Thank you to both of you.
I think we are to be commended for holding this committee meeting today and I'd like to thank those people from the Halifax group as well as Mr. Culpeper for having pushed for this.
Indeed, I'm very glad that we have this opportunity because oftentimes, for many reasons, there is doubt about the real role played by the International Monetary Fund in the world. Given the ambitions it had at its inception and in light of what it has become today, including from a strictly economic and financial point of view, one may be justified in questioning its real role and indeed its very existence. I'd like to hear your opinion on this since you touched upon it in your opening remarks.
It might be a good idea to think about a standing subcommittee on multilateral institutions, given that they are so enormous and because it is really hard to know exactly what they do—it may sound a little strange to say that—in addition to simply relying on their reports to get an understanding of their role. I got to know the World Bank better through a friend who worked there. I also learned a lot through documents I read about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the World Bank.
I'd like to hear your ideas on the best ways of proceeding. Apart from this committee, there is also what you recommended. Is it possible to effect change without parliamentarians taking action throughout the world?
I have been privy to goings-on at the Council of Europe: OECD reports, visits by parliamentarians who took part in working groups at the OECD, and the resulting changes. The OECD has changed a lot, although it is a long way from—It is not exactly the same thing, but I think you can still draw comparisons.
Is there some other type of relationship with parliamentarians which would improve the way these multilateral associations work or indeed, at another level, the objectives of these associations.