The regulatory authority for shipping and marine safety in Canada is Transport Canada. They use the Canada Shipping Act and the regulations that support the Canada Shipping Act to do that.
What I'm suggesting, and what the national maritime law section of the Canadian Bar Association is suggesting, is not that you do away with the marine safety rules for shipping. They would still apply, Transport Canada would still enforce them, and ships would either be fined for not complying or they would comply. What we're suggesting here is that it be a double test. If you want to ensure appropriate minimum safeguards for adventure tourism, you can do it in two ways: you can do it when the ship is built, you can do it when Transport Canada enforces it, and you can also say that there is an obligation on the shipowner himself or herself to ensure at the commencement of the voyage that the vessel is seaworthy and is properly crewed. If the shipowner does that, he or she can avoid part 4 of the Marine Liability Act. If he does not have a seaworthy vessel and he does not have proper crewing, if he gets caught by the enforcement teams, he'll get fined, and if an accident occurs during the voyage and someone gets hurt, any waivers that he's relying upon will be null and void and part 4 will apply. The strict liability provisions will apply. There is a double whammy there.
I think Mr. Volpe's point the other day was that there's something missing from proposed section 37.1, a standard. I heard the department say it was missing from section 37.1 because it's somewhere else in the legislation, and another part of Transport Canada would enforce it. What we're saying is to have both. If you have both, you've covered the whole base. You look after the good operators and you make sure the bad operators are penalized.