“I support ambitious greenhouse-gas reductions, but any target Council adopts must be SMART—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound.

Before committing to a 45% reduction by 2030, I would want to know our current emissions, the progress we have made toward the existing 30% target, what actions would be required to reach 45%, and the associated costs.

If the evidence demonstrates that 45% is achievable, I would support it. If it is not, I would support the most ambitious realistic target we can achieve. Setting a target we know we cannot meet does not demonstrate leadership—it sets us up for failure.

Climate targets should be ambitious, but they must also come with a clear plan, measurable milestones and accountability for results.”

“I would support climate impact assessments and carbon budgeting where a municipal decision could have a significant environmental impact, rather than automatically requiring them for every policy, purchase or planning decision.

For major developments, infrastructure projects, land-use changes, or decisions affecting forests, wetlands, farmland, waterways or groundwater, environmental and climate impacts should be clearly assessed before Council makes a decision.

I favour a case-by-case, risk-based approach. We should protect the environment while avoiding unnecessary studies, costs and delays for decisions with little or no environmental impact.”

“I consider this fundamentally a public health and human rights issue. Excessive indoor temperatures can pose serious health risks, particularly for older adults, people living with chronic medical conditions, and other vulnerable residents. As climate change contributes to more frequent and prolonged periods of extreme heat, ensuring safe indoor temperatures is becoming increasingly important.

We already recognize the responsibility of landlords to provide adequate heating during the winter months. I believe the same principle should apply to excessive heat during the summer. Tenants should have the right to a safe and healthy indoor temperature throughout the year.

Any bylaw should be implemented in a manner that is practical and equitable, with appropriate measures to ensure that the costs of compliance are not simply transferred to tenants, particularly those who are already experiencing housing affordability challenges.”

“Yes, I support continuing the program. Extreme heat is a serious health risk, particularly for low-income seniors and people with health conditions who may not be able to afford air conditioning.

The City has committed to evaluating this pilot and reporting back to Council. If the evaluation demonstrates that it is effective — which I expect it will — I would support expanding the program to reach more vulnerable residents.

This is both a climate adaptation and a public health issue. We should protect those most at risk while ensuring that the programs we fund are effective and provide value for taxpayers.”

“I would only support the displacement of encampments when safe, appropriate and sustainable housing alternatives are available for the people living there. Until then, I would support providing the basic necessities of life—including continuous access to clean drinking water, cooling during extreme heat, food, sanitation, and appropriate health and social supports.

I recently toured Belle Park, and what I saw and heard was heartbreaking. I met people facing extremely difficult circumstances, including an individual who was waiting for an operation but could not proceed because they did not have stable housing where they could safely recover.

People are not living in encampments because they want to be there. For many, they simply have nowhere else to go. Moving people from one location to another without providing a sustainable alternative does not solve homelessness.

At the same time, encampments are not a sustainable or permanent solution. We need to address the underlying causes of homelessness through affordable and supportive housing, mental health and addiction services, access to health care, and other social supports.

Until sustainable alternatives are available, people living in encampments must be treated with dignity, compassion and respect and have access to the basic necessities of life.

Our goal should not be to make encampments permanent. Our goal should be to make them unnecessary.”

“Yes. I support continued and expanded funding for Better Homes Kingston. The fact that the latest intake is no longer accepting applications suggests there is significant interest in the program.

If the program continues to demonstrate measurable reductions in energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions, I would support stable multi-year funding to expand it and allow more Kingston residents to participate.”

“I support developing a Green Development Standard for Kingston, but I would want to review the evidence before making every component mandatory.

Toronto has demonstrated that green development standards can reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency, stormwater management and environmental protection. However, Whitby currently uses a voluntary, incentive-based approach, and Ottawa’s standard is now voluntary.”

“Yes. I support holding Kingston’s existing urban boundary and prioritizing development within it through infill, gentle density and redevelopment of brownfield and underused lands.

If future expansion becomes necessary, it must be carefully planned to maintain the integrity of Countryside and protect our farmland, forests, wetlands, waterways, groundwater and wildlife habitat.

We need more housing, but growth should not come at the unnecessary expense of the rural lands and natural environment that make Countryside unique.”

“Yes. I support maintaining direct City Council oversight of water and wastewater, and I am not prepared to support transferring these services to a separate Municipal Services Corporation at this time.

Water and wastewater are essential public services involving major public assets and significant public dollars. Creating a separate corporation adds another layer between these services and the elected Council that residents hold accountable.

The Kingston & Area Taxi Licensing Commission provides an important warning about what can happen when financial and governance oversight is inadequate. When serious financial problems emerged, the City ultimately had to deal with the consequences.

The same fundamental concern applies here. If an MSC encountered serious financial difficulties, the City could not simply walk away from water and wastewater services or their financial consequences.”

“If Council makes a planning decision based on sound evidence, professional planning advice and protection of the public interest, I would expect the City to defend that decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Developers have the legal right to appeal, but an appeal should not automatically cause Council to abandon a well-supported decision.

This is particularly important when proposed urban boundary expansions could affect farmland, wetlands, forests, groundwater or the integrity of Countryside.”

“Yes. I support a temporary moratorium on new large, resource-intensive data centres while Kingston develops clear policies and standards to regulate them.

Data centres can bring economic and technological benefits, but they can also place significant demands on electricity, water, land and municipal infrastructure. Kingston needs to determine how these developments fit within the City’s long-term infrastructure and capital plans, and who will pay for any additional infrastructure they require.

Before approving them, we need clear standards for location, energy and water use, infrastructure costs, and protection of groundwater, farmland, wetlands and neighbouring properties.

I am not opposed to data centres. I am opposed to approving major developments before we have the policies and infrastructure plans in place to properly assess their costs, benefits and environmental impacts.”

“Yes. I support expanding safe cycling infrastructure and improving winter maintenance, but we also need to recognize the very different needs of rural Kingston.

In Countryside, my priority would be safe, separated cycling and walking routes along major rural roads and highways, particularly where residents, students and families currently have little protection from high-speed traffic.

Where these roads involve provincial or other jurisdictions, I would work with other levels of government to secure the funding and cooperation needed to make these improvements happen.

Active transportation should not stop at the urban boundary. Rural residents also deserve safe options for walking and cycling.”

Candidate indicated a “Yes” position without additional written comments.

“I support making public transit more affordable and accessible, particularly for low-income residents and seniors, and I would support examining a pilot program for these groups.

For post-secondary students, I believe Queen’s University, RMC and St. Lawrence College should contribute financially to subsidizing transit for their students. These institutions and their students benefit significantly from Kingston Transit, and the entire cost should not fall on municipal taxpayers.

I would be open to partnerships between the City and our post-secondary institutions to make student transit more affordable while ensuring the arrangement is fair to Kingston taxpayers.”

“Yes. I support pedestrian-friendly street conversions during periods of high foot traffic, provided they are carefully planned to avoid creating unnecessary traffic congestion or simply moving the problem to surrounding neighbourhoods.

Before making changes, the City should consider traffic flow, access for local businesses and residents, public transit and emergency vehicles.

I support creating safer, more walkable streets, but these decisions should be based on evidence and good traffic planning.”