Why, in this case, the process may matter more than the project.
This is about governance, not whether Kingston should pursue better transportation options.
I want to be clear from the outset: this issue is not about whether Kingston should or should not pursue improved transportation options, including the possibility of high-speed rail. That is a separate discussion. It deserves proper public debate, evidence, analysis, and consideration by the residents and elected representatives of Kingston.
My concern is with the process that has been followed.
When a decision has the potential to affect hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment from city ratepayers, future planning decisions, and the rights and interests of property owners, the process used to reach that decision matters. Major decisions affecting our community must be made through a transparent and accountable democratic process.
The question is not whether a particular project is good or bad. The question is whether the residents of Kingston, through their elected Council, have been given the opportunity to properly understand, debate, and provide direction on a matter of this magnitude.
As of July 18, 2026, I have not been able to confirm whether this NDA was formally brought before Council for approval. That, on its own, is worth noting. This is exactly the kind of basic procedural information that should be a matter of public record, easily confirmed, not something a resident has to piece together from media reports and conversations. I consider both possibilities, that it was approved, or that it was not, to be a substantial issue.
If it was approved by Council, then residents deserve to know what was actually discussed, what alternatives were considered, and why so little of that discussion has been made public.
If it was not approved by Council, and was instead executed through staff or administrative authority alone, then a real question arises about whether that decision exceeded the scope of authority delegated under the Municipal Act, 2001, and the City's own Delegation of Authority By-law.
After reviewing the Municipal Act, 2001, Kingston's Delegation of Authority By-law, and the information currently available, if this NDA was executed without Council approval, it is my opinion that it is more likely than not that the City exceeded its legal authority in doing so.
This is not a claim that all non-disclosure agreements are inappropriate. Municipal governments regularly require confidentiality in legitimate circumstances. The issue is whether this particular agreement was simply an administrative step, or whether it represented a decision with broader policy, financial, planning, and public-interest implications that required direct Council involvement.
The Municipal Act establishes that Council has fundamental responsibilities in representing the public, considering the interests and well-being of the municipality, developing and evaluating municipal policies and programs, and ensuring accountability and transparency in municipal operations.
While Council may delegate certain administrative responsibilities, delegation cannot be used to remove Council's responsibility for major decisions affecting the community it was elected to represent.
In my opinion, an NDA of this kind goes beyond a routine administrative matter. It relates to a proposal that could have significant financial implications, affect future land-use decisions, create uncertainty for property owners, and influence the future direction of Kingston for decades.
Decisions of this significance should not effectively be committed through an administrative process without meaningful discussion and oversight by the elected representatives of Kingston.
The consequences of this process are not merely procedural.
Uncertainty surrounding a potential project location can have real impacts. Residents, property owners, businesses, and prospective buyers and sellers may be left trying to make decisions without information about a matter that could significantly affect their interests.
When information about a major community issue is restricted, residents lose the ability to participate meaningfully in discussions that affect them.
Transparency is not an obstacle to good government. Transparency is what creates public confidence in government decisions.
When a decision has the potential to affect hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment and create uncertainty for property owners, shouldn't Council be asking whether this process complies with the Municipal Act, the City's own delegation authorities, and the transparency and accountability standards expected of a municipal government?
That is the question residents deserve answered.
This is not a question of whether Kingston should pursue improved transportation options. It is a question of whether the process used to pursue them meets the legal and democratic standards residents have a right to expect from their municipal government.
In my opinion, this represents a significant breakdown in democratic governance.
Residents elect councillors to represent their interests, ask difficult questions, review important information, and make decisions on behalf of the community.
When decisions with potentially far-reaching consequences are made without the full involvement of elected representatives and meaningful public discussion, public confidence in local government is weakened.
This is not a criticism of individual staff members, who act within the authority they believe they have been given. This is a question of governance: whether authority to make a decision of this magnitude should have been delegated in the first place.
It is my opinion that, if the City lacked the legal authority to execute this NDA, then the agreement is likely void or unenforceable from the outset.
If that is the case, it should be revoked immediately, and all parties should be released from any obligation to maintain confidentiality under it.
Continuing to rely on an agreement that may have been executed without proper authority only compounds the damage to public trust, democratic accountability, and confidence in our municipal institutions.
This issue reflects a broader concern about how decisions are made at City Hall.
Over the years, I have spoken about the need to break down silos, improve communication, and reduce unnecessary secrecy.
A strong municipal government is one where information flows, where Council has the information needed to make informed decisions, and where residents are engaged early, not after major decisions have already been shaped.
Transparency should be the default. Confidentiality should be used only where it is legally justified and in the true public interest.
Good ideas still require good governance.
Kingston deserves a municipal government where major decisions are made openly, lawfully, and with the involvement of the people who elected their representatives to serve them.
That is the standard I believe residents should expect. It is the standard I will work toward as a member of Kingston City Council.