Transport committee  Sir, my understanding of adventure tourism is that a lot of the operators today are safe. The message, certainly, that we got is that if you keep them in part 4 of the Marine Liability Act and you put them into this compulsory insurance regime with strict liability, they can't get insurance at the level that part 4 requires.

Transport committee  No, it's not, sir. The nice part about a maritime lien is if you have a ship in your port—and it doesn't matter whether I were a U.S. attorney based in Seattle or a Canadian lawyer based in Vancouver—and you are threatening to arrest the ship, you don't arrest a ship lightly. It's not something you do willingly, because you have a whole operation rolling.

Transport committee  Yes. What you find in the Marine Liability Act today, under the Hague-Visby Rules, which is the cargo liability regime in the legislation, is a one-year limitation period in the cargo section. It's a period that runs from the day of discharge. The cargo is discharged. It gets to the consignee's warehouse.

Transport committee  I'll let Mr. Bowie reply, because his clients are the ones who don't pay their bills. I jest.

Transport committee  To give you some context, if you're the Canadian ship supplier and you're in a bankruptcy proceeding, there's a pot of money on the table and the government takes its whack, the port authority takes its whack, the banks take their whack, and the American supplier comes in and takes his whack.

Transport committee  Personally, in the 25 years I've been practising maritime law in the U.K. and here, I've had one case in Vancouver involving ship bankruptcy when there was a pot of money to be divided up. As in the example I gave earlier, I was representing the U.S. supplier, so I was up the line.

Transport committee  I think some safeguards should be included. That's the position of the section. The danger with cherry-picking the U.S. legislation, the Maritime Lien Act, is that there's a lot of it, and a lot of the provisions that work in the U.S. will not work up here in Canada. The numbers are different.

Transport committee  It's right in that they want to go back to the old, because as I understand it, they couldn't get the insurance, compulsory insurance, at the limits that were required by the Athens Convention and by part 4. This proposal in the bill is to take adventure tourism, as an activity, out of part 4 and out of the requirement to have compulsory insurance and out of the requirement to have a strict liability regime and put it back in the position it was in before, which is getting insurance in the normal marketplace without the increased limits.

Transport committee  No, sir, I don't believe it would. The phrase “to provide a seaworthy ship at the commencement of the voyage and one that is properly crewed” is a term we've had in maritime law since the days of the Lloyd's Coffee House in the 17th century--the idea of sailing ships leaving London to go into the far reaches of the empire to bring home all the plunder.

Transport committee  Mr. Volpe, what I believe the section is proposing to the committee is that of all the parties that are involved in supplying a ship when it arrives in a port, depending on the contractual arrangement between a shipowner and a charterer—it can be a time charterer for a specific period of time, or it could be a voyage charter for a specific voyage, or it could be what we know as a bareboat charter, which is basically the use of the boat for a period of time for whatever purpose--the master can speak on the behalf of the charter at times, and he can speak on behalf of an owner at times.

Transport committee  Do you mean the amendments in general for marine liability? The implications are that it would be a good thing and they would harmonize. Shipping is a very international business, and the pollution parts of the bill.... The supplementary fund has an international focus and it would basically give Canada more money in the event of a spill if a convention ship or a tanker was involved.

Transport committee  You're correct, that's not a question I can answer. Things take many years for a whole bunch of reasons. Sister ship arrest is a good example. You'll find sister ship arrest provisions in this bill. Sister ship arrest is a tool that ship lawyers have in their armoury. You don't use it all the time, but when you do use it, it's a very effective tool.

Transport committee  There's case law and precedent; it will be business as usual for the adventure tourism industry.

Transport committee  That's correct, Mr. Bevington. What I'm saying is that if you take adventure tourism out of part 4, it goes back to the way it was. All part 4 does is say that waivers are null and void, so if you're out of part 4 and you're in adventure tourism activity, waivers are there. If a waiver is well written, it stands up.

Transport committee  I believe they are. The message I've been getting is that they were happy before 2000 and they will be happy after 2000 if you pass the bill as it exists today.