Improving Social Security in Canada Persons With Disabilities: A Supplementary Paper Government of Canada This document is also available in alternative formats. Published by the authority of the Minister of Human Resources Development For additional copies or alternative formats please contact: Enquiries Centre 140 Promenade du Portage Phase IV, Level 0 Hull, Quebec K1A 0J9 Fax: (819) 953-7260 Copyright Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1994 Cat. No. MP90-2/5-1994 ISBN 0-662-61409-7 SC-056-10-94 Page 1 Preface Social Security Reform Discussion Paper released The Discussion Paper, Improving Social Security in Canada, released to the public on October 5, provides Canadians with a framework for participating in the reform of our social security system. The Paper takes a close look at why the social security system is not working for many Canadians and for the country as a whole. It sets a direction for change and offers a range of options for redesigning federal programs in the areas of working, learning and security. These programs include Unemployment Insurance, employment development services, child care and federal support for post-secondary education and social assistance. Supplementary Papers provide analytical detail This paper is part of a series of Supplementary Papers which are being released to provide Canadians with more detailed information about the current system and the options outlined in the Discussion Paper. This material is intended to provide a deeper understanding of the issues and to encourage more informed participation in the debate. All contributions to the discussion are welcomed and encouraged It is only with the participation of all Canadians that we can design an effective, fair, flexible and affordable system, which will respond to the needs of Canadians today and in the future. Page 2 Table of Contents Introduction, page 3 The present situation, page 4 1. Statistical profile of persons with disabilities, page 4 2. Current programs, page 6 3. Directions for reform, page 8 4. Strategic initiatives and pilot projects, page 9 Access: training & employment, page 10 1. Removing barriers, page 11 2. The learning and training environment, page 12 3. Improving linkages, page 14 4. Vocational rehabilitation and disability management, page 15 Greater independence, page 16 1. Disability-related supports and services, page 16 2. Income issues, page 20 A guaranteed annual income for persons with disabilities, page 21 Earnings replacement, page 22 3. Constraints in current programs, page 22 Administrative reforms, page 23 Conclusion, page 25 Appendix A - Selected statistics on persons with disabilities, page 26 Appendix B - Key elements of social security system for persons with disabilities, page 108 Appendix C - Definitions and eligibility criteria, page 111 Selected references, page 117 Page 3 Introduction Canadians are invited to take part in improving social security in Canada, to help build a new vision of our social security system and to respond to the challenges faced by all of us. The reform process is an effort to ensure that all human potential is realized, a call for collective and individual action, a belief in creating opportunity, a plan to give people the tools and resources to stay - or become - self-sufficient. The federal government is aware that people with disabilities have, for many years, shared this vision. Social security reform should encourage changes that improve the opportunities for all Canadians, including those with disabilities, to participate in the social and economic mainstream of our country. This reform must focus on the question: How can Canada's social security system move away from a model with its origins in charity to a model that addresses contemporary needs? People with disabilities can benefit from better health and rehabilitation services as well as from new technologies. This means that the severity of a disability is less important in determining current and future potential for participating in society and the labour market. The Discussion Paper, Improving Social Security in Canada, presents the federal government's ideas for improving and modernizing the federal dimension of Canada's social security system. It recognizes that crucial elements of the system are within the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments and that all levels of government will need to work together in consultation with the disability community and all Canadians to make changes over time. With regard to persons with disabilities, the key issues addressed are the importance of: - removing barriers to training and employment; and - improving access to disability-related supports and services to encourage greater independence. This Supplementary Paper elaborates on this new vision of social security and what it could mean for people with disabilities. It considers a wide range of proposals for reform that have emerged over the last 15 years and provides the basis for discussions with the provinces and territories, with the disability community, with other interested partners in the private and voluntary sectors, and with the public. Page 4 There are five key themes. * Build the principles of access and accommodation into the design of training and employment development services as an integral part of an overall approach to more active job- preparedness measures for all Canadians. * Improve access to disability-related supports and services. * Improve the portability of supports and services from home to school to work to community activities, and geographically. * Tailor services to meet individual needs. * Encourage flexibility and linkages among programs to reduce administrative red tape. The Present Situation 1. Statistical profile of persons with disabilities Before deciding where we want to go, it's necessary to understand where we have come from and where we are. Statistics from the most recent Health and Activity Limitations Survey (HALS) 1991 (Health and Activity Limitations Survey (HALS), Statistics Canada, 1991.) provide a good sense of the overall problems that social security reform can help to address. Appendix A provides an overview of the methodology used in HALS as well as selected data tables on topics of particular relevance to issues dealt with in the Discussion Paper. This is the first time this data has been published. * In 1991, 4.2 million Canadians, 15.5 percent of the population, reported some level of disability. * There are 2.3 million adults aged 15 to 64 with disabilities, representing 13 percent of the total working age population. * The majority (94 percent) of persons with disabilities reside in households, not institutions. * Disability rates increase regularly with age, from 7 percent of children under the age of 14 to 50 percent of those over age 65. As the Canadian population ages, the prevalence of disabilities among the population will rise. Page 5 * Most children with disabilities (91 percent) attend school, and most (62 percent) attend regular classes. However, they are at a disadvantage because of their disabilities. Almost 40 percent either started school late, took longer to complete their schooling or had their education interrupted. (See Appendix A.) * People of working age with disabilities have less education than their non-disabled counterparts. Sixty-five percent of them have only a high school education or less, compared to 50 percent of the non-disabled population. Considerably fewer persons with disabilities have a university degree: six percent compared to 14 percent for the non-disabled population. * Persons with disabilities are more likely to be outside the labour force and are 20 percent less likely to be employed than their non-disabled counterparts, even with the same level of education. * The reasons for not joining the labour force most often cited by people with disabilities were: - losing their current income (21 percent); - no jobs available (15 percent); and - problems with training (16 percent). * More than half (56 percent) of people with disabilities are in the work force, either employed (48 percent) or actively looking for work (8 percent). (Ibid.) Many more would like to be, and could be, in the work force if they had the opportunity and tools. There is much scope for change. * Fifty percent of those of working age with a disability reported receiving income from employment in 1990 compared to 73 percent for the general population. * Persons with disabilities, particularly women with disabilities, are concentrated at the bottom end of the income scale. About 60 percent of persons with disabilities have incomes below the Statistics Canada Low-Income Cutoff. Women with disabilities face additional barriers. * Even with education levels comparable to those of men with disabilities, women are not well represented in the labour force. The employment rate for women with disabilities is 40.7 percent, about two thirds of the rate for non-disabled women and about 15 percent less than for men with disabilities. (Ibid.) Page 6 * The low income levels of women with disabilities lead to an overall poverty level that is higher than for all persons with disabilities or for women in general. (The median employment income for women with disabilities in 1985 was $8,360 compared to $10,000 for non-disabled women. For men, the figures are $19,250 and $21,000 respectively.) * Women with disabilities experience a higher level of violence and, too frequently, find that support systems, such as shelters, are inaccessible to them. (See: Statistics Canada, Selected Socio-economic Consequences of Disability for Women in Canada, Ottawa, 1990; COPOH, Breaking the Silence, Winnipeg, 1988.) * Aboriginal people with disabilities must also deal with issues related to status, jurisdictional complexities and, in many instances, geographical isolation. (For more analysis see House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, Completing the Circle: A Report on Aboriginal People with Disabilities, Ottawa, 1993.) 2. Current programs The social security system for people with disabilities is complex. (For a description of programs see Health and Welfare Canada, Inventory of Income Security Programs in Canada, July 1990.) (Appendix B presents an overview of the key elements of this system.) Many players are directly and indirectly involved in financing and delivering benefits and programs, including federal / provincial / territorial governments, the private sector and voluntary agencies. Many of these programs are based on the values of an earlier time and retain assumptions that persons with disabilities are dependent and unable to be self- reliant. These values do not reflect the reality of the 1990s. The present components of the social security system for people with disabilities fall into three broad categories. * Targeted programs provide benefits without regard to the cause of disability. Examples include: - health programs; - assistive devices programs; - vocational rehabilitation programs (some cost shared under the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Program); - the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan; - federal and provincial income tax credits and deductions; Page 7 - private long-term disability insurance; and - unemployment insurance sickness benefits. * Categorical programs provide benefits based on the cause or circumstance of the disability. Programs include: - provincial workers' compensation; - benefits for war veterans with a disability; - automobile accident insurance; and - criminal injuries compensation. * General programs, designed for the broad population, can include persons with disabilities. An example would be: - social assistance. Many of the major elements of this system - workers' compensation programs, automobile accident insurance, criminal injuries compensation, long-term disability insurance and provincial/ territorial social assistance programs - are within provincial/ territorial jurisdiction. All of these, except social assistance, are outside the scope of the Discussion Paper. Although many major components of the system which help persons with disabilities are provincial/territorial, the federal government does play a significant role. * Through the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), the federal government helps fund the provincial/territorial social assistance system which provides basic income support and welfare services. * It shares the cost of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Program. * Through Established Programs Financing (EPF), it helps finance the post-secondary education system. * Through the Canada Student Loans Program, it helps provide loans and grants to post-secondary students. * It administers the Unemployment Insurance Act, which includes earnings replacement and retraining provisions. * It administers the Canada Pension Plan, which provides pensions for contributors who cannot work because of their disabilities and support for their children. * It provides tax assistance to persons with disabilities and/or their families. Page 8 3. Directions for reform During the last 15 years, various studies of disability policies and programs have provided guideposts for this current effort at modernizing Canada's social security system. A common thread has been the call for redirecting the way resources are spent to meet contemporary needs. For example, Obstacles, the report produced by the House of Commons Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, claimed that: without increasing public spending, Canadians have an opportunity to meet the needs of our disabled citizens, and thus join the ranks of those countries who can be proud of the way they recognize the human potential of everyone. (House of Commons Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped, Obstacles, 1981, p. 23.) In 1990, the Standing Committee on Human Rights of the House of Commons pointed out that by treating people with disabilities as individuals with "special" needs, rather than as citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as others, debate often centres on how money can be distributed to fill the needs of this "special" group. Arguments that segregate a class of citizens can also be used to deny them resources or to "throw money" at them. (House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, A Consensus for Action: The Economic Integration of Disabled Persons, 1990, p.23. It is important to note that the same argument can be made for those who receive social assistance.) In 1991-92, the federal government and the provinces and territories initiated a broad examination of issues of concern to persons with disabilities including employment - related services, community and independent living, and promotion and prevention. Their final report, Pathway to Integration: Final Report Mainstream 1992, states that reform in these areas: ...could be problematic if it unduly raises expectations for program initiatives which require net additional resources. On the other hand...while governments are not in the best position to develop new spending programs, they are in a position to challenge existing programs and to rethink their current directions. This type of challenge and thinking may be the foundation for continuing progress toward the realization of shared objectives for Canadians with disabilities. (The Federal / Provincial / Territorial Review of Services Affecting Canadians with Disabilities, Pathway to Integration: Final Report, Mainstream 1992, Report to Ministers of Social Services, Ottawa, 1993, p. i.) The same report included an outline of an "Open House" vision which could serve as a policy framework for advancing the integration and participation of persons with disabilities in the mainstream of Canadian society. Page 9 The "Open House" vision reflects a society which is accommodating to its citizens with disabilities, which understands the importance of empowerment of people, which recognizes the necessity of adapting the social and physical environment, and which acknowledges the rights and responsibilities of people with disabilities. (Ibid, Annex, p. 4.) Overall, the disability community has endorsed these principles as a means of building a framework for policy and programs within the present constitutional and legislative context. 4. Strategic initiatives and pilot projects Recently, the federal, provincial and voluntary sectors jointly launched initiatives to test the "Open House" vision in a co- operative and constructive manner. One example involves agreements to develop community-based alternatives to institutional care for persons with disabilities. As part of the National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities, the federal government is contributing more than $14 million over five years in support of a series of provincial demonstration projects to facilitate the movement of persons with intellectual disabilities from institutions to communities. (The federal contribution is supporting a series of provincial demonstration projects in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Alberta.) These deinstitutionalization projects are a model for co- operation and represent a new way of doing business as governments, associations, communities, families and individuals work together toward a better way of using available resources to achieve social integration of persons with disabilities. While each project has unique features, together they demonstrate how individuals who have been among the most marginalized can re- establish relationships with family, friends and the community in which they live. In addition, there is the Independent Living Centres Pilot Project. Started in 1988 with just five community-based Independent Living Resource Centres (ILRCs), there are now twenty-two ILRCs operating across Canada. Each Centre directly involves persons with disabilities in the management and delivery of four basic programs: - information and referral services - peer support - individual advocacy - service development. Page 10 The Centres promote the independent living philosophy which encourages persons with disabilities to examine new choices, make their own decisions, take risks, learn from mistakes and take responsibility for their own lives. Pilot projects also demonstrate how to use existing resources more efficiently and can have a potential impact on a much broader population and on other geographical areas. One such initiative is "Choice and Opportunity", the strategic initiative with Prince Edward Island that was announced in the 1994 federal budget. This initiative will review the full array of supports and services available to persons with intellectual disabilities. Individuals directly affected, as well as their families and communities, are involved in developing and implementing these plans. These innovative initiatives demonstrate that reinvesting current resources can provide better access and opportunity for persons with disabilities to achieve self-reliance and to participate in the social and economic mainstream. The social security reform process presents an opportunity to incorporate the best of such initiatives into the mainstream of public policy and program delivery. Access: training & employment The Discussion Paper addresses the issue of improved access to training and employment for persons with disabilities in the context of proposals for new approaches to employment development services. The Mainstream 1992 report suggested employment efforts in two directions: "toward removing the discriminatory social and economic barriers which exist in the workplace and toward providing people with....training and disability-related supports..." The disability community, and the Mainstream 1992 report, pointed out that, while all systems and programs should be accessible to people with disabilities, many are not. The federal / provincial / territorial ministers who endorsed the Mainstream 1992 report included a list of strategic directions for moving toward greater integration. The vision set out in the report suggested that "mainstream sectors - education, housing or employment for example - should ensure that their mainstream services are as accessible to people with disabilities as they are to other Canadians." (Pathways to Integration: Final Report, Mainstream 1992, pp. v-vi.) Page 11 1. Removing barriers The general population has become aware of many of the more "public" efforts that reduce barriers: ramps, rearrangement of facilities, adapted furniture, specialized equipment. But most people are less aware of the additional changes that may be necessary: - job modification or restructuring; - flexible work hours; - support to carry out work tasks; - the provision of information in alternate formats such as cassettes or Braille; and - the promotion of supportive working relationships with colleagues. Perhaps the single most important factor in influencing the work environment and removing barriers to training and employment is the specific guarantee of equality rights for people with mental and physical disabilities. Pre-eminent among the constitutional and legislative protections are those in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which apply to all levels of government and to their various agencies. (Section 15 (1) of the Charter states that: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Section 15 (2) makes provision for affirmative action programs to achieve the purposes of section 15 (1).) In addition, within their respective jurisdictions, the federal government and the provinces / territories have provided protection for the rights of people with disabilities in their public and private sectors. As a result of the Charter and these human rights codes (and their consequent interpretation by the courts), governments have undertaken reviews and other efforts to ensure that legislation conforms to various equality provisions. An important result of this rights-based approach has been the development of federal and provincial employment equity legislation. Page 12 Nonetheless there are indications that more needs to be done. A number of briefs presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development during its first set of hearings on social security reform addressed barriers to training and employment. (For examples see presentations by Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Canadian Association for Community Living and The Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres.) The barriers most often cited are: - assessment, counselling and training in facilities that are inaccessible or exclude people with disabilities; - lack of information, especially in alternate formats, about training and employment programs; - inadequate support services (particularly personal support services which are ongoing, job coaches, attendant care, interpreters, readers); - job training and retraining tied to eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, which effectively excludes people with disabilities without previous insurable earnings; - absence of remedial programs that provide upgrading to become eligible for training programs; - screening mechanisms such as criteria that require people to be independently employable after a maximum of three years of training; and - reduced funding of outreach employment programs that the disability community feels have provided positive results in the past. 2. The learning and training environment Improved access to employment for many persons with disabilities is directly linked to improved access to appropriate education and training. There are several possibilities. One might be to encourage the shift of emphasis from segregated training programs to mainstream education and training. This would take advantage of existing vocational guidance, training and employment services - with adaptations wherever necessary. Another important measure could be to assure that adequate supports and accommodations are available and portable from one stage of the educational system to another. Support during transition periods is perhaps as important as the learning experience itself. This has been well documented in the recent report Transitions to Employment for Persons with Disabilities by the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. (Transitions to Employment for Persons with Disabilities, Canadian Labour Force Development Board, 1994.) Page 13 The specific needs of people with disabilities could be recognized and accommodated in the delivery of training. For example, flexible policies that would extend course completion dates, flexible work arrangements or an extension of the age limit for youth programs could make it easier for students with disabilities to complete their training successfully. Improved access to work experiences, such as co-op and apprenticeship programs, and more flexible on-the-job training arrangements in the regular work environment could allow students with disabilities to acquire the skills they need and give prospective employers an opportunity to consider their potential as employees. Some trainees may need to acquire basic skills and/or a gradual familiarization with the world of work. These components could be built into mainstream programs. There may sometimes be a need to tailor a training program to meet the needs of specific populations, e.g., those with learning disabilities or people with mental health problems. The federal government is taking steps. Grants to offset the additional education-related costs of post-secondary students with permanent ("Permanent" is defined as a functional limitation caused by a physical or mental impairment which, for an indefinite period, affects the ability of the student to perform the activities necessary to participate fully in post-secondary learning.) disabilities are being introduced as part of the reforms of the Canada Student Loans Program. The model used here is instructive: loans are available to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria but, in addition, grants will be available to post-secondary students with disabilities who face additional costs for such things as note-takers or technical aids. To help students with disabilities secure summer jobs, Human Resources Development Canada has initiated a national demonstration project involving selected Canada Employment Centres and employers to provide high-quality, career-oriented job experiences with the necessary accommodations. The federal government also provides tax assistance to persons with disabilities pursuing post-secondary education. Before 1992, the education credit was only available to full-time students. To recognize that disability can prevent a student from attending a post-secondary institution on a full-time basis, the credit was extended to persons with disabilities attending part-time. Page 14 3. Improving linkages As the Discussion Paper states, the federal government would like to discuss, with the provinces, approaches to updating the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Program (VRDP). The emphasis could be on directing resources toward opportunities for mainstream training and employment. This would complement changes made to the VRDP Agreements in 1988 following extensive federal / provincial / territorial discussions and consultations with the disability community. This approach would enable governments to collaborate with other partners to improve employment opportunities for Canadians with disabilities. It would enhance the link between training institutions and employers, and shift efforts toward employment, including supported employment, within the mainstream. Improving linkages between VRDP and other job-preparedness programs, such as employability programs for social assistance recipients and Canada Pension Plan Vocational Rehabilitation initiative, could be explored so individuals in one program could gain access to opportunities in others. Improving the linkages between VRDP and employers in job placement and in the retention of workers with disabilities could also be explored. A useful guide for these discussions might be the updated standards concerning vocational rehabilitation and employment of the International Labour Organization. (See Convention 159 and Recommendation 168 of The International Labour Organization, 1983.) These standards: * Apply job-preparedness measures available to the general population equally to people with disabilities. * Expand and create employment opportunities by providing financial incentives to employers. * Focus on employment in addition to providing vocational rehabilitation. Other linkages relate to the employment environment. The central role of employers in hiring, training and providing workplace accommodations makes them essential partners with government, with current and potential employees with disabilities and with unions. Employers and governments in consultation with the disability community have tried a wide range of approaches which can be built upon in future, including: - addressing systemic discrimination in advertising jobs, recruitment, hiring and promotion practices; - providing accommodations such as the restructuring of work, part-time work, re-assignment of duties and training; Page 15 - arranging for on-the-job supports for individuals (sign interpreters, attendant care, day care services); - assisting job applicants and employees with disabilities to articulate their needs for accommodations; - establishing jointly funded programs by employers and governments which include on-the-job training and supported employment; and - implementing effective policies that encourage and enable employers to retain their disabled employees. 4. Vocational rehabilitation and disability management Historically, vocational rehabilitation has focused on enhancing work ability or job readiness. It is time to update vocational rehabilitation to assist in removing barriers to training and employment. Disability management is a workplace-based reintegration program with three primary components: - prevention - rehabilitation - integration. After an injury or illness, case managers work with the employee, his or her physician, other healthcare / rehabilitation professionals, the benefits' providers and the employee's supervisor to develop an individualized rehabilitation and return-to-work plan with a timetable and designated responsibilities. The goal is to return employees to their pre- injury job, regardless of whether their condition is temporary or permanent. This often requires a gradual return to work where hours or days of work increase over time. It may also provide for job modifications if an employee's injury or illness impedes carrying out all the previous duties. If the employee's disability precludes return to the previous job, then another suitable job, similar in pay and level of responsibility, is identified. In late 1993, a rethinking of the role of vocational rehabilitation led Human Resources Development Canada to take a first step in changing the way that the federal government deals with injury and disability prevention, and the rehabilitation and reintegration of federal employees who become disabled. The federal initiative, a pilot disability management strategy, was developed in collaboration with employee organizations and management. Page 16 Public and private sector organizations in several jurisdictions which have disability management programs have realized considerable savings in human and financial resources. (Disability management has been put in place by a number of organizations, including the Marriott Corporation in the USA and in the Australian public sector by Comcare Australia, a prevention, rehabilitation and compensation scheme introduced in 1988. In five years, Comcare has reduced workers' compensation premiums by 38 percent. In Canada, work in disability management is being carried out by the Disability Management Institute, based in British Columbia.) To encourage disability management through research, education and training, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research has recently opened its doors in Port Alberni, British Columbia. This is the result of the co-operative effort of the disability community, employers and governments. Greater independence The Discussion Paper addresses the need to realign programs to better assist people with disabilities to live independently. The Mainstream 1992 report suggested governments pursue policies on two complementary tracks. * Remove barriers to mainstream activities. * Improve access to disability-related supports and services. The Discussion Paper states that the federal government wishes to discuss with the provinces and territories, the possibilities for improving access to disability-related supports and services. An important reason for doing this is to separate eligibility for supports and services from eligibility for income assistance. 1. Disability-related supports and services Many people with disabilities require goods and services to offset the effect of disablement. They also may need support from people. Attendants provide supports related to personal care (bathing, eating, etc.) mobility, body movement and transportation. Homemakers and attendants perform household chores and maintenance. Community-based services assist those with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. Disability-related supports also include aids and devices that assist with the activities of daily living. Examples include: - wheelchairs and other aids for mobility; - aids for persons with visual disabilities and communications devices for persons with speech and hearing disabilities; Page 17 - signalling systems for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing; - reading and writing aids and adaptive equipment to activate computers; - drugs and medications; - diabetic equipment; - prostheses and ortheses; - incontinence and ostomy supplies; and - respiratory equipment. Having a disability often entails extra costs - costs that non- disabled people do not have. (HALS (1986) showed that 9.5 percent of people with disabilities needed support on a daily basis for preparing meals, personal care or moving about their residence. Of 3.3 million, 163,403 needed a special bus or van service. Many others required technical aids (416,000 for mobility, 259,000 for assistance with hearing, and 353,000 with assistance for seeing). Comparable data from 1991 HALS are not yet available.) An individual's needs may vary over time. Some people need minimal assistance, such as a parking space near a workplace, but for others, the additional cost of devices and personal supports can become a major financial burden. There are many programs, each with its own eligibility requirements, which provide for disability-related needs. (See Appendix C for definitions of disability and differing eligibility requirements.) Funding for, and provision of, aids and devices create a complicated maze, and provisions vary from province to province. (Patients in hospitals generally receive personal supports as well as technical aids and devices as part of their medical treatment. For those in residential facilities, the services and supports that are provided depend on the type of residence or jurisdiction. In some cases, the residence provides them and the province pays. In other cases, the consumer is expected to pay for, or make a contribution toward, the cost of equipment. For those living in the community, some supports and services are provided through provincial health insurance systems. Those not provided through the health system may be provided for those on social assistance and the costs shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. If supports and services are vocationally related, they may be provided for those in training programs and the costs shared under VRDP. If the disability is work related, compensation including supports and services is provided by workers' compensation; if resulting from an automobile accident, by auto insurance plans. Page 18 Some people have insurance through their employer, which addresses disability-related needs as well as earnings replacement. Some may have their disability-related expenses partially compensated by the federal and provincial tax system. Charitable foundations and the voluntary sector play an important role in making available financial assistance and aids/devices through loan banks.) People with disabilities who are employed must frequently pay for much of the cost of adapted equipment out of their own pockets. For example, a self-employed person who is blind may have to assume the additional cost of purchasing an adapted computer. Someone with a mobility impairment often must assume the additional cost of modifying a vehicle to get to work. There is some compensation for part of these expenses through measures available in the tax system. In seeking to obtain the supports and services they require, individuals may have to deal with several different administrations for assessments and reassessments. In many instances, programs are not comprehensive or well linked. For example, a personal supports program, such as homecare, may not provide technical aids and equipment. Some programs are available to families with children with severe disabilities, but once children reach the age of 18 they may have to obtain their supports and services through provincial social assistance. While the education system may pay for the cost of making equipment and services available to meet educational needs, these school-based supports are often not transferable for use at home. When people with disabilities leave school to enter the labour force, they are often obliged to leave behind publicly subsidized aids and devices that they still require. Recent studies show that most working-age persons with disabilities are receiving inadequate support for personal care. (The Roeher Institute, On Target, 1992, p. 60.) Despite the range of service providers, in many cases the personal supports that are needed for independent living or for participation in the labour market are unavailable or are provided by systems that do not respond well to individual needs. These systems have evolved over time with the result that supports and services are often provided on a discretionary basis and are not usually the result of a coherent and consistent policy framework to ensure access according to need. Page 19 The Province of Quebec has developed a policy framework and passed legislation, la Loi assurant l'exercice des droits des personnes handicap‚es, to deal with disability issues in a more comprehensive way. Quebec's system addresses the changing needs of the individual. Regardless of status (age, sex, disability or income), health care, rehabilitation services, technical aids and social services are provided by the provincial health and social services department on the basis of need for service. They do not consider the individual's or family's level of income. Appropriate authorities are responsible for other specific disability-related accommodations such as house adaptations (La Soci‚t‚ d'habitation du Qu‚bec) or vehicle adaptations (La R‚gie de l'assurance automobile du Qu‚bec). Most provinces and territories restrict eligibility for publicly funded supports and services to those eligible for social assistance. Persons with disabilities often receive more generous income benefits than other categories of social assistance recipients. However, some people may be overcompensated while others with high disability-related costs may be undercompensated. At the same time, persons with disabilities who are not eligible for social assistance may not be able to afford disability-related services and supports that they need to live independently. This creates an incentive for some persons with disabilities to abandon the labour market and apply for social assistance in order to gain access to the services and supports they require. As identified in the Discussion Paper, other problems arise because of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), which provides financing on a cost-shared basis for many of these services. CAP does not fund services that are primarily educational, work- related or recreational. Furthermore, because the funding for services often goes to the residential institution and not the individual, some people who depend on personal supports are locked into particular residential arrangements. Ideally, all persons with disabilities should have reasonable access to the disability-related supports and services they require. Access should be appropriate and timely, given their unique circumstances. Persons with disabilities should be able to bring these supports with them - from home to school to work to play, and from one geographic location to another. To the extent possible, persons with disabilities should be provided with the funding to purchase and manage their individual supports and services. Page 20 Many proposals to improve access to disability-related supports and services have been made, most recently by The Roeher Institute. (The Roeher Institute, The Canadian Disability Resource Program: Offsetting Costs of Disability and Assuring Access to Disability-Related Supports, 1994.) This proposal is based on redirecting current resource allocations into one comprehensive program which would make supports and services available primarily on the basis of individual requirements. This and similar proposals from the disability community could serve as a starting point for public consultation and for discussions with the provinces and territories. Improved access to disability-related supports and services, coupled with removing barriers to training and employment, could potentially reduce social assistance expenditures over the long term by making the tools that persons with disabilities require to participate in education, training and work available to them. This approach could also facilitate provincial efforts to link delivery of health, education and social services. In an ideal world, disability-related supports and services should be available on the basis of need for service. Nonetheless, given the current financial realities, any attempts to improve access would have to be constrained within existing funding parameters. This raises difficult questions that need to be discussed and difficult choices that must be made. 2. Income issues Over the years, federal and provincial advisory bodies, disability organizations and researchers have made recommendations about improving the adequacy and equity of the disability income system. Proposals have ranged from a major, comprehensive overhaul of all disability-related income programs to a process of staged, harmonized and incremental changes. There are several major distinctions among the various proposals. For example, some propose to solve the problem of disability-related costs by proposing a higher fixed income benefit or a refundable tax credit. Others propose implementing a guaranteed annual income (GAI) and/or a comprehensive disability insurance program. (An example would be the Joint Federal-Provincial Study of a Comprehensive Disability Protection Program, Stage II Report: Program Design Options, December,1985.) Some propose a GAI as a base for an earnings-replacement system. (An example of this would be Leon Muszynski's paper "The Case for Universal Comprehensive Disability Insurance," 1992.) The disability income programs which would have to be considered are much broader than those encompassed in the Discussion Paper. Further, it may be easier to rationalize the income system in the future if access to disability-related supports and services is first addressed. Page 21 Since the Discussion Paper discusses the merits and the downside of an overall GAI, proposals for a targeted GAI for persons with disabilities and the issues and questions it raises are reviewed here. A guaranteed annual income for people with disabilities Proposals for a guaranteed annual income for people with disabilities are intended to address the income needs of this group outside the social assistance system. Various proposals have suggested the advantages of a GAI. * It could provide more adequate income support to persons who are eligible. * Its design could separate income support from access to disability-related supports and services. * It could improve financial incentives if it taxed back earnings at a low rate. * It could disentangle current federal-provincial cost-sharing programs and "top up" payments from other disability income replacement programs such as CPP/QPP disability and Workers' Compensation Board partial payments. * It could replace the needs test by a less intrusive income test. The picture, however, is far from one-sided, and a GAI might potentially have serious disadvantages. * It might reinforce the tendency to categorize persons with severe disabilities as inherently "unemployable." * A GAI that provides for an adequate standard of living would be expensive and could divert resources from programs that provide necessary supports and services that enable persons with disabilities to participate more fully in the mainstream. * A GAI would, on its own, be insufficient to meet everyone's needs and may need to be accompanied by a "top up" for those with extraordinary expenses. A fiscally sustainable GAI would likely have to be selective. In turn, this raises a serious question regarding eligibility criteria. * If eligibility were restricted to those with severe disabilities, how would the income needs of persons with mild or moderate disabilities, who also face obstacles to participation, be met? Page 22 Earnings replacement Many studies propose changes to rationalize the patchwork of earnings-replacement programs and to establish a single, comprehensive disability-insurance program. (Some examples are: - the Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Study of a Comprehensive Disability Protection Program, Stage I Report, September,1983, Stage II Report, December, 1985; - Transitions Report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, Province of Ontario,1988; - Comprehensive Disability Harry Beatty, Compensation in Ontario: Toward an Agenda, 1991; - The Roeher Institute, Comprehensive Disability Income Security Reform, March 1992; - "The Case for Universal, Comprehensive Disability Insurance," Leon Muszynski, November 1992; - Council of Canadians with Disabilities, "Identifying the Holes in the Quilt: The Social Security System and People with Disabilities," March 1994.) While reform is needed, no comprehensive earnings-replacement program can be put in place until there is an agreement on its objectives and design and the best delivery mechanism. This must involve all the players: the federal government, the provinces and territories, private insurers and the disability community. Most of these earnings-replacement programs are outside the scope of this social security reform. 3. Constraints in current programs For people with disabilities, many of the barriers to mainstream activities arise from the difficult decision which the current system often precipitates: to receive welfare or a pension, or to earn income through employment. To calculate eligibility for, and the amount of benefits, most social assistance programs classify persons with disabilities as long-term cases or as "permanently unemployable." Those who apply for disability benefits under the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan, or private long-term disability insurance plans must also meet a similar criterion. This labelling is based on a widespread perception that, to be eligible for benefits, people with disabilities should be identified as incapable of supporting themselves. Page 23 In addition to placing barriers in the way of training and employment, the "unemployable" categorization results in unacceptable outcomes that become particularly evident when we look at how our social assistance system works. On the surface, this categorization may be advantageous. For example, compared to other social assistance recipients, those receiving benefits as a result of disability usually receive more money, have access to disability-related supports and services, and are not required to show continuing proof of searching for a job. They have greater financial security than so-called "employable" social assistance recipients. The classification as "permanently unemployable" ties many persons with disabilities to social assistance. If they demonstrate that they can work, they may lose disability-related supports and services which they cannot afford on a minimum-wage income. Yet many of these so-called "unemployables" want to work - and are able to work. However, they need access to the disability-related supports and services they cannot afford on their own. A similar situation exists for CPP/QPP beneficiaries who try to return to the work force. If they demonstrate that they can earn, they stand to lose their benefit entirely - even if their wages are much lower than their benefit would be. A review of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit is currently under way to improve incentives for beneficiaries to return to the labour force. Administrative reforms The Discussion Paper briefly reviews several key issues that address access to mainstream training and employment, and ways to promote greater independence for persons with disabilities. The earlier sections of this paper have described some of the possible efforts that could be undertaken to address these issues at the policy level. In addition, complementary changes in administration and delivery could make programs more accessible, integrated and efficient. In 1993, the establishment of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) brought under one roof responsibility for some key government programs that affect persons with disabilities. A number of these (i.e., Canada Assistance Plan, Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Program, Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, pilot projects under the National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities, Employment Equity, Employment Programs, Canada Student Assistance Program) have been mentioned elsewhere in this paper. Page 24 As the Discussion Paper points out, there is a need to refocus programs on what works and to establish effective partnerships to provide individuals and communities with the tools they need to build self-reliance and create opportunities. These objectives can equally be applied to the particular needs of persons with disabilities. Several areas can be pursued in the short term. * Encouraging linkages at the program development and delivery level among various federal programs could give persons with disabilities easier access to all the tools Human Resources Development Canada has available. This is of particular importance for programs related to training and employment. For example, when looking at ways to encourage the use of VRDP to improve access to mainstream training and employment, there are other linkages that can be made to job- preparedness initiatives aimed at social assistance recipients or to vocational rehabilitation initiatives under the Canada Pension Plan. As HRDC moves to establish a single-window approach to serving a wide range of Canadians, there are many opportunities for achieving access and accommodation for persons with disabilities. * Efforts can promote successful models of disability management with public and private sector employers. * Other administrative changes could result from exploring ways to use vehicles, such as the current federal cost-sharing instruments, to support provincial programs that assist persons with disabilities to live more independently and to participate in mainstream activities, including training and employment. This can build on best practices learned from the pilot projects and strategic initiatives referred to earlier in the paper. * Administrative changes could also focus on delivering programs in a timely and co-ordinated way and on disseminating comprehensive information to Canadians about the various HRDC programs that support opportunities for persons with disabilities. For example, a major project being implemented by Income Security Programs will lead to more timely and efficient processing of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. In addition, the Canadian Clearinghouse on Disability Issues collects and makes available, to interested individuals and organizations, a wide range of information on disability issues. This resource can be strengthened to enhance two-way dialogue between the Department and other interested parties on a variety of disability-related issues. Page 25 Conclusion Reforming Canada's social programs will affect the lives of all Canadians, including people with disabilities - close to 16 percent of our current population. According to the Health and Activity Limitations Survey (HALS), the number of Canadians who have identified themselves as having a disability grew by 900,000 from 3.3 million in 1986 to 4.2 million in 1991. Our population is aging and as we grow older, the proportion of those with disabilities will rise. By the age of 65 almost 50 percent of Canadians have some type of disability. Percentages, however, are a cold way of demonstrating something that we all know: people with disabilities are our parents, brothers, sisters and spouses, as well as our colleagues, our friends, our neighbours and ourselves. They are leaving institutions where they were "cared for" and are taking their place in the community. Parents are insisting that children with disabilities attend regular school classes; young people are enroling in a range of studies at post-secondary educational institutions; and, along with adults with disabilities, they are participating in training and entering the labour force. Social security reform provides the opportunity to assess existing and future needs and the best ways of meeting these needs. Programs should be a consequence, not a driving force in setting priorities. For people with disabilities, social security reform can ultimately result in accommodations across the entire spectrum of programs. Investing public dollars wisely enables people with disabilities to become contributing citizens with a consequent benefit not only to themselves but also to the quality of life and economic well-being of all Canadians. The directions suggested in the Discussion Paper and in this Supplementary Paper are not cast in stone. It is hoped that they will contribute to a wide debate and discussion among Canadians on how to do things better. We invite each reader to take part in this debate. Page 26 Appendix A Selected statistics on persons with disabilities The statistics presented in this appendix are derived from the 1991 Health and Activity Limitations Survey and are published here for the first time. About the health and activity limitations survey HALS is a post-censal survey, and was first conducted by Statistics Canada after the 1986 Census, and repeated after the 1991 Census. The Household Survey was conducted immediately after the 1991 Census. HALS was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved the addition of two questions to the 1991 Census long questionnaire. These questions (which ask respondents about activity limitations and long-term disability) were designed to identify the target population; from the target population, a sample of 148,000 adults and children were selected for the household survey. The second stage involved administering the HALS household questionnaires to these samples of children and adults. This very extensive questionnaire identifies people by the type of disabling condition they experience and the range of limitations they face in the activities of daily living (e.g. education, employment, transportation, etc.). Since the HALS sample was drawn from the 1991 Census, Census data are used to supplement the HALS database to provide more comprehensive information and to compare the disabled and non- disabled populations. The definition of disability used in HALS is based on the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH), a model developed by the World Health Organization of the United Nations: "... a disability is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being". A severity scale for adults has been developed using the responses to the screening questions. The scoring is first derived by adding together the individual severity scores of all screening questions, counting one point for each partial loss of function and two points for each total loss of function (i.e., a complete inability to perform a function). The total score is then categorized as follows: mild - less than 5 points moderate - 5 to 10 points severe - 11 or more points Page 27 Selected statistics This Appendix provides an overview of the major characteristics of persons with disabilities in Canada today. This material was compiled to reflect the major issues dealt with within the context of Social Security Reform. It constitutes a profile of persons with disabilities in Canada, the provinces and territories, including basic information such as age, sex, the nature and severity of disability, the level of education, employment status and levels of income. The 1991 statistics confirm some of the HALS 1986 findings: - the vast majority of people with disabilities reside in households and not in institutions; - disability rates increase with age, from a low incidence of disability among children to 50% of seniors; - most children and youth with disabilities attend school but do not attain the same level of education as non-disabled young people; - persons with disabilities are more likely to be outside the labour force and are less likely to be employed than their non- disabled counterparts, even with the same level of education; - persons with disabilities are concentrated at the bottom of the income scale, particularly women with disabilities. HALS 1991 reveals some overall directions in the five-year period 1986-91: - younger persons with disabilities have improved their educational attainment; - adults with disabilities, particularly women with disabilities have increased their employment rate. Page 28 List of tables Table 1 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability Table 1.1 Canada Table 1.2 Newfoundland Table 1.3 Prince Edward Island Table 1.4 Nova Scotia Table 1.5 New Brunswick Table 1.6 Qu‚bec Table 1.7 Ontario Table 1.8 Manitoba Table 1.9 Saskatchewan Table 1.10 Alberta Table 1.11 British Columbia Table 1.12 Yukon Table 1.13 Northwest Territories Table 2.1 Adults with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Family Type and by Province Table 3.1 Youth with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 24, by Highest Level of Schooling Completed Table 4.1 Highest Level of Schooling Completed by Adults with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Sex and by Provinces Table 5.1 Adults with and without Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64: Percent Employed by Education Level Table 6.1 Labour Force Status of Adults with disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Sex and by Provinces Table 7.1 Adults with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Level of Individual Income, by Provinces Page 29 Table 1.1 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Canada Total Canadian population 26,916,730 Total population with disabilities 4,184,680 Disability rate: 16 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 208,020 Girls 140,280 Total 348,300 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 651,110 Women 597,390 Total 1,248,500 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 222,230 Women 265,190 Total 487,420 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 15,790 Women 18,210 Total 34,000 Total with Mild Disabilities - 2,118,220 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 18,420 Girls 11,130 Total 29,550 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 329,910 Women 395,520 Total 725,430 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 175,320 Women 259,840 Total 435,160 Page 30 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 16,640 Women 30,870 Total 47,510 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 1,237,650 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 6,550 Girls 4,950 Total 11,500 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 155,310 Women 167,900 Total 323,200 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 111,080 Women 202,300 Total 313,380 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 56,670 Women 124,070 Total 180,740 Total with Severe Disabilities - 828,820 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 232,990 Girls 156,360 Total 389,350 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 1,136,320 Women 1,160,810 Total 2,297,130 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 508,630 Women 727,320 Total 1,235,960 Page 31 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 89,100 Women 173,150 Total 262,240 Total with Disabilities - 4,184,680 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 9.3 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 54.9 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 29.5 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 6.3 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 32 Table 1.2 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Newfoundland Total population of Newfoundland 562,210 Total population with disabilities 56,170 Disability rate: 10 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 3,520 Girls 2,620 Total 6,140 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 6,020 Women 6,040 Total 12,060 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 4,620 Women 3,880 Total 8,500 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 270 Women 330 Total 600 Total with Mild Disabilities - 27,300 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 190 Girls 440 Total 630 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 4,790 Women 4,550 Total 9,340 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 2,520 Women 3,250 Total 5,770 Page 33 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 300 Women 450 Total 750 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 16,490 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Girls 110 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent) Total 140 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 2,080 Women 2,450 Total 4,530 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 1,880 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent) Women 3,100 Total 4,980 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 930 Women 1,800 Total 2,730 Total with Severe Disabilities - 12,380 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 3,750 Girls 3,170 Total 6,920 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 12,890 Women 13,030 Total 25,930 Page 34 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 9,020 Women 10,230 Total 19,250 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,500 Women 2,580 Total 4,080 Total with Disabilities - 56,180 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 12.3 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 46.2 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 34.3 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 7.3 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 35 Table 1.3 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Prince Edward Island Total population of Prince Edward Island 128,970 Total population with disabilities 21,760 Disability rate: 17 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 1,170 Girls 830 Total 1,990 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 3,220 Women 2,880 Total 6,090 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 1,220 Women 1,850 Total 3,080 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 50 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 60 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 110 Total with Mild Disabilities - 11,270 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 100 Girls 50 Total 150 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 1,530 Women 1,790 Total 3,310 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 1,380 Women 1,010 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 2,400 Page 36 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 90 Women 170 Total 260 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 6,120 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 30 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 640 Women 900 Total 1,540 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 650 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 980 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 1,630 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 420 Women 760 Total 1,170 Total with Severe Disabilities - 4,370 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 1,290 Girls 890 Total 2,170 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 5,390 Women 5,560 Total 10,950 Page 37 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 3,260 Women 3,840 Total 7,100 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 560 Women 980 Total 1,540 Total with Disabilities - 21,760 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 10 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 50.3 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 32.6 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 7.1 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 38 Table 1.4 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Nova Scotia Total population of Nova Scotia 889,190 Total population with disabilities 189,470 Disability rate: 21 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 8,010 Girls 6,080 Total 14,090 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 24,590 Women 28,910 Total 53,510 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 12,480 Women 11,290 Total 23,770 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 510 Women 620 Total 1,130 Total with Mild Disabilities - 92,500 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 510 Girls 500 Total 1,010 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 15,990 Women 20,360 Total 36,350 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 11,230 Women 12,230 Total 23,460 Page 39 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 600 Women 730 Total 1,340 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 62,160 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 170 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 8,920 Women 7,510 Total 16,430 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 5,010 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 7,660 Total 12,680 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,840 Women 3,690 Total 5,520 Total with Severe Disabilities - 34,800 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 8,580 Girls 6,690 Total 15,280 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 49,510 Women 56,780 Total 106,290 Page 40 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 28,730 Women 31,180 Total 59,910 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 2,950 Women 5,040 Total 7,990 Total with Disabilities - 189,470 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 8.1 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 56.1 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 31.6 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 4.2 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 41 Table 1.5 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - New Brunswick Total population of New Brunswick 717,590 Total population with disabilities 127,050 Disability rate: 18 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 5,510 Girls 4,030 Total 9,540 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 18,770 Women 16,980 Total 35,750 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 7,910 Women 8,800 Total 16,710 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 250 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 340 Total 580 Total with Mild Disabilities - 62,590 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 350 Girls 220 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 570 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 12,770 Women 11,030 Total 23,800 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 6,610 Women 8,750 Total 15,360 Page 42 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 390 Women 550 Total 940 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 40,670 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 210 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 220 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 430 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 4,580 Women 5,230 Total 9,810 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 3,650 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 4,920 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 8,570 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,700 Women 3,290 Total 4,980 Total with Severe Disabilities - 23,790 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 6,080 Girls 4,470 Total 10,550 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 36,120 Women 33,240 Total 69,360 Page 43 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 18,160 Women 22,480 Total 40,640 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 2,330 Women 4,170 Total 6,500 Total with Disabilities - 127,050 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 8.3 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 54.6 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 32.0 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 5.1 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 44 Table 1.6 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Quebec Total population of Quebec 6,846,360 Total population with disabilities 854,190 Disability rate: 13 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 39,760 Girls 28,000 Total 67,760 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 118,180 Women 103,010 Total 221,190 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 54,290 Women 72,890 Total 127,180 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 4,660 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 5,300 Total 9,950 Total with Mild Disabilities - 426,080 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 3,520 Girls 3,530 Total 7,050 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 68,910 Women 79,150 Total 148,070 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 36,310 Women 58,130 Total 94,430 Page 45 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 5,270 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 11,680 Total 16,950 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 266,500 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 810 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 1,390 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 25,140 Women 29,140 Total 54,280 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 20,690 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 38,210 Total 58,900 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 15,720 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 31,320 Total 47,040 Total with Severe Disabilities - 161,610 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 44,090 Girls 32,110 Total 76,200 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 212,230 Women 211,310 Total 423,540 Page 46 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 111,290 Women 169,220 Total 280,510 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 25,650 Women 48,290 Total 73,940 Total with Disabilities - 854,190 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 8.9 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 49.6 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 32.8 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 8.7 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 47 Table 1.7 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Ontario Total population of Ontario 10,023,810 Total population with disabilities 1,606,810 Disability rate: 16 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 74,140 Girls 49,370 Total 123,510 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 257,740 Women 230,470 Total 488,220 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 54,630 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 79,300 Total 133,930 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 6,240 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 7,040 Total 13,270 Total with Mild Disabilities - 758,920 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 7,850 Girls 1,930 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 9,780 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 130,510 Women 170,770 Total 301,280 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 72,540 Women 110,850 Total 183,400 Page 48 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 5,210 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 9,570 Total 14,780 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 509,230 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 2,600 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 1,960 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 4,560 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 72,180 Women 72,460 Total 144,640 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 38,710 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 85,080 Total 123,790 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 18,580 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 47,090 Total 65,670 Total with Severe Disabilities - 338,660 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 84,580 Girls 53,260 Total 137,840 Page 49 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 460,440 Women 473,700 Total 934,130 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 165,870 Women 275,240 Total 441,110 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 30,020 Women 63,700 Total 93,730 Total with Disabilities - 1,606,810 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 8.6 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 58.1 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 27.5 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 5.8 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 50 Table 1.8 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Manitoba Total population of Manitoba 1,045,680 Total population with disabilities 183,630 Disability rate: 18 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 8,100 Girls 5,030 Total 13,130 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 24,150 Women 24,640 Total 48,790 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 14,670 Women 14,250 Total 28,920 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 530 Women 440 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 970 Total with Mild Disabilities - 91,810 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 920 Girls 420 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 1,330 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 12,730 Women 16,060 Total 28,800 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 8,330 Women 13,500 Total 21,830 Page 51 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 580 Women 960 Total 1,540 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 53,500 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 240 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 490 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 730 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 4,990 Women 6,100 Total 11,090 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 5,820 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 12,420 Total 18,240 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 2,550 Women 5,720 Total 8,260 Total with Severe Disabilities - 38,330 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 9,260 Girls 5,930 Total 15,190 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 41,870 Women 46,810 Total 88,680 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 28,830 Women 40,170 Total 69,000 Page 52 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 3,650 Women 7,120 Total 10,770 Total with Disabilities - 183,630 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 8.3 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 48.3 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 37.6 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 5.9 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 53 Table 1.9 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Saskatchewan Total population of Saskatchewan 893,210 Total population with disabilities 170,840 Disability rate: 19 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 9,660 Girls 6,250 Total 15,920 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 28,840 Women 27,110 Total 55,950 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 10,180 Women 10,570 Total 20,740 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 460 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 310 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 770 Total with Mild Disabilities - 93,380 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 580 Girls 590 Total 1,170 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 11,810 Women 13,500 Total 25,320 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 8,590 Women 8,900 Total 17,490 Page 54 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 550 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 900 Total 1,450 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 45,420 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 220 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 200 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 420 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 5,050 Women 5,390 Total 10,450 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 5,340 Women 6,670 Total 12,010 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 3,050 Women 6,120 Total 9,170 Total with Severe Disabilities - 32,050 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 10,460 Girls 7,040 Total 17,510 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 45,710 Women 46,010 Total 91,710 Page 55 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 24,110 Women 26,130 Total 50,240 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 4,060 Women 7,320 Total 11,380 Total with Disabilities - 170,840 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 10.2 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 53.7 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 29.4 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 6.7 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 56 Table 1.10 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Alberta Total population of Alberta 2,503,280 Total population with disabilities 424,970 Disability rate: 17 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 26,640 Girls 21,040 Total 47,680 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 71,390 Women 72,790 Total 144,180 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 24,860 Women 30,450 Total 55,310 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,370 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 1,780 Total 3,140 Total with Mild Disabilities - 250,310 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 2,070 Girls 1,250 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 3,320 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 30,490 Women 38,390 Total 68,880 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 13,640 Women 19,690 Total 33,330 Page 57 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,480 Women 2,770 Total 4,250 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 109,780 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 1,370 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 510 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 1,880 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 12,820 Women 14,360 Total 27,170 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 8,120 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 12,800 Total 20,920 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 5,400 Women 9,510 Total 14,910 Total with Severe Disabilities - 64,880 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 30,080 Girls 22,810 Total 52,880 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 114,700 Women 125,530 Total 240,230 Page 58 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 46,620 Women 62,940 Total 109,560 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 8,240 Women 14,060 Total 22,300 Total with Disabilities - 424,970 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 12.4 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 56.5 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 25.8 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 5.2 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 59 Table 1.11 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - British Columbia Total population of British Columbia 3,221,190 Total population with disabilities 539,490 Disability rate: 17 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 30,540 Girls 16,380 Total 46,920 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 95,710 Women 82,290 Total 178,000 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 37,050 Women 31,750 Total 68,800 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 1,430 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 1,990 Total 3,420 Total with Mild Disabilities - 297,140 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 2,240 Girls 2,140 Total 4,380 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 39,500 Women 39,030 Total 78,530 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 13,980 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 23,320 Total 37,290 Page 60 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 2,150 Women 3,070 Total 5,220 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 125,420 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 970 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls 700 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 1,670 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 18,680 Women 24,090 Total 42,770 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 21,040 Women 30,290 Total 51,330 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 6,450 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 14,720 Total 21,160 Total with Severe Disabilities - 116,930 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 33,750 Girls 19,220 Total 52,970 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 153,890 Women 145,410 Total 299,300 Page 61 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 72,070 Women 85,360 Total 157,430 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 10,020 Women 19,770 Total 29,790 Total with Disabilities - 539,490 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 9.8 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 55.5 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 29.2 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 5.5 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 62 Table 1.12 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Yukon Total population of Yukon 27,780 Total population with disabilities 3,090 Disability rate: 11 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 210 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 360 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 780 Women 720 Total 1,490 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 90 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 110 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 10 Women 10 Total 10 Total with Mild Disabilities - 1,970 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 40 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 40 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 280 Women 270 Total 550 Page 63 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 80 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 90 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 170 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Women 10 Total 10 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 770 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Girls (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Total 20 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 100 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 90 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 190 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 40 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 50 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 90 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 20 Women 20 Total 40 Total with Severe Disabilities - 350 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 260 Girls 160 Total 420 Page 64 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 1,160 Women 1,080 Total 2,240 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 210 Women 160 Total 370 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 30 Women 30 Total 60 Total with Disabilities - 3,090 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 13.6 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 72.5 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 12.0 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 1.9 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 65 Table 1.13 Number of Persons with Disabilities, by Age, by Sex, by Level of Severity of Disability - Northwest Territories Total population of Northwest Territories 57,480 Total population with disabilities 7,230 Disability rate: 13 percent Level of Severity - Mild Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 750 Girls 530 Total 1,270 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 1,710 Women 1,560 Total 3,270 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 230 Women 140 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 370 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 30 Women 20 Total 50 Total with Mild Disabilities - 4,960 Level of Severity - Moderate Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 60 Girls 50 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 110 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 590 Women 630 Total 1,220 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 120 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 120 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 240 Page 66 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 20 Women 20 Total 40 Total with Moderate Disabilities - 1,610 Level of Severity - Severe Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Girls 30 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 40 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 120 Women 180 Total 300 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 130 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women 120 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Total 250 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 30 Women 40 Total 80 Total with Severe Disabilities - 670 Total number in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households Boys 810 Girls 610 Total 1,420 Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households Men 2,420 Women 2,370 Total 4,790 Adults 65 years plus, residing in households Men 480 Women 380 Total 860 Page 67 Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.) Men 80 Women 80 Total 160 Total with Disabilities - 7,230 Total percentage in each category with disabilities Children 0 to 14 years, residing in households: 19.6 percent Adults 15 to 64 years, residing in households: 66.3 percent Adults 65 years plus, residing in households: 11.9 percent Adults 15 and over, residing in institutions. (The 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey did not include children 0 to 14 years in institutions.): 2.2 percent Total percentage with Disabilities: 100 percent Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 68 Table 2.1 Adults with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Family Type and by Province Canada Single Adults With Children - Number: 230,340 Percent: 11.2 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 262,170 Percent: 12.8 Total Single Adults - Number: 492,500 Percent: 24.0 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 1,010,670 Percent: 49.2 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 549,010 Percent: 26.8 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 1,559,670 Percent: 76.0 Total Adults - Number: 2,052,170 Percent: 100.0 Newfoundland Single Adults With Children - Number: 2,550 Percent: 10.6 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 1,410 Percent: 5.9 Total Single Adults - Number: 3,960 Percent: 16.4 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 16,110 Percent: 66.9 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 4,010 Percent: 16.7 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 20,120 Percent: 83.6 Total Adults - Number: 24,080 Percent: 100.0 Prince Edward Island Single Adults With Children - Number: 1,030 Percent: 10.3 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 910 Percent: 9.1 Total Single Adults - Number: 1,940 Percent: 19.4 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 5,290 Percent: 53.0 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 2,750 Percent: 27.5 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 8,030 Percent: 80.6 Total Adults - Number: 9,970 Percent: 100.0 Nova Scotia Single Adults With Children - Number: 9,980 Percent: 10.2 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 9,560 Percent: 9.7 Total Single Adults - Number: 19,540 Percent: 19.9 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 51,690 Percent: 52.7 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 26,920 Percent: 27.4 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 78,600 Percent: 80.1 Total Adults - Number: 98,140 Percent: 100.0 Page 69 New Brunswick Single Adults With Children - Number: 6,620 Percent: 10.8 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 6,080 Percent: 9.9 Total Single Adults - Number: 12,690 Percent: 20.7 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 33,030 Percent: 53.9 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 15,510 Percent: 25.3 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 48,530 Percent: 79.3 Total Adults - Number: 61,220 Percent: 100.0 Quebec Single Adults With Children - Number: 41,690 Percent: 11.2 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 58,180 Percent: 15.7 Total Single Adults - Number: 99,870 Percent: 26.9 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 170,950 Percent: 46.0 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 100,810 Percent: 27.1 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 271,750 Percent: 73.1 Total Adults - Number: 371,620 Percent: 100.0 Ontario Single Adults With Children - Number: 99,590 Percent: 12.0 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 88,680 Percent: 10.7 Total Single Adults - Number: 188,270 Percent: 22.7 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 430,130 Percent: 51.8 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 211,670 Percent: 25.5 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 641,800 Percent: 77.3 Total Adults - Number: 830,070 Percent: 100.0 Manitoba Single Adults With Children - Number: 8,530 Percent: 10.7 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 13,570 Percent: 17.0 Total Single Adults - Number: 22,090 Percent: 27.6 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 32,740 Percent: 41.0 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 25,070 Percent: 31.4 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 57,810 Percent: 72.4 Total Adults - Number: 79,900 Percent: 100.0 Saskatchewan Single Adults With Children - Number: 8,000 Percent: 9.5 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 10,020 Percent: 11.9 Total Single Adults - Number: 18,020 Percent: 21.4 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 42,320 Percent: 50.3 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 23,800 Percent: 28.3 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 66,120 Percent: 78.6 Total Adults - Number: 84,140 Percent: 100.0 Page 70 Alberta Single Adults With Children - Number: 20,970 Percent: 9.5 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 30,330 Percent: 13.8 Total Single Adults - Number: 51,300 Percent: 23.3 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 107,890 Percent: 49.1 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 60,500 Percent: 27.5 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 168,390 Percent: 76.7 Total Adults - Number: 219,680 Percent: 100.0 British Columbia Single Adults With Children - Number: 30,560 Percent: 11.4 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 42,770 Percent: 16.0 Total Single Adults - Number: 73,330 Percent: 27.5 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 117,040 Percent: 43.8 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 76,730 Percent: 28.7 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 193,760 Percent: 72.5 Total Adults - Number: 267,090 Percent: 100.0 Yukon Single Adults With Children - Number: 160 Percent: 7.6 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 280 Percent: 13.4 Total Single Adults - Number: 430 Percent: 21.0 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 940 Percent: 45.7 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 680 Percent: 33.3 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 1,620 Percent: 79.0 Total Adults - Number: 2,050 Percent: 100.0 Northwest Territories Single Adults With Children - Number: 670 Percent: 15.8 Single Adults Without Children - Number: 410 Percent: 9.7 Total Single Adults - Number: 1,080 Percent: 25.4 Adults in Couples With Children - Number: 2,580 Percent: 60.8 Adults in Couples Without Children - Number: 590 Percent: 13.8 Total Adults in Couples - Number: 3,170 Percent: 74.6 Total Adults - Number: 4,250 Percent: 100.0 Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 71 Table 3.1 Youth with Disabilities, aged 15 to 24, by Highest Level of Schooling Completed None to some secondary school Youth with Disabilities Young men - Number: 74,850 Percent: 57.1 Young women - Number: 68,700 Percent: 51.9 Total - Number: 143,550 Percent: 54.5 Youth without Disabilities Young men - Number: 769,110 Percent: 43.2 Young women - Number: 653,210 Percent: 37.9 Total - Number: 1,422,320 Percent: 40.6 Completed secondary school Youth with Disabilities Young men - Number: 54,530 Percent: 41.6 Young women - Number: 60,890 Percent: 46.0 Total - Number: 115,420 Percent: 43.8 Youth without Disabilities Young men - Number: 921,920 Percent: 51.8 Young women - Number: 972,580 Percent: 56.4 Total - Number: 1,894,490 Percent: 54.1 University degree Youth with Disabilities Young men - Number: (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Percent: (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Young women - Number: 2,290 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 1.7 Total - Number: 3,290 (Figures to be used with caution. The stand deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 1.2 Youth without Disabilities Young men - Number: 80,950 Percent: 4.6 Young women - Number: 89,910 Percent: 5.2 Total - Number: 170,860 Percent: 4.9 All levels Youth with Disabilities Young men - Number: 131,170 Percent: 100.0 Young women - Number: 132,430 Percent: 100.0 Total - (Numbers do not add to total because some youth did not state their highest level of schooling completed.) Number: 263,600 Percent: 100.0 Page 72 Youth without Disabilities Young men - Number: 1,778,690 Percent: 100.0 Young women - Number: 1,723,610 Percent: 100.0 Total - (Numbers do not add to total because some youth did not state their highest level of schooling completed.) Number: 3,502,290 Percent: 100.0 Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest "10" for presentation. In some cases, the addition of columns/rows may not equal the total listed due to rounding. Page 73 Table 4.1 Highest level of Schooling Completed by Adults with Disabilities, Aged 15 to 64, by Sex and by Province Canada Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 244,480 Percent: 21.5 Women - Number: 209,560 Percent: 18.1 Total - Number: 454,040 Percent: 19.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 492,070 Percent: 43.3 Women - Number: 540,230 Percent: 46.5 Total - Number: 1,032,290 Percent: 44.9 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 119,950 Percent: 10.6 Women - Number: 127,280 Percent: 11.0 Total - Number: 247,230 Percent: 10.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 209,730 Percent: 18.5 Women - Number: 219,260 Percent: 18.9 Total - Number: 428,980 Percent: 18.7 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 70,110 Percent: 6.2 Women - Number: 64,490 Percent: 5.6 Total - Number: 134,600 Percent: 5.9 Total all categories Men - Number: 1,136,330 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 1,160,810 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 2,297,140 Percent: 100.0 Page 74 Newfoundland Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 5,050 Percent: 39.1 Women - Number: 3,830 Percent: 29.4 Total - Number: 8,880 Percent: 34.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 5,000 Percent: 38.8 Women - Number: 6,470 Percent: 49.7 Total - Number: 11,460 Percent: 44.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men -Number: 550 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 4.3 Women - Number: 730 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 5.6 Total - Number: 1,280 Percent: 4.9 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 2,180 Percent: 16.9 Women - Number: 1,700 Percent: 13.0 Total - Number: 3,880 Percent: 15.0 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Percent: (Amount too small to be expressed. The standard deviation of the estimate is higher than 33.3 percent.) Women - Number: 310 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 2.4 Total - Number: 430 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 1.7 Total all categories Men - Number: 12,900 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 13,030 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 25,930 Percent: 100.0 Page 75 Prince Edward Island Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 1,660 Percent: 30.8 Women - Number: 1,200 Percent: 21.5 Total - Number: 2,860 Percent: 26.1 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 2,130 Percent: 39.5 Women - Number: 2,320 Percent: 41.7 Total - Number: 4,450 Percent: 40.6 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 410 Percent: 7.6 Women - Number: 640 Percent: 11.5 Total - Number: 1,050 Percent: 9.6 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 840 Percent: 15.6 Women - Number: 1,190 Percent: 21.4 Total - Number: 2,030 Percent: 18.5 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 350 Percent: 6.5 Women - Number: 230 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 4.1 Total - Number: 570 Percent: 5.2 Total all categories Men - Number: 5,390 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 5,570 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 10,950 Percent: 100.0 Page 76 Nova Scotia Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 12,500 Percent: 25.2 Women - Number: 10,140 Percent: 17.9 Total - Number: 22,640 Percent: 21.3 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 19,880 Percent: 40.2 Women - Number: 28,110 Percent: 49.5 Total - Number: 47,990 Percent: 45.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 3,160 Percent: 6.4 Women - Number: 5,140 Percent: 9.1 Total - Number: 8,300 Percent: 7.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 11,650 Percent: 23.5 Women - Number: 10,510 Percent: 18.5 Total - Number: 22,160 Percent: 20.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 2,330 Percent: 4.7 Women - Number: 2,890 Percent: 5.1 Total - Number: 5,220 Percent: 4.9 Total all categories Men - Number: 49,510 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 56,780 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 106,290 Percent: 100.0 Page 77 New Brunswick Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 12,850 Percent: 35.6 Women - Number: 8,180 Percent: 24.6 Total - Number: 21,030 Percent: 30.3 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 15,510 Percent: 42.9 Women - Number: 15,420 Percent: 46.4 Total - Number: 30,930 Percent: 44.6 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 2,230 Percent: 6.2 Women - Number: 2,850 Percent: 8.6 Total - Number: 5,070 Percent: 7.3 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 4,470 Percent: 12.4 Women - Number: 5,630 Percent: 16.9 Total - Number: 10,110 Percent: 14.6 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 1,080 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 3.0 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Women - Number: 1,160 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 3.5 Total - Number: 2,250 Percent: 3.2 Total all categories Men - Number: 36,130 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 33,240 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 69,360 Percent: 100.0 Page 78 Quebec Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 55,020 Percent: 25.9 Women - Number: 64,390 Percent: 30.5 Total - Number: 119,400 Percent: 28.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 96,850 Percent: 45.6 Women - Number: 98,870 Percent: 46.8 Total - Number: 195,720 Percent: 46.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 19,470 Percent: 9.2 Women - Number: 14,140 Percent: 6.7 Total - Number: 33,600 Percent: 7.9 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 26,710 Percent: 12.6 Women - Number: 28,850 Percent: 13.7 Total - Number: 55,550 Percent: 13.1 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 14,200 Percent: 6.7 Women - Number: 5,080 (Figures to be used with caution. The standard deviation of the estimate is between 16.6 percent and 33.3 percent.) Percent: 2.4 Total - Number: 19,270 Percent: 4.5 Total all categories Men - Number: 212,230 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 211,310 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 423,540 Percent: 100.0 Page 79 Ontario Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 97,220 Percent: 21.1 Women - Number: 77,940 Percent: 16.5 Total - Number: 175,160 Percent: 18.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 203,540 Percent: 44.2 Women - Number: 220,900 Percent: 46.6 Total - Number: 424,440 Percent: 45.4 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 50,990 Percent: 11.1 Women - Number: 53,270 Percent: 11.2 Total - Number: 104,260 Percent: 11.2 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 84,040 Percent: 18.3 Women - Number:90,570 Percent: 19.1 Total - Number: 174,600 Percent: 18.7 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 24,660 Percent: 5.4 Women - Number: 31,030 Percent: 6.6 Total - Number: 55,690 Percent: 6.0 Total all categories Men - Number: 460,440 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 473,700 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 934,140 Percent: 100.0 Page 80 Manitoba Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 9,390 Percent: 22.4 Women - Number: 7,050 Percent: 15.1 Total - Number: 16,440 Percent: 18.5 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 16,220 Percent: 38.7 Women - Number: 18,780 Percent: 40.1 Total - Number:35,000 Percent: 39.5 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 5,960 Percent: 14.2 Women - Number: 6,580 Percent: 14.1 Total - Number: 12,530 Percent: 14.1 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 7,850 Percent: 18.7 Women - Number: 11,730 Percent: 25.1 Total - Number: 19,580 Percent: 22.1 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 2,460 Percent: 5.9 Women - Number: 2,680 Percent: 5.7 Total - Number: 5,130 Percent: 5.8 Total all categories Men - Number: 41,870 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 46,610 Percent: 100.0 Total all categories Men - Number: 41,870 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 46,810 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 88,680 Percent: 100.0 Page 81 Saskatchewan Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 9,760 Percent: 21.4 Women - Number: 6,270 Percent: 13.6 Total - Number: 16,040 Percent: 17.5 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 19,820 Percent: 43.4 Women - Number: 23,300 Percent: 50.6 Total - Number: 43,120 Percent: 47.0 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 4,820 Percent: 10.5 Women - Number: 5,290 Percent: 11.5 Total - Number: 10,110 Percent: 11.0 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Certificate/Diploma Men - Number: 7,330 Percent: 16.0 Women - Number: 9,100 Percent: 19.8 Total - Number: 16,430 Percent: 17.9 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - University Degree Men - Number: 3,980 Percent: 8.7 Women - Number: 2,060 Percent:4.5 Total - Number: 6,030 Percent: 6.6 Total all categories Men - Number: 45,710 Percent: 100.0 Women - Number: 46,010 Percent: 100.0 Total - Number: 91,710 Percent: 100.0 Page 82 Alberta Highest Level of Schooling Completed - 0 to 8 Years Men - Number: 17,910 Percent: 15.6 Women - Number:10,410 Percent: 8.3 Total - Number: 28,310 Percent: 11.8 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Secondary School Men - Number: 50,510 Percent: 44.0 Women - Number: 63,560 Percent: 50.6 Total - Number: 114,060 Percent: 47.5 Highest Level of Schooling Completed - Some Post-Secondary Men - Number: 13,070 Percent: 11.4 Women - Number: 14,330 Percent: 11.4 Total - Number: 27,400 Percent