Questioning the chair and the president, Mr. Latulippe, is the committee's responsibility. The committee's responsibility is to ask him the kinds of probing questions that will allow him to give the people of Canada an idea, a sense of the direction in which he wishes to go. We are not opposed to the directors who have been appointed by either the current or the previous government--past directors and present directors, and I believe we're talking about one of each--coming and giving their perspectives, because those people are appointed by the Government of Canada. You'll see that I have gone full circle back to where I started. What is this committee about? What is any standing committee about?
Any standing committee has a responsibility to the people of Canada to ask the tough questions of the deputy ministers and the assistant deputy ministers, because those are the bureaucrats who are appointed by the Prime Minister. We have every right to speak to the ministers and their respective chiefs of staff, because those are the people who are appointed by the Prime Minister. Those are the people who are responsible for carrying out the activities. Therefore, by having a past director--a retired director--and a new director come here, we would end up gaining a perspective from people who have been appointed by the government, hence our responsibility. We would have a picture of the past--and if there are some controversies, there's no question, they'll be brought to the floor--and a picture of the future as to where that director sees us going.
As I said, certainly having the president and chair come will give us--and therefore the people of Canada through the fact that these proceedings are broadcast--an opportunity to understand where that person, on behalf of the current government, sees Rights and Democracy going. So it seems to me, if we were to carry out our true singular responsibility to the people of Canada, we would have some recommendations from knowledgeable professionals as to where we should go. We will have testimony from people who were formerly directors and involved in the current poor situation. We will have people who will tell us where we are going to go. Most importantly, we will have a better idea of where Rights and Democracy would be going, because, clearly, the new president, once he's gazetted, will be able to explain to us what direction the government wants to go.
Because this is a political issue, clearly it is going to continue to bring press. I can easily visualize that after any of those testimonies the opposition, of course, will be trying to enhance all of the negative that undoubtedly will have occurred as a result of the testimony of the prior director. They will be trying to downplay or certainly pick apart the testimony of the new president and the new director, because that's what the political process in Canada is about, and that's fine. I've had the good fortune of being involved in it for a fair length of time, and I deeply respect it. But I say again to this committee, the difficulty is that if we end up going down this route, whether we're talking about the CBC example or the EDC example, we are basically wandering off course. We are completely off course as to what a parliamentary committee is about.
I must say, considering the number of senior members of the House who are on this committee, I'm a little bit surprised that they haven't arrived at the same conclusion that I have. The only thing I can possibly think is that perhaps there is an issue of politics here. I don't know, it's entirely possible that the opposition at this particular point has so few targets at which to aim because our government is doing such a phenomenal job. I read headline after headline about how wonderfully we are doing in the world.
I should say these are not at all from what we would call friendly media. I mean, they are critical media, as they should be. When I see the kind of headline that I saw in The Globe and Mail last Saturday morning—which is a responsible publication, but certainly no one would ever say that they are on the government's side—I can understand why the opposition is trying to find any old target to be able to take a shot at. I mean, that headline said it all. I mean, it was talking about the fact that our economy was leading the class in the world. Certainly our currency is going ahead in leaps and bounds. In Britain at this particular point, with its election coming up in May or June, it's interesting to note the amount of attention they're paying to our banking system.
I'm going to say something positive. I want to say something positive about my Liberal friends. I think it's probably a half-decent example of who we are as Canadians. Having been in business long before I was crazy enough to get into politics, I can recall I used to get really frustrated with the banks and the banking system. It used to drive me crazy because we were all so cautious. Then we took a look at the way investments were made in Canada, and all of the rules and regulations that surround us. I mean, crumbs, if you want to open an account with a bank in order to trade shares, they want to know every possible detail, like how many fillings you have in your mouth. It's amazing. That used to drive me crazy, right up to the point that I realized successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, prior to our Conservative government, have paid a lot of attention to banks, banking, and investments. I think it says an awful lot about us as Canadians.
I give credit where credit is due to prior governments of all political stripes—whatever they were, I give credit where credit is due. Now we have the entire world looking at where we are. Based on the foundation that our government was given of a sound banking system, of sound regulations regarding the CMHC, all of those things, based on what we were given, we took and we enhanced them. I will boast about the fact that we enhanced them, but the point is that we as Canadians have always had a very responsible attitude toward our banks and our security.
Now, I guess my point is that if I were in the opposition, I might be looking to try to fabricate some stories about Afghan detainee abuse, I might be trying to create more tumult over the Rights and Democracy issue, I might be trying to call down and implicate any number of people in ways that are not really beneficial to political dialogue. Regrettably, that is the conclusion I have to arrive at.