Thank you.
In your own submission here, you referred to:
A unique feature of the Canadian market as it existed prior to August was that most ABCP...were supported by “General Market Disruption” lines...rather than the deterioration of creditworthiness of the issuer or its assets. This left the Canadian ABCP market more exposed to the risk that investors would be unwilling to roll their paper at maturity.
We all understand that. My question to the superintendent earlier was left, I must say, somewhat unanswered, because this was indeed a unique feature of the Canadian market. It was recognized before August, or perhaps should have been recognized before August, and the answer that OSFI is only responsible for protecting deposits does not address, then, why it was OSFI that did the recommendation that the zero capital charges for market disruption liquidity lines be removed. If it was OSFI that after August made a point of recommending that we go to global liquidity lines, why is it not then arguable, at least, that OSFI had some responsibility to address or to at least understand the risk associated with the unique nature of the Canadian market?