No, the waiver is a bit of a red herring. I will give you a personal example.
Last summer I had the pleasure of going to Quebec City, and after a meeting there I was able to go to the Saguenay on a whale-watching tour. They have operators up there with big ships, little ships, Zodiacs. My son is not particularly comfortable around water, so we went on a big ship to give him some feeling of structure around him. We weren't asked to sign a waiver. It was a ship with all the necessary safety equipment, and we were in every sense of the term passengers. If I were to go down Hells Canyon in the Fraser River on a white-water rafting exercise or go up the Ottawa Valley to Pembroke for white-water rafting, I'd be asked to sign a waiver, because I would be engaging in an adventure. There would be no suggestion that I was a passenger.
The question in my mind arises if I go up there and the activity is something outside the normal bounds of being a passenger, and I am asked to sign a waiver and am given safety presentations, and I'm on a seaworthy ship that's properly crewed. Then I'm squarely out of part 4. I know I'm out of part 4, I'm consenting to it, and although I'm saying I'm out of part 4, all the normal rules still apply. If I am hurt, I can still sue someone, and if I can find a way to get through the waiver, then I will. It's business as usual.
What we're trying to say to you today is this. I don't believe that back in 2000 when adventure tourism was put into part 4, the idea was to capture the small-ship and big-ship Athens Convention type of seagoing vessel. The recognition we've had over the last seven or eight years in the adventure tourism industry is that it's not appropriate to capture the small adventure tourism activities in part 4. They can be dealt with in part 3. What we're trying to do is find a way to put a box around the activity so that the good stays out and the bad can stay in.