Indigenous Peoples Thematic Series
Child care participation among off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit children aged 1 to 5: Exploring parental satisfaction and cultural responsiveness across child care settings

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funds from the Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). The authors wish to thank ESDC for their knowledge, guidance and feedback throughout the development of this work.

Key findings

• According to the 2022 Indigenous Peoples Survey, 52,030 off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit children aged 1 to 5 were in child care (across all child care types), while 49,860 were not in child care. Among First Nations children living off reserve, 49.3% were in child care, while respective percentages were 55.9% and 36.2% among Métis and Inuit children.
• Regional variations in child care participation emerged: First Nations children in Quebec and the territories were more likely to participate than in other regions. Métis children had higher participation in Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia than in all other regions except Saskatchewan. For Inuit children, those outside Inuit Nunangat reported nearly twice the share participating in child care than their counterparts living in Inuit Nunangat.
• Roughly 6 in 10 off-reserve First Nations and Métis children and 1 in 2 Inuit children who were in child care participated in centre-based child care.
• Among those in child care, the share in Indigenous-specific child care was 6.3% for First Nations children living off reserve, 2.3% among Métis children and 16.3% among Inuit children.
• Nearly 6 in 10 (58.5%^E [use with caution]) parents of Indigenous children in an Indigenous-specific child care arrangement reported being very satisfied with the way in which their child’s main child care provider shared Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs. This proportion was nearly three times that of parents of Indigenous children in centre-based child care.
• The share of parents who reported that their child’s child care environment encourages learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs was highest among those in the territories (69.7%^E) and lowest among those in Quebec (30.4%^E). A higher share of parents in the territories (82.8%^E) reported that their child care provider understood the needs of Indigenous families well or very well, with lower shares in Ontario (47.8%) and Quebec (48.1%^E).
• A significantly higher share of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care (52.6%^E) spoke an Indigenous language regularly in child care, compared with those in centre-based (4.1%) and home-based (8.2%) child care.
• Among those in child care, about one-fifth of parents of First Nations children living off reserve (20.7%) and Inuit children (19.4%), and 15.4% of parents of Métis children would have preferred a different type of child care. Among these parents, 40.9% reported that their preference (other than care by themselves or their spouse or partner) would be Indigenous-specific child care, while 37.6% would have preferred a day-care centre, nursery school, preschool or centre de la petite enfance (child care centre in Quebec).
• Among parents of Indigenous children who preferred an alternate type of child care, over one-third (33.6%) reported high costs as the main barrier, while roughly one-quarter (25.3%) reported that Indigenous-specific child care was unavailable.
• Among parents of Indigenous children who wanted child care but were not using it, the top reported reasons were high costs and lack of availability in the community. These reasons were reported by parents of First Nations children (46.4% and 39.1%, respectively), Métis children (62.0%^E and 47.6%^E) and Inuit children (29.6%^E and 56.9%^E).

Introduction

There is strong evidence and widespread agreement among experts on the critical role of early learning programs and initiatives in child development and learning (Elek, Gubhaju, Lloyd-Johnsen, Eades, & Goldfeld, 2020; Garon-Carrier, 2019). The early developmental period from birth to 6 years is foundational, marking a critical period for intervention. Early learning and child care (ELCC) can include a variety of activities that are intended to support language, emotional, intellectual and physical development in equally varied settings, such as centres, preschools, nursery schools and home child care settings (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023; Government of Canada, 2022).

Self-determined, accessible, high-quality and culturally appropriate ELCC offers a pathway towards addressing disparities in health and well-being among Indigenous children (Halseth & Greenwood, 2019). ELCC that provides culturally relevant programming, which includes history, language and other cultural dimensions, strengthens cultural identity and connections and, in turn, child health and well-being (Best Start Resource Centre, 2010; Greenwood, 2016; Greenwood & de Leeuw, 2012; Owais et al., 2024). The benefits of fostering positive self-identity and cultural connection among Indigenous children are especially important in the context of historical policies and practices that sought to forcibly assimilate Indigenous children, leaving enduring and far-reaching intergenerational impacts (Government of Canada, 2023; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a). Cultural survival, resilience and revitalization are evident through cultural commitment and the use of Indigenous languages and traditional practices passed down through generations (Owais et al., 2024; Toombs, Kowatch, & Mushquash, 2016). This is highlighted in recent research based on data collected in 2022 involving Indigenous children’s participation in traditional practices. Among children aged 1 to 5, 72% of First Nations children living off reserve, 67% of Métis children and 75% of Inuit children participated in at least one harvesting or cultural activity in the previous year (Arriagada & Racine, 2024).

The history of federal ELCC programs in Canada is long and complex (see Government of Canada, 2024a; Greenwood et al., 2020; Halseth & Greenwood, 2019). ELCC programming for Indigenous children was initially rooted in mainstream early intervention approaches for child development. However, in the 1990s, Indigenous consultations began influencing the development and design of various federally funded programs, such as the Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC) program, the Aboriginal Head Start on Reserve (AHSOR) program, and the First Nations and Inuit Child Care Initiative (Greenwood et al., 2020). The AHSUNC program alone, run by Indigenous community organizations, has been described as high-quality and culturally appropriate, serving over 4,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit children at 134 sites across the country (Government of Canada, 2024a).

The Indigenous ELCC (IELCC) Transformation Initiative supports the implementation of the co-developed IELCC Framework, outlining a shared vision, guiding principles and a path forward for IELCC.

In 2024, Employment and Social Development Canada completed an evaluation of the IELCC initiative, assessing its governance, implementation, design, delivery and early outcomes. Phase 1 incorporated findings from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s Midterm Evaluation of the Inuit ELCC Framework. Inuit partners also led an evaluation process to assess the continued relevance and impact of ELCC services. Results highlighted increased Indigenous leadership, flexible funding, improved coordination and a shift towards a distinctions-based approach.

In March 2024, the Healthy Child Development program completed an evaluation of the AHSOR program, focusing on the years 2013 to 2019. Key outcomes included stronger cultural connections, improved school readiness, the development of trusting relationships with children and families, and the achievement of emotional and developmental milestones. Those consulted emphasized the program’s longstanding importance and value to the community.

The AHSUNC program supports early childhood development for off-reserve First Nations (status and non-status), Métis and Inuit children and their families. Sites typically offer drop-in child care where parents attend alongside their child. The program’s first co-developed evaluation, completed in June 2022, found that it positively impacts Indigenous communities by addressing educational and health disparities, fostering parental involvement, and strengthening community ties. Sites were often described as safe, inclusive spaces that create a strong sense of community among off-reserve or off-territory Indigenous families. Cultural programming stands out as a key strength, with those consulted noting the program is Indigenous-led, promotes culture and community, and supports intergenerational healing.

IELCC programs in Canada have shown promise, especially amid increasing demand driven by a young and growing Indigenous population (Statistics Canada, 2022) and the need for high-quality and culturally appropriate child care (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2014).  However, access remains affected by barriers such as cost, location, hours of availability and long wait lists – particularly in communities where access is already limited (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2018; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2014). Furthermore, income, family structure, the child’s age, service location and region of residence are key predictors of child care participation (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2018; Sinha, 2014).

The 12th Call to Action of the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015c) urged all levels of government to invest in and develop culturally appropriate early childhood and education programs for Indigenous families, a call echoed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Government of Canada, 2021). The Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act, which received royal assent on May 19, 2024, reinforced this commitment by requiring that federal investments and agreements with Indigenous peoples align with the co-developed IELCC Framework. Endorsed by national Indigenous organizations (Government of Canada, 2024a), the distinctions-based framework outlines a shared vision for “high-quality, culturally rooted early learning and child care programming” (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023) , and guides program design, delivery, accountability, research, and evaluation.

Since the 2018 launch of the IELCC Framework, the federal government has committed $1.7 billion over 10 years to expand Indigenous-led, culturally grounded early learning —$1.02 billion for First Nations, $450 million for the Métis Nation, and $111 million for Inuit. This funding has supported new and renovated child care centres, fee subsidies, and programming that weaves Indigenous languages, traditions, and values into daily care (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023). First Nations have strengthened both on- and off-reserve infrastructure and language-based curriculum, Métis governments have opened new centres across several provinces and expanded cultural programming and family supports, and Inuit communities have enhanced access to Inuktut-based, culturally rooted child care. Together, these efforts have increased spaces, lowered costs, and deepened cultural connections for Indigenous children and families nationwide (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2024).

Alongside other previously-established Indigenous early learning programs, more recently established Métis-led early learning and child care has grown considerably since 2022. Centres have opened in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, with more underway across Canada. Guided by the Métis Nation ELCC Framework (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023), Métis governments are advancing culturally grounded child care through new centres, cultural curriculum, language revitalization, family programming, and improved access and affordability (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2024). Examples such as the Manitoba Métis Federation’s My Little Métis Box and Little Métis Literacy Program (Manitoba Métis Federation, 2025), along with other initiatives , illustrate how Métis traditions, culture, and language are being embedded within early learning settings. As the Indigenous Peoples Survey (IPS) was collected in 2022 and early 2023, it is important to note that recent child care developments in the Métis community may only be partially reflected in the child care participation rates.

Information on child care access, quality and culturally specific programming remains limited because of a “complex patchwork of Indigenous ELCC” (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023). Consequently, key knowledge gaps exist about affordability, accessibility, satisfaction, and inclusivity of child care across Canada (Halseth & Greenwood, 2019). However, data sources such as the 2022 IPS have the potential to fill these gaps in our understanding of the experiences of Indigenous children (Greenwood et al., 2020). It is also the first time since the 2006 Aboriginal Children’s Survey that data have been collected on Indigenous children in this age group. Given the limited data available on child care among Indigenous children, the IPS remains the only national source providing insight into their experiences. The current analysis examines factors associated with child care participation among off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit children aged 1 to 5. It explores child care participation rates, satisfaction with child care, reasons for not receiving regular child care, cultural relevance, language use, preferences for alternate types of child care and barriers to preferred child care type. It also examines the sociodemographic profile of those participating in child care.

Data and methodology

Data source

The 2022 IPS was a voluntary national postcensal survey on the social and economic conditions of First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit aged 1 year and older. This sixth cycle focused on Indigenous children and their families and topics included living arrangements, child care, Indigenous languages and culture. The target population for the 2022 IPS was First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit, including children aged 1 to 14 and adults aged 15 and older living in private dwellings. Data collection ran from May 11 to November 30, 2022, with in-person follow-up from January 16 to March 31, 2023.

This analysis uses the child component of the 2022 IPS, which includes data on children aged 1 to 5. This cycle features more detailed questions on child care and parental satisfaction. Child-related questions, including those related to child care, were answered by the person most knowledgeable (PMK) about the child, reflecting child care arrangements at the time of collection. In this analysis, the PMK will be referred to as the parent, though they may be another caregiver.

A key limitation of the study is that the IPS does not collect data on whether child care is licensed or unlicensed. As a result, the analysis cannot distinguish between these two types of care, which may limit the ability to analyze possible differences in quality, regulation, or access across care types.

Analysis

Descriptive statistical methods were used (e.g., crosstabulations), and multivariate logistic regression assessed the association between child care participation and sociodemographic factors, including those specific to Indigenous people and those identified in prior research. Where possible, distinctions-based estimates (i.e., by Indigenous group) were provided.

Comparisons across groups were provided when necessary for context, with statistically significant differences mainly determined through examination of confidence intervals (at the 95% level provided in brackets throughout tables) and further testing was conducted at the 0.05 significance level to indicate any statistically significant differences across various characteristics within groups.

Estimates followed by the letter “E” should be used with caution, as they may be based on small sample sizes or have high variance.

Results

Roughly 6 in 10 Indigenous children in child care are in centre-based child care, with 1 in 20 in Indigenous-specific child care

In 2022, half (51.1%) of Indigenous children aged 1 to 5 living off reserve were in child care. Participation in child care was 49.3% among First Nations children living off reserve, 55.9% among Métis children and 36.2% among Inuit children.

Among Indigenous children in child care, about 6 in 10 (58.8%) participated in centre-based child care,^Note  followed by over one-third (36.1%) in home-based child care,^Note  and 5.1% in Indigenous-specific child care^Note  (Table 1). Roughly 6 in 10 First Nations and Métis children and 1 in 2 Inuit children who were in child care participated in centre-based child care (58.6%, 60.7% and 50.1%^E, respectively). Nearly two-thirds of Indigenous children in centre-based child care (64.2%) participated on a full-time basis.

Among detailed child care types, “daycare centre, nursery school, preschool or centre de la petite enfance (CPE)” was the most commonly used by First Nations children living off reserve (52.4% of those in child care), Métis children (55.3%) and Inuit children (48.0%^E). The second most common child care type was care by a relative other than a parent, with 20.2% of First Nations children living off reserve, 14.4% of Métis children and 20.1% of Inuit children in this arrangement. Other frequently used types included family child care home (by a non-relative and not in the child’s home), used by 10.6% of First Nations children living off reserve, 19.0% of Métis children and 8.8% of Inuit children.

Among those in child care, the share in Indigenous-specific child care was 6.3% for First Nations children living off reserve, 2.3% among Métis children and 16.3% among Inuit children.

Among Inuit children in child care, the share in an Indigenous-specific arrangement was 2.7 times higher for those living in Inuit Nunangat, compared with those living outside Inuit Nunangat (21.2%^E versus 7.9%^E).

Three times as many parents of Indigenous children using Indigenous-specific child care report high satisfaction with culturally appropriate child care compared with those using centre-based care

Parents of Indigenous children were asked to rate their satisfaction with how well their child’s main care provider shares Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs. Nearly 6 in 10 parents (58.5%^E) with an Indigenous-specific child care arrangement reported being very satisfied, nearly three times the share of parents using centre-based child care (21.9%) (Chart 1). More than two-fifths (44.7%^E) of parents using home-based child care reported the same, more than twice the proportion of parents using centre-based child care (21.9%).

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for Chart 1 Table summary
The information is grouped by Main child care arrangement type (appearing as row headers), First Nations children living off reserve, Métis children, Inuit children, Total, Indigenous children, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent and 95% confidence interval, calculated using lower, upper, lower, upper, lower, upper, lower and upper units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Main child care arrangement type	First Nations children living off reserve			Métis children			Inuit children			Total, Indigenous children
	Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval
		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper
Note E use with caution Note F too unreliable to be published Note 1 Indigenous-specific child care programs include Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC), or First Nations, Inuit or Métis day care programs. Return to note 1 referrer Note 2 Centre-based child care includes daycare centres, nursery schools, preschools, or centre de la petite enfance (CPE); before or after school programs. Return to note 2 referrer Note 3 Home-based child care includes care by a relative other than parent; care by a non-relative in the child's home (e.g., a nanny); family child care home (e.g., home based daycare or home based child care); and other child care arrangements. Return to note 3 referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Child care overall	34.3	29.5	39.4	32.0 E use with caution	25.3	39.6	40.3 E use with caution	31.5	49.8	34.5	30.6	38.5
Indigenous-specific child care Data table for Chart 1 Note 1	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	58.5 E use with caution	46.9	69.3
Centre-based child care Data table for Chart 1 Note 2	22.0	16.6	28.5	16.9 E use with caution	10.9	25.2	32.2 E use with caution	21.0	45.8	21.9	17.8	26.6
Home-based child care Data table for Chart 1 Note 3	42.8 E use with caution	33.7	52.4	45.4 E use with caution	34.3	56.9	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	44.7 E use with caution	37.5	52.2

Parents living in a rural area (48.6%^E) were more likely to report being very satisfied with the way in which their child’s main care provider shares Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs, compared with their counterparts in population centres (29.8%).

Over twice as many parents of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care report a culturally supportive environment, compared with other types of care

In the 2022 IPS, parents were asked whether their child’s main child care arrangement provides an environment that encourages learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs. Among parents of Indigenous children in child care, 48.6% of parents of First Nations children living off reserve, 29.8% of Métis children and 64.2%^E of Inuit children reported a culturally supportive environment that “always” or “somewhat” encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs (Chart 2).

Although results for children in Indigenous-specific child care were not publishable by identity group, 97.8%^E of all parents of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care reported that their child’s main child care arrangement provided an environment that encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs, almost three times that of children in centre-based (37.3%) and home-based care (40.1%). Just under half of parents of First Nations children living off reserve who were in child care reported that their centre-based (44.0%) and home-based (47.0%) child care environments encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs, while the shares among Métis were lower across both child care types, at 26.3% and 31.1%, respectively. Among parents of Inuit children in child care, 65.1%^E reported that centre-based child care provided an environment that encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs, while a lower share (around 48.3%^E) reported the same for home-based child care.

Data table for Chart 2

Data table for Chart 2
Table summary
The information is grouped by Main child care arrangement provides an environment to encourage learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs (appearing as row headers), First Nations children living off reserve, Métis children, Inuit children, Total, Indigenous children, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent and 95% confidence interval, calculated using lower, upper, lower, upper, lower, upper, lower and upper units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Main child care arrangement provides an environment to encourage learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs	First Nations children living off reserve			Métis children			Inuit children			Total, Indigenous children
	Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval
		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper
Note E use with caution Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Yes, always or somewhat	48.6	45.0	52.2	29.8	26.1	33.9	64.2 E use with caution	56.9	71.0	41.4	38.8	44.0
No	51.4	47.8	55.0	70.2	66.1	73.9	35.8 E use with caution	29.0	43.1	58.6	56.0	61.2

A greater share of parents of Indigenous children living in rural areas (45.7%) reported that the child’s main child care arrangement provided an environment that encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional values and customs, compared with those in population centres (40.1%). Across regions, among those in child care, the highest share of parents who reported an environment that encouraged learning about Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs was in the territories (69.7%^E), while the lowest was in Quebec (30.4%^E). The share of parents of Inuit children who reported this was higher among those living in regions of Inuit Nunangat (83.2%^E) than those living outside the regions (32.1%^E) (data not shown).

Roughly half of parents of Indigenous children report that their child care provider understands the needs of families from an Indigenous background

Parents of Indigenous children were asked whether their child care provider understands the needs of families from an Indigenous background well or very well. Roughly three-fifths (59.4%) of parents of First Nations children living off reserve reported that their child care provider understands the needs of families from an Indigenous background, while respective shares were 44.3% and 72.6% among Métis and Inuit parents (Chart 3).

When examining by main child care arrangement type, the results show that a higher share of parents of First Nations children living off reserve in home-based child care (62.1%), compared with centre-based child care (53.2%), reported that their child care provider understands the needs of families from an Indigenous background. The difference was smaller but still significant among Métis parents (46.1%^E and 41.0%, respectively).

Data table for Chart 3

Data table for Chart 3 Table summary
The information is grouped by Main child care arrangement type (appearing as row headers), First Nations children living off reserve, Métis children, Inuit children, Total, Indigenous children, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent and 95% confidence interval, calculated using lower, upper, lower, upper, lower, upper, lower and upper units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Main child care arrangement type	First Nations children living off reserve			Métis children			Inuit children			Total, Indigenous children
	Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval
		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper
Note E use with caution Note F too unreliable to be published Note 1 Indigenous-specific child care programsinclude Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC), or First Nations, Inuit or Métis day care programs. Return to note 1 referrer Note 2 Centre-based child care includes daycare centres, nursery schools, preschools, or centre de la petite enfance (CPE); before or after school programs. Return to note 2 referrer Note 3 Home-based child care includes care by a relative other than parent; care by a non-relative in the child's home (e.g., a nanny); family child care home (e.g., home based daycare or home based child care); and other child care arrangements. Return to note 3 referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Child care overall	59.4	55.2	63.5	44.3	40.1	48.6	72.6	65.6	78.9	53.6	50.9	56.3
Indigenous-specific child care Data table for Chart 3 Note 1	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	97.9 E use with caution	93.6	99.3
Centre-based child care Data table for Chart 3 Note 2	53.2	48.2	58.2	41.0	35.9	46.2	69.9 E use with caution	59.8	78.3	48.8	45.4	52.3
Home-based child care Data table for Chart 3 Note 3	62.1	55.2	68.6	46.1 E use with caution	39.0	53.3	66.6 E use with caution	52.6	78.1	54.9	50.4	59.3

When exploring more detailed categories of child care type in relation to the provider’s understanding of the needs of families from an Indigenous background, the highest share was seen for Indigenous-specific child care (97.9%E), followed by care by a relative other than a parent (66.5%). The lowest share was seen for family home-based child care (39.2%).

Furthermore, a higher share of parents of Indigenous children living in rural areas (60.8%), compared with those in population centres (51.6%), reported that their child care provider understands the needs of Indigenous families. This trend was even more pronounced among Inuit children living in Inuit Nunangat (92.6%), rather than outside Inuit Nunangat (37.0%^E). A higher share of Indigenous children living in the territories (82.8%^E) had a child care provider that understood the needs of Indigenous families, with the lowest shares among those in Ontario (47.8%) and Quebec (48.1%^E) (data not shown).

Children in Indigenous-specific child care are more likely to speak an Indigenous language, compared with those in other child care types

Half of Inuit children (50.7%^E) spoke an Indigenous language regularly in their main child care arrangement, followed by 8.8% of First Nations children living off reserve and 2.3% of Métis children (Chart 4). A significantly higher share of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care (52.6%^E) spoke an Indigenous language regularly in their main child care arrangement, compared with those in centre-based (4.1%) and home-based (8.2%) child care arrangements (data not shown). Among Inuit children in child care, 42.6%^E in centre-based care and 49.2%^E in home-based child care regularly spoke an Indigenous language. The percentage of Inuit children speaking an Indigenous language in an Indigenous-specific child care setting were not publishable due to small sample size and resulting high variability.

Data table for Chart 4

Data table for Chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 4 First Nations children living off reserve, Métis children, Inuit children, Total, Indigenous children, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent and 95% confidence interval, calculated using lower, upper, lower, upper, lower, upper, lower and upper units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	First Nations children living off reserve			Métis children			Inuit children			Total, Indigenous children
	Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval
		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper
Note E use with caution Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Child care overall	8.8	6.9	11.1	2.3	1.3	4.0	50.7 E use with caution	43.2	58.1	8.1	6.9	9.4

Child care participation is highest among First Nations and Métis children in Quebec and among Inuit children outside Inuit Nunangat

This analysis also examined the distribution of sociodemographic characteristics among Indigenous children in child care. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2, and the complete regression results are provided in the appendix tables with an interpretation of those results in the forthcoming text box.

For off-reserve First Nations children, child care participation rates were significantly higher in Quebec (80.5%^E) and the territories (66.1%^E) compared with all other regions. For Métis children, participation was significantly higher in Quebec (79.9%^E), Manitoba (60.5%^E) and British Columbia (60.0%^E) than all other regions, except Saskatchewan (55.5%^E). The high rates of child care participation in Quebec are consistent with national findings of Canadian children aged 0 to 5 years from the Survey of Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements (SELCCA) (Statistics Canada, 2025).

Parents of Inuit children living outside Inuit Nunangat reported nearly twice the share participating in child care than their counterparts living in Inuit Nunangat (56.2%^E versus 30.1%), with higher participation also seen in large urban centres compared with smaller population centres and rural areas (Table 2).

Employed parents of off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit children were significantly more likely to report that their child was participating in child care than their counterparts who were not currently working. Similarly, parents of First Nations, Métis and Inuit children with a postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree were significantly more likely to report child care participation than those parents with a high school certificate or less (Table 2).

Start of text box

Odds of child care participation among Indigenous children

Logistic regression models were used to examine the odds of child care participation after adjusting for selected sociodemographic factors separately for each Indigenous group. Note that collinearity informed the removal of specific variables from the model for the Inuit population. The relationship observed in the descriptive statistics (Table 2) differs from the regression analysis for some variables (appendix tables). This suggests that bivariate associations may be confounded by other variables included in the model.

The results from the bivariate analysis remained consistent in the multivariate model among off-reserve First Nations children; with employed parents (OR=4.99) of First Nations children, parents with a postsecondary diploma or higher (OR=1.88), and children residing in the territories (OR=2.45) along with Quebec (OR=4.18) reporting higher odds of participation compared to their counterparts in Ontario even after adjusting for other factors. Additionally, higher odds of participation was observed among First Nations children living in one-parent households (OR=1.84) and with no parents in the household (OR=2.01) compared with those in two-parent households.

The associations observed in the bivariate analysis for employed parents of Métis children, higher levels of parental education (OR=~2.0), and those residing in Quebec (OR=6.15), Manitoba (OR=1.87) and British Columbia (OR=1.97) persisted in the multivariate model. Furthermore, odds of participation were higher among younger Métis children (OR=1.82) compared with their older counterparts.

The association identified in the bivariate analysis for employed parents, those living inside Inuit Nunangat (OR=0.54), and those residing in small and large urban population centres (OR=3.34) remained significant in the multivariate model for Inuit children.

End of text box

Among parents who would prefer alternate child care to their current arrangement, Indigenous-specific child care was the most frequently preferred option

In the 2022 IPS, parents of Indigenous children in child care were asked about their preferences for alternate types of child care and the barriers to receiving this type of care. Among parents of Indigenous children in child care, about one-fifth of parents of off-reserve First Nations (20.7%) and Inuit (19.4%) children, and 15.4% of Métis children preferred alternate child care arrangements (other than care by themselves or their spouse or partner) (data not shown). Among parents who wanted a different type of care for an Indigenous child in child care, the most frequently preferred alternate type of child care was Indigenous-specific child care (40.9%) (Chart 5).

When asked about the barriers to participating in their preferred type of child care, parents of Indigenous children in child care provided several responses. Among those who preferred an alternate type of child care, one-third (33.6%) reported high costs as the main barrier, one-quarter (25.3%) reported that Indigenous-specific child care was unavailable, while a similar proportion (24.9%) were on a waiting list (data not shown).

Data table for Chart 5

Data table for Chart 5
Table summary
The information is grouped by Main child care arrangement type (appearing as row headers), First Nations children living off reserve, Métis children, Inuit children, Total, Indigenous children, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent, 95% confidence interval, Percent and 95% confidence interval, calculated using lower, upper, lower, upper, lower, upper, lower and upper units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Main child care arrangement type	First Nations children living off reserve			Métis children			Inuit children			Total, Indigenous children
	Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval		Percent	95% confidence interval
		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper		lower	upper
Note E use with caution Note F too unreliable to be published Note 1 Indigenous-specific child care programs include Aboriginal Head Start in Urban and Northern Communities (AHSUNC), or First Nations, Inuit or Métis day care programs. Return to note 1 referrer Note 2 Centre-based child care includes daycare centres, nursery schools, preschools, or centre de la petite enfance (CPE); before or after school programs. Return to note 2 referrer Note 3 Home-based child care includes care by a relative other than parent; care by a non-relative in the child's home (e.g., a nanny); family child care home (e.g., home based daycare or home based child care); and other child care arrangements. Return to note 3 referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Indigenous-specific child care Data table for Chart 5 Note 1	52.4 E use with caution	44.3	60.5	23.2 E use with caution	15.0	34.2	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	40.9	35.0	47.2
Centre-based child care Data table for Chart 5 Note 2	32.3 E use with caution	24.8	41.0	45.1 E use with caution	34.3	56.3	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	37.6	31.6	44.1
Home-based child care Data table for Chart 5 Note 3	15.2	9.9	22.8	31.7 E use with caution	22.4	42.7	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	F too unreliable to be published	21.4	16.5	27.3

Cost and limited availability are the main reasons Indigenous children were not in child care, despite parents wanting it

In the 2022 IPS, parents of Indigenous children were asked to identify the main reasons their children were not in child care, despite a desire for it. The top three reasons were high cost, lack of availability in their community and being on a waiting list (Chart 6). A large proportion of parents of First Nations children living off reserve (46.4%), Métis children (62.0%^E) and Inuit children (29.6%^E) reported cost as the main reason. Limited availability in the community was also a commonly reported main reason children were not in child care despite wanting it, reported by 39.1% of First Nations children living off reserve, 47.6%^E of Métis children and 56.9%^E of Inuit children.

Data table for Chart 6

Data table for Chart 6
Table summary
The information is grouped by Main reasons why the child is not in regular child care (among those not in child care but wanting child care) (appearing as row headers), Total, Indigenous children, Inuit children, Métis children and First Nations children living off reserve, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Main reasons why the child is not in regular child care (among those not in child care but wanting child care)	Total, Indigenous children	Inuit children	Métis children	First Nations children living off reserve
	percent
Note E use with caution Note F too unreliable to be published Source: Statistics Canada, Indigenous Peoples Survey, 2022.
Cost too high	50.6	29.6 E use with caution	62.0 E use with caution	46.4
Not available in community	42.0	56.9 E use with caution	47.6 E use with caution	39.1
On a waiting list	27.2	20.8 E use with caution	23.1	30.9
Other reasons	11.2	15.2 E use with caution	9.7	10.8
Would like child care, but don’t currently need it	9.0	F too unreliable to be published	5.9	11.7
Transportation is a problem	8.0	F too unreliable to be published	9.6	8.0
Parent works shiftwork/irregular daycare	5.8	F too unreliable to be published	10.2	3.1
Quality of care available is poor	3.9	F too unreliable to be published	6.6	3.5

When those wanting care were asked why child care was not available, the top reasons provided by parents of Indigenous children were no child care available or accessible close to home (57.0%^E) and no child care available for the child’s age (25.2%). Other commonly reported reasons were the absence of relatives in the community, cited by 27.4%^E of parents of First Nations children living off reserve, and child care not fitting their schedule, reported by 24.2%^E of parents of Métis children (data not shown).

Discussion and conclusion

This paper explored the participation of off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit children in child care using data from the 2022 IPS. The results showed that participation in child care was 49.3% among First Nations children living off reserve, 55.9% among Métis children and 36.2% among Inuit children. Other research has reported that just under two-thirds of non-Indigenous children (64%) aged 1 to 5 in Canada were in child care in 2023 (Arriagada & Racine, 2024).

Among Indigenous children in child care, about 6 in 10 Indigenous children (58.8%) were in centre-based child care, with just under two-thirds (64.2%) participating in a full-time capacity. When looking at those in child care, 6.3% for First Nations children living off reserve, 2.3% among Métis children and 16.3% among Inuit children were in Indigenous-specific child care. Among Inuit children, Indigenous-specific child care participation was higher among those living in rather than outside, Inuit Nunangat.

Nearly 6 in 10 parents with children in an Indigenous-specific child care arrangement reported being very satisfied with the way in which their child’s main care provider shared Indigenous traditional and cultural values and customs. This share was nearly three times that of parents of children in centre-based child care. Furthermore, the satisfaction level was higher among parents in rural areas than those in population centres.

Findings regarding child care providers understanding the needs of Indigenous families well or very well were similar to those mentioned above, with about twice as many parents of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care reporting greater understanding, compared with those with children in centre-based or home-based child care. The share was two and a half times higher among Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat, compared to those living outside the area. Once again, a higher share of respondents in the territories reported that their child care provider understands the needs of Indigenous families well or very well, while a lower share in Ontario and Quebec reported the same. A significantly higher share of Indigenous children in Indigenous-specific child care spoke an Indigenous language regularly at child care, compared with those in centre-based and home-based child care.

The bivariate analysis of selected characteristics associated with child care participation revealed few differences, aside from those related to geographic location and parental socioeconomic status. Specifically, child care participation was higher among off-reserve First Nations in Quebec and the territories, and among Métis children in Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia compared with most other regions and among Inuit living outside, rather than in, Inuit Nunangat. Higher participation in Quebec can be interpreted in the context of policy changes in 1997 that increased child care affordability for residents of the province (Kohen, Dahinten, Khan, & Hertzman, 2008). Lower participation in Inuit Nunangat may be linked to challenges in sustaining programs that were expanded with funding from 1995 to 2014, especially as demand continues to rise (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2014).

The odds of participating in child care were significantly higher, by roughly five times or more, among First Nations, Métis and Inuit children whose parents were employed, compared with those whose parents were not working. The bivariate associations in Table 2, showing higher child care participation among children whose parents had higher educational attainment, held true for both First Nations and Métis children after adjusting for covariates, possibly because of the association between higher formal education and employment.

Among Inuit, the adjusted odds of participating in child care were higher for those living in small and large urban centres than for those in rural areas. This could be explained by a reported lack of available licensed ELCC programs and services in rural and remote communities, a key gap that requires consideration as per the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996).

The 2022 IPS offered insights into child care preferences and barriers. Roughly two-fifths (40.9%) of parents of Indigenous children in child care reported a preference for Indigenous-specific child care, followed by a day-care centre, nursery school, preschool or CPE (37.6%). The majority of parents reported availability as the main barrier to their preferred type of child care, followed by cost and the limited availability of Indigenous-specific child care. This analysis of the 2022 IPS also explored barriers to accessing regular child care. Among parents of First Nations, Métis and Inuit children, high costs and a lack of availability—including a shortage of Indigenous-specific child care—were the main reasons the child was not in regular care, despite a desire for it.

Child care for Indigenous families has increased since the 1990s (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023), and there has been movement towards building an inclusive, affordable and high-quality Canada-wide ELCC system (Government of Canada, 2024b). In Inuit Nunangat, the number of ELCC programs has increased since 1995, and they are now fully owned and led by Inuit and grounded in Inuit culture and knowledge (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2014). Among First Nations, both on- and off-reserve communities have seen consistent growth across ELCC services. For Métis families, program expansion has occurred more recently, but with notable gains in the past several years. Collectively, these developments reflect a strengthening of Indigenous learning opportunities for Indigenous children and families across Canada (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2023).

While there has been investment in child care programs for Indigenous children, the findings highlight a preference for more Indigenous-specific child care, culturally grounded child care that respects the values and traditions of Indigenous families and responds to their diverse circumstances and needs. As per the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b), continued investment is important to ensure equitable access and to strengthen approaches that reflect Indigenous priorities and needs.

Start of text box

Concepts and definitions

Indigenous identity: Indigenous identity includes persons living off reserve who reported being an Indigenous person, that is, First Nations (North American Indian), Métis or Inuk (Inuit) and/or those who reported Registered or Treaty Indian status, that is registered under the Indian Act of Canada, and/or those who reported membership in a First Nation or Indian band. Indigenous peoples of Canada are defined in the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 35 (2) as including the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. The sum of the categories included in this variable is greater than the total population estimate for Indigenous identity because a person may have reported more than one Indigenous identity: for example, a person could self-identify as both First Nations and Métis.
Status and non-Status First Nations people: Status First Nations people (also referred to as Registered or Treaty Indian) refers to persons who self-reported being a Status Indian, that is, having legal standing as individuals registered under the Indian Act. This registration comes with certain benefits and rights, including eligibility for federal, provincial, and territorial programs and services. Non-Status First Nations people are not entitled to registration on the Indian Register under the Indian Act; however, some may be members of a First Nation band.

Residence in and outside Inuit Nunangat: Inuit Nunangat is the Inuit homeland, comprising communities in the four Inuit regions: Nunatsiavut (northern coastal Labrador), Nunavik (northern Quebec), the territory of Nunavut and the Inuvialuit region of the Northwest Territories. Together, these regions encompass the area traditionally occupied by Inuit in Canada. The term “outside Inuit Nunangat” refers to all areas outside of these four regions.
Rural areas and population centres: In the update to the 2011 Standard Geographical Classification (SGC), the term “population centre” replaced the term “urban area .” The population centre and rural area classification variable includes rural areas, small population centres (population of 1,000 to 29,999), medium population centres (population of 30,000 to 99,999) and large urban population centres (population of 100,000 or more).
Regions of residence: Geographic regions were defined as follows : Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island), Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta , British Columbia and the territories (Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut). Categories were combined to allow for more detailed analysis given the small sample sizes in some provinces and territories.
Gender: Gender, rather than sex at birth, is the standard variable used in this analysis. Where gender is referenced in this paper, the “+” symbol indicates that individuals in the “non-binary person” category have been distributed into the other two gender categories. Given the small size of the non-binary population, aggregating data to a two-category gender variable is sometimes necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided.
Main child care arrangement: This is the child care arrangement that is considered to be the child’s primary form of care.
Child care type: In this paper, child care includes many different settings and arrangements, including centres, preschools, homes, and relatives and non-relatives. Data were not collected on the licensing status of child care providers, limiting analysis of quality, safety and regulatory compliance across child care types.

The primary categorization used in this paper is a three-category breakdown of child care types, which separates centre-based child care from Indigenous-specific child care. This approach is informed by sample size limitations and adjusted from previously used classifications that delineate between formal and informal child care arrangements (see Findlay et al., 2023) . However, because of small sample sizes, reporting on Indigenous-specific child care was limited in some areas. This categorization includes the following breakdown: (1) Indigenous-specific child care program (e.g., Head Start or First Nations, Inuit or Métis day care program); (2) centre-based child care (e.g., daycare centre, nursery school, preschool, centre de la petite enfance [CPE] [also referred to as a child care centre in Quebec], or before- or after-school program); and (3) home-based child care (e.g., care by a relative other than a parent), care by a non-relative in the child’s home (e.g., a nanny), family child care home (by a non-relative and not in the child’s home e.g., home-based day-care or home-based child care), or other child care arrangement.

A more detailed breakdown of child care types is provided in Table 1, covering the following seven categories—all of which fall under the three broader categories outlined above: (1) Indigenous-specific child care program; (2) day-care centre, nursery school, preschool or CPE; (3) care by a relative other than a parent; (4) care by a non-relative in the child’s home; (5) family child care home (by a non-relative and not in the child’s home); (6) before- or after-school program; and (7) other child care arrangement.
Full-time child care status: Full-time child care refers to children who were in child care 30 hours or more per week. The PMK about the child was asked how many hours per week the child was in each type of child care. The number of hours of child care per week was calculated based on the main child care arrangement.
Indigenous language: Includes children that spoke an Indigenous language regularly in the main child care arrangement – either exclusively or in addition to English or French.
Main reasons why the child is not receiving regular child care: Respondents who were not currently using child care were asked the reasons they did not use it. Options included availability of care, being on a waiting list, high costs, transportation issues, inadequate facilities, poor quality of available care, lack of opportunities for family or parental involvement, parental shift work or irregular child care use, other reasons, and a desire to use child care despite not currently needing it. Respondents who selected this last option were not asked why they would like to use child care, but some reasons could include a future need when returning to work or other factors such as a desire for child care for mental health or societal reasons.
Main reasons for child care being unavailable: Respondents who reported that child care was unavailable were asked to specify the reasons. Options included lack of accessible child care near the home, care unavailable for child’s age, care not fitting the respondent’s schedule, absence of relatives in the community, lack of special needs services, lack of licensed child care program, lack of child care with an early childhood education component, lack of Indigenous-specific child care, and inability to find child care in the language of choice.
Number of parents in the household: Considering the parental arrangement, three types of households are defined: one parent, two parents and no parents (e.g., could include grandparents, foster parents, other relatives or other unrelated household members). Parents include birth father or mother, stepfather or stepmother, and adoptive father or mother.
Regular child care: Respondents were asked, "Do you currently have any regular child care for the child? Exclude occasional babysitting or kindergarten."

End of text box