Tewin Debate Was Not A Waste: POTTER

10/17/2025

By Evan H. Potter

Local media dutifully reported on the Planning and Housing Committee’s marathon deliberations over Bay Councillor Theresa Kavanagh’s motion to remove the Tewin development from Ottawa’s Official Plan.

Kate Porter did an excellent report for CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning. But the coverage didn’t quite capture the full flavour of councillors’ deportment in the five-plus hours of exchanges — the poker faces, the figurative side-eyes, an actual accusation of byelection interference, attempts at compromise and collegiality. The beautiful municipal theatre of it all.

Kavanagh’s motion failed, five votes to seven.

Was she tilting at windmills? Was Kavanagh’s tabling and then withdrawing of her motion performative? I don’t think so. As more than one councillor observed privately, the outcome was never really in doubt. But her motion did something useful: it put more information in front of the public, which is never a bad thing when millions of dollars and decades of urban growth are on the line.

And yet reality is what it is. As long as development proposals coming before committee and council tick all the right boxes — the i’s dotted, the t’s crossed — they’ll get approved. Developers in Ontario still hold the high card: the Ontario Land Tribunal, where public opinion doesn’t count for much, including the views of entire neighbourhoods. (That Kanata Lakes-golf-course-turned-housing-development-turned-city-refusal-to-grant-easements-for-servicing-story in Councillor Cathy Curry’s Kanata North ward? It seems council does have some ability to at least delay development. Where there’s a will there’s a way, they say. But that’s a column for another day.)

Beacon Hill-Cyrville Councillor Tim Tierney, council’s most enthusiastic champion of meeting Ottawa’s housing targets, understands these dynamics perfectly. By now he’s watched hundreds of experts delegate on municipal governance, their polished warnings landing with soft thuds against the existing policy written by Queen’s Park. Still, those same delegations perform a quiet civic service. They plant yellow and red flags in the public record — reminders for voters to revisit when election season rolls around. Because in the end, councillors’ voting records speak louder than any speech, long after their mics have been switched off.

I’ve fast-forwarded to two councillors’ remarks towards the end of the meeting. There’s no editorial judgment here — except to point out what anyone following Ottawa City Hall already knows: the split vote on Kavanagh’s motion mirrors a split in council that will carry on until next year’s election.

If you really want the full experience, sit back, pour yourself a beverage and watch the video of the committee meeting. Tone and body language tell you more than the transcript ever could. But for those who prefer to read, here are excerpts from the remarks of Councillors Tim Tierney and Shawn Menard — verbatim.

Draw your own conclusions.

[4:54:47] Councillor Tim Tierney

“I kind of regret back in the day not actually getting more hectares of land. Because it was a collective process where we wanted to intensify. And I think that we’ve heard many people say that today…Knowing that we are already having massive troubles achieving our targets now. Say hypothetically, the biggest impacted areas are Theresa’s, mine, councillor Marty Carr’s, College Councillor Laine Johnson’s…Quite a few were directly impacted with zoning, now having to increase massively in certain areas. We’re getting hit very hard by our residents. If we took this [400 hectares] out and we had to double intensify for a lack of a better word, what would that look like? …And I think we’ve heard from the province too. They’ve been very clear: they’re concerned about the stats and projections that we’re using as a municipality. I think we have a bigger train running at us right now. We’re not intensifying quick enough based on our current rules. I’m concerned about the kick the can motion that is out here. I think we’re not building quick enough. In fact, when it comes to Lansdowne, I’m not finished at the third tower. I think we need more intensification. I am legitimately the person that actually walks the walk and talks the talk…I certainly won’t do the kick the can motion. That’s ridiculous.

[5:18:34] We keep saying we’re building a lot of housing for people. But I’m not really seeing it…I think we have to focus collectively as a city. This is the opportunity to get off your pulpits and stop with ideology and focus on what we’re trying to achieve. Increasing the housing numbers. Stop with the hypocrisy. And let’s start building so that we can avoid parcels of land within the areas that we’re fighting with right now where we’re not achieving those targets. Who’s actually walking the walk. Let’s take the Indigenous component out for a minute. We’ve already dealt with that. And then again the federal government is responsible for a lot of this, not creating clear definitions on certain things. But based on what we’ve heard, we know that’s not an element in here. What I have heard is delegations coming in saying and I’ve asked a professor, I asked Horizons, I mean environmental lawyer that was here. They said ‘no, no additional lands.’ They think everyone should be living in a 1000 square foot box. Some people don’t want to do that. Some people want to live as a larger family. That opportunity exists. We have a perfect example [Tewin] of something that will actually achieve environmental targets…We either build or hit pause and let the province come and take over and do it for us.”

[4:58:10] Councillor Shawn Menard

“I will just say, as well, Chair, that the way that this [Tewin] decision was made back in 2020-2021 was not how it has been described here. It wasn’t three years of debate and back and forth and consultation. That’s not what happened. This motion came at the eleventh hour on the floor of the committee by Councillor Tierney backed by Mayor Watson to add these lands after the delegations had already spoke. And I hear a lot about fiscal conservatives around here. Well, fiscal conservatives are adding a huge amount of debt to the city by going forward with this and operations costs for umpteen years. We’re ok with it when they cut down trees, we’re ok with it when we’re spending money for developers but hey when it comes to the budget don’t raise it by $10, $10-thousand dollars for bathrooms or whatever else.

We always fight back on those things. But for this [Tewin], hey it’s ok. But what you did here and what Council did at the time was wrong. And we’re hearing the consequences of your actions. We’re hearing it today. What you did and how you did it was incorrect and wrong and there needs to be accountability for that. And today, this is part of that accountability. I’ve no doubt that you’re going to vote down all these motions. No doubt about it. That’s the way this council goes. It’s been this way for a long time. Making horrible decisions. Saying one thing out of one side of your mouth and another out of the other. Hey we got to keep taxes low but we’ve got to expand the urban boundary. We’ve got to keep taxes low but we’ve got to widen more roads. We’ve got to keep taxes low but we’ve got to invest in things like Lansdowne.

And where do we end up? We end up in an awful place with developers who benefit, with First Nations communities who are visibly upset by this and with teams that are not willing to go back and look at the errors of our ways. And now here we are again, this council making another ridiculous decision to not go back and look at what you did which was wrong. And, you know, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of sitting around this table and having decisions made over and over again. So, I hope that reasonableness can win the day here but unfortunately I don’t see a lot of reasonableness from this council. And I see a lot of talking out of both sides of our mouth. So, you know, I really hope we get to a better result on this but [I’m] concerned with the comments that I’ve heard today and the changing of the facts that have occurred here. Thank you, Chair.”

Evan H. Potter is a communications professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes a blog City of Ottawa Politics which you can read by clicking here.