These changes are intended…

These changes are intended to resolve the current criitical shortage of affordable and attainable housing that is provincewide, but does it require these developments to be high density, and attainable according to a definition that will target those families and individuals who currently are priced out of home ownership or rental in proximity to the areas opened up by these changes to the Greenbelt? I have read that the definition the province uses now is 80 percent of market which is not affordable or attainable to most of this group. If not financially accessible, and just more single detached, or pricey town homes, the benefits of the Greenbelt will have been sacrificed for a failed policy.

Also, does infrastructure payments by developers include road improvements, all water, sewer and waste management that will be required by the increased demand? Other community services like schools, recreational facilities, and urgent care facilities?

As learned from the Covid pandemic, walkable capacious green space( parks) are important to physical and mental health. Will developers be required to have these in their subdivisions?
Are there transit plan expansions aligned to development timelines for these new subdivisions?

I am sure you are aware of the environmental risks and pressures on food security as the climate changes. There can be no " replacement" of a functioning habitat or water recharge area or buffer to human settlement by designating another area as Greenbelt. The restriction that the Greenbelt total area be maintained did not imagine land swaps as being proposed, as such a policy would undermine the purpose of the Greenbelt Act and its protection of these lands from development.