Ed Smith, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Pointer

In the eleventh hour of this council term, St. Catharines Mayor Mat Siscoe has pushed forward a major initiative connected to the former General Motors (GM) lands that provides financial incentives for remediation and redevelopment.  

Using the mayor’s own figures, it’s a plan that could cost residents hundreds of millions of dollars and will leave local taxpayers footing the entire bill for cleaning up the giant 55-acre site in the middle of the city, as well as tens of millions more for the former hospital site on Queenston Street.

Siscoe’s plan began taking shape in April of this year, when he used his Strong Mayor powers to order staff to develop a policy and financial framework designed to encourage the redevelopment of problematic brownfield sites across the city. Prior to Premier Ford extending Strong Mayor powers to Siscoe, an initiative of this scale would have come before Council for public discussion before staff were directed to undertake the work, but as of July 2023 Siscoe has been given the power to unilaterally give orders to staff and he has not hesitated to use those powers. 

He placed his plan on the agenda for Council’s September 14 meeting, just six weeks before the end of the council term. Had Council approved the proposal, the process of turning his plan into municipal policy would already be underway. Under Strong Mayor powers, he requires the support of just over one-third of all Council members, not a majority. In St. Catharines, where Council has 13 members including the Mayor, that means at least five votes in favour, rather than the seven needed for a majority. Siscoe was asking Council to debate and approve a plan that would shackle decades of enormous debt on local taxpayers in the very last hours of this Council’s term.

For residents who have spent nearly a decade fighting to get the site cleaned up, this latest development offers little reassurance and has raised a number of questions.   

Gwen Kennedy, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Better St. Catharines, a residents’ advocacy group that has been fighting for the site’s cleanup since 2018, did not mince words when asked by The Pointer for comment,

“It is not lost on us that within weeks of the election, Mayor Siscoe used his strong-mayor powers to bring forward a plan for the site that puts a huge financial burden on local residents. In response, we have contacted several councillors, all of whom told us they knew nothing about the details of this plan. 

“This is the Mayor’s plan and we feel betrayed by it.”

Kennedy continued that Siscoe’s “plan will have a significant impact on taxpayers, assuring developers that they should rely on local residents to cover their remediation costs; costs the Mayor himself has said will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

In mentioning the “hundreds of millions,” Kennedy is referring to the numerous times Siscoe has stated publicly that the City would not enforce property standards bylaws on the site, a site residents and staff describe as dangerous and treacherous, because by enforcing its own bylaws the City could be saddled with an enormous liability.  

As reported by The Pointer, throughout the spring of 2026, Mayor Siscoe regularly expressed concern at public meetings about the financial implications for the City of enforcing property standards bylaws at the site. 

“I live in fear with the idea that we’re going to wind up with liability in this situation that forces us to cover the cost,” he said at a town hall meeting in April.

“And, frankly, the City can’t afford a nine-digit remediation bill on that site, and I don’t think anybody would want to see what happens to their property taxes.”

In retrospect, there is a striking contradiction between his public warnings about the potential costs to taxpayers, while at the exact same time he had ordered staff to develop his plan that will ultimately leave local taxpayers responsible for the entire cost of remediation, a cost he puts into “hundreds of millions”.

Kennedy points out that although Siscoe was unable to get council to discuss his plan at the September meeting, residents should expect him to bring the proposal back before the new council, if re-elected. 

“St. Catharines residents are already grappling with record-high property taxes under the current Council, rising home-insurance premiums, significant infrastructure costs, and a host of other pressing priority needs,” she said. 

While she acknowledges that “the former GM site needs an incentive to attract a buyer and support redevelopment,” she doesn’t believe it should come at the taxpayers’ expense. “Any path forward must be transparent and developed in full cooperation with Council.”

The concerns surrounding the former GM lands did not begin with Siscoe.

In a September 2022 investigation, The Pointer reported on freedom-of-information documents concerning a June 25, 2020 email from Aaron Collina, president of Movengo Corp. and a listed interest in the ownership structure of the GM site, to then-Mayor Walter Sendzik. Collina’s email summarized his understanding of a private conversation and listed matters he wanted advanced.

Collina’s list raises several questions that remain relevant today. Among the more significant objectives identified for the City were the following:

• Explore transferring or assuming environmental risks associated with the site from the landowner to the City in exchange for the landowner pursuing a residential mixed-use designation for the property.
• Once the zoning is changed to residential mixed-use, or approval appears certain, proceed with remediation, participate in financing the secondary plan, and work toward developing an acceptable plan for the site.
• Make the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) a “front issue” by the end of the summer of 2020.

Taken together, these points raise questions about the extent to which senior City staff and the Mayor were working with the developer to advance an outcome favourable to the property owner and at the expense of residents. 

Critics argue that Mayor Siscoe’s current approach, one that will leave local taxpayers responsible for remediation costs, is a continuation of a strategy set in motion six years ago, and one that unfairly burdens local taxpayers while ignoring the responsibility of the polluters and higher levels of government.

Perhaps the strongest evidence for questioning the timing of Siscoe’s plan comes from the City’s own staff reports. On April 22, 2024, Director of Planning and Building Services Tami Kitay reported to Council that the Ontario Street Corridor Secondary Plan had effectively stalled because required background studies had been delayed.

The approved planning process depended on collaboration and cost-sharing with the owners of 282 and 285 Ontario Street. Under a memorandum of understanding authorized by Council in August 2022, the owners’ group was responsible for undertaking major technical studies at its own cost, including a servicing analysis, transportation analysis and environmental site assessment.

Those studies were intended to realistically identify the development limitations on the site.

Staff explained that the original work plan anticipated completion of the studies by the end of 2023. Instead, the three most significant studies remained outstanding. The owners’ group had indicated it was not prepared to bear their costs at that time, citing market conditions and uncertainty.

City staff were “reluctant to proceed with community visioning and the establishment of land use alternatives prior to completion of the technical studies as it is imperative that any outcomes are grounded in the reality of the site’s known constraints”.

An update provided to Council in April 2025 confirmed that the secondary plan remained on hold and that staff had not been made aware of progress by the landowners on the required technical studies since the initial stoppage a year earlier. 

Then, on November 6, 2025, Mayor Siscoe issued a Strong Mayor direction ordering the immediate reinstatement of the secondary-plan process, the retention of a planning consultant through a single-source procurement worth up to $250,000, and the presentation of a proposed plan to Council. In doing so, the direction appeared to set aside the “imperative” requirement for technical studies to be completed first, leaving the resulting plan vulnerable to challenge, its conclusions open to question, and potentially rendering the entire exercise unreliable or even useless once the necessary technical studies are finally completed.

Collina’s 2020 email to Sendzik acknowledged that demolishing the row of buildings along Ontario Street would mean the “region will take 12 meters”. The concern was that demolition would trigger a setback requirement under current legislation, reducing the amount of land available for future development.

For years, residents have raised concerns about those deteriorating structures, site security, and public safety. Yet the City, under the Mayor’s leadership, resisted mounting calls for demolition. Critics have argued that this reluctance prioritized the property owners’ interests in keeping the buildings over the safety and concerns of the community.

In May 2026, the City finally issued orders requiring corrective action on the properties. However, the timing has raised questions, with residents arguing that the approaching municipal election triggered the decision after years of inaction and growing public pressure.

The property owners have appealed the City orders, and the matter is proceeding through the Superior Court process. The Coalition for a Better St. Catharines has been granted standing in the case and intends to represent the community’s interests when the matter is heard.

Against this backdrop, and with much more informing the debate, Siscoe brought his special CIP to Council on September 14. Under Strong Mayor legislation, he needed the support of only four councillors to establish it as Council policy. Given the consistent support he receives from a core group of loyal councillors, it is reasonable to speculate that he might have lined up those four supporting votes and then used his Strong Mayor powers to push the proposal through that evening. However, he did not get the opportunity.

After hearing from seven members of the public, six of whom voiced strong opposition to the CIP, and the seventh being the property owners’ legal representative, who expressed general satisfaction with the plan while acknowledging areas for improvement and looking forward to continuing to work with City staff to refine it to the owners’ benefit, the mayor closed the public input portion of the meeting and moved on to Council debate. From that point on, events did not unfold in Siscoe’s favour.

The Mayor closed the public speaking portion of the meeting and proceeded to deliver a lengthy defence of his proposed plan, during which he made several statements that were inaccurate, including the claim that the developer would receive the money back only after the developer paid the taxes in full. Siscoe called for a mover and seconder for his recommendations. Councillors Mark Stevens and Bill Phillips quickly obliged, and the matter was then opened for questions and comments from councillors seated around the horseshoe.

Councillor Kevin Townsend was clearly prepared. He was the first to signal that he wished to speak, and when the mayor called on him, his point was brief and direct: “I move to defer this item to the next term of council.”

With that strategic move, the CIP’s immediate future was effectively decided. A motion to defer an item to a future council term is not open to debate and must be put to a vote immediately. Siscoe had little choice but to proceed to a vote on Townsend’s motion. One by one, councillors supported the deferral, leaving the item unresolved and off the table for the remainder of the current term.

When asked by The Pointer to explain his decision, Townsend made clear that he supports cleaning up and redeveloping both the former GM site and the former hospital property. However, he believes Council must have the information necessary to make an informed decision, particularly given the potentially significant financial implications for taxpayers.

Townsend emphasized the need for a clear understanding of the potential costs, the property owners’ responsibilities, the municipality’s financial exposure, and the protections available to residents. In light of these unresolved questions and the approaching municipal election, he considered the mayor’s timing inappropriate.

He further emphasized that local taxpayers should not be left footing the bill for cleaning up privately owned properties and that he does not support simply shifting the costs of environmental remediation from private property owners onto St. Catharines taxpayers.

While he remains open to exploring a CIP or other potential solutions, any incentives must demonstrate a clear public benefit, include appropriate safeguards, and be considered through a transparent process. He also urged the City to investigate provincial and federal funding opportunities and clarify the responsibilities of the landowners and GM, rather than immediately turning to local taxpayers to cover remediation costs.

Townsend explained that he deliberately moved first to speak in order to prevent others from weighing in, potentially in support of Siscoe’s motion, and to avoid any possibility of the proposal being rushed through in the final hours of the current Council’s term. 

“Taxpayers expect better and they deserve better,” he said.

Dennis Edell, a member of the Coalition, feels it is “impossible to understand” what Siscoe hoped to achieve by introducing a “plan that grants a developer hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the middle of the election and at the end of his term but it gives residents hundreds of millions of reasons not to vote for him.”

Email: ed.smith@thepointer.com

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

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---