Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't wish to engage in a fencing match. The CMLA said what they said, but if they were suggesting that anyone on board that type of craft, whether it's a commercial craft or a pleasure craft, should have the same liability regime, that's a matter of policy.
When the proponents, the Ministry of Transport, wrote this up, the policy—which was then adopted and then tabled in Parliament—was that there ought to be a distinction between the liability regime for those on board pleasure craft and those on board commercial craft. It's purely a matter of policy. Perhaps the CMLA favours the same. What I'm seeing here, though, and I will repeat it, is that amendment L-1, as drafted, doesn't really clarify which of the two regimes would actually apply. It just takes that category of person out--a passenger. It doesn't have, at least in my view, the specificity that is provided for in G-1.