Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice-Chair, Madam Vice-Chair and distinguished members of the committee.
I am here to speak to you about precarious employment in Canada. I am joined, as you mentioned, by Andrew Brown, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, and Barbara Moran, Director General, Labour Program.
As you have heard a number of times over the past two weeks, the concept of precarious employment is broad and there continues to be a lack of consensus on a clear definition in Canada and globally. For example, some international organizations have tried to define what job quality means and what precarious working conditions are.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, developed a framework to measure and assess job quality by analyzing three dimensions: earnings quality, labour market security and quality of the work environment. Along the same lines, the International Labour Organization, or ILO, has proposed four precarious employment conditions: low wage, poor protection from termination of employment, lack of access to social protection and benefits, and limited access of workers to exercise their rights.
Overall, precarious employment encompasses a range of factors that contribute to whether a particular form of employment exposes workers to employment instability, a lack of legal protection and/or social and economic vulnerability.
In addition to the absence of a clear definition of precarious employment, important data limitations exist for measuring these aspects of work, such as a lack of time series data. Therefore, proxies are often used to allude to precarious employment. Indicators include non-standard work, i.e., part-time and temporary work and self-employment; low-paid work; union coverage rate and access to pension plans and employee benefits.
While non-standard work is one of the most commonly used proxies of precarious employment, it is often a poor measure and can be misleading. The overall share of non-standard work in total employment has remained relatively stable in Canada since the 1990s, representing about 38% of all jobs since then. Similar trends are observable for low-paid work.
However, not all non-standard workers have poor-quality jobs and are in precarious positions. We have many examples of self-employed professionals in high-wage occupations, such as physicians, dentists, lawyers and accountants, successful business owners as well as high-wage contract workers in the information technology sector.
Furthermore, some individuals may also prefer a non-standard form of work for reasons ranging from personal preference, caring for children or going to school. About three-quarters of part-time workers choose this type of work voluntarily.
On the other hand, precarity also exists in standard employment, for example, if workers are uncertain about how long their jobs may last, or have low pay and no access to employee benefits. This is why non-standard work is a poor proxy of precarious employment.
Given that precariousness exists in both standard and non-standard work, there is a need to better understand the precarious employment situations for different groups in the population. In general, females are more likely to be in non-standard work and may face more precarious employment conditions than their male counterparts. A gap persists between genders when it comes to hourly wages and annual earnings.
Likewise, older workers are more likely to be in non-standard work, particularly part-time work and self-employment. Youth are also more likely to be in non-standard work, mostly because of the flexibility these kinds of jobs offer for students.
At this time, there is limited information on whether other vulnerable groups, such as visible minorities, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and recent immigrants, are more likely to be in non-standard work.
As we think about the future of work, technological change continues to impact it and could eventually change its very nature. This is leading to new forms of work and could lead to greater job insecurity for some. As such, it will be important to obtain better information on precarious employment and technological changes.
While potential job impacts of automatization remain difficult to assess, it is clear that some groups of Canadians could be affected more than others. For example, individuals who are over-represented in low-skilled, low-wage and routine occupations are at greater risk of being negatively impacted.
There is also the concern that the emergence of platform-enabled gigs, such as Uber, may put more workers at risk of falling into a precarious situation if they lead to a weakening in the employer-employee relationship.
While many labour market policies and programs were designed in large part to help offset the risk that workers and job seekers encounter in the labour market, they often require workers to have an employer-employee relationship and to work a sufficient number of hours to be eligible, e.g., the employment insurance program.
The study on precarious employment that you have undertaken could contribute to the discussion on the adaptation of the eligibility rules for precarious workers and help improve ESDC programs in that regard. In addition, the study could also link to the modernization of federal labour standards under the Canada Labour Code.
In 2017 and 2018, through budget implementation legislation, the government made several amendments to the Canada Labour Code that, among other things, will ensure fair treatment and compensation for employees in precarious employment. Having a better understanding of precarious employment could help us monitor the results of these legislative changes and inform future policy development.
Such a study could also run in parallel with the work that is currently being done by the independent expert panel on modern federal labour standards, which was recently established by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. The panel is examining several issues related to precarious employment, such as labour standards coverage for non-standard workers and the minimum wage.
In summary, while there are some similarities internationally, there is no consistency in how to define precarious employment. In addition, a lack of data is another important challenge that the government and people outside of the government are facing. My colleagues from Statistics Canada will provide you with some details about what is being done to address that challenge.
Thank you to the committee for this opportunity to share our perspective on the study on precarious employment in Canada. My colleagues and I look forward to your questions later.