Canada’s total fertility rate fell to a record-low 1.26 children per woman in 2023, prompting debate about whether maternity and parental benefits gave families enough financial security. The figure described births under that year’s age-specific rates; it did not mean that every Canadian woman had, or wanted, 1.26 children.
A continuing demographic shift
Statistics Canada reported 351,477 live births in 2023, broadly unchanged from 2022 after a five-per-cent decline the previous year. The total fertility rate had generally fallen for more than 15 years and placed Canada among countries with “lowest-low” fertility.
People were also becoming parents later. Housing costs, insecure employment, child-care access, health, partnership timing, education and personal preference all influence family size, so no single policy can explain or reverse the trend.
How federal benefits worked in 2024
Outside Quebec’s separate insurance plan, eligible birth parents could receive up to 15 weeks of Employment Insurance maternity benefits. Standard parental benefits then paid 55 per cent of insurable earnings, up to $668 a week in 2024.
Parents could share as many as 40 standard weeks, although one parent could take no more than 35. The extended option offered up to 69 shared weeks at 33 per cent of earnings, with a maximum of $401 a week. Benefits were taxable.
Why the design can exclude families
Eligibility depends on insured work and sufficient hours. Self-employed people must opt into the EI special-benefits programme in advance, while gig workers, students, newcomers and parents with interrupted employment can fall outside the system.
A percentage of earnings also produces unequal results. A parent on a low wage receives a low benefit, while a middle-income household can face a large drop because earnings above the insurable maximum are not replaced. Extended leave stretches roughly the same total support across more time rather than creating a generous 18-month payment.
Possible reforms
Policy specialists have proposed a higher replacement rate, a larger minimum benefit, easier access for non-standard workers and a higher ceiling for insurable earnings. Reserved leave for a second parent can encourage sharing and reduce the career penalty concentrated on mothers.
Each option has a cost and a distributional effect. Raising the maximum mostly helps higher earners; a strong floor reaches lower-income families; universal benefits cover people outside EI but require broader public funding.
Leave is only one part of affordability
Parents need a workable transition from paid leave to affordable, available child care. A nominal low daily fee offers little help when no space exists, and shortages of housing, family doctors or predictable work can outweigh an improvement in one benefit.
Employers can supplement EI payments, protect flexible return-to-work arrangements and prevent career penalties. Those practices matter because government leave sets a floor rather than determining every family’s experience.
Would reform raise the birth rate?
Better benefits can reduce poverty after a birth and allow parents to spend time with an infant. Evidence from other countries suggests family policy may influence timing and remove barriers, but it rarely restores fertility to replacement level on its own.
The ethical purpose should not be to pressure people into having children. It should be to narrow the gap between the family people say they want and the one they can realistically support.
A more useful policy test
Canada’s record-low rate justified attention, but success should be measured through benefit access, income during leave, child poverty, second-parent participation, child-care availability and parents’ reported ability to make a genuine choice.
Parental-leave reform can be part of a response to demographic change. It is strongest when designed as support for children and caregivers, alongside housing, health care and child care, rather than advertised as a single switch that governments can use to manufacture births.
