The contentious plan to redevelop Lansdowne Park is heading to a final vote at Ottawa city council Friday, and most councillors have already made their positions clear.Their latest public comments show little shifting from previous votes in 2023 and 2024 that pushed the project forward. Only a handful of councillors remain undecided.Here’s where things stand the day before the vote.Mayor Mark SutcliffeLatest position: Supports.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In an interview with CBC on Thursday, Sutcliffe said: “The numbers have only gotten better since 2023 and 2024. This is an opportunity to move Ottawa forward with an exciting plan for Lansdowne…. Doing nothing is not an option here. Doing nothing is much riskier than doing something. It’s more expensive than the plan that we have in front of us. So I’m hopeful about tomorrow. I’m hopeful councillors will see that this is the best way forward.”Matt Luloff, Orléans East-CumberlandLatest position: No public comment since latest vote.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Laura Dudas, Orléans West-InnesLatest position: Supports.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In a post on her website on Oct. 24, Dudas wrote: “One of the most persistent misconceptions about Lansdowne 2.0 is that cancelling the project would free up $418 million for other City services or initiatives. This is unfortunately inaccurate and misrepresents the financial structure of the project. Lansdowne 2.0 is only feasible because its upfront costs are directly tied to revenue streams generated by the redevelopment itself…. No matter what happens, the arena is nearing the end of its life cycle, and the north side stands are not compliant with modern accessibility standards. If we do nothing, we will still face the cost of replacing or repairing these facilities, but without the benefit of a broader plan or revenue strategy to support it.”David Hill, Barrhaven WestLatest position: Supports.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In an email to CBC on Nov. 5, Hill wrote: “I support Lansdowne. Audit committee yesterday clarified that the risk to a no vote in terms of construction inflation, and lost economic opportunity to the city significantly outweighs the potential risk to proceeding with Lansdowne 2.0. Could it be better? Yes. Can we still work towards that? Yes. But to say no, risk losing our teams, and start from scratch with a new partnership is NOT a better option that moving forward with OSEG on Friday.”Cathy Curry, Kanata NorthLatest position: Supports.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In a newsletter on Oct. 31, Curry wrote: “I voted in favour because the proposal meets all the requirements previously set by Council. But, most importantly, it ensures that we do not waste so many of your tax dollars upgrading Lansdowne. I would rather put your tax dollars towards other important priorities…. As Lansdowne is a City-owned asset, we have a responsibility to maintain it. This deal ensures long-term care and upgrades by OSEG, with only a modest annual debt-servicing cost and no tax increase…. Just to be clear about what a no vote would have meant, rejecting the proposal would mean that the City’s taxpayers bear the full cost of upgrades and ongoing maintenance, as taxpayers did before Lansdowne 1.0. These exorbitant costs eventually led to Lansdowne’s deterioration.”Clarke Kelly, West Carleton-MarchLatest position: Supports.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In a text message exchange with CBC on Nov. 6, Kelly said he currently plans to support the staff recommendation to move forward with Lansdowne 2.0, though he looks forward to the debate and questions to staff. “There is always a chance it could change based on debate, but as of now I will be supporting it,” he wrote.Glen Gower, StittsvilleLatest position: Supports with modifications.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Gower told CBC on Nov. 5 that he broadly supports the project, but hopes to see adjustments on Friday.In a post on his website on Nov. 3, he wrote: “There has been a lot of noise over the past two weeks on this file, from both sides. Count me somewhere in the middle: I’ve supported a redevelopment of Lansdowne, with a great deal of caution pending the final numbers and analysis. When I read the report, listen to delegations, and challenge staff, I’m trying to separate signal from the noise. Mainly, what is the level of risk attached to various aspects of the plan? How are the risks being mitigated? What are the benefits of moving forward? How does this all balance out?…. My conclusion is that the overall business case is sound and based on reasonable assumptions. My expectation is not that the project be 100% ‘revenue neutral,’ but the revenues should offset the cost as much as possible.”Theresa Kavanagh, BayLatest position: Opposed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.In an email to CBC on Nov. 5, Kavanagh wrote: “I remained concerned for the cost and value to the public of this P3 project. After hearing from Auditor General’s Report, I am even more convinced that this project is underestimating the cost to taxpayers to build this project and the value it will bring to the city. I share the concern of PWHL representatives with the capacity shrinkage from the current arena. The issue of transit and parking remain a concern as well.”In her newsletter on Oct. 24, she wrote: “Despite proponents’ assurances that this plan is a great deal for Ottawa taxpayers, I continue to have reservations, and I don’t think it’s a fiscally responsible use of public funds.”Laine Johnson, CollegeLatest position: Opposed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: No.In a social media video on Oct. 30, Johnson said: “A public institution like the city is not prepared to gamble taxpayer money…. We take on more cost and we take on more risk. That’s not the way good public-private partnerships are designed…. We have debt servicing quoted at $4.3 million, but that’s only if all the other pieces come forward. It could be as much as $17.4 million. I know College ward told me they had other priorities for the City of Ottawa…. We’ve never been presented with a third option, which is frankly incredibly frustrating.”Sean Devine, Knoxdale-MerivaleLatest position: Opposed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.In his newsletter on Oct. 28, Devine wrote: “Less than 10% of Ward 9 residents support Lansdowne. That’s as clear an indication of what my constituents feel about an issue as I could hope to get…. My primary concern for Lansdowne 2.0 has always been the finances, and whether the new deal we’re rushing towards has been crafted to favor OSEG more than ourselves… I’ve made my position clear on Lansdowne 2.0 from the start. My concerns are many: I don’t have sufficient confidence in the project’s costs or financial projections… I can think of many greater priorities for public investment…. The site is nowhere close to “end-of-life”…. Transportation in and out of Lansdowne is horrible for big events, and the plan for Lansdowne 2.0 does nothing to address that.”Jessica Bradley, Gloucester-SouthgateLatest position: Opposed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.On Nov. 5, Bradley confirmed to CBC her intention to vote no.In a post on her website on Oct. 27, Bradley wrote: “The proposal in front of Council today is not significantly different than the plan presented to Council in 2023, it continues to demand a significant financial commitment from residents while stripping away key amenities, fails to improve site access, and gambles on uncertain revenue streams with little accountability and even less transparency…. As your City Councillor, I have a fiduciary responsibility to Ottawa residents and having weighed the financial approach and corresponding public benefit, I cannot support a plan that weakens public value while locking taxpayers into decades of debt and an expensive repayment strategy.”Tim Tierney, Beacon Hill-CyrvilleLatest position: No public comment since last vote.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Stephanie Plante, Rideau-VanierLatest position: Mixed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In a phone interview with CBC on Nov. 5, Plante said she is comfortable with certain aspects of the Lansdowne 2.0 plan, but uncomfortable with others and “will vote accordingly.”Rawlson King, Rideau-RockcliffeLatest position: Opposed.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: No. Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.In an email to CBC on Nov. 5, King wrote: “My vote (will) be consistent with my vote last week at Finance and Corporate Services Committee and also with my vote in November 2023 regarding the Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment proposal. It will be a resounding no.”Ariel Troster, SomersetLatest position: Opposed.Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.In a video posted on Bluesky on Oct. 21, and reposted on Nov. 6, Troster said: “The reality is, all of those facilities, they’re not at the absolute end of their life. They could be repaired. We could treat this as a public asset and we could buy ourselves some more time to fix the real problems in our city: transit, homelessness, our infrastructure deficit…. I believe that Lansdowne 2.0 is far too risky because it relies on a financial waterfall that anticipates over 50 years that 350 million dollars would come back to the city. Well the best predictor of how things go in the future is how they went in the past and that is why I am voting against Lansdowne 2.0.”Jeff Leiper, KitchissippiLatest position: Opposed.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: No. Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: No.On Bluesky on Nov. 4, Leiper wrote: “Lansdowne 2.0 doesn’t give Ottawa what it needs. The plan is built around the limits of a public-private deal that leaves the city with hundreds of millions in new debt for a project that won’t serve residents well. It builds an arena that’s too small, a stadium with no roof, and removes park space just to make the finances look viable. Once again, we’re repeating the mistakes that have held Ottawa back.”Riley Brockington, River wardLatest position: Decided, but not sharing decision.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Absent due to illness.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: No.In an interview with CBC on Nov. 5, Brockington said correspondence to his office from constituents has been running strongly against Lansdowne 2.0. Of roughly 400 emails, phone calls and conversations with River ward residents over the past two months, just four have been in favour of the project. Nonetheless, he said he will not share his own decision until Friday.Shawn Menard, Capital Latest position: Opposed.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: No.Vote on procurement model in 2024: No.Vote on project in 2023: No.In an email to CBC on Nov. 6, Menard, whose ward contains Lansdowne Park, wrote: “I am firmly opposed to the plan but remain open to information that would change my mind…. Lansdowne 2.0 is a highly unpopular plan that will tear out useful and valuable assets, and includes a financial strategy which will shift more risk onto the city, add significantly more long-term debt while relying on highly uncertain cashflows to service that debt, and ignores reasonable alternatives that would cost far less.”Marty Carr, Alta VistaLatest position: Undecided.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Carr told CBC on Nov. 5 that she remains undecided and was still reviewing documents on the project in the clerk’s office as of Wednesday afternoon.Catherine Kitts, Orléans South-NavanLatest position: Supports.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Kitts told CBC on Nov. 5 that she has consistently supported the project, and that position has not changed.Isabelle Skalski, OsgoodeLatest position: Unknown.Skalski, who won a byelection in June, has not previously voted on Lansdowne 2.0. She told CBC during her election campaign that she did not support the Lansdowne 2.0 project as it existed at that time.David Brown, Rideau-JockLatest position: No public comment since last vote.Vote at finance and corporate services committee, October 2025: Yes.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Steve Desroches, Riverside South-Findlay CreekLatest position: No public comment since last vote.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Though he has not committed to a vote in recent remarks, Desroches told CBC on Oct. 28 that Lansdowne 2.0 creates stability and the conditions for success for the sports teams that currently play at TD Place.Allan Hubley, Kanata SouthLatest position: Not revealing vote.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.In an email to CBC on Nov. 5, Hubley said he will have a “final decision after hearing the discussion Friday.”Wilson Lo, Barrhaven EastLatest position: Undecided.Vote on procurement model in 2024: Yes.Vote on project in 2023: Yes.Lo told CBC on Nov. 5 that he is “sleeping on” the matter before making a final decision.
Find out where your councillor stands heading into the final vote on Lansdowne 2.0
