Changing

Trends in the Diversity of Family Forms

In 2016 there were 9,519,945 families in Canada, up from 9,389,700 only five years before (Statistics Canada
2012a; Statistics Canada 2017a). According to the most recently available Canadian Census data, there are
proportionally fewer households than in the past composed of a “mother, father and children”; with more
people living alone, as couples without children, in 2SLGBTQI+ families, or as multigenerational families (see
video, “ 2016 Census: The Canadian families of today and yesteryear”). Since the 2006 Census, the number
of common-law couples has risen, as has the number of lone-parent families and individuals living alone
(Statistics Canada 2017b). The growth in the number of individuals living alone—28.2 percent of households
in Canada—was especially striking (Statistics Canada 2017b).

In 2016, there were 72,880 same-sex couples in Canada, representing 0.9 percent of all couples. One-third, or
33.4 percent of these same-sex couples, were married, with the rest living common-law. About 12 percent of
all same-sex couples that were counted had children living with them at the time of the 2016 Census
(Statistics Canada 2017c). Those numbers reflect a long journey—after decades of political mobilizing and
many legal battles, 2SLGBTQI+ families in Canada have gone from a time when homosexuality was illegal—to
being invisible—to having fully recognized marriages and families for the first time in the 2006 Canadian
Census (see Chapter 3).1 Increasingly, we also have come to acknowledge the existence, reality, and
complexity of trans families (where at least one of the parents has come out as being transgender) and
families with transgender members of all ages (see Knox 2019) (see Box 1.1). Clearly, as a result of social
change, including changes in the way we define and count families, Canadian families today come in a
plurality of forms, and with unique experiences with no one family portrait capturing the rich diversity.

For more on legal changes to same-sex marriage in Canada, see Chapter 3.

BOX 1.1
Daily Life

Love Lives in Amanda Jetté Knox’s Family

Amanda Jetté Knox grew up with her mother and stepfather near Ottawa, Ontario, not having known her
biological father. At the age of 14, she entered a counselling program for alcohol addiction, after being
bullied in school. Not long after successfully completing the program, she met the love of her life, Mark.
They married at the age of 20. Amanda and Mark built a stable life together, with their three children; yet
not unlike some other families, their middle child struggled with depression.
Alexis Knox, Amanda’s middle child, was assigned male at birth; but in 2014, at the age of 11, Alexis
came out to her parents and two brothers as transgender. One year later, at age 12, Alexis began
identifying as a transgender girl. Months after this, following a long stretch of unhappiness, Amanda’s
partner, Mark, also came out as transgender.
Amanda searched for other marriages and families that have built loving and fulfilling lives together
following transition, but found none. Amanda and her family became a model for other families. In her
honest, humorous, and powerful book, Love Lives Here, Amanda documents the challenges that her
family experienced, but also their journey to unity and happiness. This family’s story, while complex,
reminds us of the importance of standing with those you love through hardship and transition, to get to a
place of acceptance, stability, and love.
Adapted from CBC News (2015) and Knox (2019).

Questions for Critical Thought

Imagine that a beloved member of your family is transgender. What kinds of challenges do you expect
they would encounter? Why? What could you do to support them through the transition and some of the
challenges?
Family diversity has not always been celebrated, valued, or accepted in Canadian society, as we can see
through the experiences of trans peoples and families (see Table 1.1). The first all-ages, quantitative study
of racialized trans and non-binary people in Canada, by Chih et al. (2020), found that like non-racialized
respondents, racialized respondents were highly educated but underemployed. Racialized respondents
reported high levels of discrimination, violence, and assault, as well as negative experiences with police and
the legal system. Chih et al. (2020) note that further research is needed to investigate individuals’ and
families’ experiences of systemic racism and its intersection with transphobia.

TA B L E 1 . 1 Health and Well-Being of Racialized and Non-racialized Trans and Non-binary People

Racialized Non-racialized P-valuea

n = 403 n = 2,467
% %

Has primary health care provider 0.166

 Yes 78 81

 No 22 19

Unmet health care need(s) (past year)b 0.072

 Unmet need(s) 49 44

 No unmet need 51 56

Avoided emergency room (past year)b 0.097

 Yes 11 12

 No 63 68

 Never needed ER care 26 21

Gender-affirming medical care statusb 0.001

 Had all needed care 21 26

 In the process of completing 28 32

 Planning, but not begun 15 15

 Not planning 17 11

 Unsure if going to seek care 19 16

Self-rated health 0.022

 Excellent or very good 35 37

 Good 32 37

 Fair or poor 33 26

Self-rated mental healthb 0.162

 Excellent or very good 13 17

 Good 29 28

 Fair or poor 58 55

Considered suicide (past year)b 0.674

 Yes 32 31

 No 68 69

Attempted suicide (past year)b 0.458

 Yes 5 6

 No 95 94

Experienced violence or harassment (past 5 years, check all that apply)b,c

 Verbal harassment 72 68 0.148

 Physical intimidation 41 37 0.112

  Physical violence 23 15 0.001

 Sexual harassment 49 42 0.016

 Sexual assault 32 25 0.005

Avoided public spaces for fear of harassment or outing (past 5 years, check all that apply)b,d 0.921

 No avoidance 16 16

 1 or 2 types of spaces 20 20

 3 or more types of spaces 64 64

Avoidance of specific spaces for fear of harassment or outing (past 5 years, check all that apply)b,d

 Gyms or pools 60 63 0.377

 Travelling internationally 40 39 0.656

 Religious institutions 38 31 0.023

 Travelling within Canada 15 12 0.275

Housing securityb 0.692

 Secure 89 90

 Insecuree 11 10

Household food security (past year)b 0.501

 Always had enough to eat 84 85

 Sometimes did not have enough 11 12

 Often did not have enough 5 3

a
Values <0.050 indicate that differences between groups are statistically significant.
b
These variables were missing for 10% of respondents or more.
c
Participants could select more than one option, so total will be more than 100%.
d Of 14 spaces given as options in survey (e.g., public washrooms, schools, being out on the land, public transit).

e
Included living in shelters, motels or boarding houses, temporarily with partners/friends/family, on the street, in a car, or in an
abandoned building.

Source: Chih et al. (2020), Table 4, p. 6.

While we have yet to chart the number and type of families with trans members, the Canadian Census has
evolved to capture more of the diversity that makes up everyday life. Blended families, often called
“stepfamilies,” are those consisting of parents and their children from their current and any previous
relationships, and are increasingly common. It’s only recently, since the 2011 Census, that they have been
officially counted. However, even before official counting, we have known that following divorces and other
breakups, many second and subsequent unions take place, in the form of remarriages and common-law
unions. Not surprising then, to capture changing reality, for the first time in 2011 the Census was changed to
include and count stepfamilies. The 2016 Census found that among the 5.8 million children under the age of
14, 69.7 percent were living with both of their biological or adoptive parents, and no stepsiblings or half-
siblings; while 30 percent were living in a lone-parent family, in a stepfamily; or in a family without their
parents but with grandparents, with other relatives or as foster children (Statistics Canada 2017d). This is
increased from the 12.6 percent of all families in Canada that were stepfamilies in 2011 (Statistics Canada
2012a). In 2016, 62.8 percent of children in stepfamilies were living with one of their biological or adoptive
parents and a stepparent. Just over half of these children had no half-siblings or stepsiblings (also known as a
“simple stepfamily”). Just under half were in complex stepfamilies where they lived with at least one half-
sibling or stepsibling (Statistics Canada 2017d; see Figure 1.1). The other 37.2 percent of children in
stepfamilies (3.6 percent of all children aged 0 to 14) had both of their biological or adoptive parents present.
Children in this situation had at least one brother or sister with whom they had only one parent in common: a
half-sibling.
F I G U R E 1 . 1 Couple Family with Children. Source: Statistics Canada. 2017. “2016 Census of Population: Families, households
and marital status (Figure 3).” Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Available at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/98-
501/98-501-x2016004-eng.cfm#a2_1). Reproduced and distributed with the permission of Statistics Canada.

Many stepparents face a number of unique challenges and experiences. At the same time, they have much in
common with many other families today.

Other types of families that we are starting to recognize today include transnational families, which have
been around a long time but have been invisible to most. In recent years we have seen an increase in
research and information on transnational, multi-local/satellite families (Kim and Kwak 2019; Ducu,
Nedelcu, and Telegdi-Csetri 2018; Beiser et al. 2014; Bernhard et al. 2006; Burholt 2004; Dhar 2011; Waters
2001). Interest in transnational families has been sparked by the growing awareness of some of the
challenges faced by immigrant families, refugee claimants, foreign domestic workers from the Caribbean and
Philippines, migrant workers, international students, and individuals and families with “less-than-full” legal
status.

For more on immigrant and refugee families, see Chapter 11.

Thousands of people living in Canada currently find themselves temporarily separated from their children and
spouses as part of a strategy to secure a better economic future and opportunities for their family. Some have
been called astronaut families, with satellite children, terms first used in the 1980s to describe Chinese
children whose parents immigrated to North America, usually from Hong Kong or Taiwan, but returned to
their country of origin, leaving children, and sometimes spouses, in Canada (Li and Poi 2019; Newendorp
2008; Tsang et al. 2003).

Researchers studying transnational families have been documenting the changes and challenges that arise
from parent–child separations, long-distance relationships, extended family networks providing childcare,
and the often emotionally charged reunifications that follow from multi-local family arrangements (Beiser et
al. 2014; Bernhard et al. 2006; Burholt 2004; Dhar 2011; Tsang et al. 2003; Waters 2001).

For more on parenting, see Chapter 5.

By 2011, just over 7.2 million people living in Canada (22.0% of the population) were first generation, born in
one of over 200 countries around the globe (Dobson, Maheux, and Chui 2013). Nearly half of them arrived in
Canada after 1985. In 2017 alone, almost 300,000 people arrived as permanent residents (IRCC 2020).
Most newcomers, like many other Canadians, lived in nuclear families; however, family sizes tended to be
larger for immigrant families (Bélanger 2006). Partners in recent-immigrant households were more likely to
be legally married, rather than living common-law. Recent-immigrant families were also less likely to be
headed by single parents compared to other Canadian families, and were more likely than others to live in
overcrowded housing (CIC 2007).

Newcomers today are much more likely than earlier immigrants or those who are Canadian born to live in
families with incomes below the median family income in Canada (income that falls in the middle of the
income range or spectrum in a society) (Picot and Lu 2017; Hou and Picot 2014).

Recent reports reveal that racialized immigrants make up 54 percent of all immigrants in Canada. However,
they make up 71 percent of all immigrants living in poverty (National Council of Welfare 2013; Hou and Picot
2014; Picot and Lu 2017). Furthermore, 90 percent of racialized persons living in poverty are first-generation
immigrants (National Council of Welfare 2013). The factors behind these rates include an over-representation
of racialized groups in low-paying jobs, labour market failure to recognize international work
experience/credentials, and racial discrimination in employment (Campaign 2000 2007). A great many factors
have changed the social and economic landscape affecting immigrant families more recently, as they have
affected all Canadian families (see Duffy, Corman, and Pupo 2015). For example, because of economic shifts,
many younger Canadians today find themselves increasingly unable to leave their parental homes and
establish independent households.

For more on family poverty, see Chapter 10.

In 1981, about 28 percent of Canadians between the ages of 20 to 29 lived with their parents. By 2011, this
increased to 41 percent (Beaujot 2004; Milan 2016). By 2011, four in 10 young people either remained in or
returned to live in their parental home (Milan 2016), and this number is on the rise. Because of changing
economic circumstances and difficulty finding stable, long-term, decent-paying work, coupled with an
increasing demand for postsecondary education and large debt loads, researchers have seen the
postponement of home-leaving or delayed child launch. Linked with this trend is an increase in the number
of “boomerang children” or “Velcro kids” (Statistics Canada 2019; Beaupré, Turcotte, and Milan 2006; Milan
2016; Mitchell 1998a; Mitchell 1998b; Tyyskä 2001)—young adults who leave their parental homes for work
or school, only to return due to large debt loads, shifting employment prospects, or changing marital status.

While many young people today don’t expect to live with their parents or in-laws into their thirties and
forties, for many new immigrants to Canada (as noted above), older Canadians, or Canadians with disabilities,
the extended family model and the pooling of family resources in multigenerational households are nothing
new, unexpected, or alarming (Statistics Canada 2019; Che-Alford and Hamm 1999; Milan, LaFlamme, and
Wong 2015; Sun 2008).

For more on aging families, see Chapter 7; for more on living with disabilities, see Chapter 13.

As we can see, a considerable amount of pooling of resources and care work happens across generations,
households, even continents, especially by women, in a complex web of exchanges and support (Lutz 2018;
Connidis and Kemp 2008; Dhar 2011; Eichler and Albanese 2007; Langford, Prentice, and Albanese 2017).
And while how some of this care work happens (for example, due to the global pandemic, even over the
internet) may be different, what is done, by whom, and for whom, may not actually be new. In fact, many of
Canada’s “new” family forms have always existed, if in the margins, in the shadows, or during specific
historical and economic contexts. For example, lone-parent families and stepfamilies/remarriages are not new
on the Canadian landscape. Nor are same-sex families or transnational families, for that matter. Many of
these family forms simply went uncounted (Bradbury 2000; see Table 1.2; see Figure 1.2). While diversity
seems to best characterize Canadian families today, diversity, adaptability, conflict, and change have always
been a fact of life for Canadian families.
F I G U R E 1 . 2 Distribution (in percentage) of the Legal Marital Status of Lone Parents, Canada, 1961–2011. Note: 1. Divorced
or separated category includes “married, spouse absent.” Source: Statistics Canada. 2012. Fifty Years of Families in Canada: 1961 to
2011: Families, Households and Marital Status, 2011 Census of Population (Figure 2). Ottawa: Statistics Canada, p. 3. Available at
www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_1-eng.pdf. Reproduced and distributed with the
permission of Statistics Canada.

TA B L E 1 . 2 Counting Census Families

Census Family type, Historical context; changes in Census enumeration

year number, and/or
per cent

1921 1.8 million Census First World War; large number of war widows; first Census to distinguish between
families households and families

1931 86.4% married; Great Depression; marriage and fertility rates decline; reference to food, shared tables, and
13.6% lone parent housekeeping are dropped from Census, eradicating hints of women’s domestic labour
(Bradbury 2000); single-parent heads of households counted for the first time

1941 87.8% married; Second World War; women at work in factories; 1942 Dominion-Provincial Wartime Day
12.2% lone parent Nurseries Agreement, funding daycare services in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta

1951 90.1% married; Baby Boom (1946–65); fertility rates increase; first Census to clearly allow for single
9.9% lone parent parents with children living with other families to be separately counted

1956 91.4% married; High marriage rates; high fertility rates; low death rates; rates of single parenthood at their
8.6% lone parent lowest

1961 91.6% married; High marriage rates; high fertility rates; low death rates; rates of single parenthood remain
8.4% lone parent low

1966 91.8% married; Mass marketing of birth control pill; contraception is legalized in 1969; changes in Divorce
8.2% lone parent Act, 1968

1971 90.6% married; Last Census year in which fertility was at “replacement level” of 2:1; lone parents due to
9.4% lone parent divorce now outnumber those due to widowhood

1976 90.2% married; Mass (re)entry of women into labour force

9.8% lone parent

1981 83.1% married; Common-law unions first enumerated

5.6%
common-law;
11.3% lone parent

1986 80.2% married; Changes to Divorce Act; divorce rates peak in 1987
7.2%
common-law;
12.7% lone parent

1991 77.3% married; Married-couple families make up an increasingly smaller proportion of all families in
9.8% Canada
 common-law; 13%
lone parent

1996 73.7% married; Number of stepfamilies sharply on the rise; number of hours spent doing unpaid housework
11.7% asked for the first time
common-law;
14.5% lone parent

2001 70.5% married; Same-sex common-law unions enumerated for the first time; parental leave extended
13.8%
common-law;
15.7% lone parent

2006 68.6% married; Same-sex marriages enumerated for the first time
15.5%
common-law;
15.9% lone parent

2011 67.0% married; Stepfamilies and foster children enumerated for the first time
16.7%
common-law;
16.3% lone parent

2016 28.2% One-person

households
25.8% Couples
without children
26.5% Couples
with children
8.9% lone-parent
families
2.9%
multigenerational
households
3.6% other family
households

Outlining the historical evolution of the Canadian Census family shows that what we know about families through the Census reflects
how, what, and when we counted, as opposed to exactly who and what we were.
Source: Bradbury 2000, 2011; Statistics Canada 2012b; Statistics Canada 2017a.