|
1. USE OF CITY
FACILITIES FOR Military TRADE SHOWS
UTILISATION D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES
POUR LES EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL MILITAIRE
|
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS as
amended
That Council approve that the City of Ottawa:
1. Recognize
its role as host city for trade shows that help fulfill Canada’s national level
responsibilities; and
2. Continue
to include consideration of national level trade shows in its economic
development strategies and practices and in its facilities allocation policies.
RecommandationS modifiÉes du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve que la Ville d’Ottawa :
1. Reconnaisse son rôle en tant que
ville hôtesse d’expositions commerciales qui aident le Canada à s’acquitter de
ses responsabilités nationales; et
2. Continue à prendre les expositions
commerciales nationales en considération dans ses stratégies et méthodes de
développement économique ainsi que dans ses politiques d’attribution
d’installations.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
City
Councillor’s report dated 26 May 2009 (ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0008)
2. Extract of Minutes from 2 June
2009 meeting of CSEDC.
3. Extract of Draft Minutes from
15/16 June 2009 meeting of CSEDC
Report
to/Rapport au :
Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
26 May 2009 / le 26 mai 2009
Submitted
by/Soumis par : Alex Cullen, Councillor / Conseiller
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Alex Cullen,
Councillor, Bay Ward / conseiller, quartier Baie
(613)
580-2477, alex.cullen@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0008
|
SUBJECT:
|
USE OF CITY FACILITIES FOR Military
TRADE SHOWS
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
UTILISATION D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES POUR LES EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL
MILITAIRE
|
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
ATTENDU QUE, le 19 avril 1989, l'ancienne Ville d'Ottawa avait, par un
vote de 11 à 1, adopté une motion portant que le parc Lansdowne et les autres
installations municipales ne seraient plus loués pour la tenue d'expositions
d'armement;
ATTENDU QUE, les 27 et
28 mai derniers, pour la première fois en 20 ans, une exposition canadienne de
matériel et de technologie militaire, CANSEC 2009, s'est tenue au parc
Lansdowne;
ATTENDU QUE le secteur
du commerce des armes est peu, voire aucunement, préoccupé par les questions
morales ou humanitaires découlant du fait que les armes peuvent être et ont été
utilisées contre des civils;
ATTENDU QUE les
exportations de matériel militaire canadien et ses composants aboutissent dans
des pays où les droits de la personne sont constamment violés;
ATTENDU QUE le
commerce international des armes contribue à accroître la militarisation
partout au monde et va à l'encontre des efforts de limitation des armements;
ATTENDU QUE le parc
Lansdowne est une installation financée par les deniers publics qui est
utilisée pour des activités récréatives et des foires commerciales;
ATTENDU QUE, à l'achat
du parc Lansdowne par la Municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton, d’après les
Services juridiques de la Ville, la motion de 1989 du Conseil a cessé de
s'appliquer au parc Lansdowne;
IL EST PAR CONSÉQUENT
RÉSOLU QUE la motion de 1989 de la Ville d'Ottawa s'appliquera au parc
Lansdowne et aux autres installations municipales pour qu'ils ne puissent être
loués à CANSEC ou à d'autres organisateurs d'expositions de matériel militaire;
IL EST EN OUTRE RÉSOLU
QUE la Ville d'Ottawa invitera le gouvernement de l'Ontario et le gouvernement
du Canada à adopter des motions semblables afin d'empêcher la location de leurs
installations pour de telles expositions de matériel militaire.
BACKGROUND
In 1985 and in 1987, a military trade show
organization called ARMX held exhibitions at Ottawa's Lansdowne Park involving
military technology, largely for export. This prompted considerable public
criticism as the bulk of the products were being used to support military
actions in foriegn countries, despite Canada's reputation as a United Nations
peacekeeper nation.
In 1989 an impending ARMX exhibition at Lansdowne Park (known as
ARMX '89) involving some 400 corporations engaged in providing military goods
and services, prompted some 75 civil organizations (through COAT - Coalition to end the Arms Trade) to
organize protests against the arms trade as promoted by ARMX '89 in Ottawa.
This prompted Ottawa City Council to adopt the following motion on April 19,
1989:
Whereas ARMX ’89, a Canadian exhibition of military hardware and
technology is scheduled to take place at Lansdowne Park from 23-25 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 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 the City of Ottawa promotes peace, and respect for human
rights;
AND WHEREAS ARMS ’89 is a closed event and restricted to Canadian
Government officials, foreign government representations, police and security
forces and defense industry representatives;
AND WHEREAS Lansdowne Park is a publicly supported recreation and
trade show facility;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Lansdowne Park and other City
facilities not be leased to future ARMX or other such arms exhibitions.
During the debate on this motion, Alderman George Brown (the motion
sponsor), stated that:
"The national capital region is becoming the capital for the
defence industry across the country. I morally object. This ARMX is totally in
contradiction to what the City stands for and it is not appropriate that the
City have anything to do with it. It goes against the City's belief in peace
and respect for human rights." (Ottawa
Citizen, April 20, 1989)
Following the adoption of this motion (by an 11-1 vote) no further
arms trade shows were held at Lansdowne Park nor in any other City of Ottawa
facilities.
In 1999 Lansdowne Park was sold by the City of Ottawa to the
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Following municipal amalgamation in
Ottawa-Carleton in 2000, Lansdowne Park became the property of the
newly-amalgamated City of Ottawa.
In 2008 two military trade shows approached the City for use of
trade show facilities at Lansdowne Park - Secure Canada 2008 and CANSEC. Secure
Canada 2008 subsequently cancelled, but CANSEC 2009 (sponsored by the Canadian
Association of Defence and Security Industries - CADSI) is scheduled for May 27
and 28, 2009. CADSI represents 700 companies which sell products, technologies
and services to military and security customers in Canada and abroad. According
to the CANSEC web site (www.defenceandsecurity.ca)
the CANSEC 2009 show:
"... will feature product presentations and
capability displays of Canada's leading edge defence and security technologies
to a wide audience that includes Government agencies and Departments with
interests in security, public safety, risk mitigation, threat response and
emergency planning."
However, questions were raised by members of the public and by
members of City Council on whether CANSEC 2009 was able to hold its exhibition
at Lansdowne Park, given the former 1989 City of Ottawa Council motion,
particularly as many of the exhibitors are engaged in similar activities as
those who participated in ARMX '89 - i.e. the provision of military hardware
and technology being used in conflicts elsewhere in the world and involving
civilian casualties. According to Legal
Services in a memo dated August 19, 2008 (see Document 1), it is the opinion of
Legal Services that the 1989 motion by Ottawa City Council is no longer
applicable, as the Transfer Agreement between the City of Ottawa and the RMOC
did not provide any obligation for the continuation of the policies of the
former City of Ottawa by the Region regarding Lansdowne Park.
DISCUSSION
According to a report by COAT (the Coalition to end the Arms Trade -
http://coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/topCANSEC.htm - see Document 2) more than 50 of
the Canadian military export industries exhibiting at CANSEC 2009 are linked to
the production of weapons systems that are being used in conflicts that most
people in this country would probably recognize as morally reprehensible,
involving countless civilian casualties.
Among the weapons exported by CANSEC 2009 exhibitors are:
- Anti-Personnel
Cluster Bombs, Fragmentation Bombs and Phosphorous Bombs
- Automatic
Weapons, Semi-Automatic Weapons, Machine Guns and Chain Guns
CANSEC 2009 exhibitors are also engaged in the manufacture of
essential high-tech components embedded in weapons systems that deliver the
following:
- Nuclear
Weapons
- Depleted
Uranium Munitions
- Anti-Personnel
Cluster Bombs
- Anti-Personnel
Landmines
These munitions -- widely regarded around the world as both inhumane
and illegal -- are "delivered" to their targets by a variety of war
planes, cruise missiles and land-based systems that contain significant
quantities of Canadian components. COAT's
online report provides details about dozens of these weapons
"delivery" systems and reveals hundreds of online sources of
information documenting Canadian corporate complicity in their
manufacture. Most of these weapons
systems, complete with Canadian hardware, have been used in the Iraq War which
has so far claimed the lives of more than 1.3 million people, mostly innocent
civilians, since 2003.
Further, Canada is a signatory to the international convention to
ban anti-personnel landmines (called "The Ottawa Treaty", as it was
signed here in Ottawa). However, 35 companies which provide products that
assist U.S. warplanes in delivering anti-personnel landmines will be exhibiting
at CANSEC 2009.
CANSEC 2009 exhibitors also include about a dozen Canadian companies
engaged in the design, creation, development and/or production of:
- "Ballistic
Missile Defense" (BMD) weapons systems
Few realize that Canada is even involved in the international arms
trade, let alone that this country is deeply complicit as a key player in this
morally reprehensible business. Between 2003 and 2005, Canada exported more
than $5.6 billion in military products to 73 countries (see Document 3). Of
these 73 nations, 39 had troops that were then engaged in major military conflicts,
either at home or abroad. This means
that 53% of the countries to which Canada exported military goods during those
three years, were directly engaged in wars, invasions and/or occupations.
However, much more significant is the fact that these 39 warring
nations receiving Canadian military hardware accounted for a full 90% (i.e.
$5.1 billion) of the total value of Canada's military exports between 2003 and
2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
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;
The report's recommendation seeks to re-establish an Ottawa City
Council policy that was developed and applied at Lansdowne Park and other City
facilities for more than 20 years. It re-inforces our values that promote peace
and respect for human rights, and seeks to avoid associating with activities
that promote and profit from the business of war - often used to support
oppression and frequently involving innocent civilian casualties.
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.
Following the adoption of the 1989 policy by the former City of
Ottawa Council, ARMX and other similar military trade shows moved to the Ottawa
Congress Centre - a provincial facility. This recommendation would seek
consistent treatment of military trade exhibitions in trade show space within
the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the province of Ontario and in Canada.
CONSULTATION
The issue of an arms trade show re-appearing at
Lansdowne Park this Spring (CANSEC 2009) has garnered widespread public
attention and has prompted COAT to seek the re-establishment of the former City
of Ottawa policy (see attached). No other public consultation has been
conducted.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no Legal/Risk Management impediments to implementing the
recommendations set out in this Report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
CANSEC 2009 will occupy approximately 200,000 square feet
of space at Lansdowne Park: 140,000 square feet indoors and 60,000 square feet
outdoors. The occupancy period will span six (6) days: 2 show days, 3 move-in
days and 1 move-out day. The event is
expected to generate approximately $110,000 in net revenue for Lansdowne Park
from rent, parking, and food and beverage sales.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - IPD to CS&ED Committee 7 October
2008
Document
2 - Selected List of CANSEC 2009 Exhibitors
Document
3 - COAT Table of International Arms Trade
Document 4 - COAT poster
DISPOSITION
Following adoption of this policy by Committee and
Council, City staff will ensure that no military trade shows will be held in
City of Ottawa facilities.
DOCUMENT
1
M E M O /
N O T E D E S E R V I C E
|
|
|
To /
Destinataire
|
Chair and
Members of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee /
Président et members du Comité des services organisationnels et du
développement économique
|
File/N° de
fichier:
ACS2008-BTS-RPM-0040 - IPD
|
|
From / Expéditeur
|
Barry
Robinson, Director,
Real Property Asset Management
Business
Transformation Services /
Directeur, Gestion des biens
immobiliers
Services de
transformation des activitiés
|
Contact /
Personne Resource: Doug Moore, Manager, Venture Properties / Gestionnaire,
Biens à risque
613-580-2424 ext. 41301
douglas.moore@ottawa.ca
|
|
Subject / Objet
|
Lansdowne Park Trade Shows/
Salons Professionnels au Parc Lansdowne
|
Date: 29 September 2008 / le 29 septembre 2008
|
|
|
|
|
On 19 April 1989
Ottawa City Council approved a motion "that Lansdowne Park and other City
facilities not be leased to ARMX or other such arms exhibitions" (Attachment 1). At that time, ARMX was a show that
predominantly featured offensive weapons, military hardware and technology, and
had been staged at Lansdowne Park on a number of occasions.
Two recently
announced trade shows raised the question of whether the former City of Ottawa
motion was still in force. There was to be a U.S. Embassy Defense and Security
Exhibition occuring at the Exhibition Hall at Lansdowne Park between 30
September and 1 October 2008, but the organizers have since cancelled. Another agreement is currently being
negotiated with the Canadian Association of Defense and Security Industries
(CADSI) to host a national defense and security trade show at Lansdowne Park in
May 2009.
In response to
inquiries from various Members of Council on whether or not the event
prohibition for such types of trade show from 1989 is still valid, the City
Solicitor provided the legal opinion that the previous motion by the former
City Council is no longer applicable.
In a memo dated 19 August 2008 (provided as
Attachment 2), the City Solicitor explained that Lansdowne Park was sold
by the old City of Ottawa to the
former Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in 1999.
The agreement between the old City of Ottawa and the former Regional
Municipality for the transfer of Lansdowne Park to the Region imposed only two
covenants on the
Region. The first pertained to a
prohibition on any type of gaming operation while the second concerned the site's
designation as a Major Community Facility in the Region's Official Plan.
Consequently, no other policies of the old City survived the sale and transfer
of Lansdowne Park to the former Region.
Since the
prohibition of arms exhibitions was approved in 1989, Lansdowne Park has not
hosted any such events. However, other
events have since emerged that support companies offering a much broader range
of products and services to civilian organizations and various levels of
government, as well as appropriate military units. This included such things as
emergency preparedness and response, public safety and security,
defense/detection systems, risk mitigation, transportation, communications,
etc. These are typically closed trade shows that are not open to the general
public.
In Ottawa, two
events in particular have become established for the defense and security
industries, and have been successfully hosted at the Ottawa Congress Centre for
several years: Secure Canada and CANSEC. With the planned re-construction of
the Ottawa Congress Centre scheduled for September 2008 through to April 2011,
these two events were among the numerous displaced activities seeking alternate
venues to serve as hosts. Both Secure Canada and CANSEC approached Lansdowne
Park to host their events, at least for the interim period as work proceeds at
the Ottawa Congress Centre.
Staff had
detailed discussions with event organizers to better understand the nature and
content of each show, specifically seeking clarification on the presence of
offensive weapons on the trade show floor.
In addition, staff consulted with both Corporate Security and the Ottawa
Police Service to gain more insight into the content of the show and its
operational considerations from a security perspective.
On 18 September
2008, organizers of Secure Canada 2008 advised its exhibitors and Lansdowne
Park Administration of its decision to cancel this year’s edition of the show,
which was scheduled to take place 30 September and 1 October 2008. Organizers
cited the federal election call and the cost of security for the event as the
primary reasons for the cancellation.
According to
organizers, Secure Canada 2008 (Attachment 3) was to showcase the latest
technologies and products for security, public safety, first responder and dual
use non-offensive defence applications. It would have focused on the
requirements of Canada's broader domestic security environment which
encompasses federal, provincial and municipal government departments and
private sector (critical infrastructure) operators. Non-offensive technologies
displayed range from cargo and freight screening devices to biometric
identification technologies, to robotics for security operations, to emergency
equipment and mass notification products and secure communications required to
manage operations in times of emergency or natural disaster. It was sponsored,
in part, by the U.S. Embassy and the U.K. Trade and Investment Office.
CANSEC is a
national defence and security trade show presented by the Canadian Association
of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), a national not-for-profit business
association headquartered in Ottawa and representing 700 companies who sell
products and services to military and defence customers in Canada and
Internationally. It is "dedicated to exhibiting technology-based solutions
to current and anticipated Canadian military and security requirements." (Attachment 4)
The
current status is that Secure Canada 2008 has been cancelled by event
organizers. Another agreement is
currently being negotiated with the
Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) for CANSEC to
be staged at Lansdowne Park in May 2009.
CANSEC is
expected to attract approximately 6,500 attendees who will generate a local
economic impact estimated to be in
excess of $5 million. Retaining these
types of events would result in a direct financial benefit to Lansdowne Park of
approximately $200,000 annually.
original signed by
Barry Robinson
BR/ kl
cc: K.
Kirkpatrick, City Manager
L.
Donnelly, Deputy City Clerk
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
|
M E M O /
N O T E D E S E R V I C E
|
|
|
To / Destinataire
|
Mayor and
Members of City CouncilMayor and Members of
Council
|
File/N° de
fichier:
|
|
From / Expéditeur
|
M. Rick O'Connor, City SolicitorM. Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor
|
|
|
Subject / Objet
|
Lansdowne Park – ARMX Exhibitions
|
Date:
DateAugust
19, 2008
|
During the last several weeks, various
Members of Council have received inquiries from constituents with regard to
Lansdowne Park and, in particular, an event prohibition undertaken by the
former City of Ottawa in 1989 to prohibit “future ARMX Exhibitions”. Recently, it was confirmed that the U.S.
Embassy Defense and Security Exhibition is contracted to occur at the
Exhibition Hall at Lansdowne Park between September 30th and October
1, 2008. In response to whether or not
the previous event prohibition for such types of trade show from 1989 was still
valid, staff from the Real Property Asset Management Branch provided a response
to Members of Council and included the following brief summary of the legal
opinion:
Staff also consulted with Legal Services regarding
the prohibition on hosting arms exhibitions that was approved by Ottawa City
Council in 1989. The advice from Legal
Services was that the previous motion by Council is no longer applicable, since
Lansdowne Park was sold to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on
December 31, 1999. The Transfer
Agreement between the City of Ottawa and the RMOC did not provide any obligation
for the continuation of such then-City policies by the Region at Lansdowne
Park.
The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide a more fulsome explanation of the legal opinion given
in this matter.
Council Resolution
(1989)
On April 19, 1989, the
former Council for the City of Ottawa endorsed Motion 11/28, as amended by
Motions 11/30 and 11/31, as follows:
Whereas ARMX ’89, a Canadian exhibition of military
hardware and technology is scheduled to take place at Lansdowne Park from 23-25
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 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 the City of Ottawa promotes peace, and
respect for human rights;
AND WHEREAS ARMS ’89 is a closed event and
restricted to Canadian Government officials, foreign government
representations, police and security forces and defense industry
representatives;
AND WHEREAS Lansdowne Park is a publicly supported
recreation and trade show facility;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Lansdowne Park and
other City facilities not be leased to future ARMX or other such arms
exhibitions.
In the aftermath of the
passage of the above-noted resolution, various arms exhibitions were
subsequently held at the Ottawa Congress Centre (the “Centre”) for several
years. However, such an arrangement is
scheduled to end beginning in 2009 due to the planned demolition and remodeling
of the Centre.
Lansdowne: A Regional Facility (1999)
During the spring and summer
of 1999, both Councils of the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
and the City of Ottawa adopted, in principle, various reports with respect to
the assumption of Lansdowne Park by the Regional Government, as well as the
unification of local and regional sewer systems.
On September 1, 1999, Ottawa
City Council endorsed Item No. 2 of Report No. 14 from the Community Services
and Operations Committee, being “Lansdowne Park Revitalization Project –
Transfer of Asset and Review of Unification of Local Sewer System”. In this report, the former City Council
approved both the declaration of Lansdowne as being surplus to City
requirements in accordance with the appropriate by-law and, “that the framework
for the transfer of Lansdowne Park from the Corporation of the City of Ottawa
to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton” be approved as contained in
the attached document. Briefly, the
Transfer Agreement between the two municipal bodies involved an actual exchange
of money, equipment, employees and all buildings and structures on the Lansdowne
Park site, as well as for the formal transfer of legal title to the Park from
the former City of Ottawa to the former Region. Not surprisingly, there were several covenants that the former
Region provided to the former City as a result of the sale of Lansdowne Park
pertaining to life cycle contributions for the Park, as well as the assumption
of the employees on a go forward basis.
That being said, there were only two covenants that the former City
sought from the former Region with regard to the future operation of Lansdowne
Park, namely:
1.
“That no future development, facility, operation or
lease/rental on any part of the site contemplate or involve the operation of a
casino or any type of gaming operation”; and
2.
“That, if in the future, the Region decides to completely
remove the Major Community Facility designation on Lansdowne Park, in the
Region’s Official Plan without the concurrence of the City, the property would
then revert to the City for a nominal fee of $1.00”.
These two requirements were
set out in the framework for the transfer of Lansdowne Park that was
specifically approved by the former City Council at its meeting on September 1,
1999. Item No. 1 was, in effect, a new
policy that the former City was imposing on the former Region since, prior to
the sale of Lansdowne Park, the City did not have a policy pertaining to gaming
or casinos in place for itself at Lansdowne Park. Consequently, the inclusion of such a covenant in the Transfer
Agreement supports the legal opinion that no other policies or the former City
survived the sale and transfer of Lansdowne Park to the former Region.
I trust the above is
satisfactory. Should you have any
questions with respect to same, please do not hesitate to contact me.
M. Rick O’Connor
RO/ct
Attach.
cc: Kent
Kirkpatrick, City Manager
Steve Finnamore, Executive Director, Business Transformation Services
Richard Hewitt, DCM, Public Works and Services
Steve Kanellakos, DCM, Community and Protective Services
Nancy Schepers, DCM, Planning, Transit and the Environment
Barry Robinson,
Director, Real Property Asset Management
Event Overview
Secure Canada 2008 will showcase the latest technologies and
products for security, public safety, first responder and dual use non-offensive
defence applications. Secure Canada
focuses on the requirements of Canada’s broader domestic security environment which
encompasses federal, provincial, and municipal government departments and
private sector (critical infrastructure) operators. Non-offensive technologies displayed range from cargo and freight
screening devices to biometric identification technologies, to robotics for
security operations, to emergency response equipment and mass notification
products and secure communications that enable governments to manage security
operations in times of a national emergency or disaster.
For 2008 Secure Canada features three complimentary
segments. The C4ISR component of the show addresses the needs of
governments at all levels with respect to the synthetic environment and leading
technologies that enable security operations. This includes everything
from secured communications to command and control and intelligence and
reconnaissance functions. This segment of the show, branded as
TechNet North, is run in partnership with AFCEA Canada. TechNet North
also features conference sessions addressing the theme of “National Security in
a Coalition Environment.”
The other two segments of the show are the AUVSI Canada Unmanned
Systems Expo and the Canada and the World Showcase. The Unmanned Systems Expo is being organized in partnership with
AUVSI-Canada. This segment will highlight one of the fastest growing segments
of the security industry – unmanned systems technologies for public and private
sector applications. This includes systems and technologies for robotic
applications utilized in land, air and sea applications in both security and
industrial environments. The Canada and
the World showcase is the third segment. This area features Canadian
companies offering a diverse range of world class security technologies and products
that do not fall specifically into the previous two segments as well as
international pavilions hosted by the U.S. Embassy and the U.K. Trade and Investment
office.
Secure Canada takes place on September 30 and October 1, 2008, in
the Salons of the Civic Centre at Lansdowne Park in Ottawa. Approximately 3000 visitors are expected to
attend from across Canada, the United States and Europe. Visitors from within Canada include
government representatives from various federal departments including: Public
Safety Canada; Canada Border Patrol; RCMP; Transport Canada: the Coast Guard,
DND, PWGSC and many others. The show
is also attended by private sector security professionals from a broad
cross-section of industries ranging from manufacturing to power generation and
the services sector.
For more information visit www.securecan.ca
or contact:
Rick Tachuk
Exhibition Manager
Secure Canada 2008
613 293-5250
rick@electricstrategies.com
Attachment
4
CANSEC FACT SHEET
CANSEC is a national defence and security
trade show presented by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security
Industries (CADSI). CADSI is a national not-for-profit business association
headquartered in Ottawa and representing 700 companies who sell products,
technologies and services to military and security customers in Canada and
internationally.
TRADE
SHOW FOCUS:
CANSEC is dedicated to exhibiting
technology-based solutions to current and anticipated Canadian military and
security requirements. For instance, there was an emphasis, last year, on naval
systems because the federal government is interested in modernizing Canada’s
navy. That theme is likely to continue in 2009.
Every day Canadian Forces (CF) members,
RCMP officers and other security personnel put their lives at risk, often
leaving their families and homes behind to courageously and selflessly serve in
our nation, defending Canada’s values and contributing to international peace
and security. These people act in many different capacities, both here in
Canada and throughout the world: they patrol our borders; perform search and
rescue operations; provide assistance during natural disasters and participate
in international efforts to bring stability to failed and failing states.
Millions of Canadians understand the need
for such capabilities and CADSI and its members, through CANSEC are intent on
supporting our troops wherever they are operating so that they are well
prepared, protected and equipped so that they can do their jobs effectively and
with the least possible risk. Exhibits that focus on protective apparel,
communication systems, situational awareness technologies, computer-based
simulation technologies, scanners and identity technologies are always part of
our show as are other sophisticated technologies - each essential to get the
job done.
The Canadian government is reinvesting in
Canada’s national security and Canadian business wants to support the
government objectives with their products, technologies and services. CANSEC
provides an annual forum for that purpose.
WHY
OTTAWA:
We are in Ottawa for our show because this
is where the federal government operates its defence and security agencies
from. CANSEC is now recognized as one of the best shows in North America for
bringing industry together with its customer base.
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
Last year over 6,500 people attended CANSEC
2008, coming from across the country to Ottawa for most of a full week. We
estimate that the show generates in excess of $5 million in revenue for the
local economy during this period.
Ottawa is home to over 220 companies that
sell to the Canadian Forces and security agencies. They employ roughly 10,000
knowledge based workers in the greater Ottawa area. The vast majority of these
companies sell to commercial customers as well as military and security
customers in that their technologies, perhaps created initially for the
commercial marketplace, once adapted, also are able to meet military and
security requirements.
We estimate that Ottawa based companies in
the defence and security sector generate close to
$1 billion in annual revenue from their
commercial and military/security sales.
DOCUMENT 3
|
Canadian Exports to Countries Engaged
in Major Armed Conflicts (2003-2005)
|
|
Warring Countries
Buying
Canadian
Military Products
and Services
|
Canada's
Military Exports
(2003-2005)
|
Troops Deployed
in Major Armed Conflicts
(2003-2005)
|
|
Afghanistan
|
Iraq
|
Haiti
|
Internal
|
|
1
|
Australia
|
271,506,169
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
2
|
Belgium
|
15,770,734
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Brazil
|
5,806,964
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
4
|
Chile
|
3,280,023
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
5
|
Colombia
|
2,058,303
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
6
|
Czech Republic
|
304,961
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Denmark
|
20,739,314
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Estonia
|
53,976
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Finland
|
3,720,711
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
France
|
39,776,637
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
11
|
Germany
|
30,612,034
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Greece
|
11,775,423
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
India
|
960,793
|
yes
|
|
|
yes
|
|
14
|
Indonesia
|
32,000
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
15
|
Iraq
|
20,188
|
|
yes
|
|
|
|
16
|
Israel
|
4,679,679
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
17
|
Italy
|
32,209,842
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
18
|
Japan
|
19,434,092
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
Jordan
|
405,102
|
yes
|
|
yes
|
|
|
20
|
Malaysia
|
29,802,290
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
21
|
Morocco
|
668,493
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
22
|
Netherlands
|
24,550,126
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
23
|
New Zealand
|
257,855,517
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
24
|
Nicaragua
|
389,052
|
|
yes
|
|
|
|
25
|
Nigeria
|
94,800
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
26
|
Norway
|
26,716,748
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
27
|
Peru
|
2,715
|
|
|
yes
|
|
|
28
|
Poland
|
11,062
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
Portugal
|
605,053
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
30
|
Romania
|
1,000
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
Russia
|
2,915
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
32
|
Serbia and Montenegro
|
1,412
|
|
|
|
yes
|
|
33
|
Spain
|
11,987,704
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
34
|
Sri Lanka
|
28,058
|
|
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
35
|
Sweden
|
22,743,054
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
Thailand
|
5,800,083
|
|
yes
|
|
yes
|
|
37
|
Turkey
|
2,643,474
|
yes
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
United Kingdom
|
258,210,911
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
|
39
|
United States
|
4,001,000,000
|
yes
|
yes
|
yes
|
|
|
Totals
|
5,106,261,412
|
5,053,594,437
|
4,890,851,393
|
4,092,757,986
|
13,658,043
|
|
US share of the
above export totals
|
78%
|
79%
|
81%
|
97%
|
0.0%
|
|
Value of known
Canadian military exports as a percent of Canada's military exports
to 39 warring nations between 2003 and 2005.
|
99%
|
96%
|
80%
|
0.27%
|
|
Value of known
Canadian exports as a percent of Canada's total military exports to 72
countries between 2003 and 2005.
|
89%
|
86%
|
72%
|
0.24%
|
|
Number of
countries known to be receiving Canadian military exports that deployed
troops in these major arms conflicts between 2003 and 2005.
(Percent of the 39 warring countries receiving Canadian war technologies).
|
24 countries
(61.5%)
|
12 countries
(32%)
|
10 countries
(26%)
|
9 countries
(23%)
|
This
table was produced by the Coalition
to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) as part of a report called "Canadian Military
Exports to Countries at War, 2003-2005."
This COAT
report was created in support of the campaign to Oppose CANSEC 2009 in
Ottawa!
USE OF CITY
FACILITIES FOR Military TRADE SHOWS
UTILISATION D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES POUR LES
EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL MILITAIRE
ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0008 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
Councillor Cullen introduced this item by providing an
overview of the report, reading the motion into the record, and stating his
objective in bringing this matter forward; to re-establish the policy of the
former City of Ottawa.
Councillor
El-Chantiry introduced the following motion on behalf of Councillor Chiarelli:
WHEREAS Ottawa is the capital city of Canada and, as such, has a
special responsibility to play host to events and gatherings that support the
national interest and facilitate operations of national level programs and
responsibilities;
AND WHEREAS it is in the national interest to ensure that Canada’s
military service men and women are assisted in achieving the best possible
state of readiness and protection while serving Canada at home and abroad;
AND WHEREAS it is in the national interest to ensure that the best
possible protection and preparedness along with search and rescue capabilities
are available to military personnel who serve Canada overseas and at home;
AND WHEREAS it is in the City's best interest that its local law
enforcement and first responder agencies have the best possible access to
equipment options that could assist in carrying out their roles;
AND WHEREAS a key element in the City of Ottawa’s economic
development strategy is the promotion of functions that produce economic activity
leveraged by Ottawa’s status as the capital city of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the CANSEC trade show is an exhibition designed to
enable the supply of the best equipment and support for the men and women
serving in Canada’s military, provides significant options for the City's first
responder and law enforcement agencies and supplies significant economic
activity to the City of Ottawa while assisting the fulfillment of Canada’s
military responsibilities and programs;
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa recognizes its role as host
city for trade shows that help fulfill Canada’s national level responsibilities
such as the CANSEC trade show;
AND THAT the City of Ottawa will continue to include
consideration of the CANSEC trade show in its economic development strategies
and practices and in its facilities allocation policies.
Councillor Cullen raised a point of order, noting that
the motion introduced by Councillor El-Chantiry was a direct anti-thesis to the
motion on the agenda and currently before Committee. Therefore, in terms of procedure, he submitted it could not be
moved as an amendment and he expected it would only be applied if the motion
contained in the agenda failed.
Vice Chair Desroches agreed, but asked the City
Solicitor to comment on this.
Mr. R. O’Connor, City Clerk / Solicitor, confirmed that the
motion was a direct anti-thesis to the report before the Committee. Therefore, Committee would have to vote on
the motion contained in the agenda. If
it failed, Committee could then vote on the motion introduced by Councillor
El-Chantiry. However, if the motion
contained in the agenda was approved, the second motion would be
redundant.
Vice Chair Desroches ruled accordingly.
At this juncture,
Committee heard from the following public delegations.
Ms. Cathleen Kneen, Raging Grannies spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. She referenced the Tulip
Festival, for which Ottawa was famous.
She remarked the event was a strong reminder of the Ottawa’s culture as
standing in support of the victims of war and not its perpetrators. She submitted that, under the guise of
security, the arms being displayed at fairs such as CANSEC were inadvertently
finding their way into the hands of dictators, mercenaries and paramilitaries
around the world who killed innocent women and children. She felt it was a sham to say that the trade
show was for the good of our security forces.
She maintained that Lansdowne Park was a public space and she informed
Committee that the previous Wednesday, dozens of elderly women stood in front
of the gates of CANSEC with a peace garden, popular theatre, skits and a great
many songs, to show there was another way of being in the City.
Ms. Marian Sewell-Sneyd,
indicated she was speaking as a parent, a grand-parent and a citizen of Ottawa,
a peaceful city. She suggested Ottawa
set an example, as the capital of Canada and she indicated it was beyond her
understanding that the City was talking about a military trade show. She felt it was horrifying, shameful and
disrespectful that those who attended the trade show were looking at guns,
weapons and other methods of killing other human beings and that it must never
happen again in this city. She
maintained that war did not work and this method of control was outdated. She suggested going forwards instead of
backwards next year by inviting people to a trade show about peaceful ways of
dealing with conflict. She felt this
would set a better example and she challenged Council to take on such an
initiative and to put Ottawa on the map as a peace-loving city.
Ms. Valerie Stam
indicated she was a resident of Hintonburg and was representing the Anglican
Church of the Ascension. Speaking in
support of the motion presented by Councillor Cullen, she referenced three (3)
countries in Africa and India, where she had lived and worked, and she
described the atrocities she had heard described to her from the victims of war
living in these countries. She talked
about the impact on the children living in these war-torn countries and
circulated pictures drawn by these children.
In closing, she submitted that weapon fairs like the one held at
Lansdowne Park only fuelled the activities taking place in countries such as
the ones she described. A copy of Ms.
Stam’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Benjamin Gunn Doerge
spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. In doing so, he indicated he was a grade 11
student and represented hundreds of youth in Canada who were affected by gun
violence each year and thousands of child-soldiers around the world whose
childhood was taken away from them due to violence and wars fought with
guns. He expressed being confused as to
why the City would agree to have an arms show at Lansdowne Park. He discussed child-soldiers and how their
young minds were manipulated more easily than adults. He felt the trade show set a bad example for Canadian youth. He remarked that Ottawa was the capital and
as such, had a duty to send a message to other countries on the importance of
not supporting gun violence. He
suggested that by not supporting arms trade shows, the City could help support
families affected by war. A copy of Mr.
Doerge’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Brenda Carr-Vellino,
a resident of Old Ottawa South, indicated she was addressing Committee as the
mother of two young children. She
referenced the death of Tori Stafford, noting the pain she felt related to this
news was no different from when she saw photos of family members bowed in grief
over the body of a child killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. She stated this pain was increased by the
knowledge that, through weapons exports, Canadians were implicated in parents’
grief and the loss of young lives. She
expressed dismay over learning that CANSEC was returning to Lansdowne Park and
submitted that, while CANSEC advocates pointed to the marketing of equipment
and technology for fire and police services, they failed to acknowledge that
about two-thirds of the weapon components, technology and equipment being marketed
were destined for foreign export. She
remarked that a majority of the Canadian public had consistently stood against
Canada’s military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars in which children
represented about 20% of the civilian casualties. She talked about cluster bombs; the way these were used, the
long-term risks associated with them, their impact on civilian populations and
the fact that Canada was one of 96 governments having signed the Anti-Cluster
Bomb Convention, which vowed to outlaw their use, production, transfer and
stock-piling.
She reported that the previous week, while driving her children
to school, she found herself in the difficult position of having to explain why
two tanks on flatbeds were being driven into their neighbourhood. She talked about the need to connect the
dots between their desire to protect their own children with the same desires
of parents around the world and likewise, to connect the dots between the
weapons and system components exported by Canadians to war zones and the
grievous losses theses caused to people’s lives. In the name of all children, she urged City Council to recognize
the humanitarian reasons for supporting the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen.
Ms. Joan Remple Bishop
indicated she was speaking as a citizen of Ottawa, a mother, a grand-mother,
and a representative of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
(WILPF). She reported that since it was
founded in 1915, WILPF had been working to understand and abolish the causes of
war and to support human rights and general and complete disarmament. She spoke to two basic points: a need to be very clear about the goods
being promoted and sold at military trade shows such as CANSEC 2009; and that
military spending was taking money away from development, gender equality and
the environment. With respect to the
first, she maintained this was equipment designed to take human life and she
had a hard time seeing it as having anything to do with the defence of Canada
or as being in the interest of herself, her children or her community. Instead, she believed it had everything to
do with making money by promoting militarism.
She talked about anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs and depleted
uranium, noting that many of the companies represented at CANSEC exported
products that contributed to the delivery systems for such weapons. Addressing her second point, she submitted
that the war economy was the most lucrative business on the planet and that
these vast financial resources could and should be invested in promoting
sustainable development, education, health and housing. Further, she posited that the distortion of
the economy arising from military spending had a particular impact on women. In closing, she read a statement from
WILFP’s 94th anniversary: “Military
security concepts and weapons profiteers bear enormous responsibility in
killing our planet, impoverishing its people and changing our climate. While
more people become impoverished, governments are wasting enormous resources on
weapons and preparation for war. Bombs,
guns and landmines cannot be eaten, will not hinder a tsunami, a hurricane, a
flood, a virus or water shortage. These
are our real security threats. We can
face and address them, but only if we organize, cooperate and put the human and
economic resources currently going into weapons and war into human needs.”
Mr. Murray Thomson, Religious Society of Friends, indicated he had lived in Ottawa for 35 years but that he had also
lived in many countries ravaged by civil wars, where people had become homeless
or been killed by men with guns. He
posited they had not benefited by the trade of weapons. He referenced the recent events in Sri Lanka
and the Congo. He discussed the United
Nations’ session on weapons and standards, the special session on disarmament,
which produced a unanimous final document.
He quoted the final document, which discussed the security system on
arms provided by the Charter of the UN.
He reported being a Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) member and
submitted that the arms race needed to get under control before it destroyed
the planet. In closing, he asked City
Council to turn its back on the trade in weapons and the vehicles and machinery
that delivered them. A copy of Mr. Thomson’s
presentation is held on file.
Mr. Ron Sweetman spoke in
support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen, stating he found it
morally unacceptable that Lansdowne Park had just hosted CANSEC 2009. He talked about his father, who fought in World
War One. He indicated his father
believed that wars were charades played out by innocent young people at the
behest of older politicians and urged on by the death industries; the arms
industry busy selling to both sides and reaping the benefits. He felt inviting such companies to Ottawa to
display their arms was an insult to the peace-loving citizens of Ottawa and to
the memory of all the young Canadians killed in both world wars and in
Afghanistan. A copy of Mr. Sweetman’s
presentation is held on file.
Ms. Carroll Holland,
speaking in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen, indicated
she was a community development worker and social activist who had lived in
Ottawa for more than 40 years. She talked
about her travels up the Nile River, in the southern Sudan, and how she
witnessed first-hand the poverty, disease and premature death that were the
outcomes of prolonged hostility and war.
She maintained there was an onus on Ottawa to stand-up and collectively
address systemic issues that diminished human life. She noted the primary victims of today’s high-tech weapons were
civilians, most of whom were women and children. She submitted a substantial, concrete step would be for the City
to renew the ban on arms trade shows on public property. However, she felt the City should go further
by participating in a community-organized peace week. A copy of Ms. Holland’s presentation is held on file, to which
she attached an article by Frances Moore Lappe titled “Hope is Not for Wimps”.
Mr. Tim Page, President of
the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), stated he
was born and raised in Ottawa and was proud to call it his home. He explained CADSI was a not-for-profit national business
association that represented over 800 technology-based companies across Canada,
the majority of which were small and medium-sized enterprises and 225 of which
operated in the greater Ottawa area.
Further, he report that CADSI was the owner of CANSEC, Canada’s largest
technology show for defence and security products and services and that the
majority of CADSI members and CANSEC exhibitors produced for both commercial
customers and for defence and security markets. In opposition of Councillor Cullen’s motion, he wanted to show
Ottawa understood the importance of national security and public safety as well
as the crucial role played by local industry in support of this. He reminded Committee to consider that when
men and women in uniform put themselves in harms’ way, the City had a collective
responsibility to ensure they had the equipment and training to do their jobs
effectively and safety. He maintained
that CANSEC was about showcasing to public sector customers at all three levels
of government in Canada with identified needs, the technologies to meet those
needs. He noted this year’s CANSEC
included interests to improve search and rescue capabilities, patrol the
expansive maritime domain, the intelligence required to stop drugs, the
protection of posts and borders, tools to support Canadians in times of natural
disasters, personal identity and cyber-security threats as well as Canada’s
contribution in support of international and NATO efforts to bring peace and
stability to unstable corners of the world.
He indicated more than 7,500 people had attended the show and that the
ratio was one to one in terms of industry representatives and public sector
participants. He gave the following
examples of participants; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Corrections
Canada, Transport Canada and the City of Ottawa’s police and fire
services. Guest speakers had included
the federal Minister of Defence, the Minister of Industry and the National
Security Advisory to the Prime Minister.
In closing, he submitted that Lansdowne Park was an ideal facility for
CANSEC, noting the defence and security sectors employed 10,000 Ottawa area
residents, generated $1B in annual review and paid taxes to the City of
Ottawa. A copy of Mr. Page’s
presentation is held on file.
Responding to questions from Councillor Deans with
respect to the trade show’s location, Mr. Page explained that for the past ten
years, the event had been held at the Congress Centre. It was moved to Lansdowne Park this year as
a consequence of the renovations taking place at the Congress Centre, but also
because of the increasing public sector demand for security and defence related
materials. He posited that if Lansdowne
Park was no longer available, their options would be to move the show out of town
because no other in-town facility responded to their current footprint
requirement.
Councillor Deans then posed questions to get a sense of
who the exhibitors were and who the customers were at the CANSEC show. Mr. Page indicated the customers were the
federal government, the Department of National Defence, security agencies,
municipal police forces and fire departments, the Ontario Provincial Police,
the RCMO, Border Services and the public health agencies. He remarked that Canada had not invested in
its naval vessels in some thirty years. As a result, a lot of the show was around naval technologies and
search and rescue capabilities. To
provide some examples, he referenced some of the exhibitors: local companies producing protective
equipment for police forces; Oakley, the sunglass company; John Deere, the
tractor company. He remarked that there
were some 250 exhibitors at the show and of those, he suggested perhaps 5, no
more than 10, would be what might be considered the pointy end of the stick as
related to defence and security capabilities.
The show was awash with security-related, defence electronic-related
capabilities designed to respond to the stated needs of the Canadian
government, provincial governments and municipal governments across the
country.
Councillor Deans wondered how this show fit into the
purchasing needs of the municipal, provincial and federal governments; if it
was their one annual opportunity to see the latest equipment and gear, or
whether there were other venues for this type of interaction should the show not
go forward in the future. Mr. Page
re-iterated the one to one ratio in terms of public sector participants and
industry participants, submitting this was a sign that CANSEC was an extremely
important show for purchasers of security and defence-related material at all
three levels of government.
In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr.
Page re-iterated that CADSI represented some 800 Canadian companies and he
confirmed that Bombardier, General Dynamics and Magellan Aerospace were
companies represented at the CANSEC trade show.
Councillor Cullen wondered if the presenter would be
surprised to learn that some of the companies mentioned dealt with depleted
uranium munitions, cluster bombs and anti-personnel landmines. In response, Mr. Page referred to Bombardier
as an example, noting it was a well-respected global leader in the Canadian
aerospace industry. With respect to
weapons such as the ones referenced, he remarked that the export of these from Canada
was prohibited. Further, he maintained
the CANSEC trade show was designed explicitly to meet the operational
requirements of the Canadian military and Canadian security agencies, therefore
all exhibitors were pre-positioned their exhibits to respond directly to these
domestic requirements.
Councillor Cullen argued CANSEC was a military trade
show, yet the bulk of what was being produced by the aforementioned exhibitors
was for export. He felt this got to the
nub of the question, which was international arms trade. Mr. Page disagreed with the premise of the
question, re-iterating that the purpose of the CANSEC trade show was to
demonstrate capability available to first responders in Canada and to the
Canadian military as they provided disaster relief support and search and
rescue support, and as they attempted to assert Canadian sovereignty in the
North. He maintained these were the
objectives of the Canadian government, as stated by the Canadian government and
they were the objectives of municipal purchases, as represented by the participation
of the Ottawa Fire Service and the Ottawa Police Service.
Responding to a follow-up question from Councillor
Cullen, Mr. Page stated the sale of military exports from Canada was tightly
controlled by the Canadian federal government.
He added that 50% of Canada’s trade in defence materials was exported
and that 80% of it was exported to the United States because of the two
countries’ shared responsibility for the security of North America. He remarked that, because of this shared
responsibility, the two countries’ industrial bases were largely integrated.
In reply to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr.
Page advised that in addition to the visitors to CANSEC referenced previously
(i.e. Canadian military and security agencies, police and fire services, etc.),
there were some visitors from embassies of countries having embassies in
Ottawa, the majority of which were NATO-related countries. He explained that in today’s marketplace,
there was a huge demand for communication technology to assist first responders
and that these were the types of products, services and technologies on exhibit
at the CANSEC tradeshow.
Councillor El-Chantiry wondered how much of the show was
focused on emergency planning and preparedness. Mr. Page confirmed that there were emergency preparedness
products on display, such as temporary shelters for quarantine and/or
decontamination.
Councillor Doucet wondered why the public was not
allowed to attend the CANSEC trade show.
Mr. Page submitted that the public was not buying military and
security-related equipment. Therefore,
the show was geared to public sector customers.
Councillor Doucet maintained he was part of a
public-sector organization and that he reported to his electorate. Mr. Page advised that, as a member of
government, the Councillor would be eligible to attend and that he would ensure
he was invited next year.
Mr. David Luxton, President and CEO of Allen
Vanguard, indicated he was presenting in a number of capacities: as an Ottawa
supporter; as Chair and chief patron of the Canadian Tulip Festival; as Chair
of the OCRI economic cluster for the security sector in the region; as a Board
member of CADSI; and as President and CEO of Allen Vanguard, a $300M
multi-national security company headquartered in Ottawa and employing some 600
staff in knowledge-based jobs. He
circulated a booklet, which described Allen Vanguard’s business and products,
noting the company was a world leader in protective technologies to defend
against lethal hazards like roadside bombs and dirty bombs containing
radiological, chemical or biological materials. He maintained that his company’s products saved lives and had
absolutely no offensive uses. He
believed this was typical of most of the equipment on display at CANSEC, since
the mission of the Canadian Forces was to play defence, not offence, and
because much of this equipment was also required domestically by civil security
agencies, including the City of Ottawa police and fire departments. He acknowledged that there were a small
number of weapons systems at CANSEC because, like it or not, military and
police personnel had to protect themselves against those trying to kill
them. However, he maintained CANSEC was
purely for Canadian forces and Canadian civil security agencies to view the
offerings of CADSI members. It was not
some kind of international arms bizarre, as some had tried to construe. He felt this characterization of the trade
show was offensive to businesses such as Allen Vanguard. He referenced the Tulip Festival as a
poignant reminder of the link between security and civil society. He stressed that without physical security,
there was no possibility of civil society.
He indicated Allen Vanguard, like many other companies in this
community, was trying to build businesses that facilitate physical security
through purely protective technologies and that they counted on the sales to
the Department of National Defence and Canadian security agencies as their
anchor for export sales because the Canadian market for these technologies was
too small, though it was critical for credibility when selling to the export
market. He submitted the centre of
gravity for this was Ottawa, where the decision-makers were located. Further, he re-iterated Mr. Page’s comments
with respect to the growth of CANSEC and Lansdowne being the only practical
venue. In closing, he talked about the
economic arguments in terms of the employment base, the commercial real estate
base, the tax base and the importance of supporting a local industry that
protected vulnerable societies. He
remarked for evil to prevail, all that was necessary was for good people to do
nothing. In that spirit, he submitted
that companies and families in his industry applauded the positive action of
the City in making Lansdowne available for CANSEC so that they could continue
to do business with the Department of National Defence, domestic security
agencies and emergency service providers.
Responding to questions from Councillor Hume with
respect to the products his company was featuring at the trade show, Mr. Luxton
indicated they had bomb disposal robots used to disrupt roadside bombs, bomb
protection suits for personnel in both military and law enforcement, jammers to
disrupt the remote detonation if improvised explosive devices and
decontamination equipment. He confirmed
that, in addition to being used by the military, these products were sold to
law enforcement agencies in Canada; the RCMP as well as provincial and municipal
police forces across the country. He stated
he did not consider any of this equipment as offensive but rather, that he was
proud of it because it saved lives everyday.
Councillor Hume
wondered if Allen Vanguard’s display was fairly consistent with what was on
display in the rest of the pavilion in terms of content. Mr. Luxton explained it was mostly
information technology and protective equipment, similar to what Allen Vanguard
sold.
Councillor Bloess
referenced some of the photographs contained in the brochure circulated by Mr.
Luxton and he inquired as to some of the equipment used by the City’s own
emergency response teams. The speaker
confirmed that Ottawa’s emergency services had a number of pieces of Allen
Vanguard equipment.
Councillor Bloess
asked about any other equipment produced by Allen Vanguard, other than what was
reflected in the brochure. Mr. Luxton
acknowledged that the brochure may not contain photographs of all the equipment
produced by his company. However, he
confirmed that all the equipment they produced was protective equipment.
Councillor Doucet
referenced a photograph contained in the Allen Vanguard brochure, which
depicted a vehicle used in combat theatres and submitted this did not look like
something the City would buy for its police force. Mr. Luxton clarified that his company only produced the seats for
crew protection and survivability and he indicated it was not secret that the
supplied these to the Canadian military.
Mr. Vern Redekop indicated
he was an associate professor of Conflict Studies at St. Paul University and
lived in Blackburn Hamlet. He framed
the issue from the point of view of one’s ethical imagination; going forward in
a way that would contribute to a better life for future generations. He talked of being involved in a peace group
while studying in California in the 1980’s and of meeting someone who told him
there was no one more committed to peace than the pilots of B-52 bombers with
nuclear weapons because they knew that if they ever went out on a mission, they
would not have a country to which to return.
He reported being struck by the notion that everyone had to make common
cause for the peace of humanity and that he wanted to respect those who took
different perspectives as to how to achieve it. However, he expressed the need to move humanity forward
constructively. He noted that symbols
played a large role in how people shaped their future. He maintained that Ottawa was no ordinary
City; it was the capital of Canada and it was a leader within Canada, which was
no ordinary country. He remarked that
on the global scene, Canada was seen as a country committed to peace. Therefore, he posited that what happened in
Ottawa was not only about people in Ottawa.
CANSEC was represented as an arms show and he submitted that, on the
global scene, Ottawa hosting it but the City on the record as supporting the
trade in arms. He hoped Ottawa could
move ahead constructively and he opined that having CANSEC on City property did
not achieve this. Mr. Redekop went on
to talk about the impact of the existence of arms, noting that during the Cold
War, there was a saturation of funding for the development or armaments. He believed the arms themselves made a
difference, opined that the arms trade itself was a profound ethical issue and
wondered what would happen if there was a saturation of funding for peace and
better relations. He talked about the
need to have dialogue groups and to build relationships.
Councillor Cullen believed everyone could agree that warfare was not
a good thing and that if there was an opportunity to contribute, in some
symbolic way, to ending warfare, a civil society should do so. Mr. Redekop responded affirmatively to both
questions.
Ms. Elizabeth Bryce indicated she was speaking on
behalf of the Global Partners Committee of Ottawa Presbytery in the United
Church of Canada. She advised that a
number of years ago, she attended a photography exhibit by Yann Arthus Bertrand
called Earth from Above and that the photographer’s photo captions had
opened her eyes with respect to military spending surpassing all other
budgets. She referenced economic
stimulation as a reason for holding arms shows at Lansdowne Park and Minister
Mackay’s statements with respect to the defence industry offering great
economic benefits. However, she saw the
bigger picture and submitted that education, healthcare and social assistance
were greater priorities than military spending. She felt Canada should be assisting developing nations, not
assaulting them. She maintained that
municipal governments had a choice as to how they used their resources and she
believed hosting CANSEC on municipal property sent a message that the City
approved of making profits from nations at war. She stressed that Lansdowne Park was a recreational space
belonging to the people of Ottawa and she urged Council to send a message that
Ottawa was a City working for peace. A
copy of Ms. Bryce’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Gary Hauch indicated he was an Anglican
priest speaking as a concerned citizen, a resident of Ottawa and on behalf of
the Bishop of the Diocese of Ottawa. He
talked about being drafted by the US Army and serving in the medical corps in
Vietnam. Therefore, he was very conscious
of the fact that he was alive because someone dropped a bomb on those who were
mortaring his position. However, he was
also very conscious of the fact that he was alive because someone else was
not. He stated that, in Vietnam, he
learned war was not the best way to solve conflict; it only escalated it. He quoted a letter from his Bishop, sent to
Ottawa City Council on March 10: “I believe it is the vocation of the people
of faith to seek peace and wherever possible, to address injustice, oppression,
and aggression by non-violent means. The proliferation of arms and expansion of
weapons technologies in the name of security is counter to the conviction of
many that violence and force exasperates tensions and tensions lead to an
ever-expanding cycle of conflict.”
He felt this reflect his experience in Vietnam, where one of his jobs
was to provide medial care to Vietnamese villages. It reported that it took a long time to gain villagers’ trust and
a very short time to lose it, whether because of a napalm strike close by, some
bombs accidentally landing in the villages or simply by gunship targeting the
enemy and also shooting children in the process. He submitted this was what
happened with collateral damage and that the same thing was happening in
Afghanistan and other places. He
maintained that there had to be better ways of addressing injustice and
conflict then through military escalation or technologies that shield us from
the other rather than expose us to the face of the other. He recognized that there were economic
spin-offs, but he wondered at what cost and who would pay for it in the long
term. He stated that the Anglican
Church was opposing shows like CANSEC on City properties and he was speaking in
favour of the motion pub forward by Councillor Cullen.
Councillor Cullen
noted that the delegation represented his church and the Anglican Diocese and
he wondered how many congregations this represented. Mr. Hauch replied that it represented 100 congregations; about
26,000 Anglicans.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Hauch posited that most things could be
used for good purposes and for not so good purposes. He used the splitting of the nuclear atom as an example, noting
it could be used to drop bombs or for nuclear medicine. He indicated he had difficulties with
spending so much money to develop security measures without spending nearly as
much in developing more peaceful ways of addressing the same situation. He felt soldiers would be safer if countries
spent more time in negotiations than in actual warfare.
Councillor Wilkinson
requested clarification on Mr. Hauch’s earlier statements with respect to
representing Anglicans. The speaker
clarified that the Bishop and the majority of clergy were against CANSEC,
therefore it was the Anglican Diocese’s position.
Councillor Wilkinson
believed the trade show was not about war, though it was being portrayed that
way and although she agreed with comments made by the delegation, she suggested
he would have to go to the federal government, which has responsibility for the
military. Having said this, she
wondered if he was suggesting that in the meantime, Canada should not protect
its soldiers. Mr. Hauch acknowledged
that Canada should protect its soldiers.
However, he re-iterated his belief that the best way to do so was
through learning face-to-face means of reducing tensions. He indicated he would have no difficulty
with a trade show where only protective equipment was on exhibit.
Ms. Hazel Jack represented the congregation and
clergy of All Saints Westboro Anglican Church.
She advised that, over the years, All Saints had earned a reputation for
supporting peace and justice issues.
The church shared premises and some outreach programs with the
congregation of First United, which was known throughout the City for
advocating for peace and working for justice.
She reported that when the parishioners of All Saints Anglican were
asked to sign a petition calling on the City of Ottawa to respect the 1989
commitment to ban war-related shows on municipal property by stopping CANSEC
2009, the response was overwhelming.
Further, when they learned that two of their members were Raging
Grannies and planned to spend the day at Lansdowne Park actively protesting
CANSEC, they were quick to offer their blessing and ensure their support. She submitted that for twenty years,
citizens of Ottawa took pride in knowing
that they had successfully banned the sale and display of war weapons on City
property. Moreover, they felt betrayed
that the ban was no longer in place.
She was saddened to hear that Defence Minister Mackay had announced
spending of $60B on weapons, considering how this money could be used to
provide food, clean water, adequate housing, medical help and education to a
suffering world. She found it difficult
to believe that pouring billions of dollars into coming up with new and more
weaponry was the way to bring about peace.
For these reasons, and in the hope that other cities might follow the
example, she strongly supported the resolution to ban all arms tradeshows from
City properties.
Ms. Loris Jordan began by thanking Councillor
Cullen for introducing the motion to ban trade shows from city facilities. She stated that she represented the Ottawa
branch of Ottawa Ploughshares, which came under the umbrella of the Canadian
Council of Churches. She advised that
their motto was biblical and taken from Isaiah, Chapter 2, verse 4: “They shall
beat their swords into ploughshares”.
She indicated members of her organization had a clear understanding of
peace as a call, binding on all people, institutions and governments to cherish
the earth, to care for its resources and to protect life. She submitted that peddling weapons of
destruction and their hardware was the exact opposite. She posited that there was a huge link
between disarmament and development, that development was generally well
supported and that a tradeshow depicting it would be welcomed. She believed war was the greatest obstacle
to human development. To demonstrate
this, she referenced countries suffering its effect; Rwanda, the Congo, Iraq,
Afghanistan. She found it morally and
ethically reprehensible to promote instruments for killing and she strongly
objected to a tradeshow of this nature on City property. She suggested security was not achieved by
building a fortress in a fearful world.
Rather, it came as a consequence of peace and depended upon much more
than military might. It depended on the
health of the environment, the welfare of individual citizens, a sustainable
economy and responsible, natural institutions.
Mr. Timothy Dear,
President, DEW Engineering & Development, spoke against the motion introduced by
Councillor Cullen. He informed
Committee that DEW Engineering & Development was an Ottawa-based firm
founded in 1978 and focused mainly on defence.
He reported that the company’s ceramic-based armour saved Canadian lives
and its vehicle re-life and re-roll programs provided troops with
cost-effective alternatives to new vehicles.
Speaking to his company’s contribution to the local economy, he
indicated that in 2008: DEW Engineering
& Development employed 190 people in Ottawa with a $10M payroll, which was
expected to increase by about 20% in 2009 due to growth; purchased about $5M in
goods and services from Ottawa businesses, which was also expected to increase
by about 20% in 2009; paid $148,000 in taxes to the City of Ottawa; paid
$433,000 in local utility bills; and generated many visits to Ottawa by clients
from other jurisdictions. He felt
CANSEC served a vital role for his company, which sold many products and
services directly to the Government of Canada.
He remarked that the trade show had allowed DEW Engineering &
Development to meet with various officials, reconnect with existing partners
and meet perspective partners. He
maintained the purpose of CANSEC was to allow Canadian companies such as DEW
the opportunity to sell to Canadian governments at all levels. He noted that Ottawa was home to the
Department of National Defence headquarters, the RCMP, the Department of Public
Safety, CSIS and other security and law enforcement agencies. He encouraged Committee to oppose the
motion, submitting that it did not serve to meet the objectives shared by
everyone; safety, security and a peaceful society. A copy of Mr. Dear’s presentation is held on file.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Dear advised that his company’s booth at
CANSEC was used to showcase their level-four armour as well as medical
shelters. He confirmed that the show
helped them to get ready for upcoming upgrades to the fleet because it allowed
them to meet with General Dynamics to discuss their level-four armour in terms
of mind and body protection and to ensure they understood what was
available. He also confirmed that if
they were successful in obtaining the contract, a partnership between DEW and
General Dynamics would enhance the safety of Canadian troops.
Mr. Paul Hannon indicated
he had been a resident of Ottawa for over 30 years and that, for 25 of those
years, he had worked in the areas of humanitarian aid and international
development. He advised that he
represented a coalition of Canadian charities and non-profit organizations
called Mines Action Canada (MAC), which was an international leader working to
eliminate the serious humanitarian, environmental and development consequences
of landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. He reported that MAC’s three-dozen members
were located across the country but were based in downtown Ottawa. He noted their perspective on this issue was
not just municipal, but national and international. He recalled that in December 1997, the world came to Ottawa to
sign a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. To date, 156 countries had joined the landmine ban encompassed by
that treaty, commonly known as the Ottawa Treaty. He posited that while Canadians viewed Ottawa as the nation’s
capital or hockey country or the site of the world’s longest skating rink, to
millions of people around the world affected by anti-personnel landmines and
explosive remnants of war, Ottawa meant hope.
Hope that weapons such as landmines and cluster bombs would never be
used again and that the lives of at survivors might be rebuilt with
dignity. He opined that the Ottawa
Treaty was not only a remarkable achievement, it was also a fantastic legacy
for the country and for this city. He
believed this identity was welcomed and cherished by all citizens of this
city. He noted that at one time,
cluster munitions and landmines were considered acceptable and were advertised
as the perfect weapon. Through decades
of use, people had learned that they were not acceptable and the world had come
together to ban them. He thought
everyone needed to keep this in mind when talking about where arms may be
promoted. He talked about being in
Geneva the previous week to continue the work begun on the Landmines and
Cluster Treaty. He did not know whether
anything that took place at CANSEC would be considered illegal under
international treaties. However, he
maintained that as the landlord of the facility, the City need to be certain
such activities did not take place.
Further, he felt that as the civic leaders of the nation’s capital,
Council had a duty to ensure the city’s credibility and the country’s reputation
were not tarnished or damaged. For these
reasons, he strongly supported the motion.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Hannon indicated he could not speak to the
activities that may have taken place at CANSEC 2009 or the arms and equipment
that may have been displayed there.
However, he maintained the City had to ensure the arms that were on
display were legal and acceptable under Canadian law and international
treaties.
In reply to a further
question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Hannon stated that anti-personnel landmines
were considered illegal under the Ottawa Treaty and any companies producing
components for these had to be made aware that what they were doing was illegal
under international law. Further, he
advised that domestic legislation made it a punishable offence. In terms of cluster munitions, he remarked
that it was a new treaty, signed on December 3rd, and would enter
into force probably at the end of this year.
Mr. Campbell
Robertson posited
that anyone who worked for international peace became aware of the effects of
war on civilians and non-combatants. He
stated that Bristol Aerospace, which exhibited at CANSEC, produced CRV-7
warheads, the delivery system to disperse cluster bombs. He remarked that cluster bombs exploded in
mid-air to scatter hundreds of small bomblets over a wide area, many of which
failed to explode and could lie dormant until disturbed. He reported that more than 35 years after
being dropped form a war plane, a bomblet had recently exploded, killing a
woman and injuring three others.
Further, he advised that the conflict in Lebanon saw millions of
bomblets dropped on southern Lebanon, that many did not explode and some even
had eye-catching ribbons to attract attention.
In closing, he asked that Committee and Council return the previous City
policy and ban weapons trade shows from municipal facilities. A copy of Mr. Robertson’s presentation is
held on file.
Mr. Stefan Cherry, Mennonite Central Committee
Canada, explained that his organization was the relief, development and peace-arm
of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Churches across Canada and that they
had been working in these areas for over 100 years in over 55 countries,
including Canada. He represented
hundreds of churches across Canada, five of which were located in Ottawa. He very strongly support the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He
posited that Councillors were in a difficult position of deciding whether to
put profits or ethics in the forefront.
He believed everyone wanted peace.
However, there was disagreement as to how to achieve it. He reported having spent ten years working
in Africa and having been in conflict zones with bullets flying over his
head. Having worked in agricultural
programs, he maintained it was difficult to train farmers to cultivate when
they were missing a limb because of a landmine. He noted that although the war was over in Mozambique,
generations later, its effects were still being felt. He agreed that there were many useful things being promoted at
CANSEC, but he also believed there were weapons being promoted and that the
primary purpose of weapons was to kill people.
He also talked about collateral damage, where innocent women and
children were killed. Based on his
organization’s experience in the field and his faith conviction that all people
were created in God’s image, he opposed the killing of people and he opposed
the arms industry. For these reasons,
he supported Councillor Cullen’s motion.
Reverend Frances Deverell
spoke as a citizen and as President of the Association of Unitarian Ministers
of Ottawa. She talked about climate
changes and their catastrophic impact on the world in terms of there being more
and more homeless people, people living in shelters or in camps and without the
necessities of life. As the world
became more volatile, she predicted there would be more violence, more wars,
more mass extinctions and genocides unless people found another way. She quoted Olympia Brown, one of the first
Unitarian ministers, who said “We can never make the world safe by fighting.
Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children of God and
must share the wealth of the world.”
She remarked that while Canadians may think they were selling these
weapons to friends and allies, all too often, they ended up arming and training
the next generation of dictators and terrorists. She advised that Unitarian universalism had long been dedicated
to the goal of world peace and justice for all. She indicated that the organization cherished the worth and dignity
of every child described by the previous speakers and every person; cherished
the importance of the interdependent web of life on which every human being
depended for daily sustenance. She was
concerned that the economies of Canada and of most of its western allies were
built on lucrative military contracts.
She felt this was not a sustainable way for humans to live on this
planet and referenced a need to build the economy and security on a new set of
assumptions in order to be a civilized species. She stated that the 1989 motion to ban military trade shows from
City property was part of a larger movement by cities across the country to
reduce militarism and to show a new way.
She suggested cities were the most likely targets for nuclear bombs; that
wars were often fought in cities and the people who suffered the most were
civilians. She submitted that a society
was not more secure when it built its economy on the production of military and
nuclear weapons or when it destroyed the environment with landmines and cluster
bombs. She believed Canadian troops’
lives should be used to support the transition towards a peaceful, non-violent
world and that Canada should build its economy on the restoration and protection
of the eco-system and on human services such as healthcare and education. In closing, she asked the City of Ottawa to
take leadership and to set a new direction by not allowing military trade shows
on any City property but particularly, by not allowing them at Lansdowne Park,
which she described as a recreational property for the people of the City.
Mr. Jordan Bishop
represented Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, an organization founded by the late
G.C. Gifford of Halifax. He explained
that most of the survivors of this organization were veterans of the Second
World War. He talked about high-tech
weaponry, believing that CANSEC tended to be a celebration of high technology
and high-tech weapons. He noted the tendency,
in recent years, had been for high-tech weaponry to target infrastructure and
he asked that members of Council reflect on what would be involved if Ottawa
was attacked in this way. He referenced
other cities around the world where electricity supplies, water purification
systems and sewage disposal systems had been deliberately targeted. He remarked that this had happened and would
likely continue to happen as higher technology was developed, such as smart
bombs. He commented that smart
technology had also been used for targeted assassinations. He referenced an instance in Afghanistan
where a wedding celebration was bombed because someone in Intelligence decided
that a “big bad guy” was present. He
submitted that a large number of people were killed in order to get one and by
doing so, the bombers had created two hundred new deadly enemies. He believed this was the reality faced by
the world and, although he supported the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen, he was not sure it would make a lot of difference in the amount of
high-tech weaponry and arms being sold.
However, he maintained that the City of Ottawa would be better off
without celebrating or glorifying military technology.
Mr. Gordon Breedyk represented Civilian Peace
Service Canada (CPSC) and spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which
is held on file. He indicated CPSC’s
mission and vision was to develop a cadre of peace professionals and that the
organization had been working very hard to increase the pool of people with
skills, knowledge and expertise to act in this field. He strongly supported the motion to prevent future military trade
shows at City facilities and expressed the belief that society should be
investing to find alternatives instead of investing in better military
responses to conflict and better ways to kill and destroy. He reported that in its work, the CPSC
interacted quite a lot with representatives of the military and he submitted
that they themselves wanted to avoid violent conflict and wanted to work with
CPSC to find better ways. He submitted
that whether equipment was defensive or protective was missing the point; that
society needed to prevent conflict by engaging in respectful dialogue. He referenced a series of slides in his
presentation, which talked about the average cost of conflict and he remarked
that one violent conflict was equivalent to the value of annual development aid
worldwide. He believed this
demonstrated that things were out of balance.
He posited that the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over
the past 10 years could eliminate worldwide poverty, foster universal literacy,
immunize every child, fight aids and achieve all the millennium development
goals. He re-iterated the need to find
other ways. Speaking to what this
Council could do, he encouraged members to approve the motion before Committee
and to support individuals in the community who might be putting together
alternative means to achieve peace.
Mr. Lawrence
Cumming
represented the Southminster United Church in speaking in support of the motion
before Committee. He advised that a
public rally had taken place at Southminster United Church in opposition to the
CANSEC exhibition and stated he was pleased that his community association had
expressed its opposition to the arms trade show on City properties. He reported being a consultant in
international development cooperation and was a previous chief executive
officer of OXFAM-Canada. He indicated
he had worked in 35 countries and visited several more and that he had seen too
much of the appalling consequences of wars such as the displacement of people,
the graves of young soldiers and the innocent people killed, not only in the
midst of conflict, but also in later years by landmines and cluster bombs. He maintained that the arms trade fuelled
war and that, while many of the products at the tradeshow had peaceful as well
as military applications, the show’s military export character remained never
far from the forefront. He believed
conversations at the trade show would lead to negotiations, which would lead to
export deals. In closing, he expressed
his church’s view that this was not an appropriate use of public space. A copy of Mr. Cumming’s presentation is held
on file.
Councillor Doucet
suggested there were two sides to the debate: the moral point of view that the
sale of arms perpetuated and increased civil and human damage around the world;
and the notion that this was just good business and that some of the equipment
presented was needed for civilian disasters.
He believed these two points of view were poles apart and he wondered
how to reconcile them. Mr. Cumming
acknowledged these were very difficult poles to reconcile and he indicated he
was not against legitimate business or the sale of goods and equipment needed
for peaceful purposes. However, his
contention was that the arms trade, which he believed was a large part of the
CANSEC exhibition, did fuel violent conflicts, which caused great suffering in
many parts of the world. He submitted
these were poles with which everyone wrestled but that he found himself closer
to one side than the other.
Responding to a
follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Cumming submitted that although
Canadian companies may be selling their products only to allies, weapons found
their way into the hands of both sides, though not always by legitimate or
legal means. He maintained that once
arms were out of the hands of the sellers, it was difficult to control where
they would end up.
Mr. Eric Schiller indicated he was a retired
professor of engineering at the University of Ottawa and that when he was
young, he had joined the Canadian army and served as a second lieutenant in the
Royal Canadian Electrical Engineers Corps where he dealt with electrical and
mechanical matters, including weaponry.
He advised that since then, he had become very suspicious of weapon
sales, particular when these took place on municipal property. He explained that whereas in the first World
War, 90% of the people killed were soldiers and 10% were civilians, after decades
of developing smart technology, most people killed by these offence weapons
were now civilians. He referred to this
as collateral damage and remarked that, more and more, the enemy hid amongst
civilians and as a result, when trying to get the enemy, most of the casualties
were civilians. Although he
acknowledged that some of the equipment on display at CANSEC was harmless or
defensive, he maintained that there were some offensive things as well and he
asked Council to keep in mind that when they approved an arms trade show on
municipal property, they were approving weapons that killed mainly
civilians. Further, he noted the trade
show was billed as “Canadian Security”, yet even its administrators
acknowledged that 50% of these arms were for export. Therefore, he maintained this was not directly for the security
of Canadians. He believed most people
were against the offensive weapons, which were at CANSEC and were fuelling
exports. Speaking to his reasons for objecting
to this trade show being held on municipal property, Mr. Schiller submitted
that municipalities did not declare war, federal governments did. However, as wars became more and more
urbanized, those who suffered most were people in municipalities. In closing, he urged Council to take a stand
and to support the motion before Committee.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Schiller indicated he was not aware
whether other cities had policies on this subject, though he had not heard of
other municipalities having arms sales on their properties. He confirmed that he was aware of the Mayors
for Peace initiative, initiated by the Mayor of Hiroshima.
Mr. David Gill advised that he represented
several groups in the city, that he was a father and grandfather and that he
also represented the next generation.
He reported having worked for the Department of National Defence for
about nine years, which had provided him with the opportunity to learn about
the military mindset. He talked about
working for a Colonel who told him there was only one kind of war. He believed wars were changing and that the
industry would go on one way or another.
He submitted the point was whether or not public funds and public
property should be used to support it.
He showed a brief video depicting people suffering because of war and the
caption “The earth is not dying. It
is being killed and the people who are killing it have names and addresses”. He noted that a lot of pacifists had come to
speak to Committee, many of them faith-based.
He put forward the existential view that we’re all condemned to choose
and that each of us has a sphere of influence, though some had greater spheres
of influence than others. He talked
about uranium mining, depleted uranium weapons and what happened when toxic
substances got into the lifecycle of people’s environments. He submitted these were all connected to the
same story. He made reference to former
Mayor Marion Dewar, stating she taught him that everyone had to keep trying to
preserve the integrity and to move towards peace. He submitted that people either used their sphere of influence to
move towards peace or they used it to move towards war. He believed most realized that there were
moral and ethical issues at play and that this was a matter of conscience.
In reply to a question
from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Gill explained his belief that, as members of
Ottawa City Council, Councillors used their sphere of influence to send a
message in terms of the decisions they made.
Therefore the decision Council would make on this issue would send a message.
Ms. Debbie Grisdale indicated she lived in Old Ottawa
South, had two teenage daughters, was an Anglican and am a member of the Ottawa
Diocesan Centre for Peacemaking. She
reported having worked most of her adult life in international health, peace
and disarmament and that twelve years ago, she helped welcome to Ottawa
government representatives, NGO’s and landmine survivors from around the world
for the historic signing of the Landmine Treaty. Further, she advised that five years ago, she worked with
Councillor Doucet and former Mayor Chiarelli’s staff to host a reception for
the President of Mayors for Peace and that Ottawa had been listed as a member
of Mayors for Peace for over twenty-five years. She explained that Mayors for Peace was a fast-growing,
non-partisan organization with nearly three thousand cities as members in 134
countries, including 25 cities from Israel.
She contended that there were economic benefits to peace and that a
peace economy should be explored. She
opposed the global arms trade, which in 2006 was worth $1.6 trillion and
fuelled wars and violent conflict . She
referenced a recent motion in the UK Parliament, which noted that for every
dollar spent globally on conflict prevention, nearly two thousand dollars were
spent on the procurement of military weapons.
Further, she advised that a significant body of research suggested the
number of violent conflicts would increase in coming years due to climate
change, environmental degradation, competition for resources and economic
crisis. She believed what the world
needed was not more arms shows but an examination and understanding of what
truly was security and a greater commitment to international development,
conflict prevention and non-violent conflict resolution. She stated she was opposed to CANSEC taking
place on City property because she did not want any representation on public
property paid for with her tax dollars.
In particular, she did not want it at Lansdowne Park because it was
located in the heart of the City and was associated with home shows, the
farmer’s market and other forms of family entertainment. She maintained that CANSEC was not just
about protecting and preparing Canadian first responders and military at home
and abroad. It was also about tanks, guns,
weapons, weapon systems and their component parts and about making soldiers
more lethal. She believed
arms-producing companies sold to both sides of conflicts and she re-iterated
that she did not want them represented on City property. In closing, she urged Committee to vote in
favour of the motion outlined in the agenda.
Responding to a
question from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Grisdale explained that Mayors for Peace
focused on the abolition of nuclear weapons but it was also supportive of
cities’ efforts to engender peaceful communities and to honour the things that
build peace within societies.
Ms.
Ria Haynan spoke
in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion on behalf of the members of First
Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, which had strong connections with the United
Nations (UN) through the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office in New
York. She remarked that the UN had
proclaimed the year 2000 as the ‘International Year for the Culture of Peace’
and the period 2000-2010 as the ‘International Decade for a Culture of Peace
and Non-Violence for the Children of the World’. Further, she noted that under the section on peace and security,
the document promoted “general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control”. She
submitted that a weapons trade show promoted exactly the opposite. She talked further about the concepts
promoted in the UN document in terms of education, training and consensus-building
before picking up weapons as well as the eradication of poverty, which she
described as a breeding ground for conflict and war. In closing, she referenced a book by Deborah Ellis, which showed
how children could be ahead of many adults in how they saw the world and she
urged Committee to keep any weapon bazaars off City property. A copy of Ms. Haynan’s presentation is held
on file.
Mr. Andrew Jensen
indicated he was from the Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church of Ottawa and
that he was speaking as outgoing Chair of the Church in Society Committee and
as the incoming Chair of the Justice, Global and Economical Relations Committee
of the Presbytery. He explained that
Ottawa Presbytery was the largest presbytery in the United Church in Canada and
that their Chair was a military reserve chaplain. Therefore, he submitted that his organization understood this was
a complex issue and that they supported Canadian troops in Afghanistan with
spiritual aid and the comfort that could be provided through their
chaplains. He did not wish to
re-iterated many of the things already said, though he advised that one concern
had been raised by a member of the congregation who was afraid that showing
support for the motion would mean showing a lack of support for representatives
of the Canadian military. He reported
that another member of the congregation, who was a representative of the
Canadian military, had provided assurances that this would not be the case and
informed the congregation that the Canadian military could get the equipment it
needed without such trade shows. He was
concerned by the notion that this was a take it or leave it proposition. He noted that a lot of good things were said
about the peaceful and protective use of equipment and he did not say anything
preventing Council from banning weapons and weapon delivery systems but
allowing all other equipment. He
believed this might answer some of the concerns raised. In closing, he urged Committee to approve
the motion but that if the motion was defeated, that the City find some middle
ground on this issue.
Mr. Helmut Kuhn explained that he lived in Ward
11 and was a member of a Unitarian church, which met in a local school. He believed many of his church’s members,
though not all, would support his presentation to Committee. He reported that some years ago, he and his
wife had the privilege of working in eastern and southern Africa, during years
filled with hope and optimism for the African people. He noted the three decades since the end of the Cold War had
delivered a wrenching shift to the fortunes and well-being of many of the
people with whom they had worked. He
indicated the core of his message to Committee was that the marketing of
weapons of war, as represented at the CANSEC trade show, and the spread of
these weapons around the world over the past thirty years had blighted almost
every act of human kindness, compassion, solidarity and development assistance
Canadians had ever extended to the people of Africa. He maintained the source of these weapons was the international
arms industry and that it mattered little if the weapons were sold to
legitimate governments or not. He
posited that whatever weapons were added to the global supply simply meant more
weaponry would filter down to unaccountable armies, petty dictators, warlords
and even child soldiers in Africa. He
believed the world did not need more or better weapons because weapons did not
make people more safe or secure. What
would make people more safe and secure was getting out of the business of
weaponizing and getting into the business of helping people get equal access to
food, health, productive work, respect for their human dignity and human
rights. He believed the motion before
Committee could help further this objective.
Sister Hélène
LeBrun indicated
she was a nun with the Soeurs du Sacré-Coeur de Jésus and that she was speaking
in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion.
She explained that she currently worked on the Social Justice Committee
of SSCJ and had the chance to be a missionary in Peru for thirteen years ,where
she worked in poor regions with indigenous peoples in the Andes. Further, she advised that she was the
session leader for the eastern Ontario Catholic organization Développement et
Paix. She reported that after all her
travels, jobs and experience, she was convinced that if you want to change
something, you have to start at the bottom.
She believed it was unfair for humanity, and for the citizens of Ottawa,
to hold a war arms exhibition and spend so much money on marketing arms when
people could easily be fed and lives could be saved. She noted that Lansdowne Park was recognized as a cultural
heritage site and she maintained it should not be used for war trade
shows. As a pacifist, a feminist and an
ecologist, she was opposed to the military industry complex, the third most
lucrative industry in the world after oil
and drugs. She remarked that the City
of Ottawa was multi-cultural and could get passionately involved in
establishing peace within its confines.
In closing, she urged Committee to create a model city by setting up
social justice within its boundaries. A
copy of Sister Hélène’s presentation is held on file and is available in
English and in French.
Responding to
questions from Councillor Doucet, Sister Hélène expressed her belief that the
City of Ottawa hosting such an event on its property gave a bad impression and
that she would be discussing this issue with delegates when she attended the 5th
Montréal Citizen Summit: The City We
Want, in Montréal the following weekend.
Ms. Diane McIntyre represented the Canadian Voice of
Women Peace and expressed support for the motion before Committee, noting she
also supported the motion that came forward twenty-two years ago. She remembered walking down Bank Street in
protest of the ARMX shows and indicated she had hoped she would not have to
continue protecting two decades later.
She believed the City of Ottawa had made a good decision twenty-two
years ago by resolving that City property should not be used for marketing war. She reported that every year, she went to
the United Nations (UN) for the Commission on the Status of Women and every
year she heard horrid stories about the effects of nuclear weapons as well as
small weapons, cluster bombs and landmines.
She noted that the UN was formed to avoid wars. She maintained that where there were
weapons, military conflict and people carrying arms, problems just got bigger
instead of being resolved. She remarked
that Ottawa had a reputation as being a peacekeeping city; the city where the
landmines treaty was signed and where the Tulip Festival was held. She believed Ottawa should promote peace and
advocate for peace, not provide a show place for weapons. She reported that the previous week, during
the protest at Lansdowne Park, this public facility was surrounded by
chain-linked fences and guarded by private security personnel. As a result, people were challenged and
those taking photographs were photographed.
She maintained that Lansdowne Park belonged to the citizens of Ottawa
and should not be used for ventures precluding citizens from the space. As one of the many taxpayers, she asked that
her voice be heard and she re-iterated her request to not use City property to
promote weapons.
Quorum was lost at 2:45. As a result, Vice-Chair Desroches asked the
City Solicitor to walk Committee through the procedural next steps.
Mr. O’Connor advised that pursuant to Section
19 of the Procedure By-law, the Chair could recess the meeting for a short
period to determine whether quorum could be restored. Should Committee be unable to restore quorum, the Chair could
determine whether or not it was essential that the balance of the meeting’s
business be dealt with before the next regular meeting. If, in the Chair’s opinion, it was essential
that the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the next
regular meeting, then the meeting would stand adjourned, not
ended, to reconvene on the next day or at such other time and place as the
Chair may announce. However if, in the
Chair’s opinion, it was not essential that the balance of the meeting’s
business be dealt with before the next regular meeting, then any unfinished
business would be taken up at the Committee’s next regularly scheduled
meeting.
Given that Committee
members had advised they would be leaving due to other commitments, Vice Chair
Desroches felt it was very unlikely that quorum could be restored. Further, based on the City Solicitor’s
explanation of the procedural requirements and the unlikelihood that quorum
could be achieved the following day, Vice Chair Desroches ruled that it was not
essential for the balance of the meeting’s business be dealt with before the
next regular meeting. Accordingly, this
item was deferred.
In addition, the
following written submissions were received and are held on file with the City
Clerk:
Ÿ
Bob Stevenson’s letter dated 24 May
2009;
Ÿ
Joseph Lance’s letter dated 24 May
2009
Ÿ
Rev. Frances Deverell’s letter dated
25 May 2009;
Ÿ
Penny Sanger and
Blodwen Piercy’s letter dated 25 May 2009;
Ÿ
Nancy Lauder’s
letter dated 31 May 2009;
Ÿ
Theresa Dunn’s
e-mail dated 1 June 2009; and
Ÿ
Susan Preston’s
e-mail dated 1 June 2009.
Whereas on April 19, 1989, the former
City of Ottawa passed a Motion 11 to 1 resolving that Lansdowne Park and other
city facilities not be leased to any future arms exhibitions;
And Whereas for the first time in 20 years a
Canadian exhibition of military hardware and technology, called CANSEC 2009,
took place at Lansdowne Park from 27-28 May;
and Whereas the arms trade has little or no
consideration of moral or humanitarian issues in that weapons can and have been
used against civilians; and
and Whereas exports of Canadian military
equipment and components end up in countries which persistently violate human
rights;
and Whereas the international arms trade
serves to increase militarization throughout the world and is inconsistent with
arms limitations efforts;
and Whereas Lansdowne Park is a publicly
supported recreation and trade show facility;
and Whereas, when Lansdowne Park was
purchased by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, according to City
Legal Services, the 1989 Council motion no longer applied to Lansdowne Park;
Therefore be it
resolved that
the City of Ottawa's 1989 Motion be applied to Lansdowne Park and all other
city facilities, so that they not be leased to CANSEC or other such military
exhibitions; and
Be It Further
Resolved that
the City of Ottawa call upon the Province of Ontario and the Government of
Canada to pass similar Motions to prevent the leasing of their facilities to
such military trade shows.
USE OF CITY
FACILITIES FOR Military TRADE SHOWS
UTILISATION
D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES POUR LES EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL MILITAIRE
ACS2009-CMR-CSE-0008 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville
(Deferred from the meeting of 2 June
2009/Reporté de la réunion du 2 juin 2009)
Further to her declaration of interest, Councillor McRae
did not participate in any of the discussions on this item.
Committee heard from the following public delegations:
Mr. Trevor Haché spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. He referenced a CBC report on
the Canadian government planning to spend $490 billion on its military in the
next twenty years. He explained that
because of this, Canadians were left to wonder where money would come from to
improve public transit, to make education more accessible and affordable and to
improve infrastructure. He wondered how
Ottawa expected to receive Federal government funding to upgrade its sewage
system when so much money would be spent on military. He remarked that Ottawa’s Mayor owned a company that profited
from war and he felt the Mayor’s support of the reversal of the ban was
appalling and scandalous. He believed
Mayor O’Brien was in a conflict of interest.
He noted that some of Canada’s more respected citizens were peace
activists and that they also happened to be politicians. As examples, he referred to Tommy Douglas
and Marion Dewar. He felt the question
of peace and was not something that should be decided along political lines and
reminded Committee of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned the nation of the
military industrial complex. Mr. Haché
concluded his presentation by urging Committee to listen to the delegations and
to support their requests to ban military tradeshows on City property. A copy of his presentation is held on file.
Councillor Doucet asked Mr.
Hache to expand on the conflict of interest he saw between Mayor O’Brien and
the current report. In response to this
Vice Chair Desroches noted that the Mayor was not present, therefore Committee
would not be dealing with that issue.
He maintained that the issue before Committee related to the tradeshow
policy and asked Councillor Doucet to keep his questions to that topic.
Councillor Doucet felt the Mayor’s presence was not required to
discuss whether or not it was a conflict of interest for him to be part of a
company exhibiting at CANSEC and profiting from it. Councillor Jellet asked the City Solicitor to comment on the
matter. He added that the Mayor was on
a leave of absence and was not currently taking part in the discussion on the
substance of the issue. Councillor
Desroches agreed with Councillor Jellet.
However, he noted that the City Solicitor was not currently in the room
but that he would ask him to comment on this matter upon his return.
Mr. Richard Sanders began his
presentation by telling Committee he had produced many reports, which he sent
to City Councillors about the CANSEC exhibitors and their specific products and
how they ended up in war zones. He
spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He explained that he had worked for the
Ottawa Peace Resource Centre, which was funded by the City of Ottawa. He worked full-time to oppose Canada’s role
in the arms trade and was aware of Canadian companies contributing to
mass-murder, exploitation, repression, human rights violations, and the
over-throw of legitimate democracies around the world. He stated that in 1989, he had started an
organization called the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade and its first
campaign was to oppose a major military tradeshow in Ottawa called ARMX. He mentioned that the organizers of ARMEX
had claimed that their exhibition was about training and simulation and that it
was all about Canadian Arms Forces.
They did not want the public to know that 60 different embassies in
Ottawa sent delegations to ARMX. Mr.
Sanders claimed that the City was now facing the same situation with CANSEC and
that its organizers did not want the public to know what it was really
about. He referenced the Committee
meeting of 2 June 2009 and how supporters of CANSEC spoke of defence and
security. He remarked that in 1989, few
people believed the bogus claims that were made by the organizers of ARMX and
that Marion Dewar was one of these people.
He recalled that Ms. Dewar had known the trade show was about war and
had MC’ed a rally at the trade show gates.
Mr. Sanders indicated he was not against defence, firefighting or
disaster relief but he was against war.
He concluded by stating that if Committee voted to welcome these
tradeshows back to City property, it would be a major embarrassment to the
citizens of Ottawa, Ontario and the country.
Responding to questions from
Councillor Doucet, Mr. Saunders described some of the products designed and/or
manufacturer by companies that had exhibited at CANSEC and how these products
were used around the world.
Specifically, he talked about Magellan Aerospace, General Dynamics and
Calian Technologies.
Responding to a series of
questions from Councillor Deans, Mr. Sanders indicated he was not against
defending Canada and that every country had the right to defend itself; and
that he was not against the use of military forces for defence.
Having been advised of the
City Solicitor’s return, Councillor Doucet asked if there was a conflict of
interest when a member of Council was profiting from the sales of a product in
a municipal facility like Lansdowne Park.
Mr. O’Connor explained that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allowed
for two individuals to declare a conflict of interest, the member in question
and a judge. He suggested a discussion with regards to whether or not a
particular Committee member had a potential conflict of interest was not
appropriate for either Committee or Council to engage in with respect to its
rules of procedure.
Responding to follow-up
questions from Councillors Doucet and Holmes, Mr. O’Connor re-iterated that a
declaration of a conflict of interest could only come from an individual or
from a judge ruling on it if someone took a member to court.
Ms. Penny Sanger, a member of
Educating for Peace, spoke in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion. She explained that Educating for Peace was a
group that worked with the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa and
the Ottawa Carleton School Board to expand and promote the teaching of Peace
Education in Ottawa schools. She stated that for more than forty years, she had
lived in downtown Ottawa, not far from Lansdowne Park, and had attended many
functions there. She referenced the
Lansdowne Live proposal, suggesting many citizens were not opposed to the
proposal but wanted more options. She
talked about her vision for Lansdowne Park; food stalls, ferris wheels and
other amusements but no drug dealings, no weapons sales and no strip
shows. Ms. Sanger read a letter on
behalf of Nancy Covington, Past President of Physicians for Global Survival,
which was also in support of Councillor Cullen’s motion. A copy of Ms. Sanger’s presentation and of
Ms. Covington’s letter are held on file.
Mr. Jan Heynan, a resident from Bay ward
and an engineer, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. He explained that the products
shown at CANSEC were technically very sophisticated and produced after much
engineering work. Most were made for
military attack purposes. He added that
someone who pushes the button is just as guilty as the person who made the bomb
that exploded as a result. Mr. Heynan
explained that during his career as an engineer, he had to decide whether to
take a job, with the decision being driven by interests other than technical or
financial. He talked about working for
Boeing Aerospace, which was an exhibitor at CANSEC, and not accepting a
position on the team for the planned B-1 bomber. He stated that, in terms of economics, he could only see negative
results of weapons production due to the fact that resources were wasted in
their production, exacerbated by destruction of assets when the weapons are
actually used. He added that war only
increased gaps between the rich and the poor.
Mr. Heynan conveyed his dismay of the 1989 policy being ignored and told
Committee how his son was arrested during the 1989 protests of ARMX. He concluded by referencing Marion Dewar and
how she was a strong proponent on the ban of AMRX. He felt her memory was being dishonoured. A copy of Mr. Heynan’s presentation is on
file.
Councillor Doucet referred to differences between the current
Council to Marion Dewar’s Council. He
asked Mr. Heynan how he would account for that and if it had something to do
with the current Mayor. The speaker
stated that he was at Committee as an engineer, not as a politician, though he
believed politics was a big factor in it as well as the influence of military
industry lobbyists.
Mr. Stanko Vuleta spoke in support of
the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
In doing so, he talked about the war against Yugoslavia in 1999; its
duration, the weapons used, and the lives affected. He went on to mention other death statistics from the war, in
contrast to the motion put forward by Councillors Chiarelli and El-Chantiry,
which called for a need for protection and military responsibility. In conclusion, Mr. Vuleta spoke of his hometown
in central Bosnia. He explained that
today, the town had no industry and was languishing in virtual poverty due to
the war and that he hoped a similar fate would not befall on Ottawa. A copy of Mr. Vuleta’s presentation is held
on file.
Mr. Frank Cserepy, a resident of Kanata
South, began by telling Committee he had been a peace activist since he was
eighteen years old. He thanked
Councillor Peggy Feltmate for her written confirmation stating she would
support the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. He stated that none of the public delegations at Committee were
under the dillusion that their efforts would stop Canada’s export sales of
military hardware. He explained that
out of $5.6 billion in Canadian exports between 2003 and 2005, $5.1 billion
went to 39 countries directly involved in carrying out wars, invasions, forced
occupations and perpetrating human rights abuses. He noted that many people were employed in the export industry
and the spin-off effects of their wages affected many communities and
businesses. However, he asked Committee
to bear in mind that in terms of the damage caused by the exported products in
the 39 countries, they made the tobacco industry look like a candy factory by comparison. He submitted that collateral damage was not
collateral at all. It was the lion’s
share of the devastation caused by military weapons whenever and wherever they
were used. He talked about being 6
years old in 1945 and being told to get under a table in the basement of his
home in Budapest because an air raid siren had sounded. His family was spared but his neighbour’s
house got a direct hit and everyone inside was killed. He spoke of living in the countryside of
Hungary when the Russian Army was liberating it and he remembered playing with
his friends in a field when he came across an egg-shaped metal object. He picked it up and threw it. When it landed it exploded. Mr. Cserepy pleaded with Committee to
consider the cost of an innocent life when debating whether or not to ban arms
shows at Lansdowne Park. A copy of Mr.
Cserepy’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Jo Wood spoke in support of the
motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
She spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with a case study of
Magellan Aerospace. She provided a
description of Magellan Aerospace, taken from the CANSEC website, including
reference to the CRV-7 rocket weapon system.
The description went on to mention that the CRV-7 was the most accurate,
unguided rocket system available and included rockets, launchers and warheads
of various models for a range of mission options and platform types. She described particular warheads produced
by Magellan Aerospace, their capabilities and uses. She noted that weapons were not always used as they were intended. Having described these weapons, she advised
that she considered them to be offensive applications and she asked whether
Committee believed these were defensive.
She brought up how the supporters of CANSEC claimed the tradeshow was
for first responders and if the show were banned, there would be nothing to
help first responders. She indicated
she believed in tradeshows for first responders on City property, but that
these should not be organized by CADSI or mingled with weapon systems. In closing, she noted that CADSI received
almost $200,000 in 2008 for international trade promotion and that this
tradeshow was primarily promoting the international weapons trade. She urged Committee to support the motion to
ban arms tradeshows from City property and suggested this symbolic gesture was
important as a way to try to keep the amount of war spending in balance.
Ms. Diana Ralph, co-chair of Independent Jewish Voices, spoke on behalf of the organization, which represents Jews across
Canada who support social justice and universal human rights. She expressed support for the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. She
explained that Independent Jewish Voices opposed the Israeli government’s
occupation of Palestinian land and its oppression of Palestinian people, its
genocide siege of Gaza and especially its military assault on civilians in
Gaza. She urged Councillors to prevent
CANSEC from leasing facilities in Ottawa.
She submitted that war was Israel’s main industry and that Isreal was
the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
She stated that in the last year, Israel had used the people of Gaza as
guinea pigs to test and eventually market new, horrific weapons specifically
designed for assaults on urban civilians.
She told Committee that Canada sold hundreds of millions of dollars of
component parts for Israeli weapons and security devices and that fifty
military exporters had supplied a wide range of essential components and/or
services for three major US weapons systems that were used by the Israeli Air
Force. She referenced the Ottawa-based
Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) and how many
Canadian companies, which produced weapons components, were members of this
organization. She added that the
primary role of CADSI was to organize CANSEC, Canada’s top military
tradeshow. She talked about CADSI as
organizing a Canada/Israel Industry Partnering Mission in 2004 to advance
partnerships between Canadian and Israeli companies. She felt Canada’s growing military ties with Israel were
threatening the lives of Palestinians as well as Canada’s own sovereignty,
reputation, civil liberties and internal politics. Ms. Ralph concluded by asking Committee to shutdown CANSEC. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Councillor Deans raised a point of order, stating that although she
understood the issue raised by the delegation, it was not the City of Ottawa’s
issue. She explained that the City’s
issue was about the use of Lansdowne Park for military tradeshows and the
discussion was currently going far beyond the scope of local government. She asked the Chair how he intended to
proceed in this regard.
Vice Chair Desroches reminded all the delegations that Committee was
dealing with a City policy with respect to the use of City facilities. He asked that the delegations’ remarks be
focused on the matter and that foreign policy issues were a stretch.
Mr. Bruce Rosove began by telling Committee that some of the
delegations before him had brought him to tears. He spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. He believed the current debate
was about ethics and making a statement; the statement being what Ottawa stood
for. He asked Committee if Ottawa stood
for promoting violence and supporting armies around the world. Mr. Rosove quoted Martin Luther King with
respect to violence begetting violence and suggested the only way violence
could be stopped was through love. He
believed arms magnified violence and that Canada was losing its peaceful
reputation. Mr. Rosove then read a
section from a novel dealing with a man losing his wife due to war and
violence. He indicated his point was
that arms mad people hate and created fear and resentment. Mr. Rosove submitted that banning arms
tradeshows in Ottawa would show that at least one city in Canada thought it was
wrong to use these arms. He concluded
by referred the speakers at the previous Committee meeting who had supported
the CANSEC tradeshow. He recalled that
every one of them claimed there were no arms at CANSEC because they knew people
did not want to think of Ottawa as having arms at their tradeshows at Lansdowne
Park. Mr. Rosove concluded that even
the people who made arms knew it as wrong.
He asked Committee to make Ottawa a place where arms shows could not
happen.
Councillor Deans re-iterated
that the current issue was not about solving the arms race or solving the
conflict in the Middle East, which were well beyond the City’s scope. She asked the delegation what kind of symbolic
message would be sent to the men and women of the Canadian military if the City
banned military tradeshows during a time when Canada was actively at war. Mr. Rosove explained that his understanding
of what Canada was doing in Afghanistan was not active combat, but that Canada
was there to create peace.
Mr. Koosma Tarasoff, a photojournalist
and writer, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. He explained that his ancestors
were exiled from Russia to Canada more than a hundred years ago because in
Russia, they burnt their guns in a mass protest against militarism and
wars. He stated that today, more people
around the world recognized that war was institutionalized murder and that the
military industrial complex was a threat to society, as President Eisenhower
had warned years ago. He referenced the
military-academic complex as well, suggesting that the ingenuity of the world’s
scientists was misplaced in the unethical industry of war and that they were
occupied in inventing better ways of killing people. He quoted a writer from Regina, Saskatchewan who said that there
was money to be made in the peace industry.
He then referenced the latest Federal budget, which spent more money on
defence than the environment, education, fisheries and oceans, Health Canada,
justice, human resources and international aid combined. He explained that as a photojournalist with
accreditation to write about CANSEC, he was turned away at the exhibit gates. He referred to CANSEC as a racket whose goal
was to make money on the back of dead bodies.
He believed peace was rightly a municipal issue and that it was time for
the City of Ottawa to develop a green, non-violent mentality and become a
peace-building leader for other cities.
He concluded by stating that banning the arms show would be a first step
in this direction. A copy of Mr.
Tarasoff’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Paul Harris, a member of St.
Patrick’s Catholic Church and a father of three children and three
grandchildren, spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor
Cullen. He focussed his presentation on
collateral damage; the killing of children in wars and conflict around the
globe and its link to arms sales. He
stated that modern wars were killing children callously and more systematically
than ever before. He referenced the
United Nations’ estimates that about 550 million arms weapons were currently in
circulation worldwide and submitted that these weapons killed hundreds of
thousands of people each year, including children. He talked about Magellan Aerospace marketing and selling one of
the deadliest weapons on the planet; an air ground rocket missile with multiple
warheads that had been recently used in Iraq.
He maintained that non-combatants could not avoid being shredded by the
cluster bombs this weapon produced. Mr.
Harris then presented Committee with statistics of children as war victims in
the past ten years, which illustrated that on average more than 2000 children
were being killed, maimed or disabled each day by armed conflict. He concluded by stating that arms sales lead
to the death of children and pleaded with Committee to put an end to arms shows
in the City of Ottawa. A copy of Mr.
Harris’ presentation is held on file.
Ms. Evelyn Voight spoke in support of
the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
She asked members to pretend this was a poor city overseas, which for
twenty years had banned arms shows on its grounds, that the City found itself
with a new Mayor who had links to an arms dealer and, under that Mayor’s watch,
the ban was overturned. Outraged citizens then demanded that the 20-year ban be
respected. She asked Committee what
they would think of if they heard of such a city overseas and what they thought
residents expected them to do. In terms
of what to do about trade shows, she felt the answer was easy; ban any firm
that dealt, either directly or indirectly, in weaponry and/or produced any
components that could be used as instruments of war or killing. She concluded her presentation by reading
three poems in regards to CANSEC. A
copy of her presentation is held on file.
In response to a point of order raised by Councillor Chiarelli, Vice
Chair Desroches again reminded the delegations to focus on the policy issue
before Committee.
Ms. Ramila Swann, President of the Serbian Heritage Society of
Ottawa, spoke in support of the motion put forward
by Councillor Cullen. She felt the
overturn of the ban was a mere legal technicality, which did not respect the
spirit of the policy. She explained
that Canadians of Serbian descent knew only too well the devastation caused by
weapons of war. She referenced the fact
that Serbia was bombed for 78 days in 1999, leaving 3,500 dead and about 10,000
wounded. The bombs did not discriminate
by age or gender and had destroyed schools, hospitals and television
stations. The bomb that destroyed the
national television station in Belgrade and killed over thirty journalists, was
the work of a Canadian fighter pilot.
She insisted that it was the civilians who paid the price of war. She submitted that when Canada signed the
treaty to abolish landmines, it appeared to be returning to core Canadian
values. She quoted Errol Mendes,
professor of international law at the University of Ottawa, who wrote that
Canada missed an opportunity for a second legacy in promoting human-rights
legal standards around the world and that Norway was now working towards an
Oslo Treaty to ban cluster bombs. She
maintained that if arms shows were banned, Canada’s armed forces would still
have access to whatever weapons they felt were needed. Ms. Swann concluded by urging Committee to
return the ban on military tradeshows and to make a statement that Ottawa
promoted peace, not war. A copy of Ms.
Swann’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Wendy Foster spoke in support of the motion put forward by
Councillor Cullen. She explained that
her sons were scheduled to speak but did not want to miss their school field
trip. She felt the debate had come down
to an ideological choice between political violence and peace. She believed Council had to decide what
statement it wanted to make. Further,
she submitted it was not within Council’s jurisdiction to risk violating international
law. She suggested the City send a
message to the Canadian military families that it would like to protect
them. She remarked that the Canadian
value of being peacekeepers had been well entrenched since 1945 and that the
nation wanted to return to this status, which would in turn be the best way to
protect the citizens of Ottawa and Canada.
She stated Lansdowne Park could be used to promote peace and have peace
shows as opposed to a political violent show.
Mr. Kevin d’Entremont, Executive
Director of GTEC, Canada’s government technology event, spoke in opposition to
the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
He explained that GTEC was a leading international convention focused on
showcasing industry solutions to government and bringing industry and
governments at all levels together on a level playing field to discuss the
challenges of serving citizens better.
He stated that the event had a following of over 7500 attendees each
year, including Deputy Ministers, Ministers and executives from government and
industry. He suggested events dealing
with major issues like public safety and security simply could not exist
legitimately without the engagement of a significant public sector
audience. He added that CANSEC was an
event supported by both industry and government because it was based on the
fact that public safety and security issues were a current global reality that
Canada had prioritized as a G8 nation.
He recognized that every Canadian was entitled to an opinion, but that
public safety and security also touched policing, fire protection, public
health and other issues that no one would consider offensive. He expressed concern over the motion to ban
an event he believed was designed and developed under the watchful eye of a
leading national association and with the engagement of Canadian national
institutions. He felt approving the
motion would send a negative message to hundreds of companies and thousands of
employees across Canada. He concluded
by stating that as the nation’s capital, Ottawa was the right place for major issues
to be debated and Council had recently committed $175M to support the
re-development of the Ottawa Convention Centre and Lansdowne Park. He asked Committee to defeat the
motion. A copy of Mr. d’Entremont’s presentation
is held on file.
Councillor Doucet asked Mr. d’Entremont if he was telling Committee
that safety services could not function or obtain equipment without an arms
sale in Ottawa. Mr. d’Entremont
maintained his message was that the event went far beyond arms and that other
services and technologies were showcased at CANSEC.
Councillor Doucet asked if Mr. d’Entremont was suggesting that the
City’s support was important to CANSEC’s continuation in Ottawa. Mr. D’Entremont stated that CANSEC was a
legitimate event, run by a legitimate association. However, not being from CANSEC, he maintained he could not
respond directly to the Councillor’s question.
Ms. Anne Healey, Executive Director of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems, spoke in opposition to the motion
put forward by Councillor Cullen. She
began by providing Committee with information regarding the industry AUVS
represented. She explained that
unmanned systems were components or platforms used to perform dangerous, dull
or dirty work and that these robotic systems were used in land, air, sea and
space environments for a multitude of applications. She provided examples of robotics performing dangerous missions
such as reconnaissance in Afghanistan, neutralizing unexploded ordinances, and
performing underwater surveillance around the perimeter of Canada’s Frigates. She submitted that the industry kept men and
women in the Canadian Forces safe, had been adapted for use in civil and
commercial markets in terms of fighting forest fires and providing critical
infrastructure surveillance. She added
that the industry employed almost 4000 Canadians and that the citizens of
Ottawa and of Canada had an obligation to provide the men and women of the
Canadian Forces with the necessary tools to carry out their duties as safely as
possible. Ms. Healey concluded by asking
that Committee consider the broader implications of the motion before
them. A copy of Ms. Healey’s
presentation is held on file.
Councillor Bloess asked if members from Ms Healey’s association were
exhibitors at CANSEC. Ms. Healey
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Lois A. Wright, a constituent from
the Kitchissipi Ward, advised that she had been a resident of Ottawa for
seventy-two years and loved the city.
She spoke in support of the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen. She explained that she was proud to be a
citizen of Canada, where the nation’s and its capital’s symbol was the
parliamentary Peace Tower. She
expressed support for gun control laws and suggested Council should not support
or condone the marketing and promotion of guns, bombs and other articles of
war. She asked Committee to observe two
minutes of silence to remember why the nation’s and the city’s commitment to
peace should continue.
Vice Chair Desroches explained that the point of public delegations
was for members to hear from residents.
He suggested that if Ms. Wright did not have anything further to add,
Committee would move on to the next speaker.
Ms. Wright concluded by stating that she supported the report and
Councillor Cullen’s motion and she urged Council to do so as well. A copy of Ms. Wright’s presentation is held
on file.
Mr. Bill Skidmore spoke in support of
the motion put forward by Councillor Cullen.
He talked about missing the protest against ARMX in 1989 because he was
on a plane ride back to Ottawa. He reported
that during this plane ride, he met an old friend who was working for the
Calgary Economic Development Authority and was trying to convince the AMRX
organizers to hold their next tradeshow in his city. He submitted that companies participating in CANSEC habitually
attempted to justify their activities by saying they were building Canada’s
industrial base and playing a key role in maintaining Canada’s security. However, he believed these companies were
concerned about cuts to military spending.
He remarked that most people celebrated the end of the Cold War, but
that these companies were greatly worried by its impact on their bottom
line. Mr. Skidmore talked about
spending time in war zones such as South Africa and the Middle East where he
witnessed the impact on human beings of modern war technology. He spoke of a colleague who had been
traumatized by war and who panicked when a helicopter flew overhead. In closing, he pleaded with Committee to
ensure that City facilities were not used to promote a vested financial
interest in selling weapons or components of military hardware. A copy of Mr. Skidmore’s presentation is
held on file.
Mr. Bill Bhaneja, a resident of Sandy
Hill, stated that he took great pride in Ottawa, which had become a world leader
in its pronouncements for a culture of peace in line with the declarations of
the United Nations. He referenced the
Human Rights monument, which was located on the doorsteps of City Hall and
where non-violent leaders such as Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and the Mayor
of Hiroshima had been welcomed. He
submitted it was cities around the world that bore the brunt of war and that
peace happened because of decisions made in cities. He suggested Councillors were mistaken if they believed arms
sales were the market of the future. He
insisted that holding CANSEC in Ottawa did not show the City’s commitment to a
culture of peace, but the opposite. He
urged Council to honour the 1989 ban. A
copy of Mr. Bhaneja’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Fred Cappuccino, a Unitarian
minister, stated that he had been a minister for sixty-three years and had
served ten different congregations. He
spoke of his wife Bonnie and how they had 21 children, 19 of which were
adopted. He explained that his wife had
started Child Haven orphanages in India, which cared for eleven hundred
children. He added that throughout his
wife’s travels, government officials had professed their love of Canada to her
and he talked about how travellers felt safer with Canadian flags on their
backpacks. He suggested this had all
changed when Canada joined George Bush’s war on Afghanistan. He referenced the numerous countries the
United States had bombed since World War Two and quoted a prophet who said
“Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him
to have a great millstone hung around his neck and be thrown into the sea”
(Mark 9:42). In closing, Mr. Cappuccino
urged Committee members to support the motion before them. A copy of his presentation is held on file.
Mr. Allan Shields began by suggesting
that the City had to start some place and had to abolish tradeshows. He spoke in support of the motion put
forward by Councillor Cullen. He
believed the City needed to overcome the arms dealers who were making munitions
to kill families. He stated that since
2003, 1.3 million innocent civilians had died in Iraq and to allow the arms
dealers to showcase in Ottawa was to approve what they were doing. He explained that Canadian military
equipment ended up in countries that continually violated human rights. He warned Committee to be very careful of
the way they voted as they could be opening the door to evil. He referenced the fact that North Korea had
nuclear weapons and would sell them to the highest bidder sooner or later. He believed Iran would do the same and he
urged Committee to ban arms dealers from having tradeshows in Ottawa. He spoke of being in school in the 1950s and
feeling fear when sirens would sound and children would scramble to get beneath
their desks. He once again asked
Councillors to support the motion. A
copy of Mr. Shield’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Samuel Bolton spoke in support of the motion put forward by
Councillor Cullen. He stated that when
he first heard of the CANSEC tradeshow in Ottawa, he did not have a problem
with it. However, he reported that the
day before the show, he saw a tractor trailer pull into Lansdowne Park with a
tank on its back and this had caused him concern. He indicated he was not comfortable with tanks and weaponry on
display in his neighbourhood or anywhere else in his community or city. He felt arms tradeshows betrayed the
reputation of his neighbourhood and the character of Ottawa, the nation’s
capital. He remarked that the City had
banned these tradeshows twenty years earlier and therefore he felt CANSEC was
insulting public will and democracy. He
went on to mention the CANSEC website, which boasted that they “recognize the
importance of national weaponry and continental security”. While
he understood the need for weaponry for protecting troops overseas, he did not
understand how weapons such as white phosphorous had any role in
peacekeeping. He maintained that the
City could make money in other ways.
Although he did not oppose economic growth or freedom of business, he
believed in conserving Canada’s image as a peaceful and peace-respecting nation
and, most importantly, he believed in conserving the value and dignity of human
life over the economic interests tied to the arms trade. A copy of Mr. Bolton’s presentation is held
on file.
Ms. Karen Raddon started by recognizing
that the Committee faced a difficult choice and that, historically, Canada had
been seen as a peace-making nation. She
explained that Canada was currently the seventh largest military exporter in
the world and was the top military exporter to the United States. She expressed her belief that CANSEC was an
opportunity for weapons manufacturers to promote their technology to a global
market and that the motive of the show was business and profit. She talked about being 6 years old in 1989,
when Council banned military trade shows at Lansdowne, and the impact this had
on her in terms of her belief in an effective democratic process. She believed banning military trade shows
would help to raise citizens who would display peaceful values, exercise
non-violence in their own lives, and expect the same from their
governments. She felt it was Council’s
role to serve as an example to the citizenry and that when Council listened to
the citizens of Ottawa, it reaffirmed their faith in democracy and promoted
further participation. She maintained
that only by demonstrating effective democracy could Ottawa empower citizens of
other countries to exercise their rights and engage in peace processes. She submitted that if CANSEC was allowed to
stay at Lansdowne Park, it would diminish Canada’s reputation as a peacekeeping
country. She then read part of a statement
by Malalai Joya former Afghan MP and winner of many awards. In closing, she suggested that banning
CANSEC would make a strong statement and that Committee had been given an
opportunity to decide Canada’s image. A
copy of Ms. Raddon’s presentation is held on file.
Councillor Doucet noted Committee members had expressed two different
views on the debate; that the City did not have any role in foreign affairs and
that Canada’s military efforts in Afghanistan would be damaged if the City
withdrew its support for an arms sale in Ottawa. He asked the speaker to comment on this. Ms. Raddon suggested that regardless of
whether or not CANSEC was allowed to continue on municipal property, the
Canadian military knew how to obtain the equipment it needed and would continue
to do so. She submitted that CANSEC was
about profits and business.
Councillor Doucet asked Ms. Raddon if she believed the soldiers in
Afghanistan would feel disadvantaged or feel badly if Council decided not to
provide a venue for arms sales. The
delegation responded in the negative.
Ms. Margaret Nelson spoke on behalf of
the Ontario Association of Social Workers, Eastern Branch, which included more
than four hundred members, most of whom work and live in Ottawa. She expressed support for Councillor
Cullen’s motion, explaining that as a social worker, her role was to alleviate
suffering, promote healthy and peaceful communities and advocate on behalf of
those who were the most oppressed and silenced. She submitted that she was fulfilling all three aspects of her
social work role by demanding a total ban on exhibitions of war on publicly
funded property. She noted stated that
CANSEC was Canada’s foremost arms industry exhibit and that its goal was to
foster international trade in products and services fuelling wars around the
world. She believed CANSEC exhibitors
were manufacturing and selling goods that directly threatened peace and caused
untold suffering. She urged Committee
to maintain the City’s historical refusal to help spread the mechanisms of war
on all publicly funded city facilities and to embrace Canada’s role as a
peacemaker, committed to ending war. A
copy of Ms. Nelson’s presentation is held on file.
Mr. Leroy Sanders began by telling
Committee that he was raised by a Quaker family and that his grandfather was
very disturbed when he decided to join the Canadian Forces during World War
Two. When he was nineteen, he was sent
to India where he witnessed the starvation of millions of people as a result of
the war. He explained how this bothered
him and how, in recent years, he had discovered that Americans had promoted the
rise of Hitler to power. He expressed
his dislike for how the arms industry affected the entire world and suggested
members of Council had an obligation to use their conscience to decide whether
they should let the arms shows continue on City property.
Ms. Fran Schiller, a resident of
Councillor Bedard’s ward, spoke in support of the motion put forward by
Councillor Cullen. She told Committee
that she was a Canadian citizen but had grown up in Indiana. She added that in 1965, she and her husband
went to Georgia to work with Martin Luther King’s organization to help register
black voters. She advised that they
then travelled to Tanzania for three years as volunteer teachers under Mennonite
Central Committee and later returned to Africa with their two children to teach
and work there for five more years. She
referenced President Eisenhower’s warning to Americans about the
military-industrial complex; that every gun, warship and rocket stole from the
poor. She went on to quote Robert Fisk,
President Kennedy and President Obama and their common beliefs on obtaining
peace. Ms. Schiller strongly urged
Committee to support Councillor Cullen’s motion and stated that everyone needed
the courage and imagination to look into the future and to work for a different
world, a world where leaders and the people throw their efforts into diplomacy
and negotiation, not annihilation. She
concluded by pleading with the Committee to keep Lansdowne Park for the City’s
children and grandchildren. A copy of
Ms. Schiller’s presentation is held on file.
Ms. Marlene Hewitt spoke on behalf of
the Ottawa Friends of Malalai Joya. She
explained that Ms. Joya was elected democratically to the Afghan parliament and
was an active, outspoken critic of the warlords who formed the majority of that
body. She read a letter written by Ms.
Joya to the people of Ottawa in which she urged the people of Canada, and
especially the citizens of Ottawa, to not allow their soil to be used for
displaying weapons used daily against the poor people of Afghanistan, Iraq and
other countries. A copy of Ms. Hewitt’s
presentation is held on file.
Mr. Kevin Doyle indicated he had married a refugee who had fled war and that he had
worked with refugees, therefore he know the impact of war. Further, he advised that he came from
Maritime Canada so he some of the military families and what they thought of
being overseas in active battle. He
maintained that among the military families and the soldier, there was a
longing to return to normal life. He
told Committee of how the children in Petawawa were being conditioned to being
called out of class when a tragedy happened overseas and how a child who was
called out of class because her mother was running late panicked because she
feared the worst. He maintained this
was what Canadian families were going through and he suggested that the City of
Ottawa could make a symbolic gesture.
Councillor Doucet referenced a petition signed by over 3,000 residents
from across Ottawa. He asked Committee
to look at the petition and see all the people who objected to the arms trade
show. He added that there were also
fifteen hundred signatures from people outside of Ottawa, which suggested that
people from across the nation were watching what this Council was doing on this
issue. He maintained that,
symbolically, a lot was riding on this issue.
He stated that the war in Afghanistan would not stop if this City
refused to support an arms sale on City property. It would not stop the Canadian Army from getting the arms it
needed. However, it would send a
message to every City on the planet that the City of Ottawa did not want to
participate in the extension of war.
Councillor Chiarelli explained that as Committee was debating this
issue the main story on CFRA Radio was that Canada’s 120th soldier
had been killed in Afghanistan. He
maintained that Ottawa was the national capital and the seat of the defense
department in Canada, the department responsible for equipping Canadian troops
and protecting them. He submitted that
in order to do this, the department needed to have access to options and
procurement possibilities. He felt that, as a national capital, Ottawa should
facilitate this role. He suggested that
the precedent of turning down this show could quickly expand to other areas and
Federal government functions. He
insisted that Ottawa behave as a national capital and let the federal
government conduct its business.
Councillor El-Chantiry felt the comments Committee had heard from the
public delegations were outside of what the City could actually do and outside
of its responsibility. He reminded
Committee that what they were debating was if military trade shows could be
held in City facilities. He asked
Committee to put the debate back into that perspective. He stated that, as a person who grew up in
the Middle East, he was very grateful for the Canadians and their equipment.
Councillor Bloess referenced the public delegations and the disturbing
images that were shown. He felt there
was an effort made to suggest that however someone on Committee voted, this
would be a vote for or against war. He
stressed that this was not the case and that there was not one person on
Committee who supported war. He
maintained that what Committee was discussing was whether or not an exposition
could take place on City property. He
talked about being born in a post-World War Two refugee camp and, as a child,
playing in places that were ruins of war.
He did not wish this on anyone.
However, he argued that it was a far leap from that description and what
Committee was currently considering. He
concluded by stating that it was not appropriate to ban these military
tradeshows, but to put limits on what they may display.
At this juncture Committee voted on Councillor Cullen’s motion, as
outlined in the agenda package:
Whereas on April 19, 1989, the former City of Ottawa
passed a Motion 11 to 1 resolving that Lansdowne Park and other city facilities
not be leased to any future arms exhibitions;
And Whereas for the first time in 20 years a Canadian
exhibition of military hardware and technology, called CANSEC 2009, took place
at Lansdowne Park from 27-28 May;
and Whereas the arms trade has little or no
consideration of moral or humanitarian issues in that weapons can and have been
used against civilians; and
and Whereas exports of Canadian military equipment and
components end up in countries which persistently violate human rights;
and Whereas the international arms trade serves to
increase militarization throughout the world and is inconsistent with arms
limitations efforts;
and Whereas Lansdowne Park is a publicly supported
recreation and trade show facility;
and Whereas, when Lansdowne Park was purchased by the
Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, according to City Legal Services, the
1989 Council motion no longer applied to Lansdowne Park;
Therefore be it resolved that the City of Ottawa's 1989
Motion be applied to Lansdowne Park and all other city facilities, so that they
not be leased to CANSEC or other such military exhibitions; and
Be It Further Resolved that the City of Ottawa call upon
the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada to pass similar Motions to
prevent the leasing of their facilities to such military trade shows.
LOST
YEAS (0):
NAYS (7): R. Bloess, G. Brooks, R. Chiarelli, E.
El-Chantiry, P. Hume, R. Jellett, S. Desroches
Committee moved on to consider the motion introduced at the previous
meeting by Councillor El-Chantiry on behalf of Councillor Chiarelli:
Speaking to the motion, Councillor Hume proposed to amend the wording
to remove the specific references to military trade shows, thereby making it
more generic in terms of national-level events. Councillor El-Chantiry accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Committee then voted on the revised motion.
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
WHEREAS Ottawa is
the capital city of Canada and, as such, has a special responsibility to play
host to events and gatherings that support the national interest and which facilitate
operations of national level programs and responsibilities;
AND WHEREAS it is
in the national interest to ensure that Canada’s military service men and women
are assisted in achieving the best possible state of readiness and protection
while serving Canada at home and abroad;
AND WHEREAS it is
in the national interest to ensure that the best possible protection and
preparedness along with search and rescue capabilities are available to
military personnel who serve Canada overseas and at home;
AND WHEREAS it is
in the City's best interest that its local law enforcement and first responder
agencies have the best possible access to equipment options that could assist
in carrying out their roles;
AND WHEREAS a key
element in the City of Ottawa’s economic development strategy is the promotion
of functions that produce economic activity that is leveraged by Ottawa’s
status as the capital city of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the
CANSEC trade show is an exhibition designed to enable the supply of the best
equipment and support for the men and women serving in Canada’s military and
which provides significant options for the City's first responder and law
enforcement agencies and which supplies significant economic activity to the
City of Ottawa while assisting the fulfillment of Canada’s military
responsibilities and programs;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
the City of Ottawa recognize its role as host city for trade shows that help
fulfill Canada’s national responsibilities;
AND THAT the City
of Ottawa continue to include consideration of national level trade shows in
its economic development strategies and practices and in its facilities
allocation policies.
CARRIED
as amended
