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

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 1.00

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 0.95

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.

Western Standard - July 22, 2022

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

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript