▪ Do the proposed policies…

▪ Do the proposed policies effectively support goals related to increasing
housing supply, creating and maintaining jobs, and red tape reduction
while continuing to protect the environment, farmland, and public health
and safety?

I do not trust that they do. By that I mean I do not believe sufficient protection of the environment is maintained.

I'm not sure why reduction of red tape reduction is targeted goal? What on earth do you mean by red tape? I know what it refers too as a generality. So I question what specific problems are there with what environmental protections we have in place now. This sounds to be like declaring Ontario is now open for business, because we are going to cut environmental corners. But Ontario was and still is open for business within the existing policies.

Let be be specific about what causes me concern, what signals a different motivation and what leads me to be mistrustful of this initiative.

Regarding section 2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources (MAR) ...

In 2.5.1, why do MAR need protection? This sounds more like protecting an economic opportunity (benefit) to an individual or corporation. The MAR and its owner does not need protection. Business as supported to accept risks. It is the natural and social environments that need protection.
In 2.5.2.1, are we giving an advantage to a possible environmental harmful source over a less harmful source simply because of proximity? This does not seem a worthy decision making-criterion. Remove the idea from the policy level.
In 2.5.5.2, what? Are we, in 2019, with years of history of the resource extraction corporation leaving behind environmental messes for the taxpayer to take on, going to allow an questionable extraction to take place based on a promised rehabilitation plan. It was not resource extraction, but Grassy Narrows is a corporate walk-away example, and while not in Ontario, the current number of environmentally problematic oil / gas well in Alberta and Saskatchewan is an example of gross mismanagement, both public and private) that amount to nothing less than corporate welfare. In 2019 and beyond, questionable MARs do not need increased protection.

Lastly, we, in Ontario, do not need greenfield kick-starts to housing. This smacks of being in the hands of developers, who as private entrepreneurs are not supposed to need government assistance. Building housing is not a new undertaking. We, as a society, have been doing that for 100s of years. It does not require political and environmental subsidization. Furthermore, that is not the kind of housing this province needs. If we are going to give any advantage to developers, let it be for affordable housing and development of brownfield sites.