Thank you very much for the question.
I am aware of the case and the circumstances involved. I think what we are trying to do here is to provide clarity for any future cases of the same nature.
At the moment, it could be argued that a sail trainee who paid to get on board a passenger ship or a sail ship with passenger capacity could be a passenger, and they could be treated as a passenger, as compared with any other commercial operation, and attract the liability of the shipowner at the limit of $350,000 per person. But when we reflect on the activity involved in this particular case, the balance of view is that the person is not really 100% passenger. They are participating in the operation of the ship. They are being trained to operate it. That's what we're trying to reflect.
This is being reflected in the law by taking out the concept of pure passenger carriage. There will be no automatic $350,000 per person as if it were true commercial carriage. It will be left in part 3 of the act, which deals with all types of claims.
The individual still has the right to sue to try to recover--or the next of kin does, if it comes to that--but the limit of the shipowner would be different. It would not be the $350,000 per person, as if it were passenger carriage; it would be a flat limit, as applies to any type of maritime accident.
By illustration, if such a very high political case were to happen that 20 sail trainees were involved in a major incident, all 20 sail trainees, or any claimants on their behalf, would have to share in the per incident limit.
So that's the only change here. We're simply recognizing that they're not 100% passenger; they're somewhere in between. The right of the individual will be different, but still protected.