I had other questions regarding the hazards and the indebtedness ratio, but I would like to come back to Mr. Timothy Hodgson's role—perhaps I will be more calm than my colleague was.
As I have already been awarded contracts as a consultant for governments, I know that there are cooling-off periods. They depend on the period of time during which one has worked. There is always a minimum period, and this period is established by considering the nature of the position that was previously occupied and the nature of the upcoming position.
Just now, you introduced Mr. Hodgson as a very high-level adviser with regard to the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, with regard to maintaining the resiliency of the pension markets and the adequacy of the capital of financial institutions. In fact, this is how he is introduced. Up to this point, I agree. I think that he was hired because of his exceptional capabilities in these areas, for 18 months. We could say in more familiar terms that when you come out of the Bank of Canada, you're less naive; you have gained some value, and valuable knowledge.
Besides, I also note that he is the chief representative of the bank in Toronto with regard to monetary policy. From Toronto, he directs a team from the Bank to maintain communications with the Toronto financial markets. Mr. Hodgson currently sits on two committees, and one is the very important Monetary Policy Review Committee, and the other is the Financial System Review Committee.
I would like to have a simple yes or no answer to my question. At the time when Mr. Hodgson was hired, did the contract between him and the bank indicate the details about the cooling-off period, as we could say as well in Chinese or in Latin as in English? I do believe in foresight, but, in other words, was he already aware of what his cooling-off period would be? Was this provided right from the outset in the hiring contract?