Daniel Hess of shares his insights with me on why Canada’s family formation and fertility challenges are so much worse than the US, Israel, and other high fertility demographics in western societies.

1. Secularization and weakening religious community

Canada has seen a dramatic decline in religious participation since the mid-20th century.

Higher religiosity is associated with stronger marriage rates, tighter communities, and higher fertility.

With secularization, fewer social structures encourage early and sustained family formation or provide dense social support.

2. Low and late marriage

Canadians tend to marry later in life compared with many other countries.

While some wrongly argue marriage no longer matters, data show married couples are much more likely to have children.

Later marriage compresses the fertile years available for having multiple children.

3. Housing affordability crisis driven by immigration and housing policy

Rapid immigration has outpaced housing construction, especially family-oriented housing, making homeownership less attainable for young adults.

This housing crunch discourages family formation and delays childbearing.

High-rise and smaller housing stock, often concentrated in big cities, is less conducive to families than single-family homes.

4. Liberal cultural and political norms

Politically liberal areas in the U.S. tend to have lower fertility compared with more conservative areas, even after controls.

Canada’s political culture is often positioned as more liberal than many U.S. states, and this correlates with lower birthrates.

5. Material and social delays in achieving life milestones

Opinion research shows many Canadians delay having children because they haven’t found a suitable partner, lack financial security, or are concerned about the cost and availability of childcare and suitable housing.

A significant share of adults who want children say they have postponed due to economic uncertainty, housing costs, and childcare challenges.

6. Policies alone are insufficient

Canada has generous parental leave, subsidized childcare, and other family supports, yet fertility has continued to fall (from about 1.60 to near record lows of 1.25 per woman).

Hess argues policy supports without matching social messaging and cultural reinforcement (as seen in countries like France) aren’t enough to reverse long-term fertility decline.

Reversing declining birthrates will require “a pro-natal culture stronger than you’ve ever had,” says researcher Daniel Hess.

Across the world, births are falling – with many countries now below replacement levels. It’s a shift that could have far reaching impacts – reshaping economic growth and pensions, family life, housing markets, and the future of communities.

To talk about this problem – and the solutions – Hess, a demographer who writes at his Substack More Births, joins Inside Policy Talks. Hess’s research focuses on the global fertility decline: what’s driving it, what’s misunderstood about it, and what societies can realistically do if they want to reverse it.

On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that “culture is the engine that has to turn this around.”

One of the key factors Hess points to for creating a more fertile culture is marriage – which he describes as “probably the most powerful pro-natal technology ever invented.” He also says higher levels of religiosity and more conservative-leaning political views are tied to higher birth rates.

The stakes are high. Hess says birth rates matter when it comes to long-term quality of life and economic prosperity.

“More people means more innovation,” says Hess. “Contra the Malthusians, it turns out that when you have a lot of smart people working together, the sum is very much greater than the parts, and so we’ve had this prosperous virtuous cycle” as the global population rose.

He says the opposite is also true.

“If there’s fewer and fewer people, you’re going to lose economies of scale. You’re going to actually lose innovation.”