Thank you, Chair. I don't have a specific question but a couple of observations. Then maybe I'll ask for some comment relative to those.
It seems to me that, in looking at some of the programs that are announced, they tend to work at cross-purposes relative to some of the issues that are being encountered. I'll use an example that I believe was in the previous presentations, but it might have been at the beginning of this. I can't remember if it was a percentage, but a high percentage of our labour force vacancies are in areas that require less than a grade 12 education. We turn around and focus much of our programming at educating people, and then we talk about digitization or technology.
I assume that, when talking about job vacancies that are unfilled and require less than a grade 12 education, you're probably talking about workers in the service industries. You're talking about long-term care. You're talking about child care. Digitization and technology improvements will do very little for these vacancies, yet we trumpet out a $10 day care program, which is fine, but what does it do? It creates a greater demand for spaces in day cares, and that's where we have the vacancies.
It just seems there are a lot of cross-purposes in what we're actually doing. They're probably being implemented and announced for the right reasons, but to me, they look like they're working at some cross-purposes. I'd just like to get a comment on whether I'm reading that correctly, or whether that is in fact the case.