Thank you.
On my question, we talked a bit about the negative amortization that's going on with the extension of amortization periods that banks have undertaken in order to prevent defaults on mortgages. I recognize that this is a way for banks to protect their profit. I also recognize it's a really important thing for Canadians right now who are in a difficult space. If they weren't able to extend their amortization period, they would likely be out of a home. That's had a stabilizing effect that may be working to some extent at cross-purposes with the monetary policy of the bank, but we've also seen that monetary policy has been able to reduce inflation, notwithstanding the fact that this activity is going on. There's certainly a benefit to Canadian households that I approve of.
Employment insurance can operate in a similar fashion when we see challenging outcomes for Canadian families. The extent of employment insurance available can have impacts on demand and supply.
I recognize that you don't want to comment on employment insurance as a fiscal policy, but I would be curious to know how the bank incorporates the adequacy of employment insurance into its forecasts for supply and demand at a macro level when you're thinking about the impact of interest rates on the economy.
Could you give us a little insight into how or whether you consider employment insurance policy as bearing on the impact for Canadian families or on the kind of macro analysis you have of the economy?