I probably should not presume to tell the Parliament of Canada what it wishes to do with its act and what it wishes to protect; hence the options that I provide.
From the perspective of ease of implementation--and perhaps this may be, by rights, a short-term fix--one that speaks to the physical characteristics of the waterways is probably the easiest to implement. That is certainly what we used in our trial project in Alberta, where we looked at the width of channel, the depth of water at certain flow frequencies, and the slope of the channel--that sort of thing. And those are the kinds of definitions that Transport Canada is using in defining minor waterways.
So in the short term, I think that is probably the easiest and the most effective way to go. If you were considering a rewrite of the entire act, I would suggest it might be worth while to have a more philosophical discussion as to exactly what we are trying to protect here, and a view as to what is best managed and regulated at the federal level versus what can be dealt with under existing legislation within the provinces.