NO. 11-008 SOCIAL TRENDS - Statistics Canada

CATALOGUEN

O. 11-008

SOCIAL TRENDSC A N A D I A NC A N A D I A N

SOCIAL TRENDS

Common-lawintentions

Work stress

Caring for others

Cultural diversity

Immigrant earnings

May–December marriages

FEATURESFEATURES

AUTUMN 2003 NO. 70AUTUMN 2003 NO. 70$11 CANADA

At your service…At your service…Comments aboutWe welcome your views on articles and other items that have been published in Canadian Social Trends. For more information, specific inquiries or to comment, please contact:

Editor-in-Chief,Canadian Social Trends,7th floor, Jean Talon Bldg.,Statistics Canada,Ottawa, Ontario,K1A 0T6

Fax number: (613) 951-0387 Internet e-mail at: [email protected]

Ordering/Subscription informationCanadian Social Trends can be ordered using any of the following methods:

• Telephone (Canada and United States)1 800 267-6677

• Fax (Canada and United States)1 877 287-4369

• [email protected]

• MailStatistics Canada, Dissemination Division, Circulation Management,120 Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6

• In person at the Statistics Canada Regional Centre nearest you,or from authorized agents and bookstores.

Users can obtain single issues or subscribe athttp://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/11-008-XIE.htm

Need more information?For information on the wide range of data available from Statistics Canada, you cancontact us by calling one of our toll-free numbers (Canada and United States only).You can also contact us by e-mail or by visiting our Web site.

National enquiries line 1 800 263-1136National TTY line (teletype machine) 1 800 363-7629E-mail enquiries [email protected] site www.statcan.ca

Depository Services Program enquiries 1 800 700-1033Fax line for Depository Services Program 1 800 889-9734

Canadian Social Trends?

http://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/11-008-XIE.htm

http://www.statcan.ca

Statistics Canada — Catalogue No. 11-008 AUTUMN 2003 CANADIAN SOCIAL TRENDS 1

FEATURES

Would you live common-law? 2by Anne Milan

Stress at work 7by Cara Williams

Unpaid informal caregiving 14by Nancy Zukewich

Update on cultural diversity 19

Earnings of immigrants in the 1990s 24by Tina Chui and Danielle Zietsma

May–December: Canadians in age-discrepant relationships 29by Monica Boyd and Anne Li

Keeping track 34

Social indicators 35

Lesson plan: “Would you live common-law?” 36

C A N A D I A N

SOCIAL TRENDS

Cover illustratorBorn in Bonaventure in the Gaspé Peninsula in Quebec, Mylène Henry has been pursuingher interest in the arts all her life. In 1995, she completed her graphics arts studies at theCEGEP in Rivière-du-Loup and specialized in illustration at Laval University. Mylène’s mostrecent work was exhibited this summer at the Bonaventure Musée Acadien du Québec.

C A N A D I A NAUTUMN 2003 No. 70

Editor-in-ChiefPIERRE TURCOTTE

EditorsWARREN CLARK, ANNA KEMENY,

ANNE MILAN, ALICE PETERS

Research OfficerGILBERT MANSOUR

Production ManagerCYNTHIA FORTURA

Production Co-ordinatorSHIRLEY LI

Marketing/DisseminationALEX SOLIS

Art/Printing DirectionDISSEMINATION DIVISION,

STATISTICS CANADA

DesignGRIFFE DESIGN INC.

Cover IllustrationMYLÈNE HENRY

Review CommitteeM. BOYD, E. BOYKO, J. HAGEY,

I. MACREDIE, G. MONTIGNY, D. NORRIS,M.J. SHERIDAN, P. WHITE

AcknowledgementsJ. BADETS, C. BERTRAND, J. CHARD,

L. DUXBURY, M. FRENETTE, D. GALARNEAU, M. HAMDAD, M. JUSTUS, H. LAUTARD,

E. RUDDICK, L. STONE, T. WANNEL, Z. WU

Canadian Social Trends (Catalogue no. 11-008-XPE;aussi disponible en français, no 11-008-XPF au catalogue)is published quarterly.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES:Paper version: CDN $11.00 per issue

CDN $36.00 for a one year subscriptionStudents: 30% discount

(plus applicable taxes in Canada or shipping chargesoutside Canada).

Electronic version available on Internet (Catalogue no. 11-008-XIE):

CDN $8.00 per issueCDN $27.00 for aone-year subscription

(plus applicable taxes in Canada).

Published by authority of the Minister responsible forStatistics Canada. © Minister of Industry, 2003. Allrights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro-duced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording or otherwise, without prior writtenpermission from Licence Services, Marketing Division,Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0T6.

Indexed in the Academic ASAP, Academic SearchElite, Canadian Periodical Index, Canadian Serials,Expanded Academic ASAP, PAIS International, Peri-odical Abstracts, Periodical Abstracts Research II,ProQuest 5000, Proquest Research Library and avail-able on-line in the Canadian Business and CurrentAffairs Database.

ISSN 0831-5698 ISSN 1481-1634(Print) (Electronic)

CST

Common-law unions haveincreased dramatically over thepast 20 years, and have become

an integral part of conjugal living inCanada. According to census data,common-law unions have more thandoubled, from 6% of all families in1981 to 14% in 2001. While some cou-ples decide to live common-law in asecond or subsequent relationship,many are choosing this type of arrange-ment as their first conjugal union.1

Despite the growth in common-law unions, and the increased socialacceptance of this type of relation-ship, living together without beingmarried is not for everyone. In fact, ithas been suggested that instead ofasking “who lives common-law?” itmight be more appropriate to ask“who does not live common-law?”2

This article uses data from the 2001General Social Survey (GSS) to exam-ine the extent to which never-marriedand previously married people3 whohave never lived common-law in thepast would be willing to do so in the future.

Men more willing than women to live common-lawThe unmarried population who hasnever lived common-law is fairlyevenly divided between those whowould and those who would not bewilling to live in this type of union.

Just less than half (48%) of never-married or previously married peoplefelt they could live common-law atsome future time, while just over half(52%) felt they could not.

The proportion of men who wouldconsider living in a common-law rela-tionship is substantially higher thanthe proportion of women: 62% ofunmarried men reported being agree-able to such a union compared with36% of women. Results of a logisticregression model show that when all other factors were held constant,the odds of women agreeing to live common-law were only about 60%the odds of men.

Willingness to live common-lawdeclines as people get older, and islower for women than for men ateach age group. For example, 74% of

men and 64% of women aged 15 to 29would agree to such an arrangement,compared with only 13% of men and5% of women aged 60 and over. Thefact that women are less willing to live

CANADIAN SOCIAL TRENDS AUTUMN 2003 Statistics Canada — Catalogue No. 11-0082

Data in this article come from the 2001 General Social Survey. Thesurvey interviewed a representative sample of over 24,000 Canadiansaged 15 years and older living in private households in the 10provinces. In this article the question, “Do you think you could everlive in a common-law relationship?” was asked only of the individualswho have never been married or were previously married, were notcurrently in an intimate relationship, and had never lived common-law. About 7,100 people with these characteristics responded to thequestion, representing nearly 6 million Canadians.

What you should know about this studyCST

Would you live common-law?Would you live common-law?by Anne Milan

1. Statistics Canada. 2002. Profile of Canadian Families and Households:Diversification Continues (StatisticsCanada Catalogue no. 96F0030XIE2001003); Statistics Canada. 2002. ChangingConjugal Life in Canada (Statistics CanadaCatalogue no. 89-576-XIE).

2. Smock, P.J. 2000. “Cohabitation in theUnited States: An appraisal of researchthemes, findings, and implications.”Annual Review of Sociology 26:1-20.

3. This analysis excludes persons who, atthe time of the survey, were in an inti-mate relationship with someone from aseparate household.

common-law may suggest that theyare more likely than men to think ofmarriage as the preferred social union.Perhaps because they tend to be older,only 6% of widowed people wouldconsider a common-law union, com-pared with 39% of divorced orseparated persons, and 64% of never-married individuals. Regression resultsshowed that the odds of widowedindividuals agreeing to live common-law were 30% lower than the odds ofnever-married people.

Education and labour force statusmake a differenceHigher levels of education are oftenassociated with more liberal attitudes.Findings from the 2001 GSS showthat individuals with at least somepostsecondary education (54%) weremore willing to live common-lawthan those with less than high school(41%). After accounting for other factors, the odds of agreeing to a com-mon-law union were 30% lower forpeople whose highest level of educa-tion was high school than for thosewith at least some postsecondary edu-cation. An earlier study also foundthat individuals with some universityeducation were more likely to livecommon-law than to marry in theirfirst union.4

While higher education is associ-ated with a more positive attitudetoward common-law relationships,young adults aged 15 to 29 who werestudents were less inclined to want tolive in a common-law union (66%)than those in the labour force (76%).Perhaps, to some individuals, a certaindegree of financial security is impor-tant before entering a union. Overall,after controlling for other factors, the


… young adults

… francophones

* Mixed refers to any combination of English/French and/or non-official language. ** High sampling variability.Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2001.

… those who do not attend religious services

… or Canadian-born

% Men Women

60 and over45 to 5930 to 4415 to 29Age

WeeklyOccasionallyNot at all

Non-officialMixed*FrenchEnglishLanguage spoken at home

Attendance at religious services

Foreign-bornCanadian-bornPlace of birth

74 7064

4654

34

135

77

61

34

51 48

19**

40

16**

71

50

67

42

27

10

66

4047

19

Canadians most willing to live common-law are…CST

4. Turcotte, P. and F. Goldscheider. 1998.“Evolution of factors influencing firstunion formation in Canada.” CanadianStudies in Population 25, 2: 145-173.

odds of agreeing to live in a common-law union were 40% less for studentsthan for those in the labour force. Thisis consistent with results from a previ-ous study, which found some evidencethat individuals attending school had alower likelihood than their employedcounterparts of feeling that common-law unions were acceptable.5

People in Quebec most willing to live common-lawThe willingness to live common-lawvaries substantially across the country.This type of arrangement is consider-ably more widespread in Quebec thanelsewhere in Canada,6 and people aremost positive toward common-lawunions in this province. Over three-fifths (61%) of unmarried people inQuebec who had never lived common-law would consider this type ofrelationship, compared with abouttwo-fifths (39%) of those in Ontarioand in the Prairies (41%). In both the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia, just over half (51%) of theunmarried population would co-residewithout legal marriage. After account-ing for all other factors, residents ofOntario, the Prairies and BritishColumbia had significantly lower oddsthan Quebec residents of agreeing tolive together without tying the knot.

The language people generallyspeak at home also appears to make adifference. Nearly two-thirds (63%) ofindividuals whose home language wasFrench were willing to live common-law compared with 46% of those who spoke English at home. The pro-portion of persons willing to livecommon-law dropped to 26% amongthose who spoke a non-official lan-guage at home.7 Regression resultsindicate that, compared with theirFrench-speaking counterparts, theodds of expressing an interest in liv-ing common-law were 30% less forCanadians whose home language wasEnglish and 70% less for those with anon-official home language.

Among young adults aged 15 to 29,an overwhelming 95% of those whospoke French at home were willing tolive common-law. The proportion ofyoung adults open to the possibilityof a future common-law arrangementdropped to 67% for those who spokeEnglish at home and then to 42% forthose who spoke a non-official lan-guage at home.

Cultural background mattersLiving common-law is more acceptedin some cultures than in others. Inmany Western countries, whereincreasing individualism and lowerformal religious commitment are thenorm, there is likely to be greater

approval of common-law unions.8 Incontrast, these arrangements are lesslikely to be accepted in many of themore traditional Asian or southernEuropean societies, which place ahigh importance on religion or familyvalues. An earlier study of selectedethnocultural groups found thatyoung Canadian adults with Britishethnic origins display more liberalattitudes towards living common-lawthan those with southern European,Chinese, or Indo-Canadian origins.9

Canada is home to many cultures,and a notable proportion of the popu-lation was born outside the country.When asked about their willingness to live common-law, Canadian-born


The unmarried Canadians analyzed in this study are a diverse group.Their average age was 41, but more than 4 in 10 (44%) were 15 to 29 years old and nearly 3 in 10 (26%) were 60 or over. The number ofwomen surpassed that of men among unmarried Canadians: 54%compared with 46%. Most unmarried individuals had never married(62%), an additional 19% were divorced or separated, and theremaining 19% were widowed. The majority of unmarried Canadians(56%) had personal incomes of less than $20,000, while 18% earned$40,000 or more. Over 4 in 10 unmarried persons worked in thelabour force, just over one-quarter were students, and nearly one-third listed homemaking, retirement or illness as their main activity.Over half of the unmarried population (55%) had high school or lesswhile 45% had at least some postsecondary education.

A snapshot of unmarried CanadiansCST

5. Mitchell, B.A. 2001. “Ethnocultural reproduction and attitudes towards cohabiting rela-tionships.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38, 4: 391-413.

6. According to the Census, about 30% of all Quebec couples lived common-law in 2001compared with 12% in the rest of the country.

7. In Quebec, over half (53%) of unmarried persons who spoke English at home would livecommon-law, compared with 64% of those who spoke only French. Only 44% (high sam-pling variability) of Quebec residents who spoke a non-official language at home werewilling to live common-law.

8. See, for example, Thornton, A. and L. Young-DeMarco. 2001. “Four decades of trends inattitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s throughout the 1990s.”Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 4: 1009-1037.

9. Mitchell. 2001.

men and women were far more receptive to this option than were foreign-born individuals. About 52%of Canadian-born persons were will-ing to live common-law compared

with 30% of those who were foreign-born. When accounting for all otherfactors, the odds of being open to acommon-law union were 1.4 timeshigher for Canadian-born individuals

than for those who were born outsidethe country.

Frequent attendance at religiousservices seems to go hand-in-handwith support for marriage.10 Only15% of individuals who were very religious, as measured by weeklyattendance at a place of worship, werewilling to live in a common-lawunion compared with 61% of thosewho never attended religious services.The differences were equally strikingamong young adults aged 15 to 29.Some 27% of those who attended reli-gious services weekly were willing tolive common-law compared with 81%of those who did not attend. When allother factors were accounted for, theodds of being receptive to a common-law arrangement were 5.7 times higherfor non-attenders than for those whoattended services weekly.

Family disruptions influence attitudes toward relationshipsChildren’s family-related views andbehaviours, including attitudes towardcommon-law unions, may be shapedby the marital histories of their parents. According to recent research,young adults who experienced parentaldivorce or separation were more likelyto choose a common-law relationshipas their first conjugal union than were those who did not experiencefamily disruption.11

Men and women who, at least upto the age of 15, lived with both theirparents were less willing to live com-mon-law than those whose parentshad divorced, separated, or becomewidowed: 58% versus 45%. Whenkeeping all other factors constant, the


Odds ratio Odds ratio

Sex Place of birth

Female 0.6* Canadian-born 1.4*

Male 1.0 Foreign-born 1.0

Marital status Region of residence

Widowed 0.7* Atlantic 0.8

Divorced/separated 0.9 Ontario 0.4*

Never married 1.0 Quebec 1.0

Prairies 0.3*

Age1 0.9* British Columbia 0.6*

Parents lived together untilEducation respondent aged 15

Less than high school 0.9 Yes 1.0

High school graduate 0.7* No 1.3*

At least some postsecondary 1.0

Importance of marriageMain activity for a happy life

Labour force 1.0 Very important 0.3*

Student 0.6* Important 0.5*

Other2 0.4* Not very important 0.9

Not at all important 1.0

Importance of a lastingReligious attendance relationship for a happy life

Not at all 5.7* Very important 7.7*

Occasionally 4.6* Important 5.9*

Weekly 1.0 Not very important 3.1*

Not at all important 1.0

Language spoken at home

English 0.7*

French 1.0

Mixed 0.4*

Non-official 0.3*

* Statistically significant from benchmark group (p<0.05).

1. For each additional year, the odds of agreeing to live common-law decline by 10%.

2. “Other” includes main activities such as homemaking, retirement, volunteer work, or illness.

Note: This table presents the odds that a respondent would be willing to live in a common-law relationship in the future, relative to the odds of a benchmark group when all other variables in the analysis are held constant.

Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 2001.

The odds of living common-law are higher for Canadians who experienced family disruption as childrenCST

10.Clark, W. Autumn 1998. “Religiousobservance: Marriage and family.”Canadian Social Trends: 2-7.

11.Turcotte, P. and A. Bélanger. 1997. TheDynamics of Formation and Dissolution ofFirst Common-Law Unions in Canada.Statistics Canada working paper.

odds of being willing to live togetherwithout formal marriage were 1.3times higher for Canadians whoseparents had separated or divorcedthan for those who lived in an intactfamily at least until age 15.

Attitudes toward common-law living related to other family valuesPeople with conservative family atti-tudes tend to opt for marriage, whilethose with liberal views are more likelyto choose a common-law union.12

Willingness to live common-law is alsolinked to other family-related valuesand attitudes. Some 43% of Canadianswho perceived marriage to be veryimportant or important for a happylife indicated that they could live in acommon-law union compared with57% of those who felt that marriagewas not very or not at all important.After all other factors were accountedfor, those who rated marriage as veryimportant for a happy life had 70%lower odds of considering a common-law union than did those who feltthat marriage was not at all impor-tant. It seems that marriage may holdless importance for prospective part-ners in a common-law union, yetmany individuals who do choose acommon-law union as their first con-jugal relationship do eventuallymarry their partner.13

Among individuals who perceiveda lasting relationship as very impor-tant or important for a happy life,53% indicated they could live common-law compared with 36% forwhom a lasting relationship was notvery or not at all important. The oddsof agreeing to live common-law were

7.7 times higher for Canadians whorated a lasting relationship as veryimportant for a happy life than forpeople who felt that a lasting rela-tionship was not at all important,when accounting for all other factors.

SummaryAlthough common-law unions havebecome much more socially accept-able than they were in previousdecades, there are many people who,for a variety of reasons, feel theycould not live in such a relationship.In the past, people who lived common-law — generally those who were morelikely to question social norms —risked social disapproval. This is much less the case today. If attitudesaffect future behaviour, then thosewho are willing to live common-laware more likely to eventually engagein this type of union. Overall itappears that, among other factors,willingness to live common-law isassociated with being male, havingbeen born in Canada, being a residentof Quebec and attending religious ser-vices less frequently.

Anne Milan is an analyst with Canadian Social Trends.


12.Clarkberg, M., R.M. Stolzenberg and L.J. Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, values andentrance into cohabitational versusmarital unions.” Social Forces 74, 2: 609-634.

13.Statistics Canada. 2002. Changing Con-jugal Life in Canada.

CST

Need more information from Statistics Canada?Need more information from Statistics Canada?

If You’re On the Move...Make sure we know where to find you by forwarding the subscriber’s name, old address, new address, telephone number and client reference number to:

Operations and Integration DivisionCirculation ManagementStatistics Canada120 Parkdale AvenueOttawa, OntarioK1A 0T6

or by phone at (613) 951-7277 or 1 800 700-1033; or by fax at (613) 951-1584 or 1 800 889-9734; or by Internet at [email protected].

We require six weeks advance notice to ensure uninterrupted delivery, so please keep us informed when you’re on the move!

CALL OUR NATIONAL ENQUIRIES LINE:

1 800 263-1136To order publications:NATIONAL ORDER LINE: 1 800 267-6677INTERNET: [email protected] TDD Line: 1 800 363-7629

STATISTICS CANADA HAS 8 REGIONAL REFERENCE CENTRES TO SERVE YOU: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island

Halifax, Nova Scotia – (902) 426-5331Fax number (902) 426-9538

Quebec and Territory of NunavutMontreal, Quebec – (514) 283-5725Fax number (514) 283-9350

OntarioToronto – (416) 973-6586Fax number (416) 973-7475

ManitobaWinnipeg – (204) 983-4020Fax number (204) 983-7543

SaskatchewanRegina – (306) 780-5405Fax number (306) 780-5403

Alberta and Northwest TerritoriesEdmonton, Alberta – (780) 495-3027Fax number (780) 495-5318

British Columbia and YukonVancouver, British Columbia – (604) 666-3691Fax number (604) 666-4863

National Capital Region(613) 951-8116Fax number (613) 951-0581

STANDARDS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLICTo maintain quality service to the public, Statistics Canada follows established standards covering statistical products and services, delivery of statistical information, cost-recovered services and service to respondents. To obtain a copy of these service standards, please contact your nearest Statistics Canada Regional Reference Centre.


An employee sits at her

desk. Her inbox is over-

flowing with unread

e-mails, her phone is ringing insis-

tently, and she is racing against

time to complete a report for the

next morning. The demands of the

job are making her anxious. At a

nearby construction site workers

fear layoff because winter is

approaching. Meanwhile, on the

other side of town, staff in a ware-

house are nervous about the

introduction of a new computer-

based inventory control system.

These are just a few examples of

the sources of stress that people

may encounter in the workplace.

According to research, workers inhigh-strain jobs have higher rates of awide variety of diseases than theircounterparts in low-strain jobs.1 Butthe costs of workplace stress are notlimited to those who experience it.The Journal of Occupational and Envi-ronmental Medicine reports that healthcare expenditures are nearly 50%greater for workers who report highlevels of stress.2 Stress can also becostly to employers because, if pro-longed, it can result in increasedabsenteeism or a decline in produc-tivity. The Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks estimates that stress-relatedabsences cost employers about $3.5 bil-lion each year.3

Using data from the 1994 and 2000General Social Surveys (GSS), this arti-cle examines triggers of workplacestress among employed Canadians.With focus on the most recent period,it highlights some of the differencesbetween self-employed and employedworkers, full-time and part-timeemployees and various occupationgroups. The article also looks at certaindemographic characteristics and theirassociation with stress triggers at work.

Workers less worried about layoffs in 2000The Canadian Centre for Occupa-tional Health and Safety definesworkplace stress as “the harmful phys-ical and emotional responses that can happen when there is conflictbetween job demands on the employeeand the amount of control anemployee has over meeting thesedemands.”4 Specifically, the mostcommonly cited source of stress in theworkplace is lack of time or excessive

Stress at workStress at workby Cara Williams

This article has been adapted from “Sources of workplace stress,” Per-spectives on Labour and Income, June 2003, vol. 4, no. 6, StatisticsCanada Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE.

1. Wilkins, K. and M. Beaudet. Winter1998. “Work stress and health.” HealthReports (Statistics Canada Catalogueno. 82-003) 10, 3: 47-52.

2. As cited on the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health Website. www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk. html(accessed May 8, 2002).

3. For more information, see Duxbury, L. and C. Higgins. October 2001. “Work-life balance in the new millennium:Where are we? Where do we need togo?” Canadian Policy Research Net-works discussion paper no. W/12.

4. See www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/stress.html (accessed May 8, 2002).


workload demands. Other triggersinclude fear of accident or injury,poor interpersonal relationships withco-workers or supervisors, the threatof layoff or job loss or having to learncomputer skills.

Despite different economic circum-stances, most triggers of workplacestress were similar in both 1994 and2000. For example, risk of accident orinjury was cited by 14% of workers in1994 and 13% in 2000, while toomany demands or hours was reportedby 34% of working Canadians in bothyears as a source of workplace stress.Threat of layoff or job loss was theexception. During the expanding econ-omy of 2000, when jobs were relativelyplentiful, only 13% of workers citedfear of job loss or layoff as a source ofworkplace stress compared with 22%

Most of the data in this article come from the 2000General Social Survey (GSS) on access to and use ofinformation technologies. The GSS is an annual tele-phone survey covering the population aged 15 andover living in private residences in the 10 provinces.Data were collected over a 12-month period fromapproximately 25,100 respondents. The question onwork stress was asked only of people who hadworked at some time during this period. These indi-viduals represented 16.9 million Canadians.

Full-time workers: individuals who generally worked30 or more hours each week.

Part-time workers: individuals who generally workedless than 30 hours per week.

Work stress questions:Has the following thing in your work environmentcaused you excess worry or stress in the past 12 months?

❑ Too many demands or too many hours

❑ Risk of accident or injury

❑ Poor interpersonal relations

❑ Threat of layoff or job loss

❑ Having to learn new computer skills

❑ Anything else

The article also uses the 1994 General Social Surveyon education, work and retirement. Data were col-lected over a 12-month period from about 11,900individuals. Respondents were asked about theirwork stress if they held a job at the time of the sur-vey. This resulted in a weighted count of about 8.9 million individuals. The workplace stress ques-tions asked in 1994 were the same as those asked in2000, excluding the question on having to learn newcomputer skills.

Data from the 1999 Workplace and Employee Sur-vey (WES) was used to determine the percentage ofemployees with access to an Employee AssistanceProgram. WES, conducted during the 12-monthperiod ending March 1999, is designed to explore abroad range of issues relating to employers andtheir employees.


% of working Canadians

* 1994 data are not available for the computer skills category.Source: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey.

2000 1994

Other

Having to learncomputer* skills

Risk ofaccident/injury

Poor interpersonalrelations

Threat oflayoff/job loss

Too manydemands/hours

3434

1322

1517

1314

11

64

Over one-third of Canadians cited excessive demands as the mostcommon source of workplace stressCST

in 1994, a period following prolongedrecession and high unemployment.

Too many demands and long hours most common source of workplace stressHeavy workloads and long hours atwork can infringe on personal time.New technologies such as the Internetand e-mail have “permanently wiredemployees to their jobs.”5 Thus it is notsurprising that in 2000, the most com-mon source of stress was too manydemands and/or too many hours atwork, reported by about one-third

(34%) of workers. Some 15% of respon-dents cited poor interpersonal relations,13% stated risk of accident or injury andabout 11% reported that having to learnnew computer skills was a source ofwork stress. Fear of job loss or layoff wasconsidered the cause of workplace stressby 13% of workers; of these, more than4 in 10 felt that it was somewhat or verylikely that they would lose their job orbe laid off sometime in the next year.

Individuals may experience stress intheir work environment from morethan a single source. For example,while about 26% of employees felt

stress from one trigger and 16% of paidemployees had two triggers, more than10% cited three or more sources ofstress in their work environment. Thisrelatively high incidence of multiplestressors may be one of the reasonsthat employee assistance programs are becoming a popular way for


Too many Risk of Poor Threat Having todemands/ accident/ interpersonal of layoff/ learn computer

Total hours injury relations job loss skills Other

‘000 %

Work arrangements

Class of worker

All workers 16,800 34 13 15 13 11 6

Self-employed 2,800 37 12 10 8 11 10

Employees 14,000 34 13 16 14 11 6

Employees only

Hours of work

All employees1 14,000 34 13 16 14 11 6

Full-time 11,500 37 14 17 15 12 6

30-35 hours/week 1,900 29 11 15 15 11 6

36-40 hours/week 6,100 33 14 17 16 12 6

41 or more hours/week 3,600 47 16 18 13 13 6

Part-time 2,300 20 9 11 10 7 5

1-15 hours/week 900 16 6 10 8 4E 4E

16-29 hours/week 1,400 22 11 12 11 9 5

Work schedules

Regular daytime 9,500 35 11 15 14 12 6

Rotating shift 1,800 35 24 20 16 11 5

Regular evening or night 1,400 27 16 16 12 5 4

Irregular/split shift 900 35 17 16 13 11 5E

Other/on call 300 21 11E 15E 13E F 9E

1. Full-time and part-time employees.E High sampling variability.

F Sample too small to provide reliable estimate.


One in four rotating shift employees worry about the risk of accident or injuryCST

5. MacBride-King, J. and K. Bachmann.August 1999. Solutions for the Stressed-out Worker. Ottawa: The ConferenceBoard of Canada.


employers to help their employeesdeal with stress.

Self-employed Canadians reportdifferent workplace stressesCanadians often look to self-employment as an alternative to thetraditional employee–employer rela-tionship. Indeed, 2000 GSS dataindicate that about 2.8 million Cana-dians were their own boss sometimeduring the year. The reasons forchoosing self-employment vary fromindividual to individual. Some mightdo so because they are unable to findother work, while others may be moti-vated by the entrepreneurial pull.Whatever the reason, self-employmentoffers a different environment inwhich to work.

Data from the 2000 GSS show that,perhaps because they choose the peo-ple they work with, self-employedindividuals are significantly less likelythan employees to report poor inter-personal relationships (10% versus16%) as a source of workplace stress.And while self-employed Canadiansare also less likely to cite fear of jobloss (8% versus 14%), they are slightlymore likely to feel stress as a result oftoo many demands or excessivelylong hours at work (37% versus 34%).

Full-time workers more likely to report workplace stressThe majority of workers in Canadawork full-time, that is, 30 or morehours in a week. Of the 14 millionemployees aged 15 and older who had worked sometime in the last 12 months, more than 80% regularlyworked full-time. Perhaps becausethey spend more time at paid work,full-time employees were significantlymore likely than their part-time coun-terparts to cite workplace stresses suchas working too many hours, fear ofinjury, fear of layoff, poor interper-sonal relationships, or having to learnnew computer skills. Nearly half (47%)of full-time workers who worked more

than 40 hours per week reported stressfrom too many demands or too manyhours in their work environmentcompared with 22% of part-timerswho worked 16 to 29 hours a week.

Rotating shift workers more likelyto worry about accidents at workResearch has shown that shift workersare more likely to have accidents oron the job injuries. Indeed, many ofthe largest industrial accidents haveoccurred in the early morning hoursand have been attributed to stafffalling asleep, making impaired judge-ments or having delayed reactiontimes as a result of not getting enoughsleep.6 Even though many shift work-ers work a “typical” 8-hour day, theydo so at different times, somethingthat may interfere with their sleepand wake cycles. Many are never ableto catch up on sleep and are morelikely than others to have sleep prob-lems.7 While virtually all types ofshift workers were more likely thandaytime workers to worry about acci-dents and injury on the job, rotatingworkers had the highest likelihood:24% versus 11%.

Most shift workers were just aslikely as daytime workers to cite toomany demands or hours in the workenvironment as causes of stress (35%).The exceptions were regular eveningor night shift workers (27%) andthose who worked “other” types ofschedules, including on-call (21%),who were slightly less likely to feelthat way.

Managers stress over hours, while primary industry workersworry about safetyIndividuals in management and pro-fessional occupations8 tended to citetoo many demands or long hours,while workers in the trades, transportand primary occupations reported therisk of accident or injury as sources of stress. Workers in health relatedoccupations were the most likely to

complain of excessive demands andlong hours — fully 50%. In addition,one-third of these individuals also feltthat the risk of accident or injury wasa source of workplace stress, possiblybecause of risk of infection, longhours and irregular shifts. Workers inhealth related occupations were alsomuch more likely than employees ingeneral to cite multiple sources ofworkplace stress (42% versus 26%).

The advent of new technologies has facilitated communications andenabled firms to grow and evolve.However, the continuous change,which accompanies technologicaladvances, requires constant skillsupgrading, something that manyCanadians find stressful. While in gen-eral only about 11% of employees feelstress as a result of having to learncomputer skills, 20% of workers in thesocial sciences or education relatedoccupations felt this way. Occupationsin the sciences, education, health andprofessional fields have the highestuse of computers (86%) and primaryoccupations the lowest (24%).9

Poor interpersonal relationships at work can be a major source ofstress. This is especially true in today’sworkplace where employees are oftenexpected to work in groups or as part

6. For more information on the sleep pat-terns of shift workers see Williams, C.Spring 2001. “You snooze, you lose? —Sleep patterns in Canada.” CanadianSocial Trends: 10-14.

7. According to the 2000 GSS, about one-quarter of regular night shift workersand one-third of those who worked split shifts had problems going to sleep,compared with 14% of regular daytimeworkers.

8. Includes occupations in business, finan-cial, administrative, health, sciences andeducation fields.

9. For more information, see Marshall, K.Summer 2001. “Working with com-puters.” Perspectives on Labour andIncome (Statistics Canada Catalogueno. 75-001-XPE) 13, 2: 9-15.

of a team. But even professions whereteam work is not required includepotentially stressful relationshipswith co-workers, supervisors, subordi-nates or clients. On average, 16% ofemployees felt that poor interpersonalrelations were a source of stress atwork. This compares with about 10%of primary industry workers and 21%of workers in health occupations whofelt this way. The likelihood of feelingstressed at work as a result of poorinterpersonal relationships did notvary significantly from the average inmost other occupations.

Workplace stress varies with age and sexBoth age and sex can be a factor in the type of workplace stress an indi-vidual experiences. For example, young

workers just entering the labour mar-ket may not be subject to the samepressures that workers in mid-careerfeel, and older workers may have yetother sources of stress to contendwith. Along the same lines, stress trig-gers may differ for men and women.

Age makes a big difference when itcomes to dealing with technologicaladvances, particularly the computer.Young Canadians have grown up withcomputers in their homes and schoolsand are comfortable with nearly everyaspect of this technology. Older work-ers, however, are more likely to findcomputer technology to be an intimi-dating necessity that causes stress.Data from the 2000 GSS support thisnotion. About 16% of workers age 45and over felt that having to learncomputer skills was a source of stress

at work, compared with only 8% of15- to 24-year-old employees.

Young workers between the ages of15 and 24 were also significantly lesslikely than their older counterparts to cite too many hours or too manydemands as a source of stress (25% versus 37%). This is not surprisinggiven that young employees are newin the workforce, often work onlypart-time and are not as likely to have the often-conflicting demandsof work and family.

On the other hand, young Cana-dians do have their own work stresstriggers. For example, 22% of 15- to24-year-old male workers felt that acci-dent or injury was a source of stress intheir work environment, comparedwith about 15% of older men. Thismay be due to young workers’ relative


Total Too many Risk of Poor Threat Having tonumber of demands/ accident/ interpersonal of layoff/ learn computeremployees hours injury relations job loss skills Other

‘000 %

All 14,000 34 13 16 14 11 6

Occupation type

Management 900 48 5 17 12 13 6

Business, financial,administrative 2,600 38 6 17 16 17 6

Natural and appliedsciences 1,000 45 8 16 18 17 7

Health 600 50 33 21 15 16 9

Social sciences/education 1,000 48 10 17 11 20 10

Art/culture/sport 300 25 10E 16 13E 12E 7E

Sales and services 3,600 28 13 16 12 7 4

Trades, transportand equipment 1,800 26 24 16 16 6 5

Primary industries 400 24 20 10E 12E 7E F

Manufacturing andprocessing 1,200 24 17 15 18 8 5

E High sampling variability.

F Sample too small to provide reliable estimate.

Note: Percentages will not add to 100 because multiple responses were allowed.


One in two workers in health related occupations feel their job entails too many demands or very long hoursCST

inexperience and the fact that theyare more likely to have jobs in the industries where accidents andinjuries are more prevalent.

Both men and women had a simi-lar likelihood of feeling stress becauseof poor interpersonal relationships,threat of job loss or having to learncomputer skills. However, womenbetween the ages of 45 and 64 weresignificantly more likely than menthis age to report feeling stressed as aresult of too many demands or toomany hours. Women’s traditional roleas principal caregivers to children andtheir propensity to do much of theunpaid housework may account forthis. However, regardless of their fam-ily structure (whether they livedalone, with a child, with a partner orwith a partner and a child), too manydemands or hours stressed out womenmore than men. On the other hand,at virtually all ages, men were morelikely to cite fear of accident or injuryas a source of stress.

Occupation and work schedulestrong predictors of workplace stressLogistic regression was used to exam-ine the relationship between a numberof explanatory variables10 and stress inthe workplace stemming from toomany demands or hours, and fromfear of accident or injury. Not surpris-ingly, work status, occupation, workschedule, age and sex were each strongpredictors of workplace stress. Forexample, the odds of feeling stressbecause of fear of accident or injurywere 7.2 times higher for employeesworking in health occupations thanfor those in the management, busi-ness, finance or sciences fields. On theother hand, marital status and the


10.Certain variables were excluded andother categories, such as occupation,were re-grouped into larger groups forthe regression analysis.

Incidence of stress in the workplace is common. According to the2001 Canadian Mental Health Survey,1 51% of respondents felt thatwork was a major or moderate source of stress. But not all stress isnegative and research has shown that individuals function best in awork setting that places reasonable demands on them. In fact, manyCanadians view stress in a positive light. About 4 in 10 respondentsof the Canadian Mental Health Survey said that workplace stress hada positive impact on their performance, while about 3 in 10 reportedthat it had a negative effect.

To minimize stress for those who suffer its consequences, manyemployers have instituted programs and policies that are designed toreduce stress or deal with it before it becomes a problem. Indeed, datafrom the 1999 Workplace and Employee Survey indicate that slightlymore than one-quarter (26%) of employees surveyed in Canada hadaccess to some type of employee assistance plan. Rates varied from49% of employees in the communication and utilities industries toabout 7% in the retail and services industries. However, recently theseprograms have come under fire for only dealing with the symptoms ofstress and not taking the extra step of addressing its causes.2

1. The 2001 Canadian Mental Health Survey was conducted by COMPAS on behalf ofthe Canadian Mental Health Association.

2. Rosolen, D. February 2002. “Stress test.” Benefits Canada. www.benefitscanada.com/Content/2002/02-02/stress.html (accessed May 8, 2002).

Dealing with workplace stressCST

Retail and services

Construction

Real estate

Business services

Transportation and warehousing

Manufacturing

Information and cultural

Forestry, mining, oil and gas

Finance and insurance

Education and health

Communications and utilities

All employees

Source: Statistics Canada, Workplace Employee Survey, 1999.

Employees in the communications and utilities industries had most access to Employee Assistance Programs

%26

49

42

39

37

31

31

23

21

12

12

7

presence of children 14 years andunder did not significantly contributeto feelings of being stressed at workbecause of too many demands or hours.

SummaryThe effects of stress are well docu-mented. Research has shown that

while occasional bouts of stress arenot likely to have lasting adverseeffects, regular or constant doses of it tend to lead to negative healthimplications.

The most common source of workplace stress cited by workingCanadians is too many demands or

excessively long hours on the job.Self-employed and full-time workersare most likely to feel the time crunchof too many demands or hours, whileshift workers and employees in thehealth occupations tend to worrymore about the risk of accident orinjury. Women 45 and older feelstressed about hours and demands,while men of all ages worry moreabout accident or injury on the job.Finally, older workers worry muchmore than their younger counterpartsabout computer technology in theworkplace. In an attempt to addressthe human and financial costs associ-ated with stress, many employershave implemented employee assis-tance programs into the workplace.

Cara Williams is a senior analyst with Labour and Household SurveysAnalysis Division, Statistics Canada.


CST

Sources of workplace stress

Too many Risk of accidentOdds ratio demands/hours or injury

Sex

Male 0.9* 1.3*

Female 1.0 1.0

Age

Under 35 1.4* 1.3*

35 to 54 1.6* 1.2*

55 and over 1.0 1.0

Children 14 and under in household

Yes 1.1 1.0

No 1.0 1.0

Marital status

Married or common-law 1.0 0.9

Divorced, widowed, separated 1.0 1.0

Single, never-married 1.0 1.0

Work status

Part-time 0.4* 0.6*

Full-time 1.0 1.0

Work schedule

Regular daytime 0.9* 0.6*

Shift work 1.0 1.0

Occupation

Management, business, finance, sciences 1.0 1.0

Health related 1.6* 7.2*

Social sciences, sales, culture 0.9* 2.0*

Trades, primary, processing and manufacturing 0.5* 3.5*

* Significantly different from benchmark group (p<0.05).

Note: This table presents the odds of working Canadians with various characteristics feeling stress in the workplace as a result of too many demands/hours or fear of accident or injury, relative to the odds of a benchmark group, when all other variables in the model are held constant (odds ratio). The benchmark group is shown in italics for each characteristic. A logistic regression was used to isolate the effect of selected variables on feeling stressed.


The odds of feeling stress in the workplace because of accident or injury are highest for employees in health occupationsCST

Caregiving encompasses a widerange of activities involved inlooking after, responding to

and supporting others. While some ofthese activities are done for pay bycare providers such as child care work-ers, nurses, home care workers andphysicians, they are also undertakenon an unpaid basis by volunteers,friends or relatives. Family membershave traditionally been the mainsource of unpaid care and support,since caregiving frequently involvesan emotional or psychological con-nection between caregiver and carereceiver. And despite the fact thatmost women work in the labour force, they continue to undertake themajority of unpaid work, includingcaring for children, elders, peoplewho are ill or those with disabilities.1

Trends such as the aging of the pop-ulation and the increased presence ofwomen in the labour force have led to agrowing interest in issues related tounpaid caregiving. The Commission onthe Future of Health Care in Canadastates that “Informal caregivers play anessential role in the delivery of homecare services and in the health and careof their families and friends.” Thus, it is

Unpaid informal caregivingUnpaid informal caregivingby Nancy Zukewich


Data in this article come from the 1998 General Social Survey (GSS) ontime use. Although other Statistics Canada surveys collect data on unpaidwork,1 the time use survey is the source of official estimates of the valueof unpaid household work in a national accounting framework. The surveyuses the diary method, a collection technique widely considered to pro-vide the most accurate and detailed information on daily activities.2

Respondents were asked the start and end time of each of their daily activi-ties, which were assigned to one of 177 activity codes. Interviews wereconducted over a 12-month period with more than 10,700 Canadians aged15 and over living in private households in the 10 provinces. This analysisfocuses on the volume and value of labour inputs to unpaid work as mea-sured by time. The value of labour is derived from the Census of Population.3

There is no internationally recognized definition of unpaid work.4 In thisstudy, unpaid work includes activities used by Statistics Canada in anational accounting framework.5 These include domestic work (such ascooking, housekeeping and household maintenance), shopping, helpand care to household members, other help and care provided to peoplenot living in the same household, volunteer work done through organi-zations and travel related to unpaid work.6

Unpaid informal help and caregiving includes activities that entail helpand care provided informally to individuals by individuals and, as such,explicitly excludes volunteer work done through organizations. Reporteddifferences in the mean time devoted to activities per participant are sig-nificant at the 95% level.

1. Macredie, I. and D. Sewell. 1999. Statistics Canada’s Measurement and Valuation ofUnpaid Work (Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 71F0023XIE).

2. Paillé, B. 1994. Estimating the volume of unpaid work in Canada, 1992: An evalua-tion of data from the General Social Survey. General Social Survey working paper.

3. Hamdad, M. 2003. Valuing Households’ Unpaid Work: Comparisons between 1992and 1998. Technical working paper. Income and Expenditure Accounts Division, Statistics Canada.

4.Statistics Canada. 1995. Households’ Unpaid Work: Measurement and Valuation(Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 13-603-MPE1995003).

5. This group of activity codes is more restrictive than the definition of unpaid work sug-gested in General Social Survey, Cycle 12: Time Use (1998) - Public Use Microdata FileDocumentation and User’s Guide (Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 12M0012GPE).

6. Statistics Canada. 1995.


1. Statistics Canada. 2000. Women inCanada 2000: A Gender-based Statisti-cal Report (Statistics Canada Catalogueno. 89-503-XPE); Coleman, R. 1998. TheEconomic Value of Unpaid Houseworkand Child Care in Nova Scotia. Moduletwo of Measuring Sustainable Develop-ment: An Application of the GenuineProgress Index to Nova Scotia. Halifax:GPI Atlantic; Keating, N., J. Fast, J. Fred-erick, K. Cranswick and C. Perrier. 1999.Eldercare in Canada: Context, Contentand Consequences (Statistics CanadaCatalogue no. 89-570-XPE).

important to differentiate caregivingfrom the broader category of unpaidwork because caregiving has a value tosociety in addition to its personal value to caregivers and care receivers.2 Forinstance, if care is not provided infor-mally by family and friends, in manyinstances society takes over the provi-sion of these services. Measuring andassigning value to unpaid informal care-giving is a key step in the creation oftools to better understand how thesocial and economic costs of sustainingourselves and our dependents, and ofmaintaining our capacity to engage inproductive activities, are shared amongindividuals, family households, com-munities, the market and government.3

Using data from the 1998 GeneralSocial Survey (GSS), this study examinesthe time devoted to unpaid informalcare, the sex and age of caregivers,their relationship to care receivers, andthe market value of this form ofunpaid work. For the purposes of thisarticle, informal unpaid caregiving isdefined as help and care provided byindividuals to members of their house-hold and to people who reside in otherhouseholds as well as travel related to the provision of this help and care.It excludes time spent helping othersthrough volunteer organizations.

Most informal care goes to household membersUnpaid informal help and careaccounts for a considerable share of alltime devoted to unpaid work. In 1998,Canadians aged 15 and over performeda total of 30 billion hours4 of unpaidwork, of which 5 billion hours (18%)consisted of informal help and care. Intotal, 8 in 10 hours of unpaid help wereprovided by and for someone in thehousehold (mostly a family member),with 70% going to the care of children5

and 10% to the care of adults, includingadolescents aged 15 and over.6

In 1998, more than 6 in 10 (64%)hours of informal caregiving were carried out by women, due largely

to their disproportionate share ofresponsibility for unpaid child carework. The most common form of childcare is physical, personal care (44% ofhours). Women’s shares of time devotedto routine daily education and physi-cal personal care activities (helping,teaching, reprimanding, etc.) wereespecially high.

Driving people to various activitiesand appointments, which includeswaiting time related to travel,accounted for a large proportion of time(55% of hours) spent helping house-hold adults. In contrast, medical caremade up just 10% of adult care time.About one-third (35%) of all hours, wasaccounted for by “other help and care,”which encompasses a wide variety ofroutine non-medical activities, such aswashing a disabled spouse’s hair, help-ing a spouse grade his students’ exampapers or talking with the educator of ahandicapped 17-year-old son.

Babysitting most common way ofhelping other household membersOverall, about 20% of hours devotedto informal caregiving benefitedsomeone who did not reside in thehousehold. In 1998, Canadians spentabout three times as many hours providing informal care to people in

other households (1 billion hours) asthey did on formal volunteer workdone through organizations (300 mil-lion hours), as measured by the GSS.


Sources: Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, 1998 and wage estimates, Income and Expenditures Accounts Division.

Care of household childrenCare of non-household individuals

Care of household adultsTotal informal unpaid help/care

Opportunity cost method

Care or household childrenCare of non-household individuals

Care of household adultsTotal informal unpaid help/care

Replacement cost generalist method

$ billions

515

1035

849

1659

Child care accounts for over half the value of unpaid informal help and careCST

2. Vincent, C. and F. Woolley. 2000. “TaxingCanadian families: What’s fair, what’snot.” Choices 6, 5; Eichler, M. 1985. “Andthe work never ends: Feminist contribu-tions.” Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology 22: 619-644.

3. Cheal, D., F. Woolley and M. Luxton.1998.“How families cope and why policy-makers need to know.” Canadian PolicyResearch Networks study no. F02.

4. To obtain the annual volume of unpaidwork, the sum of hours per day was mul-tiplied by 365.

5. The time use survey measures only pri-mary activities, that is, the main activity ofthe respondent. Thus, this figure includesonly time when caring for children wasthe respondent’s main activity, and there-fore underestimates total time spentcaring for children. Primary-activity childcare represents about one-quarter of totaltime spent caring for children (includingtime when the respondent was doingother things in addition to child care) asestimated from the supplementary childcare diary, variable C6DUR.

6. In 1998 nearly 3 in 10 (29%) individualswho provided informal care to an adulthousehold member had at least one childbetween the ages of 15 and 18 living at home.


Unpaid babysitting accounted for thegreatest share of time spent on informalhelp and care provided to individualsnot living in the same household. Look-ing after children made up 32% of caretime in this category. Time spent help-ing others with transportation needs,such as driving a neighbour to the airport, made up 26%. Assistance withhouse maintenance and repair andother kinds of unpaid help (not classi-fied elsewhere) accounted for 15% and14%, respectively, and the remainingtime was spent providing houseworkand cooking assistance (5%), care fordisabled or ill people (4%) and travelrelated to the provision of help and careactivities, such as driving to a relative’shome to help with housework (4%).

Some of the informal help and careactivities that are provided to non-household members are not countedas care when done for someone in the household. For example, cleaningthe house, cooking a meal or fixing a broken appliance are categorised as“help” if done for individuals in otherhouseholds, but not when performedin one’s own home.

More informal caregiving carriedout by womenBoth the share of the population thatengages in an activity (participationrate) and the time that participantsspend on it affect the total hoursspent on the activity.

While almost everyone does someunpaid work on a typical day, unpaidinformal caregiving is a much less common activity. Overall, 9 out of 10people performed some form of unpaidwork on a given day in 1998, but only 1 in 3 provided informal help or care.Women were somewhat more likelythan men to undertake unpaid workand its informal caregiving compo-nent, and when they did, they spentmore time on these activities.

For example, 34% of women partici-pated in some form of informal help orcaregiving on an average day, compared

with 25% of men, and these femalecaregivers devoted 2.1 hours per day tocare activities, compared with 1.8 hoursfor their male counterparts. These dif-ferences were largely related to the factthat a significantly higher proportion of women provided unpaid informal child care: 24% versus 16% of men. In addition, female child care providersdevoted over half an hour more per dayto these activities than male caregivers.

Mothers more likely to providephysical care for childrenMothers are more likely than fathersto provide routine daily care andphysical care. For example, motherswere twice as likely as fathers to takecare of children’s physical care, totransport them from place to place,and to help with their educationalactivities. However, fathers and moth-ers were equally likely to engage inplay and “other” types of help andchild care.

Mothers also spent at least as muchtime as fathers on all forms of childcare. For example, women who pro-vided physical care to children spentnearly half an hour more a day on this task than men (1.4 hours versus 1.0 hour). While women who admin-istered medical care to their child didso for an average 1.4 hours a day, thenumber of men involved in this taskwas not large enough to produce a statistically reliable estimate. Theaverage times spent on educationalactivities, child-related travel, andother help and care to children werenot significantly different for maleand female caregivers.

Fewer Canadians provide informal care to adultsThe proportion of Canadians who pro-vide assistance to adults (regardless ofwhether they lived in the household ornot) is much lower than the propor-tion that takes care of children. On atypical day in 1998, only 6% of menand 6% of women provided care for

adults in their household, while 8% ofwomen and 6% of men helped adultswho did not live with them. In con-trast, 24% of women and 16% of menprovided unpaid care to children.

Travel related to helping eitherhousehold or non-household adultswas the most common activity, engag-ing 4% of Canadians. On an averageday, just 2% of people helped with personal care and only 1% providedmedical assistance for a householdadult. Men and women caregivers spentabout the same number of hours eachday on these activities.

However, men spent more time on “male-dominated” activities andwomen, on “female-dominated” ones.For example, men who carried outhousehold maintenance tasks for adults outside the household spent 3.0 hours per day on these tasks, com-pared with 2.0 hours spent by women.

With respect to “female-dominated”activities, women who did houseworkor cooking for non-household indi-viduals spent 1.6 hours on theseactivities, while those who cared fordisabled or ill people devoted 1.3 hoursto the task. Too few men participatedin these activities to produce statisti-cally reliable estimates of average timeper participant. Finally, although it is overwhelmingly women who baby-sit for free in other households, theamount of time spent by women and men who do babysit was not significantly different: 3.0 hours and2.7 hours, respectively.

Four in 10 informal caregivers are women aged 25 to 44The responsibility of informal caregiv-ing falls heavily on people aged 25 to44, women in particular, at an agewhen people are most likely to be inthe labour force. Women in this agegroup accounted for nearly 40% ofinformal help and care providers; menin this age group made up about 25%.

In fact, women aged 25 to 44 madeup the largest share of providers of most

types of care, including all forms ofchild care, personal care to householdadults, as well as transportation assis-tance, housework and cooking, andother unpaid help to adults in otherhouseholds. While many of these are typically “female” forms of work,just as many women this age as men aged 25 to 44 and 45 to 64 provided transportation for householdadults and household maintenancefor non-household individuals (bothtraditionally “male” activities). Unpaidbabysitting and care for ill or disabledpeople in other households was mainlydone by women aged 45 to 64.

Most care recipients in otherhouseholds are family membersNot surprisingly, family members arethe beneficiaries of most of the help and care extended to members ofother households. Overall, 60% of alltime devoted to helping and caringfor persons in other households wasdirected at family members. Thisholds true for all types of help andcare. For example, 80% of time spentbabysitting and 73% of time spent oncaring for ill and disabled people wasdone for family, reflecting the per-sonal, physical and emotional natureof these forms of care. However, thedifference in time devoted to familyand non-family members is less dra-matic for the other activities.

What is it worth?7

One of the methods of measuring the value of unpaid work is thereplacement cost generalist valuation


Number of Distribution Participation Mean hours/hours/year of hours by rate day1 per(millions) sex (%) (%) participant

Help and care forhousehold children Both sexes 3,870 100 20 2.2

Women 2,630 68 24 2.4Men 1,240 32 16 1.8*

Physical care Both sexes 1,750 100 16 1.3Women 1,280 73 21 1.4Men 470 27 11 1.0*

Education Both sexes 540 100 7 0.9Women 400 75 10 1.0Men 130 25 4 0.8*

Medical care Both sexes 60 100 1 1.4Women 50 77 1 1.4Men 10 23 F F

Play and otherhelp and care Both sexes 1,060 100 8 1.4

Women 600 57 10 1.4Men 450 43 7 1.4

Related travel Both sexes 460 100 8 0.7Women 300 65 10 0.6Men 160 35 5 0.7

Help and care forhousehold adults Both sexes 540 100 5.7 1.1

Women 280 52 5.7 1.1Men 260 48 5.8 1.0

Personal andother care Both sexes 190 100 2.1 1.0

Women 120 65 2.6 1.1Men 70 35 1.7 0.9

Medical care Both sexes 60 100 0.5 1.2Women 30 57 0.6 1.2Men 20 43 0.4 1.3

Related travel Both sexes 300 100 4.0 0.8Women 130 42 3.6 0.8Men 170 58 4.4 0.9

Help and care fornon-householdindividuals Both sexes 1,050 100 7.0 1.7

Women 580 56 7.8 1.7Men 470 44 6.2 1.7

Housework/cooking Both sexes 60 100 0.3 2.0

Women 30 57 0.5 1.6Men 30 43 F F

Housemaintenance Both sexes 170 100 0.7 2.6

Women 50 32 0.6 2.0Men 110 68 0.9 3.0*

Transportationassistance Both sexes 280 100 4.3 0.8

Women 20 51 4.3 0.7Men 140 49 4.0 0.8

Care fordisabled/ill Both sexes 40 100 0.4 1.5

Women 20 63 0.4 1.3Men 10 37 F F

Unpaidbabysitting Both sexes 340 100 1.9 2.9

Women 260 76 1.9 3.0Men 80 24 0.7 2.7

Other unpaidhelp Both sexes 60 100 1.5 1.3

Women 30 43 1.5 1.0Men 20 57 1.2 1.7

* Significantly different from women (p<0.05).

F Amount too small to produce a reliable estimate.1 Averaged over a seven-day week.


Men and women spent over one billion hours caring for people living in other householdsCST

7. Due to the level of aggregation at whichvaluation rates are applied, value esti-mates cited in this study differ slightlyfrom those included in Hamdad, M.2003. Valuing Households’ UnpaidWork: Comparisons between 1992 and 1998. Technical working paper.Income and Expenditure Accounts Divi-sion, Statistics Canada.

method,8 which refers to the hourlyearnings of domestic workers employedfull-time, full-year. Using this method,the value of unpaid informal caregiv-ing was $50.9 billion in 1998. This ismore than the labour income9 gener-ated by the health care and socialassistance industry ($42.1 billion),education services ($40.1 billion) orthe finance, insurance and real estateindustry ($43.4 billion). The childcare component of unpaid informalcaregiving work was worth $35.3 bil-lion, just slightly less than the labourincome of public administration($36.3 billion), the retail trade indus-try ($36.7 billion) or the constructionindustry ($36.8 billion). Help and careto non-household members was val-ued at $10.3 billion, just slightly morethan the labour income generated byagriculture ($9.3 billion) or miningindustries ($9.5 billion). Help and careto household adults was worth $5.3 bil-lion, close to the value of labour incomeof the arts, entertainment and recre-ation industry ($5.8 billion).

Since there are only 24 hours in aday, time spent on unpaid informalcaregiving is time that cannot bespent on paid work or other activities.Thus, another way to measure unpaidwork is the opportunity cost valuationmethod, which values a caregiver’stime at the hourly wage the individ-ual could earn in the labour market.Because women earn less on average

than men, the opportunity cost methodassigns a lower monetary value to thesame activity when it is done by awoman, effectively “reproducing thedifference in women’s and men’s earn-ings in the valuation of unpaid work.”10

Using this method, in 1998, an hour ofwomen’s time was worth $13.88 com-pared with $17.96 for men.11

Informal help and care is worthmore when valued by the opportunitycost method than the replacement costgeneralist method. According to theopportunity cost method, in 1998,informal care was worth $83.7 billion,close to the value of labour income inthe manufacturing industry ($84.9 bil-lion). The value of help and care forhousehold children was estimated at$58.7 billion, help and care for adulthousehold members was $8.6 billionand help and care provided to otherhouseholds was $16.4 billion.

Regardless of the valuation methodused, many hours are devoted annu-ally to unpaid informal caregiving. Ifeven a small portion of these hours ofinformal care were shifted from thenon-market to the market sector —for example, the 156 million annualhours devoted to medical care12 —this would be equivalent to approxi-mately 77,000 full-time jobs.13

SummaryIn 1998, Canadians performed an esti-mated 5.5 billion hours of unpaid

informal caregiving for householdmembers and individuals not residingwith them. This caregiving workaccounted for 18% of total unpaidwork (30.3 billion hours). Not only arewomen more likely to perform unpaidcaregiving, but they also spend moretime doing so. Furthermore, femalecaregivers are more likely than theirmale counterparts to provide routine,personal types of care.

The vast majority of time devoted tounpaid informal help and care is donefor family members. However, informalhelp and care provided to other house-holds represents a substantial share ofunpaid work; nearly three times asmany hours are devoted to providinginformal care to people in other house-holds than to volunteer work throughorganizations. Nor is care provided tonon-relatives inconsequential, as about40% of all hours devoted to helping anindividual in another household bene-fited a friend, neighbour, co-worker orother acquaintance.

Finally, if parallel services were purchased on the market, informalcaregiving work would be worthapproximately $50.9 billion in 1998based on the generalist replacementcost valuation method, slightly morethan the value of labour income generated by the health care and socialassistance industry. Using the currencyof time and money clearly demon-strates the magnitude of unpaidinformal caregiving, but still providesonly a partial picture of the socio-economic costs and benefits to caregivers, care receivers and societyas a whole.

Nancy Zukewich is a senior analystwith Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division, Statistics Canadaand a visiting analyst with the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council.


CST

8. Statistics Canada features the replacement cost generalist method for valuing house-holds’ unpaid work because it is most consistent with national accounts principles ofeconomic value. For more information on the pros and cons of this and alternative valu-ation methods, see Statistics Canada. 1995. Households’ Unpaid Work: Measurementand Valuation (Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 13-603-MPE1995003).

9. See CANSIM II Table 383-0009, available at www.statcan.ca.

10.Statistics Canada. 1995. p. 49.

11.Hamdad, M. 2003. Valuation of Households’ Unpaid Work Using the Time-use MicrodataBase. Unpublished working paper. Income and Expenditure Accounts Division, StatisticsCanada.

12. Includes medical care of household members and care for disabled or ill non-householdmembers.

13.Based on 40 hours of paid work per week, 52 weeks per year.


Canada has become

increasingly multiethnic

and multicultural. Immi-

gration over the past 100 years

has shaped the country and each

new wave of immigrants has

added to the nation’s ethnic and

cultural diversity.

In recent years, immigration

has become an increasingly impor-

tant component of population

growth in Canada. In 2001,

5.4 million people, or 18% of the

total population, reported that

they were born outside the country,

the highest level in 70 years.

Canada is second to Australia

(22%) in the percentage of its

foreign-born population. In con-

trast, only 11% of the population

in the United States was born out-

side the country in 2000.

Update on cultural diversityUpdate on cultural diversity

This article is adapted from Canada’s ethnocultural portrait: The chang-ing mosaic, published as part of the January 21, 2003 data release on immigration and ethnocultural background from the 2001 Census.The data release is available from the Statistics Canada Web site at:www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/contents.cfm?

Immigrants come increasinglyfrom AsiaFor the first 60 years of the 20th cen-tury, European nations such as theUnited Kingdom, Italy, Germany andthe Netherlands, as well as the UnitedStates, were the primary sources ofimmigrants to Canada. Today, immi-grants are most likely to come from

Asian countries. This is partly theresult of changes in government poli-cies in the 1960s, when national originwas removed as criteria for entry, andpartly the result of changes in theinternational movement of migrants.

In 2001, about 1.8 million peopleliving in Canada were immigrantswho arrived during the previous

10 years. Of these, 58% were born inAsia (including the Middle East); 20%in Europe; 11% in the Caribbean,Central and South America; 8% inAfrica; and 3% in the United States. In comparison, people born in Asia rep-resented 47% of immigrants whoarrived during the 1980s, 33% ofthose who arrived during the 1970s


Visible minorities“Visible minority” refers to groups identified underthe Employment Equity Act as “persons, other thanAboriginals, who are non-Caucasian in race andnon-white in colour.” The 2001 and 1996 Censusesidentified visible minorities using the followingquestion with instructions for people belonging tomore than one group to mark all circles that apply.Prior to 1996, data on visible minorities werederived from other census questions, such as ethnicorigin, birthplace, language and religion.

Ethnic origin“Ethnic origin” refers to the ethnic or culturalgroup(s) to which the respondent’s ancestorsbelong. The comparability of ethnic origin data from

the 1996 and 2001 Censuses with previous cen-suses is affected by changes in the format andexamples provided on the questionnaire. Thechange in format to an open-ended question in 1996and the presence of examples such as “Canadian,”which were not included in previous censuses, likelyaffect response patterns.

In addition, the measurement of ethnicity is affectedby changes in the respondent’s understanding orviews about the topic. Awareness of family back-ground or length of time since immigration canaffect response to the ethnic origin question, as canconfusion with other concepts such as citizenship,nationality, language or cultural identity. Ethnic ori-gin response patterns may be influenced by bothsocial and personal considerations, which in turncan have an impact on the comparability of databetween censuses.

The 2001 Census ethnic origin question was:


19 Is this person:

Mark “ ” more than one or specify, if applicable.

This information is collected to support programs that promote equal opportunity for everyone to share in the social, cultural and economic life of Canada.

White

Chinese

South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.)

Black

Filipino

Latin American

Southeast Asian (e.g., Cambodian, Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese, etc.)

Arab

West Asian (e.g., Afghan, Iranian, etc.)

Japanese

Korean

Other – Specify

While most people in Canada view themselves as Canadians, information on their ancestral origins has been collected since 1901 Census to capture the changing composition of Canada’s diverse population. Therefore, this question refers to the origins of the person’s ancestors.

17 To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did thisperson’s ancestors belong?

For example, Canadian, French, English, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Micmac, Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), East Indian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, Portugese, Filipino, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Somali, etc.

Specify as many groups as applicable

and just 3% of individuals who cameto Canada before 1961. Of the immi-grants arriving in the 1990s, thePeople’s Republic of China was theleading source country, followed byIndia, the Philippines and Hong Kong.

Immigrants attracted to Toronto,Montréal and VancouverOver the past 30 years, recent immi-grants have been increasingly drawnto settle in Canada’s three largest

urban areas. For example, accordingto the 2001 Census, about three infive immigrants (58%) who enteredCanada in the 1970s settled in thecensus metropolitan areas (CMAs) ofToronto, Vancouver and Montréal.Among immigrants who arrived inthe 1990s, however, nearly three-quarters (73%) lived in these threeCMAs. In contrast to immigrants, justover one-third of Canada’s total popu-lation lived in these urban centres

in 2001. Consequently, immigrantsaccounted for an increasingly largerproportion of the population in theseareas. In 2001, more than 2 millionpeople in the Toronto CMA were foreign-born, representing 44% of the total population of this area. This proportion surpassed those ofcities around the world known fortheir cultural diversity such as NewYork, Miami, Sydney (Australia) andLos Angeles.

Toronto attracted the largest share ofnew immigrants who arrived in Canadaduring the 1990s (43%), followed byVancouver (18%) and Montréal (12%).Only 6% of new immigrants settled inareas outside census metropolitan areas.

Most immigrants arriving in the1990s were of working age. About46% were 25 to 44 years old, while17% were aged 45 to 64. About310,000 of new immigrants (17%)were children between the ages of 5 and 16. In Toronto and Vancouver,nearly 1 in 5 (17%) school-age chil-dren had immigrated within the past10 years, as did about 7% in Montréal.About half of school-age children inToronto who arrived in the 1990sspoke a language other than Englishor French most often at home in2001, compared with 61% in Vancou-ver and 43% in Montréal. This mayplace special demands on school sys-tems in Canada’s largest cities.

Allophone immigrants increasingIn the past 30 years there has been adramatic change in the linguisticcomposition of immigrants enteringCanada, a reflection of changingsource countries. Increasing propor-tions of immigrants were allophones— individuals whose mother tongueis other than English or French.According to the 2001 Census, overthree-quarters (79%) of immigrantswho came in the 1990s were allo-phones, up from one-half (49%) ofthose who arrived in the 1970s. InMontréal, 74% of immigrants entering


United States

Europe

Asia (including Middle East)

Africa

Caribbean and Centraland South America

Oceania and other

Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2001.

Place of birth by period of immigration

%

Before 1961 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2001

91

3

69

1238

36

33

6

17

26

47

6

17

20

58

8

11

Immigrants come increasingly from Asia and the Middle EastCST

Sources: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2001, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

% foreign-born

MontréalNew YorkCity

Los AngelesSydney,Australia

VancouverMiamiToronto

4440

38

31 31

24

18

Toronto has proportionally more foreign-born residents than othermulticultural citiesCST

in the 1990s were allophones; inToronto the proportion was 79%, andin Vancouver, 88%.

At the same time, the proportion ofimmigrants arriving with an Englishmother tongue has decreased from45% of individuals who arrived in the1970s to 18% of those who came inthe 1990s. The proportion arrivingwith French mother tongue hasremained stable over the past 30 yearsat around 4% to 5%.

Many immigrants speak languagesother than English or French at homeWith a growing percentage of allo-phones entering the country, theproportion of immigrants who speaka language other than English orFrench at home is on the rise. In 2001,61% of the immigrants who came inthe 1990s used a non-official languageat home, up from 1991, when 56% ofthose who arrived in the previousdecade did so.

However, most newcomers reportedbeing able to have a conversation inEnglish and/or French. In 2001, three-quarters of immigrants who arrived inthe past 10 years were able to speakEnglish, 4% reported abilities inFrench, while 11% could carry on aconversation in both official languages.Only 1 in 10 of those who came in the1990s had no knowledge of either offi-cial language.

Knowledge of one of the official languages is beneficial to immigrants in the labour market. Yet manyallophone immigrants (about 24%)worked using a non-official language.1

Since most allophone immigrants settle in Toronto, Vancouver or Mon-tréal, a significant proportion of thosewho live there use their mothertongue at work. In Vancouver, 36% of

allophone immigrants used a lan-guage other than English or French atwork, compared with 25% in Torontoand 21% in Montréal.

Visible minority population growsThe growth in the foreign-born popu-lation and the shift from European toAsian immigrants have contributed todramatic growth in the visible minor-ity population over the last twodecades. In 2001, 13% of Canada’spopulation — 4.0 million people —

identified themselves as members of avisible minority group, up from 5%(1.1 million) in 1981. About 7 in 10individuals who identified themselvesas visible minorities were immigrants.However, some visible minority groupssuch as Japanese and Blacks have longhistories in this country, and weremore likely to be Canadian-born.

The visible minority population isgrowing nearly six times faster thanthe total population. Between 1991and 2001, the total population of


% visible minorities

Sources: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2001.

20011996199119861981

56

9

11

13

Visible minority populations have grown steadily over the past 20 yearsCST

Selected census metropolitan areas (CMAs)


Visible minorities as % of population

13%

212

57

111313

141415

1818

3737

Non-CMAsSt. John’s

QuébecReginaHalifax

KitchenerWinnipegWindsorMontréal

Ottawa-GatineauEdmonton

CalgaryAbbotsford

TorontoVancouver

Canada

Nearly 4 in 10 residents in Vancouver and Toronto belong to a visible minority groupCST

1. Used a non-official language at workmost often or on a regular basis.

Canada increased by 10% while the vis-ible minority population grew by 58%.

Like the foreign-born population,Canada’s visible minorities are clus-tered in the largest urban areas. About37% of the population in Toronto and Vancouver and 14% in Montréal are visible minorities. In contrast,only 2% of the population outsideCanada’s CMAs belonged to a visibleminority group.

Visible minorities made up evenlarger proportions of the population ofsome municipalities. They representedmore than half the population ofRichmond, British Columbia (59%) andMarkham, Ontario (55%) and nearlyhalf of the cities of Vancouver andBurnaby, British Columbia (49% each).

Chinese are the largest visible minority groupChinese, South Asians and Blacksaccounted for two-thirds of the visibleminority population of Canada. Chi-nese was the largest group, surpassingone million in 2001 and representing3.5% of the total population and 26%of the visible minority population.Between 1996 and 2001, the number ofChinese Canadians increased by 20%.

South Asians, the second largestvisible minority group — numbering917,000 in 2001 — grew by 37%between 1996 and 2001. This groupaccounted for 3.1% of the total and23% of the visible minority popula-tion in 2001. That same year, thecensus enumerated 662,000 Blacks,the third largest visible minoritygroup, up by 15% since 1996. Theyrepresented 2.2% of the total and 17%of the visible minority population.

Other visible minority groups in2001 included Filipinos (8% of the visible minority population), Arabsand West Asians (8%), Latin Americans(5%), Southeast Asians (5%), Koreans(3%) and Japanese (2%). In total thesegroups numbered about 1.2 million,representing about one-third of all vis-ible minorities in Canada.

More people report they are “Canadian”More than 200 different ethnic ori-gins were reported in the 2001Census. Ethnic origin refers to theethnic or cultural group to which anindividual’s ancestors belonged. Thechanging sources of immigrants toCanada and the increasing intermar-riage among ethnic groups haveresulted in a broader range of ethnicorigins and a growing number of people reporting multiple ethnicancestries.

In 2001, the most frequentlyreported ethnic origin was Canadian,either alone or in combination withother origins. It was reported by 11.7 million people, or 39% of thepopulation.2 English (6.0 million),French (4.7 million), Scottish (4.2 mil-lion), Irish (3.8 million), German (2.7 million), Italian (1.3 million),Chinese (1.1 million), Ukrainian (1.1million) and North American Indian(1.0 million) rounded out the top 10ethnic origins in Canada.

More people report multiple ethnic ancestriesA growing number of people reportmultiple ethnic ancestries, probablybecause of intermarriage. In 2001,11.3 million or 38% of the populationreported multiple ethnic origins, upfrom 10.2 million, or 36%, in 1996and 7.0 million in 1986.

People with European background,whose ancestors have lived in Canadafor several generations, were mostlikely to report multiple origins, espe-cially Irish, Scottish, English, Frenchand Scandinavian groups. Those withmore recent histories in Canada, suchas Polynesians, Indonesians andParaguayans, also were more likely toreport multiple origins because theyoriginated from multicultural coun-tries. In contrast, recent arrivals toCanada such as Koreans, Afghans andEritreans tended to report single ethnic origins.

SummaryAt the time of the 2001 census, immigrants represented the highestproportion of the population in 70 years and immigration accountedfor more than two-thirds of the population growth in that year. Theshifts in the countries of origin ofrecent immigrants have contributedto Canada’s increasing cultural diver-sity. While immigrants enteringCanada in the 1960s were predomi-nantly European, today’s immigrantsare more likely to be Asian.

Today’s immigrants are concen-trated overwhelmingly in Canada’sthree largest urban areas: Toronto,Montréal and Vancouver. These cen-tres, with their sizable populations offoreign-born individuals, have alsoseen large increases in their visibleminority populations.

An important goal of Canada’simmigration policy is to assist in the country’s economic performance.Immigrants have contributed toCanada’s population and labour forcegrowth, diversified the ethnic and lin-guistic composition of the countryand have contributed valuable humanresources to the economy. Withincreasing economic globalization,Canada’s growing cultural diversitymay be to its advantage in the inter-national marketplace.


CST

2. Changes to the ethnic origin question inthe 1996 and 2001 Censuses resulted inan increase in the number of peoplereporting “Canadian” as part of theirethnic heritage in both 1996 and 2001.“Canadian” was included as an exampleon the questionnaire in both censuses.In 2001, about 6.7 million peoplereported Canadian as their only ethnicorigin. An additional 5 million reportedCanadian along with other origins.


Immigrants have made notable con-tributions to Canada’s populationgrowth, diversity and economy, and

now account for an increasing propor-tion of the country’s population. Butstarting life over in a new country is notalways easy. After entering Canada,immigrants go through a period ofadjustment while they look for work,master a new language, and learn to deal with medical, educational or government services. With time theirprospects of getting a job and earning aliving improve. However, initial experi-ences are important and may influenceimmigrants’ decisions with respect tosettling permanently in a country. New-comers who have difficulty findingwork that matches their skills and edu-cation may return to their country oforigin or seek residence elsewhere.

About 2.2 million immigrants cameto Canada in the 1990s, accounting forover half the population growth duringthat period, and representing the largestnumber of entrants for any decade inthe past century. Nearly half (46%) ofthose who arrived in the 1990s (1.0 mil-lion people) were aged 25 to 44, notsurprising when considering that mostpeople move from one country toanother when they are young adults.1

This group contributed much to thegrowth of Canada’s labour force duringthe decade.

Using data from the LongitudinalImmigration Database (IMDB), this article examines the early employmentexperiences of 25- to 44-year-old immi-grants arriving in Canada in 1991 and1996 and compares them to the 1981cohort. More specifically, the integra-tion of immigrants into the labour

market is studied through three separatebut related measures. First, what level ofearnings did immigrants have and whatfactors influenced earnings? Second,how soon after arrival did immigrantsenter the labour market and first reportearnings? And third, how many years ofearnings did immigrants have duringtheir first five years in Canada?

1990s immigrants earn less than their 1980s counterpartsThe 1990s saw a shift in job creationfrom full-time paid jobs to self-employment, a process that wasaccompanied by falling labour forceparticipation rates, especially for theyoung. The growth in income (mea-sured by gross domestic product percapita) slowed and median familyearnings showed no improvement.2

Immigrants arriving during this periodencountered difficulty in the labourmarket, as did other new workers. Thiswas particularly true for those lackinglocal connections and experience.3,4

Immigrants who came during the second half of the 1990s, a periodcharacterized by economic recovery,fared better, but still did not reach theearnings levels of the 1981 cohort.5

Immigrant men who arrived in1991 earned substantially less in theirsecond year in Canada ($18,800) than did the 1981 cohort ($32,600).6

Although the earnings of the 1991group grew more quickly, after fiveyears in Canada they still lagged behindthose of their 1981 counterparts.

Those arriving in 1996, however,fared somewhat better. Their second-year earnings ($20,900) were still lowerthan the earnings of the 1981 entrants,

but were slightly above those of the1991 group. In addition, earnings in thesecond half of the 1990s improvedmore quickly than in the first half. Bytheir fifth year in Canada, the averageearnings of men who arrived in 1996had increased to $33,100, up 58% fromthe second year. This compares with a34% rise between the second and fifthyears for the 1991 cohort.

A different story emerged for immi-grant women. On average, second-yearearnings differed less between the

Earnings of immigrants in the 1990sEarnings of immigrants in the 1990sby Tina Chui and Danielle Zietsma

1. In 1996, 32% of the Canadian-bornpopulation were aged 25 to 44. About39% of immigrants who arrived duringthe 1980s were this age.

2. Picot, G. and A. Heisz. 2000. “The per-formance of the 1990s Canadian labourmarket.” Canadian Public Policy XXVI,Supplement 1: S21-S22.

3. Reitz, J.G. 2002. “Immigration and Cana-dian nation-building in the transition toa knowledge economy.” In ControllingImmigration: A Global Perspective, 2nd

edition. Edited by W.A. Cornelius, P.L.Martin and J.F. Hollifield. Stanford, Califor-nia: Stanford University Press. p. 18-19.www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Reitz_June2002.pdf (accessed March 11, 2003).

4. Badets, J. and L. Howatson-Leo. Spring1999. “Recent immigrants in the work-force.” Canadian Social Trends: 16-22.

5. Other researchers have found that immi-grants start at an earnings disadvantagerelative to the Canadian-born population,but the gap narrows over time. SeeGreen, D.A. and C. Worswick. 2002. “Earn-ings of immigrant men in Canada: Theroles of labour market entry effects andreturns to foreign experience.” Preparedfor Citizenship and Immigration Canada.www.cic.gc.ca

6. Earnings are shown in 2000 constantdollars.

cohorts than they did for men. Womenwho arrived in 1981 earned the most,followed closely by the 1991 and 1996groups. After five years in Canada, the1996 cohort showed the largest increasein earnings; they earned $20,500 onaverage, slightly higher than 1981($18,500) and 1991 ($18,000) immi-grant groups. While the early 1990srecession undoubtedly affected earn-ings, in the case of immigrant womensome other factor may have been atwork to offset these effects.

Good times, bad times: the effect of economic conditionsAll new entrants to the labour market —whether they are immigrants or youthjust out of school — take time to

become fully integrated into the work-force. For immigrants, full integrationmay involve gaining Canadian workexperience, establishing work relation-ships and, at times, obtaining furthertraining. Due to economic restructuringand a prolonged recession, 1991 immi-grants experienced more difficultysecuring jobs than did either the 1981or the 1996 cohorts. Although the econ-omy in the early 1980s had also gonethrough a slow-down, its impact on thelabour market was not as far-reaching asthat experienced in the 1990s.7

Do landing characteristics make a difference?In addition to economic conditions,educational levels, official language

skills, admission category and regionof last permanent residence, othercharacteristics may also influence theinitial labour market experiences ofimmigrants, including their earnings.Landing characteristics were differentfor each group of immigrants. Forexample, while the majority of 1981entrants were European or North Amer-ican, most of those arriving in 1996were Asian. As well, 1996 immigrantshad higher levels of education and weremore likely to speak an official languagethan either of the two earlier cohorts.Finally, 1991 immigrants were more


This study uses data from the Longitudinal ImmigrationDatabase (IMDB). The IMDB is an administrative databasecontaining information on income tax and landing charac-teristics of immigrants who entered Canada between 1980and 2000, and who filed at least one income tax returnduring this period.

Employment earningsEarnings are the portion of income derived exclusivelyfrom employment activities for the given tax year, includingearned wages and salaries and other employment incomereported on the T1 tax form.1 Self-employed earnings arenot included in this definition. In their fifth year in Canada,11% of the 1981 cohort had self-employed earnings, as did12% of the 1991 and 14% of the 1996 cohort. Throughoutthis article, “earnings” is used to refer to “wages andsalaries plus other employment income.” Extreme valuesof earnings were excluded from the analysis.

Educational level at landingEducational attainment of immigrants upon entry toCanada is divided into four levels of education: less than10 years of schooling; 10 to 12 years of schooling; trade,community college or university certificate or diploma(including some postsecondary education); or a univer-sity degree.

Admission categoryImmigrants are admitted to Canada under one of the following admission categories: skilled worker, business,other economic, family, refugee and other class.

Skilled workers are people whose education and workexperience is expected to help them find work andbecome permanent residents in Canada.

Business immigrants are people who can invest in, orstart, businesses in Canada and are expected to supportthe development of a strong and prosperous Canadianeconomy. Because this category includes entrepreneurs,investors and self-employed persons, people in this groupare more likely to have self-employment earnings thanother classes of immigrants. In their fifth year, 44% of1981 business class immigrants had self-employmentearnings, compared with 25% and 26% of the 1991 and1996 cohorts, respectively. However, even more businessclass immigrants reported employment earnings: 56% ofthe 1981, 52% of the 1991 and 43% of the 1996 cohorts.

Family class immigrants are sponsored by close relativesor family members in Canada who have promised to sup-port them for a period while they settle in the country.

Other class immigrants are admitted into the countryunder the administrative review program and backlogclearance program designed to clear a large number ofrefugee claims.

1. “Other employment income” includes employment income not reported on T4 slips such as tips, occasional earnings (e.g. babysitting, delivering newspapers or flyers), net researchgrants, foreign-employment income, income-maintenanceinsurance plan benefits, certain GST/HST and Quebec sales taxrebates for employment expenses, some royalties andemployee profit-sharing plans.


7. Picot and Heisz. 2000. p. S7-S25.

likely to be refugees or part of the“other” category of immigrants, whichincluded the backlog clearance programfor refugee claimants.

After accounting for differences inlanding characteristics,8 the second-year earnings of 1991 immigrants werestill 32% less than the correspondingearnings of the 1981 group; the gapdecreased to 20% in the fifth year. Incontrast, the 1996 cohort earned 39%less than their 1981 counterparts intheir second year, but the gap dwindledto about 9% by their fifth year inCanada. The fact that earnings differ-ences between these groups of entrants

persisted even after holding landingcharacteristics constant confirms thatother factors — most likely economicconditions — must also be at work.9

Education and earnings go hand in handAlthough Canada attempts to attractand integrate skilled professionals andtrades persons into the labour market,foreign-trained immigrants may experi-ence barriers in having their skills and credentials fully recognized. Insome cases, employers have difficulty assessing credentials, especially fromcountries where the education system

differs substantially from Canada’s. Inothers, skills may be perceived as lowerquality or not relevant to Canadianconditions.10 As well, immigrants entering for humanitarian or familyreunification reasons may be less expe-rienced in the labour market than thoseassessed on the basis of skills and occu-pational demand.11

Despite these barriers, a model usingmultivariate analysis12 of each immi-grant group shows that higher earningsgo hand in hand with high levels ofeducation. Regardless of when theyarrived, immigrants with a universitydegree earned more than did thosewith less education. What’s more, theeffect of education on earnings wasstronger after five years. For example,during their second year in Canada,1996 immigrants with 10 to 12 yearsof schooling earned 10% less thanthose with a university degree. By thefifth year the difference had increasedto 33%. A similar pattern was observed for 1991 immigrants: those with 10 to12 years of schooling earned 11% lessin their second year in Canada and 28%less in their fifth year than did immi-grants with a university degree.


1981 1991 1996

Landing characteristics % of 25- to 44-year-old immigrantsEducation levelLess than 10 years of schooling 16 16 910 to 12 years of schooling 23 26 22Some postsecondary, trade certificate,

community college or university diploma 37 36 30University degree 23 23 39Self-assessed knowledge of official languagesNo knowledge of English or French 29 31 23Knowledge of at least one official language 71 69 77Last permanent residence (region)North America 9 3 2Europe 43 22 21Asia 26 43 53Middle East 3 7 7Africa 5 9 8Caribbean and Guyana 8 7 5Central and South America 3 9 2Australia and Oceania 2 1 1Admission categoryFamily 24 28 22EconomicSkilled worker 31 15 25Business 3 2 3Other economic 29 16 29Refugee 13 19 15Other 0 20 6

Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Immigration Database.

Immigrants who arrived in 1996 were more likely to have a university degree than earlier entrantsCST

8. Landing characteristics of immigrantsincluded: age, sex, education level andself-assessed knowledge of official languages, region of last permanentresidence and admission category.

9. For further information on the impact ofeconomic conditions, see Green andWorswick. 2002.

10.Reitz. 2002. p. 20.

11. Prefontaine, J.P. and A. Benson. 1999. Bar-riers to Canadian Immigrants’ EconomicIntegration: Government Response toMarket Failure. Presentation given Janu-ary 1999 in Vancouver, British Columbia at Third National Metropolis Conference. p. 2. www.rim.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/1998/NC/Benson.pdf (accessedFebruary 25, 2003).

12.A technique that considers multiple fac-tors simultaneously to investigate howearnings change after the effects of dif-ferences in landing characteristics havebeen removed.

Knowledge of English or Frenchassociated with higher earningsImmigrants of the 1990s who were ableto speak either English or French uponarrival had a head start over those whocould not converse in either language.However, the effect of initial languageskills decreased over time, as individualswho did not know an official languagelearned one in the following years. After accounting for all other factors,knowledge of English or French raised

earnings in the first year by 30% among1991 immigrants and by 28% amongthe 1996 group over those who spokeneither. By the fifth year, the languageadvantage for the two cohorts dipped to22% and 21%, respectively.

The recession of the early 1990s hitimmigrants from some regions harderthan others. While holding all otherfactors constant, the fifth-year earningsof 1991 immigrants were lowest forthose from the Middle East (55% lower

than North American immigrants),13

Africa, Central and South America(about 42% lower) and, to a certainextent, Asia (29% lower). Among1996 immigrants, earnings for indi-viduals from all these regions wereabout 30% below North Americanimmigrants’ earnings.

Immigrants who landed as skilledworkers generally earned more thanthose in other admission categoriesbecause they were admitted as work-ers who on the basis of their skillswere in strong demand. However,skilled workers from the 1991 cohortenjoyed a smaller earnings advantagethan their 1981 and 1996 counter-parts. For example, in their fifth year,1991 skilled immigrant workers earned26% more than family class immi-grants. In comparison, the 1981 skilledgroup earned 38% more and the 1996group, 28% more than their familyclass counterparts.

1991 immigrants report earnings laterComparing employment earnings overthe first five years in Canada is one wayto measure the integration of immi-grants into the labour market. Anotheris to look at how long it took them tofind paid work. This can be measuredby the average number of years it tookto first report earnings during their firstfive years. Finally, the average numberof years of earnings during the first fiveyears is another indicator of the labourmarket integration of immigrants.14


Both sexes Men Women

1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996

% gap in earnings with 1981 cohort

2nd year -32 -39 -44 -46 -13 -27

3rd year -27 -21 -36 -26 -12 -13

4th year -22 -15 -31 -20 -9 -7

5th year -20 -9 -30 -16 -6 1*

* No statistically significant difference from 1981.

Note: The model accounts for age, sex, education level and knowledge of official language at landing,region of last permanent residence and admission class. The earnings gaps in the table reflect differences in economic conditions experienced by immigrants and differences in the characteristics of immigrants not accounted for in the model.


The earnings gap between the 1996 and 1981 cohort declines over timeCST

Year of entry to Canada

1981 1991 1996

Average employment earnings(‘000s of constant 2000 dollars)

Men

2nd year 32.6 18.8 20.9

3rd year 33.6 21.0 26.1

4th year 35.8 25.2 29.8

5th year 37.5 25.1 33.1

Women

2nd year 15.5 14.2 13.3

3rd year 16.7 15.7 16.4

4th year 17.8 18.3 18.5

5th year 18.5 18.0 20.5


Men entering Canada in the 1990s earned less than their 1981 counterpartsCST

13.North American immigrants were pri-marily from the United States.

14.The introduction of the Federal Sales TaxCredit in 1986 and the Goods and SalesTax Credit in 1989 and child tax creditsand benefits in 1978 and 1993 providedmore incentive for low-income earners tofile a tax return. These changes in taxcredits resulted in more people filing taxreturns after the tax reforms to receive thetax credits. This affects the comparabilityof the measures shown in the analysis.

Most 25- to 44-year-old immigrantsdid find employment during their firstfive years in Canada, and manyreported earnings for all five years. Buttheir success in finding a job variedwith their year of entry. By the fifthyear, 20% of men who landed in 1991had yet to report earnings, comparedwith 7% of men arriving in 1981 and13% in 1996. Similarly, 30% of 1991immigrant women had yet to reportemployment earnings after five years,compared with 22% of 1981 and 24%of 1996 female entrants.

After controlling for landing charac-teristics, knowledge of at least oneofficial language helped immigrants tointegrate into the Canadian labourmarket. For all three groups, those whoknew at least one official languagereported earnings sooner after landingand had more years of earnings duringthe first five years. However, educa-tional level had a small or non-existenteffect on how long it took to firstreport earnings and on the number ofyears of earnings during the first fiveyears in the country.

Immigrants from the Middle East,Central and South America and Africatook longer to first report employ-ment earnings than North Americanimmigrants. But while North Ameri-can immigrants reported earningssooner, they had fewer years of earn-ings during their first five years thanother immigrants except for thosefrom the Middle East, Central andSouth America and Africa.

In general, immigrants admittedunder the skilled worker categoryentered the labour market faster andhad more years of earnings than thosein other admission classes.

SummaryBoth economic conditions and immi-grants’ characteristics at the time oflanding influenced their integrationinto the labour market and their earn-ings patterns. Immigrants who enteredCanada in 1996 had more educationand were more likely to have officiallanguage skills than those who arrivedearlier. The 1991 cohort, who arrivedduring a period of economic recessionand who were more likely to be refugeesthan the other cohorts, had lower earn-ings and took longer to report havingthem than the 1981 group. Even afteraccounting for differences in landingcharacteristics, 1991 entrants had lowerearnings than the 1981 cohort, but thegap narrowed with time. Those whoarrived in 1996 fared somewhat betterthen their 1991 counterparts, but earn-ings for men were still lower than thoseof their 1981 counterparts.

Tina Chui is a senior analyst withHousing, Family and Social StatisticsDivision and Danielle Zietsma is an analyst with Business and Labour Market Analysis Division, Statistics Canada.


Years having Number of yearsearnings to first earnings

Landing cohort (compared to 1981 cohort)1991 -0.23 0.061996 -0.36 0.36Additional year of age at landing 0.00 0.01Men (compared to women) 0.28 -0.26Educational level at landing (compared to university degree)Less than 10 years of schooling 0.06 -0.0810 to 12 years of schooling -0.02 -0.02Some postsecondary, trade, community college

or university certificate or diploma 0.01* -0.06Knowledge of at least one official language

(compared to no knowledge of an official language) 0.16 -0.12Region of last permanent residence (compared to North America)Europe 0.24 0.07Asia 0.27 0.10Middle East -0.11 0.28Africa 0.03* 0.19Caribbean and Guyana 0.40 -0.01*Central and South America 0.01* 0.25Australia and Oceania 0.21 0.00*Admission category (Reference group: Skilled worker)Family -0.06 0.12Business principal applicant -0.83 0.67Other economic -0.16 0.26Refugee -0.33 0.29Other 0.12 -0.18

* No statistically significant difference from the comparison group.

Note: The introduction of sales taxes credits and the child tax benefit during the 1980s and 1990s providedmore incentive for low-income earners to file a tax return. This affects the comparability of the resultsbefore and after these tax reforms. The results in this table should be interpreted with caution.


1991 immigrants had earnings for three months less than the 1981 cohort during the first five years in CanadaCST

CST


North Americans oftenassume that most marriedor common-law partners

are close in age to each other and this,in fact, tends to be the case most of thetime. There are, however, exceptions,couples with substantial age gapsbetween them. Although the typicalpattern for age-discrepant marriages isthe so-called “May–December” rela-tionship, in which the woman ismuch younger than the man, thereverse also may hold.

Until recently, much of the atten-tion given to age-discrepant unionswas negative. Textbooks of the 1960sand 1970s interpreted couples withlarge age differences as havingfather–daughter or mother–son emo-tional needs. Research portrayed theseunions as fraught with problems andpointed to issues of power imbalancesand clashing values as a result ofbeing born and raised in differenttimes. Age-discrepant couples werealso viewed as having higher levels ofmarital dissatisfaction and beingmore prone to marital dissolution.1

Today, many of these views are dis-carded, debated or reversed. It isrecognized that instead of reflectingthe influence of age discrepancy,some issues are associated with othercharacteristics such as poverty or ethnic differences between partners.

May–December: Canadians in age-discrepant relationshipsMay–December: Canadians in age-discrepant relationshipsby Monica Boyd and Anne Li

1. Berardo, F.M., J. Appel and D. Berardo.1993. “Age dissimilar marriages: Reviewand assessment.” Journal of AgingStudies 7, 1: 93-106; Vera, H., D. Berardoand F.M. Berardo. 1985. “Age heterogamyin marriage.” Journal of Marriage and theFamily 47, 3: 553-566.

This article uses data from the 2001 Census of Population.

Census family: Refers to a married couple (with or without childrenof either or both spouses), a couple living common-law (with or with-out children of either or both partners) or a lone parent of any maritalstatus, with at least one child living in the same dwelling.

Economic family: Refers to a group of two or more persons who livein the same dwelling and are related to each other by blood, mar-riage, common-law or adoption.

The relatively small number of same-sex unions reported on the Cen-sus does not allow a detailed analysis of the characteristics of thesecouples in age-discrepant unions. Therefore, this article can onlydescribe the characteristics of those in male-female relationships.However, male same-sex couples are the most likely to be in age-discrepant unions. Compared to 42% of male-female couples and59% of female same-sex couples, 64% of men who reported being insame-sex relationships are in unions where the age gap is 4 or moreyears. One-quarter (26%) of men in male same-sex couples are inrelationships where the age gap between partners is 10 or moreyears, compared with 18% of women in female same-sex unions and8% of women and men in male-female unions.


Studies that take these characteristicsinto account find that age differenceshave no impact on levels of maritaldissatisfaction.2 And while some stud-ies do find that marriages betweenpartners who are substantially differ-ent in age are more prone to divorce,others do not support this conclu-sion.3 Recent research has focused onmessages such as “older wives, betterlives” and “younger wives, longerlives.” The first claims that older

women with younger men tend tolive in more balanced and equal rela-tionships, and the second that oldermen with younger women live longerthan expected.4

To what extent are couples inCanada involved in age-discrepantrelationships? What are the character-istics of these men and women, anddo they differ from couples who areclose in age to each other? Using datafrom the 2001 Census, this article

addresses these questions by examin-ing the demographic, social andeconomic differences that existbetween couples who are far apart andthose who are close together in age.

Departing from the usualOf the 3.5 million couples living in acensus family in 2001, most consist ofpartners quite close in age to eachother. Nearly 6 out of 10 couples(58%) are no more than 3 years olderor younger than each other, reflectingsocietal beliefs and expectationsabout appropriate age gaps.

Although those who are close inage are the majority, about 2.9 millioncouples, or approximately 5.8 millionindividuals, have partners who are 4or more years younger or older thanthemselves. According to the 2001Census, men were 4 to 6 years olderthan women in 20% of unions, 7 to 9years older in 9%, and 10 or moreyears older in 7%. It is this pattern of“older man–younger woman” thatdominates among couples with largeage gaps. Although relationships do,of course, exist where women areolder than men, their numbers aresubstantially lower. For example, thepercentage of couples where womenwere at least 10 years older than theirpartners was 1% in 2001.

The higher proportions of olderman–younger woman unions reflectthe notion that if one of the partnersis older, it should be the man. Thisexpectation is a legacy of an earliertime, when marriage occurred only


Woman 10 or moreyears older

Woman 7 to 9years older

Woman 4 to 6years older

Couple 0 to 3years apart

Man 4 to 6years older

Man 7 to 9years older

Man 10 or moreyears older


% of couples

7

9

20

58

4

1

1

Over 40% of couples are 4 or more years apart in ageCST


Woman is 10 or more years older Man is 10 or more years older

65 or over50-64 35-49 Less than 35 65 or over50-64 35-49 Less than 35

% of older partner in age category

2

3640

23

2

28

38

32

Among older partners, men are more likely than women to be 65 years or overCST

2. Vera, Berardo and Berardo. 1985.

3. Berardo, Appel and Berardo. 1993; Gen-tleman, J.F. and E. Park. 1994. “Agedifferences of married and divorcingcouples.” Health Reports (StatisticsCanada Catalogue no. 82-003-XPB) 6, 2:225-240.

4. Fischman, J. September 1984. “Thesexes: Crosstalk.” Psychology Today:12-13; Gentleman and Park. 1994.

after a man had economically estab-lished himself enough to support afamily. In such circumstances, itwould not be unusual for men to beolder than their partners and gradu-ally the older man–younger womanpattern came to be viewed as theacceptable “norm.” Researchers alsosuggest that the expectation of menbeing older than their partners is partof a double standard where the valueand acceptability of aging men ishigher than that of aging women.5

Among couples with substantialage differences, men have an olderage profile than women. For example,about 32% of men who are at least 10years older than their partners areaged 65 or over. In comparison, 23%of women 10 or more years ahead oftheir spouses in age are 65 years orover. Conversely, a larger proportionof women are in younger age groups;36% of women in these relationshipsare between the ages of 35 and 49compared with 28% of men.

Although the age profiles of maleand female spouses who are at least 10 or more years older are different,the age gap between partners is quite similar: 14 years on average regardlessof whether the man or the woman isolder. Couples with very large age differences are rare. Among thosewith at least a 10-year gap, and where the man is 65 years or older, only 1% include a female partner who is 35 years or younger; where the man is50 to 64 years old, 7% include a womanaged 35 or younger.6

Age gaps and other differencesResearchers suggest that individualswho depart from the expected ageprofile of couples are likely to divergefrom other societal norms as well,whether it be the legal nature of theunion7 or the racial or birthplacebackgrounds of the partners.

For example, people in age-discrepant unions are far more likelyto be in common-law relationships

than those who are close together inage. In fact, as the age gap betweenpartners grows, so does the likelihoodof living common-law. And age-discrepant couples where women areolder are much more likely to live incommon-law unions than where menare older. For example, common-lawrelationships characterize nearly 4 outof 10 (39%) couples where women areat least 10 years older than their part-ners compared with just less thanone-quarter (24%) of those wheremen are 10 or more years older.

Compared to age-homogenousunions, age-discrepant couples arealso more likely to include one part-ner who is a member of a visibleminority group and one who is not.Although percentages are not large,this situation tends to occur most fre-quently in relationships where menand women are at least 10 years olderthan their spouse. A similar patternexists for unions that include one foreign-born and one Canadian-bornpartner. As the age gap increases, the percentage of couples with one

Canadian-born and one foreign-bornmember increases, and peaks whenone partner is 10 or more years olderthan the other. Researchers observethat the absence of potential partnerswithin a particular age range cancause people to enlarge the pool ofpotential partners with respect to age,race and other characteristics.8

Unions in which men are substan-tially older than their partners


Man is older Woman is olderthan woman by Age gap is than man by

10 or 7 to 9 4 to 6 0 to 3 4 to 9 7 to 9 10 ormore years years years years years moreyears years

‘000

Number of couples 506 617 1,396 4,076 263 97 71

%

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Both partnersforeign-born 27 27 22 17 16 14 15

Man foreign-born,woman not 9 7 6 5 6 7 7

Woman foreign-born,man not 6 5 4 5 8 9 9

Neither foreign-born 58 61 67 73 70 71 68

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.


Relationships in which men are at least 7 years older than their spouse are most likely to include partners who are both foreign-bornCST

5. Cowan, G. 1984. “The double standardin age-discrepant relationships.” SexRoles 11, 1-2: 17-23; Vera, Berardo andBerardo. 1985.

6. The number of relationships wherewomen aged 50 and over have spouseswho are 35 years or younger is toosmall to provide reliable estimates.

7. Wu, Z., K.H. Burch, R. Hart and J.E.Veevers. 2000. “Age-heterogamy andCanadian unions.” Social Biology 47, 3-4: 277-293.

8. Shehan, C.L., F.M. Berardo, H. Vera and S.M. Carley. 1991. “Women in age-discrepant marriages.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, 4: 928-940.

contain the highest proportion ofindividuals who are both members ofvisible minority groups (this is lesslikely to be the case when women aresubstantially older than their part-ners). Both partners were members ofvisible minority groups in 16% ofunions where the man was older by10 or more years compared with 9%of relationships where partners werethe same age or where women were atleast 10 years older. Relationships inwhich men are substantially older arealso more likely than other unions to include partners who are both foreign-born. Likewise, the home useof languages other than English orFrench also increases with the age gapfor couples where men are older. Mar-riages where men are much older mayin these cases reflect the norms andpractices found in these individuals’countries of origin.

Older partners have often beenmarried beforeCouples who are far apart in age were born in different time periodsand had experienced life courseevents earlier (or later) than their part-ner.9 Age-discrepant unions that are reconstituted from previous marriageswill experience this time warp withrespect to events such as dates of mar-riage and births of children.

According to the General SocialSurvey, age-discrepant unions ofteninclude at least one partner who waspreviously married to someone else.The census does not ask legally mar-ried couples about earlier marriages,but available information about themarital status of persons in common-law unions suggests that many olderpartners had indeed been previouslymarried. Among men in common-lawunions, nearly 7 in 10 (66%) of those

who are at least 10 years older thantheir partners are divorced, widowedor currently married but separated,compared with 2 in 10 of those whoare within 3 years of the age of theirpartners. The comparable statistics forwomen who are at least 10 years olderthan their partners are nearly 8 in 10(75%) versus 1 in 4 for those who areclose in age. Partly because they areyounger, many of the partners forthese older men and women have notyet been legally married.

Because, in many cases, familybuilding would have occurred earlier,age-discrepant couples are less likelyto have children in the home thanthose within 3 years of each other. Insome cases, younger women marriedto older men still may be in the fam-ily building stages, but not all suchunions will have children present,11

particularly if children from an earlierpartner are not living with the couple.In unions where women are at least10 years older, the co-residence ofchildren is low: just slightly morethan one-third (34%) of these couplesreported at least one child present. Inaddition to children opting out of ablended family arrangement,12 thelower percentage could also reflect thefact that many of these women arenearing the end of, or in some casesare beyond, their reproductive period.

For richer or for poorer?Tabloids and newspaper stories onHollywood couples help create theimage that many age-discrepant cou-ples are financially well-off. There alsois a belief that age-discrepant unions


Man is older Woman is olderthan woman by Age gap is than man by

10 or 7 to 9 4 to 6 0 to 3 4 to 9 7 to 9 10 ormore years years years years years moreyears years

Common-law couples ‘000

Total number 123 110 200 562 69 33 28

Current legal marital status %

Men 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Never-married 34 53 67 69 68 68 74

Married,legally separated 12 8 6 6 6 6 5

Divorced 48 36 25 24 25 24 20

Widowed 6 3 2 2 2 2 1

Women 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Never married 64 68 73 39 46 35 25

Married,legally separated 6 5 4 9 8 10 12

Divorced 27 24 20 44 40 48 52

Widowed 4 4 3 8 6 7 11

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.


Among men in common-law unions, nearly 7 in 10 of those who are at least 10 years older than their partners have been previously marriedCST

9. Vera, Berardo and Berardo. 1985.

10.Wu, Burch, Hart and Veevers. 2000.

11.Discussions of children at home refer tochildren who have never been married.

12.Boyd, M. and D. Norris. Autumn 1995.“Leaving the nest: The impact of familystructure.” Canadian Social Trendsp. 14-17.

are more likely to occur among bettereducated partners or between thosewho are in the upper middle classes.This view rests on two additionalbeliefs: first, that persons who obtainhigh levels of education delay mar-riage and then may have difficultyfinding partners close in age; and sec-ond, that the upper-middle classes aremore willing to engage in less con-ventional behaviours.13

In fact, for the most part, suchimages and beliefs are unfounded.Media stars and public persons are fewin number and do not have the sameexperiences as most people. Accordingto the 2001 Census, age-discrepant cou-ples are more likely than others to haveat least one partner with less than grade11 education. Where men are 10 ormore years older than women, nearly 3 out of 10 (27%) have less than grade11 education, as do 1 in 5 of the womenin these unions. In couples wherewomen are at least 10 years older thantheir partners, one-quarter (25%) ofwomen and 1 in 5 (21 %) men have lessthan grade 11 education.

Similarly, according to Census data,rather than being wealthy, most couplesin age-discrepant relationships havelower combined incomes than do couples who are similar in age. The

average combined incomes of coupleswithin 3 years of each other are about5% higher than the average for allunions. Couples where men are at least10 years older have combined incomesthat are about 91% of the overall aver-age for all couples. Unions in whichwomen are substantially older thantheir partners fare the least well, withaverage combined incomes at 83% ofthe overall average.

Age-discrepant couples are alsomore likely than others to be belowthe low income cut-offs. The propor-tion of couples (in economic families)below the low income cut-offs is high-est for those with an age gap of atleast 10 years, particularly if there is atleast one child present in the union.In these relationships, about 1 in 7 ofboth men-older and women-oldercouples are in families below the low income cut-offs compared withapproximately 1 in 12 of coupleswithin three years of age to each otherwho have at least one child.

SummaryAlthough most married spouses andcommon-law partners in Canada areclose in age to each other, some aresubstantially younger or older thantheir mates. Among couples with large

age gaps, men are much more likelythan women to be the older partner, asituation that reflects society’s expecta-tions of appropriate age differences.People in age-discrepant unions aremore likely to live common-law, particularly when the woman is sub-stantially older. Unions in which menare at least 10 years older than theirpartners contain the highest propor-tion of individuals who both belong tovisible minority groups.

The phenomenon of age-discrepantcouples has existed throughout theworld for centuries. However, inrecent years, this phenomenon hasattracted renewed attention, despiteonly small growth in the share ofthese relationships since the 1980s.Current focus is part of the largerinterest in changing and evolvingfamily forms. Today, Canadian fami-lies differ in size and composition.First marriages are occurring later inlife, remarriages are not unusual, andmany unions are common-law. Agedifference between couples is yet onemore indicator of the complexity anddiversity of family life.

Monica Boyd is Canada ResearchChair, Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto and a Visiting Research Scholar at Statistics Canada, and Anne Li is a former subject matter/informationtechnology officer with Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division,Statistics Canada.


Woman 10 or more

years older

Woman 7 to 9 years

older

Woman 4 to 6 years

older

Couple 0 to 3 years

apart

Man 4 to 6 years

older

Man 7 to 9 years

older

Man 10 or more

years older


% of couples in families below low income cut-offs

13

1110

89

10

12

The higher the age difference between partners, the more likely they are to live below the low income cut-offsCST

CST

13.Shehan, Berardo, Vera and Carley. 1991;Vera, Berardo and Berardo. 1985; Wu,Burch, Hart and Veevers. 2000.


Canadians bettereducated than everAccording to the 2001 Census,28% of all individuals aged 25 to34 had university qualificationsthat year and 21% held a collegediploma. Another 12% had tradecredentials. In all, 61% of peoplein this age group had some typeof education beyond high school.In comparison, at the time of the 1991 Census, 49% of thoseaged 25 to 34 had postsec-ondary credentials.

Education levels rose for bothmen and women. In 2001, 21% ofmen aged 25 and over were uni-versity graduates, up from 17% in 1991. The proportion of malecollege graduates increased from10% to 13% over the decade. The growth among women was even greater. The proportion ofuniversity graduates among adultwomen jumped from 14% in1991 to 20% in 2001; about 18%had college credentials in 2001,up from 14% in 1991.

Education in Canada: Raising the StandardCatalogue no.96F0030XIE2001012

The retirementwaveManagers and professionals, par-ticularly those in education andhealth care, will lead the comingretirement wave. However, whilethe crest of the baby boom willpass the typical retirement age in 20 years, some industries andoccupations will be hit muchsooner.

Education will likely be one of thefirst industries to feel the retire-ment crunch. The average age of the education workforce ishigh at 44 years; it is particu-larly high for managers, at 48.At 56 years, education also hasa low median retirement age.Accordingly, about half the edu-cation workforce is likely to retirewithin 12 years and half its man-agers within 9 years. In 1999,the retirement rate in educationwas already more than doublethe economy-wide average.

The health care industry alsohas an older workforce, with anaverage age of 42 years in 1999,but its median retirement age of62 is about 5 years later thanthe retirement age in the educa-tion sector. Thus, in health care,20 years separates the medianage of employees from themedian retirement age. Educationand health care are particularlyvulnerable because these sectorsalso have a higher proportion ofmanagers and professionals.

Perspectives on Labour and Incomevol. 4, no. 2Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE

New maternity andparental benefitsThe average number of parentswho received maternity benefitshad increased substantiallybetween 2000 and 2002. Forexample, the average number ofwomen receiving maternitybenefits rose by 8.5% duringthis period. A drop in the num-ber of hours (from 700 in 2000to 600 in 2002) required to qual-ify for insurable employmentwas responsible for the increase.

Women in the labour marketwork fewer hours on averagethen men. However, once womenreach the threshold of 600 insur-able hours, they are entitled to thefull maternity and parental bene-fits of 50 weeks.

Adoptive parents are not eligiblefor maternity benefits, but theyqualify for 35 weeks of adoptionbenefits. As with parental bene-fits, these weeks can be sharedbetween the mother and thefather. The average number ofadoptive parents receiving bene-fits each month nearly quadrupledbetween 2000 and 2002, risingfrom 400 to 1400 per month.

Perspectives on Labourand Incomevol. 4, no. 3Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE

Life afterwelfareMany Canadians left the welfarerolls during the 1990s as eco-nomic conditions improved andwelfare reform was introduced.For example, from 1994 to 1997, the proportion of the popu-lation collecting social assistancedropped from 11% to 9%. Thedeclines were highest in Albertaand, to a much lesser extent,Ontario.

Family incomes rose for themajority of people who stoppedreceiving welfare benefits dur-ing the 1990s. About 6 in 10people saw their after-tax familyincome improve substantiallyfrom the level of income theyreceived when they were onwelfare. Such gains are to beexpected, as they are often thereason for leaving welfare.

People who married or formed acommon-law relationship weretwo to three times more likely to leave welfare than others.This was primarily the result ofemployment earnings broughtto the family through the mar-riage. However, marriage had a much stronger impact for sin-gle women on welfare. Singlewomen on welfare were aboutthree times more likely to leavewelfare if they married than ifthey did not.

Life after Welfare: The Economic Well-being of Welfare Leavers in Canada during the 1990s Catalogue no.11F0019MIE2003192

K E E P I N G T R A C K


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002ECONOMYAnnual % changeReal gross domestic product1 2.8 1.6 4.2 4.1 5.4 4.5 1.5 3.4Wages, salaries and SLI 3.4 2.4 5.7 4.9 5.8 8.4 4.4 4.6Personal expenditures on goods and services1 2.1 2.6 4.6 2.8 3.9 3.7 2.6 2.9Consumer Price Index 2.2 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.7 2.7 2.6 2.2Savings rate (%) 9.2 7.0 4.9 4.8 4.1 4.8 4.6 4.4Prime lending rate 8.65 6.06 4.96 6.6 6.44 7.27 5.81 4.215-year mortgage rate 9.16 7.93 7.07 6.93 7.56 8.35 7.40 7.02Exchange rate (with U.S. dollar) 1.372 1.364 1.385 1.484 1.486 1.485 1.549 1.570ENVIRONMENTConsolidated2 government expenditureson the environment3 ($ millions) 8,398 8,666 8,381 8,703 8,566 8,690 9,064 9,223Consolidated2 government expenditures4

($ millions) 373,760 381,158 371,693 372,695 387,438 400,069 423,730 430,313Consolidated2 government expenditureson the environment3,4 (% of total expenditures) 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1Greenhouse gas emissions(kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents) 658,000 672,000 682,000 689,000 699,000 703,060 726,000 ..Billions of public transit passengers 1.37 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.43 1.49 .. ..Total consumption of refined petroleum products5

used for transportation (thousand m3) 49,596 51,062 52,574 54,182 55,711 55,894 55,344 ..JUSTICERate per 100,000 population6

Total Criminal Code offences 8,993 8,914 8,453 8,137 7,728 7,646 7,747 ..Property offences 5,283 5,264 4,867 4,556 4,263 4,070 4,047 ..Violent offences 1,007 1,000 990 979 955 982 994 ..Other Criminal Code offences 2,702 2,650 2,596 2,602 2,510 2,603 2,706 ..

Average days to process Criminal Codecase through courts

Adults7 144 151 159 152 153 158 .. ..Youths8 119 118 108 108 115 110 .. ..

Average length of sentence per Criminal Code caseAdults (days in prison) 128 133 137 131 126 122 .. ..Youths (days of open and secure custody) 87 85 81 81 79 77 .. ..

CIVIC SOCIETYGovernment expenditures on culture9 ($ millions) 5,438 5,253 5,105 5,187 5,266 .. .. ..Households reporting expenditure on newspapers (%) .. 71.0 71.0 69.0 66.9 65.0 .. ..Households reporting expenditureon live performing arts10 (%) .. 36.0 38.0 37.0 35.0 35.9 .. ..Households reporting expenditure on admissionto museums and other heritage activities10 (%) .. 26.0 36.0 35.0 34.8 33.9 .. ..

.. Data not available.1. Data in chained (1997) dollars.2. Does not include CPP and QPP.3. Includes expenditures on water purification and supply.4. Expenditures for fiscal year ending March 31.5. Refers to diesel oils, light heating oils, residual fuel oils, aviation gasoline, fuel for gas turbines and motor fuel.6. Revised rates based on updated population estimates.7. Excludes New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.8. Alberta is excluded.9. Excludes intergovernmental transfers. Data in 1991 dollars. Municipal spending is on a calendar year basis.10. A definitional change occurred in the categories of Live Staged Performances and Admissions to museums, zoos, historic sites, etc. in 1996, reducing the

size of these two categories.

Sources: Statistics Canada, National Income and Expenditure Accounts, CANSIM II Tables: 385-0001, 380-0002, 380-0001, 380-0004, 380-0024, 326-0002,176-0043 and 176-0049, Canadian Crime Statistics, 2001, Catalogue no. 85-205, Government Expenditure on Culture, Catalogue no. 87F0001XPE, and Environment Canada, Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2000, Catalogue no. EN 49-5-5/5-2000E.

S O C I A L I N D I C A T O R S


Suggestions for using Canadian Social Trends in the classroom

Lesson plan for “Would you live common-law?”

Objectives

❑ To understand that individuals have different views about common-law unions.

❑ To examine why living common-law has increased over time, and if there are any possible consequences for the future of the family.

Classroom instructions

1. Have your students discuss why some people choose marriage and others common-law unions. How does social acceptance of common-law unions today compare to 30 years ago? What are the ways in which social disapproval might be expressed?

2. Have your students examine how a common-law relationship might differ from marriage. Consider such activities as leisure,labour force participation, the division of household labour, attendance at religious services, presence of children, and attitudes of family and community.

3. Literature suggests that individuals who live common-law before marriage have higher divorce rates than couples who do not live common-law. Discuss reasons for this pattern.

4. Throughout the article, men are more willing to live common-law than women. Have your students explore reasons why thismight be the case.

5. Engage the class in a discussion of what an increase in common-law living means for Canadian society.

Using other resources

Profile of Canadian families and households: Diversification continues(www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/fam/contents.cfm)

Changing conjugal life in Canada(www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-576-XIE/free.htm)

Le Bourdais, Céline, Ghyslaine Neil, and Pierre Turcotte. Spring 2000. “The changing face of conjugal relationships.”Canadian Social Trends. p. 14-17.

❑ To find other lessons for home economics and family studies, check out our Statistics Canada Web site at www.statcan.ca/english/kits/teach.htm. There are more than 30 lesson plans for secondary home economics and family studies.

❑ See the Family studies kit at www.statcan.ca/english/kits/Family/intro.htm for detailed graphs that you can use to make overheads for your class.

Educators

You may photocopy “Lesson plan” or any item or article in Canadian Social Trends for use in your classroom.

L E S S O N P L A N

ccurate data andinsightful analysis arethe hallmarks of

sound decisions and successfulbusiness practices. They are alsohallmarks of Canadian EconomicObserver (CEO). So, whentracking the activity of theCanadian economy is essential toyour organization’s success,count on Canadian EconomicObserver — the monthly journalthat can help you manageeconomic information effectively— just like you manage yourdollars.

Value for Money —Every MonthEach month you will receiveCEO’s two-part briefing packageon the economy.

Part One is in an easy-to-readmagazine format filled with dataand analysis, supported by tablesand charts. Every issue contains:

a summary table of currenteconomic conditions

concise sector-by-sectoranalysis of economic indicators

developments in provincial aswell as internationaleconomies

highlights of economic eventsat home and abroad

one or more feature articlesspotlighting major issues orindustry sectors

(Catalogue No. 11-010-XPB) TODAY for only$227. In Canada, please add either GST andapplicable PST or HST. Shipping charges: Noshipping charges for delivery in Canada. Forshipments to the United States, please add $72.For shipments to other countries, please add$120. CALL TOLL-FREE 1 800 267-6677 orFAX 1 877 287-4369. You can also MAIL yourorder to: Statist ics Canada, CirculationManagement, Dissemination Division,120 Parkdale Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6,Canada or contact your local Statistics CanadaRegional Reference Centre listed within thispublication.

Part Two is a separatecompanion volume — TheStatistical Summary:

hard numbers in tabular formon markets, prices, industrialsectors, trade competitivenessand much more

more than 1,100 economicindicators

monthly data for the calendaryear in review

user-friendly tables and graphs

SatisfactionGuaranteed!

As a subscriber, you’ll beconnected to StatisticsCanada’s economic analysts —answers to your questionsrelated to either data or

feature articles contained inCEO are just a phone callaway.

Discounts for multi-yearsubscribers — and as a bonusfor subscribing, we’ll give youa copy of CEO’s annualHistorical StatisticalSummary.

Subscribing to CEO is a risk-free investment! At any timeand for any reason, you maycancel your subscription andreceive a refund on allundelivered copies...noquestions asked.

Start yoursubscription today!Prove to yourself that aninvestment in data will pay offhandsomely.

…GETTING THE SCOOP ON TOPICAL SOCIAL ISSUESWhat’s happening today? Each quarterly issue of Canadian Social Trends exploresthe realities that we are dealing with now.

Subscribe nowSubscribe nowSubscribe nowSubscribe nowSubscribe now by using any one of the following methods:Call toll-free 1 800 267-6677Fax toll-free 1 877 287-4369Email [email protected] the Regional Reference Centre nearest youby calling 1 800 263-1136.

… BEING ON THE FOREFRONT OFEMERGING TRENDSCanadian Social Trends gives you the informationyou need to understand and prepare for what’scoming down the road.

… OBTAINING THE MOSTACCURATE DATA AVAILABLEON CANADA

Experts analyze data collected byStatistics Canada, the first-handsource of information on Canada.

You can rely on this data to be thelatest and most comprehensiveavailable. Canadian Social Trendsoffers you insights about Canadiansthat you can use to develop pertinentprograms, must-have products andinnovative services that meet theneeds of 21st century Canadians.

Take advantage of this opportunitytoday!

Canadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social Trends rends rends rends rends is $36 /year for a printsubscription. In Canada, please add eithereithereithereithereither GST andapplicable PST or or or or or HST. No shipping charges fordelivery in Canada. Please add $6 per issue forshipments to the U.S. or $10 per issue for shipmentsto other countries. Visit our Web site at www.statcan.cafor more information about ordering the online versionof Canadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social TCanadian Social Trendsrendsrendsrendsrends. (A one-year electronicsubscription is $27 plus taxes.)

Documents

NO. 11-008 SOCIAL TRENDS - Statistics Canada