That's a very good question.
On the first one, the agreement pertaining to quota, Canada is participating with its proportional share. The quota determines what our financial contribution is, and a quota system determines the size of our economy and a degree of openness. Roughly speaking, the size of one's economy leads to the amount you must contribute as a commitment to the IMF pending an agreement, and that also translates into voting rights, which you're able to use and exercise when managing the fund.
The basic tenet of the International Monetary Fund, first and foremost, is that it has primary creditor status. It means that whenever it engages in any entity—a sovereignty entity—everything else is subordinated. Whatever happens when the IMF is involved, part of the conditions are that the IMF always gets paid back. That has been the case through the history. When it's been involved, particularly in emerging market crises and Asian crises in the past, agreements under which the IMF lends its balance sheet are always according to very strict stringent conditionality, to which the receiving sovereign must abide in terms of what structuring it needs to make. Then, it's usually monitored very closely by the IMF such that it does in the end get paid back.
The concept of the IMF is that you take a country off borrowing from sovereign markets, you get a lower borrowing rate, and you force it to make structural change such that it's in a position to repay all other countries. At present the IMF has 50 years of experience and a lot of resources at its disposal to withstand any major shock.