Who really profits: The For-Profit vs. Non-profit Daycare Debate

Child care has been an issue of concern in Canada for a number of years, due to the lack of spaces available, compounded by increasingly high daycare fees.  In July of 2006, the Conservatives introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) which provides families with $1, 200 per year for every child under the age of six, as well as $250 million promised each year to provinces and territories aimed at creating new child care spaces.  This money would be aimed specifically "in collaboration with not-for-profit organizations" (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=75115544-f81d-4c42-8f78-ae09137dea54).

However, a few years ago the neoconservative paper The National Post published a series of articles aimed at the Conservative’s new platform regarding a universal child care system, decrying the government’s decision to support non-profit daycares.   One article in particular titled “For-profit daycare: Harper’s best choice” by Peter Shaun Taylor argued in support of neoconservative ideologies as the best strategy for ensuring child care social services.  But what effect do these ideologies have on those who rely on child care services the most- mothers?

Mullahly (2007) described neoconservative ideologies as ensuring that “the state should follow laissez-faire policies and reject government interventions” as well as “privatization” of social services resting on a strong belief that a free market is the means to individual well-being (pg. 72).

This is at the basis of the argument of the National Post’s criticism of the UCCB.  They insist that if the government begins to control child care services, especially supporting non-profit agencies, there will be a “one-size-fits-all approach” to child care, eliminating any competition and therefore failing to provide quality services for parents.  In his article supporting for-profit daycare, Peter Taylor backs the neo-conservatism idea that competition between daycares will produce the “entrepreneurial ability” to create a larger pool of services from which parents can then select the best one.

It should be noted that women remain the primary care givers of children in most families.  According to 2001 census, out of 1.4 million single families in Canada, only 20 percent were headed by men (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/12/census-families.html).  There has been increasing pressure for women to choose between a career and a family.  Often, women are expected to do both.  If universal child care is not made easy and affordable for women, their choices become more limited.  Especially in homes where women are single parents, as they are not only the main breadwinners but also the main caregivers.  If for-profit child care is supported it would be allowing an unregulated market to control the prices of day care, and women who could not afford to pay would have to settle for less than quality services.  If women were choosing between hair salons, this may not be such a problem.  However, choosing which daycare your children will attend involves emotions not just money.  And having sub par daycare services isn’t something women should have to settle for.  I would argue against Peter Taylor by saying that government intervention in child care would ensure programs where there are trained and qualified staff looking after children, leaving women with peace of mind. 

Another argument of Pete Taylor is that for-profit daycares will be of most benefit to tax payers.  However, if women- and single mothers in particular- are forced to participate in a for profit child care system, taxpayers may still be paying.  As stated previously, single women are  responsible for raising their children, as well as finding an income to support themselves. This often means women will have to work long hours away from home in order to make enough money to pay for rent, food, clothing, and the other necessities of life, leaving no one to watch the children.  Since day care costs cannot always be supported on a minimum wage, single mothers must often turn to welfare in order to support themselves and their children.  The neoconservative system has made it more affordable for women to receive welfare, than try and pay for child care services.  A universal child care system should ensure equal and affordable access to all members of the population.

In conclusion the neoconservative policies on child care in Canada, as exemplified by the National Post, would disadvantage women, and in particular single mothers.  Investing in childcare is not just a monetary investment but an emotional one as well, and women should not be at the mercy of the market to determine who cares for their children.

-Erin Roche