This proposal includes a…

This proposal includes a particularly troublesome item:
"adding a new condition to prohibit camping on water within 300 meters of a developed shoreline, including any waterfront structure, dock, boathouse, erosion control structure, altered shoreline, boat launch and/or fill."

As written, this clause poses a significant risk to property and to life safety. For safety reasons, it is often necessary for cruising boats to anchor in well-protected coves where wind and wave action are minimal. Ontario has thousands, if not millions, of such places, most of which are significantly less than 300 metres across. If access to these places is prohibited, boats may be forced to remain out in open water in potentially dangerous weather conditions. Boats may also be forced to anchor farther from shore, and closer to active navigation routes, thus encouraging COLREGS Rule 9/10 violations and creating a high risk of nighttime collisions.

No justification for the 300 metre distance is given. Virtually all experienced skippers of cruising boats and of commercial vessels would agree that it is an extreme and excessive figure. A sober consideration of the actual risks to life, property, and the marine environment, as evaluated by experienced skippers of cruising boats, *might* support a general prohibition on anchoring within 30 metres of shore unless prudent seamanship (eg. the need for shorefast points) requires otherwise, but certainly not 50 or 100 metres, let alone 300. It is imperative that, if any distance-based figure is included in the regulations, it be based on the long-standing principles of good seamanship and be supported by a broad cross-section of experienced skippers.

If "The intent of these changes is to minimize the impacts of camping on water...." then I must question why developed shorelines are to be treated so differently from undeveloped ones. The presence or absence of a waterfront residential or cottage property does not affect a boat's environmental impact at all. Nor should it have any impact at all on the ability of a boater to navigate and anchor freely. Indeed, the burden should go the other way; private landowners should generally be prohibited from intruding on the rights of the general public to enjoy public Crown territory in peace and quiet. Under the proposed text as written, a private owner of 900 metres of shoreline would only need to build two or three minor shoreline alterations, and be friends with one police officer, in order to legally deny the use of nearly one-third of a square kilometre of public waterway to the general public. I cannot believe this is the Ministry's intent, but it is the clear and unavoidable outcome of the text as written.

Consistent enforcement of the regulation, as proposed, is effectively impossible. Enforcement must, therefore, be complaints-based, which means that enforcement will depend on the loudness and political power of those who complain and on those people's relationship with their local police. The proposed regulation effectively creates a de facto extension of certain private property rights of certain classes of waterfront landowners into public spaces that are much larger than their actual properties, at the expense of those who wish to enjoy those shared public spaces.

I see no mention in the proposed texts of any of the actual disruptive behaviours — the use of diesel and gasoline generators, or amplified music, or discharging oil and refuse (which is of course already totally prohibited by federal law) — that usually spark people to complain to the government about regulating boater behaviour. If the root of the issue here is that local police and municipalities are not enforcing existing noise and littering bylaws, then imposing additional regulations on law-abiding boaters will not solve anything.

I believe an additional public comment period is necessary after the proposed regulation has been re-written to address the above issues.