Some of this wording seems…

Some of this wording seems very questionable.
From having the “government” approve or take away species and allocate funding - which office of government? A wildlife protection branch? Or a city buildings and permits branch?

So there will be an easier way to get approved “as long as people follow the rules”
… that tends not to happen if someone has a lot of money on the line and deadlines to meet. Also who is actually educating these people and their projects in the areas on the wildlife they need to actually search for prior to cutting, clearing or development? How will they know what to look for?

Why is the habitat part more obscure in this outline while saying it was hard to understand in the last one… “outside their dwelling and immediate areas” - how far? 10feet? 10kms? Wild animals need their space to survive as well.. you can’t give them a fraction of what they’re used to and think it won’t impact them. Not to mention how you will now have some roaming your new structures as they are used to their land still.
And not considering migratory birds or marine/waterway wildlife is a big issue.

Needless to say, this doesn’t sound like the best course of actions.
I don’t disagree with a recent article saying there should be a Canada wide wildlife branch that all of our laws and acts can be updated and watched over, I just think there needs to be a diverse set of people on that project.