Opinion: Child care should serve kids and families, not ideology

Requiring child care to be provided by unionized non-profits pleases anti-capitalist activists but does nothing for the quality of careYou can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.A recent CUPE op-ed urged the federal government to “stay strong” in restricting for-profit child care, claiming that only public or not-for-profit centres deserve public support. It’s a strong political message, but it is not evidence-based and it risks causing real harm. The heart of child care is not ownership structures, capital models or ideological purity. It is safety, relationships, stability and accessibility. It is the ability for every family to choose the program that best meets their child’s developmental, cultural and practical needs.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.The CUPE narrative treats child care as a system to be protected rather than a service to be delivered. Instead of focusing on children, it focuses on institutions. Instead of acknowledging Canada’s diversity, it insists all families fit into one type of care. Instead of evaluating quality based on evidence, it relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that for-profit care is inherently worse.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againInterested in more newsletters? Browse here.In reality, no one ownership model consistently delivers better quality than another. In every province, for-profit and not-for-profit centres operate under the same licensing, ratios, inspections and safety regulations. Quality is driven by leadership, educator training, stability and program culture, not tax status. The blanket claim that for-profit care must be lower quality care is not supported by provincial inspection data or national research.Ideology becomes even more damaging when it tries to restrict funding to non-profit providers. Ottawa’s $10-a-day program is not an operator subsidy: it is a fee reduction. Parents in for-profit and not-for-profit centres alike rely on it to be able to afford care. Withholding it from families because of the type of provider they choose is discriminatory and punitive and undermines the affordability the federal system was created to provide.The potential impact on access is of even greater concern. Across Canada, private and family-owned programs provide the majority of rural and small-town child care. Not-for-profit boards often either don’t exist or can’t shoulder the financial risk of opening new programs. Restricting expansion to not-for-profits doesn’t create capacity, it shrinks it. Families in rural or remote regions already face shortages; removing an entire class of provider will turn these shortages into deserts.British Columbia provides a clear example of the consequences of relying almost exclusively on not-for-profit construction for child-care expansion. Publicly funded capital projects can be very expensive. A recent B.C. government announcement celebrated the creation of just 37 new spaces at a cost of $216,000 per space. They also usually take significantly longer to complete and are heavily constrained by bureaucratic processes. Private-sector operators build new centres for a fraction of the cost, at no expense to taxpayers and under the same rules and expectations. Calling private expansion an irresponsible use of public funds is the opposite of the truth: ignoring the most cost-effective means of building spaces is what wastes public dollars.Canada cannot meet its current child-care demands without the private sector. For the millions of families on waitlists, rejecting entire categories of licensed providers is an ideological luxury. Children should not have to wait for political purity tests to be passed before receiving care.We should be strengthening quality across all licensed child care, not pre-judging providers by their ownership. We should be supporting all educators with better wages and working conditions. And we should be expanding access by every means available, including public, private, not-for-profit, home-based, Indigenous and culturally specific programs. Children benefit from choice, not conformity.The federal government’s role is not to pick winners and losers but to ensure a fair, accountable, pluralistic system in which any licensed program that meets the standards can participate. Parents should be free to choose the care that reflects their values and needs. Children should receive consistent, high-quality care regardless of governance model.A truly universal child-care system recognizes that families and communities are diverse. What works in downtown Toronto or Vancouver may not be what’s needed in Corner Brook or rural Saskatchewan. The more we narrow child-care options, the more likely families are to fall through the cracks. We need to take the politics out of child care and return the focus where it belongs: on children, families and the educators who care for them every day.Krystal Churcher, an early learning consultant and licensed child-care operator, is co-founder of the Association of Canadian Early Learning Programs (ACE).Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.