I can. I started by advising that I think it's really urgent that the bill contain a strong definition of the services under consideration. It's going to be very important to delineate what's being discussed.
What's being discussed are early learning and child care services, which are best thought of as a public good, and public goods often are “market failures” in the language of economics.
In a labour-intensive service like child care, where somewhere between 80% and 85% of the budget is spent on the people who care for children, a profit motive invariably has quality-diminishing effects. It has quality-diminishing effects because the single most elastic budget category is staffing, and the way you make a profit in child care is to change ratios, hire fewer trained staff, see more turnover and basically shortchange children and families.
A profit motive is fundamentally incompatible with caring for vulnerable people. We saw this—if I can draw a parallel from a sister field—in Quebec, where for-profit homes for older people were much more dangerous places during the pandemic. Nominally, long-term care was provided by the same standard to all people, and we saw clear patterns where for-profit care is a more dangerous place. Vulnerable people are at greater risk in for-profit settings, and where there is a profit motive, quality invariably will suffer.
This is why it's prudent public policy to reserve taxpayer dollars to not-for-profit services, where 100% of the money goes to children and families, and none of it goes into private pockets.