Thank you very much.
Thank you for your question. It is very important.
The questions that have arisen through some of the expert testimony, I'll reference—I didn't get an opportunity to spend time because we ran out of time before the votes—what Francis Fong has said. As you know, he is the chief economist for the Canadian Chartered Professional accountants. I found what he said to be very interesting. He told us that any definition of precarious work should start with the problem intended to be solved, which is people bouncing in and out of poverty. I agree with him. It should include volatile incomes, dangerous work. We heard testimony from a professor from the University of Ottawa who stated that as well. We should break down the definition into individual sections, by issue to be solved. A regulatory definition must provide clarity and also be precise. I think that's a good guiding principle as well.
You will recall some of the solutions that were suggested. Partnering is necessary for effective solutions, so having the government and the private sector able to do that. Another is for training on technological advances. We heard that over and over again in the testimony. The Pearson Centre said that entrepreneurship training is needed, but in high school, not later when you're already working. Through MP Falk's question that was also reiterated by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I thought that was very important to include, and then also include a continuum of precarity and support, implement teaching.... I already stated that.
Those are some of the factors that I thought were really important for us to consider addressing in our definition, to try to encapsulate some of that as well.