I guess I need to have a sense of satisfaction on behalf of those who are looking to us for at least some critical inquiry into what the legislation means.
The individual to whom you made reference didn't give us an indication of the comparative premiums in insurance he had to pay for the two activities. Secondly, he didn't give us an indication of the payouts of the insurance companies in the two activities. But more importantly, from my perspective—and it's an uneducated perspective, but I hazard it's probably valid anyway—shooting down rapids or going on some very risky adventure, where it is not simply a question of physical injury but death, compared to what happens when you go down a ski slope is probably a little bit of a stretch. That's where one would say we're comparing apples and oranges in terms of the risk associated.
Mind you, there are people who have died while skiing because they've hit trees, they've died while skiing because they weren't wearing helmets--we've seen occasions of that--or they've died while skiing because they decided to go off a cliff instead of going where they should have been going.
I take all of these things into consideration. But nobody has taken me through the dollars-and-cents approach of calculating risk and assuming responsibility. How much of it is laid on the participant and how much on the operator?