Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You commended the government on the drafting of this bill. I guess I should also commend you, because you obviously did a lot of very rigorous work. That large document of yours did not come about without a lot of blood, sweat, toil, and tears, I would imagine.
I want to go down the road, just briefly, of Mr. Maloway's questioning, but a little differently. I understand what it's like to be in a director's position and have liability on your shoulders. It's not comfortable, and I can understand why people may make a decision not to serve on a not-for-profit organization because of it.
However, I also know what it feels like when you're the person who has been wronged or damaged by a decision that has been made in an organization. Although there are compliance costs and liabilities in a not-for-profit organization, by virtue of its being not-for-profit—it doesn't serve its members but actually serves the public—there's also a huge public trust denoted in their actions. I have a concern about any liability for misfeasance being removed from directors.
I understand that your case is that for malfeasance it would still be there, but I think we already have in this act a due diligence framework, in proposed subsection 263(5). I'm wondering why you would want to put forward that they be held harmless, particularly because, if I were in the position of a director and there was something questionable, I would want to make sure that my defence was that it was a misfeasance and not a malfeasance.