Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era. A temporary newsletter with the latest Canada-U.S. analyses from Policy Options.

(Version française disponible ici)

Does Canada’s future rest solely in the hands of men?

It was with this troubling question that Nathalie Collard began her column discussing the federal election campaign in in La Presse April 8. She highlighted the absence of female voices among party leaders and TV debate hosts.

The absence of female representation highlights a deeper issue: the electoral campaign focuses on a narrow vision of the economy, where social issues, such as those concerning families, women and children, are relegated to the background or completely removed from public debate.

Since the start of the campaign, media attention has focused almost exclusively on economic issues and Canada-U.S. relations. Donald Trump’s tariffs, the threat of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state, migrants seeking asylum in Canada, stock market fluctuations, inflation and the protection of manufacturing jobs occupy almost all public discourse.

Without denying their importance or the threat posed by the Trump administration to global stability, one can question the gendered bias of these issues in the media space. For example, the jobs threatened by the U.S. tariffs are predominantly male. According to Statistics Canada data, men hold 78 per cent of manufacturing jobs. Would these issues have aroused as much interest if they related to female-dominated fields such as early childhood education, home care or social services? These fields are also experiencing a crisis but are discussed little in the current election campaign.

A name change that speaks volumes

The absence of women at the top of federal political parties is not just a symbolic detail; it could have concrete consequences for the priorities put forward. Historically, it has often been women, frequently mothers, who have spearheaded Canada’s most progressive policies on work-life balance, gender equality and child welfare.

Think of Pauline Marois and the creation of the CPE network in Quebec in 1997 and Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould and Jenna Sudds and the development of the Canada-wide $10-a-day child care system. When we exclude women from places of power, we also risk marginalizing the issues that affect their wellbeing.

In this context, a change that went almost unnoticed deserves a closer look. On March 14, the name of the Minister of Family, Children and Social Development was changed to the Minister of Jobs and Families. This change of name, carried out discreetly, sends out a disturbing message: by replacing “Children” and “Social Development” with “Jobs” in the name of a ministry concerned with families, the discourse is aligned with a market logic. The family is perceived through the prism of the economy and employment, to the detriment of a broader vision of family wellbeing.

Provincial jurisdiction, but…

It could be argued that the reason why families occupy so little space in the federal election campaign is that their care falls under provincial jurisdiction. This argument carries more weight in Quebec, which has the most progressive family policy in North America and rightly insists that the federal government should not interfere in its management.

But this is not enough to justify the complete removal of issues affecting children, families and women from federal debate, even though Ottawa does interfere.

One need only think of the issue of creating a the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system. Ottawa has demonstrated its leadership in this area of provincial jurisdiction with the bilateral agreements on $10-a-day childcare. While this policy has raised many hopes, it is still far from complete. It suffers from significant limitations, especially when it comes to ensuring that all children have access to quality childcare.

However, we do not know where the two main parties stand on this issue. Do the Conservatives wish to maintain their traditional ‘cash for care’ approach? Would the Liberals be prepared to adopt a more centralizing stance to guarantee the expansion of non-profit childcare services? It is hard to say: at the time of writing, neither party had published its election platform on its website. Even CBC’s platform comparison tool has no tab devoted to children, families or childcare. This says a lot about their place in the current debate.

The forgotten family caregivers

The issues affecting families are not limited to childcare. Population aging also poses a growing challenge: support for family caregivers. This responsibility still falls mainly on the shoulders of families, especially women, with tangible consequences for their health, careers and assets. The pressure on families is likely to intensify in coming years: the 2021 census counted more than 861,000 people aged 85 or over, more than double the number in 2001. This group is one of the fastest growing (12 per cent since 2016).

Reconciling work and family life remains a major challenge. The rising proportion of people who work from home, the growth of self-employment, the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into workplaces and homes alike, and the fragmentation of time spent with family are redefining work-life balance, without public policies having really followed suit.

Finally, the very structure of families is changing. More and more families are formed through common-law partnerships, solo parenthood, divorce, or blended arrangements. Other family models are also emerging, outside traditional frameworks: transnational migrant families, polyamorous, chosen, or including a non-binary adult. This diversity deserves to be recognized, supported and protected.

The silence of political parties on issues affecting families and gender equality does not reflect a lack of concern among people. Rather, it shows the weakening of women’s voices in public discourse.

It would be regrettable to allow American politics to dominate the current campaign. We should also be discussing our model of family support, family wellbeing and gender equality, dimensions that are deeply interrelated. These issues must take center stage in political debates if we want a truly inclusive society.

In the face of threats stemming from the American political context, the main parties are promising us “A Strong Canada” or “Canada First.” But these campaign slogans cannot be fulfilled without supporting families in all their diversity.