carlosbezz/iStockPhoto / Getty Images
On March 7, generations reporter Ann Hui wrote about declining fertility rates across Canada, with every major city seeing births drop, many to record lows.
While Canada’s fertility rate has been falling for more than six decades, the drop has been especially steep over the past decade, earning Canada entry in 2023 into the club of “lowest-low” fertility countries, alongside South Korea, Italy and Japan.
Whether it was about the cost of living or the struggles of parenting, our readers had a lot of thoughts about the subject. There were nearly 800 comments on the article. We rounded up a collection of those comments. Here are some highlights.
From Globe commenter Mich:
Its cost of living. If you’re having kids, you need a large enough space to raise them, meaning a home. Can be small, but a home. Factor in property tax, mortgage, cars, car insurance, house insurance, cell phones, food, entertainment, internet, clothes, childcare, and furniture/needs for growing toddler/kids. Then add work stress, health issues, extended family issues, or worse, one spouse loses a job. I used to cry when the car insurance bills came in. Politicians have no clue how stressed young families are.
From Globe commenter wizeCracker:
I think those who are fixated on cost of living issues are only looking at it from a very narrow focus. Up until the mid-1960s, the usual path a woman’s life would take was very limited — finish high school (if that), maybe go to university, but the ultimate goal in life was to get married, find a man who would support her while she had the obligatory children whether she desired motherhood or not, become a homemaker, raise the kids, and hopefully raise them well enough that her daughters might have more choices than she felt she had. Not an appealing life for either the man or the woman in the relationship. The enormous pressures young men felt to become providers cannot be overlooked. Motherhood, whether as a single or married woman, can now be a conscientious decision, rather than an obligation; and the fact that a woman’s life can be about more than the children she can bear should be seen as a positive development of society.
From Globe commenter app_76880948:
Life became unaffordable. Young people can’t launch and form families, they can’t even afford to live on their own. Now with rising costs across all categories, who can afford to start a family and take the income hit from mat leave and then childcare?
From Globe commenter Dianne S:
Fertility rates are falling all over the world. I think it’s more than just economics. Having kids is very hard and can be unfulfilling. And anyway, having kids because you think it will be fulfilling is a bad reason to have them. I think there’s much less of a stigma about being childless (or child-free) nowadays, so maybe people’s real choices are easier to express.
From Globe commenter Vulturefest:
Out of the 10 couples me and my wife socialize with, only 3 of the 10 have children, and we are all in our mid thirties. We cannot afford to have children, plain and simple. We all live in the Greater Toronto Area, and are either mortgaged to the hilt or renting. We are all relatively successful in our careers. We simply cannot afford to have children without sacrificing our retirements.
From Globe commenter YangMark:
Yes – having kids is expensive. And as a fact, since the kids were born, we have spent $106K up to date on daycare [so preschool, after care, summer camp etc..] and this was before the $10/day national program was introduced. We also know this doesn’t stop as they need to finish post-secondary. It is a long haul and very unaffordable in Canada. We had kids late in life when we were more financially stable.
From Globe commenter The Pink Panther:
Millennial parent here who’s on the fence about being one and done largely due to affordability. Neither my partner nor I have any family in the city we live in, so no such community/familial support (“it takes a village”) as was the case for most of human history. The high cost of living, coupled with mortgage and child-related expenses, means having just one is barely affordable and we just break-even after income is adjusted for (next to no savings). In an ideal society with greater supports in place plus better affordability it would have been a no brainer to have at least two, but this is the reality of living through late-stage capitalism which does not incentivize the family unit.
From Globe commenter Landon13:
Let’s be honest; raising kids is hard. I have three (11, 7 and 7), so I know. It’s not surprising that fewer people are choosing to have children. This generation understands what it actually takes to raise kids, and it’s a huge commitment. If society wants people to have kids, we need to make the choice easier and value parenting as a real contribution to the future. Parents are raising the next generation. That contribution to society should be recognized and valued. We celebrate and reward athletes, entrepreneurs, and other high achievers—yet the work of parenting, which literally shapes the future, is often overlooked.
Entries have been edited for length and clarity.
