of the projects, that this would result in
additional costs to farm out the project manager roles and that this would, in turn,
result in less control over projects.
She wondered if she was reading the situation correctly and how much
extra costs would be involved in terms of project management resources. Ms. Schepers confirmed that the City was
supplementing internal resources with external resources, which was how it was
always done. She referenced to a
presentation made by Mr. Wayne Newell at a previous meeting of this Committee
with respect to the competitive service assessment done of his unit. She reminded members of some of the
recommendations around this in terms of internal versus external resources in
that the City should manage straight-forward projects with internal staff and
focus on the more complex ones with external resources. She maintained staff would follow these same
principles in undertaking the stimulus package work. In terms of the costs, she indicated these would be built into
the capital estimates and that staff would ensure the processes were
competitive.
Responding to a
follow-up question with respect to the costs for project management resources
and the funding to be received from the upper tier governments, Ms. Simulik
reminded Committee that the stimulus package had to be used for incremental
spending. Therefore, the upper tiers
would not pay for the salaries of existing staff. However, they would pay for any external resources or
supplemental staff brought on to manage the projects.
In reply to a question
from Councillor Hume with respect to the state of the credit market,
Ms. Simulik indicated the capital credit market was fairly good and that
staff could go to the private sector.
However, she explained the CMHC was offering a venue with a great rate
and that allows the City to have construction up to the end of 2012, thereby
extending the timeframe.
Councillor Bloess posed
questions with respect to the financing of projects that would normally be
funded through development charges. He
wondered whether the City would recuperate those development charge contributions
in the future. Ms. Simulik explained
that under the development charge legislation, the City had to apply any
subsidy it received before determining the growth portion of any project. She confirmed that because of the federal
and provincial stimulus funding, projects were being subsidized to some
extent. However, she maintained that
the City would still collect development charges of its portion of the costs of
those projects. She indicated this was
consistent with existing legislation.
Councillor Bloess
referred to the Hunt Club extension project and a motion he would be
introducing in terms of how to move forward with it. He wondered if there were risks for the City if the funding for
the interchange did not come through.
Ms. Schepers confirmed there were risks if the City did not get 50/50
cost sharing from the Province for the interchange portion of the project. She explained that what was shown in the
stimulus package was phase 1, $20M for the Hunt Club extension. She indicated the City had been very clear
in terms of needing the remainder of the funding to complete the project
over-all. She advised that staff would be sending a letter to the Province and
giving them a deadline for responding in order to be able to award the full
contract. She remarked that what was
before Committee represented only the $20M needed for the extension, which
would not complete the interchange.
Councillor Bloess
introduced a motion, which he felt was the right approach, that if the Province
provided its share of the funding for the interchange within the requested
timeframe, that the City Treasurer be delegated the authority to amend the
project and fund the City’s share with debt.
When asked, Ms. Simulik
confirmed that she was comfortable with this.
Councillor McRae noted that
an official City spokesperson had said over the weekend that the City might not
meet the prescribed timeframe and that there was flexibility and fluidity in
the system in this regard. She was
concerned by this and requested clarification.
Ms. Simulik indicated staff had identified some risks, though she
maintained the City fully intended to get these projects done. Having said that, she believed there had
been some indication at the recent Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
conference that the federal government was now saying municipalities had to
have substantive completion. However,
the term “substantive” had not been define.
She explained her understanding was that the federal government would
request reimbursement for their share of any portion of projects not completed
by the March 2011 deadline. In other
words, if a project was 90% complete by that time, the
federal government would request reimbursement for one-third (its share)
of 10% of the project’s costs. She
noted that to date, no details had been confirmed in terms of the federal
government’s expectations in this regard, how the money would flow, or the kind
of progress reports expected.
Councillor McRae
remarked that in the event of problems at the time of construction, the City
could be on the hook for a lot of money if some of these big projects did not
meet the deadline by a significant percentage.
Ms. Simulik submitted there were many risks associated with this
program, including the one referenced by the Councillor. She suggested that, if there were any
significant issues, staff would bring these to Committee’s attention as part of
the regular reports, as previously requested, and would seek direction from
Council on what to do about them.
Councillor McRae
wondered, in crafting contracts for the projects, if Legal Services staff would
ensure the City’s risks and liabilities were minimized. Mr. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor,
responded affirmatively.
Responding to questions
from Councillor McRae with respect to future operating pressures associated
with these capital projects, Ms. Simulik indicated staff had not had the
opportunity to identify the operating impacts or when they would appear in the
City’s budget. However, she advised
there would not be an operating impact on the 2010 budget. She believed these operating pressures would
be built into the 2011 and/or 2012 budgets, depending on when the projects were
finally commissioned and being used.
Councillor McRae advised
that representatives of the French Language Services Advisory Committee, who
were in attendance, had asked whey the staff presentation was not available in
both official languages. She noted that
at some Committees, presentations were made in both official languages. Ms. Simulik indicated she had never done a
presentation in both official languages at the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee but that if it was Committee’s desire, this could be
accommodated. With respect to the
current item, she noted that the report had been finalized late and the
presentation prepared only the previous afternoon, therefore translation would
have been difficult.
Councillor McRae
indicated that at Transportation Committee, they always had both screens and
presentations in both official languages.
She realized the inquiry was not related to the subject before
Committee. However, she felt it was
important to consider it and suggested staff could deal with it offline in
order to be cohesive in terms of how presentations were made at the various
standing committees.
Councillor Chiarelli
felt this was a substantive request and therefore should not be dealt with
offline.
Vice-Chair Desroches
believed it was a wise suggestion to have presentations translated because
there could potentially be members of the public or members of Council at
Committee wanting to communicate in French.
Councillor Wilkinson
imparted some of the announcements made at FCM with respect to the stimulus
package and requested confirmation that all the projects that were approved
were on the list submitted by the City.
Ms. Simulik responded affirmatively.
Councillor Wilkinson
reminded her colleagues that when Council prepared the list, there was
recognition that it was bigger than what would likely be approved and that all
the projects were things the City wanted to have funded over the next few years
and that by undertaking them as part of the stimulus package, the City would
have less to fund than if it had undertaken the projects on its own in two or three
years. Ms. Simulik again responded
affirmatively.
Responding to a question
from Vice Chair Desroches, Ms. Simulik felt it would be logical for staff to
provide regular updates on the stimulus projects as part of the quarterly
status reports.
Councillor Bloess
referenced the motion he introduced earlier, noting that it did not change the
list current before Committee; that it simply gave the Treasurer the authority
to fund the City’s share of the interchange with debt if the Province came
through with its share of the funding for that project.
When asked to comment on
this, Ms. Simulik suggested that, in terms of economies of scale, it made sense
for the City to try and do it as one whole project; the interchange and the
extension at the same time. She advised
that if the Provincial government did not come forward with funding for the
interchange, then the City would continue with the Hunt Club extension only and
it would not connect to the 417.
Vice Chair Desroches
advised that the City Solicitor had suggested some revised wording for the
motion and he read this into the record:
that should the Province provide their share of funding for the Hunt
Club / 417 interchange within the requested time limits, that the City
Treasurer be delegated the authority to establish the necessary debt to fund
the City’s share of the interchange within the parameters of the City’s Fiscal
Framework and provincial debt limits.
Responding to a series
of questions from Councillor McRae with respect to the project referenced in
Councillor Bloess’ motion, Ms. Simulik explained that the interchange was a
provincial road and was therefore not eligible for federal funding. As a result, the increased authority would
be for 50% of the project’s costs. She
indicated Committee was dealing with it under stimulus because the Hunt Club
extension had been submitted as a stimulus project and, because of potential
economies of scale, it made sense to tender the whole project at the same
time. Ms Schepers clarified that the
entire project, worth $51M, had been submitted as part of the stimulus. The City had asked for $20M for the Hunt
Club extension and indicated that the remainder of it, the interchange, was to
be cost shared with the Province.
However, she confirmed that the interchange portion of the project was
not shovel-ready and could not be built by March 2011. Speaking to the issue of priorities, she
maintained that the project was on Council’s priority list in terms of the Transportation
Master Plan and that Council had approved it as part of the stimulus
package. Further, she recalled that
when Council approved it as part of the stimulus package, it was clearly
reflected as a project costing $51M with $20M being eligible for stimulus and
the balance as being cost-shared 50/50 with the Province.
Councillor McRae
suggested waiting for a response from the Province on its share of the funding
for the interchange before giving authority to the City Treasurer with respect
to the City’s share of the project costs.
Ms. Schepers suggested that, in terms of timing for the construction
award and Council’s timetable, it could create a delay in order for staff to
award the contract and make a decision to move ahead this year in order to do
the $20M by March 2011.
Councillor McRae
requested clarification with respect to the delay, noting all that would be
needed was another CSEDC meeting to deal with this. Therefore, she did not understand the rush. Ms. Simulik explained that staff would be
asking that the Province respond within 60 days, which would mean receipt of a
response some time in early August. She
noted that there had been discussions about not having a Council meeting in
August and that meeting being moved to early September. In looking at the timetable, she submitted
that there was a timing issue with getting the project authority on the books
so that staff could actually go out and do the tender. However, she advised that if it was the will
of Committee, staff could come back in early September, once a response was
received from the Province.
Councillor
McRae stated that when this rose to Council, she would want to know what other
projects Council should be ramping through and giving staff the authority to
move forward with.
Councillor Deans
wondered if the projects total cost of $51M included sound attenuation features
all the way along Hunt Club Road, as approved by City Council as part of the
over-all package or whether these would result in additional costs. Ms. Schepers indicated staff would provide a
response before the item was considered by Council.
Councillor Bloess
clarified that this project had been put forward and approved, that the
interchange was another element of it, for which an Environmental Assessment
had been done, and that this project was listed in the City’s Transportation
Master Plan. Further, he believed staff
had taken the proper approach with respect to its funding.
Responding to a question
from Vice Chair Desroches, Ms. Simulik re-iterated that Committee could either
approve the delegated authority now or this could be brought forward at the
Committee’s August meeting, once a response was received from the
Province.
At this juncture,
Committee voted on the motion.
Moved by Councillor R. Bloess
Should the
Province of Ontario provide their share of funding for the Hunt Club / 417
interchange within the requested time limits, that the City Treasurer be
delegated the authority to establish the necessary debt to fund the City’s
share of the interchange within the parameters of the City’s Fiscal Framework
and Provincial debt limits.
CARRIED
Committee then
approved the item as amended.
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
a)
Approve
the projects and the City financing share of the Infrastructure Stimulus
Projects as outlined in Document 1;
b)
Temporarily
amend:
i.
Schedule
E, sections 11 (4) and (5) of the Delegated Authority by-law as detailed in
this report for the acquisition of land associated with the approved Stimulus
projects;
ii.
Section 21
(9) of the Purchasing By-law as detailed in this report for purposes
of procuring goods and services related to the
approved Stimulus projects;
c)
Authorize
the City Treasurer to:
i)
Make
a loan application for any eligible debt identified in Document 1 to the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Municipal Infrastructure Lending Program;
ii)
Negotiate
and sign all required loan agreements and documentation;
iii)
Bring
debenture by-law(s) to Council if required, to complete the request for loan
advances under this loan facility;
d)
Authorize
the Treasurer to make any financing adjustments to the Stimulus projects as
required; and
e) That,
should the Province of Ontario provide their share of funding for the Hunt Club
/ 417 interchange within the requested time limits, that the City Treasurer be
delegated the authority to establish the necessary debt to fund the City’s
share of the interchange within the parameters of the City’s Fiscal Framework
and Provincial debt limits.
CARRIED
as amended
TABLED
Ms.
Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which
served to provide Committee with a brief overview of the report. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Responding to a series
of questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Simulik confirmed that the dollar
figure referenced at the bottom of page 70 of the agenda package with respect
to the Endowment Fund captured the original $200M received from Ottawa
Hydro. Speaking further on the
Endowment Fund, she referred Committee to page 77 and explained how the fund
had fluctuated in 2008 and early 2009, confirmed that the City had not drawn
from it in either of the aforementioned years, but advised that if it continued
to recover as it had in recent months, the City would be able to draw from it
for the 2010 capital budget.
Following these
exchanges, Committee voted on the item.
CARRIED
RECEIVED
CARRIED
CARRIED
Planning and Growth Management
Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
14. CAPITAL
FUNDING SUPPORT – THE OTTAWA HOSPITAL - GENERAL, RIVERSIDE AND CIVIC CAMPUSES
Soutien au FINANCEMENT
DES IMMOBILISATIONS – HÔPITAL D’OTTAWA – CAMPUS GÉNÉRAL, RIVERSIDE ET CIVIC
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0120 city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend
Council approve that:
1.
The
Ottawa Hospital – General, Riverside and Civic Campuses be remitted
$1,525,008.64, representing the amount paid to the City for Cash-in-lieu of
Parkland ($101,143.59), Planning application fees ($13,158.60) and the Building
permit fees ($1,410,706.45) for construction projects undertaken pursuant to
the hospital’s approved 10-Year Capital Program up to and including March 31,
2009, as noted in Document 2 to this report;
2.
The Cash-in-Lieu of
Parkland remittance ($101,143.59), and the Building Permit fees remittance
($1,410,706.45) be funded from the City-Wide Capital Reserve Fund; and
3.
The Planning Application
fees remittance ($13,158.60) be funded from the 2009 Planning and Growth Management
2009 Planning Application fees revenue budget.
CARRIED
15. ST.
JOSEPH BOULEVARD COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN grant application – JARDIN ROYAL
GARDEN INC. – 2802‑2810 ST. JOSEPH BOULEVARD (File no. D03-01-07
STJOG 1)
Demande de subvention du Plan d’amélioration communautaire du boulevard
St-Joseph – Jardin royal garden inc. – 2802-2810, boulevard St-Joseph
ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0092 Innes (2)
That the Corporate
Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve the St. Joseph Boulevard
Community Improvement Plan Grant Application submitted by Jardin Royal Garden
Inc., owner of the property at 2802‑2810 St. Joseph Boulevard, for a
Development Incentive Grant not to exceed $735,060, payable
to Jardin Royal Garden Inc. over a maximum of 10 years subject to the Owner
entering into an Agreement, as provided for in the approved St. Joseph
Boulevard Community Improvement Plan; and
2.
Authorise staff to negotiate a
Development Assistance Agreement with Jardin Royal Garden Inc. establishing the
terms and conditions governing the payment of the Development Incentive Grant
for the redevelopment of 2802-2810 St. Joseph Boulevard satisfactory to the
Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, the
City Solicitor and the City Treasurer.
CARRIED
16. REQUEST
FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGE EXEMPTION - 1635 RIVERSIDE dRIVE
DEMANDE D’EXEMPTION DES REDEVANCES
D’AMÉNAGEMENT – 1635, PROMENADE RIVERSIDE
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0114 Capital/Capitale (17)
That the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve an exemption from the
payment of development charges by Lycée Claudel (1635 Riverside Drive) as
a non-profit corporation under Section 7(s) of the Development Charges By-law
2004-298.
CARRIED
NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION
AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING)
AVIS
DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)
Councillor
Bloess submitted the following Notice of Motion, for consideration at the next
regular meeting :
Building
Permit, Development and Other
Construction-Related Fees for the National Capital Region YMCA-YWCA
Whereas the National Capital Region YMCA-YWCA has been an important charity
providing valuable services and programs to our city and surrounding
communities since 1867 and has contributed to the quality of life of our
residents and strengthens our
community;
And Whereas the YMCA-YWCA continues to serve
70,000 individuals in all regions of our community with these services;
And Whereas the
YMCA-YWCA has embarked on a major $30,000,000 redevelopment of its ageing
facilities and equipment that will benefit our city and our residents. These
projects will include renovation of the Orléans YMCA-YWCA, the Metro Central
YMCA-YWCA and the Bonnefant Outdoor Education Centre;
And Whereas the
YMCA-YWCA is in the midst of a Capital Campaign to raise $15,000,000 in order
to assist with the financing of the projects;
And Whereas the
City of Ottawa’s support is important to the success of these redevelopment
initiatives and the City of Ottawa acknowledges the importance of the YMCA-YWCA
and is supportive of these development initiatives;
Therefore Be It Resolved that the City waive or reimburse the YMCA-YWCA for any permit,
development or other city fees related to the construction or renovation of
these projects.
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
Original signed by Original
signed by
Committee Coordinator Chair
