Put me in the camp of the "both and". The CCED has lots flaws & was designed, explicitly, using an outdated breadwinner model of Canadian families. Moving from the deduction to a cash transfer is a better way of responding to out of pocket costs. BUT, it doesn't change supply. https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1333814949617881088

Some models of supply-side childcare policy that have tried to put a fixed sticker price on the cost per space to build (all over the map, & maybe low-balled if you also want quality) or fix parental fees at $X have maybe, inadvertently, ....

led to a sense that you can do it via gov-gov transfer or via voucher. If the cost of each space and parental fees are all fixed, then you set up the debate to be either "government decides" or "parents choose". In practice, a centre likely cannot make 1 new space at a time...

...whether that is voucher or transfer funded. There is a minimum viable level of funding needed before, as a service operator, you might be willing to invest (in labour, space & overhead) to expand spaces. You need the economies of scale in a sector that has such tight margins.

Increasing the supply of skilled labour and the incentives for workers to stay in the sector (as yesterday's #FES2020 tries to do) is a necessary precondition to expanding spaces. Whether policymakers land on big transfers, modest ones, or vouchers...

families will still face out-of-pocket costs (even if in a transitional period) so I can get behind a move to refundability over deductability. BUT, not by cutting supply-side transfers which is what @fordnation did on their prov. credit. #teambothand.