On behalf of the Council of…

On behalf of the Council of the Township of Puslinch, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory criteria for Special Economic Zones under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. As a rural lower-tier municipality with active agricultural uses, aggregates, hamlet settlement areas, and no municipal services, Puslinch supports economic development that is transparent, environmentally responsible, and aligned with municipal planning frameworks. The Township understands that the draft framework seeks to set criteria for designating zones, projects, and “trusted proponents,” with any exemptions or modifications to provincial laws to be made by regulation.

Council’s overarching concern is that the current draft relies heavily on discretionary language and ministerial or Cabinet “opinion” without clear, measurable thresholds, which makes it difficult for municipalities and communities to understand when and how an SEZ might be designated, what the practical limits of a zone would be, and which safeguards would apply. For example, the draft regulation would permit a zone where, “in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,” activities are or will be economically significant or strategically important, and the zone is “no larger than necessary,” without definitions, mapping standards, or size caps. Predictability and public confidence would be improved by objective criteria, transparent mapping requirements, and explicit upper limits on zone size.

The Township is similarly concerned that key determinations about trusted proponents and designated projects turn on open-ended ministerial opinion, including judgments about compliance history, benefits to communities and Indigenous engagement plans, alongside a broad “such other factors as the Minister considers appropriate” clause. While discretion is sometimes necessary, municipalities would be better served by clear evidentiary standards (e.g., defined compliance periods across jurisdictions, mandatory disclosure of environmental and labour contraventions by the proponent and contractors, and auditable community-benefit commitments), together with minimum documentation requirements for health, environmental and cumulative-effects analyses.

The Township appreciates the ministry’s statement that all laws continue to apply by default, and that any exemptions or modifications would have to be set out in future regulations. However, because SEZs are explicitly contemplated as a vehicle to modify or exempt approvals, it is essential that the regulations include robust, mandatory transparency and participation features such as:

1. Posting every proposed designation and any proposed exemption regulations on the ERO;
2. Providing municipalities and Indigenous communities with notice, materials, and meaningful time to comment; and
3. Publishing clear rationales that explain how input influenced the decision.
The Township encourages the ministry to codify these elements directly in the SEZ criteria regulation, not solely in guidance.

Given Puslinch’s rural context including private servicing, open drainage, sensitive groundwater, haul routes linked to aggregates, and agricultural interfaces; any SEZ that overlaps our municipality could concentrate large projects in settings with limited infrastructure capacity. For that reason, the criteria for designating projects should require demonstrable local-level feasibility (servicing, transportation, stormwater, natural heritage, and agricultural compatibility), not only province-wide economic benefits, and should mandate assessment of potential harms as well as benefits to communities. We note the ministry’s Indigenous consultation summary indicates requests for cumulative-effects assessment, social and cultural impact consideration, oversight/advisory mechanisms, and revenue-sharing or community-benefit arrangements; these themes should be reflected in the final regulation to ensure SEZ outcomes are equitable and sustainable.

To improve clarity and guardrails, Council respectfully requests the following refinements to the regulation before it is finalized:

1. Define “economically significant” and “strategically important” with measurable indicators and require independent documentation to support such findings;
2. Require a public-facing map and a maximum contiguous area or clear sizing rationale for any proposed zone;
3. Replace open-ended “in the opinion of” clauses with objective criteria wherever possible, including minimum documentary standards for environmental, health and cumulative-effects analysis, and for demonstrating local servicing feasibility and mitigation;
4. Specify compliance vetting for trusted proponents and their contractors over a defined period across Ontario, other Canadian jurisdictions and internationally, with mandatory disclosure and third-party verification;
5. Require early and ongoing municipal engagement and codify ERO posting, notice, comment windows, and published reasons for all SEZ-related decisions (zones, projects, proponents, and any exemption/modification regulations);
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and would welcome continued engagement as the regulatory framework is finalized.