Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to take the floor today to talk about precarious employment in Canada.
Statistics Canada has been measuring key aspects of the labour market since at least the 1980s and, in many cases, since 1976. I would like to use my time to provide an overview of our data sources and of some of the main observations related to precarious employment. I would also like to give you an idea of our priorities over the next few years, especially when it comes to bridging gaps in statistics and responding to the realities of an increasingly digital economy.
I want to point out that, in addition to our common data sources, we have a large research capacity, and we would be happy to work with the committee to examine any issue or any specific research topic you may suggest.
Like my colleague from ESDC mentioned, there is still no single definition of precarious employment, be it in Canada or abroad. At Statistics Canada, we prefer to think of precarious employment as a set of multidimensional elements to consider. For the purposes of today's presentation, what we mean by precariousness is job or income insecurity.
That insecurity may be considered as a series of risks, with some being directly related to the employee-employer relationship, others to the family, and others to the economy in general and social protections.
Employment may be precarious if it has one or several of the following characteristics: wages, hours of employment or social benefits are insufficient to meet the needs of an individual or family; the employee-employer relationship is temporary or provides limited career opportunities; or working conditions are stressful or dangerous.
The risks or the level of precariousness an individual or a family must face can increase if key economic trends—such as international competition or technological change—put certain industries or professions in danger, and risks can increase or decrease based on social protections workers and their families have access to.
Considering those definitions, I would like to focus on three series of issues related to precarious employment.
The first series of issues concerns trends related to forms of employment over the past few decades. If we consider a typical job to be a permanent full-time job that includes social benefits such as a pension plan, data clearly shows that typical jobs have become less common since the 1980s, especially among young workers.
It is important to take note of differences between men and women during this period. For example, while both pension plan coverage and unionization rates have fallen for men since 1981, they have been relatively stable for women. This reflects a number of underlying trends, including increased participation of women in industries with higher rates of unionization such as public administration, health and social services, and education.
While trends in standard and non-standard employment are relatively clear, we do see some mixed signals related to precarity in a broader set of our labour market data. For example, since the late 1990s we have seen a decrease in the proportion of employees earning less than $15 per hour. Similarly, when we analyze data related to layoffs, we see that layoff rates have actually decreased since 1981, countering the perception of an increasingly unstable or insecure labour market.
A second set of questions occupying our attention is the contribution of non-standard employment to the Canadian economy. In addition to changes in practices within industries, our data suggests that increases in non-standard employment, such as temporary work, self-employment without employees and part-time work, reflects an ongoing shift in the relative importance of goods-producing industries to service-producing industries. For example, the contribution of non-standard employment to total employment is about four times greater in professional, scientific and technical service industries, which include legal, accounting, design and research services, than it is in manufacturing. There has been little change in these figures since 1997, and in both industries the contribution of each type of employment has been remarkably stable.
Over this period, however, total employment in manufacturing has decreased significantly while employment in professional, scientific and technical services has increased steadily, contributing to an overall increase in non-standard employment.
Another way of assessing the contribution of non-standard employment to the Canadian economy is to compare internationally. When we look at one measure, temporary employment, we see that Canada is slightly above the OECD average in the contribution of temporary employment to total employment.
This national average disguises considerable variations across Canada, both in the overall level of temporary employment and in the particular type of non-permanent work.
Regional variations in precarious or non-standard work are also illustrated with a more specific example. When we look at wage growth since the year 2000, we see clearly that gains have been strongest in oil-producing provinces. When we dig deeper, we see that within these provinces, between 2004 and 2015, growth was strongest among those with lower levels of education. This is, of course, a positive story, in that it illustrates the contribution of skilled trades and other types of labour to the Canadian economy.
Since the drop in oil prices in 2015, however, the story has been less positive, as those without a university degree have seen a decrease, in real terms, in their hourly wages. This simply illustrates that dependence on business cycles and commodity prices is a particular type of precarity.
A third and important set of questions related to precarity, which we are grappling with at Statistics Canada, is the impact of globalization and digitalization on the quality of work. One example of a possible impact is the emergence of digitally mediated employment, where work is secured entirely through a website or app and done either in person or virtually.
This type of employment may increase precarity to the extent that it involves a series of short-term gigs and is unlikely to offer traditional levels of benefits or social protections.
This type of work presents certain measurement challenges to Statistics Canada and our international peers. First, some workers in this situation may report on our labour force survey as being self-employed while others may report themselves as employees, making it difficult to properly measure changes in the size of this activity. Second, some of this activity may involve second or third jobs, which are used to supplement the income of a main job. Finally, much of this activity likely crosses international boundaries and may not be well captured in tax and other administrative data sources.
We are committed to adapting our existing measures and filling data gaps to address the realities of a changing world.
Before concluding, I would like to share with you some thoughts on future directions for measuring the quality of work generally and precarity in particular.
Statistics Canada is committed to a series of actions to address data gaps related to digitalization and globalization. This includes adding questions to our existing surveys and developing new methods for the collection and integration of data. Much of this will involve partnerships with other national statistical organizations that are facing very similar challenges.
Similarly, we are aware of the need for more and better data on the impact of automation, artificial intelligence and other sources of technological change. In particular, we are pursuing methods to improve data on the skills held by Canadians and required by employers. Finally, we are taking action to improve the availability of local and detailed labour market information on a range of topics. This will facilitate decision-making by employers, jobseekers, educators and parents.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Chair, by emphasizing that Statistics Canada holds a wealth of data on employment and the quality of work. I hope I have given you a sense of the insights that can be gleaned from these data, and of course, I would be pleased to furnish the committee, as required, with more specific data on the experiences of specific populations, groups or regions.
I'd be more than happy to answer any questions the committee may have.