Sir, my understanding of adventure tourism is that a lot of the operators today are safe. The message, certainly, that we got is that if you keep them in part 4 of the Marine Liability Act and you put them into this compulsory insurance regime with strict liability, they can't get insurance at the level that part 4 requires. If you take them out of part 4 and put them back to where they were prior to 2000-01, they can get insurance. They can still operate. Although it's not compulsory insurance, they will still be able to get insurance. It'll be voluntary insurance. As I said, if they're big enough organizations, they don't even need to get insurance; they can self-insure.
The insurance side of it is an element of risk management. The difference between being in part 4 and being out of part 4 is compulsory. If you're in part 4, you have no choice; you have to get insurance at the limits that are required by the legislation. The adventure tourism industry is telling everybody they can't get insurance at those limits, so either they exist outside of part 4 or they don't exist. If they exist--and they clearly can exist if you put in proposed section 37.1 as the bill proposes--then you're saying to them that if a marine adventure activity fits these criteria, it can come out of part 4.
I'm saying if you put in another condition saying that it's a properly crewed seaworthy vessel at the commencement of the voyage, the minute it is not a seaworthy vessel that's properly crewed, it doesn't come out of part 4. The waivers are null and void, and the public in that respect is protected. As Mr. Volpe said today, there is a standard missing in proposed section 37.1, and having a seaworthy vessel at the commencement of a voyage is that standard.