Thursday, February 26, 2026

Speech to Niagara Regional Council on replacing Transit Public Advisory Committee with a Customer Insights Panel (focus group)

Councillors I am Saleh Waziruddin.

Disbanding the Niagara Transit Public Advisory Committee and replacing it with a Customer Insights Panel is part of a larger problem happening with advisory committees in Niagara and beyond: they are being turned into focus groups for staff, in this case that’s the literal meaning of Customer Insights Panel. This is what Public Relations does, it shouldn’t be how government works.

Governance is something that is too big to be done by staff and elected officials alone, and resident input cannot be staff-driven. You know as elected officials there is such a thing as antagonism between your roles and staff, and between yourselves even, and as the elected officials you have the political power to direct staff and make or delegate the final decisions.

But there is a third piece of this puzzle, the residents. I’m talking about us. It’s not enough that you hear from your constituents when there’s a problem, or that staff survey them in focus groups. A way for residents to have an active role in governing ourselves, interacting with elected officials and staff, is also needed, and replacing an advisory committee with a customer insights panel is the logical destination of how this has been eroded step by step over the years. 

Being able to contribute to your work not just as a one-to-one constituent but as an advisory committee empowered by the municipal government or abc (agency, board, commission) and part of its structure can do much more and much better if given the chance. Yes, it will have some antagonism too, just like what happens within your Council or between Councillors and staff, but that is a necessary part of the process of governance that’s being squashed.

The Pakistani activist Aitzaz Ahsan described his country as a “bonsai democracy” because from outside the store window it looks like a democracy but it is actually stunted and pruned every time it tries to grow into a full tree. That is how the residents’ roles in government in Niagara and beyond have become as well.

Residents will apply to advisory committees when they see that they are effective, listened to, and given a role to contribute to governance. The governance review says that there is a recruitment problem for the public advisory committee, but there wouldn’t be if it was supported in making the contributions it can make. Riders will clamor to apply to be on the committee when they see it as a vehicle to contribute. That’s how more people will be interested and get involved. Getting residents involved is part of your leadership role, part of working collaboratively not just with each other and staff but with your residents as well.

The governance review says it’s a best practice to have insight panels, or staff-driven focus groups, but often what’s the most common practice is called a “best practice” but is just the common denominator, the worst practice. We should strive to do better than most, to go beyond and not just try to copy what everyone else is doing.

The public advisory panel should be retained and strengthened, supported, and given opportunities to pro-actively send recommendations to the Niagara Transit Commission Board. We need to reverse the “bonsai democracy” of residents’ role, it shouldn’t just be a display model for the store window. Only when we allow the garden to bloom will we solve the recruitment and effectiveness problem. Going further down this dead-end garden path we’ve been on is the wrong direction. Bring us out of the cold.

Thank you.


Wednesday, February 25, 2026

Letter to Niagara Mayors and Regional Councillors Against Amalgamation

 Dear Mayors and Regional Councillors,

I oppose any amalgamation of municipal governments in Niagara and am asking you to express opposition to this to the Regional Chair and provincial government.

The Regional Chair’s February 19 letter blamed the current structure for "successive tax increases," but studies show that, if anything, amalgamation would increase taxes even more.  The Fraser Institute found “We find very little evidence of tax savings or cost reductions. In most of our cases, the tax burden on individual households increased.” (pg. 25, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/municipal-amalgamation-in-ontario-rev.pdf)

The Chair’s letter also called "Council’s recent decision to delay final approval of the 2026 operating budget pending a detailed Chair’s review" dysfunctional, but this is not the fault of lower-tier municipalities.

Amalgamation “reduced the opportunities for citizen involvement” (pg. 27) according to a study by the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance from the Monk School of Global Affairs (http://archives.enap.ca/bibliotheques/2013/10/030566310.pdf), which also said, “two tier structures may be more effective in allowing municipalities to reap the benefits that come with large size, while retaining the responsiveness typical of smaller municipalities.” (pg. 1)

Losing lower-tier elected officials will mean less access and accountability for those who live here in favor of corporations and developers, many from outside the Region, who are already being heavily subsidized by our taxes in grants and rebates. 

Sincerely,

Saleh Waziruddin

Monday, February 23, 2026

Letter to Procedures and House Affairs Committee (Parliament of Canada) Re Longest Ballot Committee hearings

To: Procedures and House Affairs Committee, Parliament of Canada


Re: Longest Ballot Committee Hearings


Dear PROC members,


I was a candidate for the Longest Ballot Committee in a 2023 Winnipeg by-election but before then was a candidate for the Communist Party of Canada in two federal elections, one of which was the one where your committee chair MP Chris Bittle was first elected. I think my MP will agree that I am a serious candidate based on the one candidate’s debate I was included in. I resigned from the Communist Party a year before I ran for the Longest Ballot Committee and am not a member of any political party now.


As someone who has been an election candidate with a physical disability, it is perverse that changes being considered to serve voters with disabilities would actually make it more difficult for candidates with disabilities. Voting is important for participating in elections, but so is running for office.


Gathering 100 signatures is not easy, and raising the limit would make what is almost impossible even closer to being impossible. Passing around petitions at association meetings, as was mentioned in your meetings, is a luxury enjoyed by candidates from large political parties. For those running as independents or for smaller political parties, getting any signature is difficult because voters who are already involved with other political parties fear they could be seen as disloyal for signing the nomination form for another candidate. In the federal elections I ran in, nearly half my time was spent gathering signatures (and the other half was spent trying to get included in debates).


Requiring only one official agent per candidate (even per riding) is also another unfair barrier. The work of an official agent requires some specialized knowledge and expertise, and if this work is not done properly a candidate might be barred from running in a future election. This is why some small parties already have only one official agent for all candidates, to ensure that the work is done properly. Requiring every candidate in a riding to have a different official agent is an unfair barrier because there are only so many people available who have the capacity and availability to serve this important function. Having someone who cannot do the work well could mean the penalty of not being able to run again.


Please keep in consideration the right of people with disabilities to run for office, not just to vote. As you heard in your meetings many countries handle very long ballots with no problems for voters with disabilities. You should accommodate voters with disabilities without perversely adding barriers in their name that take away their ability to effectively run for office.


Sincerely,

Saleh Waziruddin