Thank you for those questions.
First of all, the Bank of Canada's intervention policy continues to be an option in Canada. Although rarely used—I believe that is correct—it is nevertheless an option. We can intervene in cases of market failures or when the value of our currency could have a serious impact on our mid-term economic prospects.
Second, history has shown us that if an intervention is not accompanied by other measures, it just doesn't work. If it only has an effect for a day or a week, it will be a failure. All that does is put money in the pockets of speculators, in my opinion.
Another very important question has to do with monetary union, which involves a lot of disadvantages. It has the advantage of reducing transaction costs, but the disadvantage is that it leads to a loss of monetary sovereignty. Monetary sovereignty is important for economies which are very different, such as those of Canada and the U.S. There is a greater difference between Canada and the United States than there is with France or Germany, for example. Another disadvantage of monetary union is that the Bank would lose its accountability. Financial stability raises certain issues, particularly the matter of who will act as the lender of last resort.
I was living in Europe at the time the euro was adopted and I know a number of executives who were involved in that process. The pooling of sovereignty was a major political issue. It was a way of achieving political union among the countries. The choice of the euro is more of a political choice than it is an economic choice.