I take your point. I can't comment on the lack of definitional clarity in the amendment. It is just our view, as I've stated already, that this is an activity that is commonly accepted. It's practised in the United States and many other jurisdictions where the participants knowingly enter it, knowing that there is a level of risk. They do sign waivers. But the operators themselves are mindful as well that they have certain minimum obligations to meet in terms of the seaworthiness of the vessels, the training of their staff, and the conditions in which they operate. My concern is that if we became too prescriptive here it may render it difficult for these operators to operate. They would be operating in such a narrow set of conditions, or perhaps with extremely high premiums, that they would be out of business.
On May 5th, 2009. See this statement in context.