Sign or stay in the dark? Alto NDA requests raise concerns for Elizabethtown-Kitley, Eastern Ontario residents
Concerns about confidentiality surrounding the Alto high-speed rail project are mounting among municipal officials, property owners and others along the proposed route.
At their Monday meeting, Elizabethtown-Kitley Township Council discussed whether they would sign an non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that municipalities and contractors along the proposed Alto corridor are being asked to sign by the crown corporation, ultimately deciding to send it for legal review.
An NDA is a standard legal document typically used in business arrangements to legally protect sensitive information while negotiations are ongoing.
Elizabethtown-Kitley council, for its part, seems to understand the risks involved, raising concerns at the Aug. 10 meeting.
Councillor Eleanor Renault pointed to the public’s right to know about the project, given that it is being funded through federal tax dollars.
“If the Canadian public wants to pay for something, then we should know exactly what they’re doing, when they’re doing it, and how they’re doing it,” said Renault.
“And we should know everything. They shouldn’t be asking us for money, telling us they’re going to spend money on something, and then…the whole township can’t know about it. That’s not right.”
Councillor Dan Downey expressed concern about the shifting burden of accountability from Alto to the municipality should they sign the document.
“If decisions are made with Alto and staff under an NDA, we’re the front people for those decisions,” he said.
“So, if residents come to see us because of the decisions, we’re the ones who get the wrath, whereas Alto kind of avoids all that by putting an NDA in place.”
Renault expressed concern that certain staff could end up having their obligations pulled in two directions.
“If our planning staff has conversations with Alto, then that’s a bit of a bind because where does our CAO land?” Renault asked at council.
“He’s got one foot in the council chambers and one foot in the staffing structure.”
Renault proposed that one of the questions for legal counsel should verify whether signing the agreement would “scoop [the CAO] into the gag order as well.”
Besides questions of accountability and transparency, councillors also had practical concerns.
Councillor Downey pointed out that, in addition to the technical reports regularly produced by the planning department, more complex, confidential discussions do not seem necessary, given that Alto has already stated that they will buy the required land at market value and has identified a route along which it will run.
Councillor Rob Smith agreed that the agreement appears redundant if the project is already being pushed forward no matter what.
The Alto opposition group, ‘AltNO’ recently put out a statement warning municipalities that are along the proposed route not to sign what it describes as “sweeping” NDAs from Alto.
According to AltNO, any municipality that declines to sign the NDA may be excluded from ongoing discussions about the project altogether.
Those who do sign it will only be given “limited insight” into the one-kilometre-wide corridor proposed to be built for the rail, while also being expected to give insight on an exact route, shifting the perception of responsibility away from Alto itself and onto local governments.
Furthermore, AltNO claims that the agreements are being presented directly to administrators, which the group sees as being a source of division within local councils, limiting transparency and undermining municipal cohesion.
“These agreements are not only inappropriate, but they also fundamentally undermine local democracy, transparency, and accountability,” says the statement from AltNO.
“This is not consultation. This is coercion,” said Kathleen O’Connell Renaud, AltNO Director.
“Municipalities are being forced into impossible, unethical choices that pit community against community while shielding the federal government from scrutiny.”
AltNO’s concerns aren’t limited to municipalities. Other people examining the agreements have raised concerns about how similar confidentiality provisions could affect contractors.
Erin Durant, a lawyer living in the Hawkesbury area who has been independently researching Alto, is in line with ALTNO.
Durant recently wrote a piece for her Substack, “The Alto Files,” warning potential contractors along the route against signing NDAs should they be offered contracts to work on the project.
After reading a redacted version of the document provided by a whistleblower, as well as an email sent by Alto to contractors asking them to sign it, Durant noted the wording is “concerning” because it presents the NDA as a prerequisite to discussing “future business opportunities.”
Durant said the agreement imposes one-sided restrictions on contractors without guaranteeing them work on the project, while allowing Alto to end the relationship at any time during construction.
The agreement also places obligations on contractors in relation to Cadence Rail, the private-sector partner in the Alto public-private consortium.
Among those restrictions, contractors would be barred from communicating or doing business with owners of land designated as “Targeted Property” by Alto, as well as people with an interest in those properties.
Durant said the provision could effectively prevent contractors from working with landowners across an unidentified portion of land adjacent to the proposed 1,000-kilometre route, while exposing them to legal consequences if confidentiality requirements are breached.
The agreement also requires contractors to cover Cadence against certain claims arising from breaches of the NDA, according to Durant. She said this could expose contractors to additional legal liability under the agreement.
Similar concerns have also emerged among individual property owners.
Shannon McKibbin, a Hawkesbury resident, told Brockvilleist that she received a door-knocker communication requesting her permission for Alto to conduct environmental research on her property. It asked her to respond either by email or phone.
After reading the fine print, McKibbin said she interpreted the agreement as giving Alto broad rights over information she provided and limiting what she could communicate about the property.
“You give up all of your rights to Alto and they can use all of your information,” McKibbin told Brockvilleist.
“Where you live, your address, everything, however they want. So, I refuse to do that.”
McKibbin said that if she agreed to allow environmental research on her property, she would be entitled to $1,500 at the end of three years. However, based on her reading of the agreement, she said she believed she would also be giving Alto broad control over what she could communicate about the property and with whom.
McKibbin has now completely ended any communication with Alto.
“It’s insidious,” she said.
“Alto and Cadence. They’re insidious.”
Alto did not respond when Brockvilleist reached out for comment.