Symbol of the
Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Home > Resources > Publications > Publications by subject > Employment Equity > Impact of the Employment Equity Act and of the CHRC Employment Equity Program over the years > Page2

Institutional links

PAGE TOOLS

Resources

Publications

Publications by subject

PRIVATE SECTOR INDUSTRIES

representation of aboriginal peoples in private industries: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation of aboriginal peoples in four different private sectors: banking, communications, transportation and other industries. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at zero and going to 4%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the line for the representation of aboriginal peoples in the banking industry begins at 0.8% and ends at 1.3%; the line for the representation of aboriginal peoples in the communications industry begins at 0.9% and ends at 1.6%; the line for the representation of aboriginal peoples in the transportation industry begins at 1.1% and ends at 2.5%; and the line for the representation of aboriginal peoples in other industries begins at 1.9% and ends at 2.5%. 

  • Transportation and other industries where the private sector industries with the highest levels of representation of Aboriginal peoples, at 2.5% each in 2008.
  • Representation of Aboriginal peoples was lowest in the banking sector, rising from 0.8% in 1992 to 1.3% in 2008. This can partly be explained by the fact that a significant proportion of employees in banks are located in Toronto — a city with a relatively low percentage of Aboriginal persons (0.5%). Aboriginal peoples make up a larger share of the total population elsewhere in the country.10 
  • The most substantial growth occurred in the transportation industry, which more than doubled in representation. The major portion of this growth occurred from 1998 to 2002, as representation rose from 1.3% to 2.3% in that time frame.
  • In the communications industry, representation of Aboriginal peoples remains low but has grown from 0.9% in 1992 to 1.6% in 2008.

DATA HIGHLIGHTS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

OVERVIEW

representation and availability of persons with disabilities: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation among federally regulated employers and the total workforce availability for persons with disabilities. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at 0% and going to 10%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the representation line begins at 2.7% and ends at 3.4%, and the availability line begins at 6.5% and ends at 4.9%.

  • The representation of persons with disabilities among federally regulated employers  grew from 2.7% in 1992 to 3.4% in 2008.11
  • However, it is difficult to comment on the evolution of the gap between representa-tion and availability of persons with disabilities because the measurement of persons with disabilities changed over the years.

  • In 1992, availability of persons with disabilities was 6.5%. This figure dropped to 5.8% in 2001,12 and to 4.9% in 2006. The decrease in availability between the last two censuses was due to a number of factors. In 2001, occupational data for 23% of persons with disabilities who were included in the workforce population were not available. The availability rate would have been 4.5% (and not 5.8%) if these “non-applicable” counts had been excluded from the workforce population.  This was corrected in 2006: persons with disabilities who did not report an occupation were not included in the workforce data.
  • A decline in requirements for workforce accommodations and in the perception of disadvantage also contributed to the decrease in the representation gap in 2006.13

PUBLIC SECTOR VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR

representation of persons with disabilities in the public and private sectors: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation of persons with disabilities in the public sector and the representation of persons with disabilities in the private sector. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at 0% and going to 6%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in the public sector begins at 3.1% in 1992 and ends at 5.6% in 2008. the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in the private sector begins at 2.5% in 1992 and ends at 2.7% in 2008.

  • While representation in the public sector saw substantial growth over the 16-year period from 1992 to 2008, representation in the private sector remained relatively constant.14
    • The representation in the public sector grew by a total of 2.5 percentage points over the period — from 3.1% in 1992 to 5.6% in 2008.
    • The growth in percentage representation was most pronounced in the late 1990s. From 1996 to 1999, representation grew by 1.4 percentage points — accounting for more than half of the total representational growth during the entire 16-year period.

  • On March 31, 2009, 89% of federal departments/agencies with 500 employees and over met or exceeded availability of 4.0% for persons with disabilities.15
  • The Canada Public Service Agency has the largest proportion of persons with disabilities in its workforce (12.7%), followed by Veterans Affairs Canada (8.5%), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (7.5%), and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Public Service Commission (all at 7.4%).
>
  • In the private sector, representation of persons with disabilities declined in the 1990s, going from 2.5% in 1992 to 2.3% in 2000. However, this trend was eventually reversed, as representation rose to 2.7% in 2008.

PRIVATE SECTOR INDUSTRIES

representation of persons with disabilities in private industries: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation of persons with disabilities in four different private sectors: banking, communications, transportation and other industries. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at zero and going to 4%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in the banking industry begins at 3.8% and ends at 3.5%; the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in the communications industry begins at 2.0% and ends at 2.5%; the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in the transportation industry begins at 1.8% and ends at 2.1%; and the line for the representation of persons with disabilities in other industries begins at 2.8% and ends at 2.4%.

  • Despite fluctuations between 1992 and 2008, there was little change in the representation of persons with disabilities in private industries. Representation in industries, other than banking, did not vary by more than half of a percentage point.
  • The banking industry had the highest levels of representation of persons with disabilities at both the beginning and end of the 16-year period:  3.8% in 1992 and 3.5% in 2008. However, from 1996 to 1997, representation fell from 3.7% to 2.4%, only to rebound in 2004.
  • The representation of persons with disabilities grew the most in the communications industry, going from 2.0% in 1992 to 2.5% in 2008.

DATA HIGHLIGHTS FOR MEMBERS OF A VISIBLE MINORITY


OVERVIEW

representation and availability of members of a visible minority: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation among federally regulated employers and the total workforce availability for members of a visible minority. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at 0% and going to 16%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the representation line begins at 6.8% and ends at 15.1%, and the availability line begins at 9.1% and ends at 15.3%.

  • Substantial growth in the visible minority population over the last two decades caused the workforce availability to increase considerably from 1992 to 2008 — going from 9.1% to 15.3%.16
    • The overall population growth of visible minorities has been attributed to the increasing number of landed immigrants from non-European countries.17
  • Availability — which is calculated every five years in conjunction with the Census of Population — rose by 1.2 percentage points in 1996, 2.3 percentage points in 2001, and by 2.7 percentage points in 2006.
  • The growth in both representation and availability of members of a visible minority was the largest among the designated groups.
  • The gap between representation and availability of members of a visible minority has decreased over the years. In 1992, availability was 2.3 percentage points higher than representation; by 2008, this gap had decreased to 0.2 percentage points.18 
     

PUBLIC SECTOR VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR

representation of members of a visible minority in the public and private sectors: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation of members of a visible minority in the public sector and the representation of members of a visible minority in the private sector. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at 0% and going to 6%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in the public sector begins at 3.8% in 1992 and ends at 10.9% in 2008. the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in the private sector begins at 7.9% in 1992 and ends at 16.6% in 2008.

  • The representation of members of a visible minority grew consistently in both the public and private sectors from 1992 to 2008. The representation grew by 7.1 percentage points in the public sector, and by 8.7 percentage points in the private sector.19
    • Public sector: Their representation went from 3.8% to 10.9%, which represents an increase of 185% between 1992 and 2008;
    • Private sector: Their representation went from 7.9% to 16.6%, which represents an increase of 110% between 1992 and 2008.
    • Despite continuous growth, the representation of members of a visible minority in the public sector has continued to be lower than in the private sector. This can be explained by the following factors:

    • Geography: Many federally regulated private employers are located in cities with large visible minority populations (ex. 41% of the population in Toronto) while the majority of public sector employers are based in Ottawa-Gatineau, which has a smaller visible minority population (14% of the population).
    • The Canadian citizenship requirement for public servants may also impact the representation of members of a visible minority in the public sector. A total of 22% of members of a visible minority in the workforce did not have Canadian citizenship20. To be eligible for Canadian citizenship, immigrants must meet several requirements, including having lived at least three years in Canada.21 This means that immigrants who arrived between 2003 and 2006 were not eligible for citizenship:  85% of all immigrants who arrived before 2003 had become Canadian citizens, as opposed to 48% of those who came in 2001 and 2002.
    • As of March 31, 2009, 32% of federal departments/agencies with 500 employees and over met or exceeded availability of 12.4% for members of a visible minority.22
      • The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has the largest proportion of members of a visible minority in its workforce (24.8%), followed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (16.9%) and the Canada Public Service Agency (16.4%).

      •  

    PRIVATE SECTOR INDUSTRIES

    representation of members of a visible minority in private industries: this line-graph shows a comparison between the representation of members of a visible minority in four different private sectors: banking, communications, transportation and other industries. percentage is plotted along the y-axis beginning at zero and going to 4%, and each year is plotted along the x-axis starting from nineteen ninety-two and going to two thousand and eight. the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in the banking industry begins at 13.2% and ends at 25.2%; the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in the communications industry begins at 6.7% and ends at 15.3%; the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in the transportation industry begins at 4.2% and ends at 10.2%; and the line for the representation of members of a visible minority in other industries begins at 5.5% and ends at 13.5%.

    • The representation of members of a visible minority increased in every sector of private industry between 1992 and 2008.
    • The banking sector, which had the highest level of representation of members of a visible minority in 1992 (13.2%), also grew the most. In 2008, representation had grown to 25.5%, an increase of 12.3 percentage points.
    • The industry with the second highest level of representation was the communications industry. Over the same 16-year period, representation grew from 6.7% to 15.3% — a total growth of 8.6 percentage points.
    • The representation in the transportation industry grew from 4.2% in 1992 to 10.2% in 2008. In the “other” private industries, it grew from 5.5% to 13.5% over the same period of time.

    Footnotes

    1. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census.” Statistics Canada. 2008. Pages 6 and 13. (Catalogue: 97-558)
    2. For the purposes of this report each year of private sector data, ending on December 31st, has been compared to public sector data, in which each fiscal year ends the following March 31st.
    3. There was no survey on persons with disabilities in 1996. As a result, the 1991 estimates – taken from the 1991 “Health and Activity Limitation Survey” (now known as the “Participation and Activity Limitation Survey”) – were used for the entire decade.
    4. “2006 Employment Equity Data Report.” Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. 2006.  “Due to factors such as technological advance and the presence of some assistive technology in the workplace (e.g. people with poor vision may eliminate their disability by changing the font size on their computer), fewer people declared that they needed special accommodation to work. This resulted in a decrease in the availability of persons with disabilities (Employment Equity defined) from 5.8% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2006.”
    5. Core public sector data has been combined with that of separate government employers from the year 2000 to 2008.
    6. For the purposes of this report, both the public and private sectors are compared to national availability data, which is based upon the Census of Population and the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS). However, federal departments and agencies use modified availability rates, which reflect the occupations in their workforce.
    7. For the purposes of this report each year of private sector data, ending on December 31st, has been compared to public sector data, in which each fiscal year ends the following March 31st.
    8. “2006 Census: Ethnic Origin, visible minorities, place of work and mode of transportation.” The Daily. Statistics Canada. April 2, 2008. Page 2. (Catalogue: 11-001-XIE)
    9. Ibid.
    10. Core public sector data has been combined with that of separate government employers from the year 2000 to 2008.
    11. Special unpublished table, 2006 Census. Statistics Canada.
    12. “Immigration in Canada: A Portrait of the Foreign-born Population, 2006 Census.” Statistics Canada. (Catalogue: 97-557)
    13. For the purposes of this report, both the public and private sectors are compared to national availability data, which is based upon the Census of Population and the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS). However, federal departments and agencies use modified availability rates, which reflect the occupations in their workforce.
    Previous PageTable of Contents
    Last Updated: 2010-05-06
    Top of Page
    Top of Page
    Important Notices