I think Gilles picked up a lot of the points I was going to mention.
We clearly acknowledge right up front that we're sliding within the OECD, in aggregate, in income per capita. The link we draw is to productivity, but as Gilles just set out, we then analyze in much greater detail not the jobs per se, but the attributes of the populations behind.
So you look at, as you said, the 40% of our workforce that doesn't have the basic literacy skills to actually adapt. That's where we talk about lifelong learning and the need for skill development in colleges and universities and in the workplace. We actually call upon employers to invest a lot more money in retooling and educating their own workforce on an ongoing basis.
We point to the aboriginal population, and the numbers, frankly, are shocking. Aboriginal kids who get through high school live as well as we do. They have roughly the same life expectancies and their incomes are not different from ours. But if they don't get through that gate, that grade 12 gate, they have a drastically worse life expectancy in every respect.
So I don't think it's a matter of capturing it simply in terms of the employment numbers. I think you also need to drill more into the microfactors. But your data is spot-on, and that's exactly why we focused on sustainable prosperity, on productivity and competitiveness, as such a key driver.