October 15, 2026 · Peter Karwacki, candidate for Ward 13 (Rideau-Rockcliffe)
At yesterday's CTV mayoral debate, Mayor Sutcliffe was asked about Lansdowne 2.0 and, as CTV reported it, called it a "good deal for taxpayers" [1]. He also said the Ottawa Charge were always going to leave. Those are claims, not answers. So here is how to test them.
The shopper test
A family sees a $300 item marked down by $200. They buy it and tell their friends they saved $200. They also spent $300 on something they didn't need. "I got a discount" and "it was worth buying" are two different statements.
The mayor's usual argument is about the discount. He says taxpayers cover less than a third of the price tag [12]. A summary of the project puts the city's net cost at about $130 million on $418.8 million [11]. I haven't verified how that net figure is built, and it's the first thing I'd want an independent check on. But even if it's right, a share tells you what you pay, not whether the purchase made sense.
Three questions decide whether a deal is good: did the city need it, what will it really cost, and who carries the risk if the number is wrong?
What the $419 million buys
Almost all of it is two things: a new event centre and a rebuilt north-side stand. Both got more expensive between the 2022 estimate and the November 2023 report [2].
Two items make up the whole project
City estimates, $ millions. Event centre + north stands = $419.1M.
Source: CTV News Ottawa [2]; combined increase about $96.5M per CBC [3]. Bar lengths are scaled to $300M.
Accessibility is a real need and the city lists it as a reason for the rebuild [6]. I'm not dismissing it. But no one has shown me a price tag that makes accessibility a $419 million need. The city's own consultant, Morrison Hershfield, estimated that keeping the existing facilities running for 40 years, then demolishing them, would take on the order of $40 million. That figure comes from the October 2023 staff report, page 79, as quoted in advocacy commentary [9]. I have not found a costed accessibility-only retrofit in the public material I could review. If one exists, publish it next to the $419 million.
Bathgate Parks. The Bathgate Park restoration in Carson Grove is budgeted at roughly $120,000. $419 million is about 3,490 of those.
Did the city need it?
The city says the arena and north stands are nearly 60 years old, near the end of their useful life, and costly to keep running [6]. The record on the structures themselves is less dramatic. CBC reported in 2021 that engineering reports confirmed the north-side stands were structurally sound but had a long list of problems [7]. Councillor Shawn Menard says the 2014 engineering reports put their life at 2067 [8]. That is a councillor's reading of the reports, so check the documents.
These claims don't contradict each other. "Structurally sound" is about whether the building stands. "Functionally obsolete" is about whether it does the job. The honest debate is which of those justifies spending $419 million. The numbers for the cost of doing nothing also differ widely:
Same question, very different annual numbers
$ millions per year. These measure different things; do not read them as a like-for-like ranking.
Sources: $1.0M = $40M ÷ 40 years (staff report figure via [9]); $5M from the city's project page [6]; "cost of doing nothing" $8.5M, up to $12.5M, from Ernst & Young figures cited in [13]; $17.4M a year for 40 years, plus about $50M from reserves, from the Glebe Report's reading of the final report [10]. Bars scaled to $17.4M.
If the true cost of doing nothing is closer to $1 million a year than $12 million, the "need" case gets much weaker. If it's closer to $12 million, it gets stronger. Voters can't tell which, because the alternatives haven't been shown side by side.
What will it really cost?
The Auditor General reviewed the plan in 2024. She found the construction estimates could be understated by about $74 million and put the construction cost at $493.4 million, with a parking structure at $18.6 million on top [4][5]. She also warned that the waterfall payments to the city could fall by $10 million to $30 million over the partnership's life [4]. The mayor's response was that every figure at that stage was an estimate, the AG's included [14].
One project, three numbers
$ millions
Sources: [4][5]. $512.0M is the sum of the AG's two figures. Council approved the project in November 2025 at $418.8M [11][12]; I have not found an updated cost audit since.
Who carries the risk?
This is the part "good deal" skips. The AG's bottom line was that the city is responsible for construction costs and any overruns [4]. Before this deal, that risk sat with OSEG. CBC reported that most of the cost comes from new debt and that the city takes over the overrun risk [3]. The mayor has said himself that delays and overruns happen on every major infrastructure project. If so, the risk is the likely scenario, not a footnote.
The Charge
The new arena cuts hockey capacity from 8,268 to 5,500. According to a summary of the project, the PWHL has said the Ottawa Charge will play at the Canadian Tire Centre in 2026–27 [11]. At the debate, the mayor said the team was always going to leave and had outgrown the building [1]. That may be true. But a good deal that loses the tenant the city most wanted to keep is hard to sell as a good deal, and "always going to leave" is a claim about what would have happened. The PWHL's own stated reasons would settle it, and I'd like to see them.
Outputs and outcomes
Council can point to an output: a new arena and stands, built. What voters need is the outcome: whether Ottawa gets more value than it gives up, including the housing, parks, transit and sidewalks that $419 million, or $512 million, can't also buy. Opportunity cost is the one number no one at City Hall presents.
What I'd ask for
These are structural fixes, not blame:
1. Publish a costed alternatives table, using the same assumptions: maintain, accessibility-only retrofit, phased rebuild, and the full project.
2. Have the Auditor General confirm the "net cost to the city" figure the mayor uses, and what it includes.
3. Report construction cost against budget publicly every quarter, with contingency drawdown shown.
4. Publish the PWHL's reasons for leaving, so the "always going to leave" claim can be checked.
"Good deal" is how a deal is sold. Whether it was good depends on need, cost, and who pays when the number moves. On the public record I can find, the city hasn't shown all three. Three questions decide whether a deal is good: did the city need it, what will it really cost, and who carries the risk if the number is wrong?
References
Accessed October 15, 2026. Wikipedia and advocacy commentary are secondary sources; check the primary reports where you can.
- CTV News Ottawa, "Ottawa mayoral candidates put each other on the spot during debate Q&A," Oct. 14, 2026. I relied on the article's excerpted text; check the debate video for exact wording. https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ottawa-mayoral-candidates-put-each-other-on-the-spot-during-debate-qa/
- CTV News Ottawa, "Council approves $419 million Lansdowne 2.0 plan" (2023 estimates). https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/council-approves-419-million-lansdowne-20-plan/
- CBC News, "Lansdowne 2.0 gets city council's stamp of approval" (reposted by Heritage Ottawa). https://heritageottawa.org/en/node/1891
- CTV News Ottawa, "Construction costs for Lansdowne 2.0 could be underestimated by $75 million, Ottawa's auditor concludes." https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/construction-costs-for-lansdowne-2-0-could-be-underestimated-by-75-million-ottawa-s-auditor-concludes-1.6934768
- Link2Build, "Lansdowne 2.0 development costs underestimated: Ottawa AG report," June 2024. https://link2build.ca/news/articles/2024/june/lansdowne-2-0-development-costs-underestimated-ottawa-ag-report
- City of Ottawa, Engage Ottawa, "Lansdowne 2.0." https://engage.ottawa.ca/lansdowne-2-0
- CBC News, "North side sucks, and so does the arena at Lansdowne, report says," 2021. https://amp.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6080375
- Councillor Shawn Menard, press release, "The Enormous Waste that Comes with Lansdowne 2.0." https://www.shawnmenard.ca/press_release_councillor_menard_the_enormous_waste_that_comes_with_lansdowne_2_0
- the613 (Substack), "Debunking the Lansdowne Spin and Councillor Misinformation" (advocacy commentary quoting the Oct. 2023 staff report, p. 79). https://the613.substack.com/p/debunking-the-lansdowne-spin-and
- Glebe Report, "Lansdowne 2.0 Approved." https://glebereport.ca/articles/lansdowne-2-0-approved/
- Wikipedia, "2026 Ottawa municipal election" (net cost and Charge summary; secondary source). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Ottawa_municipal_election
- Capital Current, "Election Ottawa 2026: The debate over Lansdowne 2.0 is still echoing in the mayoral race." https://capitalcurrent.ca/election-ottawa-2026-the-debate-over-lansdowne-2-0-is-still-echoing-in-the-mayoral-race/
- Bulldog Ottawa, "Here Is The Full Lansdowne Report," citing the Ernst & Young due-diligence report, Sept. 13, 2023 (advocacy commentary). https://bulldogottawa.com/?p=1029136
- Yahoo News / CBC, "'How much is too much?' councillor asks of surging Lansdowne 2.0 estimate." https://ca.news.yahoo.com/much-too-much-councillor-asks-080000127.html
No mention at all of the St. LAURENT tunnel expense, the hospital construction cost over run, the data centre impacts onthe infrastructure, or the new library cost over runs..
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the big ticket items were not discussed, same as 2022.