‘Anti-business, anti-democratic, anti-farmer’: Caledon mayor faces backlash over plan to fill lake with construction waste

Caledon residents say they elected Mayor Annette Groves and the current town council with the belief they would prioritize environmental protection and preserve the community’s green spaces. Many now feel betrayed, forced to challenge the mayor who appears to be violating municipal and provincial rules to push forward a favour for a developer.

“I’m extremely upset about the undemocratic way that things are going in Caledon right now. This is just a spinoff of Doug Ford’s mandate relative to how we’re dealing with the environment in this province, and I’m disgusted,” resident William Clarke told The Pointer at the July 8 council meeting.

 

(Democracy Caledon)

 

Favouring developers and unchecked growth over the environment is “not the platform upon which we elected them to be representing the people of Caledon,” Clarke said. “They’re supposed to be representing the constituents, not the developers.” 

On Tuesday last week, July 8, residents wearing green sticky notes in support of the protection of “Swan Lake” packed both the council chambers and cafeteria at Caledon Town Hall, demanding answers about a controversial motion, quietly introduced by Groves on May 13 without public consultation. The motion, approved by a majority of council, allows for fill to be dumped into a rehabilitated aggregate pit at 0 Shaw’s Creek Road, which now contains a groundwater-fed lake.

When residents emailed to ask if they could speak to council during the July meeting, they were denied, with Town officials citing procedural rules that bar speakers on items that are not included on the meeting’s agenda.

 

After the question period, residents walked out of the council chambers chanting “SAVE SWAN LAKE.” “During Annette Groves’ campaign to become mayor, she told residents that they would have their say in Caledon’s growth, and today is definitely not an example of that,” resident Robert Clare told The Pointer.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

 

Residents are concerned that the fill operation authorized once the permit is approved, pending studies that have to be completed, will bring hundreds of dump trucks each week to Highway 10 and Charleston Sideroad, filling the groundwater-connected lake with potentially contaminated construction material, destroying a naturalized aquatic habitat and subjecting surrounding rural communities to relentless noise and serious risks to their well water, which local farms and families depend on. 
 

The rehabilitated gravel pit at Shaw’s Creek Road and Charleston Sideroad in Caledon Ward 1, now a tranquil natural refuge with a 44-acre lake and valuable wildlife habitat, could be transformed into a dumping ground for excess construction fill under a proposed permit.

(Google Earth)

 

The motion in question instructed the Town’s Director of Engineering to enter into a grading agreement with a “prominent developer within Caledon and the Greater Toronto Area,” permitting fill to be imported to the site, despite the absence of a formal application, a step typically required under the Town’s Fill Bylaw and standard planning procedures.

 

 

The motion was passed in a vote on May 20, around 9 p.m., during a meeting where only three residents were able to raise concerns during the question period, and amendments were added to require traffic, water, and other related studies. Among the councillors who voted in favour, Ward 5 councillor Tony Rosa received a $1,200 campaign contribution from Nicola Cortellucci. Ward 1 Councillor Christina Early received the same amount (she voted alongside the residents in opposition) according to the Town’s 2022 candidate results and financial statements.

(Town of Caledon)

 

The “prominent developer” referenced is Cortel Group’s Nick Cortellucci, who, according to Groves during the July 8 question period, contributed more than $25,000 to her Mayor’s Ball gala.

This figure came to light after resident Cheryl Connors asked about the developer’s donation, which visibly angered Groves. She said that an audited financial statement from the gala would be made public.

“The Mayor’s Gala raises funds that are distributed to 30 local charities. If anyone has concerns about that, they should take it up with the charities supporting residents in our community,” Groves said. “Since being elected, I have raised funds for this community, and no one has questioned that before. Speak to Meals on Wheels, Bethel Hospice, or the special needs groups and ask if $25,000 from Mr. Cortellucci influences any decisions here. This isn’t about donations.”

Similar mayor’s gala’s across the GTA have sparked widespread controversy, as politicians receive significant local attention and support that critics have described as little more than a form of election campaigning. The lack of financial disclosure around some of these events has led to the end of mayor’s galas in municipalities where they caused public mistrust; residents across Peel denounced mayor’s galas in Mississauga and Brampton as little more than opportunities for powerful developers to use their contributions to win favour with the person at the head of council who can influence planning decisions. The mayor’s galas in both cities ended after the controversy.

Alternatives that allow donors to contribute directly to deserving local groups without any politicization, and without the promotion of mayors, have emerged over the years.

“Mr. Cortellucci also supported Caledon Day a few years ago, and no one raised concerns then,” Groves continued. “These funds support local charities that provide vital services we could not afford otherwise. I find your question completely inappropriate. Again, there will be an audited financial statement from the Mayor’s Gala for everyone to see.”

The Cortellucci family is widely recognized as major donors to the Progressive Conservative Party and was previously identified as directing $250,000 in contributions through 25 different sources, mostly corporations, while also donating $132,000 to the Liberal Party between 2004 and 2011.

 

 

On July 30, 2021, the Ford government issued a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to approve the Cortel Group’s controversial Orbit development in Innisfil to turn rural land into a city of 150,000 residents, impacting prime farmland and the Lake Simcoe watershed without clear infrastructure plans. Led by PC donor Mario Cortellucci, the Cortel Group has benefited from multiple MZOs, which bypass environmental protections and public consultation. A related proposal forced the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to approve permits quickly, even before environmental offset agreements are finalized. These powers, granted under Bill 229, led to the mass resignation of the Greenbelt Council in protest and have been used to approve other controversial developments, including the destruction of a significant wetland in the GTA.

(Ontario NDP)

 

Adding insult to injury for many residents looking to preserve the vital habitat, which is also home to, or relied upon, by many species at risk, the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) confirmed that it had expressed interest in acquiring the pit lands before the property was sold to the Cortellucci family.

“CVC’s expression of interest was with the former owner/operator of the pit lands, prior to its sale to the current owner,” the statement read.

“A recent Region of Peel Council Resolution (No. 2025-488, June 26th) regarding the property provided direction to staff to work with CVC in considering the property under the Greenlands Securement Program as a potential acquisition to support greenspace supply in the Credit River Watershed.”

The conservation authority also confirmed it was not consulted prior to the proposal or council motions. Staff are now assessing the potential impact on CVC’s lands and the Pits to Parks Restoration Project, including the neighbouring former Pinchin Pit.

The Region of Peel declined to comment on the motion from Groves. 

 

The Warren Paving Smith Pit sits directly beside the Pinchin Pit lands, now owned by Credit Valley Conservation, which is partnering with the Region of Peel to restore the above-water site for recreation and watershed benefits. The Elora-Cataract Trailway runs along this corridor, connecting nearby ecologically sensitive areas like the Charged Soils region, the former Grange property, and lands owned by TCP Osprey. Surrounding communities, including Caledon Village, Holton, and Belfountain, form part of this vital natural landscape and will be impacted by the fill operations.

(Credit Valley Conservation)

 

A major point of contention is that the proposal possibly violates the Ontario Planning Act, contradicts Caledon’s own Fill Bylaw for the area, and impacts land within the protected Greenbelt.

Former senior Ontario planner and architect of the Greenbelt Plan, Victor Doyle, explained that most municipalities use zoning bylaws under the Planning Act to govern where and how excess soil or fill can be placed.

The Town’s Fill Bylaw permits the dumping of excess soil only in A1, A2, and A3 zones, all designated for agricultural use, but the property in question is zoned MX or Extractive Industrial, a classification that does not allow soil placement.

Doyle noted that under normal procedures, a developer would be expected to apply for a zoning change to one of the A-zones before proceeding with such a proposal.

Instead, he said, the motion appears to “do an end run around the zoning issue,” by suggesting that the permit can be issued through the Fill Bylaw, even though the bylaw itself restricts such activity in MX-zoned land.

Ontario’s Regulation 406/19 establishes clear guidelines for managing excess soil, generally prohibiting its disposal at landfills unless the soil is used for site operations like daily cover or road construction, or a qualified expert formally determines and declares that the soil cannot be safely reused elsewhere because of environmental risks, invasive species, or unstable conditions, allowing it to be deposited at these sites. 

“As far as I can tell, those (protocols) haven’t been followed here. That makes this not just wrong, but potentially illegal,” resident Dave Haney told The Pointer. “We can’t even move a single tree on our own property without permits. But somehow, the Town can approve something of this magnitude with massive environmental risks and bypass the proper processes? This isn’t a small project. It affects people’s health, the water supply, the wildlife, everything. This shouldn't be swept under the rug. It deserves scrutiny and proper public oversight.” 

“I don't see how they can simply issue a directive to ignore the existing Fill Bylaw to allow issuance of a permit in a zone where soil dumping is not currently allowed by the Fill bylaw,” Doyle said, noting that if the directive was issued under the Strong Mayor powers, Groves could attempt to justify it as aligning with provincial priorities which includes building 1.5 million new homes by 2031 and supporting the infrastructure needed to accommodate that growth such as roads, utilities, and servicing.

The Town of Caledon confirmed in an email to The Pointer that Groves did not invoke Strong Mayor powers in this case.

 

“It feels like they’re trying to push this under the radar. They’ve changed the meeting times multiple times, and today, they even started 30 minutes early without notifying the public. It feels sneaky, and as a young person living here, it’s really scary to see this kind of thing happening,” 24-year-old Inglewood resident Claudia Sinanios told The Pointer. “From an environmental perspective, this lake has become a home to turtles, swans, and many species. It’s been rehabilitated into a thriving natural habitat. How could we even consider filling it with construction waste?”

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

 

Caledon’s zoning bylaw does not explicitly list soil dumping as a permitted use in any zone, but the Fill Bylaw identifies which zones allow it. Doyle believes the Town may attempt to argue that because the zoning bylaw does not regulate soil dumping directly, this motion functions as a simple Fill Bylaw amendment, not a zoning amendment under the Planning Act.

“However, the MX zone clearly does not allow soil dumping, so I think there is a potential issue under the Planning Act,” he noted. 

Despite the scale of the project, there is no estimate provided for the total volume of fill to be imported by the Town.

An estimate by former councillor Ian Sinclair suggests a staggering 6,332,000 cubic metres of fill, equivalent to nearly 288,000 truckloads, would be dumped on the site. This enormous quantity would likely become the dominant land use, requiring both an Official Plan Amendment and a rezoning of the property.

 

Caledon resident Cheryl Connors interrupted her workday to address Town council on the afternoon of July 8, to highlight that a controversial motion was introduced without any supporting studies or tests.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

 

Critics have noted that studies and plans referenced in the motion lack Town-established terms of reference or standards, effectively allowing applicants to set their own. Although a dewatering plan is required, there is no mandate for hydrogeological studies to assess groundwater flow direction or volume, critical factors given that the site contains a groundwater-fed lake.

The provincial regulations outline minimum standards for on-site and excess soil management. But critics say the motion fails to adequately address these standards, lacking essential elements such as a Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Permit to Take Water, which is vital for any dewatering activities. 

The permit’s expiration terms also do not include requirements for audits or reviews of fill conditions before renewal, nor do they provide explicit provisions to hold the property owner liable for potential groundwater pollution or to compensate adjacent landowners in case of damage.

 

The proposed fill site sits directly beside a small family-run farm, Chickadee Hill Farms, located at 18,249 Shaws Creek Road in Alton, where the owners are deeply concerned about the potential impact on their groundwater.

(Jennifer Casu-Morin/Chickadee Hill Farms)

 

Sinclair noted the estimated volume of fill transported to the site could generate gross revenues ranging from $14 million to nearly $29 million based on typical tipping fees, raising concerns that “shareholder profits may be prioritized over public interest and environmental stewardship.”

The site falls within the Protected Countryside designation of the Greenbelt Plan but is outside the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area. The Greenbelt Plan permits fill placement in certain cases but defers to municipal official plans and bylaws to determine where it is allowed and in what zones.

The Plan contains strong protections for natural heritage systems, water features, and wildlife habitat, including wetlands, streams, lakes and groundwater sources. Doyle emphasized that any permit process must include rigorous environmental assessments to ensure compliance.

Groves’ motion highlights the site as “an aggregate pit that is no longer in use”.

The site was formerly owned and operated by Warren Paving & Materials Group, a subsidiary of Lafarge, now known as Amrize, from 1972 till 2023. It operated as a below-water-table gravel pit until December 2021.

On October 5, 2023, the company formally surrendered its aggregate license to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) after two years of significant rehabilitation work, carried out under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).

As part of this extensive restoration, Lafarge (Amrize) sculpted an undulating underwater landscape that includes both an island and an isthmus, features intentionally designed to foster fish and wildlife habitat.

Concerns have been raised by residents who fear that the motion by Groves in support of Cortell Group could trigger legal action by Amrize.

The Pointer reached out to both Amrize and Cortell Group for comment but did not receive a response ahead of publication.

 

An inspection report obtained by Caledon resident Keirstyn Parfitt reveals that although extraction was permitted to depths of up to 10 metres, much of the site was not excavated that deeply due to the declining quality of material. Aquatic vegetation is now growing in several areas, and the shoreline, constructed with a stable 3:1 slope, remains intact with no signs of erosion.

(Government of Ontario)

 

Approximately 13 acres in the northern part of the property were left above the water table for potential rural estate residential development, and four acres of mature trees were preserved as a natural buffer.

As of 2024, about 80 percent of the 37.3-hectare former aggregate site is a groundwater-fed pond, with the remainder composed of natural meadow (15 percent) and woodland (five percent).

The Pointer reached out to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for clarification and additional information, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

 

In 2023, MNRF confirmed that all rehabilitation obligations for the former pit under the site plan had been met and commended Lafarge (Amrize) for completing the restoration to a high standard.

(Caledon Swan Lake/Instagram)

 

“They did an exemplary job and this property is now teeming with life, including native trees and shrubs, turtles and other aquatic life as well as dozens of bird species, including the once-endangered Trumpeter Swans,” resident Keirstyn Parfitt shared with The Pointer.

Headwaters Turtle Protectors volunteer Michele Blanchard says the motion “goes against everything” her organization works for. Ontario’s Natural Heritage Mapping System shows Snapping Turtles and Midland Painted Turtles have been spotted in the area in the last six months—both are classified as Species of Special Concern. 

“We’ve been doing everything we can to mitigate habitat loss and road casualties—because all the turtles here are species at risk…it’s disheartening and frustrating. Our volunteers put in countless hours, and it feels like they’re saying, ‘That’s nice, but we’re still going to bulldoze the lake, displace or kill turtles and other wildlife, and destroy what’s become a thriving habitat.’,” Blanchard said with a heavy sigh.

 

Only about 1 in 1,400 snapping turtle eggs survives to adulthood, meaning it can take up to 60 years for a single turtle to replace itself.

(Headwaters Turtle Protectors)

 

On April 15, Councillor Doug Maskell brought forward a motion aiming to include turtle conservation in the Town of Caledon’s Natural Heritage and Urban Forest Strategy.

“The presence of turtles is a key indicator of healthy and resilient ecosystems,” the motion read, emphasizing that habitat loss, fragmentation, and road mortality are major contributors to the alarming decline of turtle populations in the region. 

On June 17, Maskell presented another motion focused on aligning the town’s land conservation efforts with Canada’s national target to protect and conserve thirty percent of all lands and waters by 2030, commonly known as the 30×30 target.

At the time, both motions received unanimous support from the council. On May 13, May 20, and July 8, more than half of the council members took actions that appeared to contradict these earlier commitments.

At-risk wildlife across the province already faces mounting threats due to Bill 5, which narrows the definition of “habitat” for species and replaces the Endangered Species Act with legislation that prioritizes economic development over environmental protection.

“This is not an abandoned hole in the ground as implied by the wording of the motion presented to Council that refers to "an old aggregate pit". In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is the gold standard of what an aggregate company can and should do upon the completion of an extraction operation,” Parfitt noted.

“But (with this motion) I feel strongly that our water will be contaminated from this. I know there's great concern about the truck traffic, and I honestly feel like the town is leaving themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit from Lafarge (now Amrize).” 

 

According to a 2017 Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario report, each year, thousands of trucks transport 25 million cubic meters of excess soil across the province, costing approximately $2 billion per year to move and dispose of it. To put that in perspective, that volume could fill the Rogers Centre (SkyDome) 16 times or cover 1,000 hectares with a layer more than two meters deep. (Rogers Centre/X)

 

West Caledon Communities Traffic Group member Kate Hepworth, who ran to become a Ward 1 councillor in 2022, raised concerns about the safety and health impacts of increased truck traffic, pointing to a tragic incident involving an 18-year-old who died in a collision on Charleston Sideroad. Hepworth noted that the memorial for the young victim now stands directly in front of 0 Shaws Creek Road.

Since Fill Bylaws are enacted under the Municipal Act, any changes or exceptions must follow the formal amendment process outlined in the Act, which requires public notice and consultation.

Not only was no public notice issued about the controversial motion, but Ward 1 Councillors Lynn Kiernan and Christina Early also say they were never informed it would be introduced.

“I think it was around 4 a.m., sometimes I wake up and check agendas, and I saw it listed as an addendum the night before,” Councillor Early said during a June 24 webinar hosted by Democracy Caledon.

“I texted Lynn saying, ‘What the heck is this? They want to rehabilitate a pit.’ She said, ‘We should go to Ian.’ I emailed Ian [Sinclair], and within seconds, he responded, ‘Should I stop what I’m doing and delegate?’ I said, ‘I think we need your help.’”

It was clear Mayor Groves and other members of council did not want to hear from residents on the issue. 

On July 8, Councillor Dave Sheen introduced a motion to allow residents to speak as delegates, citing the council’s policy to permit public input on matters of community concern, but the motion was voted down with Groves stating that the council already had a “long list of agenda” to address.

Councillor Early then requested that the minutes related to the fill permit be separated for a re-vote. But town clerk Kevin Klingenberg responded that this was not procedurally possible.

Kiernan then raised concerns about what she described as a “significant error” in the original motion, stating that the claim the objective was to “rehabilitate an old uninhabitable pit” was “factually incorrect.” 

Kiernan added, “The will of council supersedes all of it,” and expressed disappointment that council had failed to allow residents to speak: “I’m sad we couldn’t find a way for people to speak for the people we work for… waive the procedural bylaw.” 

The Clerk reiterated that “there is no mechanism to do so,” clarifying that council had already been given the opportunity to waive the procedural bylaw at the start of the meeting to allow delegations. “That matter has been decided,” the Clerk stated, noting the motion was defeated.

But residents refused to back down, many already 'indescribably outraged' by the decision to move the council meeting to 2 p.m., a time when most people were at work and unable to attend, repeatedly interrupting council proceedings and forcing responses from Groves.

“The meeting was supposed to start at 4 p.m., and then it was suddenly moved up to 2 p.m. That guaranteed a lot of people couldn’t make it, many wouldn’t even know it changed. Evening meetings make participation accessible, but weekday afternoons? That’s just exclusionary,” resident Susanne Turnblom, who has lived in the town for over 20 years, said.

“Even worse, I had a friend who called the Town after I posted about the meeting on Facebook. They told her the item was off the agenda and not to bother coming. Clearly, that was not true. It feels like a deliberate attempt to keep people away so something controversial could be passed without pushback. That’s not just disappointing, it’s anti-democratic.”

Parfitt echoes the sentiment: “I think council knew exactly what they were doing. They knew this issue would spark public backlash. So they scrambled, adjusted agendas, withheld information, anything to avoid scrutiny. It says a lot about their mindset. They’ve been caught, and they know it…It’s an attack on democracy. It was disgusting.”

She also questioned how councillors could vote on a decision impacting Chickadee Hill Farms, a sustainable agri-business open to the public three days a week, when most of them hadn’t even visited the site.
“And yet they were voting on something that affects its future. How do you vote on something like this without even seeing it?” she asked.

“It’s anti-business. It’s anti-farmer. And ironically, it’s against the very people who likely voted for these councillors and for Doug Ford’s government. Conservative voters, small business owners, farmers, they’re the ones being betrayed here. All to benefit one developer: Nick Cortellucci. Today made that crystal clear.”

Resident Steve Cornelsen, who has lived in Caledon since he was a child, recalls how beautiful and peaceful the area was when he moved from Mississauga.

“Now it absolutely breaks my heart that there's people in power actively contributing to try to turn this beautiful place into a wasteland,” Cornelsen told The Pointer.

Groves said it is “important to understand that no decision has been made on this matter. There will be no fill placed on 0 Shaw’s Creek Road [yet]…This council will not risk or jeopardize your safety or your well-being. We’ve been dealing with pits and quarries for a number of years.”

“All the emails that we’ve received… they’re not falling on deaf ears. It’s something that we’re taking very seriously, but you do have to follow procedure,” she added.

When the council question period began, the crowd surged forward, extending the session nearly 20 minutes. Despite multiple reminders from the Clerk and Groves that public questions are allowed within a limited timeframe, residents continued pressing for answers, undeterred by the time constraints.

 

During an information session on taking legal action against the town in December 2024, residents watched videos from Mayor Annette Groves used during her campaign for mayor when she promised to protect Caledon’s green spaces and farmland and advocated for smart growth.

(Joel Wittnebel/The Pointer)

 

In a statement released on July 8, the Town of Caledon reaffirmed its commitment, first made in May, to a transparent public process regarding the proposed infill permit for the former gravel pit, including a public information session to allow community feedback once staff presents a detailed report on the proposal.

 

On July 7, Caledon Mayor Annette Groves shared a post on social media clarifying details regarding the proposed fill site.

(Annette Groves/Facebook)

 

“We recognize the importance of this issue to our residents,” Groves said. “I want to be clear: a staff report will be coming back to council once the engineering studies have been undertaken and reviewed by the Town.” 

When council was asked whether the deal was already finalized, the Town clerk responded that “it was with conditions,” prompting a loud gasp and boos from residents packed into the chambers and cafeteria.

A resident also asked whether council would have the opportunity to vote on a motion to decline the backfill initiative once the report is returned. 

“Council will have the chance to vote and potentially prevent the Warren Pit grading agreement. However, I can’t guarantee they will be able to fully rescind it, it depends on the final report," town clerk Klingenberg responded.

Parfitt knew that once the meeting minutes were officially adopted and the permit issued, the decision would be locked in. 

“There’s no going back. If any of the studies, whether on water quality, environmental impacts, or traffic, come back indicating this project shouldn’t go ahead, we’ll already be in a legally binding agreement with the developer. We cannot get out without costing the Town of Caledon money,” she said.

Caledon residents say they’ve had enough. To them, the fill permit is not just a bureaucratic misstep, it’s the latest chapter in what they see as Groves’ steady unravelling of the environmental promises that got her elected.

“Developers do not plan our community… the people plan our own community and our future,” she had said in her 2022 campaign video. 

“I believe we have to fight for everything, every day,” Belfountain resident Raheleh Shabani told The Pointer.

“They're going to build luxury homes where we don’t even have enough water. People are worried our wells will run dry. It’s one battle after another, and now it’s the lake.”

Shabani expressed deep concern over decisions being made without proper environmental consideration. “Especially now, with all the changes we’re seeing due to climate change, we need to be more aware of the effects our decisions have. Development without regard for the environment is just wrong.”

Her message to others was simple: “Please talk to as many people as possible. We have to fight for the environment, not just for ourselves, but for future generations.” 

The troubles began with 12 rapid-fire zoning amendments in 2024, greenlighting sprawling subdivisions across Caledon’s rural heartlands. Then came the silence. Under Premier Doug Ford’s PC government, residents lost the right to appeal such planning decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal, leaving the courts as the only recourse.

That’s where Democracy Caledon stepped in, filing a legal challenge to halt what they call a betrayal in plain sight, and the grassroots group is once again gearing up for a fight over this latest motion, which sets a ‘dangerous precedent’ and will pave the way for more fill applications.

 

On July 3, an environmental registry of Ontario posting was spotted seeking “to authorize the importation of excess soil for a maximum of 11,395,324 cubic meters to re-establish pre-existing grades” in a water body near Willoughby Rd and Charleston Sideroad, approximately 1 km south of Caledon Village.

(Government of Ontario)

 

Democracy Caledon president Debbe Crandall told The Pointer she’s been in contact with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office and plans to ask the mayor to direct her Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Commissioner of Engineering and Planning to explain how the procedural bylaw was overridden.

“The Ombudsman is quite interested in that answer. We’re going to pursue those avenues and start reaching out to staff directly, even though the CAO has made it very difficult for both the public and councillors to access them. The commissioners seem handpicked and don’t have many answers,” Crandall said.

“This pit is in the Greenbelt, within protected countryside, and this is how they’re treating it. It’s time for a change. And of course, it all comes from the top, from Doug Ford’s government, with bills like Bill 17 pushing 'faster, bigger, stronger development'.”

 

 

Email: [email protected]

---

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you