I would like to make a quick comment in response to Mr. Hoback's. This is exactly what I was saying. This is the difference between a microeconomic matter and a macroeconomic matter. We are not going to study the composition of people's individual debt. We are going to study the problem as it exists Canada-wide, for Canadians as a whole. That will give us information on the systemic problem.
What causes household debt? Why has it climbed so quickly? We have no answer to that. We cannot just attribute it to mortgages. Other factors come into play. What are those factors that have led to the rapid growth of household debt? We will be able to discover that after studying it in committee. We cannot really claim in advance to have defined the problem and found a solution.
Studies are part of the committee's role. A study like that would not only allow us to gather interesting information that would help the government to deal with the situation, but its results could also be of interest to the Bank of Canada in forming its own monetary policies. So do we really want to stop ourselves from gathering that information?
Comments from Canadians, in the media and from experts, vary considerably at the moment. By rejecting a motion like this, the committee would be missing the opportunity to be able to gather that information. So I encourage everyone to vote in favour of the motion. It is a real concern for Canadians and we cannot ignore it.