I now call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 19, the committee is meeting on its study of the report of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of September 23. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons' website.
Just so that you are aware, the webcast will show the person speaking, rather than the entire committee.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few of the rules. Seeing that we have witnesses, I will go through them today. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have a choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French audio. For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in this committee room. There are four of us here. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you're not speaking, your microphone should be on “mute”.
Committee members have sent me the order of questioners, so we will go by that.
I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. We're pleased to have with us today the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem.
Let me say, Mr. Macklem, congratulations on your appointment as Governor of the Bank of Canada and welcome to this committee. I know you've been here before, and I guess before most of our times here, but welcome again.
With the governor is the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Wilkins.
Carolyn, you've been at this committee many times before the members who sit on this committee. I know that before too long you're going on to other ventures. We wish you well in those ventures. I sincerely want to thank you for your work with the Bank of Canada over the last number of years and for your appearances at the committee. I don't think any member can deny that your information was always forthright and valuable. Thank you, then, for your appearances before this committee and for your work with the Bank of Canada. All the best in new ventures.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Macklem. The floor is yours. You have a number of remarks, and then we'll go to questions.
First on our questioners list, I believe, is Ms. Jansen, followed by Mr. Fraser.
Thank you, Chair, for your kind words to both of us. Senior Deputy Governor Wilkins and I are very pleased to be back to discuss our monetary policy report with you and the committee, and also to discuss the outlook for the Canadian economy.
The main message is that we will get through this pandemic, but it's going to be a tough slog, and the Bank of Canada will be there with Canadians every step of the way.
Let me briefly summarize our outlook for the economy.
Our projection is highly conditional on our assumptions about the virus.
We assumed that authorities won’t need to reinstate the sort of extensive and widespread containment measures we saw in the spring. But we can expect successive waves of the virus to require localized restrictions. We also assumed that vaccines and effective treatments will be widely available by mid-2022. Since we released the Monetary Policy Report, the MPR, four weeks ago, news about vaccines has been encouraging, while virus cases have continued to rise and containment measures have escalated.
Since June, the Canadian economy has bounced back sharply as many businesses have reopened. We have regained close to 80% of the jobs lost since the start of the pandemic. But the economy still has more than 600,000 fewer jobs than it did before the pandemic. The current job losses are concentrated in the services sector, particularly in lower-wage jobs where physical distancing is difficult. That is why the income support measures put in place have been so important for the recovery.
We judge that the very rapid growth of the reopening phase is now over, and the economy has entered in the slower-growth recuperation phase. For 2020 as a whole, we expect that the economy will have shrunk by about 5.5% percent. Given the math involved in calculating annual growth rates, we expect annual growth to average almost 4% in 2021 and 2022. But we anticipate that this growth will be uneven across sectors and choppy over time. Some parts of the economy will simply be unable to completely reopen until a vaccine becomes widely available. And some regions that were weaker before the pandemic—such as the energy-intensive parts of Canada—will face greater difficulties than others. When we add it up, we project that the economy will still be operating below its potential into 2023.
Inflation is also unusually weak. and should remain below our target range of 1 to 3% until early next year. After that, we project it will rise gradually. But with the economy continuing to operate below its potential, inflation is projected to remain less than 2% into 2023.
The outlook and the historic nature of the COVID-19 shock mean that the economy will continue to need extraordinary monetary policy support as it recuperates, so let me spend a few minutes discussing our policy response.
We lowered our policy interest rate to 0.25%, which we judge to be its effective lower bound. We have committed to keeping our policy interest rate at its effective lower bound until slack is absorbed so that the 2% inflation target is sustainably achieved. In our current outlook, this takes us into 2023.
Our forward guidance is being reinforced and supplemented by a program of quantitative easing, or QE. I want to take a moment to explain how QE works and discuss the adjustments to our program that we announced last month.
Normally, when we want more monetary stimulus to achieve our inflation target, we lower the target for the overnight interest rate. That leads to lower interest rates further out on the yield curve at the maturities where households and businesses typically borrow.
When our policy interest rate is at its effective lower bound, QE provides an additional way of reducing the interest rates that matter for households and businesses. By increasing the demand for government bonds, QE acts to lower their interest rates. This reduces the borrowing costs for households and businesses. In this way, QE is another tool that supports the spending and investments that are needed to help create jobs and get the economy back to capacity, and to achieve our inflation target. We buy these bonds on the secondary market from financial institutions, and we pay for the bonds by creating settlement balances, or central bank reserves. This ability to create reserves is a very special ability. It's something that only central banks have. That’s why it’s important that central banks are independent from governments.
At the outset of the pandemic, in March and April, core credit markets were seizing up as economic activity plummeted and uncertainty soared. If core funding markets aren’t working, neither is the economy, and we can’t implement monetary policy. So the bank launched a number of programs to restore market functioning, including the Government of Canada bond purchase program. The program was launched at a pace of at least $5 billion per week. Purchases were mostly of shorter-maturity bonds where issuance was strongest.
These purchases led to a substantial increase in the size of our balance sheet. We were able to move more aggressively because before the pandemic, the bank’s balance sheet was small compared with those of other central banks. In the first chart, which we have provided to you, you can see that the value of assets we hold relative to the size of our economy remains relatively low compared with that of our peers.
As other central banks took similar actions, global financial conditions stabilized. This, together with our own actions, restored market functioning in Canada. Since July we have scaled back or ended the active use of many of the programs we had set up when markets were not functioning properly. In particular, we stopped buying bankers’ acceptances. We're not buying Canada mortgage bonds or provincial money market securities. Our corporate bond purchase program has been used very infrequently since July. We also took a series of steps to reduce our purchases of Government of Canada treasury bills in the primary market. At the peak, we were buying as much as 40% of the T-bill auction. As of November 24, we're buying in a range of zero to 10%. The focus of our bond purchases has now shifted squarely to providing the monetary stimulus required to support the recovery and get inflation back to target. As you can see in the second chart, our balance sheet has been relatively stable since July.
This brings me to today. Markets continue to function well. We're providing exceptional forward guidance, reinforced and supplemented by our bond purchases. Our guidance has anchored interest rates at the short end of the yield curve. That means we no longer need to buy as many short-term government bonds as we did at the start of the pandemic.
We've recalibrated, or adjusted, our quantitative easing program. To increase the efficiency of our purchases, we're buying fewer bonds at shorter maturities, and more at longer maturities. This shift is increasing the stimulative impact of our QE program per dollar purchased. Essentially by concentrating on purchase at longer maturities, we can have a bigger impact on the interest rates—
This shift is increasing the stimulative impact of our quantitative easing program per dollar purchased. By concentrating purchases at longer maturities, we can have a bigger impact on the interest rates that are most important for households and businesses. This is allowing us to reduce our total minimum weekly purchases to $4 billion while still providing as much monetary stimulus.
Our QE program will continue until the recovery is well under way.
I hope this provides a good explanation of the bank's outlook and the policy response.
We work for Canadians, and it's essential that we be accountable to them, and appearances like this one are an important part of that accountability. Beyond this, monetary policy works better when it's well understood. The pandemic and the extraordinary actions we are taking in response only make it more important that we speak clearly and listen attentively to Canadians.
We want to be very clear: Canadians can be confident that borrowing costs are going to remain very low for a long time. In this way, our forward guidance combined with the QE program reduce one source of uncertainty. These efforts will help support the spending and investment that the economy needs to restore the lost jobs and achieve our inflation target.
Finally, Chair, if I can take a minute, at the risk of embarrassing my colleague, to say a few words, as you did, to recognize our deputy governor, Carolyn Wilkins.
As you know, Ms. Wilkins has decided not to seek a second term, and she's going to be leaving us after our next monetary policy decision in December. Ms. Wilkins has spent her entire career working for the people of Canada, with the past 20 years at the Bank of Canada. As senior deputy governor, she's provided tremendous leadership as a policy-maker. In particular, her experience has been instrumental in helping design the bank's response to the pandemic. She has been a champion for research and diversity at the bank and has driven the work that will underpin the next renewal of our inflation-targeting agreement. Thanks to Ms. Wilkins, the bank has become a global thought leader in fintech and digital currencies. She has served Canada with distinction as the bank's representative at the G7 and the G20 and the Financial Stability Board.
On a more personal note, I can tell you that her deep understanding of the Canadian economy and her insights at the policy table are going to be very difficult to replace. Her commitment to Canadians, her intellectual leadership and her good judgment are second to none. On behalf of every Canadian, I want to thank her for her service and wish her every future success.
Thank you, Chair. With that, Senior Deputy Governor Wilkins and I would be very pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I'm going to start on a line of questioning about the intersection between fiscal and monetary policy as part of the pandemic response.
Mr. Macklem, you've led off your remarks describing the fact that there's a public health threat that has posed a serious risk to our economy. It's not as though there's some fundamental, underpinning problem with the economy, but instead, an exogenous shock to the economy.
You've made a number of decisions, as the Bank, to reduce our interest rate to the effective lower bound, as well as the quantitative easing that you described in your opening testimony. This says to me that you may have used the tools in your tool bag, and if I'm looking to find the tools to continue to solve the pandemic response, either from a public health or economic perspective, the remaining tool is really fiscal policy.
Can you describe to me where you think the federal government should aim its sights to most effectively deal with the pandemic? Specifically, should we be targeting public health measures that will help eliminate this virus quickly and, second, getting cash to those households and businesses that are in need by extending life support to them effectively, so they're still here when this pandemic is over to help the economy come back once the virus is behind us?
I'm really going to leave those decisions to parliamentarians. As I highlighted in my opening remarks, clearly the evolution of the pandemic has very important implications for the economy. Lives and livelihoods are very closely related. People need to feel safe. They need to feel like they can conduct their business and remain healthy and their families can remain healthy. That's core to their confidence. That's going to be core to their ability to participate in the economy. I don't see that there's really a big trade-off here. The two need to go together.
With respect to the specific fiscal measures, I'm going to leave those to parliamentarians. I will say, though, that we are providing a considerable amount of monetary policy stimulus. We've indicated that will need to continue for some time. Certainly, the amount of monetary space we have is limited, but I wouldn't want to give the impression that there are not other things we can do. We do have the capacity to do more if needed.
As I was just highlighting, we own about 30% of the government debt. There's ample potential to scale up our quantitative easing if that were needed. There are other types of programs. Other central banks have used things like yield curve control. We could potentially lower the effective lower bound, even without going negative to 25 basis points. It could be a little bit lower.
Negative interest rates are in our toolkit, although that is not something we're actively discussing and we don't think it would be terribly helpful at this time.
I don't want to give the impression there's nothing else we can do. If needed, there are things we could do.
First, I would like to thank Governor Macklem for his interesting presentation.
I would also like to thank Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins.
I would like to go back to your comments to Mr. Wayne Easter, the chair of our committee, and to tell you once again how grateful we are for each of your appearances here with the committee.
Your comments were clear and informative. When you answered our questions, we always learned something. I also commend you and Mr. Macklem on your command of the French language.
I'll begin by talking about inflation.
Mr. Macklem or Ms. Wilkins, has maintaining control over inflation, a key criterion of the Bank of Canada for several decades, been a factor during the crisis so far?
I'd like to begin by thanking you for your comments. I appreciate them and it's very good of you.
The short answer is yes, very much so. Inflation appears to be remote from the current problems people are facing, such as losing their jobs and uncertainty. At the same time, a low and stable inflation rate is very important for business and personal planning.
Our methods for stabilizing inflation also include stabilizing the economy and placing it on a strong foundation. This makes it possible for jobs to come back, for the economy to recover and for businesses to become more profitable. Even though our target is inflation, some of the factors we take into account, like production capacity and employment, affect people directly.
There are of course other ways of handling monetary policy. I suggest that you go to our website and consult all of our communications pertaining to possible frameworks for monetary policy other than those we are discussing at the moment.
One of my concerns is that inflation has remained below the target during the current crisis, as the Governor reminded us in his introduction. In his final answer to my colleague, Mr. Fraser, he even mentioned that we were more likely in a period of deflation than inflation at the moment.
Although I understand that it may be only temporary, I'm worried about some disparities in a number of economic sectors, particularly for certain assets. While inflation has remained below the targets, I'm afraid that bubbles might form in some sectors, like the stock market or real estate. Examples of this might include principal and secondary residences in the residential sector.
Do you look at and analyze these aspects of the economy? If so, what is your reading on the possible risk of bubbles in these sectors?
We look at financial markets very closely, and the price of assets in these markets. We also look at the real estate market. My colleague Toni Gravelle gave a speech this week specifically on the topic of households and businesses.
We all noticed a strong rebound in the real estate market this summer. We believe this was largely because of suppressed demand, by which I mean that there were people who wanted to buy a house, but could not. So when things began to open up again, everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
What we are seeing at the moment in these markets is not exactly what happened in Vancouver and elsewhere in 2016. There is not much speculation yet, but we need to continue to monitor it. It's too early in the recovery phase to really know. We're going to keep a close eye on it.
As for assets like the stock market or the fixed income market, it is unwise for a banker working at the Bank of Canada to comment. I can say that when we look at what's happening, it's normal for prices to increase when the interest rate goes down. It's part of the monetary policy transmission mechanism.
I am not commenting here on prices or on the fact that they appear normal and fair. It's up to the financial market to decide.
You're right that there's strong growth in savings. In our forecasts, we assumed that most of these higher savings would be permanent. Households will use them to pay down debt or to invest. We believe that they will spend some, but not most, of these savings.
It's also possible, particularly once there is a vaccine, that households will spend more than we have forecast. If so, the economy will bounce back more quickly. We shall see.
We use our judgment when making forecasts. There are a few upside risks, but also some downside risks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Governor Macklem and Deputy Governor Wilkins, for being here today. We always appreciate your visits to the finance committee.
Deputy Governor Wilkins, we wish you all the best in your future. We certainly hope, during this pandemic, that your families and your loved ones are safe and healthy.
This has been a traumatic and tragic period in Canadian history, what many people have attributed as the biggest convulsion, brought on by this pandemic, since the Second World War.
As you will recall, through the Second World War and in the aftermath, there was a change in function and mandate for the Bank of Canada. This week, many people, including dozens of economists in Le Devoir, have pointed to other central banks, for example, in New Zealand, where the mandate has been enlarged
For a generation, we've been focused on inflation control. People are saying, and many economists are in agreement, that the mandate should include, for example, pushing back against the massive inequality we've seen through this pandemic, dealing with and supporting the transition we have to make to deal with the climate emergency, and even looking at full employment.
I'd like your reaction, Governor Macklem, to these voices saying that the mandate needs to be broadened, so that we can tackle the challenges we have going through the pandemic, and the aftermath.
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.
The points you raise are extremely important.
As Ms. Wilkins highlighted, we are doing a thorough review of our framework. I think what it's showing is that under some circumstances, some modifications can do better, but there's nothing that does systematically better.
We're not finished that review. and it would be premature to provide any conclusions. We are certainly looking at these issues.
What I will say, though—and I want to stress it—is that we take these things into account. The Bank of Canada Act tells us to promote the economic and financial well-being of Canadians. The inflation target, really, is the way we do that.
In order to keep inflation sustainably at 2%, we need to be very conscious of what's going on in labour markets. If there's a lot of unemployment, inflation is going to fall.
We are seeing that this crisis is widening divides in society, and inequality is something we have been talking about. It is a concern. If this recovery leaves some people behind, the productive capacity of our economy will be reduced. The sustainability of our own recovery will be reduced.
These things are factored in, but I think what we've learned over time is that we have to keep control of inflation while we do what we can for these other factors. If we lose sight of anchoring inflation expectations, then nothing works better: there are worse inflation outcomes, there are worse employment outcomes.
Climate change—I spoke about this last week—is going to be a major force in the economy over the next few decades. It's really important that the Bank of Canada understand the implications of climate change for the economy and for inflation.
We also have a role to promote the efficiency and stability of the financial system. We're already doing a fair amount of work on the stability of the financial system. If we have a very disruptive adjustment to climate change, we're going to see a big re-pricing of assets, a big revaluation of companies. That could spill into our financial system. It could certainly impair the ability of the financial system to support the real economy. It could even lead to instability in the financial system.
We began last year, in our financial system review, analyzing and discussing climate risks, largely those to the financial system. Last week we announced a pilot project with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and six financial institutions to develop scenario analysis.
That's a tool, effectively. There's a lot of uncertainty about climate change and what the implications are, but the idea is that uncertainty shouldn't be an excuse for inaction. We're going to work with OSFI and these six financial institutions to develop some scenarios that financial institutions could use to assess their own risks. We'll use it to help them with risk management and work with them to develop a methodology and an approach to doing so. The idea is to make this easier for everyone.
I'll underline a couple of things. First of all, using balance sheet is part of our extended tool kit. It is an unusual thing. It's not something we've done before, but we haven't had a pandemic before. We have never before had the type of collapse in economic activity we've seen in recent months.
There is more uncertainty about it, and I could certainly understand that Canadians would have questions about it, but as I tried to outline in my opening remarks, it's really an alternative way for us to lower interest rates. Normally, we lower interest rates by simply lowering the policy rate, but now that the policy rate is at its effective lower bound, we can't do that anymore. Therefore, to lower rates further out the yield curve where households and businesses borrow, we buy government bonds and that pulls it down. Yes, it's a different tool, but it works effectively in the same way as our traditional tool.
In terms of our balance sheet, we've been very careful in our policies to define the conditions under which we would exit. With respect to quantitative easing, we've indicated that we will continue the program until the recovery is well under way. Once we decide that the recovery is sufficiently self-sustaining, it's well under way and it doesn't need quantitative easing anymore, other central banks have exited from this and there are a number of steps you could take.
That's still some time off, so we haven't made any decisions yet. However, to give you a picture of what that looks like, the first thing is that you'd buy less; then you'd stop buying, but keep reinvesting the bonds that roll off, to keep your balance sheet stable. The next thing you could do would be to stop reinvesting, so as things roll off, your balance sheet would go down gradually, and if you needed to, you could even sell assets and tighten monetary policy more quickly. Certainly if you became concerned that inflation was breaking out, that is something you could do.
With respect to interest rates, we've indicated that we would hold the policy rate at the effective lower bound until slack is absorbed. Again, that defines the conditions for exit. Once slack is absorbed, I think you could expect that we would begin to raise interest rates. Again, that's some time into the future. In our own projection, it's in 2023.
It's true that there has for a long time been talk about high debt levels among certain stakeholders, both businesses and households, not only in Canada, but internationally as well. I can't speak about the solvency of the provinces individually. That question would have to go to someone else.
One way of understanding the financial markets' standpoint on risk is to look at risk premiums when provinces issue bonds. When we launched our program, it was very low, but the goal was to find a way of improving market performance. It was not intended to finance the provinces, but it worked for them. For Ontario and Quebec, the risk premium went to 120 basis points, which is nevertheless quite high. Today, it stands at half that figure. Risk premiums have dropped in all provinces.
Because the market is working better, we are no longer required to perform the same role that we did in the spring.
Thank you, Governor Macklem and Senior Deputy Governor Wilkins, for being here today.
Governor, first of all, you talked about the need for citizens to be able to trust their institutions and those who run their institutions. We have some members of the opposition who have perpetuated a theory that has developed since the onset of the pandemic that suggests there is a plot under way to impose some sort of socialist world order onto the world in the interests of the elite—the elite being in the financial sector, the politicos of the world—who want to remake the world in some sort of socialist image, if I can put it that way.
That's what I understand about this conspiracy theory called the “great reset”. I can't believe I'm asking this question at a parliamentary committee, but trust is the essential glue of democracy. Is there any merit to this idea?
I have a minute remaining for the subject of climate change, which I know you are incredibly passionate about. I think it is fair to say that after the 2008 recession, the issue of climate change was more or less ignored by governments, not just at the federal level in this country but in other democracies as well.
We have an opportunity now to get serious about climate change, and I'm glad to see the government move in the direction of embracing a net-zero vision going forward, but what would you say to those who suggest that, instead of seizing the day and focusing on climate change, we should put that aside in favour of more traditional approaches to economic growth and the economic recovery that will follow the pandemic?
Governor, what are your thoughts on that? Can we still focus on climate change and do what's right by the economy? Can we chew gum and walk at the same time, so to speak?
Last week at the Public Policy Forum, I did make some remarks on the topic of climate change, in particular what the Bank of Canada is doing with respect to climate change.
What I would say is that climate change is becoming a competitiveness issue for Canadian businesses. Increasingly, consumers, investors and workers care about the environmental footprint of the products they buy, the companies they work for and the companies they are investing in, and that's being reflected in capital flows. As you mentioned, and I would agree with you, coming out of 2008-09, climate change was put on the back burner.
This time, interestingly, this crisis seems to have elevated people's attention to the need to build greater resilience and avoid catastrophes, and with that, you're seeing very large flows of capital into environmental, social and governance, so-called ESG types of investments. The rapid acceleration of money into those types of investments has not slowed down through this crisis.
I want to start by saying an enormous thanks to you, Governor, and to the deputy governor, for your tremendous leadership during this pandemic and for your wonderful service to our nation.
I'm going to start with you, Governor. I have three sets of questions, so I'm going to try to get through them very quickly.
You mentioned that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio. You also mentioned that the emergency support programs we've implemented have been very helpful to our economy and prevented a worse outcome.
Can you please tell us how Canada compares with our G7 allies in how we are doing?
You have spent quite a bit of time today talking about how this pandemic has widened the divide in our country and saying that it could worsen further if we don't have the right response. You also indicated, a little earlier in your testimony, that our income supports have been very helpful.
We are known, I believe, to be very generous with our emergency supports. We've created a very flexible EI system, we have the Canada recovery benefit, we've put in a tremendous amount into training and retraining, and I believe that it's anticipated that we will be providing—I don't know when this will be happening—sector supports to those sectors that have been disproportionately impacted.
What more could we be doing? I think this government, from the very beginning when we were elected in 2015—when we increased taxes on the top 1% or reduced them on the middle class and then introduced the Canada child benefit—has been extraordinarily concerned about income inequality. All of our measures are very much concerned about this as well. Is there something we're not doing that we should be doing?
We've said publicly that we commit to keeping interest rates where they are, which is low, until the output gaps and the economy are operating at full capacity. According to our forecast, that's not soon; that's somewhere in 2023. To get an increase after that of 1% or more is a function of how well the economy is doing.
If we're in a situation where we can raise interest rates back to a more neutral level, which we now think is about two and a quarter per cent, that's very good news for Canadians, and it's very good news for businesses and households. That's point number one.
In terms of those costs, when you talk about raising interest rates, we raise the short-term interest rate but the markets decide what longer-term interest rates are going to be. This includes rates that are faced by businesses, households and governments. The ultimate impact on borrowers depends on what happens to that interest rate curve. You can do calculations but they're all going to be hypothetical until it actually happens.
We're not trying to be coy by not giving specific numbers; we're trying to be realistic about what we can know for sure.
Back to your question, when interest rates start to rise it's going to be because the Canadian economy is on a solid footing.
I would like to say one last word.
The last six and a half years as senior deputy governor have been an honour. You show a lot of respect for the Bank of Canada and a lot of confidence in me. I'd like to thank you for that. I'm really proud of what the bank has accomplished with the team, and I know going forward that it is in excellent hands with Tiff Macklem and the whole team.
I don't see any objection to that point of order.
Not from you, Gabriel?
Mr. Ste-Marie said he just wanted to say the same thing in French.
I think that's a good note to end on.
Thank you, both, for your appearance.
I do know that at the Bank of Canada, certainly during the early times of this pandemic, every single one of the staff within the bank would be working long hours trying to figure out solutions.
Please pass our thanks to them as well.
Again, thank you very much for your appearance.
Steering committee members, we will reconvene in a few moments. You'll have to sign out and then sign back in.
This meeting is adjourned.