These proposed changes are…

These proposed changes are in direct contradiction to expanding possibilities for Eco Tourism that has seen increased demand in Ontario, especially since the covid pandemic. From: https://occ.ca/wp-content/uploads/State-of-the-Ontario-Tourism-Industry… "Outdoor and nature-based tourism was valued at $282 billion USD in 2021 and is
expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 15.2% from 2022 to 2030.lxxxvi
In 2016, nearly 7 in 10 Canadians participated in outdoor or nature-based activities, with
hiking being the most popular activity.lxxxvii As such, this sector offers opportunities to grow
the domestic tourism market, especially given that Ontario attracts more nature-based
tourists than any other province.lxxxviii " Accessing Ontario Provincial Parks is already challenging because demand is outweighing availability, so we need more access to natural settings, not less. With more than 250, 000 lakes in Ontario we have opportunities to create water based accommodations, and these proposed changes will reduce availability, business investment and interest in such possibilities. Ontario has the most restrictive and limiting regulations of all provinces in many sectors and this is driving business investment and innovative ways of recreating and living elsewhere. Also with a national housing crisis we ought to be making housing and accommodation opportunities more accessible, not less. These proposed changes will also limit the possibilities for public lands to generate income from short term floating accommodations.
I do believe that the way that floating structures are built should be regulated to protect all waters that they will be moored on (i.e. built to marine codes and boat builder licensing for builders). Today there are many modern and innovative ways that models can be built to omit the need for blackwater systems and potentially harmful power systems etc.
I also want to comment that how is it that one particular situation, with a small number of complainants, can bring about a proposed change for the entire province? We have become a population of complainers and reactors, ruled by supercomplex restrictive administrative policies and this is severely limiting our growth into more accessible, innovative, enjoyable, sustainable, healthier, and lighter footprint ways of living and recreating.
And finally, "We are proposing to amend the regulation to exclude floating accommodations or float homes (house-like structures incorporating a floatation system, intended for use or being used or occupied for residential or longer term purposes and not primarily intended for, or usable in, navigation) or barges with residential units or camping facilities."
This seems in direct opposition with the stated rationale for the amendment to begin with. Concerns related to floating accommodations is reportedly what inspired the proposed amendment, yet within the same proposal it is suggested to exclude them. This is comparable to a sort of double negative. The cause of concern is then being excluded? I fail to see what this whole proposal
hopes to accomplish if the item(s) that sparked concern are then excluded.