May 2024
From the files of Captain Obvious, it appears that while the $10 per day daycare program may have made for a great campaign promise, delivering it has been another story. How is a business supposed to make a profit if it can’t cover its expenses?
Even not-for-profit businesses, a name that is a bit of a misnomer, still need to generate a profit. The difference between not-for profit and for-profit businesses, for those who don’t know the difference, is that a not-for-profit is mandated to invest all profits back into the business, rather than pay dividends to the owner(s).
In the MacLean’s magazine article “I love owning a daycare, but the government’s $10-a-day plan is threatening my business” (June 2024), Calgary daycare operator Sarah Hunter describes the difficulties she’s had keeping her daycare centre afloat the past three years. The personal sacrifices and use of family members, at low or no pay, that Hunter uses to keep expenses low is more than any business that isn’t fully government owned should have to endure.
Amongst other sacrifices, Hunter states that she hasn’t paid herself a salary in three years, so she is in fact, doing the hard work of implementing a Trudeau campaign promise for free. How long will she be able to keep doing that? How long will other daycare operators be able to do the same thing?
How many more daycare operators like Hunter are out there?
With the current anger against the grocery businesses and their alleged “excessive profiteering” on the backs of consumers, profit has become a dirty word, but in Hunter’s case, she states in the article that she would have opened a second daycare facility due to the high demand, if not for the financial strain of running just one facility. Instead, she has around 100 families on a wait list.
Would Trudeau ever serve as Prime Minister for free, regardless of the fact that he is independently wealthy and thus, could actually afford to do just that. Instead, he forces people like Hunter to scrimp, economize and do without in order to bring Trudeau’s socialist dream to fruition.
Given all the obstacles that operators like Hunter face, how exactly is $10 a day daycare making it easier for parents to access daycare for their children?
I have no problem with affordable daycare, but it should be a realistic plan, one that takes into account the actual cost of doing business. When comes to children, we shouldn’t be cutting corners just for the sake of the political fortunes of any politician from any political party. Would we force the manufacturers of child car seats to manufacture their products for $10 per seat, if it meant they had to use inferior materials to achieve an “affordable” price?
The only realistic way to achieve such a low cost for daycare would be for the government to completely socialize the daycare industry, which we all know would turn into a huge financial disaster for the beleaguered taxpayer. All we appear to be accomplishing with the $10 per day daycare is forcing operators out of business and discouraging others from opening their doors because they can’t generate a sufficient profit to remain in business.
While I’m certainly not saying this is the only solution, a better program would be to provide tax incentives to families that would provide more the financial ability to have one parent stay home; essentially paying that parent a small stipend to care for their own children, perhaps along with a few children from neighbours and friends who have no choice but to utilize daycare services. This would both create, or free up, more daycare spaces and provide parents who want to stay home with their children the option to do so.
Even long after two working parents became more and more common, there was still Mrs. Smith, the young stay-at-home mom down the street, or Mrs. Jones around the corner, whose young children were in school but still wanted to be at home for them after school hours, who would care for some of the neighbourhood children for a small fee. Of course, that’s something that parents still do to this day when grandma and grandpa aren’t available or practical, but it’s less common as more and more families need dual incomes just to buy the necessities in life, let alone the luxuries. That system seemed to work quite well, so why not create more opportunities for such an arrangement?
I know from personal experience that there are parents, yes, usually women, who would prefer to stay home with their children, if only they could afford to do it. My ex-wife and mother of my daughter did just that and I was grateful that we were able to afford it, although just barely.
There, I did all that without a degree in economics or business administration.
