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?
