Thank you for inviting us to speak to the committee.

For over 20 years, the Fondation Rivières has been dedicated to protecting the natural aspect of rivers, water quality and access to riverbanks. We believe in encouraging the growth of the respectful use of waterways. The more people use waterways and love rivers, the more people will want to protect them.

We recently completed a consultation process for a sustainable cohabitation model on the Richelieu River. We think that this should give you food for thought. This process was carried out with Covabar, the watershed organization responsible for protecting the river. It brought together 20 municipalities; four regional county municipalities, or RCMs; tourism business associations; environmental organizations; user representatives; Canot Kayak Québec; and Nautisme Québec. Everyone was around the table.

We listed 71 public and private river access points. You won't be surprised to hear that 70% of them were reserved or designated for recreational boating. This makes sense, since the Richelieu River is a major waterway between Canada and the United States. For a long time, it was used exclusively or almost exclusively by pleasure boaters, who still monopolize the entire body of water. This is no longer the case. The consultation process brought to light the desire of residents and elected officials to develop access for other types of use. These uses include canoeing, kayaking, paddle boarding, swimming, scuba diving—a popular activity in the Richelieu River—and fishing.

This enthusiasm for outdoor activities reflects a major trend. It goes hand in hand with public concern for environmental protection. In addition to being a navigable waterway, the Richelieu River ranks second in Quebec, after the Ottawa River, when it comes to the number of fish species. It's a rich area for biodiversity.

The consultation process also revealed that, to protect the river, only 30 of its 240 kilometres would require regulations. We would need to protect about 30 kilometres in areas where usage conflicts arise. In some places, this would mean prohibiting certain forms of navigation, limiting speed or maintaining a healthy distance from the shoreline. We could also develop navigation corridors. For example, where necessary, we could have one area reserved for divers and another for swimmers.

In principle, these are simple solutions. As you can see, they don't amount to much. Make a navigation corridor, install buoys, and so on. This would resolve a variety of issues. In practice, the solution is bound to be complicated. The current regulatory process is flawed, complex, outdated and needlessly cumbersome.

Transport Canada's premise is that education will resolve usage conflicts. That isn't true. Conflicts arise because certain uses aren't compatible. We need to set up protected areas for swimmers and areas where paddle boarders won't be knocked over by excessive waves or grazed by motorboats. We need to have the right use in the right place. That's the first premise.

The second premise is that usage conflicts don't arise with people of good will, but with offenders, meaning the people who don't want to listen to reason, who believe that the body of water belongs to them and who don't listen to recommendations.

We can talk about dialogue or education, but we can't educate people who don't want to be educated. Yet Transport Canada's whole approach to education is based on the premise that, if we educate, it will work. When we completed the consultation process concerning the Richelieu River, we found that a consensus emerged in favour of some type of regulations in certain areas. Unfortunately, we'll need to start the education process all over again. We'll do it because we have to. However, it's pointless and it bogs down the decision‑making process.

Moreover, the regulations don't provide the flexibility needed to find solutions adapted to the area's support capacity and to community aspirations. The solution lies in striking the right balance among multiple parameters, such as speed, number of boats, type of boat and permitted areas. However, this doesn't take environmental criteria into account at all. It doesn't protect the health of bodies of water.

In an attachment to our brief, which will be sent to the committee, we provided a short literature review outlining the potential impact of unregulated navigation on turbidity, or water clarity, on shoreline erosion and on the destruction of endemic aquatic grass beds.

To put it simply, grass beds are like aquatic grasslands populated with fragile and rare plants. When they are crushed by boat propellers, these plants take a long time to grow back. In some cases, they just don't grow back.

Other witnesses have spoken at length about the problem of wake boats. The science is clear on this. Wake boats produce a water column that is five to seven metres deep. This water column whips up sediment and destroys aquatic life. Waves made by ships that travel less than 300 metres from the shoreline accelerate erosion significantly. We did a simulation, and on the Richelieu River, there are very few places that are less than five metres deep.

We also consulted marina owners, and they were all in favour of regulations that would be reasonable, nuanced and adapted to the realities of the environment. Education alone does not create a sustainable model for co‑operation.

We have two recommendations for Transport Canada: deploy national navigation standards in partnership with Environment and Climate Change Canada, and adapt the process to take environmental considerations into account.

Now that we know about the problems caused by wake boats, what are we waiting for to set standards?