Several points stand out in…

Several points stand out in this proposal.

1. Expansion of settlement areas should omitted in favour of further intensification of previously developed areas. Southwestern Ontario is both notorious for its urban sprawl and the core of Ontario's agricultural heartlands. Such productive land is not available north in the shield and should be protected at all costs for the sake of the food security of all Ontarians.

2. The use of projected population data, in this case seems to imply further growth and development. While the use of forecasts is good in principle, the declining birth rate of the Canadian population is a generally known fact. With a low birth rate and aging population, the forecasted growth will rely solely on immigration (see Statistics Canada forecast) Therefore, settlement expansion and the apparent drive for further development is a policy decision, and not a function of the needs of the population. Growth is not inherent, nor is it unlimited, and these points must be borne in mind.

3. The creation of province-wide policy documents would be simple, but in respect to housing and development is perhaps overly ambitious. Moose Factory is not North Bay is not Toronto, is not Chatham. The province is vast and its housing needs diverse. The imposition of a one-size-fits-all policy instrument that is supposed to function province-wide is farcical. The goals of this proposal would be better served by empowering local government.

4. The wholesale gutting of both cultural and natural heritage protections is appalling. In calculating a supply of homes with the goal of affordability, I wonder if any thought has been given to the significant cultural and environmental costs? These are irreplaceable.

5. The inclusion of long range infrastructure planning in coordination with municipalities was a welcome addition.

6. The use of the terms "streamlining" and "flexibility" generally seem to serve as cover for "exclusion" and "omission" respectively. I am deeply concerned by the implication that local government involvement and community consultation be limited in the name of "streamlining" and that "flexibility" is invoked whenever a policy might actually limit development.