:
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.
[Translation]
Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here today.
[English]
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.
:
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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 . 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.
:
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.
[English]
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.