Childcare in Canada: An exploration of progress and gaps in access and quality


Kayla Benjamin, University of Toronto; Anna Kuznetsov, University of Toronto; Daniela Ugarte Villalobos, University of Toronto

Canadian federalism has previously limited opportunities for a coherent national childcare policy, resulting in a patchwork childcare infrastructure and policy across each of Canada’s provinces and territories. This has led to significant childcare access and quality issues across the country. In 2021, the federal government announced its intention to address these concerns by establishing a Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) system. The CWELCC includes the ambitious aim of national subsidized childcare. By 2026, the federal government has committed to working with provincial and territorial governments to reduce childcare costs to an average of $10 per day. Using data from a large, representative survey of 1000 Canadian primary or shared caregivers who provide care to children aged 15 or younger (completed in 2022), as well as follow-up interviews with a sub-sample of 46 caregivers across Canada (completed in 2023), we identify gaps between the current childcare infrastructure and policy in Canada and the realities of unpaid caregivers. Our analysis is guided by the Intersectional-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) framework. IBPA is an application of intersectionality, a framework rooted in Black feminist thought which encourages critical reflection to transform research beyond the study of singular categories and towards an analysis of interlocking systems of oppression (Collins 2000; Crenshaw 1989). IBPA is distinguished in its potential to drive equity-promoting policy analyses and recommendations (Hankivsky et al. 2014). Gender, for example, is often given priority in studies exploring unpaid care work. However, simultaneously considering other institutions and structures—such as race and class—can more accurately explain persistent social inequalities and thus inform more effective policy interventions. The IBPA framework consists of a set of guiding principles (Equity, Intersecting Categories, Multi-level Analysis, Power, Reflexivity, Time and Space, Diverse Knowledges, and Social Justice) and a list of overarching questions spanning a descriptive and transformative phase of analysis. A relevant subset of these questions has been used to guide our policy analysis (Descriptive: What is the policy ‘problem’ under consideration?; How are groups differentially affected by this ‘problem’?; What are the current policy responses to the ‘problem’? and Transformative: Where and how can interventions be made to improve the problem?; What are feasible short, medium and long-term solutions?; How will proposed policy responses reduce inequities?). For the purpose of our paper, the policy problem is access to ‘quality’ childcare. In both the survey and interviews, caregivers were asked to assess the quality of the paid childcare they use for the child(ren) they care for and to discuss what quality childcare means to them. As such, access to ‘quality’ childcare was assessed according to the participants’ perspectives and shared experiences. We find that while many caregivers have benefited from lower childcare fees under the early adoption of the CWELCC, some families do not have access to participating childcare facilities. Issues of access to CWELCC-subsidized childcare include lengthy waitlists (sometimes spanning years), geographical barriers, lack of flexibility in childcare schedules (e.g., no accommodation of caregivers with nontraditional work schedules or part-time family support), and financial considerations. As such, some caregivers are forced to quit paid employment or reduce work hours, and report increased mental health challenges (e.g., stress, anxiety, depression, and trouble sleeping). In addition, some caregivers choose to rely on unpaid care arrangements or use unlicensed childcare facilities, which are not part of the CWELCC system. These decisions, often reinforced by issues of access, are also motivated by a lack of services for children with mental or physical disabilities, concerns around the quality or flexibility of paid care services, and parenting beliefs/philosophies. We conclude this paper with policy recommendations for improving the CWELCC system. As well, we present opportunities for further strengthening Canada’s national care strategy to better serve unpaid caregivers, particularly those who experience multiple, intersecting systems of oppression.

Non-presenting author: Ito Peng, University of Toronto

This paper will be presented at the following session: