Canada’s total fertility rate (TFR) is falling, reported at just 1.25 children per woman in 2026. This is not an anomaly, and many countries, including South Korea, Italy and Japan, are on a similar trajectory.
With an ageing population and a low TFR, Canada could face regional labour shortages and increased pressure on social programs, including healthcare. Because of this, low fertility rates are often framed as a crisis, with some governments around the world considering aggressive pronatalist policies.
But many experts argue that the fertility situation is nuanced, requiring a more complex approach, one that prioritizes human rights and personal freedom above all else.
Why is Canada’s Fertility Rate So Low?
A Statistics Canada report from January 2026 delves into the reasons behind our country’s TFR decline. They include the following:
- Economic constraints: housing affordability, childcare costs, student debt, precarious employment
- Delayed family growth: later marriage, career establishment before children
- Gender equity: more women in the workforce, unequal distribution of domestic labour
- Cultural shifts: greater acceptance and/or an embrace of childfree living, climate anxiety, reduced social pressure to have kids
Women living in Canada today have more personal freedom than those in previous decades, and this has given them the benefit of choice. In a world that can often be hostile to and unsupportive of mothers (and women in general), it makes sense that more people are opting out of parenthood. Additionally, those who do want children may be dissuaded by the fact that women still take on much of the burden of domestic labour and child-rearing.
Why Low Fertility Matters:
Worldwide, governments are sounding the alarm on low fertility rates, and many are looking to incentivize folks into having more children. Their concern stems from the idea that fewer workers per retiree puts a strain on pension systems and healthcare. Less people participating in the economy and more people depending on these social systems could make these systems collapse, or that is the fear.
But as planetary health researcher Céline Délacroix writes in a piece for The Conversationalist, pronatalist ideologies that seek to fix this problem, whether they are motivated by cultural, religious, geopolitical, or economic reasons, can result in shaming women for not having kids (for example, when current Vice President JD Vance derided “childless cat ladies” just before the 2024 American federal election). This rhetoric is a slippery slope that could lead to more severe measures, such as restricting access to contraception and abortion.
We have seen so-called solutions to lower fertility rates play out to varying degrees in countries around the world. Délacroix presents the examples of Poland and South Korea, where “baby bonuses” (cash to have children) are offered. Meanwhile, Russia’s “Mother Heroine” program rewards women who have 10 children in less than 10 years.
Historically, birth rate policies that focus on demographic targets instead of reproductive autonomy have led to some devastating consequences. Until 1989, Romania enforced strict pronatalism. There was a ban on abortion, contraception was restricted, and women were put under surveillance during pregnancy. Childfree people were taxed as punishment. This led to unsafe abortions, more maternal death, overcrowded orphanages, and lasting social trauma.
In her article, Délacroix argues that lower fertility rates might not necessarily be a bad thing, as fewer people theoretically would put less strain on the environment, and a smaller population may be conducive to labour productivity and fairer wealth distribution. Additionally, she touches upon the fact that while some countries’ TFRs are declining, the Earth’s population is still rising, and she questions whether our planet will be able to support this over the coming decades.
A Perspective Shift:
In an article published in the National Library of Medicine, authors Stuart Gietel-Basten, Anna Rotkirch, and Tomás Sobotka argue similarly against overly simplistic solutions to the fertility crisis, and instead suggest reforming systems, like raising taxes on the wealthy.
While these methods may be politically unpopular, the authors assert that they would be far more effective in the long term than governments targeting vulnerable people who may not want children or cannot access the resources to care for them properly.
In countries like Canada with low TFRs, many people do want more children, but they can’t imagine being able to manage it. Because of this, a person-centred, inclusive, rights-based, and gender-sensitive approach to fertility is the only sustainable way forward.
The values espoused at the 1994 UN International Conference for Population and Development, like reproductive health, gender quality and individual wellbeing, are aligned with this approach. Canadians need high quality and affordable childcare, flexible and well-paid parental leave for both parents, work flexibility, and policies that support all people in child-rearing, regardless of gender. The indirect costs of childcare fall disproportionately on women, and this must change. On top of this, the rise of incel culture and a push toward more conservative “family values” is a real barrier: many modern heterosexual women struggle to find suitable, equitable partnership.
Statistically speaking, Canadian women who have more access to contraception and education want smaller families. There is a reason for this, and denying that reality will not fix our fertility decline. The problem will not be solved by coercing people into having kids when they don’t want them. Instead, the focus should be on the gap between a desire for children and the harsh reality for couples in Canada and worldwide. Economic pressures, unstable work, expensive housing, and inaccessible childcare, among other things, stand in the way of family growth, and top-down pressure won’t solve these structural barriers. Our challenge is not to force people into wanting more children, but to make it possible for them to have the children they already desire.