Council seeks removal of GM catwalk by December, refuses to address broader safety concerns at contaminated St. Catharines site

The City of St. Catharines and Government of Ontario have made clear in recent years that neither wants to take responsibility for enforcing a clean-up at the contaminated and crumbling former General Motors property in downtown St. Catharines.

The City fought for two years to keep disturbing environmental assessment reports from the public. The reports exposed contamination levels for certain dangerous toxins as much as 1,100 times higher than allowable limits. The City claimed releasing them would damage GM’s corporate reputation. 

Meanwhile, City officials and council have consistently refused to explain why action is not being taken to address serious safety issues on the site, despite the legislated powers to do so. The municipality’s apathy toward an issue that residents in the area have been demanding action on for almost a decade was exemplified in the admission late last year by St. Catharines senior officials that they had no idea if a filtration system meant to clean stormwater on the site of dangerous PCBs was operational. It wasn’t. 

The Government of Ontario has been equally guarded on its involvement in monitoring the contamination, providing few details to residents about what is being done to ensure a laundry list of cancer-causing chemicals found in the soil and groundwater are not migrating off the site or into nearby Twelve Mile Creek. Provincial staff have ignored requests from The Pointer to get answers and have misled the public on the site’s danger, despite the concerns of local health officials. Provincial officials maintain the site is secure, and contamination is contained, but have not provided studies to support their claims. 

The former General Motors property has been reduced to half-demolished buildings, open pits, underground infrastructure easily accessible to the public and crumbling metal and glass, all of which pose a significant danger to anyone who enters the site.

(Joel Wittnebel/The Pointer files) 

Obtaining even small pieces of information has been a struggle for residents and the media. An investigation apparently ongoing by the provincial environment ministry has included few details to the residents who live next to the contaminated blight.

Last Monday, following repeated requests from the community, council finally agreed to take action on the property, after months of advocacy, media scrutiny and despite repeated attempts by Mayor Mat Siscoe to prevent residents from speaking about the former GM site at council. 

On February 23, councillors passed a motion requesting staff “work with the property owners to have the overhead structure removed, with a target date of December 1, 2026.”

The catwalk was recently examined through a visual inspection by engineers hired by the property owner. It was deemed structurally sound and safe. It’s a conclusion that did not completely satisfy residents and some councillors who saw the lack of inspection of the catwalk’s foundations to be a glaring omission. 

The motion does not compel the landowner—an Ontario numbered company—to remove the structure. It directs staff to work with the owner toward that outcome, but stops short of issuing an order or outlining consequences should the December 1, 2026 target date pass without action. While it formally signals council’s intent to see the catwalk removed, how the property owner responds, and whether the City is prepared to escalate its efforts if removal does not occur, remains to be seen.

Gwen Kennedy spoke to councillors last Monday on behalf of the Coalition for a Better St. Catharines, a community group that has advocated for cleanup of the former General Motors site for eight years. 

(Editor’s Note: Reporter Ed Smith is a member of the Coalition for a Better St. Catharines.) 

Kennedy came prepared to outline the community concerns about the site.

She was barely into her remarks before Mayor Siscoe interrupted her. It was the first of many interjections by the mayor, who repeatedly admonished Kennedy and warned her to confine comments strictly to the subject of the catwalk. Kennedy’s delegation related to a motion—carried over from a previous council meeting—from Councillors Bruce Williamson and Marty Mako related to the catwalk. Council’s procedural bylaw limits delegations to speak only on matters on the meeting’s agenda. 

It is common practice, including in St. Catharines, for delegates to be given some leeway to introduce both themselves, and the topic they want to discuss. That leeway was not given Monday. 

When Kennedy attempted to establish her credibility, referencing her work engaging residents and collecting approximately 1,200 signatures calling for cleanup of the site, Mayor Siscoe cut her off, labelling any mention of her broader community interactions “off topic”. It was unusual conduct for a council member chairing a meeting that is meant to be for the public, to address the business of taxpayers. It is rare for a member of the public to be prevented from outlining their experience and involvement with a matter being dealt with in the public chamber. 

In all, Siscoe cut into her remarks at least four times.

“It made it virtually impossible to complete my remarks,” Kennedy told The Pointer. “His tone was intimidating. I also saw similar behaviour directed at others during the meeting when they expressed views that differed from his. From what I observed, there appeared to be very little room for perspectives that didn’t align with the mayor’s position.”

An open pit on the former GM property.

(Submitted)

After the delegations on the matter concluded, the mayor provided his own thoughts, which went well beyond the scope of the motion that was being discussed, referencing the broader condition of the site, the secondary planning process, and development opportunities that had nothing to do with the motion, or the topic of the discussion.

Council carried out a lengthy debate before arriving at the final motion. 

In discussing the recent engineering report, Councillor Bruce Williamson made it clear he was not satisfied with the conclusion that the catwalk was safe, because of the “glaring omission” of not addressing the structure’s foundations. 

“It wasn’t what I expected, I expected a report that would cover the legs of the table as well as the tabletop,” he told his fellow council members.

Mayor Siscoe pushed back against these concerns. 

“If you’re going to declare that a bridge is structurally sound and in good condition and that it’s safe for vehicle and pedestrian access below the bridge in its condition, they’ve looked at the whole bridge,” he asserted. A similar statement was made by Councillor Bill Phillips, who suggested the engineer would have looked at how the structure was connected and ensured it was safe. 

The report is explicit.

“The existing bridge foundations were not visible at the time of inspection.” 

It further clarifies: “Our review focused exclusively on the framing of the bridge, with the focus on the structural integrity of the existing structure. No analysis was performed and no other portions of the structure were examined unless explicitly noted.”

The catwalk spans Ontario Street, one of the busiest thoroughfares in St. Catharines.

(Joel Wittnebel/The Pointer files)

Kennedy expressed the same concern to council members during her delegation. 

“If I was purchasing a home,” she said, “I would want the inspector to tell me what was happening with the foundation of the home.”

Mayor Mat Siscoe has failed to take significant steps to force a clean up of the contaminated former General Motors property despite legislated powers the municipality can use.

(Ed Smith/The Pointer)

For reasons never explained, the City’s Director of Engineering, Anthony Martuccio, was not called upon to weigh in on the structural discussion. It is common practice to have staff at the centre of a report present at a council meeting so members and the public can get clarification on key issues. 

When directing a question on the analysis to staff, Mayor Siscoe at first appeared uncertain on who should answer. He acknowledged that Martuccio “has engineering in his title”, but ultimately requested Tami Kitay, the Director of Planning, to answer the question, and for Martuccio to add further comments after, if he chose. 

Martuccio is a licensed professional engineer and would presumably be well positioned to address technical questions about the catwalk’s structural integrity. Kitay’s background is in public administration, urban planning, and environmental studies. Martuccio did not provide any comments on the report. 

Kitay attempted to defend the report’s conclusion. 

“It would have been the responsibility of that qualified person to review the structural integrity of the entire gantry system, including what it's fastened to… ensuring that how the gantry was connected to the building was also safe and that there was no movement present, that there was no substantial structural cracks and if they had seen anything that was of concern they would have had a duty to report that.”

The report contains no reference to movement analysis. No documentation of inspecting concealed anchor points. No description of examining what the gantry is fastened to.

It explicitly notes the foundations were not visible and that the review focused exclusively on framing.

The Pointer submitted detailed questions to the City regarding Kitay’s statements. No response was provided.

Eventually, following an amendment from Councillor Kevin Townsend to direct staff to work with the owner to have the catwalk removed, council was finally able to agree on a path forward. 

“It’s important to hear what residents have to say about this,” Townsend said, admitting he is also concerned about the catwalk. “When I drive underneath this structure I do feel unsafe and I actually do speed up.”

The motion eventually passed unanimously. 

Council’s handling of this most recent report on the catwalk closely mirrors its response to a previous report submitted after concerns about the filtration system connected to the stormwater collection pond. In both cases, the documents were prepared by consultants retained by the owner, and then presented to the City, where they were accepted with little challenge, questioning or independent verification.

As reported, the stormwater collection report concluded the water collecting on the site was safe based on two samples that were tested. Both samples were collected at a depth of one metre below the surface of the stormwater pond. No samples were taken from any other depths.  

Experts who spoke with The Pointer have said sediment tests are a fundamental component of testing to detect PCBs, something that was not done by the consultant commissioned by the property owner to analyze the stormwater pond on the site.

(Submitted)

The Pointer consulted three experts in environmental sampling, including specialists in PCB analysis in water systems. While none reviewed the site directly, their comments were consistent: hydrophobic contaminants such as PCBs do not easily remain suspended in water. They bind to sediment particles and those particles then settle to the bottom of a pond.

In practical terms, experts indicated that in a pond environment, the majority of hydrophobic compounds like PCBs are likely to accumulate in bottom sediments rather than remain in surface or mid-depth water. Sampling exclusively at one metre below the surface, without any sediment testing or multi-depth sampling is not an adequate way to test for PCB’s in a pond. 

City officials, despite the shortcomings, were quick to embrace the report, and ward Councillor Caleb Ratzlaff declared the site safe and “stable” based on the report. 

MPP Jennie Stevens has been critical of what is happening with the site and has pressed the environment ministry for answers that lie outside of the landowners reports.

On January 9, Stevens sent a second letter to the Environment Minister, Todd McCarthy, expressing her “deep concern” over the unanswered questions about the status of the site and the risk to her constituents. She received a response from the Minister on Feb 23 in which Minister McCarthy stated in part that, “The sewage works’ operation is currently under investigation, so further comment would be inappropriate at this time.” 

According to Stevens, it is not clear if this refers to the same investigation into concerns with stormwater on the site—first acknowledged in the Minister’s November 3 letter—or something else. 

“Unfortunately, it is unclear to me if the initial storm water collection investigation mentioned on November 3rd is the same investigation being referred to in the February 23rd letter,” Stevens said, indicating she will continue to follow-up with the minister. “From what I can gather, this letter does not reveal any new information about the filtration system,” she said. “It does provide updated information about collection pond sampling that took place November 13, 2025 by a private consulting firm. According to this letter, the firm was hired by the property owner, not MECP directly.”

Exposed to the elements, the brick and cement supporting the upper floors of the former General Motors building is quickly eroding.

(Joel Wittnebel/The Pointer files) 

For residents, the situation feels all too familiar. 

“We have been waiting for action on this site for years. Tonight, the Mayor and council did not demonstrate the level of leadership that would convince residents they are prepared to take the strong action required to ensure the entire site is cleaned up,” Kennedy said last week. “Once again, their approach appeared measured in a way that favours the landowner, it feels like deja vu.”

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