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 rise today in support of Senator Lankin’s motion to authorize a study on the future of Canadian workers, a study most needed as we witness the rapid rise of the gig economy in Canada. Of course, this is not — as indicated by Senator Omidvar — a new phenomenon. It is a tide we’ve seen coming for some years now.

Between 2005 and 2016, the proportion of Canadian workers working in the gig economy rose from 5.5% to 8.2%. We can only expect this number to rise as Canadians everywhere are being asked to stay inside and avoid crowds when they can. This has translated into an increased use of door-to-door, dining apps, package delivery and single-passenger ride-hailing services. The National Finance Committee has heard some of these real-life stories over the past weeks. Furthermore, just as demand for those services has risen, the number of Canadians looking for work has skyrocketed at the same time. According to a recent Policy Options article in August of this year, the unemployment rate for the core working cohort of 25 to 54 years old was 8.9%, up from 5.5% a year earlier. It has been shown that long periods of unemployment translates to a move into gig work.

We tend to think of these jobs as temporary side gigs to supplement someone’s income. We also associate these jobs with young folks who are trying to make a few extra dollars where they can. This could not be further from the truth. Just last week, I had a chance to meet and speak with gig workers in the Waterloo region who spanned age ranges covering five decades. They do not refer to themselves as gig workers, but just as workers, as these are their jobs. They were not students looking to make extra money in their spare time, they were mothers and fathers trying to make ends meet. They talked about poverty, the deep desire to be more economically stable, the loss of hope and their shrinking network of support. They only want financial stability, but they fear they are quickly becoming invisible as we begin to discuss our economic recovery.

As Senator Lankin pointed out, these jobs come with no benefits or job security, and the pandemic has only made the situation worse. Even if they get sick, these workers have no access to sick leave and are forced to choose between risking public health or a paycheque to pay their bills. And what a paltry paycheque it can be. Statistics Canada reported that in 2017, as indicated earlier, with a job within the gig economy it’s about $4,300 a year. Say that a few times and think about that. Moreover, workers in the bottom 40% of annual income distribution were about twice as likely to be involved in gig work as others were.

I also worry that as more Canadians move into the gig economy these services will continue to elbow out traditional unionized jobs that were and are more sustainable in the long-term. We need to look no further than the city of Ottawa to see how this is playing out. It was only in 2016 that ride-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft were legalized in the city. Since then, it has been reported that close to 600 cab drivers have quit due to a drop of at least 40% in their daily income. To compete with these new ride-hailing services, many jurisdictions have toyed with the idea of deregulating their own industries; a race to the bottom that ensures all workers in an industry are left more vulnerable than they were before.

Honourable senators, it sounds like I might be here to be hard on companies that have disrupted various industries. That is not the case at all. Innovation is crucial in any economy, and the success of these various services is a testament to our demand for them. But as long as they operate in a system where they are allowed to pay their workers a pittance while providing none of the benefits many Canadians have come to rely on, they will continue to do so. We cannot leave it to the workers to advocate for themselves.

While Canadian workers at Foodora won the right to unionize in February, the company announced it was closing its Canadian operations entirely a few months later. They cited the pandemic as the reasoning, but the timing was a little questionable.

Honourable senators, this is where we can help. This is not an issue that can be quickly changed and legislated to tilt the balance back in favour of Canadian workers. We have to work, and work hard, to find a way to move forward together, where innovation, Canada and Canadian workers can thrive. It is my understanding that this is an issue which has been on the Social Affairs Committee’s radar for some time, and the urgency of such a study is only increasing. The present crisis will upend industries for years to come in ways that will be hard for us to predict. Winners and losers might emerge, but we don’t need to be caught off guard when that happens. It is all too clear that the gig economy had momentum coming into this pandemic and it stands to gain more than it will lose as we emerge from it.

With the benefit of foresight, it is crucial that we begin to take a closer look at how we can coexist with the gig economy in a way that can benefit the greatest number of Canadians.

I can think of no better place to begin this process than at the very respected Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which is why I support this motion.

Thank you. Meegwetch.