Campaign Video

Https://youtu.be/zBxbnuPAazE

Saturday, 11 July 2026

Substance over Form


Leadership - What I'm Willing to Stop from happening

Rideau-Rockcliffe doesn’t need another councillor who is good at moving motions forward. It needs one who is willing to stop the ones that shouldn’t be moved at all.

That distinction is rarely discussed on the community barbecue circuit. It shows up in the fine print of staff reports, in the footnotes of financial projections, and in the quiet moments before a 20–5 vote on a $95 million land deal negotiated under NDA.

Real leadership at city hall is not the art of consensus. It is the discipline of verification.

I have spent my career in project management and metrics. The work is not glamorous. It involves building dashboards that surface problems early, demanding independent verification before money is committed, and refusing to accept “we’ve always done it this way” as an answer. Those habits do not translate into warm applause at community association meetings. They translate into fewer surprises after the fact.

Ottawa has seen what happens when that discipline is missing:

  • Major capital projects approved with optimistic assumptions that later required public inquiries.
  • Oversight bodies receiving reports later described by the Auditor General as inaccurate or vague.
  • Performance metrics for transit and policing tracked on paper while actual outcomes for residents remained unchanged.

A leader who treats these as someone else’s problem is not leading. They are managing optics.

What leadership looks like in practice

It looks like insisting on independent third-party review of any deal larger than a set threshold before council is asked to vote.
It looks like requiring public disclosure of penalties paid or settlements reached under confidentiality agreements.
It looks like treating the Auditor General’s recommendations as binding management tools rather than suggestions to be noted and filed.

I am not promising to make every resident happy. I am promising to treat the city’s $5 billion annual operation with the same professional standards I have applied throughout my career. That means reading the reports, challenging the assumptions, and being prepared to be the vote that slows things down when the evidence does not support the rush.

The current approach has produced activity without corresponding improvement. More newsletters, more motions, more events. The problems — in transit reliability, in police accountability structures, in long-term infrastructure decisions — have not disappeared. They have simply been managed around.

Leadership is not the volume of activity. It is the quality of the outcomes that activity produces.

Rideau-Rockcliffe has the right to expect better than competent administration of the status quo. It has the right to expect a councillor who will apply rigorous scrutiny to the decisions that will shape this ward and this city for decades.

This time around, inform yourselves, vote differently, vote wisely.
Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe.

The King Newsletter

Councillor King's newsletters aren't short on content. 

A single August 2025 edition covered recognizing community award winners at Flo's Seniors Gala, Overbrook Day, and a run of business drop-ins with Mayor Sutcliffe — Schoolhouse Pizza, Edinburger, the Beechwood Diner — plus an appearance at a neighbouring MPP's corn roast and vendor fair. 

That's a normal newsletter for him: a steady stream of openings, tours, and community events, each one a photo standing next to someone.

Room for a seniors' gala and four separate small-business visits, and no room anywhere in the newsletter record for the fact that the City's own Accessibility Advisory Committee had, a year earlier, formally warned Council that a program on Ottawa's streets was endangering seniors and people with disabilities. 

One is an event. The other is oversight. 

A ward with as many seniors as Rideau-Rockcliffe deserves a councillor who treats the second one as at least as newsletter-worthy as the first.

It's a constant flow of events and a constant lack of substance

See July 2026

What the newsletter actually does


The core content is a motion directing staff to build a standardized encampment reporting framework and public dashboard, "unanimous support" from colleagues, rolling out this fall as part of the Unsheltered Homelessness Outreach Model. 

That's a data/reporting-infrastructure motion — not a funding commitment, not new shelter beds, not new supportive housing units. 

It's process, not capacity. Translation? All talk, no action.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Put this on your dashboard:


At this point we do not need another  dashboard because we already know there is a problem, do something concrete please.  I would work to provide more:

Temporary housing
Improved housing
New affordable housing
Guaranteed income supports
Group and supportive housing
Co op housing
Community housing
Encampment cleanup with housing options
Homeless sweeps with temporary housing

This time around, inform yourselves,

 vote differently, vote wisely. 

Vote for Peter Karwacki for 

Rideau Rockcliffe.








E-everything

 

 Infrastructure for e- everything

The AAC's (access advisory ) core complaint was never that e-scooters exist — it's that riders end up on sidewalks because the City hasn't built enough dedicated space to keep them off. 

That's an infrastructure failure, not a device-versus-device conflict. The same failure is what pushes seniors on mobility scooters into the same squeeze.

Bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and mobility scooters aren't competitors for space. They're all low-power vehicles that need dedicated, separated infrastructure to keep them out of conflict with pedestrians and with each other. 

I've ridden bikes as my primary transportation for over a decade, and the case for physically separated infrastructure isn't cyclist advocacy — it's the same accessibility argument the AAC has been making about scooters and sidewalks. 

If "connected mobility" is going to mean anything for seniors ageing in place in Rideau-Rockcliffe, a separated bike lane project has to come with a parallel accessibility standard for the pathway next to it — not as an afterthought, but as a condition of approval.

The City Already Has a Committee for this. It Was Overruled. Twice.

This isn't a hypothetical gap. Ottawa's Accessibility Advisory Committee — the body legally mandated to advise Council on accessibility for seniors and persons with disabilities — has already fought this fight, over a related issue: shared e-scooters on sidewalks and pathways.

Build the network right and every one of these groups stops competing for the same six feet of sidewalk.

What I'd Do Differently

• Require that any physically separated bike lane project include a parallel sidewalk/multi-use pathway accessibility standard — winter maintenance level, minimum width, curb-cut compliance — approved alongside the bike lane, not after it.

• Design separated active transportation infrastructure to accommodate the full range of low-power vehicles — bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters — so they're not forced onto sidewalks where they conflict with pedestrians and mobility scooter users.

• Treat Accessibility Advisory Committee recommendations with the same procedural weight as Transportation Committee or Transit Commission input, including a requirement that Council record and justify any vote that departs from an AAC recommendation on a safety matter.

• Put mobility scooters and low-power mobility devices explicitly into the City's "connected, accessible mobility" language — not folded silently into "active transportation," which in practice has meant cycling infrastructure this population is legally barred from using.

Vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau-Rockcliffe.

───

Sources: Ontario Highway Traffic Act guidance on mobility scooter classification (Halton Region Older Adult Advisory Committee fast facts; Globe and Mail); City of Ottawa Accessibility Advisory Committee mandate and meeting record; AODA Alliance report on AAC Motion AAC2022-1/20 and the June 21, 2024 AAC motion (aodaalliance.org); City of Ottawa "2024 E-Scooter Season and Extension of the Pilot Program," Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, March 27, 2025, and City Council, April 16, 2025; Capital Current reporting on the unanimous Council vote, April 29, 2025; Councillor Rawlson King newsletter, May 9, 2025 (rideau-rockcliffe.ca).

Friday, 10 July 2026

The National Capital Swimming Hole

Probably the most fun free thing in Ottawa, ever. You see, it's doable with imagination.




Another NCC win. The best mayor We never got.

Nussbaum is the one who got away. 

Canada Day Fireworks without notice...

 


You (Canadians) Paid For Those Fireworks. The City Decided You Didn't Need to Know When They Went Off.

Thursday night, just before 11 p.m., LeBreton Flats lit up for twelve minutes. No announcement. No warning. Residents blocks away thought something had gone wrong. Some called it in as an emergency.

It wasn't an accident. It was Canada's national Canada Day fireworks display — cancelled July 1 by a thunderstorm — quietly detonated eight days later during Bluesfest, on a Thursday night, past the festival's own 11 p.m. cutoff, and into the start of the city's overnight noise bylaw window.

The city knew exactly what it was doing. It just decided you didn't get a vote.

The sequence

  • July 1: Severe thunderstorms cancel the national Canada Day evening show, fireworks included.
  • July 9: Canadian Heritage arranges with Bluesfest to use the same fireworks at the end of opening night. The display runs roughly 11-12 minutes starting at 10:53 p.m.
  • No public notice, anywhere. The city instructed Bluesfest not to advertise it.
  • By Friday morning: nearly 40 complaints logged with the city's bylaw department.
  • The city's response: "City staff will consider feedback received as part of the post-event debrief process to ensure any lessons learned are incorporated into future planning."

That's it. That's the accountability mechanism. A sentence about a debrief nobody outside city hall will ever see.

The justification doesn't hold together

The city's stated reason for withholding notice: publicizing the display could have drawn large crowds to the streets around a ticketed festival, and the Special Event Advisory Team — police, emergency services, public health, and other departments — judged that risk worse than the risk of a no-warning fireworks show going off late at night in a residential city.

Except the same team that was managing crowd-safety risk apparently didn't manage the much more foreseeable risk: setting off a twelve-minute show on a weeknight, after the festival's own curfew, inside the window where the city's own noise bylaw says fireworks shouldn't happen. Somerset Coun. Ariel Troster called it unacceptable. Another councillor called it completely inappropriate at that scale with no notice, and said it legitimately frightened residents. This isn't a fringe complaint — it's coming from inside the building.

Canadian Heritage's technical explanation for why the fireworks weren't simply stored and reused is legitimate: once armed, a firework isn't inventory, it's a live safety liability, and disarming would have put the crew at risk. Fine. That explains why they had to go off sometime. It does not explain why the "sometime" was chosen with zero public notice, in violation of the city's own noise rules, by a committee nobody can name.

The actual problem isn't fireworks

Personally? The marvel of fireworks has worn off for me. Drones are the future.

But in this instance, it's comparable to every governance failure I've documented on this blog: a decision with real public cost gets made by an unelected body, below the level where anyone who has to face voters has to answer for it

"Not me" did it.

There's no name attached to the call. There's no public accounting of the tradeoff they made. There's no mechanism that turns "lessons learned" into anything you or I will ever read.

A "post-event debrief" is the institutional version of a 311 ticket closed in bulk — a process that lets the file get marked resolved without anything being resolved. No findings get published. No one in that room answers to voters. The only reason we know any of this happened is that nearly 40 people were angry enough to file a complaint and a councillor was angry enough to post about it.

Compare that to what accountability would actually require: a named decision-maker, a public rationale before the fact instead of a press statement after it, and a debrief whose findings you can actually go read. None of that exists here. 

It's staff discretion end to end, with the public bearing the cost and the confusion.

Taxpayers paid for a fireworks show they were told was cancelled, then had it go off in secret over their homes at 11 p.m. on a Thursday, and the only consequence on the table is an internal memo. 

That's not a communications failure. That's the system working exactly as designed — a design with no one in it who has to answer to you.

Ozemic Face - Advice for younger voters



The Face of Health Policy: Why "Ozempic Face" Matters to Young Voters

Posted by: Peter Karwacki

If you’re under 40 and active on social media, you’ve seen endless before-and-after transformations. The sponsored ads promising that a weekly injection is the ultimate shortcut to a "better you."

We are living through the GLP-1 gold rush. And while these drugs (Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro) are miracle-workers for treating Type 2 diabetes and severe obesity, I need to talk to my fellow young voters about what the glossy ads aren't showing you—and why this is actually a policy issue, not just a beauty one.

The Biology Your Feed Isn't Explaining
Let's cut through the hype and look at the hard science. Research consistently shows that the human eye is remarkably accurate at judging health from facial cues—we’re talking correlation rates around r = 0.71 when estimating BMI and vitality from a face alone.

Why? Because moderate facial fat (adiposity) is structural scaffolding. It supports the midface, keeps cheeks full, and maintains the tension that prevents sagging. For women especially, this moderate volume enhances those feminine, gorgeous traits we associate with vitality and fertility—full contours, smooth skin, and vibrant energy.

When you lose weight rapidly via GLP-1 receptor agonists, you don't just lose visceral belly fat. You melt the subcutaneous fat pads in your cheeks, temples, and around your mouth. Studies note median midface volume loss of 7–9% in users. The skin doesn’t have time to snap back. The result? Hollowed eyes, deeper nasolabial folds, sagging jowls, and a face that can look a full decade older than your chronological age.

We are quite literally trading visible, biological vitality for a smaller number on the scale.

Why This Belongs on a Civic Blog
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Peter, why are you talking about wrinkles and cheekbones on a political blog?”

Because healthcare policy is headed straight for this issue, and young voters are the primary targets.

Right now, state and federal policymakers are fiercely debating formularies—whether Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers should cover these expensive drugs, and under what conditions. If we, as voters, only demand coverage for the injection without also getting coverage for comprehensive metabolic care (nutritionists, gradual titration protocols, and strength training to preserve muscle), we are funding accelerated aging.

We are subsidizing volume loss without subsidizing muscle preservation. We are paying for a quick fix while ignoring the downstream costs of bone density loss, sarcopenia (muscle wasting), and facial atrophy.

Community Standards: Redefining "Healthy" in Our Ward
In our local wards, we talk a lot about community health. 

But too often, we measure success solely by pounds lost.

We need to shift the metric. A healthy community doesn't look gaunt or hollowed out—it looks vibrant

As young leaders, we have the power to advocate for wellness programs that prioritize sustainable body composition, gradual fat loss, and skin health. We can push back against the dangerous cultural narrative that "thinner is always healthier."

A Call to Action for Critically Thinking Voters

Here is my challenge to the younger voters in our community: 

Be a critical consumer of both pharmaceuticals and political rhetoric.

When you see that aggressive direct-to-consumer ad, ask yourself:
• Is this drug a standalone solution, or is it part of a holistic protocol?
• Are my representatives funding comprehensive metabolic health, or just subsidizing rapid weight loss?
• Am I valuing the long-term structural health of my body (and my community), or am I falling for the algorithmic pressure of instant transformation?

Self-awareness is your superpower here. Your face is a biomarker. Moderate volume signals genetic quality, stress resilience, and reproductive health—things evolution wired us to value for good reason.

Let’s demand health policies that respect that biology. 

I am a former health administrator.  I will advocate for sustainable wellness and public health. Looking healthy and being healthy should never be mutually exclusive.

Stay sharp, stay vibrant, and stay engaged.

— Peter Karwacki




I am a dog person, and the dogs know it!

 


The poets walk is one of the most beautiful strolls in Ottawa. The Rockeries is a close second option.