City of Kingston: Bound Before Briefed
Britain spent a decade learning what happens when councils sign confidentiality agreements with a high-speed rail promoter. The lessons were on the record. Kingston signed anyway.
This brief sets out the questions Kingston City Council should have asked before entering a non-disclosure agreement with ALTO. By the time it reached councillors, on Monday, July 13, the agreement had already been signed — the Whig-Standard reported that the City signed on Friday, July 10, and the signing became public on July 14. Whig-Standard
The document’s title turns out to be literal. Councillors were bound on the Friday and briefed on the Monday — bound by an agreement the City says applies to them personally, three days before the questions below were put in front of them. The brief did not arrive too early to matter. It arrived after the decision it was meant to inform.
Two facts from that reporting change the picture materially. First, a City spokesperson confirmed that the agreement binds city staff and councillors alike — every person who receives technical information from ALTO. Second, asked whether the City had a choice, the same spokesperson said: “This is not optional.”
The analysis below is the brief as sent to councillors, unchanged. The questions it raises were answerable before Friday. That they are printed here after the signing, rather than asked before it, is the point.
Of the five questions this brief puts to Council, one has already been answered, and answered badly. The agreement binds elected members, not merely officers. A councillor who receives technical information about the corridor cannot discuss it with the constituents whose land that corridor may cross. The remaining four — whether the agreement expires, what precisely it covers, whether MFIPPA and open-meeting obligations are expressly preserved, and what ALTO would actually have withheld without it — remain unanswered on the public record.
A second finding sits underneath the first. ALTO describes these agreements as instruments that enable two-way data sharing and productive collaboration. HS2 Ltd, facing the same criticism in Britain, said its agreements were mutual and entered into by consent. The City of Kingston says the agreement was not optional. A contract that one party had no choice but to sign is not a collaboration. Both characterisations cannot be true, and it is the City — not the critics — that has contradicted the promoter.
Kingston’s neighbours faced the identical request and treated it as a decision. Two eastern Ontario counties have now refused ALTO’s confidentiality agreement outright, both unanimously, both on the public record — the United Counties of Prescott and Russell in May, and the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on June 15. Frontenac County voted formally on April 15 to oppose the proposed corridors through the county. Whether Kingston’s agreement was ever put to its own elected representatives — by motion, in open or closed session — has not been established on the public record.
The most important fact in this brief is the one that follows from that. SDG refused the agreement and then published ALTO’s presentation to the public. The choice Kingston was offered — sign and be informed, or refuse and be ignorant — is not a real choice. A council next door declined to sign and released the material anyway.
“This is not optional”
The agreement was executed on Friday, July 10, between the City of Kingston and ALTO, the Crown corporation developing the corridor. ALTO’s account of why is straightforward and, in its own terms, reasonable: planning work is not final; early concepts, technical analysis and emerging ideas are still being refined; and sharing preliminary material without its full context could give the impression that decisions have already been made. Confidentiality agreements, the corporation says, are used widely in the infrastructure industry and structure these discussions so that evolving information can be shared. Whig-Standard
The Mayor’s defence follows the same line. Such agreements are common in major infrastructure planning; they allow technical information to be shared so that municipalities can provide informed input; the agreement is not an endorsement of any particular route or station location; and the City remains committed to transparency and will share information publicly when it is able to.
Set against that framing, the City spokesperson’s own words do a great deal of work. The agreement applies to all city staff and councillors who receive technical information from ALTO. It was required in order for the City to receive any technical information at all. And it was not optional.
This is the distinction the British record turns on, and it is worth being precise about it. The objection is not that confidential material was shared confidentially. It is that information was withheld until silence was promised — that access to the facts was made conditional on a commitment not to use them. That is not a description of HS2. It is now, on the City’s own account, a description of Kingston.
Access conditioned on silence
In Britain, councils were not handed material and then asked to protect the commercially sensitive parts of it. They were told they could see nothing at all unless they signed first. Many were required to sign before they could engage with HS2 Ltd on the questions that mattered most locally — where stations might go, how they would be designed, and which route the promoter preferred. Warwickshire County Council could not receive early design updates until it had signed. New Civil Engineer Warwickshire World
The council does not become better informed in any way it can act upon. It becomes better informed and simultaneously disabled from using the information in the one forum where a council is supposed to act: in public, on the record, in front of the residents whose homes and farms lie in the corridor.
That is the general case. In Kingston it now has a specific and uncomfortable form. Because the agreement binds councillors rather than officers alone, a member of Council who is briefed on the alignment cannot discuss what they have learned with the constituent whose property it crosses. The representative becomes an insider. Whatever else the agreement achieves, it removes from thirteen elected people the ability to do the thing they were elected to do.
Four agreements became three hundred and thirty-nine
Freedom of Information disclosures eventually forced HS2 Ltd to reveal how far the practice had spread. The progression was four agreements in 2012–13, ten in 2014, twenty-seven in 2015, thirty-four in 2016, seventy-one in 2017, and one hundred and twelve in 2018. New Civil Engineer
HS2 Ltd then resisted disclosing who had signed for eighteen months, releasing the list of 253 organisations only after the Information Commissioner intervened. A further thirty-eight agreements with individuals were never named. By the end, the signatories included dozens of councils, the Health and Safety Executive, the National Trust, Historic England, and five universities.
The circle of people who could speak freely about a public project — funded by the public, running through the public’s communities — had been drawn so tightly that a supporter of the scheme in the House of Lords was moved to ask what, exactly, all these organisations had to hide.
The creep has already begun here
Reporting on the Prescott and Russell decision confirms that ALTO requires every landholder who permits field survey access to sign a non-disclosure agreement, not only municipalities. The first agreement is never the last. It establishes the template, the precedent, and the expectation — for this municipality, for the next one down the corridor, for landowners, consultants and agencies, and for every subsequent phase of the project. Tribune-Express
Twenty-six of twenty-eight had no end date
Of the twenty-eight English local authorities identified, the Town and Country Planning Association found that twenty-six had agreements with no end date. New Civil Engineer
No sunset clause. No automatic release on publication of the environmental assessment. No expiry when the route was confirmed and the commercial sensitivity had evaporated. Silence in perpetuity, over material that in most cases became public anyway — simply later, and on the promoter’s timetable rather than the community’s.
This is the single most consequential drafting failure in the entire British record, and it is also the easiest to prevent. An officer negotiating in good faith, focused on getting the data flowing, will not necessarily notice that the agreement never expires. Whether Kingston’s agreement contains an expiry date is not, at the time of writing, on the public record. It is a one-word answer, and the City can give it today.
The promoter’s case, and what the record shows
Nothing in this brief argues that no confidentiality is ever warranted. The argument is narrower: the terms matter enormously, the English terms were bad, and they were bad in ways that were entirely avoidable if identified in advance.
| What the promoter says | What the British record shows |
|---|---|
| The agreements are mutual and entered into by consent. ALTO describes instruments that enable two-way data sharing and support productive collaboration on planning. | The City of Kingston’s own spokesperson says the agreement was not optional and was required to receive any technical information at all. HS2 Ltd made the identical “mutual and consensual” claim about agreements that councils could not decline without being cut off. |
| Confidentiality protects residents from unnecessary blight and confusion. Sharing early information without full context could suggest decisions have been made. | Note the shape of the argument: the secrecy is offered as a protection for the affected. It is worth asking whether residents in the corridor, given the choice, would prefer to be protected from knowing. In Britain, the discovery of the agreements produced anger, not relief. |
| These agreements are common in major infrastructure. They allow municipalities to give informed input. | They are common. That is the finding, not the defence. The Raynsford Review examined precisely this common practice and concluded that it corroded public trust in the project it was meant to protect. |
| The agreement is not an endorsement of any route or station. The City will share information publicly when it is able to. | “When we are able to” is the operative phrase, and its meaning is set by a document the public has not seen. If the agreement has no expiry, the answer is: at the promoter’s discretion, indefinitely. |
The most honest defence of signing came, in Britain, from Doncaster. The council signed because it relied on HS2’s data to scrutinise and challenge the design; without signing, exposing the route’s damaging effects would have been harder still and might have produced more blight rather than less. Doncaster Free Press That is not a foolish argument, and it should not be caricatured. It is the argument of a body that has accepted the promoter’s framing of the available choices — sign and be informed, or refuse and be ignorant — without first testing whether that framing is true.
Prescott and Russell tested it. So did Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Both refused — and neither is, on the available evidence, less informed about ALTO than Kingston is. One of them has published the promoter’s presentation. Kingston cannot.
What Britain concluded, in public, before Kingston signed
The Raynsford Review (Town and Country Planning Association, 2018)
Led by a former construction minister, this review of the English planning system found that the agreements undermine public trust in major infrastructure. It criticised the widespread use of confidentiality agreements by the HS2 company and identified a corrosive public sense that planning no longer protects people’s interests. It found that the agreements created real anger among local politicians and deeper resentment in affected communities once their existence came to light.
Raynsford’s line — the most useful distinction in the literature
Raynsford did not oppose confidentiality as such. He accepted the case for it where competing route options are under assessment and public knowledge could inflate land prices — and opposed it where it undermines public trust or may shield inappropriate relationships between developers and those making decisions. The test is not whether confidentiality is ever justified. It is whether this confidentiality, on these terms, for this long, is.
The House of Lords — criticism from the project’s own supporters
Baroness Kramer, a consistent advocate of HS2, argued that the presumption must always be transparency, with confidentiality as the exception, and that the slow release of information on cost, land and compensation had harmed the project and generated suspicion. Lord Berkeley proposed an independent assessor to review every HS2 confidentiality agreement against a presumption of public accountability. The people who most wanted HS2 built were among the loudest voices warning that the secrecy was destroying its public licence.
The culture did not stay in its lane
HS2 Ltd paid roughly £1.67 million in settlement agreements to forty-eight former employees from April 2016, with confidentiality clauses written in; a number of whistleblowers were among them. The company also redacted the names of attendees from its board minutes, against the Information Commissioner’s stated presumption in favour of naming those acting in a professional capacity. An institution that begins by protecting route data does not reliably stop there. New Civil Engineer
The same request, refused twice next door
ALTO has made materially the same approach to municipalities across the corridor: access to technical material, in exchange for a confidentiality agreement, plus permission to enter municipal land for field survey. What distinguishes Kingston is not the request. It is the response, and the process by which the response was reached.
United Counties of Prescott and Russell — refused, May 2026
All eight mayors on the UCPR council voted against a resolution that would have granted ALTO access to counties’ land for survey work and committed the Counties to a non-disclosure agreement. Each mayor declared their position on a registered vote. Warden Mario Zanth, mayor of Clarence-Rockland, directed the CAO to inform ALTO that the council did not want the corporation on its territory, having refused both the confidentiality agreement and land access. Zanth’s stated objection was that the corporation demanded secrecy before it would disclose the technical details municipalities were asking about — the chemistry of de-icing fluids and the risk to wells, the electricity supply, and other questions of direct local consequence. Tribune-Express ONFR
United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry — refused, June 15, 2026
SDG Counties Council unanimously rejected both ALTO’s request to access counties-owned land for environmental and technical study and its request that SDG sign a non-disclosure agreement — an agreement that would have prohibited councillors and staff from discussing with the public any details of their meetings and communications with the corporation. Council was given three options: full access, partial access, or none. It chose none, without further debate. North Glengarry Mayor Jamie MacDonald grounded his objection in accountability, saying of the agreement: “Here they’re telling us we can’t share any information in them.” The Review
Frontenac County — a formal, public vote on the corridor, April 15, 2026
Frontenac County Council formally voted to oppose the proposed high-speed rail corridors through the county, favouring routes along existing rail lines or the Highway 401 corridor. The resolution cited disruption to residential areas, agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive features; impacts on municipal infrastructure including road closures; risks to emergency response times; and uncertainty about the long-term financial implications for municipalities. Council supported a Kingston stop and called for no expropriation west of Ottawa until the Ottawa–Montreal segment nears completion. County of Frontenac
City of Kingston — signed July 10; the authorising process is not on the public record
Whether the agreement was authorised by a motion of Council — in open session, or in closed session with a reporting-out resolution — or executed by staff under delegated signing authority without coming to Council at all, has not been established. The distinction is not academic. An agreement authorised by a recorded vote is a decision residents can argue with. One signed under delegated authority means the City bound itself, and its councillors, on a matter of plain public interest without the body accountable for that interest ever recording a view.
The choice Kingston was offered is not a real choice
The case for signing rests entirely on a premise: that a council which refuses the agreement is left in the dark. The City spokesperson put it plainly — the agreement was required in order to receive any technical information at all, and it was not optional.
That premise has been tested next door, and it failed. SDG refused the agreement, refused land access, and then shared ALTO’s presentation with the public. From that published material, residents of SDG can now learn what ALTO intends: that field sampling across the corridor is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026 and will feed the impact assessment; that the surveys cover wetlands, forests, avian wildlife, and fish and wildlife habitat; that archaeology, cultural heritage, and “sensitive receptors” such as parks, schools and hospitals are treated as socio-economic components; and that noise, vibration, hydrogeology, soil quality and surface water are the physical components under examination. The Review
This is not a rhetorical point. It is the whole argument, and it can be verified by anyone with a browser. The bargain Kingston accepted — silence in exchange for information — was offered on the premise that there was no alternative. Two neighbouring counties declined it, and one of them proceeded to put the promoter’s own material on the public record. The alternative existed. Kingston did not take it, and has not explained why.
One further detail of timing deserves an answer. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus — the body through which these counties have been coordinating their response — was scheduled to discuss ALTO at a meeting in Kingston, in July. Kingston signed on July 10.
The Initiative has written to Kingston city councillors asking a single question, answerable in one sentence: was the agreement authorised by resolution of Council, and if so, what is the resolution number and date — or was it executed under delegated authority, and under which by-law? We will publish the answer when we receive it, whatever it is.
Five questions, one answered
These are the five questions the brief puts to Council. None is hostile. Each was answerable by staff in a sentence — before Friday. This is their status as of publication.
This is the point on which the whole matter turns, and it is worth stating without heat. Publishing the agreement — its duration, its scope, whom it binds, what it carves out — discloses nothing ALTO has a legitimate interest in protecting. It reveals no alignment, no cost, no property. A city genuinely committed to transparency, and unable to say more about the substance, can nonetheless say everything about the instrument. That it has not yet done so is a choice, and it is a choice the City can reverse this week.
The confidentiality did not protect HS2
Refusal was never the only alternative to signature, and this brief did not urge it. An agreement that would survive scrutiny is time-limited — expiring on a defined public milestone; scope-limited — confined to genuinely commercial and personal information, with alignment, cost and impact data expressly excluded; statute-preserving — with explicit carve-outs for MFIPPA and open-meeting duties; officer-bound, not member-bound; and publicly disclosed — the agreement itself, if not its contents, placed on the public record.
Every one of those five terms exists because HS2 lacked it. None of them costs the promoter anything to which it is entitled. Four of the five can still be secured by amendment, and the fifth — publication of the instrument — requires nothing from ALTO at all.
The English record offers one final observation, and it is not a partisan one. The confidentiality did not protect the project. It corroded HS2’s public licence, hardened the opposition, and left even the scheme’s allies defending a company that looked as though it had something to conceal. Kingston has signed. It has not yet explained. Those are different things, and only one of them is now beyond recall.
