<![CDATA[Brianna Morris - Blog]]>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:44:53 -0600Weebly<![CDATA[Starving out women-led businesses in the name of feminism]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 03:38:26 GMThttp://briannamorris.ca/blog/starving-out-women-led-businesses-in-the-name-of-feminismCanada’s federal election is about a lot of things, but one issue not getting the attention it deserves is childcare policy. I know childcare centre operators have been struggling, and recently I’ve learned it’s even more egregious than I first thought.

The Government of Alberta previously provided subsidies for childcare based on a family’s household income (the lower the income, the larger the subsidy). The subsidies were paid directly to centres chosen by parents, and parents paid the difference. This was destined to change when the federal government got involved and told Canadian families they’d bring in $10-a-day daycare, but —likely purposely —failed to mention that the money will only flow to the provincial governments with major strings attached.

When I first enrolled my child in daycare in Alberta in the fall of 2021, I had my choice among the centres in the area. I went on tours, and they all tried to win me over with their unique offerings, whether it was an indoor gym, two afternoon snacks instead of one, or a spacious outdoor play area. Some centres advertised a free first month. The fees I encountered in Sherwood Park were in the $900-$1200 per month range for my 16-month-old, before possible additional subsidies.

Overnight, on January 1, 2022, fees were cut approximately in half ($450-$600 range) for everyone after the federal government came to an agreement with the provincial government to provide “affordability grant funding.” Many parents immediately responded by moving their kids from day homes or preschools to daycares (previously, these were usually a bit less expensive than daycare), so many day home and preschool operators lost their businesses. As someone who pays attention to online forums and Facebook marketplace, I noted day homes liquidating their toys. There was also chatter among moms about stay-at-home parents putting their children into daycare since it was so cheap (relatively speaking), but with no intention of using that time to find employment or to study. At least for the past couple of years (it may be changing now; it’s unclear), parents could use up a fulltime childcare spot but only bring in their child 3 or 4 days per month, still coming out farther ahead financially than if they were to casually pay a babysitter $15 per hour a few times per month.

Meanwhile, as demand went up, waitlists for daycares skyrocketed and some parents who really did need a space for their child struggled to find one. A daycare must be ready to expect a child registered fulltime to come in any day, even if they almost never do, and maintain the legally mandated staff-to-children ratio. Paying less is nice, but if there’s no space available for the children who really need one, how much is it helping them?

In theory, the childcare centres could have opted out and continued to charge their full market rate, but then they were also going to lose access to the wage top-ups for staff, and parents couldn’t apply their subsidy. Unless the centre catered to only high-income families (who often have nannies instead), the centre’s management reasonably determined that most if not all of their existing families would re-enroll in a centre where they would save hundreds of dollars per month, and they’d go out of business almost immediately. To suggest the centres had a “choice” is misleading when the choice is one between staying in business or shutting down. Therefore, almost all existing childcare centres in Alberta signed up for the government’s affordability grant funding with the various strings attached. One of the strings attached for childcare centres is that the fees they charged in 2021 had to be frozen.

Now, as of April 1, 2025, the provincial subsidy for parents is gone and every parent pays the same per child ($326.25, working out to $15/day), regardless of whether you’re a single parent who can barely make ends meet, or a double-income household earning $250,000 per year. For low-income parents, $326.25 is a significant monthly increase for them upon losing the subsidy, for higher income households, it’s a reduction.

The centre must charge parents $326.25 per child, and then the government dictates to the centre how much extra the government will fund per child. The government established brackets estimating the average cost of providing basic childcare to a child in a certain age range, in various regions of Alberta. My understanding is that if a centre’s 2021 fee fell within that bracket, it stuck, otherwise they were brought up to the lowest level of the average fee or brought down to the maximum. Within that limited range, all centres receive the same level of revenue per child, regardless of whether they already own the building space and only pay property tax or whether they pay a high commercial monthly rent. Similarly, upon my review of the policies, I don’t see accommodation for smaller centres that do not benefit from economies of scale. The long-established centres run by compassionate owners who tried their best not to raise fees during the pandemic got locked into lower rates. The newer centres that first established their rate at a higher level are likely currently in a better situation.

Being told what they can charge parents and told what they’ll receive from government, with no room for negotiation, means that childcare operators have no means of increasing revenue even if their building lease goes up hundreds of dollars, if they want to give their staff a raise, or the cost of food goes up (which it did since 2021). It’s unreasonable and unsustainable. Not to mention the government is also now burdening operators with costly administrative and reporting requirements, given they must be “accountable” given the significant amount of tax dollars being received. As a parent, I’d personally rather the focus be on providing an awesome program and paying attention to my kids, not on paperwork and finding ways to further reduce expenses so they can afford an accountant or auditor.

The government might toss the word “quality” into press releases about childcare, but this is in no way about quality. Current policies will only cause a reduction in quality childcare services in Alberta. Now, anything beyond the core services to meet regulatory requirements must be considered “supplementary” by the childcare centre and is not included in the average costs of providing care estimated by the government. The centre can offer services above and beyond the basic core provisions to be licenced, but it is mandated that these be an optional service for all clients, and centres cannot refuse or dismiss a client for not opting in.

One service that many childcare centres in Alberta had offered to all the children in their care was meal provision (breakfast and/or lunch). Now, the government instead expects parents to pack their children lunches, because the government is not going to fund the centres enough to provide meals. Centres are permitted to charge parents an additional fee to provide their kids with lunch, but some parents will opt out, especially if they are in a low-income bracket and their childcare fees went up with the subsidy loss. Now, apparently in the name of equality, some children will be served a hot lunch while their friend next to them eats something from home. Administratively and logistically, this is also harder work for the daycare staff, whom also have to hope and pray that parents quickly packing lunches will not include something to which another child in the centre is deathly allergic. To make early childcare educator jobs even more difficult, many Alberta parents are currently upset at childcare operators and workers for what’s the fault of the government.

Allegedly to get more women in the workforce, the federal government announced a national childcare program that it explicitly wants to be public/non-profit, discriminating against private childcare centre owners, ironically the vast majority of whom are women, cutting them off at the knees. The Government of Alberta, under Minister Rebecca Schulz at the time, had to fight hard for private operators to be eligible to receive the affordability grant funding flowing to the province from the federal government. It seems it may have bought them time, but the federal government's ultimate goal of starving them out and replacing them with non-profit centres (under the guise of feminism) seems to be well on its way.

There are pros and cons to different models of running a childcare centre. Don’t let anyone fool you that a non-profit model is always superior. Bad actors are found across society, whether it’s in public institutions or private industry. For anyone to suggest that the people who choose to work in the field of childcare are greedy capitalists is ludicrous. The field attracts some of the most nurturing, kind, and creative people. People who look upon private childcare operators with suspicion should go out and meet and talk to them. Early childhood educators arguably already do not get paid enough for changing dozens of poopy diapers each day, comforting homesick children, planning enough interesting activities to keep kids occupied during snow days, and dealing with parents requesting special accommodations. The government is hamstringing operators and making it harder for them to attract and retain staff because of compensation issues. As a parent, I do not want high turnover at my children’s daycare; I want staff who receive a living wage and enjoy their jobs.

I personally do not know of a parent who requested the status of whether a daycare is private or non-profit in determining whether it’s a good choice for their children. The question I see repeatedly asked in forums are for references of specific centres, with private and long-established centres consistently coming out on top. Parents want to know if their children will be safe and whether they will be loved, not whether the centre is privately owned.

To be clear, I want childcare to be affordable for parents, but the current system is unsustainable and unfair, and childcare also needs to be accessible and high-quality. If the government used the same amount of funding but prioritized getting it to the people who need it most (based it on income), and centres are given flexibility to run their centres as they envision as long as they meet regulatory standards, families will be better off.

All this to say, if you currently have a child in daycare, thank the staff for their hard work and show your support by advocating to the federal government to stop attaching strings to the childcare funding for provinces.

]]><![CDATA[Why Vote if You Don't Like Any of Your Choices?]]>Mon, 20 May 2024 06:00:00 GMThttp://briannamorris.ca/blog/why-vote-if-you-dont-like-any-of-your-choicesRather than decide not to vote during an election because you don’t like any of the options, I offer you an alternative: vote more often.
Let me explain.
A lot happens before a candidate’s name is put on a ballot in a general election. People like you and me can influence how candidates are picked by getting involved with political parties. (Note: I’m Canadian and this post is targeted at Albertans.)
While independent candidates do run, it is incredibly rare for an independent to get elected. For better or for worse, Canadians resoundingly choose their representatives based on their political parties, and political parties have their own internal processes for choosing their candidates.
I am most familiar with the process used by the United Conservative Party (UCP) in Alberta, so let’s start there. UCP members living in a constituency vote in a “nomination race” to select their candidate for that constituency in the general election. The candidate must be Albertan but does not need to live in the riding, although all the people voting must live in that riding. To be a UCP member with voting privileges, a person must claim to agree with the party’s Statement of Principles and pay a $10 membership fee at least 21 days before the vote. There are some exceptions, but overwhelmingly party members choose the candidates that will be running for the UCP in a general election.
The New Democratic Party (NDP) in Alberta has recently begun to have more contested nomination elections to decide their candidates, although historically there have been more appointments. Appointing candidates can help ensure a desired level of diversity among the overall pool of candidates. Appointments can ensure that certain groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, or LGBTQAI2S+ are represented. To be a member of the NDP, a person cannot also be a member or supporter of another political party, whereas the UCP does not have this rule. Furthermore, a membership in the NDP includes both the provincial NDP and the federal NDP. Some Alberta NDP leadership candidates have recently suggested this should change. But currently, in Alberta, you would have to choose which of the two main parties you would like to influence from within, not both.
In ridings that predictably elect a particular political party (“safe” ridings for that party), the nomination for that party is typically more hotly contested than the general election itself. Statistically each vote cast in a nomination race carries more weight than a vote cast in a general election, because significantly fewer people participate. As a result, nomination campaigns take on a different flavour than general election campaigns. To be successful, a candidate typically needs to sign up new party members and then distinguish themselves against other candidates that have more in common with them than someone running for an entirely different party. In some cases, they may even be friends who previously worked or volunteered together. While in a general election almost no one pays attention to the individual person and instead just votes according to party lines, at the nomination stage, the individual matters. Some party members choose their candidates at the nomination stage based on a single issue, such as whether the candidate is pro-life or their stance on Covid vaccinations. Other people vote for the person that shook their hand. Others might decide after attending a local forum, where members will also make their own opinions and requests known, which can help to shape the candidates’ positions on issues at an early stage. If a candidate commits to something at this stage to help them win a nomination, it is more difficult to change course for a general election. The point is that getting involved in party nominations can help steer general elections on a different path.
Self-described “moderates” or “centrists” in Alberta tend to avoid identifying themselves as supporters of either the UCP or the NDP, and they will not buy a membership for either, because of how “extreme” they perceive both parties to be. But it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s precisely because moderates refrain from participating in politics more deeply that their own views or the kind of candidates they want to send to the Legislature are not well-represented in the main parties. By opting out, moderates leave the door wide open for people with strongly-held political or ideological views to call the shots. Such people are frequently active in the political process. I have spoken to people under the impression that by opting out they signal their own discontent, but signal to whom? The other people also opting out?
No one is going to agree with every policy in a platform or with every decision a politician makes. But people also don’t agree with every single view held by their spouse or friend, and that does not mean they cannot associate with them. So, I wonder why more people won’t associate with a political party in order to help that party stay or get on track to be something they’d ultimately like to see in government.
Political party members influence not only the local candidates but also the party leader. I have personally witnessed people walk away from their membership or involvement in the UCP because they do not like its leader, when ironically it is the members who have the most power to change the leader. Consider that Premier Jason Kenney resigned in 2022 before his term was up because of pressure from UCP members, not because of the general public.
I do think there becomes a point when it is best for an individual to disassociate and resign from a board or leave an organization, not just within the political realm but in society generally, whether it’s a for-profit company, non-profit, or religious institution. What bothers me is when resigning or leaving is a person’s first and immediate course of action, before they make it known that they have a concern or disagreement, and when they haven’t made any effort to learn if there is an appetite to make the changes that would allow them to stay.
I’ve encountered people on boards who think their job is purely to support and be a team player, and these people tend to be the ones that immediately walk away if they have an issue with someone in leadership, without realizing they have some power to hold the leader accountable. I have also encountered the opposite: people on boards who think their sole purpose for being there is accountability, and they challenge most decisions without being productive or helpful. Neither is helpful; I wish more people realized that there is a balance to be struck between support and accountability in voluntary organizations like a political party. 
Involvement at earlier stages in the political process can result in better governance for your community, province, and country. However, if at the end of the day, you still dislike all the candidates in a general election, there is something else you can do that is arguably better than opting out entirely and not voting.
In Alberta, you can formally “decline” a ballot, meaning you turn out to vote but do not select any of the candidates. To return a ballot, you hand it back to the election offer that issued it to you, informing them you wish to decline to vote. The officer will write “declined” on the back of the ballot and place it in a separate envelope. Declined ballots are reported separately from “rejected ballots.” When noting the number of rejected ballots, it’s unknown how many were because people who wanted to vote didn’t know how to properly fill out the ballot and how many were intentionally spoiled. I scrutineered votes being counted, and I saw some cases where a person would mark an ‘X’ next to all candidates but one – making it unclear whether they liked all the candidates that they marked with an X, or whether they were saying “none of these ones” and supported the one candidate they didn’t assign an X. I also saw ballots that simply had the F-word written on them or words like “Anarchy!” They were all counted as spoiled.
Below is a screenshot of election results in Alberta. As you can see, in 2015, a relatively significant number of people formally declined their ballots, and I think this is a better indication of the public sentiment at the time than if all those ballots had been lumped in with the rejected ballots.
Picture
Currently, there is not an option to decline a ballot in federal elections. My understanding is that a few other provinces also allow a citizen to decline a ballot, but not all.
In summary, you can make your voice heard on political issues in other ways beyond voting on Election Day, especially by voting in a nomination contest prior to a general election.

Sources used, and for further reading:
Dave Cournoyer’s blog, particularly “What I learned tracking election candidate nominations in Alberta”
https://daveberta.substack.com/p/what-i-learned-tracking-election
United Conservatives Governance Manual (as of November 3, 2023)
https://www.unitedconservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/Nov2023-Governance-Manual.pdf
UCP Candidate Selection Rules and Procedures
https://static.unitedconservative.ca/Candidate-Selection-Rules.pdf
Constitution of the Alberta New Democrat Party
https://www.albertandp.ca/sites/default/files/alberta_ndp_constitution_0.pdf
Elections Alberta: Historical Results
https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/election-results/historical-results/
Elections Alberta: How to Vote In Person
https://www.elections.ab.ca/voters/how-to-vote/voting-in-person/
]]><![CDATA[Does Size Matter? Electoral Boundary Distribution]]>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:41:21 GMThttp://briannamorris.ca/blog/does-size-matter-electoral-boundary-distributionHave you ever wondered how the boundaries are decided for an electoral division? Or why the boundaries change at any given street? And who or what decides that?
When Canada was established in 1867, the first electoral divisions were built into Canada’s Constitution. Section 51 of the Constitution required a review of the allocation of seats in the House of Commons every ten years, at which time the federal government would describe the new boundaries in a piece of legislation and pass it like it would a normal law. It’s likely no surprise to you that the governments in power at the time would be accused of maximizing their chance of winning elections when deciding how to draw the new boundaries.
The term “gerrymandering” refers to the manipulation of electoral boundaries in one’s favour. When I was touring the Massachusetts State House in Boston in 2018, I encountered a portrait of Elbridge Gerry, former Governor of Massachusetts, and learned where the term originated. His riding (another word for “electoral division” or “constituency”) was changed to a shape comparable to that of a salamander, hardly an intuitive shape for an electoral division, but one piece in a larger reapportioning plan designed to help the Republican Party. “Gerrymander” is thus a portmanteau of Gerry + salamander. Gerry apparently lost his own seat despite the odd shape, but his political party still succeeded, and he went on to become the 5th Vice-President of the United States.
For a modern example, let’s say a rural constituency consistently votes for one political party, whereas people in the heart of the city consistently vote for an opposing political party. A suburban riding in between contains a mixed bag of voters that have elected different political parties in the recent past (aka a “swing riding”). When it comes time to redraw the boundaries, each party would likely want some of the area where they have strong support added to the suburban area to tip the vote in their favour.
Theoretically, gerrymanderers could get even more specific or strategic than this when redrawing boundaries in Canada. While any given voter’s ballot is anonymous, people may not realize that voting results are reported not only for a full riding but at a granular level. If you’ve watched coverage of election results, you may recall phrases like “12 of 23 polls reporting” as vote counts come in. Voters are typically assigned a specific poll, and each tabulates votes separately. For example, in the riding of Sherwood Park in the 2023 provincial election, more citizens who voted at Woodbridge Farms School voted NDP than UCP, while more people who cast votes at Bev Facey Community School chose UCP over NDP.  So, having a particular neighbourhood or street within a riding can help or hinder someone seeking to get elected, and there are ways to help predict which way an adjusted riding will vote.
In 1964, the federal government in Canada passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which set up commissions to readjust electoral boundaries, taking the direct responsibility away from sitting politicians. It was an effort to thwart, or at least reduce, gerrymandering.
Similarly, in the province of Alberta, the process is governed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The last commission in Alberta was established in 2016, and it contained five members who received written submissions and held public hearings across the province. The next commission in Alberta may be established as soon as this year.
Population is a major factor taken into consideration when determining electoral boundaries. In Alberta, each electoral division is to be within 25% of the provincial average population for a division, with up to four allowed to be more than 25% below the average population.
My personal view is that rural ridings should have a lower population than the average urban riding to keep their geographic size at least somewhat reasonable.
Consider that a riding like Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre (population 44,860) has the three named towns in addition to Eckville and Bentley, and rural counties such as Mountain View County and Clearwater County, all with their own mayor and councils, as well as the Big Horn, Sunchild and O’Chiese First Nations, also with their own leadership. Assuming the riding has a good MLA who puts in an effort to be meaningfully involved and present in the community, attending high school graduations and meeting constituents face-to-face to discuss concerns, that MLA will necessarily have a more difficult time juggling their schedule and getting to important events in their riding than an MLA in an urban riding. For example, the riding of Calgary-Fish Creek has a slightly bigger population of 45,560, but it appears that all of its residents are represented by one municipal councillor (ward 14) and the mayor of Calgary, meaning its MLA has much less engagement to do with the municipal level of government.
I am willing to bet that in most cases, issues will vary more from town to town in Alberta than from neighbourhood to neighbourhood within Calgary or Edmonton. Consider that in 2015, the town of Hanna lost 200 full-time, well-paying jobs due to the provincial government suddenly accelerating the phase-out of coal. This was about 7.5 percent of Hanna’s population. If it were in Edmonton, proportionally this would mean losing 62,000 jobs, and in Calgary, around 90,000 (the approximate population of two ridings). Yet, instead of having two MLAs to work on this significant issue (and it would actually be more, because in Calgary and Edmonton it is common for a resident’s house and workplace to be in different ridings), it was the one MLA for Drumheller-Stettler (population: 40,065) who had a truly meaningful stake in the issue, and the MLA was also representing the larger towns of Drumheller and Stettler. (Check out a podcast episode where my colleague and I interview Mark Nikota from Hanna, and we talk a bit about what’s happened since the coal phase-out.)
Now, one can possibly make the case that within an urban riding there is still an equal number of stakeholders with different issues given the population size, but an urban MLA can still more efficiently schedule meetings with all those stakeholders. According to Google Maps, driving from the far northeast tip of the Calgary-Fish Creek riding (Diamond Cove) to the far southwest tip of the riding (Sundown Way) takes 13 minutes. Contrast this with a rural riding like Peace River in northern Alberta (population: 41,385), which contains the towns of Peace River, High Level, and Rainbow Lake. Google Maps indicates it takes 4 hours and 20 minutes to drive between Peace River and Rainbow Lake, never mind how difficult it would be to travel to even more remote locations in the riding.
I am not asserting that any particular MLA works harder than another. Some MLAs representing urban ridings no doubt work harder than some MLAs representing rural ridings, as it’s largely up to each MLA how much effort they put into their job and what they prioritize. I am positing that if an MLA wants to meaningfully represent their constituency, in almost all cases, representing a geographically large riding requires more traveling, stakeholder engagement, and issue juggling than it does in a geographically small riding. Therefore, geographically large ridings should have a lower population to somewhat level the playing field.
There are people who disagree with me. As noted in the latest report of the Electoral Boundary Commission for Alberta:
[People] advocated that the Commission should not permit any negative variances for rural constituencies because that would improperly prioritize rural areas.
[People] proposed that the Commission consider growth trends and suggested that projected areas of growth support a reduction in the number of constituencies outside of Edmonton and Calgary.
While rural MLAs typically get more funding than urban counterparts to enable satellite offices, and the advent of the Internet and video calling has aided communication, in my opinion, there is still no replacement for the real presence and attention of the actual MLA.
While it’s true that urban populations are growing and rural populations are decreasing, city folk should be wary of what the demise of small towns and family-run farms could mean for them and our economy. The cities need rural Alberta to succeed, only one reason being that rural Alberta grows much of our food. Despite rural Albertans paying the same rate of income tax as urban Albertans, rural Albertans already experience much more limited access to important services like healthcare, which is where close to half of all provincial expenditures go. Losing doctors and schools in rural areas only exacerbates the issue of more people choosing to leave and move to cities. In summary, I think it is profoundly misguided to reduce the representation of rural Alberta in the Legislature.
If you’re an Albertan, I encourage you to pay attention to when the next Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed, see what’s being proposed, and consider making your own submission.

Sources used:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_04_2-e.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-2.html#h-7
https://officialresults.elections.ab.ca/orResultsED.cfm?ED=81&EventId=101
https://www.elections.ab.ca/resources/reports/electoral-boundaries-commission/
https://www.elections.ab.ca/uploads/abebc_2017_rpt_final.pdf
https://globalnews.ca/news/3176500/were-going-to-lose-200-full-time-well-paying-jobs-what-the-coal-phase-out-means-for-hanna-alta/
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2017/02/elbridge-gerry-and-the-monstrous-gerrymander/ (including photo below)
Picture
]]><![CDATA[Welcome to my Site!]]>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 06:00:00 GMThttp://briannamorris.ca/blog/welcome-to-my-siteHello! Thanks for checking out my little website. My hope for this blog is that it is an outlet to discuss public policy issues and share some personal observations. I used to pontificate or publish long posts on my personal Facebook page, which often led to spicy debates in the comments sections, friends unfriending me, and other friends asking for me to make the visibility public so they could share it with their own networks. When I made a post on the healthcare system public, it was shared in a Facebook group of activists where people were encouraged to "give [me] hell". I admittedly was a bit amused at one of the comments in that group stating "The worst thing about her post is its eminently reasonable tone." (Thanks, I try!)

I made a deliberate decision a few years ago to cease making such posts on the spur of the moment, in an effort to question some of my own biases and spend more time thinking and observing. I once again feel comfortable putting my ideas and observations out there, and a blog is less transitory than a social media post.

A few random things about me:
-I can recite pi to 40 digits. This is an irrational accomplishment with almost no end purpose other than it can be used as a fun fact.
-I have my Class 6 (motorcycle) licence.
-My first job was at Dairy Queen. I worked there loyally for 5 years and still enjoy DQ ice cream and cheeseburgers.
-I've been teased by colleagues for being someone who will actually look up sources to see if it says what a person says it does. (spoiler alert: it often doesn't)



]]>