I see your point. Without having a proposed definition to work from, it is difficult for us. In our recommendations we did suggest that if the transport committee or Transport Canada is very committed to moving forward with these amendments, a more specific wording should be provided to the public for consultation. I don't want to argue in the abstract because we don't know the proposed definition of a navigable water.
Then, also, I wouldn't want to undermine or question the decisions of the court without having had an opportunity to review the jurisprudence. I would assume there was a reason why the judges have ruled the way they have and why the definition has evolved the way it has through case law. I would think the arguments that went into that evolution would be important for the committee to consider as well.
From a community perspective, that's typically how law evolves. The government passes the legislation and then we see what it becomes through court and through policy and through application. So I wouldn't want to take away from the efforts of the courts, because they may have a valid point or valid reasons for having created the definition that they have.