Insights on Canadian Society
Perceptions of labour market discrimination among persons with disabilities in Canada
Text begins
Overview of the study
Using data from the 2017 and 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability, this article examines selected sociodemographic characteristics associated with perceived labour market discrimination among persons with disabilities in Canada.
- Between 2017 and 2022, the percentage of persons aged 25 to 64 with disabilities who believed they had been refused an interview in the past five years because of their condition edged down from 8% to 7%, and the percentage reporting a job refusal decreased slightly from 12% to 10%.
- Persons with more severe disabilities, men, 2SLGBTQ+ persons and racialized persons were more likely to perceive some of these workplace discriminatory practices than their respective counterparts.
- More than one-third of persons aged 25 to 64 with disabilities (37%) considered themselves to be disadvantaged in employment, while 35% reported that their current employer or any potential employer would be likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment because of their condition.
Introduction
In 2022, more than one-quarter (27%) of the Canadian population aged 15 and older had at least one
Existing Canadian studies related to labour market outcomes for persons with disabilities have mostly focused on employment and income. Several recent studies have illustrated that the employment rate among persons with disabilities remains lower compared with those without disabilities, though this gap in the employment rate has narrowed in recent
Though perceptions of discrimination among persons with disabilities have been briefly examined in other studies, a detailed analysis has not been
Using data from both the 2022 and 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, this article presents information on those who believe that they were refused a job interview, a job or a promotion as a result of their disability, drawing comparisons over
Perception of discrimination decreased slightly between 2017 and 2022
In 2022, a number of working-age persons with disabilities in Canada reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the labour market. Specifically, 7% said they had been refused a job interview in the last five years because of their condition, while 10% said they had been refused a job and another 10% stated that they had been refused a promotion because of their condition (Table 1).
| Selected characteristics | Refused job interview in the past five years | Refused job in the past five years | Refused promotion in the past five years | Consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment | Employer considers or is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||||
|
|||||
| All | 6.9 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 36.7 | 34.8 |
| Gender Table 1 Note 1 | |||||
| Men+ (ref.) | 8.3 | 11.9 | 9.7 | 37.2 | 35.6 |
| Women+ | 5.9 Table 1 Note * | 8.9 Table 1 Note * | 9.5 | 36.4 | 34.3 |
| Severity of disability Table 1 Note 2 | |||||
| Mild (ref.) | 2.3 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 16.0 | 15.6 |
| Moderate | 5.2 Table 1 Note * | 8.4 Table 1 Note * | 10.2 Table 1 Note * | 33.2 Table 1 Note * | 29.6 Table 1 Note * |
| Severe | 9.9 Table 1 Note * | 15.9 Table 1 Note * | 15.2 Table 1 Note * | 52.5 Table 1 Note * | 51.8 Table 1 Note * |
| Very severe | 16.3 Table 1 Note * | 20.8 Table 1 Note * | 21.2 Table 1 Note * | 74.2 Table 1 Note * | 69.9 Table 1 Note * |
| Age group | |||||
| 25 to 34 years | 8.0 | 12.4 | 10.5 | 36.6 | 31.1 |
| 35 to 44 years (ref.) | 8.0 | 11.3 | 12.7 | 35.7 | 31.8 |
| 45 to 54 years | 7.1 | 10.9 | 9.1 Table 1 Note * | 37.9 | 35.2 |
| 55 to 64 years | 5.3 Table 1 Note * | 7.5 Table 1 Note * | 6.7 Table 1 Note * | 36.6 | 39.1 Table 1 Note * |
| Highest level of education | |||||
| Never attended school | 6.2 | 5.7 Table 1 Note * | 4.9 | 41.6 | 35.7 |
| Less than high school diploma | 9.6 | 15.3 | 10.1 | 49.5 Table 1 Note * | 47.7 Table 1 Note * |
| High school diploma (ref.) | 8.6 | 11.5 | 9.2 | 38.4 | 37.1 |
| Trades certificate or diploma | 8.1 | 12.7 | 11.3 | 38.3 | 36.3 |
| College or university certificate below the bachelor's level | 6.4 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 34.3 | 32.6 Table 1 Note * |
| University degree | 4.7 Table 1 Note * | 6.8 Table 1 Note * | 9.1 | 31.8 Table 1 Note * | 29.1 Table 1 Note * |
| Don't know / not stated | 3.1 Table 1 Note * | 10.1 | 8.9 | 46.7 | 51.7 Table 1 Note * |
| Racialized population | |||||
| Non-racialized, non-Indigenous (ref.) | 6.3 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 35.9 | 34.6 |
| Racialized | 9.6 Table 1 Note * | 12.6 | 12.3 Table 1 Note * | 37.8 | 33.8 |
| South Asian | 13.1 Table 1 Note * | 16.2 Table 1 Note * | 11.3 | 34.6 | 30.0 |
| Chinese | 5.6 | 8.2 | 10.3 | 28.3 | 27.2 |
| Black | 5.5 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 42.5 | 36.7 |
| Filipino | 6.7 | 7.4 | 10.7 | 36.3 | 28.7 |
| All other racialized groups | 11.6 Table 1 Note * | 15.9 Table 1 Note * | 16.7 Table 1 Note * | 41.4 | 39.0 |
| Indigenous identity | |||||
| Indigenous | 6.6 | 10.4 | 8.7 | 44.8 Table 1 Note * | 39.7 |
| Non-Indigenous (ref.) | 6.9 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 36.2 | 34.5 |
| Immigrant status | |||||
| Non-immigrant (ref.) | 6.6 | 9.9 | 9.4 | 36.4 | 34.3 |
| Immigrated in 2010 or earlier | 8.0 | 10.3 | 9.6 | 37.7 | 37.8 |
| Immigrated from 2011 to 2021 | 7.2 | 13.3 | 10.1 | 41.5 | 36.2 |
| 2SLGBTQ+ identity | |||||
| Yes | 10.2 Table 1 Note * | 15.8 Table 1 Note * | 14.9 Table 1 Note * | 44.7 Table 1 Note * | 40.2 Table 1 Note * |
| No (ref.) | 6.4 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 35.4 | 33.8 |
| Occupation | |||||
| Legislative and senior management | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published |
| Business, finance and administration | 5.5 Table 1 Note * | 8.6 Table 1 Note * | 9.8 | 24.3 Table 1 Note * | 25.0 Table 1 Note * |
| Natural and applied sciences and related | 4.2 Table 1 Note * | 8.9 Table 1 Note * | 8.7 | 31.3 | 24.9 Table 1 Note * |
| Health | 5.0 Table 1 Note * | 8.3 Table 1 Note * | 9.6 | 26.7 Table 1 Note * | 27.3 |
| Education, law and social, community and government services | 4.8 Table 1 Note * | 7.6 Table 1 Note * | 8.1 | 28.4 Table 1 Note * | 25.9 Table 1 Note * |
| Art, culture, recreation and sport | 5.9 | 8.0 Table 1 Note * | 9.3 | 36.3 | 33.3 |
| Sales and service (ref.) | 11.0 | 14.8 | 11.5 | 37.8 | 34.1 |
| Trades, transport and equipment operators and related | 7.7 | 11.3 | 10.6 | 30.3 Table 1 Note * | 30.8 |
| Natural resources, agriculture and related production | 2.9 Table 1 Note * | 12.7 | 7.1 | 30.8 | 20.5 Table 1 Note * |
| Manufacturing and utilities | 3.1 Table 1 Note * | 6.8 Table 1 Note * | 6.3 | 28.3 | 27.9 |
| Province or territory of residence | |||||
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 5.4 Table 1 Note * | 8.1 Table 1 Note * | 8.1 | 37.5 | 33.3 |
| Prince Edward Island | 5.4 Table 1 Note * | 7.8 Table 1 Note * | 7.6 | 33.9 | 30.0 Table 1 Note * |
| Nova Scotia | 6.7 | 9.4 | 8.9 | 36.9 | 36.0 |
| New Brunswick | 4.7 Table 1 Note * | 9.0 | 9.6 | 35.8 | 34.4 |
| Quebec | 4.3 Table 1 Note * | 7.3 Table 1 Note * | 5.8 Table 1 Note * | 35.0 | 32.7 |
| Ontario (ref.) | 8.2 | 11.5 | 10.6 | 37.4 | 35.9 |
| Manitoba | 6.6 | 10.7 | 10.3 | 36.8 | 35.1 |
| Saskatchewan | 5.3 Table 1 Note * | 8.9 | 9.4 | 31.8 Table 1 Note * | 31.3 Table 1 Note * |
| Alberta | 7.1 | 9.5 | 11.8 | 37.7 | 34.5 |
| British Columbia | 7.5 | 11.4 | 9.6 | 37.6 | 35.8 |
| Yukon | 4.9 | 8.2 | 7.7 | 34.4 | 32.3 |
| Northwest Territories | 4.1 Table 1 Note * | 8.6 | 8.1 | 28.3 Table 1 Note * | 27.9 |
| Nunavut | 10.2 | 10.0 | 7.1 | 26.1 Table 1 Note * | 25.0 Table 1 Note * |
The prevalence of perceived discrimination in 2022 varied across the country. For instance, residents of Quebec with disabilities (4%) were half as likely as those living in Ontario (8%) to report having been refused an interview, and they were also the least likely to report a job refusal (7% in Quebec versus 12% in Ontario) or a promotion refusal (6% in Quebec versus 11% in Ontario).
Although discrimination in the labour market persisted among persons with disabilities in 2022, there was some evidence to suggest that its prevalence had declined slightly between 2017 and 2022. Specifically, the proportion reporting an interview refusal decreased slightly from 8% to 7%, and those reporting a job refusal fell from 12% to 10%. The proportion of those reporting having been refused a promotion remained largely unchanged, at 10% (Chart 1).
Data table for Chart 1
| 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
|
||
| Refused job interview | 8.2 | 6.9 Data table for Chart 1 Note * |
| Refused job | 12.0 | 10.2 Data table for Chart 1 Note * |
| Refused promotion | 10.1 | 9.6 |
Persons with more severe disabilities were more likely to report having been refused a job interview, a job or a promotion
The severity of someone’s
Perceptions of labour market discrimination also varied by gender
Gender differences also emerged as an important factor when examining perceptions of discrimination. In general, men with disabilities were more likely than women with disabilities to report having experienced some form of labour market discrimination in 2022, whether from an interview refusal (8% of men versus 6% of women) or a job refusal (12% of men versus 9% of women) (Table 1). There was no gender difference in reporting a refusal for a promotion—10% for both men and women. These conclusions were unchanged after considering other factors (Table A.1).
Further, the differences between men and women with disabilities in reporting discrimination were particularly evident among specific groups. For example, among 35- to 44-year-olds, 1 in 10 men with disabilities (10%) stated that they had been refused an interview, compared with 6% of women of the same age. Further, men with severe disabilities (14%) were twice as likely as their female counterparts (7%) to report that they had been refused an interview and almost twice as likely to report a job refusal (21% for men with severe disabilities versus 12% for women with severe disabilities). The gender difference was also more pronounced among the racialized population, with 13% of men versus 7% of women reporting having been refused an interview because of their condition.
Comparing changes over time, gender differences emerged as well. While there was no statistically significant decrease in perceptions of discrimination among men between 2017 and 2022, women with disabilities did see reductions in these perceptions between these two years. For example, the proportion of women reporting an interview refusal decreased slightly from 7% in 2017 to 6% in 2022, while the proportion reporting a job refusal fell from 11% to 9% (Table 2).
| Selected characteristics | Refused job interview in the past five years | Refused job in the past five years | Refused promotion in the past five years | Consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment | Employer considers or is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | |
| percent | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Sex/gender Table 2 Note 1 | ||||||||||
| Male (2017) / men+ (2022) | 9.2 | 8.3 | 13.3 | 11.9 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 41.7 | 37.2 Table 2 Note * | 41.8 | 35.6 Table 2 Note * |
| Female (2017) / women+ (2022) | 7.4 | 5.9 Table 2 Note * | 10.8 | 8.9 Table 2 Note * | 10.5 | 9.5 | 40.9 | 36.4 Table 2 Note * | 41.3 | 34.3 Table 2 Note * |
| Severity of disability Table 2 Note 2 | ||||||||||
| Mild | 3.2 | 2.3 | 5.6 | 3.8 Table 2 Note * | 5.6 | 4.0 | 19.1 | 16.0 Table 2 Note * | 19.3 | 15.6 Table 2 Note * |
| Moderate | 9.1 | 5.2 Table 2 Note * | 12.2 | 8.4 Table 2 Note * | 11.5 | 10.2 | 37.5 | 33.2 | 39.2 | 29.6 Table 2 Note * |
| Severe | 13.1 | 9.9 | 17.1 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 15.2 | 56.7 | 52.5 | 57.3 | 51.8 Table 2 Note * |
| Very severe | 12.7 | 16.3 | 19.5 | 20.8 | 16.4 | 21.2 | 77.4 | 74.2 | 76.2 | 69.9 Table 2 Note * |
| Age group | ||||||||||
| 25 to 34 years | 10.8 | 8.0. Table 2 Note * | 15.5 | 12.4 | 13.1 | 10.5 | 36.5 | 36.6 | 35.1 | 31.1 |
| 35 to 44 years | 9.2 | 8.0 | 12.8 | 11.3 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 36.8 | 35.7 | 36.6 | 31.8 Table 2 Note * |
| 45 to 54 years | 7.1 | 7.1 | 11.2 | 10.9 | 8.3 | 9.1 | 42.9 | 37.9 Table 2 Note * | 41.8 | 35.2 Table 2 Note * |
| 55 to 64 years | 7.3 | 5.3 Table 2 Note * | 10.5 | 7.5 Table 2 Note * | 8.0 | 6.7 | 44.7 | 36.6 Table 2 Note * | 46.9 | 39.1 Table 2 Note * |
| Highest level of education | ||||||||||
| Less than high school diploma | 11.5 | 9.6 | 16.4 | 15.3 | 14.2 | 10.1 | 54.6 | 49.5 | 55.9 | 47.7 Table 2 Note * |
| High school diploma | 8.6 | 8.6 | 12.3 | 11.5 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 43.3 | 38.4 Table 2 Note * | 42.9 | 37.1 Table 2 Note * |
| Trades certificate or diploma | 7.8 | 8.1 | 12.1 | 12.7 | 9.1 | 11.3 | 44.9 | 38.3 Table 2 Note * | 40.9 | 36.3 |
| College or university certificate below the bachelor's level | 8.0 | 6.4 | 11.7 | 9.7 | 10.9 | 9.8 | 38.3 | 34.3 | 40.1 | 32.6 Table 2 Note * |
| University degree | 5.5 | 4.7 | 8.9 | 6.8 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 30.7 | 31.8 | 32.6 | 29.1 |
| Racialized population | ||||||||||
| Non-racialized, non-Indigenous | 7.6 | 6.3 Table 2 Note * | 11.5 | 9.6 Table 2 Note * | 10.0 | 9.0 | 41.2 | 35.9 Table 2 Note * | 41.6 | 34.6 Table 2 Note * |
| Racialized | 10.0 | 9.6 | 13.4 | 12.6 | 9.7 | 12.3 | 39.2 | 37.8 | 38.5 | 33.8 |
Canadians with intersecting identities may perceive multiple forms of labour market discrimination
Given the diversity of Canada’s population, examining the unique attributes of those participating in the labour market is key to understanding perceptions of discrimination. Disability can intersect with other characteristics, such as age, 2SLGBTQ+ identity and racialized group, and the intersection of these characteristics can place Canadians at greater risk of exposure to adverse conditions in the workplace.
In general, the results showed that age plays an important role in the perception of discrimination, with those with disabilities aged 55 to 64 being less likely to report labour market discrimination compared with their younger counterparts, across the three types of discrimination considered. The same was true for those with a university degree, who were less likely than those with a high school diploma to have been refused a job (Table 1).
In contrast, the 2SLGBTQ+ population with disabilities was more likely than their non-2SLGBTQ+ counterparts to report having experienced labour market discrimination, with higher proportions indicating that they had been refused an interview (10% versus 6%), a job (16% versus 9%) or a promotion (15% versus 9%) (Table 1).
Among persons with disabilities, racialized
Perception of labour market discrimination varied by type of occupation
In general, the perception of labour market discrimination varied by type of occupation. Persons with disabilities employed in sales and service occupations at the time of the survey were the most likely to perceive discrimination, compared with those working in other types of occupations (Table 1). For example, approximately 1 in 10 (11%) of those working in sales and service occupations reported having been refused an interview in the past five
More than one-third of persons with disabilities considered themselves to be disadvantaged in employment because of their condition
In addition to interview, job and promotion refusals, feeling disadvantaged in employment was also reported as a concern among working-age persons with disabilities in 2022. Overall, more than one-third (37%) of persons with disabilities indicated that they considered themselves to be disadvantaged in employment because of their condition, while 35% believed that their current employer or any potential employer would be likely to consider them to be disadvantaged (Table 1). This represents a decrease from 2017, when 41% said they considered themselves to be disadvantaged and 42% said a current or future employer would be likely to consider them disadvantaged as a result of their condition (Chart 2). The prevalence of feeling disadvantaged in employment decreased among both men and women with disabilities.
Data table for Chart 2
| 2017 (ref.) | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
|
||
| Consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment | 41.3 | 36.7 Data table for Chart 2 Note * |
| Employer considers or is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment | 41.5 | 34.8 Data table for Chart 2 Note * |
As with the perceptions of employment refusals, feeling disadvantaged was more prevalent among some groups compared with others. For example, men were more likely than women to believe that they were disadvantaged and that their employers considered them to be disadvantaged (Table A.1). In a similar vein, 2SLGBTQ+ persons with disabilities were more likely than their non-2SLGBTQ+ counterparts to consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment (45% versus 35%) and to believe that their employer considers them to be disadvantaged (40% versus 34%) (Table 1). This conclusion was unchanged after taking into account other factors (Table A.1).
Disability severity was also strongly associated with the likelihood of feeling disadvantaged in employment. Those with very severe disabilities (74%) were almost five times as likely as those with mild disabilities (16%) to state that they consider themselves to be disadvantaged (Table 1). While there was a decrease between 2017 and 2022 in the percentage of persons who believed that their employer would consider them to be disadvantaged because of their condition across all levels of disability severity (Table 2), only persons with mild disabilities saw a decline in the prevalence of considering themselves to be disadvantaged.
Conclusion
This study found that challenges in the labour market persist for persons with disabilities in Canada. Perceived discrimination, even though it decreased between 2017 and 2022, remains a reality for many. Those with more severe disabilities, men, racialized persons, 2SLGBTQ+ persons, and workers in sales and service occupations were among the most likely to indicate that they had experienced some form of unfair employment refusal, whether related to an interview, a job or a promotion. In addition, the study highlighted the complex nature of discrimination in the labour market, demonstrating that perceptions of discrimination are more prevalent among individuals with intersecting characteristics.
Appendix
| Selected characteristics | Refused job interview in the past five years | Refused job in the past five years | Refused promotion in the past five years | Consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment | Employer considers or is likely to consider them to be disadvantaged in employment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||||
|
|||||
| Gender Table A.1 Note 1 | |||||
| Men+ (ref.) | 9 | 12 | 10 | 39 | 37 |
| Women+ | 6 Table A.1 Note * | 9 Table A.1 Note * | 9 | 35 Table A.1 Note * | 33 Table A.1 Note * |
| Severity of disability Table A.1 Note 2 | |||||
| Mild (ref.) | 2 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 17 |
| Moderate | 5 Table A.1 Note * | 8 Table A.1 Note * | 10 Table A.1 Note * | 35 Table A.1 Note * | 31 Table A.1 Note * |
| Severe | 10 Table A.1 Note * | 16 Table A.1 Note * | 15 Table A.1 Note * | 52 Table A.1 Note * | 51 Table A.1 Note * |
| Very severe | 18 Table A.1 Note * | 23 Table A.1 Note * | 23 Table A.1 Note * | 72 Table A.1 Note * | 66 Table A.1 Note * |
| Age group | |||||
| 25 to 34 years | 8 | 12 | 10 | 42 | 36 |
| 35 to 44 years (ref.) | 9 | 12 | 13 | 40 | 36 |
| 45 to 54 years | 7 | 11 | 9 Table A.1 Note * | 38 | 35 |
| 55 to 64 years | 5 Table A.1 Note * | 7 Table A.1 Note * | 7 Table A.1 Note * | 31 Table A.1 Note * | 33 |
| Highest level of education | |||||
| Never attended school | 5 | 5 Table A.1 Note * | 4 | 32 | 27 |
| Less than high school diploma | 7 | 12 | 8 | 37 | 36 |
| High school diploma (ref.) | 8 | 11 | 9 | 35 | 34 |
| Trades certificate or diploma | 8 | 12 | 11 | 38 | 35 |
| College or university certificate below the bachelor's level | 7 | 10 | 10 | 36 | 34 |
| University degree | 6 | 8 | 10 | 39 | 36 |
| Don't know / not stated | 3 Table A.1 Note * | 8 | 7 | 32 | 38 |
| Population group | |||||
| Non-racialized, non-Indigenous (ref.) | 6 | 10 | 9 | 37 | 36 |
| Racialized | 10 Table A.1 Note * | 12 | 13 | 36 | 31 |
| Indigenous | 6 | 9 | 7 | 40 | 36 |
| Immigrant status | |||||
| Non-immigrant (ref.) | 7 | 10 | 10 | 37 | 34 |
| Immigrated in 2010 or earlier | 6 | 9 | 8 | 37 | 38 |
| Immigrated from 2011 to 2021 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 40 | 39 |
| 2SLGBTQ+ identity | |||||
| Yes | 9 | 14 | 14 Table A.1 Note * | 43 Table A.1 Note * | 41 Table A.1 Note * |
| No (ref.) | 7 | 9 | 9 | 36 | 34 |
| Occupation | |||||
| Legislative and senior management | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published | F too unreliable to be published |
| Business, finance and administration | 7 | 11 | 10 | 28 Table A.1 Note * | 30 |
| Natural and applied sciences and related | 5 Table A.1 Note * | 11 | 9 | 35 | 29 |
| Health | 8 | 12 | 11 | 32 | 33 |
| Education, law and social, community and government services | 7 | 11 | 8 | 32 | 31 |
| Art, culture, recreation and sport | 8 | 10 | 10 | 39 | 37 |
| Sales and service (ref.) | 10 | 14 | 10 | 37 | 34 |
| Trades, transport and equipment operators and related | 7 | 10 | 11 | 31 Table A.1 Note * | 31 |
| Natural resources, agriculture and related production | 3 Table A.1 Note * | 13 | 8 | 37 | 25 |
| Manufacturing and utilities | 3 Table A.1 Note * | 7 Table A.1 Note * | 6 | 31 | 30 |
| Province or territory of residence | |||||
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 6 | 8 | 9 | 35 | 31 |
| Prince Edward Island | 6 | 8 Table A.1 Note * | 8 | 34 | 30 Table A.1 Note * |
| Nova Scotia | 6 | 9 | 9 | 34 | 33 |
| New Brunswick | 4 Table A.1 Note * | 8 Table A.1 Note * | 10 | 34 | 33 |
| Quebec | 5 Table A.1 Note * | 8 Table A.1 Note * | 7 Table A.1 Note * | 38 | 35 |
| Ontario (ref.) | 8 | 11 | 10 | 36 | 35 |
| Manitoba | 7 | 11 | 10 | 37 | 35 |
| Saskatchewan | 6 | 9 | 10 | 33 | 33 |
| Alberta | 7 | 10 | 12 | 39 | 36 |
| British Columbia | 7 | 11 | 9 | 37 | 36 |
| Yukon | 6 | 8 | 8 | 38 | 35 |
| Northwest Territories | 5 | 9 | 9 | 29 | 29 |
| Nunavut | 12 | 11 | 9 | 25 Table A.1 Note * | 26 Table A.1 Note * |
Data sources, methods and limitations
Data sources
This article is based on data from the 2017 and 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD). The CSD is a postcensal voluntary survey conducted with the purpose of providing information on Canadians whose everyday activities are limited because of a long-term condition or health-related problem. The survey is sponsored by Employment and Social Development
Methods and limitations
Five indicators of perceived labour market discrimination are used in this article based on the following questions in the survey:
- In the past five years, do you believe that because of your condition, you have been refused
- a job interview?
- a job?
- a job promotion?
- Do you consider yourself to be disadvantaged in employment because of your condition?
- Do you believe that your current employer or any potential employer would be likely to consider you disadvantaged in employment because of your condition?
The available responses to these questions in the survey were limited to “yes” and “no.” In the case of the questions related to being refused an interview, a job or a promotion, if the respondent felt that a question was not applicable to their situation, they were asked to select “no.” Given that the responses of “not applicable” are included along with the responses of “no” in the denominator, the perception of discrimination is likely to be underestimated.
Proxy respondents were included in the interview, job and promotion questions but were excluded from questions on disadvantage in employment. Given that persons with more severe disabilities are more likely to rely on proxy respondents, they might be underrepresented in data on disadvantage in employment.
The results are based on self-reported data and therefore represent a subjective measure of discrimination.
Demographic data relate to the time of the survey, whereas the perception of discrimination covers a period of five years preceding the survey. Given that some characteristics, especially occupation, can change over time, certain associations might not be accurate.
References
Hébert, Benoît-Paul, Christina Kevins, Amirabbas Mofidi, Stuart Morris, Diana Simionescu and Madison Thicke. 2024. “A demographic, employment and income profile of persons with disabilities aged 15 years and over in Canada, 2022.” Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X.
Pianosi, Robin, Laura Presley, Jeannie Buchanan, Amélie Lévesque, Sarah-Anne Savard and Janet Lam. 2023. Canadian Survey on Disability, 2022: Concepts and Methods Guide. Reports on Disability and Accessibility in Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-654-X.
Public Health Agency of Canada. 2020. Aging and chronic diseases: A profile of Canadian seniors. Catalogue no. HP35-137/1-2020E-PDF.
Schimmele, Christoph, Sung-Hee Jeon and Rubab Arim. 2021. “Work experiences of women with disabilities.” Economic and Social Reports. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 36-28-0001.
Statistics Canada. 2023 (1 December). “Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017 to 2022.” The Daily.
Turcotte, Martin. 2014. “Persons with disabilities and employment.” Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-006-X.
Vergara, Daniel and Vincent Hardy. 2024. “Labour market characteristics of persons with and without disabilities, 2023.” Labour Statistics at a Glance. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 71-222-X-2024002.
- Date modified: