Again, I think we've had some good suggestions.
It can't be just about income or just about part-time or full-time status or permanency. I think a good place to start—or another ingredient to add in, if you will—is the intention of the parties. What are the individuals who are in the employment worker relationship seeking? As I've said, going back to slide 5, if you're looking to address the older worker who is retired and is enjoying.... I had an Uber driver in a really nice car; I got lucky one day. He is a car aficionado and is retired and does this three months of the year, and he's in Florida for another four. He's thrilled to get out for a few hours a day and talk to individuals. It gets him out the door every day. Is this person with a decent government pension who has a great lifestyle, frankly, the person we need to protect, or is it the full-time, minimum wage workers who are seeking different protections? Are we trying to protect the part-time teenage worker who's living at home and is learning how to be in the workforce for the first time, or a student who is trying to work two part-time jobs to ensure that they pay their tuition?
Those are the constraints that I think the committee needs to be careful of, and it's again why we try to do a bit of data-based, evidence-based myth busting, if you will, to show that it's not a crisis. There has been no increase in precarious employment. The data for the last 20 years have stayed relatively stable. If the solution is a bit more focused, can we then spend the limited resources that we have helping individuals who need it?