Special Bulletin: Update on Newcomer Reception Centres - January 22
It’s been several weeks since I’ve provided a substantive update on the proposed Newcomer Reception Centre, other than a summary of ongoing concerns in my January 14th Ward 9 Newsletter.
The purpose of this Special Update on the Newcomer Reception Centre is to provide you with much more information, especially information that’s related to my ongoing questions and concerns.
Ever since it was announced on November 7th that City of Ottawa staff, acting on delegated authority, had selected 1645 Woodroffe as the site for the first Newcomer Reception Centre, my approach remains the same:
- Ensure that the city’s strategy to manage the increase in asylum seekers coming to Ottawa is the right strategy.
- If the Newcomer Reception Centre at 1645 Woodroffe does proceed, ensure that it’s done safely and responsibly, while also protecting the interests of Ward 9 residents.
- Ask questions and communicate information to residents as transparently as possible.
On many important questions, City of Ottawa program staff have been very forthcoming with my office, providing clear and detailed information in a timely manner. These kinds of transparent, productive exchanges help build my confidence in this program and its plans. But there have been challenges, too. On more than one occasion, those challenges involved program staff not providing me with important information prior to releasing it to the public. This happened again last week, when program staff announced the procurement for the Newcomer Reception Centre at the same time they notified me about it. These kinds of exchanges absolutely do not help build confidence in how the city is managing this program.
All this to say, I continue to have questions and concerns about this program, which I’ll address below. Also, several recent shifts and signals at the federal government level have made many people doubtful and unsure about the future of Canada’s policies on asylum seekers, let alone how the federal government will respond to our city’s current needs.
For this Special Update, I’d like to provide new information on five ongoing issues. To keep this Special Update as concise as possible, I’ll provide brief details on each item below and have also provided links to additional documentation. At today’s City Council meeting, I also brought a Notice of Motion and an Inquiry which address most of these concerns. The following are some of the issues I would like to address:
- Site safety / environmental concerns
- Future use of the structure
- Procurement process
- Clarity over project financing
- Concerns from the housing sector
Site safety / environmental concerns
Any concerns that have potential to impact public safety are of paramount importance. Thankfully, this is also the area where I’ve been provided with the most reliable information. Regardless, my pursuit for certainty and clarity in this area will continue. While the information I have been provided gives me confidence that the site is safe for this project, I’m encouraged to have been provided assurances that there will be further analyses and mitigations.
As there is a lot of information dealing with site safety, I’m going to provide a summary explanation below. To read all the information, please refer to the document NRC Environmental Concerns. The information in that document, as well as the summary provided here, are based on information provided to my office by City of Ottawa environmental specialists, as well as engineering and environmental specialists at Stantec Consulting.
As has been well-publicized, the issue of safety over environmental concerns at 1645 Woodroffe has been raised to address the fact that there are toxic contaminants on this site, which is a parcel of federal land owned by the NCC. But the presence of contaminants in areas with sensitive land uses is not uncommon. Here is what the NCC said to program staff on this subject:
“It is not unusual for contaminated sites to be situated near areas with sensitive land uses, such as parkland or residential areas. In fact, many of the NCC parks are known to be contaminated sites, highlighting the importance of effective management and remediation/risk management strategies to ensure public safety and environmental protection.”
Before I provide more detail below, the following is a summary of Stantec’s recent assessment:
“A review of the site at 1645 Woodroffe Avenue, next to the Confederation Education Centre, was conducted by Stantec to support the development of a Newcomer Reception Centre. During their assessment, Stantec indicated they had no concerns with the proposed location of the pre-fabricated building. Specifically, they noted that any potential contaminated soil is located beyond the minimum distance required by provincial and federal regulations. The City is also in the process of completing environmental assessment studies as required by the development process and, out of an abundance of caution, will study if any further mitigations should be included.”
The presence of contaminants at 1645 Woodroffe is because there used to be an underground storage tank (UST) at Confederation High School, which is the main building at this address. Residual hydrocarbons from the UST found their way into the soil and groundwater. Site assessments demonstrated that there was a “plume” area around the UST, demonstrating the soil and groundwater impacts of these hydrocarbons. But periodic testing and monitoring of soil and water samples showed that the extent of the plume has not shifted or grown, particularly since the UST was removed in the early 2000s. Recent testing of groundwater samples taken this month show that the extent of the impacted groundwater remains consistent with what was outlined in 2009.
In addition to the fact that the plume containing contaminants has not expanded, there is further reassurance through the following:
- Stantec has confirmed that they had no concerns with the proposed location of the pre-fabricated building structure (i.e. on the soccer field), noting that any potential contaminated soil is located beyond the minimum distance required by provincial and federal regulations.
- Whereas construction excavation can disturb contaminated soil, which can release contained pollutants into the air, the proposed construction area for the pre-fabricated building structure and related utilities is not within the defined area of impacted soil and groundwater. However, I have already asked City of Ottawa program staff to confirm whether any required site preparation work (e.g. installation of new water infrastructure) poses the risk of disturbing contaminated soil.
- As a precautionary measure, Stantec has stated that a vapour barrier could be placed beneath the structure’s floor slab, as an extra precaution.
- Finally, as part of the City’s due diligence process, the City will retain a qualified environmental consultant to complete a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the proposed development area. The Phase One ESA will include a detailed review of the environmental reports provided by the OCDSB and other available historical and regulatory records, along with a site inspection and interviews to determine if there are any potential and/or known areas of environmental concern at the site that may need further evaluation. The Phase One ESA will be a requirement of the City’s development application process and will also be submitted to the National Capital Commission (if needed) to support the Federal Land Use and Design Approval application required for development on federally owned land.
Future use of the structure
Ever since this project was announced, the understanding that has been communicated to me by staff, and the understanding that I have shared with the residents of Ward 9, is that the explicit and intended purpose of the structure to be built at 1645 Woodroffe is that it serve as a Newcomer Reception Centre. The structure is meant to fulfill a specific need, for a specific crisis, which is the immediate need of managing a growing number of asylum claimants arriving in Ottawa. Further to that, the city has made clear that it’s choice of structure (i.e. a pre-fabricated, tensile membrane structure), is based on the fact that such a structure could easily be converted to recreational and/or community purposes, once it’s no longer needed as a Newcomer Reception Centre for asylum claimants.
My goal is to ensure that the City of Ottawa follows through on that pledge. Once this pre-fabricated building structure is no longer required as a Newcomer Reception Centre, or if and when there is no longer federal funding to operate is as such, it’s my intention to engage with the residents of Ward 9 on a process to determine its next use, preferably for recreational purposes. As residents of Ward 9 are well aware, there is a growing need for more recreational facilities. If we have a path forward to convert a 30,000 square foot structure into recreational facilities (e.g. pickleball courts, basketball courts, art studios), then I will pursue that.
At today’s Council meeting I brought a Notice of Motion to formalize that process.
Procurement process
On January 14th, city staff announced the procurement process for the Newcomer Reception Centre. The details of this procurement caught many by surprise, including myself, as well as the local construction industry.
On January 21st we received a joint letter from the General Contractors Association of Canada and the Ottawa Construction Association expressing their significant concern with the procurement, which they see as tantamount to being a “sole-source” procurement.
My concern over the details of this procurement, and the approach that the City has taken, is whether we have assurance that we will be getting the same value for money as we would through a competitive bidding process.
At today’s Council meeting, I brought an Inquiry that raised very specific questions about this procurement.
Clarity over project financing
Originally, my concern over the financing of this project was that the costs were to be covered wholly by federal funding, as the crisis we are seeking to address falls within federal jurisdiction. I have been satisfactorily reassured that municipal funding is not being used for this project. Staff has consistently said that this program is being funded by Immigration, Refugees & Citizenship Canada (IRCC), through their Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP).
The concern I have now is whether we have secured sufficient funding to deliver this program to the extent that we’ve committed ourselves to. As staff have stated, sufficient funds have been secured to commence the project, but I don’t know whether we’ve secured additional funding to operate the program for as long as we say we need to. These concerns raise the question: what happens if we don’t secure the funds required?
At today’s Council meeting, I brought an Inquiry that raised very specific questions about the project financing.
Concerns from the housing sector
Finally, I have begun to have conversations with persons and organizations who work in or are otherwise connected to various segments of the housing sector (i.e. affordable housing, transitional housing) over their concern that the city continues to rely on shelters to deal with the city’s various housing crises, as opposed to increasing the supply of permanent housing to fill those gaps.
For example, the City has announced a budget of $15 million for the design, site preparation, construction, and equipping of the pre-fabricated building structure that will serve as the Newcomer Reception Centre. As has been made clear, this is a semi-permanent structure for 150 individuals and not intended at all as a form of permanent housing.
At the same time, and as part of the City’s comprehensive program for managing asylum claimants, one component of that program is the acquisition of up 20 individual homes (4 – 5 bedrooms each), which would be handed over to be operated by qualified non-profit transitional housing organizations (e.g. Matthew House, Stepstone House, Carty House). As I was told, each of those homes could house 8 – 10 people, and it was estimated that each home could cost approximately $1 million to purchase and renovate.
In other words, for the same $15 million that the City is budgeting to spend on a semi-permanent shelter, which would house 150 asylum claimants, the City could also potentially purchase 15 individual homes, which could potentially house 150 asylum claimants. But these would be permanent homes, fully owned by the non-profits that would operate them. They would become permanent fixtures in the city’s housing stock that’s required to address our vulnerable sector housing needs.
Next steps
As mentioned, I submitted a Notice of Motion and an Inquiry at the January 22nd City Council meeting, today. The Motion, which aims to guide the future use of the pre-fabricated building structure for recreational purposes, will be debated at the January 29th Council meeting. I plan to use the week to speak with my colleagues and enlist their support. It will take longer to get formal answers from staff on the questions raised in the Inquiry, but I plan to reach out to staff in the coming days to see if I can push for some informal responses—particularly with the questions on procurement, as the procurement window is set to close on January 28th.
Finally, I will continue to hold meetings with residents and groups about the Newcomer Reception Centre. I am having an initial meeting with the Federation of Community Association’s Working Group on Newcomer Reception Centres, as they seek to advance better engagement on this topic between the city and residents. I have also been invited to have meetings and discussions with individual members of MGRASS, an advocacy group based in Merivale Gardens. And finally, I am still looking to host meetings with individual Ward 9 community associations interested in discussing this topic.
More to come.
Sean Devine