Rajkumar Nada
Nada came across as significantly underprepared for the level of specificity expected from someone seeking a seat on council.
The biggest problem was not his values. His themes were perfectly understandable: listen to residents, keep taxes affordable, consult the public, protect communities and make development responsible. The problem was that those themes rarely developed into concrete answers.
Again and again, he fell back on variations of:
- “I would look into it.”
- “We need more consultation.”
- “We need to study it.”
- “We need to listen to residents.”
- “We need to spend responsibly.”
Those are campaign principles, not municipal solutions.
When asked what he would actually change in his first 100 days, he essentially said he would study property taxes and expenditures. That is a weak answer for someone who has already decided to run for council. By the time a candidate reaches a public town hall, residents should reasonably expect them to have already studied the budget enough to identify at least a few specific areas they want to challenge.
Instead, his answer suggested that the detailed work would begin after he was elected.
His answer on provincial involvement in development was particularly concerning. He suggested that he did not think the province would dictate to municipalities and that governments would work “hand-in-hand.” For a municipal candidate, that came across as a very superficial understanding of the power relationship between municipalities and the province.
Whether one agrees with provincial planning policy or not, a councillor needs to understand the limits of municipal authority. Saying essentially “I don’t think they would dictate to us” did not demonstrate that understanding.
His answer on AI data centres was another missed opportunity. Rather than discussing electricity capacity, municipal servicing, water requirements, tax revenue, employment, land-use compatibility or infrastructure costs, he referenced the idea that an AI query uses a cup of water and concluded that more study was needed.
That sounded more like something picked up from a headline than a developed position on a potentially major economic-development issue.
The same issue appeared with community engagement. Nada repeatedly said residents should be consulted earlier and that he would listen.
But how?
Would he change notice requirements? Hold mandatory ward meetings? Require developers to meet residents earlier? Publish development dashboards? Change how councillors communicate planning applications?
He never really got there.
Even his stronger answers tended to be statements of principle rather than implementation plans.
His clearest answer of the evening may have been his position that developers should bear additional costs created by their developments rather than existing residents. That was direct, understandable and responsive.
Unfortunately, answers that clear were the exception rather than the rule.
Assessment of Nada
He sounded like someone who knows what residents are frustrated about but has not yet done enough homework on how municipal government can actually address those frustrations.
There was very little evidence in his answers of detailed budget knowledge, planning knowledge, municipal procedure or specific policy development.
He frequently identified the right problem and then stopped before explaining the solution.
For a resident trying to determine whether someone is ready to walk into City Hall and start making decisions, the obvious question after this performance would be:
What has he actually prepared to do beyond listening, studying and consulting?
His tone was respectful and his intentions appeared clear, but intentions are not enough.
At this level of government, residents should expect candidates to arrive with more than a list of concerns. They should understand the machinery they are asking to operate.
Nada did not consistently demonstrate that.
Azmat Mujeeb
Mujeeb’s performance raised serious questions about preparation.
He clearly has a long list of issues he cares about, but too often his answers were sprawling, repetitive or disconnected from the question. More concerning were moments where he appeared not to know basic facts about the very issue being discussed.
The Greenwood Community Centre answer was a major problem
When asked about Greenwood Park and the old Greenwood Community Centre, Mujeeb responded:
“First of all, it’s very sad to hear that a community center has been shut down in Greenwood.”
He then contrasted that with spending on the council chamber and argued that the City was “closing the community centre” while spending money elsewhere.
The problem is that the old Greenwood Community Centre had not simply been eliminated with nothing replacing it.
The Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre had already opened and was specifically built to replace the aging Greenwood Community Centre.
And the candidates’ meeting itself was being held in that new replacement facility.
That makes this substantially more significant than simply giving an incomplete answer.
He was effectively criticizing the City for closing a community centre without providing a replacement while participating in the meeting inside the replacement community centre.
For a candidate seeking to represent Ward 3, that raises an obvious question about how thoroughly he had researched major projects in the ward.
The old Greenwood building was being demolished, but that was part of the transition after the replacement facility had already been constructed and opened.
A resident could reasonably ask:
How thoroughly has this candidate researched Ward 3 if he does not know that the brand-new building he is sitting in is the replacement for the facility he is criticizing the City for closing?
It also conflicts with one of the impressions Mujeeb tried to create throughout the evening: that he had personally visited communities, examined infrastructure problems and identified where municipal services were lacking.
If a candidate is going to base a significant part of their argument on identifying what City Hall has failed to provide, they need to have a firm grasp of what has already been built.
The seniors answer showed a lack of focus
Asked for concrete ideas to support an aging population, Mujeeb moved through affordable housing, Seaton transit, Third Concession roads, drainage, natural gas, Claremont, damaged homes and general infrastructure problems before eventually returning to recreation and accessible transportation.
The individual concerns may be legitimate.
But the question was about seniors.
A councillor needs to be able to listen to a specific question, identify the relevant issues and provide a focused answer.
Instead, Mujeeb often appeared to have a catalogue of concerns that he wanted to introduce regardless of the specific question being asked.
The developer-indemnification question was another significant miss
The community asked whether developers should be required to financially protect existing homeowners if development damages wells or septic systems.
Mujeeb responded by talking about finding municipal money and seeking funding from the provincial and federal governments.
The moderator then had to clarify that this was precisely not what they were asking.
The issue was whether the developer should be financially responsible.
That exchange raised a more important concern than presentation style. He did not initially engage with the actual policy mechanism being proposed.
“Line by line” started sounding like a slogan
Mujeeb repeatedly promised to go through the City’s budget “line by line.”
But if a candidate believes there is significant waste, duplication, problematic procurement or unnecessary spending, residents should reasonably expect examples:
- Which contracts?
- Which departments?
- Which projects?
- Which expenses?
- Which consulting costs?
He provided very few specifics.
At some point, saying “I’ll go through it line by line” stops demonstrating what has already been researched and starts demonstrating how much analysis still needs to be done.
His first-100-days answer reinforced that concern
Asked to identify something he would actually change, he largely promised to review things:
- review the budget;
- review revenue;
- review casino money;
- review projects;
- revisit priorities;
- ask the community;
- look for savings.
That is primarily a list of reviews rather than a clearly defined first action.
He also referred vaguely to having “heard” about a roughly $5-million project that he wanted to examine.
If a project is important enough to cite publicly as an example of questionable spending, residents could reasonably expect a candidate to know what the project is, what it costs, what its purpose is and why they disagree with it.
“I’ll find the money” wasn’t a complete financial answer
Throughout the night, Mujeeb repeatedly suggested that he would find money in the budget and, where necessary, go to the provincial and federal governments for additional funding.
That expresses determination, but it avoids the difficult financial choices councils actually face.
Sometimes another level of government says no.
Then the question becomes:
- Do you increase taxes?
- Do you borrow?
- Do you use reserves?
- Do you delay the project?
- Do you reduce its scope?
- Do you cancel something else?
Those are the decisions councillors ultimately have to make.
“I’ll find the money” does not answer the trade-off.
The central concern
The Greenwood Community Centre response is particularly important because it provides a concrete example of a factual misunderstanding about a major Ward 3 facility.
He was criticizing the absence of a replacement community centre when the replacement had already been completed — and the meeting was being held inside it.
Combined with the indemnification misunderstanding, the wandering seniors answer, the repeated “line-by-line” budget promise without much supporting detail, and the reliance on obtaining more money from other governments, it creates a consistent question for residents:
Has he done enough research into Ward 3, current City projects, municipal responsibilities and the workings of City government to clearly explain what he would actually change if elected?
_____________
Shaheen Butt
Butt’s performance showed substantially more familiarity with City Hall than the challengers, but it also exposed a different problem: he often seemed more interested in defending the current council than seriously engaging with the concerns residents were putting in front of him.
His experience was obvious.
So was his defensiveness.
Too many answers became “we’re already doing a good job”
Throughout the evening, Butt repeatedly emphasized what council had accomplished, what he and David Pickles had done, and how well Pickering was being run.
There is nothing wrong with an incumbent defending their record.
The problem is that several questions were specifically asking:
What isn’t working, and what would you change?
Instead of acknowledging shortcomings and explaining how he would address them, Butt frequently responded by listing accomplishments.
That can leave a resident wondering whether criticism is genuinely being absorbed or merely being answered with:
“Actually, we’ve already done a lot.”
An incumbent should be able to defend their record.
But they should also be able to identify where the record falls short.
Butt rarely did that.
The developer-indemnification answer largely avoided the actual question
Residents asked a very specific policy question.
If future development damages existing residents’ wells, septic systems or property, should there be a formal policy ensuring the developer—not the existing homeowner—is financially responsible?
Butt’s response was largely reassurance.
He told residents they were not alone and that council would stand with them.
That’s comforting language.
It isn’t a policy.
The residents were not asking whether council cared about them.
They were asking whether he supported a formal mechanism assigning financial liability to developers.
He never really gave them a clear answer.
For an incumbent with years of municipal experience, that was a missed opportunity.
He should have been one of the candidates most capable of saying:
Yes, here’s how something like that could work.
Or:
No, here’s why the City cannot legally do that and what alternative I would support.
Instead, the answer stayed largely at the level of reassurance.
His agriculture answer largely missed the agriculture question
Candidates were asked what specific actions they would take to support agricultural businesses and rural commercial viability.
Butt spent much of his answer talking about opposition to the airport and future commercial development.
Those may be related rural issues, but they do not amount to much of an agricultural policy.
Where were the ideas about:
- supporting farm businesses;
- agri-tourism;
- farm-gate sales;
- agricultural infrastructure;
- long-term viability of farming;
- local food;
- land access;
- rural economic development?
The question offered an opportunity to demonstrate a real vision for northern Pickering.
His answer never really developed one.
The Greenwood Road exchange was messy for an incumbent
There was confusion about which road was being discussed and whether the work was expected in 2026 or 2027.
That might seem minor.
But road infrastructure is exactly the kind of file an incumbent Ward 3 councillor should be extremely comfortable discussing.
If challengers are vague about a current capital project, residents may attribute that to inexperience.
An incumbent does not get quite the same benefit of the doubt.
The uncertainty weakened an otherwise strong claim that he knew the community and its projects in detail.
His strongest material was financial
Butt was much better when explaining municipal finances.
He correctly tried to shift the conversation away from the simplistic idea that every dollar on a property tax bill goes to Pickering.
He also made the legitimate point that residents cannot simultaneously demand more services and assume those services cost nothing.
That was one of his better contributions because it dealt with an uncomfortable reality instead of promising everyone everything.
He also talked about growing the commercial and industrial tax base and pursuing outside funding.
Those are real municipal considerations.
The problem was not that he lacked knowledge.
The problem was that the knowledge sometimes came packaged with an attitude that seemed to say residents should already appreciate what council has accomplished.
His AI data-centre answer was more direct than many others
Butt said he needed more information, but he also expressed a clear instinct that a data centre should not be placed in rural Pickering.
That at least gave residents something concrete.
He wasn’t simply saying:
“We’ll study it.”
He was saying location mattered and that rural areas deserved protection.
That was one of his more effective answers.
His closing remarks were his biggest self-inflicted problem
The most damaging part of Butt’s evening came at the end.
He was defending the incumbents’ experience and pushing back on what he regarded as simplistic promises from challengers.
That is normal campaign behaviour.
But then he effectively told people who were fed up with Pickering or unhappy with how things were being run that “there are other options available.”
That is an extraordinarily poor choice of words for an elected representative.
A resident who already feels ignored could very easily interpret it as:
If you don’t like how we’re running the City, you can leave.
Even if that was not his intended meaning, elected officials are responsible for how their words reasonably land.
It was unnecessary.
It was dismissive-sounding.
And it undercut his repeated claim that council listens to residents.
He then followed it with the declaration that he and Pickles were doing a “damn good job.”
Confidence is useful.
But there is a difference between confidence and telling dissatisfied residents that council is doing a great job and suggesting they have “other options.”
It created exactly the impression an incumbent should be trying to avoid:
We know what we’re doing, and if you disagree, the problem may be you.
The central concern with Butt
Butt demonstrated that he understands municipal government.
The question his performance raised was whether he is sufficiently open to criticism of the government he has helped run.
He regularly sounded knowledgeable.
He also regularly sounded defensive.
For a resident, the unanswered question is:
If he believes the City is already being run so well, what exactly does he believe needs to change over the next four years?
That was not nearly as clear as his defence of what council has already done.
David Pickles
Pickles was easily one of the most technically detailed speakers in the room.
He knew the files.
He knew the terminology.
He could name projects, studies, roads and processes.
That experience was obvious.
But his performance also revealed the potential downside of being deeply embedded in the existing system: he often responded to criticism by explaining why the system was already working instead of seriously considering why residents did not believe it was working for them.
His biggest weakness was institutional defensiveness
When residents raised concerns about consultation and trust, Pickles explained the existing process.
- There are community meetings.
- There are statutory meetings.
- There are planning meetings.
- There are council meetings.
- There are open houses.
- There are newsletters.
All of that may be true.
But the actual question was about trust.
Residents were saying that they sometimes feel decisions are effectively settled before they are meaningfully involved.
Simply listing all the existing opportunities for participation does not answer that complaint.
His comment that:
“We can’t drag people to meetings.”
was particularly revealing.
There is a fair point buried inside that statement: residents also have some responsibility to participate.
But it was poorly framed.
When someone tells you:
“I don’t feel heard,”
responding with:
“We can’t force people to show up,”
risks shifting responsibility back onto the resident instead of asking whether the consultation model itself could be improved.
A more thoughtful incumbent response would have been:
If people are not participating, maybe we need to examine why.
- Are meetings at the wrong times?
- Is information too difficult to find?
- Are residents hearing about proposals too late?
- Does the statutory process satisfy the law but still fail to produce meaningful engagement?
Those are harder questions.
Pickles largely defended the existing structure instead.
He sometimes treated criticism of City Hall as criticism of Pickering itself
In his opening remarks, Pickles objected strongly to people portraying Pickering negatively and said he was appalled when people ran down the community.
That is understandable emotionally.
Nobody wants their community constantly described as a disaster.
But there is an important distinction:
Criticizing the administration of a city is not the same thing as criticizing the city itself.
A resident can love Pickering and still think taxes are too high.
They can love Pickering and think consultation is inadequate.
They can love Pickering and think roads are deteriorating.
They can love Pickering and believe council has made bad decisions.
An incumbent has to be careful not to collapse legitimate criticism of government into “running down the community.”
Otherwise, residents who disagree with council can begin to feel that dissent itself is being characterized as negativity.
His knowledge was unquestionably his strongest asset
Pickles was at his best when he stopped defending City Hall and simply explained things.
His Northeast Pickering answer was extremely detailed.
He could describe the layers of studies still required before development actually occurs, including servicing, environmental assessment, transportation, infrastructure phasing and fiscal analysis.
That is valuable.
Likewise, when asked about Greenwood Park, he could list numerous potential improvements rather than simply saying he supported better recreation.
He knew the specifics.
He could also speak in detail about individual road projects.
Those answers demonstrated exactly what residents should expect from an experienced councillor.
His AI data-centre response was one of his better judgement calls
Pickles openly said he was not an expert.
That was arguably more credible than pretending otherwise.
He acknowledged that he had heard conflicting information about water and electricity requirements and said he would need to understand the specific project and its impacts before taking a position.
That is a reasonable way for an elected official to handle a highly technical issue.
There is nothing wrong with saying:
I don’t know enough yet.
The important difference is whether the person then demonstrates that they understand what they need to learn.
Pickles did that better than some of the others.
His developer-indemnification answer was stronger than most, but still stopped short
Pickles at least understood the question.
He referred to previous discussions with residents and developers and gave an example involving deeper wells and monitoring in another development.
That demonstrated relevant experience.
But when pressed on whether he supported an overarching formal policy, he still stopped short of clearly committing to one.
He essentially said the principle was being addressed and that the planning process had not advanced far enough yet.
That’s more sophisticated than misunderstanding the question.
But residents were asking for a clear policy commitment.
They did not fully get one.
His first-100-days answer was surprisingly modest
For someone with substantial experience on council, his proposed early priority was largely improving communication about public meetings and reopening access to council spaces.
Those are useful improvements.
But they are not particularly ambitious.
A longtime incumbent seeking another term should arguably have one of the clearest answers to:
What would you change immediately?
Instead, his answer largely amounted to communicating existing opportunities better.
A skeptical resident could reasonably wonder:
After all these years on council, is there really no larger City process he believes needs reform?
“Watch out for vague, unrealistic promises” was an obvious political shot
His closing warning about vague and unrealistic promises was clearly aimed at the challengers.
There is some basis for that criticism given several of the answers heard during the evening.
But it also allowed him to avoid a harder closing argument:
What specifically would David Pickles do differently next term?
Experience is valuable.
Knowing what doesn’t work is equally important.
His pitch leaned heavily toward:
You should trust me because I know how this works.
A resident might reasonably respond:
You’ve demonstrated that you understand the system. Now tell me what you think is wrong with it.
The central concern with Pickles
Pickles demonstrated significant municipal knowledge.
The weakness was not preparedness.
It was whether years inside the system have made him too inclined to defend it.
A resident could leave the meeting believing:
David Pickles knows exactly how City Hall works.
But that same resident might still be asking:
Does he understand why people are frustrated with how City Hall works?
Those are two different questions.
His answers convincingly addressed the first.
They were less convincing on the second.
The strongest challenge for Pickles is therefore not whether he has enough experience.
He clearly does.
It is whether that experience is being used to identify and change institutional weaknesses—or primarily to explain and defend the status quo.
