See text below
EXCERPTS
The McGuinty government's $1.5 billion legislation to enact full-day
early learning has received a huge thumb's up - not only from early
childhood education experts, but also from economists and the NDP.
In last week's debate, NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo, normally tasked
with criticizing the government, declared an historic moment: "I'm
going to say for once, the McGuinty government has done something very
good." The mother of two told MPPs: "I can't remember a time,
personally when, as a feminist, I haven't been struggling for more
child care ... because, quite frankly, women's rights hinge on having
an adequate childcare program in this province."
...
But her call to action seems unlikely to phase her Progressive
Conservative sisters after Leader Tim Hudak's strong objection to the
legislation: "It is not affordable, given our $25 billion deficit," he
said.
Martha Friendly, executive director of the Childcare Resource
and Research Unit, disagreed with that analysis and pointed to a 2009
study by economic analyst Robert Fairholm of The Centre for Spatial
Economics. The study, commissioned by the Child Care Human Resources
Sector Council, examined the short- and long-term economic benefits of
investing in early childhood education. It found that:
- Investing in ECEC is the highest employment multiplier (job
creator). A $1 million investment in childcare would create 40 jobs,
43.5 per cent more then the next highest-ranking industries on the list
(other non-public services and education).
- Investing in ECEC has a strong economic stimulus. Childcare
has one of the largest GDP (economy output), $2.30, of all major
sectors examined.
- For every dollar invested in Canada (in childcare), there was
a $2.54 return in benefits to society. Furthermore, for every dollar
invested, approximately 90 cents would be returned in increased revenue
for the provincial and federal governments.
- The social benefits and revenue from childcare workers are
better than the current costs of training (childcare workers) and (the
$63 million) in subsidies (to Ontario. These were put in place by the
previous federal Liberal government to support the creation of 635,000
child chare spaces across the country but axed by the Harper
government.)
- The (childcare) workforce shortages resulted in a net economic
cost of $140 million in six years (2001-2007) and approximately 50,000
person years of employment for childcare workers and parents.
In other words, creating early childhood education opportunities
has a more positive effect on the economy than subsidizing construction
or manufacturing sector jobs through the federal stimulus program.
For one thing, money that goes into childcare stays in Ontario,
Fairhold told the Briefing. Money that goes into construction might
partially be used to buy materials from overseas or elsewhere, he
explained. So childcare investment creates more bang for each taxpayer
dollar. For another, childcare workers are poorly paid, so you create
more jobs with each taxpayer dollar than in construction or
manufacturing. Finally, because people who make less tend to spend all
the money they make, rather than save - they have to - it has a more
positive effect on other sectors of the economy than subsidizing higher
wage jobs, since almost all of the money that goes into subsidization
is returned back into the economy.
Fairholm acknowledged the Ontario government has some tough
choices to make because of it's almost $25 billion deficit but "if you
think infrastructure spending is good, then things that improve the
human capital infrastructure (like childcare) are also important." And
in a knowledge economy, investing in brains matters more than investing
in brawn, he added. "Things that boost human capital have both
significant short terms and long term benefits to the economy." And
that's what childcare does.
...
- reprinted from QP Briefing