Very quickly, it's called price-level targeting, and the idea there is that whereas in inflation targeting what happens, and what happens presently, is that we get up every day and believe it or not the first thing we think about is how do we get inflation to that 2% mandated target over the forecast rate, and we think about 12 to 18 months out. Bygones are bygones. What's happened in the past is the past. Every day we get up, we worry about that.
On price-level targeting, bygones aren't bygones. If inflation was higher in the past, we'd look to make sure that we made up with some inflation that was lower so that overall the price level grew at whatever level was dictated under the agreement, whether it is 2% or 1% or 0%. And obviously there is the converse: if inflation was lower in the past, the effort would be to get it back up.
I'll make one final comment on it, if I may, Chair. There is some discussion in the public domain about the utility of price-level targeting for other jurisdictions in an environment of intense disinflationary or deflationary pressures. So for example in Japan in the 1990s this was looked at, at that time.