What people ask me at the door, and my answers.

Kingston has shown that we can get housing built. Under the province’s housing-target measure, Kingston recorded 966 housing starts in 2024 and 1,011 in 2025: 1,977 homes in two years. The City has also received $27.6 million through the federal Housing Accelerator Fund, with a commitment to help fast-track 890 additional homes.

Those numbers matter, but I think we need to keep asking another question: housing for whom?

In July 2026, the average asking rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Kingston was approximately $1,827 per month. Consider what that means for different residents. A person receiving the maximum single-person ODSP amount can receive up to $1,436 per month for basic needs and shelter. The average asking rent for a one-bedroom apartment is therefore greater than their entire monthly ODSP payment.

Ontario’s minimum wage is currently $17.60 per hour and increases to $17.95 on October 1, 2026. At $17.95, someone working 40 hours a week earns about $3,111 gross per month. A $1,827 rent would consume about 59% of their gross income, before taxes, food, transportation, utilities or anything else.

The 2025 living wage for Kingston and Eastern Ontario is $22.20 per hour. Even at that wage, a full-time worker earns about $3,848 gross per month, meaning that same one-bedroom apartment would consume roughly 47% of gross income.

For additional perspective, the national median after-tax income for a single senior was about $36,400 a year, or roughly $3,033 per month. A $1,827 apartment would take about 60% of that monthly income.

That is why simply counting housing starts cannot be our only measure of success. We need to ask: What did we build? Who can afford it? How long will it remain affordable? And does it match the needs of the people who live here?

Kingston is already doing some of this work. The City reports creating 58 affordable housing units and 59 transitional housing spaces in 2025, with another 121 units or spaces under development. But the affordability gap tells us that we have to keep looking for different approaches.

We need to be more innovative

We cannot continue using essentially the same approaches and expect a fundamentally different result. More private-market supply is part of the solution, but it cannot be the entire strategy. I would like Kingston to actively explore a broader mix of housing models and non-market models:

• Modular and prefabricated housing. Rather than treating modular construction as something experimental, we should identify appropriate sites, pre-zone them where possible and look at procuring multiple projects together to achieve economies of scale. Build Canada Homes is specifically supporting modern construction methods such as modular, factory-built and prefabricated housing.
• More co-operative housing. Co-ops can create mixed-income communities where some residents pay full housing charges while others receive rent-geared-to-income assistance. Public land or long-term municipal land leases could reduce the upfront cost while keeping the land in public or community ownership.
• Community land trusts and long-term ground leases. Instead of selling public land, the City can retain ownership and lease it for housing under agreements that preserve affordability for decades.
• Mixed-income developments. We should look for opportunities to combine market, attainable, RGI, supportive and seniors’ housing within the same developments rather than segregating housing by income.
• Smaller and different housing footprints. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard housing, secondary suites, small apartment buildings and senior-friendly units can put several homes on land that traditionally accommodated one.
• Adaptive reuse. Where economically and technically feasible, vacant or underused commercial, institutional and other buildings should be examined for conversion to housing rather than assuming every project must begin with demolition and new construction.
• Preserving the affordable housing we already have. Supporting non-profits, co-operatives or community organizations in acquiring existing lower-cost rental buildings can sometimes be less expensive than trying to replace affordable units after they disappear.
• Use public incentives strategically. If taxpayers provide grants, land, tax incentives or development-charge relief, we should be able to say exactly what the public received in return: how many additional units were created, what the rents are, how deeply affordable they are and whether that affordability lasts five years, 20 years or permanently.

Leveraging federal funding

I think Kingston also needs to become much more deliberate about positioning projects for federal investment.

Build Canada Homes now has an initial federal capitalization of $13 billion and is intended to work with municipalities, non-profits, co-operatives and other partners to expand affordable and community housing. Its mandate specifically includes supportive and transitional housing and modern construction methods.

Rather than waiting for a funding announcement and then asking what we might submit, Kingston could maintain a pipeline of investment-ready projects: land identified, zoning understood, community partner selected, preliminary design completed, infrastructure requirements known and long-term affordability conditions established. When funding becomes available, we should be ready.

There is also an important connection between housing and infrastructure. The federal Build Communities Strong Fund is investing $51 billion over 10 years, including funding for water and wastewater systems, roads, transit and other infrastructure that can enable housing development. We should be looking at housing and infrastructure together: if servicing this site unlocks hundreds of homes, what funding can we leverage so the entire cost does not fall on existing Kingston taxpayers?

The same thinking could apply to partnerships with non-profits, co-operatives, universities, colleges, health-care organizations, faith organizations and other institutions that may have land or buildings that could support housing.

Housing across the continuum

Ultimately, I do not believe there is one housing solution because there is not one housing need.

A young family trying to buy its first home has a different need from a senior trying to downsize while remaining in their neighbourhood. Someone working full-time at minimum wage has a different challenge from someone receiving ODSP. A person leaving transitional housing may need a deeply affordable apartment, while someone experiencing chronic homelessness may require permanent supportive housing.

Our housing strategy therefore needs to include RGI and deeply affordable housing, co-ops, supportive and transitional housing, seniors’ housing, purpose-built rental, missing-middle housing and attainable pathways to ownership.

Kingston has demonstrated that we can build housing. The next challenge is to make sure we are building the right mix of housing, at prices people can actually afford, and using every municipal, provincial and federal tool available to us.

The question should not simply be, “How many homes did we build?” It should also be, “Who can afford them, and did we actually improve the housing options available to people in Kingston?”

I do not think we should measure success by how many shelter spaces we create or how many tents disappear. We should measure how many people move into appropriate housing and remain housed.

Homelessness is not one problem requiring one solution. Someone who has recently lost an apartment may need rental assistance or rapid rehousing. Someone experiencing chronic homelessness alongside significant mental-health, substance-use, medical or cognitive challenges may require permanent supportive housing with intensive wraparound care.

We also have strong community partners in Kingston doing important work in transitional housing. The challenge is the “what next?” Transitional housing works only if people have somewhere appropriate to move afterward. If the next step is blocked because there is no affordable or supportive housing available, we simply create another bottleneck.

I would like us to look at how the City can better support those organizations collectively. Could we fund or help establish shared administrative capacity for smaller agencies — things such as housing navigation, landlord liaison, paperwork, funding applications and data coordination — so frontline organizations can spend more of their time actually supporting people?

I also think we need to rebuild relationships with landlords. Many landlords want reassurance that if they rent to someone coming through a housing program, there will be support if problems arise. With Landlord and Tenant Board processes often taking significant time, a trusted local partnership could help. That could include a dedicated landlord liaison, follow-up, and case management. The goal would be to make participation safer and more predictable for landlords while creating more housing opportunities for people trying to leave homelessness.

We also need a closer audit of how our system works in practice. We may be checking many boxes, but are those boxes actually aligned with what people need? Requirements for identification, registration, pets, programming or documentation can still create barriers, even within services described as low-barrier.

And we should be more ambitious about seeking outside funding. The federal government’s Build Canada Homes initiative is specifically intended to support affordable housing delivery, public-land partnerships and more innovative construction methods, while the Build Communities Strong Fund is providing $51 billion over 10 years for infrastructure that supports housing and community growth. Kingston should be positioning shovel-ready ideas now — modular supportive housing, smaller mixed communities, adaptive reuse and housing connected to health and social supports — so that when funding opportunities arise, we are ready to compete for them.

I support Housing First, more permanent supportive housing, better coordinated access, real-time data sharing and genuinely low-barrier services. We also need to look at the total cost of homelessness — shelters, policing, paramedics, hospitals, encampment responses and other emergency services — and ask whether our investments are actually reducing homelessness or primarily managing it. If they are not, we need to be willing to change what we are doing.

An opportunity to think bigger.

Providence Commons represents a rare opportunity for Kingston. For more than 160 years, the Providence Manor site has been connected to care and service in our community. As Providence Manor relocates, the Sisters of Providence intend to transfer the property and building to Providence Care so that it can continue serving the community rather than simply being sold for private redevelopment.

That gives us something we do not often have in housing development: a significant downtown property where the starting point is community benefit rather than maximizing the value of the land. I think we should take advantage of that opportunity to think bigger and differently.

Providence Commons is already envisioned as a not-for-profit, mixed-income community with market-rate, affordable and supportive housing, with particular attention to vulnerable women and women-led families. I would like the planning process to explore how we can build a true housing continuum within one community rather than creating one type of housing for one group of people.

That could mean a combination of housing for seniors, women and families; rent-geared-to-income units; supportive housing; affordable rental; co-operative housing; and some market or full housing-charge units. It could also include designated “move-on” housing for people who are ready to leave transitional housing but cannot find an affordable permanent home.

That last piece is particularly important. Kingston has excellent organizations providing transitional housing and supports. But transitional housing only works as a transition if there is somewhere for people to go next. If someone becomes stable and ready to move but cannot find an affordable apartment, they remain in a transitional space longer than necessary, which means that space is unavailable for the next person who needs it. Providence Commons could help address that bottleneck.

I would want the financial model to test several levels of affordability rather than using one definition of “affordable.”

For example, some units could be rent-geared-to-income, where eligible households generally pay no more than about 30% of adjusted household income. Other units could be deeply affordable for people living on ODSP or fixed incomes, some could be below-market rental, and others could operate at market rent or a full co-operative housing charge.

That kind of mixed-income structure can create both diversity and financial sustainability. It also means a senior living on a modest pension, a woman moving out of transitional housing, a family receiving RGI assistance and someone paying a full housing charge could live in the same community rather than being separated into completely different developments.

If a co-operative component is included, I would want it structured for long-term affordability. The question should not simply be, “Can we make these units affordable when they open?” It should be, “How do we make sure they are still affordable 30, 40 or 50 years from now?”

Providence Commons also presents an opportunity to rethink the relationship between housing and services.

The building is large, approximately 220,000 square feet, and the project has been envisioned from the beginning as housing combined with community services. Rather than every community agency maintaining its own administrative infrastructure, there may be opportunities for shared space and shared resources.

We could explore having community organizations provide services on site or through coordinated partnerships: housing navigation, mental-health and addiction supports, primary health care, employment assistance, family supports, seniors’ programming, financial counselling and other services.

That does not mean everyone living there requires supports. A healthy mixed community should include residents with very different needs. But for those who do need assistance, it is much easier to maintain housing when support is accessible and connected.

I do not think the City’s role should be simply to approve the application once somebody else figures everything out.

The City could identify, early in the process, exactly what it is prepared to contribute: expedited and coordinated approvals; heritage and planning expertise; servicing and infrastructure coordination; appropriate development-charge or fee relief; municipal housing funding where eligible; transit and public-realm improvements; and help assembling federal and provincial funding applications.

The earlier feasibility work has already identified financing and the scale of project management as major challenges. One of the most valuable things the municipality can do is help turn the project into an investment-ready proposal rather than waiting for funding programs to open and then scrambling to apply.

The timing could be particularly important. Build Canada Homes has an initial federal capitalization of $13 billion and specifically includes deeply affordable and community housing, co-operative housing, transitional and supportive housing. It is also emphasizing modular, prefabricated and other modern construction methods. The federal government has allocated $1 billion specifically for transitional and supportive housing.

That aligns unusually well with several possible components of Providence Commons.

The existing heritage building may lend itself to adaptive reuse, while additional housing on the property could potentially use modular or factory-built construction if technically appropriate. Build Canada Homes is actively prioritizing those methods because they can shorten construction timelines and reduce costs.

There is another federal opportunity through the Build Communities Strong Fund, which provides $51 billion over 10 years for infrastructure including housing-related water, wastewater, transit, roads and community infrastructure. Ontario’s provincial/territorial allocation includes more than $4.4 billion for housing- and education-related infrastructure, although access to that stream runs through federal-provincial agreements rather than directly through the City.

So the strategy should be to separate the project into pieces: What pays for housing? What pays for infrastructure? What pays for health and supports? What can philanthropy fund? What can the City contribute? Then stack those sources instead of expecting one program to fund the entire project.

I would also explore a formal Providence Commons capital campaign or matching fund.

For example, the municipality or another public partner could establish a defined commitment and then approach foundations, local employers, financial institutions and private corporations to match portions of that investment. Donors could potentially support things that government housing programs do not fully fund, such as community rooms, children’s spaces, furnishings, accessibility enhancements, green space, a housing-support fund or capital reserves.

There are Canadian examples of this kind of financing stack. Toronto’s YWCA Elm Centre created 300 supportive and lower-market homes for women and women-led families. Its financing combined all three orders of government, approximately $15 million raised through a capital campaign, mortgage financing, and land that the City acquired and leased to the YWCA for 50 years at a nominal rate.

That is very relevant to Providence Commons because it shows that a large community housing project does not have to depend on one government cheque. Land, municipal incentives, government capital, borrowing and philanthropy can be layered together.

The Sisters of Providence have created an extraordinary opportunity by ensuring this property can continue its long history of serving the community. The question now should not be, “What is the easiest thing we can put here?”

It should be: “What could we create here that Kingston will still be proud of 50 years from now?”

If we get it right, Providence Commons could be more than another housing development. It could become a model for mixed-income, intergenerational, supportive and permanently affordable housing, a place where housing, health care and community actually work together.

Intensification within our existing urban area should continue to be a major part of Kingston’s growth strategy. We need housing for new families, first-time buyers, seniors and people at different income levels, but that also means thinking differently about what a traditional housing footprint looks like.

Instead of seeing the choice as one detached house or one large apartment building, we should make better use of serviced land through duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, secondary suites, small apartment buildings and other forms of gentle density. We should also look at co-operative housing, rent-geared-to-income housing, transitional and supportive housing, and modular construction where it can help deliver homes more quickly and affordably.

At the same time, I would not take an absolute position against boundary expansion. The City’s land-needs analysis indicates that even with more growth accommodated through intensification, additional land may still be required to meet projected growth to 2051.

If expansion is necessary, it should be phased, evidence-based and connected to water and wastewater capacity, roads, transit, schools, parks and other services. We should protect natural heritage and ensure the cost of new infrastructure is not simply transferred to existing taxpayers.

The goal should not just be to build more housing farther out. It should be to rethink how we use land, create more housing choices within the space we already have, and make room for the next generation of Kingston residents.

Extreme heat is increasingly becoming a housing and public-health issue, particularly for seniors, people with medical conditions and low-income residents who may have fewer options to cool their homes.

I think Kingston should continue looking at both sides of this issue: protecting tenants from dangerous indoor temperatures while also being realistic about who is expected to absorb the cost.

Kingston’s 2026 Residential Air Conditioner Assistance Program was a useful first step. Council approved $17,000 from the Environmental Reserve Fund for a pilot providing free portable air conditioners to low-income seniors aged 65 and older living in multi-residential buildings who had a health-related need for cooling. The City partnered with United Way KFL&A to help distribute and install the units, while recipients remained responsible for ongoing electricity, maintenance and warranty costs. Staff are expected to evaluate the program and report back to Council in 2027.

I support the intent of that pilot, but I would like us to examine whether the eligibility should eventually be broader. Extreme heat does not become dangerous only when someone turns 65. A person receiving ODSP with a serious medical condition, a low-income resident with a disability, a pregnant person, or a family caring for a medically vulnerable child may also face significant risk.

Toronto has moved in that direction. In 2026, it expanded air-conditioner assistance across several programs serving vulnerable and low-income residents, including people accessing Ontario Works and ODSP, with funding sufficient for up to 2,400 air conditioners.

I think a maximum indoor-temperature standard is a legitimate conversation, but it needs careful analysis. Toronto currently requires landlords who already provide air conditioning to operate it from June 1 to September 30 so that rental units do not exceed 26°C. It does not currently require every landlord to install air conditioning in every rental unit. Toronto has also added a requirement for certain apartment buildings without in-suite cooling to maintain at least one existing indoor amenity space at or below 26°C during the summer.

Hamilton is currently studying whether to introduce a broader maximum-temperature by-law that could require cooling where rental units exceed 26°C. Its consultation specifically includes both tenants and landlords because a requirement like this raises questions about older buildings, electrical capacity, installation costs, enforcement and affordability.

I would like Kingston to examine those experiences and the results of our own AC pilot before deciding on a broader requirement. I also believe the discussion should include a broader range of participants, including both tenants and landlords.

Who pays?

This is an important part of the discussion.

If Council requires an older apartment building that was never designed for air conditioning to suddenly maintain every unit below 26°C, there may be significant costs: electrical upgrades, heat pumps or cooling systems, window replacements, insulation, installation, maintenance and increased electricity use. We cannot simply say, “landlords should pay for it,” and assume there will be no broader consequence.

Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act allows landlords, in some circumstances, to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for above-guideline rent increases for eligible capital expenditures, including certain work associated with mechanical, ventilation and air-conditioning systems.

So if we impose substantial new capital costs without considering how they are financed, some of those costs may ultimately affect rents, future rental investment or the financial viability of smaller rental properties.

At the same time, tenants, particularly low-income tenants, cannot reasonably be expected to absorb significantly higher housing or electricity costs in order to remain safe during extreme heat. That is why I think this needs to be approached as a shared climate-resilience challenge, rather than simply transferring the entire burden from one group to another.

A broader approach

Instead of relying on one solution, I would like Kingston to examine a combination of measures:

• expanding targeted AC assistance if the 2026 pilot demonstrates good outcomes;
• broadening eligibility beyond seniors to other medically vulnerable and low-income residents;
• ensuring tenants know about provincial electricity-support and energy-efficiency programs;
• examining grants, rebates or low-interest financing to help older rental buildings improve insulation, windows, heat pumps and energy efficiency;
• looking at whether common-area cooling rooms could provide an interim solution in some multi-residential buildings;
• considering different requirements for new construction versus older existing buildings;
• looking at how any maximum-temperature standard could be phased in rather than imposed all at once;
• seeking provincial and federal climate-adaptation and energy-efficiency funding so the entire cost does not fall on Kingston taxpayers, landlords or tenants; and
• measuring indoor temperatures and identifying which buildings and populations are actually most vulnerable before designing a city-wide response.

New buildings are also an important part of this conversation. If climate projections tell us Kingston will experience hotter summers, we should be thinking about passive cooling, shade, building orientation, insulation, heat pumps, trees and energy-efficient design at the time buildings are constructed, rather than paying much more to retrofit them later.

For me, the objective is straightforward: people should not be placed at risk in their own homes because they cannot afford to stay cool. However, we also need to design the solution carefully enough that protecting tenants from extreme heat does not unintentionally make rental housing even less affordable.

That is why I would use the results of Kingston’s pilot, examine what Toronto and Hamilton are learning, hear from tenants and landlords, understand the true cost of different options, and then determine where the City, property owners, senior governments and available energy programs can each contribute.

The question should be: “How do we keep vulnerable residents safe from extreme heat, make our housing stock more resilient, and share the cost in a way that does not worsen housing affordability?”

I support making public transit more accessible and increasing ridership. Transit is an essential municipal service: it connects people to work, school, health care, recreation and each other, and good transit also helps reduce congestion and supports more compact growth.

Kingston has already taken important steps to improve affordability. Children 14 and under ride free, and the City offers income-qualified Affordable Transit Passes at substantially reduced rates, currently $20 per month for an adult and $14.88 for youth and seniors.

At the same time, I do not think we should assume that making every trip free for everyone is automatically the best use of our transit dollars. Fare-free transit is not actually free. Kingston Transit’s proposed 2026 operating budget includes approximately $36.4 million in expenditures, with about $11.1 million budgeted from fees, charges and other revenue. The balance is already supported substantially through taxation and other revenues. Eliminating fares would therefore require finding replacement revenue, increasing the tax-supported portion of the service, reducing spending elsewhere, obtaining additional outside funding, or some combination of those options.

For me, the better question is: How can we use the dollars we have to make transit more affordable, useful and attractive to more people?

That starts with auditing the system we already have. Where are buses full? Where are they running well below capacity? Which routes have poor connections? Where are people missing the last bus home? Are we providing service at the hours when workers, students, seniors and families actually need it? Kingston’s draft transit service guidelines already contemplate measuring things such as ridership productivity, on-time performance and a revenue-to-cost ratio, which gives us a basis for making these decisions with data rather than assumptions. Then we can test targeted approaches instead of immediately eliminating every fare.

For example, Kingston could examine free or reduced fares during off-peak periods, when buses may have available capacity. If the bus is already travelling the route and seats are empty, a targeted fare incentive could encourage new riders without requiring the same financial commitment as system-wide fare-free transit.

Affordability is only one part of increasing ridership. A free bus that does not come when someone needs it is not necessarily useful transit. For many residents, frequency, reliability, route design, earlier and later service, safe stops and easier connections may matter as much as the fare.

That is why I would want to look at the entire system together: What does it cost? Who is using it? Who is not using it, and why? Where is there unused capacity? What barriers are keeping people off the bus? And which investments will actually increase ridership?

I support making transit more affordable, but I also want it to be reliable and financially sustainable. Rather than beginning with the assumption that every ride should be free, I would favour testing targeted approaches, measuring the results and expanding the ones that actually improve access and ridership.

Transportation infrastructure is only useful if people can use it throughout the year.

Snow removal is an important accessibility and safety issue. Clearing the roadway is only part of the job. We also need to pay attention to sidewalks, protected cycling routes, bus stops, pedestrian crossings and the large snowbanks that can accumulate at corners and intersections.

For a senior, someone using a wheelchair or walker, a parent pushing a stroller or a child walking to school, a snowbank at a crossing can become a significant barrier.

I would like us to look more closely at the equipment and practices we use. Could smaller equipment, loaders or bucket attachments be deployed more strategically to remove snowbanks at high-use intersections, crossings and bus stops, rather than simply pushing snow to the side and leaving it there? Could we establish clearer priorities for locations used by seniors, schools and people with mobility challenges?

I would also like to examine windrow clearing (the ridge of snow left across a driveway after the plow has passed) and understand what other municipalities are doing, what it would cost, and whether a targeted program for seniors and residents with disabilities would be feasible.

Residents should be able to understand the standard we are aiming for: How quickly should a sidewalk, road, bike route or crossing be cleared? Are we meeting that standard? If not, why?

Clean neighbourhoods are also part of creating safe and welcoming public spaces.

Residents regularly walk through neighbourhoods, parks and commercial areas where there may be few public garbage receptacles available. I would like us to look at whether garbage cans are located where people actually need them, not just downtown, but along busy walking routes, parks, transit areas and neighbourhood gathering spaces.

Adding a garbage receptacle is only helpful if we also have a plan to empty and maintain it, so placement should be based on actual use and operational capacity.

I also think we should continue looking at how our residential waste system works. If changes such as different containers, collection systems or waste-diversion approaches are being considered, residents should understand the cost, the expected benefit and how the change will affect them.

Garbage and recycling are another example of why we need to look at how policy changes affect people in practice, not just whether they make sense on paper.

As of January 1, 2026, the recycling convenience drop-off depot at 196 Lappan’s Lane ceased operations after the provincial recycling system shifted to producer responsibility and sustainable funding for the depot was discontinued. Curbside recycling continues, and the City still operates yard-waste services at 189 Lappan’s Lane, but residents no longer have the same general-purpose recycling drop-off option they were accustomed to using.

At the same time, garbage bag tags are now $4 each for additional bags beyond the one untagged bag collected weekly.

What I am hearing from some residents is that the combination of fewer convenient disposal options and higher costs is making them feel less motivated, not more motivated, to divert waste properly. Some are asking what they are supposed to do with larger amounts of material, bulky items or things that do not fit easily into the regular curbside system. Others have raised concerns that when legal disposal becomes too inconvenient or expensive, people may be more tempted to dump, store or even burn material instead.

In short: Keep water and wastewater 100% publicly owned. Before changing the model, I want clear comparisons on rates, debt, infrastructure costs and risks, with strong Council oversight and public reporting.

Utilities Kingston is an important public asset, and I support keeping our water and wastewater infrastructure 100% publicly owned. I understand why the City is considering a Municipal Services Corporation: Kingston has significant infrastructure investment ahead of us, and an MSC could provide additional financial flexibility. Council has already endorsed the public MSC model in principle, while explicitly rejecting privatization, but important decisions around governance, finances and asset transfer are still to come.

For me, greater financial flexibility must come with strong accountability. Before the final structure is approved, I would want clear safeguards around debt, rates, major capital decisions, public reporting and Council oversight. I would also want residents to see a clear comparison between staying with the current Utilities Kingston structure and moving to an MSC, including projected rates, borrowing, infrastructure investment and long-term risks under each model.

I support better passenger rail for Kingston. More frequent connections to Toronto, Ottawa and Montréal could improve access to jobs, universities, health care, tourism and business opportunities. But supporting better rail does not mean we should automatically support ALTO before we know what is actually being proposed.

The project is still being developed. In June 2026, the federal government directed ALTO to assess a southern route between Peterborough and Ottawa that could include Kingston as a potential stop connected with VIA Rail. For me, the important question is not simply “Do we want high-speed rail?” It is: “What would this actually mean for Kingston and the surrounding communities?”

A project of this scale will have significant land-use and environmental implications.

Agricultural producers, landowners and rural communities have already raised concerns about property acquisition, farmland, agricultural operations, access and impacts on their communities. Transport Canada says these concerns are being considered as ALTO refines the alignment.

High-speed rail also requires a relatively straight and flat alignment, which can limit how much a route can bend around sensitive areas. Federal documents acknowledge that the project will involve land acquisition and potentially expropriation, and that each segment will undergo an impact-assessment process.

That means Kingston should be asking detailed questions about wetlands, farmland, natural heritage, private property, road crossings, community connections, noise, construction impacts and what mitigation would actually look like.

The benefits of a Kingston stop need to be weighed alongside those impacts. People whose properties or communities could be directly affected deserve meaningful involvement before decisions become difficult to change.

This is also an issue where I think transparency is especially important.

ALTO has been asking affected municipalities to enter confidential information-sharing agreements so municipal officials can receive technical information while planning is underway. Other Eastern Ontario municipalities have debated whether the benefit of receiving information earlier outweighs restrictions on what they can then discuss publicly. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has called for greater transparency and for a Municipal Advisory Table involving affected municipalities, Indigenous communities, municipal organizations and ALTO.

Kingston also entered a confidential information-sharing agreement with ALTO in July 2026, according to documents subsequently obtained through freedom-of-information reporting.

There may be legitimate reasons for keeping particular technical, commercial or property information confidential while negotiations are taking place. But confidentiality should be as narrow as reasonably possible.

Residents should still be able to understand:

• What is being considered?
• What decisions have been made? What decisions have not been made?
• What is Kingston advocating for?
• What could it cost us?
• And when will the public have an opportunity to influence the outcome?

We should not find ourselves in a situation where elected representatives have important information affecting residents but cannot meaningfully discuss the implications with them.

ALTO is a federal project, so Kingston City Council will not determine the final rail route. The federal government ultimately controls the project and the approval of the alignment and station locations. But that does not mean the City has no role.

Kingston should be actively advocating for local interests and working with neighbouring municipalities. We need to ensure a balance of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and farmland; fair treatment of affected landowners; clarity around municipal infrastructure costs; and meaningful public consultation.