Western Standard - July 22, 2022


Amoriza Gunnink on how the national daycare plan is impacting private operators


Episode Stats

Length

18 minutes

Words per Minute

146.35356

Word Count

2,657

Sentence Count

126

Misogynist Sentences

2


Summary

In this episode, we discuss the Ontario government's $10-a-day daycare plan, and the challenges faced by private daycare providers. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the deal, and what it means for the future of the daycare industry.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 You are, your specialty is in early childhood care and development, and you've been outspoken
00:00:07.280 about, I mean, we've got a government daycare plan that's supposed to bring about a $10 a day daycare
00:00:12.320 for everybody, but there's not been a real good uptake on it and it doesn't seem to be working
00:00:17.840 out well for a lot of private providers. Exactly. So the entire deal is premised on
00:00:25.600 the goal to bring forth a national daycare or childcare system across the country,
00:00:33.840 decreasing childcare costs, increasing accessibility for families, and incentivising quality through
00:00:41.840 grants. That would be the goals provincially. But what's important to remember is that it's an
00:00:48.400 example of what we call a redistributive policy. It was efficient. We did see a quick turnaround
00:00:55.280 of childcare funding in the hands of families. However, some childcare entrepreneurs who were
00:01:00.720 in the process of building out spaces, signing contracts, getting their fire and health collateral,
00:01:06.960 they arrive at the licensing stage only to be told, you can't no longer be in this childcare deal when
00:01:13.920 others are going to be receiving affordability grants for their families. So the lack of
00:01:20.720 sector-wide consultation, the lack of transparency in the process has been quite difficult for childcare
00:01:30.720 operators. And as well, we are now subject to a lot of strains that we weren't quite aware of. And so I
00:01:39.920 hope that we can unpack that today together. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm looking at a story, for example,
00:01:46.640 out of Toronto with only 17% of their licensed daycares have signed up for it so far. But then
00:01:53.760 the people who are regular customers who might be bringing their children back again to these centres
00:01:58.400 or already, they're starting to ask the operators questions, well, why am I not paying $10 a day for
00:02:02.480 my care? And, you know, 80% of them aren't signed up. So there's a lack of clarity in the ability to
00:02:09.040 qualify, is it? Yes. So I can't speak to the Ontario deal per se. I can speak to what we experienced in
00:02:17.760 Alberta. There seemed to be a rush to get us to sign into this deal. But there wasn't the transparency
00:02:26.960 of what would this mean down the road for private providers. So here are a few issues with this deal.
00:02:34.800 First is that we are now subject to a control framework that's going to be implemented in 2023.
00:02:43.440 So the government is going to be able to tell us how we can spend the public funding that we are
00:02:56.000 receiving and through a bit of a cost control framework. We're not really privy yet to what the
00:03:03.920 final framework will be. But we are definitely going to be subject to some control. We also cannot
00:03:15.280 grow organically. So as private operators, the spots available for growth, for expansion, is limited.
00:03:25.760 It's not really clear how many there will be. However, the government is going to be expanding about 42,000 spaces in
00:03:36.880 nonprofit over the next few years. And for profit is not really clear. So if we have organic growth within our
00:03:44.080 communities demand, we cannot respond to it. And we're already seeing in particular communities, families are being
00:03:52.400 waitlisted. And as private operators, we cannot respond to this, this need or this demand.
00:04:00.800 Yeah, I mean, to draw a bit of an analogy, I know it's different province by province, but it seems
00:04:04.880 similar to like when the rent controls are applied. I mean, they come to the conclusion people can't afford
00:04:10.000 rent, thus the government's got to get in there and deal with the larger landlords and we're going to
00:04:15.200 control it. And they'll even say we might subsidize those landlords. But what happens is they mess around in
00:04:19.200 the market and you actually end up with less rental property available. So it doesn't matter how low the rent is,
00:04:25.680 if there's none available, people are in trouble.
00:04:27.920 Yes. And the other issue, too, is there there will be inevitably winners and losers as the government is
00:04:34.160 determining which entrepreneurs are going to expand spaces and in what community when their plans are in place,
00:04:41.360 we related to the spaces that are allowed to open under the private sector in a given year. This is
00:04:47.760 not equitable. As you can imagine, it will likely drive a lobby industry with the most influential and
00:04:54.320 powerful fighting for spaces rather than, again, what I speak of this organic and free enterprise growth,
00:05:01.200 pivoting and reacting to creating spaces and programming based on the needs of families in their community.
00:05:08.160 You're going to see a generally a decline of growth of and private capital investment in the sector. And this
00:05:15.120 and this is really unfortunate. What I think is is sad is that the rights, interest and vocation of entrepreneurs,
00:05:23.120 the years of of laboring service and sacrifice, the risks that these entrepreneurs took related to capital investment,
00:05:30.000 often against their own personal assets, were certainly not considered in this deal. We needed a deal that actually fought for a win
00:05:38.000 win-win solutions for all stakeholders in the sector, not just parents and not near our inclusion in a deal that comes with significant strings attached,
00:05:48.160 determining how we can run our business in the in the future. This isn't in keeping with free markets and free enterprise or entrepreneurship.
00:05:57.120 We're creating a bit of an inequality in a cross sector for primarily in a female industry where we're
00:06:07.280 as entrepreneurs, we're not allowed to grow or or we don't have that the capacity for for that expansion
00:06:16.000 anymore or we're going to be significantly restrained in how we operate our businesses. So this is quite an
00:06:23.280 overreach and and the scapegoating of private businesses. We see it in other sectors as well.
00:06:30.240 And I think it's a signpost of what may come across other industries. So we need to we need to look at
00:06:37.120 this more carefully. We can't just we can't just be upset because there's a cap on oil and gas and forget
00:06:43.360 to look at, oh, but actually we did cap our private entrepreneurs in child care. It's quite some incongruent.
00:06:50.480 We can't speak of setting up shop abroad and talk about luring or incentivizing business and capital
00:07:00.560 investment in Alberta. And we've we've we're capping our own entrepreneurs in the child care industry.
00:07:08.240 We've always had a mixed model and mixed economy approach. We we honor the the net benefits that our
00:07:16.720 entrepreneurs are bringing to the economy here in Alberta. So I'm not really quite sure how we can
00:07:23.760 speak of reducing red tape, but then we're implementing regulatory burdens to child care operators.
00:07:31.680 I don't understand how we can talk about female empowerment, but now we are hampering the empowerment
00:07:39.200 and career advancement and our entrepreneurial endeavors of the many child care entrepreneurs
00:07:44.640 in the sector. It's it doesn't quite make sense. We we we didn't have to sign into this deal at all.
00:07:53.760 So it's some jurisdictional questions. I guess like this was a federal program, but it was kind of imposed
00:07:59.440 on the provinces. Alberta wasn't really that willing, but basically they were saying, well, either you embrace
00:08:03.840 it or we'll just give the money to somebody else. So it kind of put them into a rock and a hard place.
00:08:08.080 But who do you deal with as an operator in Alberta, for example? And is it an Alberta government agency
00:08:12.720 for your regulation or is it a federal one? Yes, we deal with the Children's Services Ministry. Yes.
00:08:18.640 So we it's it's a provincial jurisdiction. And I content that we really didn't have to take on this
00:08:27.440 deal. We could have built our own system. We just don't have the political leadership, the the
00:08:33.040 innovation in the policy environment or the political will to actually build our own. We could have seen
00:08:41.040 our families funded three years ago already through subsidies or grants that would that would have
00:08:51.280 allowed them to be paying ten dollars a day. We didn't need to cede provincial jurisdiction. We we have
00:08:58.000 the capacity to build this internally. It will require will political will. It will require some work and
00:09:06.240 some creativity and also this respecting the role of government, the role of civil society, the role of
00:09:15.040 market coming together and actually understanding social entrepreneurship for answering and coming up with
00:09:23.840 policy inputs that that deal with social challenges and complexities in a multifaceted way, not simply constantly
00:09:33.040 Oh, government run program or make it public, make it universal, because then we will deal with quality issues or then we
00:09:39.840 will deal with inequality. There are quite a few false premises that belie this this whole quest that we also need to be
00:09:48.880 talking about and having public discourse over. Because if we truly want to see change and affordability for families, we need to have a
00:09:59.760 multi pronged approach that includes markets, civil society and government, not just government alone.
00:10:05.600 So is there other conditions then? Like, is there certain ways that a facility has to qualify before they can apply or be able to get the
00:10:13.600 funding then? Or is it just kind of as long as you're licensed, you can be part of the program?
00:10:17.840 When it was originally rolled out, all current licensed programs were able to be included in this grant.
00:10:28.480 Right now, moving forward, only those who are opening spaces under a nonprofit corporate structure are able to open spaces and be licensed.
00:10:41.680 So are actually there they're able to be under this this child care deal and pass on the subsidies and
00:10:48.720 grants to families. Anybody can open a child care center in the province currently, it just might mean
00:10:58.320 that they're not going to be part of the deal. And so the daycare across the street might be offering
00:11:05.440 $450 in grants while you have to offer full pricing. So you can already imagine that that competition will
00:11:13.360 be stiff and families might not choose your location based on the fact that they can't quite get the
00:11:22.000 grants. So what do you propose as a solution though? Like should the government just kind of back out of
00:11:27.840 this program altogether or change it? How can this be addressed? That's the big question.
00:11:34.400 Yes. So I think when we understand the false premises on which this is based, that quality is a factor of
00:11:44.800 of the care that is provided and not necessarily corporate structure. When we are able to understand,
00:11:52.880 for example, that the price point is not high or child care costs have not increased because of the
00:12:01.200 for-profit operators entering the market. But pricing is a factor of real estate costs, salaries and utilities
00:12:11.120 and food. And it doesn't discriminate regardless of or based on corporate structure, right? So when we
00:12:20.720 begin to understand the premises on which this is based and we're able to move away from some of these,
00:12:28.400 the foundational framework of women's equality movement, of feminist politics, of social justice,
00:12:34.960 but actually anchor the way that we look at our children, the way that we look at family life,
00:12:40.880 I think we can build a system that is far more holistic and integrative that considers the
00:12:48.240 ecology, what we call the ecology of children's lives, their nested reality. So their reality within
00:12:55.200 the family, within care structures, their reality within community where they are interacting intergenerationally,
00:13:04.080 because right now we are seeing a breakdown in intergenerational constellation. So why not build a
00:13:11.520 far more comprehensive system? Why not begin with the answer, what is in the best interest of children,
00:13:20.000 which guides our Alberta family law? Why not ask the question, what is the quality of life look like for
00:13:27.840 our children, rather than simply simplistically, myopically focusing on childcare? Let's some place
00:13:35.360 children and create a childcare system for, for children. How about the entirety of a family life and start
00:13:42.880 there? And so do I believe we can back out? I'm not sure what the clauses are. I'm not sure if the province is able to
00:13:51.280 cancel the deal. But I do believe that Alberta is uniquely positioned in a, in a way economically,
00:13:59.760 socially, where we can construct something entirely new, something entirely innovative, if we have the,
00:14:09.120 the leadership, if we have the will to do so. And I think that if we presented something to, to our
00:14:16.560 communities that looks far more holistic for children's optimal development, that takes care of, of, of,
00:14:23.360 family life, of children, um, in parenting, in attachments, in, in community life, their, their visibility,
00:14:31.920 that we are, we are caring for those families who truly need the, the $10 a day, or even free daycare,
00:14:39.520 because they need this support. When we're looking at immigrant families, when we're looking at, um, refugee
00:14:45.520 families, we have a holistic system, not simply, um, the, the, an institutionalizing approach or
00:14:53.040 highly regulating the lives of our children and the lives of those who care for them. That's not the
00:14:59.360 answer. So I'm really confused and surprised that, that this is the road we actually took,
00:15:06.080 as opposed to saying, no, I think that, I think that we have the, the ability to, to build our own.
00:15:13.520 Maybe I'm, I'm idealistic, but we do need to start with new ideas, um, for, for all of these complex,
00:15:22.000 uh, societal challenges that we are presented with. It cannot be about creating a childcare
00:15:29.280 system. It does not lead necessarily to quality. If we are not accounting for what I, what I just had
00:15:36.560 said is that ecology of childhood, the, the, the entirety of children's lives, their communal
00:15:43.120 interaction, um, intergenerational interaction. So, so we, we need to go back to the drawing board and,
00:15:49.760 and have a greater public discourse about what it means to, to care for our children and give them
00:15:55.600 a good quality of life. Does it, does it look like, um, institutionalizing them? Does it, what,
00:16:02.000 what could it look like, um, alternatively? And then we start there and then we absolutely mobilize,
00:16:08.560 um, our financing, uh, where, um, social programs to answer the complexity with which, um, our society,
00:16:18.240 uh, finds itself in, and in the care of our children. I hope that that, um, makes sense somewhat.
00:16:24.400 So some, so we're kind of up against the clock now. So where can people find more information
00:16:29.760 on, on what you're doing and, and, uh, about these programs and things like that in general?
00:16:33.760 Is there a website they could go to? Um, right now I do post my thoughts on
00:16:39.520 meaningmakersglobal.com. Um, I am very much interested in, in the arts and cultural development
00:16:45.920 of children. So, so, um, the community can contact me, but I am very much involved in, um, advocacy
00:16:54.560 for childcare operators. I am involved in this, uh, leadership contest right now because I do
00:17:00.640 believe that we need new leadership for the future. We cannot simply continue to go to
00:17:07.280 government as the, um, solution for our challenges. Um, and we seem to kind of really want government to
00:17:15.920 be funding everything, government to be providing the solutions when the solutions are, are, uh, nestled
00:17:22.480 within our daily lives, within, within our communities, our, our, uh, social structures
00:17:28.800 are ready. Um, and so I hope that, um, if anybody wants to contact me, they can do so through my
00:17:35.760 website, meaningmakers.com, meaningmakersglobal.com or, um, or, uh, contact me through the various
00:17:43.200 connections. I'm sure some people watching already know me, so they're, they're welcome to continue,
00:17:48.320 uh, these conversations. Yes. So thank you for this opportunity, Corey.
00:17:52.880 Great. Thank you. And, uh, yeah, we'll, uh, we'll talk again down the road and, uh,
00:17:57.440 hopefully we can come up with a good policy somehow. It's costing a lot of money.
00:18:00.720 Oh, for sure. Thank you so much.