Council has received a staff report outlining health and safety guidelines for the prospective partial demolition of the former General Electric (now GE Vernova) factory situated at 107 Park Street North, as of a general committee meeting on February 17th.

This report is in response to a motion from October 2025 requesting that City staff return to council with a plan to manage the health and safety impacts of the demolitions, given that the site contains high amounts of contaminants, including  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

At the time, many councillors like Otonabee Ward’s Lesley Parnell argued that while concerns around contamination during demolitions are legitimate, it is not within council’s jurisdiction to dictate conditions on their acceptance of GE Vernova’s notice of demolition.

This argument was repeated in the staff report on health and safety guidelines for the demolition which came before council February 17th: they noted, for example, that demolitions were subject to the standards of the provincial government’s Building Code (and thus beyond the purview of Council).

The report, while not legally binding, urged GE Vernova to comply with provincial and federal legislation around soil and hazardous waste movement, as well as PCBs, refrigerants, halocarbon and mercury exposure, among others. It also urged the hiring of an independent monitor to oversee the environmental impacts of the demolitions by the City, a position that would be funded by GE Vernova.

In his motion report, Commissioner of Municipal Operations Ilmar Simonovskis reminded council of the roles and responsibilities of a number of regulative and executive bodies, including Lakelands Public Health, the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP), and the Chief Building Official (who enforces the Building Code at a municipal level).

Simonovskis presented the impetus of the report as “to inform Council which agencies may be engaged in the safe demolition and what each agency’s regulatory authority is and how those powers might be applied.”

Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk took umbrage with this approach, positing that the report did not actually provide what council requested last year.

“We asked for a Health and Safety Plan [HASP] from the city's perspective, for the GE site and its broader impacts on surrounding residents,” he began.

“That has come back to us just in this report as a restatement of the jurisdictional limits we have already debated what the city can and cannot require through the demolition permit process and a template that the owner could consider. That is not what I asked for in this motion, and that is not what council asked for.”

Simonovskis’s report in fact stated that the City did not have the authority to require that GE Vernova complete a HASP, and as such, the health and safety guideline report presented to council was framed as a non-binding Health and Safety Approach (HASA) report.

“The core question was never whether the city can compel GE to submit a plan under the building code,” added Bierk. “The question was, what is the city itself going to do to protect residents from the impacts of the site? [The HASA guideline report] actually shows that staff understand what a robust approach looks like, independent monitoring, public reporting, threshold stop work, triggers, resident communication, but none of that has been adopted as a city commitment with timelines, responsibilities and authority.”

“Today, we still do not have clarity on whether the city will retain an independent environmental monitor, what contaminants related to the site will be monitored and at what action levels, how residents will be notified of exceedances or risks, or what happens if site related impacts occur in the surrounding neighbourhood. We don't even know the extent of the contamination on the site,” he said.

“We know nothing.”

Following this, Councillor Bierk put forth an amendment motion to return the report to staff, as it did not meet the criteria of what council requested in October 2025.

This general committee meeting was the first public meeting of council subject to its new procedural bylaw, which mandates that staff be asked for comment on any amendment motion put on the floor.

As such, the next speaker was Infrastructure, Planning and Growth Management Commissioner Blair Nelson.

“Referring it back would possibly have to come with additional … funding to do additional investigative works and or other directions in terms of what the city is capable of doing within … the surrounding lands,” said Nelson, before deferring to Simonovskis for further comment.

“The site, the history of the site and the status of any movement of … groundwater or contaminants off the site are currently under the purview of the Ministry of Environment. They have programs in place that fall under their regulations or legislation that monitor what's happening and also ensure that GE is doing what they're asking them to do,” noted Simonovskis.

“Because it’s a private site, and because they're not proposing to change its use, there's no process that would require a record of site condition or or other active remedial work,” he said.

Simonovskis recognized other avenues were available to the City, but seemed to worry of possible litigation from GE Vernova.

“[GE Vernova] could, I believe, technically sit on that site forever, as it is,” he said. “If the city chose to force some action or do something in the public Boulevard around the site as an example—because those are our right of ways—I guess that would be an option. I'm sure it would definitely catch the attention of the property owner, that we may be trying to put it to the table for other actions.”

This seemed to be an enticing option to Councillor Bierk, who defended the prospect of public studies of the environmental impact of the GE site.

“Yes, it is a private site, but the roads next to it are ours. The water that comes out of it goes into our water systems, our sewer systems, maybe our drinking water. The fact is, we don't know currently … what the extent of that is, and I think that it's our responsibility to try and figure that out,” he said.

Bierk’s wardmate Councillor Joy Lachica stated her support for the amendment, noting that should it fail, she had her own amendment she wanted to put forth to the main motion on the floor.

“The entire region, urban Indigenous rights holders and Williams Treaty first nations are watching and waiting to see what's next,” she noted over a call, as she was not able to attend the meeting in person. “Why? Because planning and preparation is of the essence when it comes to community safety and wellbeing, especially around an unprecedented scale and scope of demolition known by all to have its toxic legacy and impacts.”

Northcrest Ward Councillor Dave Haacke, for his part, opposed Bierk’s amendment.

“If I understand what you're asking for, councillor Bierk, it's the same thing that the government is going to require and produce before they do anything,” he said, before looking to City staff for confirmation. Commissioner Simonovskis acquiesced.

Ashburnham Ward Councillor Keith Riel came out in support of the amendment, for the sake of receiving adequate information on the contamination around the 107 Park Street North site.

“Park Street seems to be lacking any clear detail about the cleanup, how the neighbourhood will be protected during demolition, and what measures are being taken to clean up contaminated soil because of the thousands of chemicals on this site, so I'm going to support councilor Burke's motion,” said Riel.

“We've already had an indication of what this company is capable of … We need to go back to the drawing book, and we need to keep their feet to the fire, because that's the only way they’ll listen.”

Councillor Matt Crowley of Monaghan Ward also came out in support of the amendment, and inquired with staff about “due diligence” and the ability of council to monitor the environmental impacts mentioned by Bierk, Lachica and Riel.

“There are programs in place by the MECP that are monitoring the water,” replied Simonovskis. “I did have a tour of the site. The site is incredibly clean. There's not a table or a chair in the bulk building. It's been cleaned out. I know that all the pipe asbestos has been removed … it was very obvious that they have taken a lot of care to do what they need to do.”

Further questions to Simonovskis from Mayor Jeff Leal came after Leal stated his own opposition to Bierk’s amendment. Leal asked about the costs of conducting municipal environmental impact studies, to which Simonovskis said the task would be difficult even with $500,000 and restated his worry about potential litigation from GE Vernova.

After Otonabee wardmates Kevin Duguay and Lesley Parnell stated their opposition to the amendment, it was taken to a vote.

A 5-5 draw saw Bierk’s amendment motion fail. In favour were Lachica, himself, Crowley, Chair Andrew Beamer, and Riel. Opposed were Northcrest Ward’s Dave Haacke, Mayor Leal, Parnell, Duguay, and Ashburnham Ward’s Gary Baldwin. Absent was Monaghan Ward Councillor Don Vassiliadis.

As promised, Councillor Joy Lachica put forth her amendment to the main motion.

Lachica’s motion sought to mandate that GE Vernova publicly share its methodology for these demolitions, such that they could be scrutinized against Provincial and Federal standards.

Councillor Bierk expressed his disappointment at the failure of his own motion, and urged his fellow councillors to vote for Lachica’s.

“I don't understand where the resistance is to this,” he said. “All that the councillor’s asking here is that GE discloses its full demolition plan to us … I do not understand why there would be resistance to that. This should be an easy majority pass for us.”

City staff once again exercised their right of reply to contest some minor aspects of the motion text, such as its mention of the Chief Building Inspector, a position mandated by a Federal law not yet in effect, and thus currently vacant. Legislative Services Commissioner David Potts also expressed worry that this motion could open council to litigation on the basis that it might be interpreted as seeking to politically influence the Chief Building Official.

Potts proposed that the information sought out through this motion could instead be directly requested of GE Vernova by staff.

Once again, Leal and Parnell opposed the motion, Leal seeking to follow Potts’ suggestion and Parnell dismissing the motion as once again beyond council’s jurisdiction.

In light of these discussions, Councillor Baldwin called to defer a vote on Lachica’s amendment until next week, so councillors could have more time to consider its legal implications. This time, staff had no warning to council about possible consequences of the deferral.

“I thank the councillor for bringing it forward,” Baldwin said of Lachica’s amendment motion. “If you're asking me tonight to vote on that—something I cannot read and cannot assimilate, I will vote no … I'm not going to vote on something I don't understand fully that someone's had an opportunity to send at the last minute.”

Baldwin’s deferral carried 8-2, meaning Lachica’s amendment to mandate that GE Vernova share demolition plans for 107 Park Street North publicly will come back to council at next week’s council meeting. Opposed were Lachica and Bierk.

Finally, the main motion (to accept staff’s report presenting GE Vernova with a non-binding set of health and safety guidelines for their demolitions, as well as a summary of Provincial and Federal legislation they will be subject to) went to a vote.

It carried 9-1, opposed only by Councillor Lachica.