There was a bit of confusion about global-style liquidity versus general market disruption. You say near the beginning of your comments that Canada was virtually unique in having these general market disruption clauses. Then you say this was not a decision made by the regulators. I assume there were four reasons for this: (1) all parties wanted it that way; (2) the rating agency agreed, which perhaps was unique to Canada; (3) the investors liked it that way; and (4) OSFI permitted it. Is that a fair statement?
On June 16th, 2008. See this statement in context.