As I was explaining, a lot of the flexibility in the system comes from the fact that households haven't had an income shock in recent years. Yes, the unemployment rate has increased, but most of it has been due to more people coming into the labour force than big layoffs.
I agree that, since the beginning of the year, we've been seeing something a bit more concerning. We've seen some job losses, and the concern is there. Considering how much the average household has to spend of its disposable income to service debt, the question is what the consequences will be of losing this income. It means that a lot of the flexibility that was available to them, by lengthening the amortization of their loans and so forth, disappears suddenly. This will push households toward insolvency. That's the question for me. When I look at it as a macroeconomist, that's when I'm concerned. It makes the Canadian economy much more susceptible to negative shock because, if you have a critical mass of job losses, you could have a big wave of households falling behind and have an increased wave of bankruptcies and insolvencies that would have a further negative impact on the economy and on the financial system.