Thank you for the question.
The report to which I referred is specifically about occupational health. In my opinion, the harmful consequences of precarious work should not become the definition of precarious work. I find it somewhat concerning to say that, when an employer is abusive, it is precarious work. Employment in a unionized multinational company where there is abuse does not mean that the job becomes precarious.
So we must avoid defining work on the assumption that it is precarious if things go wrong and that it is not precarious if things go well or if people do not oppose it. We really need to be very specific about what we are looking at.
The ILO talks about the sectors of activity and issues that need to be addressed. Job insecurity is something that can be measured. We must measure the job insecurity, not its precarious nature. Precariousness means 10, 15 or 20 cumulative variables which, because of the context in which the work is done, put lives at risk. Some studies say that the situation is as bad in Toronto as it is in Sault Ste. Marie. This context must be highlighted for the legislation. So don't try to find a one-size-fits-all definition. You must be specific in your objectives.