Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll take some of the time, but I'll split it a little bit with you. I know you're substituting in the chair today. I will give you a little time at the end of my time. Thank you.
Thank you, Justice. I really appreciate your being here today and for the obvious extensive knowledge of what you've written about.
On page 201, you've written:
There is no doubt that Hockey Canada has been served by directors who are passionate about hockey, deeply committed to the organization's mission, vision and values and who donate large amounts of time and energy—often unreasonably large amounts—to the organization's governance. However, confidence is not only a matter of objective fact, but of reasonable perception and there is an overwhelming perception on the part of important stakeholders that the leadership of Hockey Canada does not deserve their confidence.
You made a statement. You talked about looking for facts. However, you've made a judgment here about what people were contributing to an organization and that their contribution, though you suggested it was “unreasonable”, went astray.
Can you give me some of the judgment analysis that you made to make that kind of statement?