Ontario has access to 20% of…

Ontario has access to 20% of the world's entire supply of fresh water, while having one of the relatively lowest population densities on the planet, as a region (ref: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density). In fact, relative to other world states, Ontario would be 213th out of 234....right in between Chad and Turkmenistan.

If you only include boaters, that number drops by almost 66% ref: (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nmma.c… you include only those boat owners who have sleeping and cooking accommodations, the nunber becomes negligible....nothing more than a rounding error.

Either the definition of a camping unit on the water has not been clearly defined (it appears by omission that the definition also includes any boat with sleeping and cooking facilities), or is this proposal is clearly a thinly veiled and weak attempt to protect the water views enjoyed by the wealthy cottage owners in Ontario?

If the latter, in consideration of the current economic climate, the fractured state of our societal fabric, of which a groing divide between rich and poor, this is ill timed.

The points for consideration will be addressed point by point:

1) "impacts to waterways, islands and access"

What impacts? This is too vague to address.

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

Protecting the environment is important. Have we conducted an environmental study on the impact of boating specific to those boats with accommodation?

3) "persons occupying public lands without authorization and excluding others from using that land"

The authorization already exists at the Federal level with restrictions. Considering the majority of overnight anchoring occurs througou the great lakes, the argument of exclusion is hard to swallow considering the 244, 106 sq/km of surface area along with the almost countless number of anchorages in Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. Conisdering overnight stays in Lake Ontario, Erie, and Huron are mostly limited to marinas, these do not require the focus of this proposal.

4) "noise pollution, aesthetic, and privacy-related impacts to waterfront private property owners"

Noise pollution is a separate matter and is already addressed by both the areas bylaws (Excessive Noise) and of required, the Criminal Code of Canada (Mischief to Property). "Noise" does not need additional legislation to address.

The idea of privacy related matters and aesthetics is clearly aimed at protecting the interests of wealthy cottage owners. The idea that a sailboat anchored a 1/4 km offshore from a cottage, effecting their "view", and needs to be moved on, is the pinnacle of wealth priveledge.

In our larger cities we have towering apartment buildings where peope live stacked on top of one another, while a wealthy cottage owner needs any other human being to be at least 300m away.

Come-on.

If the aethetics include large numbers of powerboats rafting, then table a law against rafting.

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

We have huge expanse of surface area of water in Ontario. When has emergency repsonse ever been impacted by an anchored vessel? The very act of anchoring involves "scope"...to wit; the laying of anchor chain or rope at a minimum ratio of 4-1 (length vs depth)...more often 5-1 is used. This means that in a shallow ancgorage, each boat has 40-50' anchor line out. If the anchored boats moored as nearly as possible, there's still 40-50' between. Pleae show me a Fire Boat that has a 50' beam.

5) wastewater management (grey and black water discharge)

Again, protecting the environment is important. Blackwater discharge in inland waters is already illegal. So enforce it.

If the issue is grey water discharge, then address THAT issue.

6) commercial use including short-term rentals

Have we done a study on this? How many exist? I regularly travel from Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Georgian Bay up to Killarny and the North Channel. There are no vessels or structures spotted that fit that description. If the issue is within the smaller lakes and rivers, these would mostly fall under a municipal jurisdiction. Municipal jurisdictions already have a track record of regulating short term rentals.

Again, IF commercial enterpises occurring on crown land is the issue, then address THIS issue directly.

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

The idea of forcing vessels to move every 7 days will not address the issue of popular and congested anchorages. If the anchorage is popular, once one vessel leaves, another will take it's place.

Or, allow the masters of the aforementioned vessels behave like adults and anchor in a safe manner in proximity with other vessels, who also have master and crew to address any issues.

8) lack of payment of property taxes and application of building permits

Is this proposal suggesting that boats that fit the definition, and which are already transient in their use of space by virtue of the 21 day law already on the books, need to be paying property taxes and need building permits? This is another weak (non?)agrument, packaged together with other weak arguments to try to make this proposal stick.

Again, the shear scope of these attempted agruments put forth by the proponent is demonstrative of a tactic of throwing enough at the wall and hoping something stick. Most of these concerns have either not been properly assessed with proper scope, or at best, are valid issues that are already covered by current legislation.

Someone who owns an expensive cottage on the water, may have to endure the hardship of seeing a vessel at anchor for a limited period of time. Oh the horror.

If Ontario does not want to share the water with boaters, perhaps we'll spend our summers, amd our money, in the Erie Canal, or perhaps Lake Champlain Vt.