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

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

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:

 

 

CANSEC 2009 exhibitors are also engaged in the manufacture of essential high-tech components embedded in weapons systems that deliver the following:

 

 

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:

 

 

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


 

Attachment 3

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 


CANSEC 2009 Exhibitor:

Embedded in Delivery Systems for:

Nuclear Weapons

Depleted Uranium Munitions

Anti- Personnel Cluster Bombs

Anti-Personnel Land Mines

Automatic & Semi-Automatic Weapons & Ammo.

Ballistic Missile Defence Weapons

ABB Analytical
300-585 Charest Blvd E. QUÉBEC QC

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Acron Capability Engineering
620-1600 Carling Ave. OTTAWA ON 

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Atlantis Systems International
1 Kenview Blvd., BRAMPTON ON

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

BAE Systems Canada Inc
85 Albert St. OTTAWA ON 

 

yes

 

 

 

 

Bombardier Aerospace
400 De La Côte-Vertu Rd.
DORVAL QC

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Bristol Aerospace Limited
660 Berry St. WINNIPEG MB

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

CAE Inc
8585 De La Côte-de-Liesse Rd ST-LAURENT QC

 

yes

yes

yes

 

yes

Calian Technologies
340 Legget Dr. (Suite 101), OTTAWA ON 

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

C-CORE
Robert Bartlett Bldg. Morrisey Rd ST. JOHN'S NF

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

CMC Electronics Inc.
415 Legget Dr. KANATA ON

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

yes

Colt Canada Corporation
1036 Wilson Ave. KITCHENER ON

 

 

 

 

yes

 

COM DEV
155 Sheldon Dr. CAMBRIDGE ON

 

 

 

 

 

yes

DRS Flight Safety &Communications
115 Emily St. CARLETON PLACE ON 

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

DRS Technologies Canada
115 Emily St. CARLETON PLACE ON 

 

yes

yes

yes

 

yes

ELCAN Optical Technologies
450 Leitz Rd MIDLAND ON

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

 

eNGENUITY Technologies
300-4700 de la Savane St. MONTRÉAL QC

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

 

GasTOPS Ltd.
1011 Polytek St. GLOUCESTER ON

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

General Dynamics Canada Ltd.
3785 Richmond Rd. NEPEAN ON 

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

 

General Dynamics Land Systems
2035 Oxford St E. LONDON ON

yes

yes

 

 

 

 

General Dynamics Ordinance and Tactical Systems Canada
5, montée des Arsenaux LE GARDEUR QC

 

 

 

 

yes

 

General Kinetics Engineering Corp
110 East Dr. BRAMPTON ON

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Haley Industries Ltd
634 Magnesium Rd. HALEY STN. ON

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Honeywell ASCa Inc.
3333 Unity Dr. MISSISSAUGA  ON

 

yes

yes

yes

 

 

IMP Group International Inc.
400-2651 Joseph Howe Dr. HALIFAX  NS

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

ITS Electronics Inc.
200 Edgeley Blvd., Unit #24-27 CONCORD ON

 

 

 

 

 

yes

L-3 Communications CMRO
7785 Tranmere Dr. MISSISSAUGA ON

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANSEC 2009 Exhibitor:

Embedded in Delivery Systems for:

Nuclear Weapons

Depleted Uranium Munitions

Anti- Personnel Cluster Bombs

Anti-Personnel Land Mines

Automatic & Semi-Automatic Weapons & Ammo.

Ballistic Missile Defence Weapons

L-3 Communications Electronic Systems Inc.
25 City View Drive ETOBICOKE ON

 

yes

 

yes

 

yes

 

yes

 

 

L-3 Communications MAS
10000 Helen-Bristol St. MIRABEL QC

 

 

 

 

 

yes

 

yes

 

 

L-3 Communications Spar Aerospace Ltd
Edmonton International Airport Service Rd,
7th Ave EDMONTON AB

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

L-3 Communications Targa Systems
200-2081 Merivale Rd. NEPEAN ON

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Lockheed Martin Canada Inc.
6111 Royalmount Ave. MONTRÉAL QC

 

 

 

 

 

yes

Luxell Technologies
2145 Meadowpine Blvd. MISSISSAUGA  ON

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

MacDonald Dettwiler & Assoc.

13800 Commerce Pky. RICHMOND,  BC

 

 

 

 

 

yes

Magellan Aerospace Corporation
3160 Derry Rd. E. MISSISSAUGA ON

 

yes

yes

yes

 

yes

Meggitt Training Systems Canada
3-1735 Brier Park Rd NW. MEDICINE HAT AB

 

 

 

 

 

yes

Messier-Dowty
574 Monarch Ave AJAX ON 

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

NovAtel Inc.
1120, 68th Ave NE CALGARY AB

 

 

 

 

 

yes

Orenda Aerospace Corporation
3160 Derry Rd E. MISSISSAUGA ON

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

Presagis
300-4700 de la Savane St. MONTRÉAL QC

yes

yes

yes

yes

 

 

Raytheon Canada
919-72 Ave NE CALGARY AB 

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

Rolls Royce Canada
9500 ch. de la Côte-de-Liesse LACHINE QC 

 

 

yes

 

 

 

SED Systems - a division of CALIAN Ltd.
18 Innovation Blvd. SASKATOON  SK

 

 

yes

yes

 

 

SEI Industries Inc.
7400 Wilson Ave. DELTA  BC

 

 

 

yes

 

 

TSL Aerospace Technologies Ltd.
15724 Hurontario St. CALEDON VILLAGE ON 

 

 

 

yes

 

 

Ultra Electronics Telemus
88 Hines Rd. KANATA ON

 

 

 

 

 

yes

 

Source: Coalition to end the Arms Trade (http://coat.ncf.ca/ARMX/cansec/topCANSEC.htm)


 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!


DOCUMENT 4


USE OF CITY FACILITIES FOR Military TRADE SHOWS

UTILISATION D'INSTALLATIONS MUNICIPALES POUR LES EXPOSITIONS DE MATÉRIEL MILITAIRE

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Vice Chair Desroches ruled accordingly. 

 

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

 

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

 


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Ÿ                     Bob Stevenson’s letter dated 24 May 2009;

Ÿ                     Joseph Lance’s letter dated 24 May 2009

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

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

Ÿ                     Nancy Lauder’s letter dated 31 May 2009;

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DEFERRED


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