Thank you.
I understand that you'll have hearings in more detail on this, and since it's quite a technical issue I won't take a lot of time.
I think the key points to make in this regard are that the possibility, the treatment in regulation, that there might be conditional or unconditional commitments was recognized worldwide; that the rules that OSFI had in this regard, the differential treatment between conditional and unconditional treatment, were well aligned with those of other regulators; and that the transactions involved were not necessarily under the purview of OSFI. That is to say that a number of the financial institutions that were providing this conditional liquidity support were regulated by their home regulators, not by OSFI.
We could go into more detail, but that will take us far from Bill C-50.