Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much to all the committee members, staff, and in particular my staff for doing a great deal of work on this. I truly appreciate it.
Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here today.
Usually, as the chair mentioned, I'd be introducing my motion to you, but I'm appearing after several excellent witnesses. I think it's fair to say that you all have a very good understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish here with M-194.
Why did I want this committee to study precarious employment in Canada? I believe Canada must be able to define precarious employment in a structured, cohesive manner so that we can recognize potential indicators and vulnerabilities that are uniformly identified across the country. The goal is to develop policy to target those who need it most. At the heart of this motion is that creating the very best foundation for developing appropriate and relevant policy to make positive changes is the most important outcome.
My riding of Sault Ste. Marie has faced its share of employment challenges. When we hear about communities with these types of challenges, it's often in such broad terms as low income, unemployment and economic downturn. However, when I was knocking on doors or chatting with constituents going about their day, I was hearing stories about personal situations that were much more intricate for them than simply “unemployed”. There were people who had a job but were worried about a contract being renewed. There were people who worked full time but had no sick leave or paid leave. There were people who worked two or three part-time jobs to piece together a full-time wage.
I found this incredibly interesting. I wondered how prevalent these employment scenarios were across the country and who was being disproportionately affected. As I mentioned briefly during one of the testimonies, I too had worked in what you might determine was precarious work, in contract positions for the public sector and as an owner of a business. I was self-employed as well.
In researching this type of patchwork or uncertain employment, I found a vast amount of research on various forms of precarious work. I was surprised to see that there existed no concrete consensus on what defined precarious work or how we can identify those affected by precarious employment. Most importantly, there were no organized ideas on what we can do about it, because so many working definitions of precarious employment were being applied across the nation.
For example, according to the International Labour Organization, precarious employment generally refers to a lack or inadequacy of rights and protections at work. This definition can apply to informal work but also to several types of formal work, including subcontracts, temporary contracts, interim work, certain types of self-employment and involuntary part-time work. These types of formal employment are considered more precarious because they are associated with reduced financial security and stability stemming from lower wages on average, less access to such benefits as private pension plans and complementary health insurance, and greater uncertainty about future employment income. I believe a key matrix for creating a definition needs to be clear on job security versus income security. The job security aspect is something the employer is involved with, but we can take action on income security as well, for example, legislated basic income, basic equality, or protected leave standards.
Because precarious work situations vary significantly, it is challenging to capture precarious employment with existing labour force statistics. Studies have focused on types of employment where individuals are more likely to face precarious conditions. Last week the committee heard from Colin Busby. He co-authored a report with the C.D. Howe Institute entitled “Precarious Positions: Policy Options to Mitigate Risks in Non-standard Employment”, which I referred to as part of my research. Mr. Busby is an authoritative voice in employment policy. He added some great points during his testimony. He pointed out that while Statistics Canada currently tracks non-standard employment, and this data is used in research on precarious work, it is not really the appropriate data to use. Specifically, with current data we cannot identify statistically how different groups of people are affected. Defining precarious employment will allow for more appropriate data to be collected.
Also, we need data to be able to track the timeline of precarity amongst certain groups on top of precarious work alone. Who is more likely to experience precarity long term? While the current statistics are an imperfect measure for precarious employment, the trends and composition effects of these statistics do provide important insights into the state and impact of precarious employment on Canadian society.
Certain groups are more likely to be in precarious employment. What current research shows us is that while no one is immune to the effects of precarious work, Statistics Canada data reveal that some groups are more likely to hold precarious jobs than others. A recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, entitled “No Safe Harbour”, found that more than a fifth of Canada's professionals—that's 22%—are in some form of precarious work, including part-time work, contract work or freelance work. This study reports that precarious work—this is a quote—“cuts across all employment sectors, professional occupations, wage levels, ages, and career stages.”
However, for women, as indicated, several studies clearly demonstrate that the labour market is tilted against women. In other words, women are disproportionately affected by precarious employment. Professional women are more likely than their male counterparts to be in precarious work, with women accounting for 60% of all precarious professionals. In 2017, 62% of workers in involuntary part-time employment and 52% of temporary workers were women. Newcomers are also extremely at risk for precarious employment.
In terms of age, unfortunately, you cannot count on age and experience helping you out. Data indicates a spike in the share of precarious work among the 55 plus age group, as well as among those with 10 or more years of experience in their profession. These are folks who are only 10 to 15 years away from retirement. If they're not able to put away money for a good retirement, how's it going to be for them in the future?
Younger workers are much more likely to be in precarious employment. Statistics Canada says that in 2017, 32% of 15- to 24-year-old workers held temporary employment, in contrast to 10% of 24- to 55-year-olds and 11% of workers 55 years and older.
In terms of education, interestingly, education alone won't shield you from that problem. This survey found that precarious professionals are actually more likely to have a post-graduate degree—30%—than non-precarious professionals, at 23%.
As well, having a full-time job might not be enough to avoid precarity, as 26% of precarious workers reported having a full-time job. Typically, these jobs lack security or lack benefits such as sick days or pensions.
Again, a study by the Law Commission of Ontario concluded that not only are youth and women overrepresented among precarious workers, but so too are racialized persons, immigrants, aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities and older adults. The panel of witnesses we heard from at this committee confirmed this to be true. They further pointed out the causal link to child and senior poverty resulting from precarious work.
Data also show that precarious employment as a proportion of working arrangements is more prevalent in certain sectors. Education, information, culture and recreation and agriculture have larger proportions of temporary employees. Witnesses also mentioned the federally regulated trucking industry, precarious government contracts and subcontracting as problematic.
Some sectors have large numbers of both temporary and self-employed workers. These sectors include culture and recreation, construction, health care and social assistance. Other sectors, such as education, accommodation and food services and the wholesale and retail trade, have large numbers of temporary workers as compared to the self-employed. Still other sectors, such as professional, scientific and technical services and agriculture, have large numbers of self-employed compared to temporary workers. Self-employment does not generally equate to precarity, as it is a choice. This is where the importance of identifying indicators becomes clear.
There is no doubt that there are many legitimate social and economic concerns regarding vulnerable employees in precarious employment. The combination of low income, lack of control over scheduling and lack of benefits, such as pensions and health care, personal emergency leave or sick leave, all together or in various combinations creates a great deal of uncertainty, anxiety and stress, which undermine the quality of life and the physical well-being of a wide swath of workers and their families in our society.
I'm thankful to have heard thoughtful and insightful questions from members of this committee during witness testimony and to have had such a breadth of expert witnesses testify on this issue to date. They've offered suggestions for solutions and their perspectives on problem areas. Most importantly, their experience in this field is invaluable.
In terms of problem areas, rights vary by province. Is there a regionality to precarious employment? We need to define this. Worker voice is suppressed when in temporary work. We heard that as well. Also, the triangulation of temp agencies, client and worker leads to confusion or omittance of regulations. Mental health issues increased. Depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, and a lack of definition have led to a lack of effective policy.
The gig or sharing economy can offer flexibility for workers. Some individuals are choosing alternative forms of work arrangements for flexibility or personal job satisfaction. They may find that this is suitable to their way of life. As we see the landscape of the traditional workplace changing due to innovation and technology, we're now seeing a fundamental transformation to Canada's workforce. With workers not considered employees, we see issues with no T4s and therefore no employer contributions to CPP benefits, etc. We heard about employees and employers running into problems with the CRA because their intended agreements didn't meet the definition of the CRA requirements.
In July 2018, BMO released a report on the gig economy. The report states that 85% of companies surveyed in the study foresee an increasing move to an agile workplace. Employers estimate that in the next few years almost a quarter of their workforce will be working virtually or remotely. There is no doubt that innovation is a positive element of the changing workplace. With innovation changing how we live and work, we see new opportunities but also new challenges for Canadians.
The nature of work is changing, and we need to understand how it impacts our workers so that we can better protect Canadians. What role do unions play in this new world of work? Is this still a functional model for worker advocacy with the traditional unionized labour groups? Is it pertinent to the gig or platform economies?
We heard some excellent testimony from people like Francis Fong, who touched on many things. We also brought out some excellent questions. I think of MP Falk's questioning of the chamber where they agreed there is a need for more training and more cultural sensitivity around that.
Thank you very much, everyone. I really appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward to you for your input.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
