B.C. Premier David Eby may well be wishing he never called a snap election.
This week, Eby came under fire for having his kids in $10-a-day child care — when the vast majority of B.C. parents with young kids are not so fortunate.
Eby has said his child was at the centre before it was designated as $10-a-day, and that his family donated the difference to the centre. This has not stopped his critics from making hay of Eby’s privilege.
All of this points to a missed opportunity: to address the problems at the heart of Canada’s child-care program that make it deeply inequitable.
Canadians love the idea of our social programs being equitable. We see equity as a core national value and a bedrock of programs such as single-payer health care.
But the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care program, first launched in 2021, is in fact anything but fair.
Today, about 900,000 children are enrolled in the federal child-care program, Minister of Jobs and Families Patty Hajdu said last month. This is fewer than half the approximately 1.9-million children who are four and under in Canada.
Those 50 per cent of families that do not have kids in subsidized spots are helping fund the families who do — while also potentially paying out-of-pocket for their own kids’ care.
Worse, in many cases, these are lower-income families. Program operators have repeatedly flagged this concern in our years covering the child-care program.
It also stands to reason: subsidized child-care spaces cater to the schedules of white-collar professionals. Parents who work evenings, weekends or irregular shifts are not well-served by centres that run from 8:00 a.m. till 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and that close on weekends.
Of course, not all 50 per cent of the families outside the subsidized program would opt for private child care if given the chance. Parents (including those on parental leave), grandparents, nannies, neighbours and others are valuable providers in the care economy too.
But if equity is the goal, our governments would help cover these families’ child-care costs too.Â
There is solid precedent for this: in Finland, the government subsidizes child-care spaces but also provides child-care allowances directly to some parents.
One allowance is for parents caring full time for young children at home. Another is for parents who reduce their work hours to care for their children.
Closer to home, the federal government does offer a tax deduction for child-care expenses, but its rules are such that it is effectively an upper-class subsidy.
At the provincial level, Ontario and Quebec do also offer income-based refundable tax credits to cover child-care expenses in some circumstances. And Newfoundland and Labrador offer a smaller, non-refundable one.
But these provinces are outliers. British Columbia and other provinces should be coming forward with similar schemes as well.Â
Offering allowances could be done in tandem with expanding subsidized child-care spaces — which has been a key goal of Ottawa’s program since its launch.
But to add new spaces, governments should also expand who can participate. Currently, most provinces limit or prohibit for-profit child-care centres from participating in the subsidized program.
We are not clear on the policy rationale for these limits. Some people will say for-profit centres are poorer quality than non-profit centres. But there are better ways of assessing quality than looking at a provider’s articles of incorporation.Â
The government should be (and is) responsible for evaluating providers to ensure they meet minimum standards of care. A centre’s corporate structure has nothing to do with this.
Critics will also sometimes say they do not want centres profiting from a government program. But provinces can, and in some cases already do, cap operators’ profit margins in the subsidized program.
In short, if our governments are serious about running an equitable and accessible child-care program, reforms are needed. That would include offering allowances or tax credits to parents outside the subsidized program, and expanding spaces within the subsidized program.
Admittedly, budgetary constraints may make it impossible to do both.
In 2024, Canadian Affairs reported that governments would need to collectively spend an estimated $47 billion a year to cover all 2.23-million children five and under — a staggering sum. (For context, Ottawa committed to send the provinces about $7.7-billion for child care in 2025-26.)
If it is not possible to cover everyone, then we must set parameters around who should be covered. We would argue Canada’s lowest-income families should be at the top of that list, and Canada’s most privileged families should be last.
Progressives like Eby may absolve their guilt about taking up a subsidized child-care space by making donations to their local centres. This is perfectly generous and fine.Â
But Eby is the province’s premier. What would show true leadership is for him to begin talking honestly about what is possible for child care and then pursuing an equitable program — or the fairest program possible in a fiscally constrained world.
