It would add to economic growth in the same way that it added to Quebec's economic growth during a similar program, which is now over 20 years old. What it does is allow for an uptick, particularly in female labour force participation. Labour force growth is the most important ingredient of economic growth. To put it in its simplest possible terms, the growth in the economy will be equal to labour force growth plus whatever productivity growth we're able to generate.
The Canadian labour force is no longer generating growth. All of our growth, pretty well, is now coming from immigration, so if we have immigration of around one per cent per year, we can generate one per cent economic growth every year, on top of which we get maybe half a point, or even as much as one percentage point, from productivity improvements.
What we can do is add to that equation some decimal points by getting more women to participate in the workforce through a more fulsome child care and early learning program. It worked in Quebec, and it's one of the reasons why Quebec's finances were in better condition going into COVID than other provinces'.
As I said in my remarks, I see no reason why it couldn't add as much as two per cent to the level of national income. That's $40 billion to $50 billion per year of additional national income, and it's also, of course, the additional tax revenues that come with that.