Evidence of meeting #141 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you very much for the amazing testimony again today.
This panel and the last panel have been really good, and I really appreciate the opportunity to be at the committee, Mr. Chair, as well as all the questions from everyone around this table. It has all been very thought provoking as we undertake this study.
I'll start my questions with Colin Busby. In “No Safe Harbour”, it was identified that certain groups seem to be working more precariously than others, including women, at 60%, more than men. Why is that happening, would you say? I'd like to open it up to that one particular group to begin with, Colin.
Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy
Off the top, women tend to have much higher concentrations of part-time work. Part-time work tends to fall into that more precarious category of work because there tends not to be the same amount of income security that you get with a full-time job. Scheduling is often more complicated. As well, the rates of qualification for employment insurance, which came up earlier, are much lower for people in part-time positions. Those who fail to accumulate enough hours worked to qualify for employment insurance tend to be those who have part-time employment. Those are just a few reasons as to why that is, and that preference for part-time employment also stems often from paternal or maternal obligations.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
That leads to my next question, then. Jennifer Robson in 2017 published research with the IRPP on parental benefits in Canada. What, if any, connection do you see between an increase in precariousness of work and a need to change parental benefits in Canada?
Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy
Workers want flexibility. This is what workers want. They want flexibility. Some of the previous speakers mentioned that there is some preference among workers to take on more non-standard forms of employment, which tend to be more precarious, because they want that flexibility. They also want that flexibility in terms of the ability to access parental benefits and the length for which they access parental benefits.
The study that you mentioned cites a number of examples, often drawing from the Quebec program for maternity and paternity benefits, which is much different because they've designed their own set of rules that are much easier to qualify for and much more generous in terms of what they pay for than the rules of employment insurance for mothers and fathers in the rest of Canada. I think there's really a lot to be said about that, because to qualify for EI and maternity/paternity benefits in all parts of Canada outside of Quebec one has to have a very significant commitment to the labour force. If you're in a part-time job, you might not even qualify. In Quebec they say, if you've worked 100 hours or so in the last year, they want you in; they want you to be part of it; they think you deserve paternal and maternal benefits. It's a very different design. It's something that the federal government should look more closely at.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you.
My next question is for Chris Roberts from the Canadian Labour Congress. It's sort of a general question. How are the CLC's members helping precarious workers, and what strategies are they employing?
National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress
That's a great question. I think there are a lot of unions that are trying to organize workers in precarious employment—vulnerable workers, in particular. You have the United Food and Commercial Workers, which is organizing migrant workers, newcomers to Canada, in meat-packing, giving them collective bargaining coverage and all the benefits that come with that. You have unions attempting to organize in ride-hailing and ride-sharing industries. I think unions are innovating by devising new forms of organization that appeal to workers in particularly insecure and precarious circumstances.
I think also that, just through public policy advocacy, unions are trying to bring forward the sorts of proposals that have been raised here today around expanding universal social protection and winning universal pharmacare programs, so it doesn't matter if you have a union at work or if you don't have a negotiated workplace private drug insurance plan; you can still have access to necessary medicines and that sort of thing.
I think unions, like others, have only made this issue more of an urgent priority in recent years and are trying to adjust the insecurity that does affect their members as well.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you.
Leah, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, you mentioned some good points. On Andrew's position about more entrepreneurship training, you validated that, so I appreciated that question.
Your membership is large. Are there particular sectors within your membership where there's more precarity? Do you have any data on that?
Director, Skills and Immigration Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
What is precarity? We have labour force issues and demands across the board. Define precarity. Labour force issues across the country, across sectors.... There's precarity, if you want to take that point of view, in rural, remote and smaller areas, where we have diminishing populations and increasing retirement. Take a look at sectors. I was in front of this committee last week when we were talking about, even within Toronto and Hamilton, sectors like the construction industry. Precarity from a labour force demand viewpoint across the board is one of the major issues for all of our members, and it's one that is uniform.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all of the witnesses for their contribution to the work of our committee. I'd like to point out that they all referred to the need to reform our employment insurance system, particularly its eligibility criteria; this is especially the case for women, who are in the labour force, although only a third of them have access to the program at this time.
My first question is for you, Mr. Roberts. You pointed out that precarious employment can affect any field of activity and any age group. In Canada, we even see an increasing number of people who work full time but are nevertheless in poverty and are new clients at the food bank.
Like many Canadians, we believe that the harmonization of salaries in sectors under federal jurisdiction would be a first step in eliminating precarious employment. The president of your organization, Mr. Hassan Yussuff, stated that the minimum wage should be set at $15, so that someone who works full-time is not under the poverty line despite that. Could you explain how that measure would help to reduce precarious employment?
National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress
If I understood you correctly, in particular, what impact could the $15-an-hour minimum wage, the return to a federal minimum wage, have? That's being studied by the expert panel of course.
I think there is good evidence to show that a significant number of low-paid workers in federally regulated private sector industries would benefit from restoring a federal minimum wage at that level. I think it would have an important impact on bringing up standards and wage floors in regional economies where the provincial minimum wage is lower than that. I think it would send an important signal to other jurisdictions that the federal government is committed to strong wage floors.
For all those reasons—and I think other reasons that the expert panel will study in terms of the likely employment impacts—there is good reason to believe that there will be few, if any, negative employment impacts. There are just good reasons for workers in banking and in airports and other places to set that wage floor at $15 an hour.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Earlier it was mentioned that many young people occupy a large proportion of these precarious jobs. You also pointed out in a 2016 report that young people make up more than one fourth of the unemployed. What solutions could prevent millennials from being the main victims of precarious employment?
National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress
It's definitely the case that millennials and youth are particularly vulnerable to the kind of exploitation and extreme insecurity that we see rising around the margins of the labour market in particular. There has been discussion about workers wanting flexibility. I think that may be the case in many instances, but no one signs up for insecurity. They may want flexibility and autonomy and challenges but not the insecurity and exploitation that come along with it. There have been interesting international studies of young workers that show surprising—in the context of this discussion—support for job security or employment security.
I think that young workers do have a real interest and a real desire for the same kinds of opportunities and investments and entitlements as those found in standard employment, that stably employed and secure and well-paid employees of our generation have enjoyed.
I think that young workers are particularly vulnerable as new entrants to the labour force, but they want many of the things that their predecessors had.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I expected you to answer that unionization was one solution. Thank you very much Mr. Roberts.
My next question is for you, Ms. Regehr. You had a ring seat for the introduction of guaranteed minimum income programs in Manitoba, and for pilot programs in Ontario. In your opinion, would this be a solution we could put forward in our study of precarious employment? We know that the federal government has just put in place a poverty reduction strategy. Should the guaranteed minimum income have been one of the solutions chosen to fight poverty and precarious employment?
Chairperson, Basic Income Canada Network
Yes, absolutely. I want to pick up on what the gentleman from the IRPP said as well. I think the focus really does need to be on income, not just for those already living in poverty, or close, or those who have precarious employment today, because those precarious situations are uncertain. They can change tomorrow.
Having that income security provides the flexibility. All of our study results show that with that flexibility you can get retraining, you can get reskilled, but the bottom line is people have to live daily lives. They have to eat, they have to put a roof over their head, while all of these other things are being done. Otherwise, the rest of it is for naught.
The income security part of it really matters.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you very much for coming today and giving this valuable information. In the GTA, and especially in my riding of Brampton Centre, I mostly see new immigrants coming and most of them are not qualified for jobs. They work part-time, full-time. They look for any type of job and they get it, and they start working on that. They are mostly very vulnerable. They will change from one job to another.
When these types of situations are there, it is obvious that they are suffering from the shortcomings of the system. We want to do something for them, but we are not able to give it properly because there are other circumstances that are obstructing everything.
Madam Nord, in your presentation you suggested to the federal government three points—focus on skills, training and education—and the competency of these.
With all these things in mind, do you have any data from your membership about which sectors or industries use contract workers or workers who are very vulnerable?
Director, Skills and Immigration Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
No is the short answer, but I want to build off something about the Brampton area as well. When you talk about basic income, this actually brings into the discussion the cost of living as well. This isn't work precarity...basic income, cost of living, housing costs, for example.
When we talk about competency-based assessments, this is exactly what would help immigrants and new Canadians in this country, where we move from a credentialing system to a competency-based assessment. I heard testimony on Tuesday around temp agencies, and a large percentage of people who use those are immigrants. The issue isn't job precarity. The issue is Canadian work experience, for example.
This comes back to the issue of addressing what the actual problem is, or defining what the problems are and what the solutions are. If the issue for immigrants and migrants is the precarity of their legal status in the country, let's talk about the temporary foreign worker program. As you know, I could talk a lot about that program as well.
Precarity in work is one thing, but is it income? Where are we looking? On benefits, for example, you could have a minimum wage across this country, but what does that mean for benefits? This is all-encompassing, but I'm just trying to make the point that we have to be precise in what we're looking at and the problems we're trying to solve therein.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
The question, though, is about the availability of jobs. I've seen that SMEs also are suffering from this. They're looking for people to come and work for them. Once they train someone for 20 or 30 days, the worker shifts to another employer, and they're still left with no employment.... The businesses are at a precarious level. They're also not able to produce things as required by their contractors.
What are your suggestions with this type of situation?
Director, Skills and Immigration Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I'll let you answer first, and then I can jump in.
National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress
I think you've put your finger on a long-standing problem in Canada, which is the tendency of employers to underinvest in training and developing their existing workforces because of the fear of poaching: that the skills will be poached and some free rider who isn't investing in training will come along and take advantage of the investments their competitor has made.
The way many countries and the Province of Quebec get around this problem is by imposing a training levy on all employers. Those employers—often large employers that are investing a great deal in training their workforces are exempt— that fail to devote a certain percentage of payroll towards training have to put money into the general pool, which then goes to support training and skills development initiatives.
That would be one way to raise the level of training investments generally in Canada, which have been declining over the course of 25 years. It would be one way to ensure that workers receive more investments in essential skills training, digital skills, and also some important opportunities.
