Well, I've made reference to it in my previous remarks, but it caused me great concern that the drafters of this legislation were directed to put language in place that would essentially cause the directors of the company, the government-appointed directors, to implement--it directs them to implement--the government's wishes and directions, and they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of those directions.
I'm confused by the choice of language. I can imagine what the intent was, but when language is ambiguous and open to where reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what they're after, you look to what the intent was of the drafters. I can only assume that the intent of the drafters, as directed by the government, was to put this safety valve in place for the directors, which makes them anything but directors.
I've been a director on an employee benefit fund, for instance, where you go through training about your fiduciary responsibilities, your liabilities ,and your obligations. It's not something you go into lightly, because there are real ramifications.
Well, this seems to absolve them of any of those normal responsibilities and obligations to act in the best interests of the people you're elected--or in this case, appointed--to represent. I don't understand what the difference is between these directors and an employee of the minister. Therefore, I'm suggesting we delete that clause altogether and, by default, allow the ordinary rules of corporate governance to have primacy here, where a director would know what their role is as a director, and it's not to be the flunky of the Minister of Agriculture.