Candidate for City Council - Rideau Rockcliffe peterkarwacki.overbrook@gmail.com AI tools are used for drafting, research assistance, charts, references, and music; facts and positions are mine.
Canvasing on Crichton and Stanley. Most are not at home. And beautiful homes they are too..a far cry from the often unwelcoming thresholds just across the ward.
That's the way it goes in RideauRockcliffe where 60% who can, simply will not vote, and of the 40% who do, barely 10% will have bothered to watch the ward debate between myself and the King.
A clear uptick: roughly 1,100 debate views versus the ~840 in 2022 - about a 31 % increase.
In absolute terms it’s still a modest number for a city-wide platform, but in the context of Ward 13 municipal races it continues the pattern I've noted—higher relative engagement than the last cycle, even if the overall field of candidates is smaller.
In 2022 the Meet the Candidate Night was a bellwether: almost no one showed up except the candidates. The Rogers debate for the ward was viewed only about 840 times. Turnout sat near 40 %. Incumbents were largely given a pass. I finished well back and concluded that running was still worthwhile—because informed voters, when they have information, will choose the best available candidate, and a better council produces a better city.
Four years later
the race is smaller and the information environment is different. There are only two candidates.
The Ward 13 debate video has already passed 1,100 views—roughly 30 % higher than the 2022 figure. Campaign materials and individual blog posts are drawing hundreds of readers each instead of 10 or 20, with overall campaign-page traffic above 5,700.
A handful of residents have sent unsolicited letters of support.
None of this guarantees a different result on October 26. It does suggest that at least some voters are looking past simple name recognition and the usual low-engagement pattern.
The new east end crossing, a defining issue is on the table I support it, the incumbent does not.
The same reasoning still applies: if residents have access to the record and the differences between the candidates, they can decide whether continuity or a change better serves the ward. That was the point of my running in 2022 - and now in 2026 voters have a real alternative.
It remains the main question voters must ask themselves.
So..watch the debate...and decide! Link
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.
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?
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].
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.
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:
$ 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.
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].
$ 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Accessed October 15, 2026. Wikipedia and advocacy commentary are secondary sources; check the primary reports where you can.
The official ballot wording sits on the left and a plain-language version on the right. The plain versions are an aid to understanding, not a legal substitute. Elections Alberta cannot interpret the questions; direct meaning questions to the Government of Alberta or your MLA.
Choose one option. Results are non-binding.
10.Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
10.Which do you prefer?
A) Alberta stays a province of Canada.
B) Alberta's government starts the formal legal process needed to hold a later, binding vote on whether to separate.
Option B is not a vote to separate. It is a vote to begin the steps toward a future binding vote.
Yes or no. Results are non-binding.
1.Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?
1.Should Alberta's government take more control over immigration, in order to reduce immigration, favour economic immigrants, and give Albertans first chance at new jobs?
Bundles three goals. "Increased control" is not defined.
2.Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?
2.Should Alberta pass a law limiting provincially funded programs (health care, education, other social services) to citizens, permanent residents, and people with an immigration status approved by Alberta?
"Alberta-approved immigration status" is not defined.
3.Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs?
3.Citizens and permanent residents would keep their current access. Should people with temporary immigration status have to live in Alberta for at least 12 months before they can use provincial social support programs?
4.Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family's use of the healthcare and education systems?
4.Citizens and permanent residents would keep their current access. Should Alberta charge a fee or premium to people with temporary immigration status, and their families, for using health care and education?
The fee amount is not specified; "reasonable" was dropped as a judgment word.
5.Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?
5.Should voters have to show proof of citizenship (such as a passport, birth certificate, or citizenship card) to vote in Alberta elections?
Yes or no. Each depends on other willing provinces agreeing and on the constitutional amendment process.
6.Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King's Bench and Appeal courts?
6.Should Alberta work with other willing provinces to amend the Constitution so provinces, not the federal government, choose judges for the provincial King's Bench and Court of Appeal?
7.Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?
7.Should Alberta work with other willing provinces to amend the Constitution to abolish the Senate?
"Unelected" was dropped; it describes the Senate but is not needed to understand the question.
8.Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?
8.Should Alberta work with other willing provinces to amend the Constitution so provinces can opt out of federal programs in areas like health care, education, and social services, and keep the federal funding that would have paid for them?
"Intrude on" was dropped as a judgment word.
9.Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province's laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province's laws and federal laws conflict?
9.Should Alberta work with other willing provinces to amend the Constitution so that, when provincial and federal laws conflict in areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction, the provincial law wins?
"Protect from federal interference" was dropped as a judgment phrase.
Election day is October 26, 2026. Names are left out on purpose, so each position stands on its own. Letters are labels, not a ranking.
Recent tax increases: 2.5% in 2023 and 2024, 3.9% in 2025, 3.75% in 2026.
Cost of living and housing costs were the top issues in a January 2026 poll of Ottawa voters.
The number of people sleeping outside or in shelters has roughly doubled since 2022, according to B.
Election day is October 26, 2026. Names are left out on purpose, so each position stands on its own.
In 2022, Mark Sutcliffe asked Ottawa to trust him with a simple idea: a balanced approach. Four years on, the record raises a fair question. Balanced between what and what?
On election night in 2022, CTV News summarized his platform: cap property taxes at 2 to 2.5 per cent a year for two years, find at least $35 million in savings at City Hall, freeze transit fares for all riders, spend $100 million over four years on roads and cycling, and build 100,000 homes over 10 years.[1] CBC reported that he also claimed he could find $35 to $60 million in savings and cut 200 positions without layoffs, all without reducing services. CBC called that a bold assertion at the time.[2]
| Promise | Verdict | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Keep tax increases low (2–2.5%, first two years) | Kept, by his account. He told CTV in May 2026 that he kept this promise. | CTV News Ottawa |
| Freeze transit fares | Not kept | — |
| Find at least $35 million in savings | kept | — |
| Build 100,000 homes over 10 years | Not kept yet | need six more years, behind pace required— |
| $100 million over four years on roads and cycling | kept | — |
He did keep some, and he is right to say so. But holding a tax line is the easiest promise a mayor can make good on. It asks nothing of him except saying no. The other four are where the work was. The dollar value of Lansdowne and the dump dwarf other promises.
A Nanos Research poll for CTV News Ottawa, published October 10, found that 55 per cent of residents rank transit as the city service most in need of improvement. Roads and sidewalks came second at 27 per cent. In the east end, 52 per cent ranked transit first.[4] Nik Nanos said the top solutions include better LRT service and more reliable buses. Residents are not divided on this. They want both, and they want them first.
Two of the biggest decisions of the term were never put to voters in 2022.
Lansdowne 2.0. Affordable housing diverted; new arena too small for the PWHL Charge, who moved to the Canadian Tire Centre.
The landfill purchase. $95 million CRRRC price, the appraised land value.
A balanced mayor weighs transit, housing and basic services against projects like these. On this record, the money and the attention went one way.
The pattern appeared in this ward as well. During the Manor Park road, water and sewer rebuild, city policy calls for adding sidewalks on local streets at the same time so the opportunity is not lost for 70–90 years. Councillor Rawlson King moved to shorten or remove sections of the planned sidewalks. Mayor Sutcliffe supported the motion, calling it a “difficult decision” while noting arguments for applying rules uniformly and avoiding neighborhood-by-neighborhood exceptions.[6]
Council defeated the motion 16–7. The sidewalks will proceed.
Accessibility advocates and several councillors argued that the opposition prioritized a vocal local preference over pedestrian safety, accessibility for people with disabilities, and long-term infrastructure efficiency. Supporters of the motion cited trees, sequencing, and other priorities. Whatever the merits of the specific streets, the episode is revealing: when basic pedestrian infrastructure was on the table in Rideau-Rockcliffe, the mayor sided with the effort to scale it back rather than with the city’s standing practice of building sidewalks when the street is already open. That is not balance. It is choosing one constituency’s preference over universal accessibility and cost-effective infrastructure delivery.
When Sutcliffe was elected, the province had just granted strong mayor powers to Ottawa and Toronto, including a veto over bylaws that conflict with provincial priorities.[5] Those powers also let the mayor prepare the budget. The gap between promise and result cannot be blamed on a council that outvoted him. He had the authority.
This campaign, he is again pledging to keep tax increases as low as possible. A promise is only worth what the last one was worth. Before taking the new ones at face value, what happened to the 2022 list?
The question for voters. In 2022, voters were told they were choosing balance. They never got to weigh Lansdowne 2.0 or the landfill purchase. On October 26, they can weigh both, plus what he is promising now, against what he delivered last time—and against local decisions such as siding with the motion to reduce Manor Park sidewalks.
Rideau-Rockcliffe needs a councillor who will ask these questions in public, and who will not pander to get through a meeting. That is the job I am asking you to give me.
Time for a change.
The people who decide your bus route, your tax bill and your street are chosen by a minority of us. Australia fixed that a century ago for the price of a pizza.
The decisions that touch your life most directly are made at City Hall. Whether the bus comes, whether the road gets plowed, what gets built on your street, how much your property tax bill is: all of it is decided by a mayor and councillors. Yet these are the elections most of us skip.
In recent Ottawa elections, well under half of eligible voters cast a ballot. In some wards, a councillor wins with the support of a small slice of the people they represent. That is not a mandate. It is a rounding error with a salary.
Voting has been compulsory for Australian citizens over the age of 18 since 1924. Fail to vote without a valid reason and you face a fine of A$20 (about US$13). That is roughly the price of one pizza.
Today, while many countries are struggling to get people to the ballot box, Australia has one of the highest turnouts in the world. Ballots were counted from around 90% of eligible voters at its last federal election, in 2022, according to official statistics. For comparison, turnout in the 2024 UK general election was 60%, and in the 2024 US presidential election it was 64%.
The first three bars are national elections. The Ottawa bar is a municipal election, so it is not a like-for-like comparison, but it shows the gap at the level of government closest to your daily life. Ottawa figure approximate; confirm against Elections Ottawa before relying on it.
Nobody in Australia describes this as oppressive. It is closer to a civic habit, with a sausage sizzle outside the polling station to prove it.
I propose a modest penalty for eligible voters who don't vote and have no valid excuse: about the price of two pizzas, roughly $40. Australia's fine is closer to one pizza, and it still gets turnout near 90%. I would start higher for a reason: Ontario municipal elections begin from a much lower base, and a fine that is too easy to shrug off will not change the habit.
For perspective, an Ottawa ticket for parking past the posted time limit is $70 ($50 if you pay early), and a no-parking violation downtown is going up to $135. Most of us have paid one of those for a few minutes of convenience. A fine of about $40 for skipping the decision about who runs the city is, by comparison, modest.
This is not a punishment designed to hurt. It is a nudge that says voting is a civic duty, like jury service or filing taxes, and not a hobby for the already-engaged.
Representation. When nearly everyone votes, councillors must answer to the whole community and not just the loudest, best-organized or most motivated slice of it.
Accountability. Low turnout shields incumbents. Name recognition and a lawn sign go a long way when most people stay home. Higher turnout forces candidates to earn votes on record and results, not on familiarity.
Fairness. Those who skip local elections are disproportionately younger, renters, newer residents and lower-income. They are also the people most dependent on transit, housing policy and municipal services. Voluntary voting hands them the least say over the decisions that affect them most.
Campaign quality. When you can't win by mobilizing a small base, you have to speak to everyone. That rewards practical, broad-appeal platforms over narrow ones.
A fair system includes reasonable exemptions: illness, travel, emergencies and religious observance. It includes an easy "none of the above" option, because compulsory attendance is not compulsory endorsement. And it comes with easier voting: more advance polling, mail-in options and clear information about who is on the ballot and what they stand for.
"It infringes on freedom, including the freedom to abstain." The ballot stays secret and you can spoil it or choose "none of the above." What you give up is staying home, the same way jury duty asks you to show up.
"It will produce uninformed votes." Voluntary systems also produce uninformed votes; they just produce fewer votes. Compulsory turnout raises the stakes for candidates to inform everyone, not only their base.
"The real fix is making voting easier." Easier voting is part of the package and I support it. But Ottawa has had years of voluntary voting with low turnout, and convenience alone has not closed the gap.
"The city can't do this on its own." Correct. In Ontario, municipal elections are governed by provincial law, so this would require changes to the Municipal Elections Act. That is a reason to make the case publicly now, not a reason to stay quiet.
We ask people to show up for jury duty and to file their taxes. Asking them to spend twenty minutes choosing who runs their city is not a big leap. Two pizzas is a small price for a government that represents everyone, and a rounding error is not a mandate.
