I question, in particular,…

I question, in particular, the change in phrasing from "habitat" to "dwelling place." The term "dwelling place" seems to specify that only animals currently living in the space will be spared. "Habitat" is derided in the proposal for being too broad. I posit that this expansive term is necessary for actual species protection. If only extant colonies are permitted to exist, without possibility for growth due to habitat destruction, it is a matter of time before the species is extirpated or extinct.

How is the essential radius of a "dwelling place" defined? How will the development occur surrounding these dwelling places? If a habitat becomes fragmented, how does this protect the species as a whole? If we strictly limit protection to extant dwelling spaces, how does this encourage growth and even prevent its extinction? What radius is "essential" for a rusty-patched bumblebee, or a tri-coloured bat, or a wolf? What are the material savings on government resources versus the current system?

Furthermore: How will any of these insipid regulations be enforced if a corporation is allowed to start their development without consultation?

As a taxpayer and a lifelong citizen of Ontario, I understand the pressing need for economic and housing development, and I acknowledge that the bureaucratic system needs improvement. However, I also recognise that every species is a valuable link in the complex web of life. Any link lost is a threat to our own way of life. All species, including humans, rely on each other to maintain quality of life -- air, food, earth, and water. To be a considerate member of our own species is to protect and nurture others.

Ontario: Keep it beautiful.