Politics
Why are people having fewer children? ‘Financial limitations’ a top barrier – National TenX News
A new report is shedding light on why birth rates are falling around the world, and suggests it comes down to a “lack of choice, not desire.”
Financial limitations, job insecurity, gender inequality, fears of the future and other barriers are the driving reasons behind the declines, according to new research published Tuesday by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
The report aims to push back on “critically flawed” political and media narratives that blame women for rejecting marriage and parenthood due to a perceived lack of wanting a child.
“Vast numbers of people are unable to create the families they want,” the UNFPA’s executive director Natalia Kanem said in a statement.
“The issue is lack of choice, not desire, with major consequences for individuals and societies. That is the real fertility crisis, and the answer lies in responding to what people say they need: paid family leave, affordable fertility care, and supportive partners.”
The report draws on polling conducted by YouGov in 14 countries, representing over one-third of the global population. Canada was not included in the list of countries polled, which features the United States, Mexico, India, Brazil, South Korea and Germany.
In nearly half of the countries included in the survey, fertility rates have fallen below 2.1 births per woman, which is the threshold needed to maintain population stability without immigration.
The findings show few people worldwide are able to have the number of children they want — even if that number is zero.
“Rates of unintended pregnancy are persistently high across regions, as are difficulties having the number of children respondents desire,” the report says.
Twenty per cent of people surveyed said they have been pressured into having children they didn’t want to, while one in three said they had experienced an unwanted pregnancy.
Nearly 13 per cent said they had experienced both an unwanted pregnancy and barriers to having a desired child. In some countries, that figure was above 20 per cent.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
“In other words, everywhere we look, people are struggling to freely realize their reproductive aspirations,” the report says, noting responses were similar in countries with high and low fertility rates.
‘Financial limitations’ are top barrier
More than half of those surveyed said economic barriers were impacting their ability to have the number of children they wanted.
“Financial limitations” was by far the top economic factor identified, with 39 per cent of people saying so.
About one in five people said unemployment or job security was a barrier for them, while a similar number said the same about the high cost of housing.
Additionally, more than 20 per cent combined said concerns about climate change, wars, pandemics or other future political or social issues were preventing them from having children.
Gender-equitable child care was also identified as a barrier.
While 11 per cent of people said their partner would not sufficiently carry the load at home, nearly twice as many women said so compared to men. A larger number of people, 14 per cent, said the lack of a suitable partner stood in the way of them having children.
More generally, one in four people surveyed said they felt unable to fulfil their desire for a child at their preferred time.
Child-care costs and a lack of adequate sexual and reproductive health resources were also identified as barriers to proper family planning, according to the report.
Although Canada wasn’t surveyed in the UNFPA report, similar findings have been reported among Canadians.
An Angus Reid survey released last October found more than half of potential parents said they have delayed having children longer than they ideally would have liked, largely due to the rising cost of living and other financial concerns.
According to the poll, 41 per cent said the delay was because of concerns about the job market and financial security, while one-third were worried about both child-care costs and the expensive housing market.
A poll by Ipsos last year found 65 per cent said they’re choosing to have smaller families because of financial concerns.
Statistics Canada reported last year that Canada’s fertility rate, which has been steadily declining, has hit a record low and the country is now among the “lowest-low” fertility nations.
The cost of raising a child to age 17 costs the average Canadian family about $293,000, according to Statistics Canada — a little more than $17,000 per year.
Avoid ‘coercive’ measures, researchers say
The report warns against what it calls “coercive” measures to boost birth rates such as fertility targets or incentives like so-called “baby bonuses.”
The researchers say that, while financial rewards can help in the short-term, they can further the systemic issue of forcing people to have children before they’re ready.
Financial incentives — which the report notes have been pursued in some European countries — have been openly considered in the U.S. by the Trump administration.
U.S. President Donald Trump himself has said so-called “baby bonuses” — a cash reward for new mothers — “sounds like a good idea.”
Republican lawmakers have introduced a measure called “Trump Accounts” that would fund US$1,000 investment accounts for children born in the U.S. over the next four years, which those children can start accessing once they turn 18.
Trump called it a “pro-family initiative” while announcing the proposal Monday.
Shortly after his confirmation, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy circulated a memo that instructed his department to prioritize families by, among other things, giving preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average when awarding grants.
The UNFPA report argues policymakers should instead pursue long-term initiatives that give families the freedom to make their own family-planning decisions. These include investing in affordable housing, mandating paid parental leave and ensuring full access to reproductive health services and abortion care.
Societal changes are also needed, the report says, such as encouraging men to fully participate in child care and family planning.
—With files from Global’s Anne Gaviola
World leaders are raising alarm after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping tariffs on European allies in an effort to pressure Denmark into negotiations over Greenland.
The move is sparking protests across the Arctic and sharp rebukes from Europe and Canada.
On Saturday, thousands of people marched through snow and ice in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, chanting “Greenland is not for sale,” waving national flags.
Police described the demonstration as the largest they have ever seen in the city.
About 825 kilometres away, dozens of people rallied in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in a show of solidarity with Greenlanders.
“Greenland is owned by the Greenlandic people,” protesters chanted in Inuktut as they marched for an hour in freezing, windy conditions.
The protests came as Trump announced he would impose a 10 per cent import tax starting next month on goods from eight European countries.
These nations include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, because of their opposition to U.S. control of Greenland.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
The tariff would rise to 25 per cent on June 1 if no deal was reached for what Trump called the “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
The president suggested the tariffs were leveraged to force talks over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark that Trump says is vital to U.S. national security.
French President Emmanuel Macron said France stands firmly behind Greenland’s sovereignty and rejected the use of trade threats.
“Tariff threats are unacceptable and have no place in this context,” Macron wrote on social media, adding that Europeans would respond “in a united and coordinated manner” if the measures are confirmed.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders and Denmark to decide.
“Applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is completely wrong,” Starmer said, adding the issue would be raised directly with the U.S. administration.
Bob Rae, former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, also chimed in on Trump’s announcement.
The tariff threat could mark a significant rupture between the U.S. and its NATO allies.
Greenland already hosts the U.S.-run Pituffik Space Base under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, supporting missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance for the U.S. and NATO.
“There is no sign of the Trump war of aggression against Greenland and Denmark letting up. It is not about ‘security’ any more than Venezuela was about ‘narco-terrorism.’ They are both about seizing control and plunder.”
He further added, “No country, including my own, Canada, is safe or secure.”
The tariff threat could mark a significant rupture between the U.S. and its NATO allies.
Trump is expected to face questions about the proposed tariffs and Greenland later this week.
He is scheduled to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, alongside several European leaders he has threatened with tariffs.
— With files from The Canadian Press
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.
Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.
In a news conference on Saturday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canada is working to broaden its economic relationships as global trade patterns shift.
Qatar is viewed by Ottawa as a strategic partner, with officials pointing to the country’s significant investment capacity and growing influence on the global stage.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
“We need to reduce our dependence and increase our self-reliance to find a strategic path forward,” Champagne said.
“Engaging with the Middle East and China is necessary for Canada, just like our European partners have done,” Champagne added. “We buy more from the U.S.A. than anywhere else, but the trading climate right now is different.”
The conference highlighted Canada’s industrial capacity and trade advantages as key selling points for potential investors.
Champagne also said international engagement is critical as Canada works to raise its profile among global investors.
“We are one of the G7s with very big industries. We build cars, planes, ships, we have an abundance of energy, and we are the only one with free trade with all G7,” Champagne said. “With the way the world is changing, you better diversify, supply chain is changing and we need to adapt.”
Prime Minister Carney is expected to meet with senior Qatari officials, including Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, as well as representatives of the Qatar Investment Authority.
His office says the talks will focus on expanding trade access and forging partnerships in artificial intelligence, infrastructure, energy and defence.
The visit comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the region, though officials say the schedule remains unchanged.
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.
A high-level meeting between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officials this week did not resolve the “fundamental disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty but did set the stage for more talks. The White House made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland has not changed after the meeting.
“He wants the United States to acquire Greenland. He thinks it’s in our best national security to do that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Denmark and European allies are sending more troops to the territory in a show of force and to display a commitment to Arctic security.
Experts say there are other, non-military measures available in the event of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which could at least be threatened to try and get Trump to back down.
Whether those economic measures are actually used is another matter, those experts say.
“I think it remains highly unlikely that we’ll get to that point where we have to seriously discuss consequences for a U.S. move on Greenland,” said Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“So it remains contingency planning for a highly unlikely event. That being said … Denmark would certainly do everything in its power to rally a very robust European response.”
Here’s what that could entail.
EU trade, tech disruptions?
Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to cut most import duties while the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European goods.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
Although the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting trade and investment,” Svendsen said it could feasibly be used in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as well.
“EU lawyers have proven themselves to be very creative in recent years,” he said.
However, David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an email that economic measures against the U.S. are unlikely “given the massive asymmetry in the defence and economic relationship between the U.S.” and other western nations.
“Any kind of sanction against the U.S. doesn’t make sense for the same reason they can impose tariffs on others: they have the power,” Perry added.
Target U.S. tech companies?
The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, Svendsen said, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
That’s because the Trump administration has taken particular focus on preventing what they call “attacks” on American companies by foreign governments seeking to regulate their online content or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal laws like digital services taxes.
“I think that would be a really smart and targeted way to get to economic interests very close to the president, while minimizing the direct impact on the on the European economy,” Svendsen said, calling such a move “low-hanging fruit.”
He also compared a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian gas after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If you told anyone back then that Europe would basically rid itself of its dependence on Russian gas basically within a two-year period … that would have been considered completely impossible,” he said.
“Weaning the European economy off of U.S. tech would certainly be painful in the short term, but they’ve proven that they can get off those dependencies quickly if there is political will behind it in the past.”
A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.
Trump himself has acknowledged it could be a “choice” between preserving the alliance or acquiring Greenland.
There is no provision within the NATO founding treaty that addresses the possibility of a NATO member taking territory from another, and how the alliance should respond to such an act.
A NATO spokesperson told Global News it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical scenarios” when asked how it could potentially act.
“None of this would be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry said. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European security, and revolves around the U.S. So there’s no scenario of NATO doing that to the U.S.”
Denmark and other European nations could move to reduce or close U.S. military bases in their countries as a possible response, experts say.
Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, said in an interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would force Canada to focus entirely on boosting its defences in the Arctic.
That may include trying to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence network with the U.S., in favour of a purely domestic Arctic command, he said — although that process would take years and require Canada to increase defence spending even further.
“Never mind five per cent (of GDP) — we will probably need to go like seven, eight, nine per cent on defence spending to be able to do anything of that sort,” he said. “It’s not even clear that we’ll be able to have enough people to do that.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory action, whether military or financial, needs to be targeted and proportionate to what the U.S. does.
“The problem with nuclear options is that once you use it, it’s gone,” he said. “And if it doesn’t do the damage or make the change of behaviour on the other party, you’ve basically lost a lot of leverage and you might actually sustain a lot more loss yourself.”
“Unacceptable’: Allies react to Trump Greenland tariff threats – National TenX News
Canada talks trade with Qatar as Carney touches down in Doha – National TenX News
How could Canada, EU, NATO respond to a U.S. takeover of Greenland? – National TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoThese ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Entertainment10 months agoThe final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
TenX Exclusive10 months agoअमर योद्धा: राइफलमैन जसवंत सिंह रावत की वीरगाथा
-
Politics8 months agoBefore being named Pope Leo XIV, he was Cardinal Robert Prevost. Who is he? – National TenX News
-
Politics9 months agoPuerto Rico faces island-wide blackout, sparking anger from officials – National TenX News
-
Fashion10 months agoAccording to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Tech10 months agoIndian-AI-software-which-caught-30-thousand-criminals-and-busted-18-terrorist-modules-its-demand-is-increasing-in-foreign-countries-also – News18 हिंदी
-
Politics9 months agoScientists detect possible signs of life on another planet — but it’s not aliens – National TenX News