Corporate Services and

Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels

et du développement économique


Minutes 45 / Procès-verbal 45


Monday, 15 June & Tuesday, 16 June 2009, 10:00 a.m.

le lundi 15 juin et le mardi 16 juin 2009, 10 h


Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest



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


Regrets / Excuses :    Mayor / Maire L. O’Brien (Chair / Président)






Minutes 43 of Tuesday, 2 June 2009






Declarations of Interest

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.
















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.




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








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.











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.













RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU comitÉ des services organisationnels et du développement Économique POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 5 juin 2009

acs2009-cmr-ccb-0044                               city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


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






5.         2009 WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW – Fernbank lands

Examen 2009 des limites de quartiers – TERRes de FERNBANK

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0029                                                   Stittsville-Kanata West (6),
                                                                                                      Rideau-Goulbourn (21), Kanata South (23)


At the start of the meeting on Monday, June 15th, Vice Chair Desroches advised members that, due to notice requirements, this item could not be considered until the following day.


Upon resuming the meeting on Tuesday, June 16th, Committee approved this item on consent.


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the minor ward boundary adjustment as illustrated in Document 1, which redistributes the Fernbank Lands from Ward 21 to Wards 6 and 23.











ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0029                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


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.




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.






7.         Financing of the City Portion of Infrastructure Stimulus Projects

Financement de la portion de la Ville concernant les projets de stimulation de l'infrastructure

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0030                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


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.




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






ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0021                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee table this report, to be received and discussed at the next scheduled meeting of CSEDC, and then forwarded to Council for information.








ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0025                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


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.


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council approve the 2008 City of Ottawa Consolidated Financial Statements.








ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0026                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council receive this report on the results of the City’s investments for 2008 as required by Ontario Regulation 438/97 as amended to Regulation 39/07, Section 8 (1), and the City’s Investment Policy.







états financiers des fonds d’amortissement de 2008 et répartition des excédents

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0027                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council receive the Sinking Fund Financial Statements for 2008 and approve the distribution of the sum of $2,378,163.59 from the City of Ottawa Sinking Fund representing the surplus in excess of the debenture commitment authorized by by-law 126-1989 which matured 31 May 2009, to the City of Ottawa.







Ententes de Financement des baux financiers de 2008

ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0028                                city wide / À l’Échelle de la ville


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report on outstanding Lease Financing Agreements as at 31 December 2008 as required by Ontario Regulation 653/05 amended to Regulation 604/06 and the City's Debt and Financing Policy.










Accord modificateur du bail de location – 738, avenue Gladstone – Angelo Lorelli – Poste du service paramédic

ACS2009-CMR-REP-0034                                                                      Somerset (14)


That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the Lease Amending Agreement between the City (Tenant) and Angelo Lorelli (Landlord) for approximately 3,479ft2 of space for an Ambulance Post located at 738 Gladstone Avenue in the City of Ottawa for a term of five (5) years commencing 1 September 2009 and ending on 31 August 2015 for an estimated gross annual rent  $127,505.35 in year one.  Subsequent years will be adjusted to reflect changes in operating costs and realty taxes.






infrastructure services and community sustainability

Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités


Planning and Growth Management

Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance




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.  







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.








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.









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.







The Committee adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16th.



Original signed by                                                     Original signed by

D. Blais                                                                      Councillor S. Desroches




Committee Coordinator                                             Chair