The most acute area of difference is our view on nominal income growth over the next five years, which is why Kevin said there was a structural deficit in 2015. We don't think there is. Frankly, there's lots of room for debate amongst the economists because we're talking about a 1% or 2% difference in the growth line going forward five years. So that's an area of difference.
But in areas of agreement, I heard a number of things that I deeply agree with.
First of all, we're as concerned as anybody about Canada's terrible productivity growth performance. The chart in his presentation showing productivity growth rates dropping on a decade basis is very striking. It's an area where we're doing a lot of research. I, personally, have done a lot of research there. We have to really change the argument now.
To a great degree, as a national economy, we've relied upon a cheap currency to be competitive in the world for way too long, and it's now caught up with us. That started, really, in about 2003-04, as oil prices were rising—and I think they're going to rise further—and the dollar rose along with it because our currency is a petro currency. We really have to come back to the productivity point.
The other point that I was really struck by was his point on demographics, which is going in the other direction. We're kind of caught in a vice right now. On one side is poor productivity performance and on the other side is aging demographics, which is going to mean much slower labour force growth going forward.
That really does suck the life out of our national economy, because population growth is a key driver of economic growth. If we could deal with the productivity issue, we can actually substitute for the slowing labour force growth. But if we do nothing, we're going to end up as a much poorer nation. So I was very struck by his medium-term view, with which I very much agree.