Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your presentations today and for your attendance. I have to say, as a member of the CBA for about 10 years, I have really appreciated your input today.
I was one of those ambulance chasers. I did a lot of personal injury law, but I also did forestry liens, builders' liens, and personal property liens. I have to say that I think this particular improvement is an excellent improvement in the act, especially for the marine community in Canada that provides goods and services.
I will deal more specifically with proposed section 139.
I would also say that a lien, in essence, gives a bigger hammer for those judgments received in Canada. I think the judgments, first of all, quite practically, because the goods and services are given in Canada, have to be received in Canada. Then they can be enforced somewhere else in another country. A lien will give a judicial body in another country a better probability of success and also better court costs. That's really what it's all about. It's not about getting a judgment in another country.
I would like to talk about the adventure tourism part, because I am concerned about that. I come from a background of jet boaters. I have two jet boats, a Marathon 27-footer and a Harbercraft 1975 19-footer. I whitewater jet boat as well, so I understand your dilemma. You want to be able to keep your businesses open and at the same time make sure that you're not responsible for having a bad operation.
Mr. Giaschi, the law in Canada, as I understand it, already defines gross negligence as a term beyond negligence. Would it not be better to include in proposed section 37.1 a clause that actually says the operator and the owner are not exempted from any gross negligence? Would that not satisfy your suggestion of significantly greater risk?