I'll be very brief in order to give you time, Governor. That was a big question, and an important one.
You're right. There has been a lot of focus on whether central banks can do better than their flexible inflation targeting. Our own research shows that in some dimensions, some other frameworks can do better. As an example, a dual mandate whereby you take into account both inflation and full employment might do better in stabilizing the economy in income space—stabilizing jobs.
At the same time, it does a little worse in stabilizing inflation. That's pretty intuitive. It comes at a cost of not being as simple and as straightforward in what we're actually trying to achieve. It makes it a little more difficult to be accountable for it, in part because you have two targets with one tool, but also because you have a target that is not really observable: no one knows what full employment is.
When it comes to the other objectives—climate change, income inequality—income inequality is certainly something we can take into account when we pick a framework, but monetary policy is a blunt instrument and can't pick and choose where growth happens.
I'll turn it over now to Governor Macklem.