With respect to O. Reg. 161…

With respect to O. Reg. 161/17:

Under the ‘Definitions’ section of this regulation, “camping unit” means (among other things) “any watercraft equipped for overnight accommodation”. This would appear to include almost every sailboat in Ontario and larger motor cruisers. Therefore, the proposed clarifications must specifically exclude from the definition of a “camping unit”, sailing vessels and motorboats equipped for overnight accommodation.

With respect to “Some of the concerns raised about floating accommodations”:

1. impacts to waterways, islands and access
2. impacts to water quality, aquatic plants (e.g., wild rice in northwest), lake beds, fish, wildlife and habitat

- No documented evidence has been presented to show that on-water camping has negative impacts to waterways, islands and water /land access, or that such activity impacts water quality, aquatic plants, lake beds, fish, wildlife and habitat.

- Without such evidence, these proposals fall into the category of ‘a-solution-looking-for-a-problem’. It should be noted that a ‘complaint’ from a property owner is not evidence of a proven problem, except in the mind of the property owner.

3. persons occupying public lands without authorization and excluding others from using that land
4. noise pollution, aesthetic, and privacy-related impacts to waterfront private property owners

- The nature of ‘public land’ is that it belongs to the public and should be available to all, not just a select few. Any restrictions that diminish such access will support divisions based on social-economic class and will negatively impact access to public waterways by the disadvantaged and lower-income families. The majority of families cannot afford a cottage or to vacation at a waterfront resort.

- It would seem unwise and impracticable to try to legislate the “aesthetic” impacts floating structures may have as opined by private property owners.

5. public safety concerns and emergency services (e.g., fire response)

- As most cottage owners know, except in more urbanized cottage environments, local emergency services are essentially unavailable. Issues of access, distance and property identification render most fire, police and ambulance services either too late, too little or totally ineffective. For example; how many municipal fire departments have the necessary fire boats and related equipment to successfully fight a fire on the water? How many ambulance operators can retrieve critically injured persons from marine environments in a timely manner? Yet current proposals will only exacerbate this problem, particularly by requiring mooring at distances further from shore (i.e. almost 1,000 feet) than current regulations permit. Hence, the concern about ’emergency services’ is a red herring.

6. wastewater management (grey and black water discharge)

- No grey water nor any black water should be discharged into lakes and rivers from any floating structure, vessel or land-based occupation, at any time or under any circumstances. Are the proponents of these amendments suggesting that no existing legislation already addresses these concerns?

7. commercial use including short-term rentals

- One needs to recognize that commercial use (particularly short-term) is one of the very few mechanisms available for low- and middle-income users to gain access to our provincial waterways. Will these proposed regulations do anything to enhance this access or will they instead, do the opposite?

8. increased volume of stationary vessels or structures on waterways contributing to greater risk of collisions, and congestion in desired areas for mooring

- An increase in collision risk on the water is more likely the result of regular high speed boating activity than stationary and slow-moving floating structures. No documented evidence has been provided to suggest that floating structures are causing a greater risk of collision. If all floating structures and all boats maintain proper navigation and mooring lights, any collision risks belong to the respective operators, not the nature of the water vessels.

- It should also be noted that requiring floating structures to be moored at greater distances from shore will increase the risk of nighttime collisions, regardless of the type of vessel involved.

9. lack of payment of property taxes and application of building permits

- Property taxes are the responsibility of property owners and according to historical principles, are meant to support property related municipal services provided to those owners. However, this principle rarely applies to the majority of rural properties and many, many cottage properties. Municipal services such as water, sewer, fire, ambulance, police, garbage collection, etc. are either not available at all or only partially available. Occupants of floating structures would seem to be at the bottom of the list when it comes to receiving tax supported municipal services. Their mobile nature would also make it impossible to identify which municipality has taxing authority.

- It should be noted that previous property assessment appeals under the Assessment Act (see Myers v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 32 (Div. Ct.) 3. O.R. (3d) 488) requires floating homes to be affixed to land before the structure is deemed assessable. There are currently no provisions within the Assessment Act for the valuation of floating structures that are not permanently moored, attached to shore and using shoreline services.

- Since building permits are the responsibility of individual municipalities and normally subject to building plans that conform to local building codes, it would be impossible to harmonize such activity for the benefit of the businesses that construct floating structures. The fact that these structures move from one municipal jurisdiction to another raises the question of building code enforcement and which municipality has building permit authority over a mobile structure. Also, it is doubtful that any municipalities in cottage country have experience or existing building regulations pertaining to floating structures within marine environments. More salient to this issue is that, according to the manufacturer, these structures are considered ‘vessels’ by the federal government and as such, are built to the associated standards required under federal legislation. Federal legislation trumps both Provincial and municipal legislation.

Under the section, “Environmental Implications”, and specifically:

• insufficient sunlight into water caused by extended periods of shade from floating accommodations
• disturbance to local fisheries and/or wildlife

Every fisherman knows that fish will be found most frequently around ‘structure’, especially man-made structures such as docks, boathouses, swim rafts, etc. The same can be said for the ‘floating structures’ targeted by these proposed amendments. As to the issue of “insufficient sunlight”, the only potential environmental impact would be reduced vegetation growth, which in most cases is a beneficial feature in navigable waterways. That said, any such impacts are largely outweighed by excess marine growth caused by invasive species and fertilizer runoff.