;

JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Doug Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics, Statistics Canada)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte (Chief, Families, Households and Housing, Statistics Canada)

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

0920

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Vic Toews

0925

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

0930

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

0935

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

0940

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

0945

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

0955

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Doug Norris

1000

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

1005

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Richard Marceau

1010

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Larry McCormick

1015

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Pierre Turcotte

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 011

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 11th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're undertaking a study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Today, for the first day of witnesses on the same-sex union study, from Statistics Canada we have Doug Norris, director general, Census and Demographic Statistics; and Pierre Turcotte, chief, Families, Households, and Housing.

You're aware, I'm sure, of the way we operate here. There will be an opening statement. Generally we try to keep it inside 10 minutes so that we'll have lots of opportunity for the members present to engage our witnesses in dialogue.

So without further ado, please proceed.

Mr. Doug Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics, Statistics Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're certainly happy to be here today to provide the committee with an overview of Canadian families, particularly as we saw it reflected back to us in the 2001 census results. The theme of that release of the new family information was one of continuing diversification of Canadian families, and as I think the committee knows, we were able in the 2001 census to measure the number and characteristics of same-sex unions for the first time.

With me is Pierre Turcotte, the chief of family and household statistics. Pierre will do a short presentation for you, and following that we'll be pleased to answer any of your questions.

Mr. Turcotte.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte (Chief, Families, Households and Housing, Statistics Canada): Thank you, Doug.

Most of my presentation will be in French. I'll be happy to answer questions in both official languages after the presentation.

[Translation]

As Doug mentioned, as far as the profile of families is concerned, in Canada as well as in most industrialized countries, diversification continues. In Canada, diversification translates into several different things, first of which is a decline in the number and proportion of so-called traditional families, that is families comprised of a dad, mom and kids. You will note on page 2 of your handout that the proportion of couples, either married or common-law, with children has declined. That proportion stood at 44 per cent in 2001, compared to 55 per cent twenty years earlier. Therefore, the proportion of “traditional” families has decreased considerably.

Diversification also translates into an increase in the number of common-law couples. In 2001, approximately 14 per cent of all families in Canada consisted of a common-law couple. As you most likely already know, common-law unions are considerably more popular in Quebec where this arrangement accounts for 25 per cent of all families and 30 per cent of all couples. As noted in the paper released last October, the proportion of common-law relationships in Quebec is similar to that in Sweden, often viewed as the world leader in this area.

Another interesting fact is that the number and proportion of common-law couples with children is also on the increase. If you look at the graph on page 3 of the handout, you will see that although it accounts for only a small proportion of all families, the proportion of common-law couples with children increased significantly between 1981 and 2001. In 2001, common-law couples with children accounted for about 6 per cent of all couples. It's a fact that a growing number of parents are deciding to raise a child while living in a common-law relationship.

Common-law unions are more popular among young people, who are more likely to opt for this arrangement as a first union. This is especially true in Quebec, as you can see from the graph on page 4. If you look at the right-hand column, you will note that 70 per cent of young women in Quebec between the ages of 30 and 39 chose common-law as a first union, compared to approximately 34 per cent of Canadian women in other provinces. Let me emphasize that these figures apply to women, although the same trend appears to hold for men.

Of course, we can't say that young people will never get married. In fact, a survey conducted in 2001 showed that the vast majority of young Canadian women will get married at some point in their adult lives. More often than not, that marriage does not represent their first union. However, if the trends noted in 2001 hold, close to 80 per cent of all young Canadian women will one day marry. Of course, that proportion is lower in Quebec.

Given that the number and proportion of common-law unions is increasing and since the number and proportion of common-law couples with children is also on the rise, it's not surprising to find that more children are living with parents who are in a common-law relationship. According to the graph on page 5, in 2001, nearly 13 per cent of children under 15 years of age lived with parents in a common-law relationship. That figure is up 3 per cent from 1981 levels. In other words, the proportion of such unions has increased fourfold in two decades.

Moreover, it's well known that common-law relationships are more tenuous than marriages and result more often in a separation.

¿ (0910)

Clearly, this has an impact on children living with their parents who are in a common-law relationship. As you can see on page 6, children born of parents living common law have an increased likelihood of experiencing parental separation. According to the graph, nearly 40 per cent of children born of parents in a common-law relationship will have experienced parental separation by the time they reach five years of age. In comparison, 8 per cent of children born of married parents will experience parental separation before the age of five years. According to the data collected, common-law unions are more unstable, a situation that affects children.

As Mr. Norris mentioned, for the first time ever, the 2001 Canadian census provided data on the number of same-sex couples in Canada. As noted on page 7 of the handout, data needs clearly expressed during the consultation process undertaken prior to every census were largely associated with changes in the legal status of same-sex couples. This brings to mind Bill C-23, federal omnibus legislation which, if memory serves me well, amended 68 separate federal statutes. Several provincial laws were also amended.

However, the 2001 census did not contain any questions about sexual orientation. Data on same-sex partnerships should not, therefore, be interpreted as an estimation of the number of gays and lesbians in Canada. It is a reflection of people who identified themselves as being in a same-sex common-law relationship. It's possible that some gays and lesbians identified themselves as living alone, or with parents or friends, and were therefore not included in the figures for same-sex couples.

Finally, it's important to note that the number of same-sex couples identified in the census reflects the number of people who identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples.

The graph on page 8 shows that 34,000 couples identified themselves as being in a same-sex common-law union in 2001. That number accounts for approximately .5 per cent of all couples. You can also see that Quebec and British Columbia had the highest proportion of same-sex, common-law unions, accounting for .6 per cent of all couples living in each province. However, the proportion of common-law couples was highest in Ontario. The census counted over 12,500 such couples. There was also slightly more male same-sex common-law couples than female. The census counted approximately 19,000 male same-sex couples, 55 per cent of the total number of same-sex common-law couples. More female same-sex couples have children living with them. About 15 per cent of the 15,000 female same-sex couples are living with children, compared to only 3 per cent of male same-sex couples.

It should also be noted that the metropolitan areas of Ottawa-Gatineau and Vancouver had the highest proportions of same-sex couple. The proportion was slightly lower in the metropolitan areas of Montreal and Victoria.

Summing up, as noted earlier, it's important to remember that the census does not provide information on the sexual orientation of Canadians. However, Statistics Canada has undertaken some research aimed at testing and eventually including a question on sexual orientation in a survey. The main reason for this would appear to be that while the Canadian Human Rights Acts prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation--you probably know that better than anyone--there is no national data on this phenomenon, whereas data has been collected on other grounds of discrimination such as age, sex, religion and ethnic origin.

¿ (0915)

Obviously, this is a delicate subject, one that could give rise to concerns about privacy or the confidentiality of data collected. For these reasons, some questions have undergone extensive testing over the past two years to determine the context in which it would be appropriate to include them in a survey.

Generally speaking, we found that Canadians are willing to answer a question about sexual orientation, but only as part of a targeted survey.

I should note that “sexual orientation” would refer to a question of the following nature: “ Do you consider yourself to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual?”

However, test questions concerning people's sexual behaviour were not so well received. Our tests also showed that the context in which the questions were posed was important. Our findings revealed that a question concerning sexual orientation was deemed acceptable when put as part of a survey. However, that survey had to focus on a specific area, possibly health issues or victimization or discrimination issues.

In conclusion, I would just like to add that a question on sexual orientation will be included this year in the survey on the health of Canadian communities. Data is now just beginning to be collected and the process should be completed by the end of 2003. The data analysis process should commence in the spring of 2004.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll turn to Vic for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Turcotte, and thank you, Mr. Norris, for being here today and for providing us with these background statistics for the purposes of our hearings and our discussion.

I want to focus first of all on the title of the paper, “Profile of Canadian families and households: Diversification continues”. One of the things I heard from your presentation was that we don't have statistics on same-sex couples, or even sexual orientation, prior to 2001, so we don't know whether the number here shows continuing diversification, or that it's been relatively static over the past century. Is that correct?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes. The term “diversification” has a broader sense, but you're right that the 2001 census collected information on same-sex partnerships for the very first time. However, we were able to compare the census numbers to another survey that was conducted the same year, the general social survey. It included a much smaller sample, but the numbers were very similar. We got the same estimate from the census and from the other survey.

We were also able to compare the proportions we got in Canada with the proportions from a few countries that have collected data on same-sex partnerships in their censuses of population, and again they seem to be very close--

¿ (0920)

Mr. Vic Toews: Fairly consistent.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: --to those of the U.S. and New Zealand.

Mr. Vic Toews: But that doesn't allow us to determine any particular trend.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

On common-law marriages, opposite-sex unions, you note that these are often first unions; they're unstable to the extent that 40% of them break up; and 40% of them, where they have children, break up before the children are five years of age. Have you been able to determine how many common-law opposite-sex unions--let's say from the 1981 census or the 1991 census--have then joined the ranks of the married opposite-sex couples?

I'm just trying to see whether this common-law phenomenon among opposite-sex unions is a new temporary phase, where people decide to have a trial union living together and then move on to the more traditional marriage relationship.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: There is certainly some of that going on, especially outside Quebec. A significant proportion of first common-law relationships are trial marriages. They eventually lead to marriages.

I think the situation in Quebec is changing a little bit, however. Common-law unions seem to be more stable in Quebec relative to common-law relationships elsewhere. They're still more unstable than marriages, for sure. They are about twice as unstable as marriages. But the presence of children has a stabilizing impact on common-law relationships. So when children are present, it seems the probability of the union ending in a separation is less than when children are not present.

So I think you're right. For young generations outside Quebec, common-law unions are very often a prelude to marriage. In Quebec it's often a prelude to marriage, but more and more it's also becoming an alternative to marriage. For older generations, it seems that common-law relationships are a prelude to or an alternative to remarriage.

Mr. Vic Toews: So in respect of the diversification continuing, is it then more accurate to say that this is in fact a temporary shift for couples, but with the long-term trend still towards traditional marriage relationships, let's say, outside of Quebec for now?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: It would be my opinion that it's more the first possibility.

When we started collecting information on common-law relationships in the early 1980s, some people said it would be a temporary thing, related to economic circumstances. We've seen a major increase in common-law relationships since, not only in Canada but also in many of the western European countries, and the U.S. as well.

I think common-law relationships are here to stay. The fact they involve children more and more is a sign they are now more and more part of the conjugal history of Canadians.

Mr. Vic Toews: Accepting that the number of common-law opposite-sex unions is increasing, would we be able to determine whether these opposite-sex common-law unions result in the same proportion of marriage? For example, those from 1981 and 1991, did they then move on to marriage? I know we can't go beyond this, because we simply don't have the statistics to compare it to 2001. Of those identified as common law in 1981 and 1991, is the same percentage moving on to marriage?

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Mr. Turcotte.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Okay, the 2001 general social survey I was referring to is a retrospective survey. So we can follow people over time. So we are able, and have started, to look at this very issue.

In provinces and territories outside Quebec, I think it's still very much the case that the majority common-law relationships will either lead to a marriage or a separation. I think the situation in Quebec is changing. To more and more young adults, it's seen more and more as a permanent alternative to marriage.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Turcotte, Mr. Norris, thank you for being here today.

Mr. Turcotte, one must understand that these days, the traditional family consisting of “dad, mom and the kids“ is the minority family configuration in Canada. Some people still talk about marriage and the “dad, mom and kids” family model as being the norm when as the figures show, only 37 per cent of couples living together are married and have children.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's 37 per cent of all families.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Married couples with children account for thirty-seven per cent of all families.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: You have to understand that a census is a snapshot of the situation at a particular moment in time. When we talk about couples with children, we're talking about children living with their parents. Some children may have already moved out, but the census does not count them as part of the “couple with children” family. We're talking about children who still live at home with mom and dad.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I assume that the data is somewhat like survey findings. As far as politicians are concerned, a survey is also a snapshot taken at a particular moment in time. The important thing is to observe trends.

If I understand correctly, the trend to married couples with children, or in other words, to traditional families, is declining, whereas the proportion of couples living common-law is increasing. The proportion of families, in this instance heterosexual couples, who choose not to have children is also increasing. Contrary to my colleague Vic Toews, you report a significantly higher incidence of diversification given the fact that many heterosexual men and women are choosing to live together without having children.

Am I wrong in saying that your figures do not back up the argument advanced by those who maintain that the reason people get married in this day and age is to have children?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: In fact, our data clearly points to an increase in the number of couples without children. Moreover, it's not just couples who have decided not to have children. This trend to fewer children is due to a number of factors. Since the baby boom era, birth rates have declined, not only in Canada but in most industrialized countries as well. Moreover, as the Canadian population ages, more and more couples who have had children are seeing their children leave home. These couples are also included in our data.

Some couples are also putting off having their first child. Consequently, the census counts them as a couples without children. In short, the increase in the number of couples without children is due to several factors.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Richard Marceau: The question on the number of same-sex couples was included for the first time in 2001. Therefore, it's too early yet to talk about a trend. Same-sex couples account for .5 per cent of all couples in Canada.

I realize that as a scientist, you are reluctant not to base yourself on these figures. Nevertheless, I want to ask you one question. In your opinion, with respect to same-sex couples, is the figure of 34,200 somewhere close to the actual number, or in fact, do you think many people were unwilling to disclose their living arrangements?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Obviously, that's not a question that can be easily answered.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I realize that, but surely you have an opinion on the subject.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: First of all, it's important to understand that the census did not include any new questions. Existing questions were merely modified. The census questionnaire already had a category pertaining to common-law couples. Up until 2001, this category included same-sex partners. It was simply divided in two to distinguish same-sex common-law couples.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Just a moment. I'm trying to understand your explanation. Prior to the 2001 census, how might you have expected a same-sex couple to answer the question?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: The questionnaire is divided into several categories. Respondents can identify themselves as being part of a married couple, a common-law couple, or simply as persons sharing accommodations. The questionnaire did not include a separate category for these particular individuals.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You're saying then that a same-sex couple could check off one of those three categories.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Space was also included for a written response. The respondent could then identify himself or herself as part of a same-sex couple. However, to answer your question more directly, prior to the census, we held extensive consultations on this subject, given its delicate nature. We set up focus groups, we did in-depth interviews and we conducted a full-scale survey which found that Canadians were ready to answer the modified questionnaire.

Some focus group participants--the minority in fact--admitted to us that they were somewhat reluctant to identify themselves in a census as belonging to a particular group. We're talking here about a very small number of people and we decided to press ahead with the changes since the vast majority of the people had no objections. That's pretty much what transpired.

I recall that when we began collecting census data on heterosexual couples living common-law in the 1980s, some people were also reluctant to answer the questions. Today, such unions are much more commonplace and the problem has all but disappeared, but each time we try to gauge a social phenomenon for the first time, problems of this nature arise. As I mentioned earlier, we are reassured by the fact that another survey has provided us with the same data. The figures appear to be comparable.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can you extrapolate using the data you have in hand? For example, you drew a parallel with common-law relationships. In the 1980s, some persons were reluctant to identify themselves as being in a common-law relationship. Can you extrapolate at this point in time on the probable number of common-law couples prior to 1981, based on the number of persons unwilling to answer the question?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's impossible.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Marceau. Thank you very much, Mr. Turcotte.

Peter MacKay is next, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Turcotte and Mr. Norris very much for being here.

[English]

I want to continue along the line of questioning that my friend Mr. Marceau was pursuing. First of all, what was the sample size, the number of people you drew these statistics from?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: For the census it's everybody, but in this case it was one household out of five, so it included 20% of all Canadians.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sadly, you've just laid out one of the factors here that I suggest would affect the accuracy of this. There is still a stigma that attaches, and some reticence on the part of some Canadians to answer this question on their status. In fact, you've given us the questionnaire options where they could write in “spouse, common-law, or roommate”, or fill in the blank themselves.

So is it is fair to say there is certainly going to be a margin of error, based on the fact that many Canadians might not want to declare that particular statistic, might not want to declare their status?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Again, based on the testing we did prior to this census, it's not our experience that many would decide not to declare. We don't know how many, but we certainly heard that argument when we were doing our consultation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to be clear as well--and I think you answered this question to Mr. Marceau--that the common-law statistics before us do not include same-sex common-law couples.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: They don't, except for the very last table. You're right. Same-sex common-law relationships represent about 2% of all common-law relationships. They're not included here, because we didn't have statistics prior to 2001 and we wanted to look at trends. They didn't have a major influence on the trends of opposite-sex common-law relationships.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is it your experience as a statistician that a same-sex couple would describe themselves as being in a common-law relationship? Is that an answer they would be likely to give in the current situation?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Again I'm referring to the consultation we did prior to the census. In some provinces, some people said that according to the provincial legislation they weren't considered to be common-law partners. But given the definition, it's clear on the questionnaire that for us common-law relationships include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, so they would check the proper category.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I believe you said earlier in your testimony that Bill C-23, which had an impact on 68 pieces of legislation in total, might very well impact in the short and long term on the responses people might give.

I would suggest to you that there have been recent court rulings, one in particular out of Quebec, that essentially said that common-law relationships don't have the same legal ramifications vis-à-vis property that a marriage has, and that those relatively recent developments in the law would impact on these statistics.

Would you agree with that statement?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: I guess what I was trying to say earlier was that given all the modifications to the laws prior to the 2001 Census, the data needs for same-sex partnerships came from those modifications. It was clear that there was a major data need in both the public and private sectors.

Now, at the time of the 2001 census, we didn't have to deal with civil unions, for example. As for what's going to happen in 2006, we'll have to see.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But you would agree that those are likely to have an impact. Surely changes in the law trends are going to be affected by changes in the law.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: As usual, yes. We'll probably have to look at those issues and see if we'll have to do further testing.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are there statistics with respect to the number of gay and lesbian couples currently with children, adopted or otherwise?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, that's part of the document. About 15% of female same-sex couples had children in their households in 2001. That's a lot more than male same-sex partners. The proportion was about 3% for male same-sex partners.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a final question, for either of you.

Based on these statistics, is there any way to give even a rough estimate or to extrapolate the number of gays and lesbians who would pursue the option of an institutional marriage? Would that be far too random and arbitrary to try to extrapolate?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No, sorry.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That was certainly not a question that was posed during the process.

Mr. Doug Norris: No, that's right. There's no way we could go from the data to that question.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just as you couldn't, I suspect, with opposite-sex couples.

Mr. Doug Norris: That's right. There's no way of knowing.

In terms of the question you raised earlier about common law and marriage, we couldn't project from this data what that trend would be in the future either.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses, for your presentation.

There's an interesting trend for children born to two-parent families. At about the five-year point, common-law relationships with children have a breakup rate of about 40%. For marriage following common-law relationship, it's around 15%. For married couples, it's under 10%. It's almost counterintuitive. You would think that if you lived common law and then married, you would actually have a lower breakup rate.

Do you have parallel statistics for relationships where there are no children?

The second question is do you have trend lines with respect to same-sex relationships, and what do they look like? Is there a distinction to be made between same-sex...I guess in female same-sex couples there seems to be a divergence between those with children and those without.

Can you comment on whether the trend lines for those other categories look similar to that? If it's common law and there are no children involved, is the breakup rate, say at five years, a higher number, a lower number, or do you know?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: To answer your second question first, we don't have information on the level of separation in same-sex partnerships.

Coming back to your first question, I think we should point out that we're looking at children here, so 40% of children who are born into common-law relationships will eventually experience the separation of their parents. We have similar statistics for couples, distinguishing between common-law relationships and marriages. There is a document that was published last summer in July, and we can make it available to everyone. It's on the StatsCan website. It shows that those in common-law relationships in general, with or without children, have about twice the likelihood of separating, compared to those in marriages.

For example, for the younger generations, if the trends we observed in 2001 continue, about 60% of all first common-law relationships will lead to separation.

Mr. John McKay: Is that 60% of those without children?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's with or without children. For marriages, it's around 30% to 35% for the younger generations. If we go back in time, it's a little bit lower for marriages and somewhat higher for common-law relationships. So that's why in my presentation I said that common-law relationships were about twice as likely to lead to separation, compared to marriages.

Mr. John McKay: Is this at the five-year point? I'm taking five years as an arbitrary number.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: The 2001 survey we're referring to is a retrospective survey so we can follow people over time. We just calculated the overall probability.

Mr. John McKay: So you don't break out the difference between common-law couples with children and common-law couples without children.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: We haven't done that yet, but it's certainly in our plans to do it.

¿ (0945)

Mr. John McKay: On page two of your presentation you show the decline line from...married, common-law, with children. Does the explanation that all couples, married and otherwise, are having fewer children have any bearing on those trend lines?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: There are a couple of explanations. One is that the level of fertility is going down. The other is that the Canadian population is aging, and many couples had children, but the children have left home. So one key thing we should mention here is that we're only talking about couples who still have children at home. More and more young couples are delaying the arrival of their first child, so there are a few explanations for that general trend.

Mr. John McKay: So fertility rates and demographics explain a great deal of this.

Obviously, Quebec sort of jumps out in this kind of analysis. It seems to parallel the massive rejection of the Roman Catholic church by the Quebec people. Have you been able to trend that? My recollection is that church attendance in Quebec has just really fallen off the cliff, and since marriage is fairly significant to religious institutions, I wonder whether we'd put any kind of religious analysis, if you will, particularly in Quebec.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: In previous analysis, we've looked at factors that would influence the entry into common-law relationships. By “factors”, I mean socio-economic characteristics. Religious attendance is certainly something that comes out. Everything else being equal, people who don't go to church often are more likely to enter a common-law relationship. It seems tautological, but we take into account the fact that these people are younger, that they are more educated, that they are less likely to be in the labour force, and so on and so forth.

So indeed there seems to be a relationship, and we have seen, as you mention, that religious attendance in Quebec has dropped drastically, and even more so than in other provinces. We can see that common-law relationships appeared in Quebec just a few years after the Quiet Revolution started. So there is some evidence indeed that religious attendance is linked to the likelihood of entering a common-law relationship.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Mr. Cadman, for three minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very brief question, just something that came to mind. Is there any way that the data reflects, or that you comment on, people who are, say, going through a divorce who are actually living in a common-law relationship with somebody else? Is that something that can be drawn out, or could that be asked? They're still technically married but living common-law in another situation.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: We could do that using the 2001 survey that I was referring to. It's not an analysis that we've done, but it's certainly something that could be done.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): I just need a clarification on one of these charts--I didn't know I was going to get my question this quickly.

I was wondering whether, in your analysis of married couples with children, you take into account the age of the couple. In a society that is now aging, the number of couples who would no longer have children at home would of course be a factor in your statistics. Can you go through some of these charts and explain to me which charts take that into account and which don't?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Actually, in a sense, they all do. We haven't decomposed the analysis so that we can distinguish between the effect of lower fertility and the effect of people, older couples, who have children and no longer have them at home. It's something we could look at, but it's not something we've done.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So I could interpret it, then, that the decline in the number of couples with children at home could be the fact that we are an aging society.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, and lower fertility and the fact that people are delaying the arrival of their first child.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay. All of those would be factors to explain this.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I'd like this committee to understand that we're confronted with a paradox. If I understood correctly, it's possible for us at this time to know how many couples identify themselves as living common law with a same-sex partner. However, we don't know how many persons are homosexuals. Obviously, our findings will have to take that factor into account.

In the Rosenberg decision, the government was ordered to present to the courts an estimate of the homosexual population, which it attempted do. It submitted these figures in an affidavit. That's why I say that the figures quoted to us this morning seem rather conservative.

I'd like people to have a clear understanding of the process. The figures you've quoted were extracted from a self-administered questionnaire. Is that correct? Respondents identify themselves, but only on the basis of a single definition, namely that of same-sex couple.

Persons who are homosexual but who do not live together and are not in a common-law relationship are not included in your statistics. Surely then you agree with me that logically, we cannot determine conclusively the number of homosexuals who would like to get married. No one has endeavoured to tackle that question and if the committee was asked to do so, there's no guarantee that the attempt would be successful.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Certainly not at this time. As I noted at the end of my presentation, efforts are now being made to include a question on sexual orientation in a survey, but for the time being, there is no national data available on the number of gays and lesbians in Canada. Such data is available in the United States and in several European countries, but not in Canada at this time.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The interesting thing, from a sociological standpoint, is that the conclusion to be drawn is that no political party could rise in the House and oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that these relationships account for .5 per cent of all couples. It would not be wise to do that, because the statistics we have do not allow us to take this argument to its logical conclusion.

Equally interesting from a sociological standpoint is your finding that 80 per cent of women will get married, but are likely to choose common-law as a first union. People seem to accept that women will have a common-law relationship for a period of time in their lives and eventually get married. If that's true of women, it must also be true of men, because marriage is rarely something a person does alone.

While marriage is valued by a significant proportion of the heterosexual population, there is no reason to believe that the same would not be true of a significant sampling of the homosexual population. That is the question the committee will be called upon to debate. If heterosexuals value marriage highly -- although less highly in Quebec, for reasons we all understand -- statistically, it's possible to infer that the institution could also be highly valued by a sizeable proportion of the homosexual population.

The Chair: Mr. Turcotte.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: You're quite right. As I stated in my presentation, the trends that hold for women can also be applied to men. In the case of homosexual couples, unfortunately, we don't have an answer because the data in our possession doesn't allow us to draw any inferences, statistically speaking.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You have three minutes, Mr. Lee.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

Again, thank you for this background data. I'm trying to calculate its relevance to our subject matter, which is the definition of marriage. The relevance of the children in the computations is unclear to me, because the definition of marriage has to do with the formation of marriage. Children usually, but not always, come along later.

For the sake of perspective, in your breakout document you didn't look at the overall statistics of common-law versus married couples. If I have it correctly, from the bigger data chart on page 25, the proportion of common-law couples to married couples across Canada is 16%. Is this correct?

¿ (0955)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, this would be the proportion of families composed of common-law couples.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's right. So we have 16% across the country—although it varies.

Now emphasis has been placed on Quebec as having a low statistic of marriage. But in fact the territories—Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon—have lower rates of marriage and higher rates of common law. Is this correct?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: Did you omit it simply because of the small numbers? You omitted mentioning it.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes.

It wasn't omitted in our tables. We just didn't emphasize it in our analysis.

Mr. Derek Lee: Sure.

Well, I noted that if one is looking at statistics, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut stand out, rather than Quebec—or at least stand at the top or the bottom of the list, depending on what you're measuring.

Then finally, the proportion of same-sex couples to the total of all couples in the country is 0.5%, one-half of one percent, across Canada. Is this right?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. So can we put a figure on the 0.5%. I'm making a big assumption here that the problem of the definition of marriage comes from the same-sex couple category. What's the raw number on self-identified same-sex couples? What does the 0.5% work out to be?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: In the 2001 census, 34,000 couples identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, but there could be larger numbers out there who have not self-identified. That's very possible.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, and it's not an estimation of the number of gays and lesbians in Canada. It's not a measure of sexual orientation.

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't think the definition of “marriage” deals with sexual orientation either. It deals with gender.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, you're right. I was just trying to explain what the data meant.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, thank you very much.

Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to be clear on what that number that Mr. Lee has just elicited from you says. The 0.5% of the same-sex couples would translate into approximately 68,000 Canadians who would at least have taken part in the survey and declared themselves to be of that status.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's correct.

Mr. Peter MacKay: They would, in essence, then, be affected by any change in legislation that would change the definition of “marriage”. It would be 68,000 Canadians.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's the number of people who declared they were in a same-sex common- law relationship on census day, which was May 15, 2001.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It is like an election. It's a snapshot of one point in time that we all know isn't really reflective of what Canadians think the day after.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Finally, I haven't had a chance, obviously, to digest the contents of the full document. Are there statistics here with respect to adoption and the presence of children who are in families by virtue of adoption, or is that even a question asked?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: We can't measure that in a census.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Good. Well, I'm glad. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): We are studying marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Is there anything in your census data that you can extrapolate that would affect this issue?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Doug Norris: I think the information we have, as reported, is the current number of same-sex couples. There are a number of questions about what this would mean or how many people would be affected, and there's no way we can tell that from this snapshot. We think it does, for the first time, put a reasonably accurate figure on the current number of same-sex couples. So I would think that would be useful information in the committee's deliberations.

À (1000)

Mr. John Maloney: How so?

Mr. Doug Norris: Certainly we were asked for many years about how many same-sex couples there were in Canada, and we were not able to answer that. I think now we have for the first time an answer to that. Many people certainly indicate they welcome that figure as putting a measure on the number of people currently living in that type of relationship.

Mr. John Maloney: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Kevin Sorenson, for three minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): First of all, this is great information. Thank you. It's the kind of information that will be good for lots of different things down the road.

In response to Mr. MacKay's question regarding the 68,000 individuals who are in same-sex relationships, to have a change in the definition of “marriage” it would be wrong to suggest that this would affect the 68,000 in that we see an increasing trend in common-law relationships. Indeed, many of these may stay in a common-law relationship rather than go to a contractual marriage relationship. Would that be correct?

Was there any information gathered or any other surveys done on how many of the 68,000 would be affected?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I have another question in regard to the definition of common-law marriage. As Statistics Canada went out with their survey...would individuals who were living together in the very short term all be classified as having a common-law relationship?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, there's no time limit to our definition. Again, it's a snapshot and people are enumerated at their usual place of residence on census day, so if people are living together and they declare a common-law relationship, then, yes, they would be counted.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: So if someone was living in a common-law relationship for a month or for a couple of weeks and that's when the Statistics Canada survey was taken, they could conceivably, after a month, put down a common-law relationship.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes, again there's no time constraint on our definition of common-law relationship. It's a snapshot at one point in time of the living arrangements of Canadians.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: And that would be the same in heterosexual and--

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: All right.

We see in your report on seniors that more and more seniors are not remarrying; they're living together. Was there any idea as to why that would be?

Obviously as we have an aging population, there are perhaps more widows and widowers. Would it be fair to assume that division of property at the end of a second marriage may have a consideration in why some of the seniors are not remarrying? Is there any...?

Mr. Doug Norris: I don't think we could say that. Certainly that trend you noted is one that deserves looking at, but unfortunately, the census does not allow any explanation of why people are choosing one type of living arrangement over another.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sorenson.

To John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is with respect to the 34,000 couples. I take it that, at 0.5%, that is compared to about 6.8 million couples. Is that the denominator?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: I would have to check, but I think that's--

Mr. John McKay: Well, roughly speaking, that will be....

Mr. MacKay was concerned about 68,000 people, as opposed to 13.6 million who are in relationships of some kind, be they common-law, be they married, be they same-sex. So the overall number is 13.6 million people versus, if you will, 68,000.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Well, the proportion that was calculated was calculated on people living as couples. It includes married couples.

Mr. John McKay: I just want to get the denominator right here.

The second is with regard to page 25 in your larger breakout. When you extract Quebec from the numbers, the common-law relationships are shown to be about 11.7%, which seems far closer to the American figure than it is to European figures.

Is there a similar statistic you could point us to with respect to same-sex relationships?

À (1005)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No. There are few countries in the world that are collecting data on same-sex partnerships in their census of population. In the document, we have looked at two.

New Zealand has been collecting that kind of information since 1996. The first time they collected information, they got 0.4% of all couples, and the second time, 0.6% of all couples.

Mr. John McKay: That's in New Zealand.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That was New Zealand, from 1996 to 2001.

In the U.S., the first time they collected that kind of information was in their 1990 census, and it was 0.3%. In 2000, it was up to about 1% of all couples.

Mr. John McKay: Presumably, our statistics would parallel that kind of statistic. We're possibly talking about 1% of all couples. Is that all common-law couples or all couples?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: All couples. Well, there's no way we can say that.

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little surprised to see the level of importance afforded the .5 per cent. Because only 34,000 couples identified themselves as homosexuals, it's as if they aren't an important factor. The fact of the matter is that if we were talking about fundamental rights, whether one couple, 34,000 couples or one million couples were affected, as I see it, it wouldn't make any difference. That's my first point.

Secondly, Mr. Turcotte, you drew a parallel between common-law partnerships in the early 1980s and same-sex partnerships, arguing that initially, there was a social stigma attached to relationships of this nature and persons were reluctant to acknowledge that they were living common-law. As a result, the data on common-law partnerships in the early 1980s may have been off a little.

In your handout, you note that the proportion of common-law relationships increased from 3.1 per cent in 1981 to 12.8 per cent in 2001, an increase of 400 per cent. Most likely this increase can be attributed in part to social factors. The number of persons in common-law relationships has increased because obviously, such arrangements have become more socially acceptable, but also because more people report such relationships, or are less reluctant to identify themselves as having this kind of union.

As same-sex partnerships become more socially acceptable, do you think the number of couples identifying themselves as same-sex couples will increase significantly?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: There's really no way of quantifying that. You're looking at the data on children, correct? I admit that the number of common-law couples has increased significantly since the early 1980s. We really can't extrapolate for same-sex common-law couples. Earlier, I mentioned data collected by the Americans which showed that the proportion of such couples increased from .3 per cent in 1999 to approximately one per cent of all couples in 2000. While part of this increase is attributable to changing definitions, another factor is most assuredly an increase in the number of such couples, and likely the fact that more people are identifying themselves as having this kind of living arrangement.

However, the Americans, like us, are really not in a position to quantify this phenomenon. Therefore, from a statistical standpoint, we cannot extrapolate much.

Mr. Richard Marceau: It's possible for you to state at this time that .5 per cent of persons report being part of a same-sex couple. You can also state that all persons in a same-sex relationship did not report this fact. We can also argue that more than .5 per cent of homosexuals in Canada potentially might want to be in a same-sex partnership. These three facts are irrefutable.

À (1010)

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: We agree that these figures are not estimates of the number of gays and lesbians in Canada. In the course of our pre-census consultations, we observed that the majority of persons were prepared to identify themselves as homosexuals. It's always possible that some failed to do that, but I think this is a fairly reliable estimate. We compared the data with figures collected in another national survey and obtained the same results. However, we agree that these figures should not be construed as an estimate of the number of gays and lesbians in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lee.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

Colleagues, forgive me if I seem to be pushing the sociological envelope with this question.

I saw a CBC program a couple of weeks ago. It was about a guy who I think lived in Alberta. He had a number of spouses, presumably one legal and the other common law. It raises a spectre of multiple-partner couples. I call it a couple, but it's not a couple any more; it's a triple or a quadruple.

Do you have any data on that? No data on that. So there could be a very small percentage of multiple-partner unions out there. There could be. I know for sure because CBC told me there were.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Derek Lee: Other than that bizarre instance in Alberta.... But StatsCan doesn't have any data on that?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee, for that marvellous intervention.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to go back to this figure again of the 0.5% that represents same-sex common-law couples, which translates into roughly 68,000. I think it would be difficult to estimate how many of the 68,000 would choose to avail themselves of an institution of marriage, were that option available; it would be difficult to say if it was half or three-quarters.

I don't expect you'll have this statistic present, but do you know if there are statistics of the number of people who are homeless in the country right now, for example? Are there figures, estimates? Is it somewhere over a million?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: We have a first estimation from the 2001 census. It's the number of people who were found in shelters in Canada. Again, it's not an estimation of the total number of homeless people in Canada. So we do have a preliminary estimation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you recall what the number was?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: I forget the number now, but it's available. It's in the public domain, and it's out. It was a first attempt, again, and it's only the population in shelters.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's substantially more than 68,000, I'd suggest.

Mr. Doug Norris: I don't remember the exact number we reported in shelters. But the main thing is that's certainly not--and we stress this--an estimate of the total homeless population. It's a very difficult population, as you might imagine, to enumerate. We continue to try, but we certainly don't claim we have that number right yet.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is again outside the area of statistics. Of those 68,000 who would be affected should they have the option of an institutional marriage, it would not affect their income and their rights and privileges. It would have no tangible effect other than the recognition of marriage per se in the traditional sense. So it becomes an issue of priorities, I suppose. Anyway, that's outside of your presentation.

The Chair: Thank you, Peter.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

My colleagues, of course, are up on a lot of this information, and it's certainly very interesting.

I have a question with regard to the number of people in shelters. I just want to ask--and I should know this--in which month of 2001 that snapshot was taken.

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: It was taken on May 15.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It makes a huge difference in Canada, of course, whether we take the snapshot in May or in any January, let alone that one.

I'd like you to clarify something for me, because your excellent material provides a lot of information that I'm not up on. In the subprovincial information you're referring to households in the metropolitan areas. I'm not from a metropolitan area. I'm often thinking about urban and rural. Perhaps you could clarify for me the use of “metropolitan area” versus “urban”. Then perhaps you could comment on what you can or cannot try to pull out of all the statistics for rural versus urban.

À (1015)

Mr. Doug Norris: The question on urban and rural, as you might know, is a complex one. When we use “metropolitan area” in most of our statistics, we refer to the area surrounding our large cities, such as Toronto or Ottawa. That's not the city per se but rather the surrounding area. That area is defined according to transportation-to-work patterns, which we also have in the census, and that gets redefined over time. There is another definition of urban and rural that has to do with density. But more and more we're using the breakdown of the metropolitan area and the areas beyond metropolitan areas. There's a finer breakdown into large metropolitan areas, smaller cities under 100,000 essentially, and then the rural areas below something like 10,000

We could look at these data for those different areas. We haven't done that yet. But we certainly could do the kinds of breakouts we have in here, for example, for rural Canada.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I appreciate that. Thank you.

I think this information will be used for many purposes in the future by many ministries and members as we study this. Being a rural person--my interest is rural and small-town Canada in all areas--I would encourage that when possible. I'm concerned about rural and small-town Canada being recognized and receiving a fair share. So when possible, I'd like to see that achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Norris.

Mr. Doug Norris: I'd like to add, Mr. Chair, that we do have a program, which has the title of Rural and Small Town Canada, where we focus specific research efforts and studies on that population. Certainly, we do recognize that as an important part of Canadian society and try to produce data on that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

If possible, I'd like to give the last question to Mr. Sorenson so that we can get on to some business.

Kevin.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: In your statistics on married couples, do you have statistics that show the divorce rate among the married couples?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Yes. Those are the statistics I was referring to earlier that come from the survey conducted in 2001. We do have retrospective surveys that provide breakup rates for marriages and common-law relationships. We also have vital statistics that provide the number of divorces, separations, etc.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: What is the breakup rate amongst the married couples?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: Either by separation or divorce for the younger generation, let's say, for the 30-year-olds to 39-year-olds, our estimation is that between 30% and 35% of first marriages will end up in a breakdown if the trends that we observed in 2001 were to continue.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's in marriage. What about breakups in common-law relationships?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: That's around 60% for first common-law relationships. We haven't looked at second or third unions yet.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Did you have a percentage on same sex couples?

Mr. Pierre Turcotte: No.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sorenson.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for three minutes before we continue our proceedings in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]