This is the most egregious…

This is the most egregious step yet, and that says something. The definition of 'habitat' here is not supported by evidence over the last 140+ years and it is clear that the intent is to give legal pretense to codify habitat loss as being not only permitted but desirable. It would run counter to the Kunming-Montreal Protocol and the 30 x 30 commitment. This is not, of course, a surprise.

One hopes this was written by someone other than a professional ecologist or at least biologist; if either wrote this or supports it, they should lose their credentials over such a breach of ethics and understanding of science of conservation even at a Grade 6 level.

One assumes that given the recent election, this is a moot point. It won't be as Ontario's natural heritage and ecosystem functions decline even more rapidly, especially in southern Ontario. That 'voluntary' concept of restoration won't even begin to heal the damage - that will be in the trillions - and the fact that it is voluntary underscores the unserious nature of that part of the proposal.