As I said earlier, I don't think this section has been well outlined. The particular amendment simply replaces one subjective word with another. We're really still at a subjective stage with what we're proposing would define adventure tourism.
I look at what it says under “passenger”: “a participant in an adventure tourism activity”. Yet in the adventure tourism activity section it says it “exposes participants to an aquatic environment”. What does that mean? Does that mean that scuba expedition fits under this? A passenger is a participant in adventure tourism activity. So we have clearly established that somebody is not simply a passenger, that they can just be somebody doing adventure tourism activity in an aquatic environment.
I think there are some really difficult issues here. My point would be, how far do we want to go in allowing these waivers? For what activities are these waivers suitable, and at what point are they not suitable? I don't see anything here that really lays it out very clearly. I thought the government was going to come back with amendments to this particular section that would give us some clarity. I don't see it in their amendment.
So as of now, I can't support this section.