That return of $2 to $17 on the investment of every dollar seems like a huge range, doesn't it? There are a number of factors to be considered in that.
Around the issue of child poverty, I just want to first of all acknowledge that somehow we are very sympathetic to the term “child poverty”, but let's face it, children are only poor because their mothers are poor and their families are poor. Most often it is lone-parent families with mothers whose children suffer the most, so this is an important related question.
Women's economic security is greatly tied to the well-being of their children. Child care can address that in two ways. It can ameliorate the effects of poverty in homes in which the resources are not available to provide as much stimulation and opportunity to children as there might be in other higher-income families. It's hard to spend a lot of time reading to your children when you're looking for food and wondering where your next meal is coming from. That's an important consideration.
That range of $2 to $17 is certainly very much reflected in the fact that the highest return is for those in the most vulnerable circumstances. The lowest return—the $2 return in the Canadian U of T study I think is probably what you're referring to—was really a very conservative estimate around tax returns and very much less on the social returns. It really didn't consider the impact on vulnerable families; all families were treated more or less the same in the research.
It is astounding to think of Quebec. For every dollar that it cost Quebec to provide that universal child care system in that first year, 40¢ was returned, mainly through women's increased economic security. So here we have a really strong argument for supporting women's economic security through child care.