Honourable senators, let me revert to my truncated comments on Senator Lankin’s motion on the future of work. In the short time before the break, I referenced our unique capacity and, indeed, our responsibility, to look into the future on matters of substance that are critical for our future as a society. I remind honourable senators that we are a house of sober second thought and not, as we have seen in the last hour of our debates, a secondary place for political afterthought.

Look into the future we shall, but before we do that, I want to take us into the past. History serves us many valuable lessons, particularly in terms of disruption. I searched for a proxy in time to draw from and landed on the invention of the steam engine in the 1700s in Great Britain.

This was nothing short of a revolution, and it changed the context of work and the future of workers at that time. People started to get paid by the hour instead of working from sunrise to sunset. Factories powered by steam could be located anywhere instead of only close to water.

The invention powered a boom in transportation and infrastructure, but this Industrial Revolution had an underbelly, because it heralded in an unprecedented era of child labour. All the new factories and mines were hungry for workers and required the execution of simple tasks that could be easily performed by children. Children as young as six had to work for 14 hours a day. There was little time for breaks and no time for school.

However, no words of mine will compare with those of Charles Dickens as he painted his unforgettable picture of child labour in David Copperfield and Oliver Twist. Then, as now, with great disruption, comes great innovation. It creates wealth and opportunity for some, but it also contributes to inequality and deprivation for others.

I think we can equate the tech revolution of today to the industrial revolution of yesterday. The nature of work has changed. First, people no longer stay with one job or even one career until they retire. Second, the mainstays of industries that supported our economy and worked for so many years, such as manufacturing, have succumbed either to globalization or have been changed by technology. They have become more and more automated and less labour intensive. Third, occupations that are completely new and unheard of, with titles such as content manager or social media influencers, have sprung up.

But just as the invention of the steam locomotive led to a rise in child labour, today’s digital disruptions have given rise to precarious work. This is the underbelly of the digital economy, because this work has few, if any, benefits; likely no sick days; no paid statutory holidays; and job security is unheard of.

The explosion of the digital space with new digital tools, leading to what we now commonly refer to as the gig economy, is now the prevailing feature of our society. Workers and work are easily finding each other by signing on to apps such as Uber and Lyft, and Statistics Canada tells us this type of work has increased 70% from 2006 to 2016 and includes 1.7 million workers.

That was in 2016, four years ago. The digital space has increased so much since that time that the numbers are likely much higher today and will continue to rise.

The study showed that the gig economy is not lucrative as an income generator. On average, someone only makes about $4,000 in the gig economy. That’s certainly not a lot of money to provide a home, food or clothing. It may be nice pin money or a good secondary income for students, for instance, but I know you will agree with me that no one can live on that amount of money.

Canadians seem to agree. A survey by Angus Reid found that two out of three Canadians were concerned about the lack of benefits, and a majority were concerned about the lack of regulations that protect temporary and contract workers.

I also believe that this gender-equal Senate will be interested in the place of women in the gig economy, because women participate in the gig economy more than men. But, as in other industries, there seems to be a persistent wage gap. Women earned an hourly rate that is 37% lower than that of men, even when controlling for variables, such as hours worked, education, occupational category and feedback score. This comes from a study by the Institute for Gender and the Economy that reconfirms the old gender bias is in play in new industries.

Further, I should note that the highest share of gig workers is in the arts, entertainment and recreation industry, sectors that are traditionally big employers of women.

Another demographic contributor to the gig economy is recent immigrants. A full one third of all male gig workers were recent immigrants. This is not surprising to me. We still have not been able to deal with the unemployment and underemployment of recent immigrants, even though I do want to give credit to all levels of government for trying. Ryerson University, in a research project led by Laura Lam, points to the mountains of hurdles that immigrants face in getting a job in their field of experience, on the one hand, and then compare this difficulty with the ease with which they can find other employment through digital platforms. This pushes more and more immigrants to the gig economy.

The research concludes that gig work has become sort of a new rite of passage for immigrants. The sweat shops of yesterday have now been replaced by the gig platforms of today. And all of this is marketed as the “sharing economy” in the name of “innovation.”

I am hopeful, though, that we may be able to solve this most wicked of problems with the aid of technology. If digital platforms can link the drivers of cars with riders, there must be a way of linking immigrants with credential recognition in ways we may not be able to imagine today.

Technology can be a great enabler. Already, there are digital platforms that filter out interviewer bias based on foreign-sounding names. As you may have heard, interviewers screen out resumés simply based on the fact they have a name they are unfamiliar with, possibly without recognizing their own bias.

It is technology that has served up a solution to this problem. Technology can possibly take us further, enabling engineers to get work as engineers or teachers to work as teachers instead of driving Ubers.

I’m not anti-technology and neither am I completely down on the gig economy. I believe it comes with trade-offs. Despite challenges, it provides flexibility to workers to determine their own hours and availability. It allows for a quick way to make money if you happen to lose a job or can’t get a job. It provides many people the opportunity to earn a bit of extra income for, let’s say, students or retirees. Plus, it can help provide work-life balance.

So this study must look for ways to leverage the positives and deal with the negatives in figuring out how this brave new world will work for everyone. A fresh look at EI benefits, sick-day benefits, workplace rights and workplace conditions is urgent. As more and more workers are pushed into the gig economy, the question of whether they are employees or contractors is an urgent one to come to grips with.

I would also like to touch on the language in the motion that refers to temporary foreign workers. Not all temporary foreign workers are gig workers, but regardless, they enjoy limited rights in the workplace, just as gig workers do. The reality of low pay, limited rights and temporary status makes them doubly, if not triply, precarious.

The increase in the number of temporary foreign workers has seen a rise in stories of abuse, particularly when a worker is not tied to a sector but to one particular employer, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the worker to address any abuse. Much has been said in this crisis about the abuse, housing and working conditions on many farms in Canada, but I will submit that the triangulation of no opportunities, no securities and low wages coupled with temporariness creates a perfect storm. The temporariness and its impact on the labour market and the workers should be an important focus of this study.

As one example, let me point out that temporary foreign workers who are tied to a single employer, or to any employer, are required to pay into EI, but can rarely make a claim for benefits and receive them. I believe this should offend our sense of fairness.

Finally, I would like to talk about how I believe this study could be conducted. As I have been a long-standing member of the Social Affairs Committee, I am conscious of the fact that it is a very busy committee, and a committee that tends to get a good amount of legislation, both government and private. To deal with this, I believe a subcommittee of the main committee should be struck to study this issue because it is an important one that needs to be looked at in depth. A dedicated subcommittee would make sense.

In fact, it may be reasonable to consider a permanent mandate for such a subcommittee, since the terrain of the committee is huge. After all, the committee is not just about social affairs, but it is also about science and technology. If I were able — and I’m not — to wave a magic wand and re-engineer the committees, then this should, by rights, be not one committee but at least two or even three. But I am happy to take things incrementally. The creation of a permanent subcommittee would be an important step.

There is precedent to this idea. When the Social Affairs Committee was completing a seminal report on poverty, housing and homelessness, a subcommittee led by Senator Keon did a study on population health. The studies were well received by the government and led to changes in legislation and regulations.

In conclusion, I believe this is an important study to focus on the disruptions, both positive and negative, that the gig economy has created; to examine changes in legislation and regulations that will protect workers, the economy and employers; to look at the particular demographics that are impacted, such as women, immigrants and temporary workers; and be bold enough to imagine new solutions to new and old problems. Honourable senators, I urge us to get on with this work. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I am speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.

First of all, I want to thank Senator Lankin for being a leader in this place on so many levels. Her years of experience not only with legislation but in the labour movement and the charitable sector has provided her with a lot of insight and sound knowledge.

Some of you may not know that when many of us “newbies” came to the Senate in 2016, Senator Lankin played a pivotal role in helping us become acquainted with our new roles. We were invited to share meals and discussed many topics and ideas. Senator Lankin always had time to explain things and guide us in how things worked. She is like a godmother sharing her wisdom, and I deeply appreciated this.

So today I stand to support this excellent motion on the future of workers as it relates to precarious employment, the digitalization of work and the gig economy.

Thank you, Senator Lankin, for proposing this motion for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to take a closer look at this timely and important subject. It is certainly the right time to do this as many are currently discussing where the fault lines are occurring in our economy and our workplaces. It is even more important to examine this subject now due to the pandemic. The economic consequences of COVID-19 have not been felt equally across Canadian society. Many will need years to recover financially, while others have profited and are thriving. Now is an opportune time to assess the future of our labour market in order to build back better, while considering the well-being of Canadians.

When you hear the expression “gig economy,” it brings one back to our earlier life when people got a gig — usually to play in a band at a bar or at an event in a local hall. They were paid in cash or maybe they would get a few beer on the side but no other benefits or remuneration.

There is a direct link to today’s “gigs” or a “gig economy,” which consists of a labour market characterized by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work as opposed to permanent jobs.

This term has greatly expanded to now include many skilled workers and several apps and websites where you can apply for gig work, such as drivers on Uber, Lyft or Amazon delivery; consulting accountants or other financial experts on SpareHire; and various freelance workers, such as graphic and web designers, writers and marketers on Fiverr. Those who put their properties for rent on sites such as Airbnb are also considered part of the gig economy.

As you can see, there are various types of work and ways to be involved. For some folks, by choice or circumstances, participating in many aspects of a gig economy is how they make a living. For example, this could mean someone is a driver by night, a web designer by day and all the while putting their home on Airbnb for extra income. The more skills and resources you have, the more gigs you could acquire. The major downfall is that these do not come with job stability, paid sick days or benefits.

In my family, I am well acquainted with the gig economy. In the 1950s, my grandmother ran a tourist home, a bed and breakfast, and she took in boarders and ran a country store. At the end of the day, she made a livelihood and worked very hard, but it came without benefits or a pension. She was a strong supporter of young women going to university, and she strongly encouraged me to get an education to acquire better employment opportunities.

As a senior, my grandmother’s income was very limited. She lived with her daughter to help her financially. I always referred to what she did as “patching income.” By utilizing all the skills she had, she could make an income, patching it together to acquire income from here and there.

I learned a lot from my grandmother and I began patching my income too. In my early career days, I worked at a non-profit agency while acquiring two university degrees. My salary was modest and benefits were limited, but I loved my work. I was raising my children on my own, so I needed to make more income to support us. I found ways to make money — some gigs. I had an income property, rented part of my house, took on contracts to work at universities and other work that I could find. I was able to sustain a decent livelihood, though it was without benefits or a pension plan.

I am sharing these personal examples because it’s important to understand that many Canadians are living in our gig economy — or perhaps I should say they are surviving in this reality. They are making ends meet but without long-term security. A new Statistics Canada study shows that the share of gig economy workers in Canada is increasing, which is a worrisome trend.

Since the pandemic, many people are scrambling for their livelihoods. Those who were in the precarious employment areas may not have qualified for programs such as the emergency benefits offered by the federal government, like CERB. We already know that women, immigrants and Indigenous peoples are unevenly impacted by this current reality.

For all these reasons, I strongly support an in-depth study at the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to further investigate this topic and make recommendations on issues such as proper pay, work conditions and employee rights, which are all at risk in the gig economy. Gig companies might exploit people to gain a competitive edge. That means many people are earning less than minimum hourly wages and are without financial security.

There are many facets that could be explored. It is important to ensure that marginalized people — especially Black people, Indigenous people, people of colour and women — are included. I look forward to a report on the future of the workers in the gig economy as I believe it will enlighten us and help us prepare for the future. Thank you.