BRIEF Regarding Bill C-35 -

An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology October 27, 2023

[Type here] KIDS FIRST PARENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA is a grassroots, independent, non-sectarian, non-partisan, volunteer parent-run registered society and charity established in 1987 with two purposes: support for children’s optimal well- being, and support and recognition for parental child care. Kids First Parent Association of Canada is fully supportive of public funding for high quality early learning and child care.

RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF *Correct the erroneous evidence and eliminate the harmful discrimination & ideological bias underlying this Bill. *Child care is defined as the care of a child and includes parental child care.

Every child needs high quality child care 24/7/365: Canadian tax law affirms that child care is needed until age 16. *To meet Charter requirement for “equal benefit under the law”, all funding for ELCC is to be directed to parents fully and equitably based on the age of child and family income. *High quality early learning and child care provides enormous individual, familial, social, and economic benefits, but high quality child care that meets children’s developmental needs and improves their outcomes is rare in licensed settings. *Every mother is a working mother: the goal of women’s full equality requires that mothers not be financially or socially coerced, shamed, stigmatized, or dis-valued by government for their choices regarding child care and waged work. *Eliminate government coercion of women’s choices regarding child care as this perpetuates negative misogynistic stereotypes, and fosters a climate of coercion that legitimates intimate partner and other abuse of mothers. *Policy related to regulation of non-parental child care must seek to optimize and must not compromise children’s security of person (physical and mental well-being).

VISIONS Canadians’ “visions” for early learning and child care are far more diverse and fluid than that proposed in this Bill; the number of “visions” is approximately equal to the number of children. Bill C 35 describes a narrow, discriminatory “vision” for early learning and child care.

The “vision” is that of the minority of individuals and organisations that: - share particular philosophical or ideological positions about women or parents or the role of the state - and/or who benefit financially from selling goods and service related to ELCC - and/or who benefit financially from lower wages due to an artificially swollen labour supply - and/or who benefit financially from an artificially swollen demand for goods and services related to parents’ lack of time, such as convenience foods.

LEGAL ISSUES Canada is a pluralistic democracy that increasingly upholds individual autonomy and firmly rejects state-imposed “visions” for how life is to be lived, how children learn and are care for, what priorities women should, what preference parents have about their children’s care and learning, and how we express gender.

Indeed, state neutrality regarding beliefs is required. “The state does not have a freedom to believe or to manifest belief.” [1] Canadian law rejects discrimination; rejects restrictions on conscience, beliefs, association, expression; and rejects infringement on security of person and liberty except where those are reasonable and in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Canada is a very diverse nation, with very diverse families.

This Bill would provide billions more public dollars for children’s care and learning, not to children - no one suggest giving children money - but to adults who do not have parents’ legal obligations to ensure their own children are cared for. The Bill and those whose ideological and/or financial interests it reflects seeks to coerce parents - especially mothers - into reducing their time with their children and into using a few preferentially treated forms of early learning and child care.

Under this Bill, the majority of parents and children would receive no or very little funding for early learning and child care. The majority of parents - especially mothers - would be forced to further subsidize the funding of other adults’ paid work through their tax dollars, and ‘off our backs’ through the opportunity costs of providing unfunded parental child care work.

[Type here] Under this Bill, which speaks of but does nothing to create ‘high quality’ care, children in government regulated early learning and care would suffer injury to their security of person from the ubiquitous inadequate quality of care (more below), and from reduced parent-child attachment. Thus, Bill C-35 needs to be amended to ensure plans for the Canadian early learning and child care system meet the stated goals of making high quality early learning and child care truly universal, fully inclusive, accessible, and affordable.

Additionally, amendments are needed so that the Bill is in compliance with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian and provincial/territorial Human Rights Codes. The Convention on the Rights of the Child The Purpose of Bill C 35 in

section 5(

e) cites as its legal basis and justification the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, it does so in a misleading de-contextualized manner. The purpose misrepresents the Convention’s clear and consistent insistence on the need for state parties to recognize and respect primacy of the family, to not discriminate, to recognize parental obligations and care, and prioritize the best interests of the child. FROM THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD [emphasis added]

Preamble …. Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community…. Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

Article 2 1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

Article 3 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Article 5. States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention

Article 7. 1. The child shall … have the right from birth to… as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Article 8.1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

Article 9.1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will,

Article 18.1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern,

Article 24.1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.

[Type here]

Article 27.1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. 2. The parent(s) … child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development. 3.

States Parties… shall take appropriate measures to assist parents… to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing The Charter of Rights and Freedoms & the Human Rights Codes As it is, the Bill also infringes on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Human Rights Code of Canada and of provinces and territories. The Bill and the proposed system infringe on: -

section 2 – parents’ and children’s fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, belief, expression, association -

section 7 - the right to security of person (physical and mental well-being) of children and parents -

section 7 - the right to liberty of children and parental liberty to raise children without undue interference by the state -

section 15 and Human Rights Codes – the right to equal treatment under and benefit of the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, age, marital & family status, religion, gender identity, gender expression, and disability. IDEOLOGY BASED POLICY: DEFAMILIALIZATION The Bill must be amender because advances an unmarketable, unCanadian ideology that is called variously “defamilialization”, “post-familialism,” and “post-maternalism”; it is a core aspect of “neo-liberalism” or “neo- conservativism”. In it there is ideological convergence of groups formerly sees as mutually exclusive - left and right.

The ideology in Canada is described by Drs. Rianne Mahon, Paul Kershaw, and other leading proponents of non-parental group child care. The push to reduce the time parents and children spend together comes, not from parents and children, but from policy shapers connected to unelected international bodies including the World Bank, the OECD, RAND Corporation, World Economic Forum.

Mahon describes the origins: “The [OECD’s] ECEC unit[‘s]…potential strength comes from the way it structured the review process… It thus blurred the boundary between epistemic communities, made up of… transnational…networks of activists, distinguishable largely by the centrality of principled ideas or values in motivating their formation”. [2] Kershaw endorses a “neoliberal”, “paternalistic” approach which “utilizes the state’s coercive power for the purposes of altering citizenry decisions”, modeled on neo-liberal welfare reform. [3] In 2006 the Council of Europe advised member states to make a move on “These policies, offering incentives, and where necessary, a coercive approach”. [4] Defamilialiization is defined by Kershaw in the horrifically titled article, “The just commodification of women”, as: “[T]he degree to which individuals can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of family relationships,….[ It is] “an analytic theme …regarding citizens’, and especially women’s, ‘capacity to form and maintain an autonomous household’ apart from male adult family members and spouses… [In the] “concept’s more transformative intent ….lone mothers are a bellwether group.” [5] Kershaw endorses policy imperative of dismissing women’s preferences in favour of others’ preferences because we can’t be trusted to think for ourselves: ”…states whose child care policy provides incentives for a parent to be a full-time, at-home caregiver contribute to a greater proportion of mothers working less than full-time.

Thus, when policy-makers and researchers speak about women’s “choice” to work more or less in the formal economy, it is imperative that they remember the socio-cultural factors that shape parents’ choices….Put bluntly, the “choice in child care” discourse in Canada obscures the extent to which individual choices are socially embedded…” [6] Bill C-35 is based on a “blueprint” policy paper that was initially published by the Childcare Resource & Research Unit proponents who praised its call for a “paradigm shift” to “…a new order.

This includes deep changes in societies in general and in the family’s structure in particular…a review of the family -state relationship regarding the responsibility for the care and education of children.” [7]

[Type here] This “blueprint” defined “integration” as “shared responsibility” between the state and the family: “The integrated approach to ECEC systems stems from a paradigm shift, in which the responsibility for the care and socialization of young child is no longer the family alone, but of society… a significant portion of the upbringing process has become a public matter”.

Parents are lesser partners in this arrangement: “The challenge is… to avoid the tendency to revive the idea of family primacy over early childhood.” [8] Mahon writes: “[T]he hope may lie…in countries where ‘the long default position of the child located in the private sphere of the family is being disturbed by some glimmerings of the ‘public child’ … Yet this ‘new child’ will need allies which might be found, inter alia, in recharged feminist and trade union movements.” [9] PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE BASE Bill C 35’s proponents and framers have not provided members of parliament & senators with reliable, unbiased, peer- reviewed evidence.

They have provided evidence that is not peer-reviewed, typically published by lobbyist organizations, and have suppressed reliable peer-reviewed research. Statistical data provided is often – not always – also filtered through an ideological lens. The flawed evidence-base amounts to ‘disinformation’ regarding: demand, quality, child outcomes, cost-benefit, enrollment, vacancy rates, demand, parental preferences, women’s labour force participation, actual full costs. Demand We are told of a ‘crisis’, a shortage of licensed daycare spaces.

Demand for spaces should be measured by the number of children parents want such spaces for. Instead false proxy measures of demand are provided: “wait lists” Wait lists are bogus measures of demand. They are not centralized or updated.

They include children: - who are not born – parents are told to put names on lists “As soon as possible after finding out you are pregnant” [10} - whose parents do not want the space for months or years - who are on multiple waitlists – parents are advised to “put your name on multiple waiting lists”[11] - who already in a daycare space - whose names have not been removed from the wait list - whose parents do not want to use the daycare spaces available working mothers Every mother is a working mother.

Statistics are abused in numerous publications [12] to give the impression that all parents are away from their children 8-6 Mon-Fri; then this is assumed to mean the children need to be in licensed daycare. Statistics Canada does not define “work”. It measures “Labour Force Participation” which includes “Unemployed” and “Employed”.

This catch-all measure includes: [13] - unpaid work for a family business or farm - looking for paid work - being on paid or unpaid leave from paid - any amount of paid work - self-employed but no work during survey time - paid work by mothers outside daycare hours - paid work done by mothers with children present - paid work done by mothers while child is cared for by father, family member, or other suitable person not regulated by government. “child care deserts” - percentage of children for whom there is a government regulated child care space

[Type here] These oft-cited statistics [14] are based on the unfounded assumption that all children should be in a government regulated child care space. If there were a space for every child, the vacancy rates (below) would be even higher. ENROLMENT & VACANCY RATES All jurisdictions collect monthly data on enrolment in regulated child care as this is the base of much funding. Yet this essential data is very hard to find. Statistics Canada recently published data that can be used to calculate enrollment.

ENROLMENT AGE 0-5 = percentages in the Chart A (any use of any non-parental child care) multiplied by percentages in Chart B (use of licensed daycare centre or preschool). 2022 51.6% x 31% = 16% 2020 52.2% x 26% = 13.6% 2019 59.9%x31% = 18.6% CHART A CHART B TABLE 42-10-0031-01 - Before the pandemic began in March 2020, just 3 percent of parents cited a shortage of spaces as a reason for not

[Type here] using licensed child care, and two-thirds of parents reported “no difficulty” finding a child-care arrangement, according to Statistics Canada.[15] Data on vacancy rates is also difficult to find, virtually unreported, and when we have reported it, removed from the internet. However, the CRRU provided data on capacity and enrollment for the first time in ECEC 2021, so vacancy is calculable. Quebec had 214,168 licenced spaces for children age 0 to before kindergarten with 191,867 children in them. This means a vacancy rate of 11.2%.

Ontario has 464,538 licensed spaces (including preschool) for all ages with only 202,878 children in them. This means a vacancy rate of nearly 66%. BC had 114,633 licensed spaces for all ages with 88,800 in them. This means a vacancy rate of 22%. https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/ECEC-2021-Comparative-Tables-The-Big-Picture_0.pdf BC Ministry of Children and Family Development. Performance Management Report.

Volume 8, March 2016, p. 15. - overall 70% ‘utilization rate’ means a 30% vacancy rate for licensed child care spaces [17] Toronto Data for Jan 8, 2007 for 650 licensed centres from Toronto daycare “Facts and Figures” – 3,313 of 39,064 spaces are vacant: calculated vacancy rate = 8.48% - The website clarifies that vacancies are the norm: “there will always be child care vacancies in the licensed system because of the progression of children from one age group to another as well as the movement of children in and out of the system”. [18]

[Type here] In other words, there is a shortage of children not a shortage of spaces. Parental preference data The Institute for Marriage and Family Canada poll done in 2006 found that 78% of parents preferred that “a parent stays at home” (not wording we would use) over a “competent caregiver.” [19] The Vanier Institute did ask the question Stats Can did not ask. In 2004 they found that “9 out of 10 say 1 parent should be at home with preschool child” and 6+/10 say the same for elementary age child. Parental care was ranked #1 and daycare centres #5.

Statistics Canada data shows that 15.1% are in daycare centres. [20] So the use of daycare centres is higher than the preference for that care form. It is possible that at least one third of daycare users apparently do not prefer their “choice.” QUALITY High quality early learning and child care benefits children and thereby society at large. However, high quality licensed daycare is rare. Inadequate quality care harms children’s development and thus harms society. No study in the world finds that children benefit from the quality of care that is typical in Canada. You Bet I Care!

Study “Most licensed daycare in Canada …is of minimal to mediocre quality.“ [21] “The majority of children age 0-12 in centres do not receive adequate amounts or types of experiences to promote language and cognitive development.“ [22] -Of the 234 licensed daycares that volunteered for the study, only 44.3% of preschool-age centres and 28.7% of infant/toddler centres and 36.8% of family daycares are “providing activities and materials that support and encourage children’s development.” That was with staff:child ratios of 1:2.6 to 1:4.8, far better than regulation standards.[23] 2008 Canadian Paediatric Society report states a 1998 questionnaire study of 325 Canadian daycare centres found average quality to be 60.1% and that 67% “may be needed to promote child development.” [24] The best peer-reviewed research on the effect of daycare ratios and group size shows on quality of care shows that at current ratios and group sizes approximately 50% of children in daycare centres will not receive “appropriate care- giving” or “developmentally appropriate activities. [25] Quebec Government study finds 73% of licensed daycare there is of minimal or lower quality. [26] Sweden The OECD find “a problem of quality” and “deteriorating quality” in Swedish daycare, yet holds it up as a model for all. [27] The Swedish Ministry of Education report found low quality: too many children per staff, inadequate facilities and training, too much academic pressure on children harms learning. [28] CHILD OUTCOME & COST-BENEFIT EVIDENCE Quebec Research by economists Baker, Gruber, Milligan - Quebec daycare system has led to higher youth crime [29] - “We uncover striking evidence that children are worse off in a variety of behavioral and health dimensions, ranging from aggression to motor-social skills to illness.

Our analysis also suggests that the new childcare program led to more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse parental health, and lower-quality parental relationships.” [30] “The consistency of the results suggests that more access to childcare is bad for these children.” [31] Baril, et al study 72 percent of families would receive less financial assistance from the provincial government [32]

[Type here] Medical costs COVID-19 and other diseases are readily spread in group child care settings. It is impossible for babies and young children to practice hygiene techniques. Feces, urine, saliva, and mucous are ubiquitous in these settings. Public health is worsened at great financial and human cost.

Nobel Laureate James Heckman’s research on cost-benefit grossly misrepresented Dr Heckman’s findings of excellent benefit for very high quality early intervention programs for very underprivileged children in particular the ‘Perry Preschool Project’ of the early 1960s have been misused to support claims that every dollar spent on regulated child care produces returns of $2-$17+. September 22, 2010.

Dr Kevin Milligan called such misuse of Heckman “jaw dropping…gross misrepresentation” [33] Heckman has stated that “the family is everything” and that the dollar value of a mother’s care is very high and needs to be studied. [34] RECOMMENDATIONS - AMEND THE FOLLOWING 2

Definitions “Early learning and child care” – the care of a child and the learning that a young child experiences including care and learning experience provided by parents and by anyone parents delegate parental obligations to so long as this delegation of parental obligation is done freely, without financial or other coercion, and with fully informed parental consent.

Early Learning and child care “programs and services” – any service or activity a child participates in provided by parents or anyone parents delegate their parental obligations to so long as this delegation of parental obligation is done freely, with no financial or other coercion, and with fully informed parental consent.

Early learning and child care “system” – the many and diverse means by which children are cared for and provided with learning experiences by parents and by any others parents delegate their parental obligations to so long as this delegation of parental obligation is done freely, with no financial or other coercion, and with fully informed parental consent. 5 Purpose Add the underlined text which includes contextual wording from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (

e) further the progressive realization of the primacy of the family as the fundamental group in society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of children, parents’ having the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children, all actions for children to have the best interests of the child as a primary consideration; and the child’s right to be cared for by his/her own parents, to not be discriminated against because of their own or their parents’ political or other opinion, and to benefit from child care services, all of these aims as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care 11 Appointment 1…having regard to the importance of having members who are representative of the diversity of Canadian society and weighted to accurately reflect the diversity of parental preference in and the types of early learning and child care including parental early learning and child care Functions 14 The Council must provide statistical research including data on enrollment, vacancies, and quality in, and costs of government-regulated ELCC programs, and research that is peer- reviewed related to early learning and child care and children’s development.

[Type here] FUNDING All funds to flow directly to children via parents who may use the funding to purchase ELCC services provided by themselves, and/or other providers regulated by parents’ themselves, and/or government-regulated providers.

ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT Regulations for providers must assure high quality care - staff:child ratios: to be set in accordance with peer-reviewed evidence rather than on ‘practice’ with children’s best interest as basic principles, as per “Thresholds of Quality: Implications for the Social Development of Children in Centre- based Child” Child Development April 1992 – Howes, Phillips, Whitebrook Vol. 63, No. 2, Apr., 1992 kChild Development https://www.jstor.org/stable/i247390 NOTES [1] Charterpedia

Section 2(a) – Freedom of religion - Canadian Department of Justice https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html [2] “The OECD and the reconciliation agenda: Competing blueprints” Occasional Paper # 20 by Rianne Mahon published be Childcare Resource & Research Unit, Toronto http://www.childcarecanada.org/publications/occasional-paper-series/05/07/oecd-and-reconciliation-agenda-competing-blueprints [3] “Carefair: Gendering Citizenship ‘Neoliberal’ Style” by Paul Kershaw in Gendering the Nation-state: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives, 2008 [4] Parliamentary Assembly, Texts Adopted: Ordinary Session 2-6 Octobre 2006 Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly, p.23 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z9yRUHZG9BkC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=reconcile+work+and+family+obligations&source=bl&ots=3Z170f0- WI&sig=gKSebKeLZJwmR3FN5T-zKfTFIMs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=reconcile%20work%20and%20family%20obligations&f=false [5] “The just commodification of women, equal care obligations for men, and autonomous households: Gendering the comparative analysis of welfare states in 20 OECD countries” – Paul Kershaw – The Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Kershaw.pdf [6] “Measuring Up: Family Benefits in British Columbia and Alberta in International Perspective” – Paul Kershaw, Institute for Research on Public Policy, http://irpp.org/research-studies/choices-vol13-no2/ [7] “An Integrated Approach to Early Childhood Education and Care: A Preliminary Study” by Lenira Haddad, Childcare Resource & Research Unit, Occasional Paper # 16 www.childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/op16.pdf [8] quotes from 2006 version: “Integrated policies for early childhood education and care: challenges, pitfalls and possibilities” by Lenira Haddad, pp.13 & 18 www.scielo.br/pdf/cp/v36n129/en_a0236129.pdf 2002 version “An Integrated Approach to Early Childhood Education and Care” unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001279/127983e.pdf [9] “The OECD and the reconciliation agenda: Competing blueprints“, Occasional Paper # 20 by Rianne Mahon, published by the Childcare Resource & Research Unit http://www.childcarecanada.org/publications/occasional-paper-series/05/07/oecd-and-reconciliation-agenda-competing-blueprints [10] Finding Quality Child Care: A guide for parents in Canada - Childcare Resource and Research Unit https://findingqualitychildcare.ca/finding-child-care/dos-and-don-ts [11] ibid [12] Early childhood education and care in Canada 2019 (and earlier editions) Martha Friendly et al. — 12th edition p. 239-240 https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/ECEC-Canada-2019-full-publication-REV-12-2-21.pdf [13] Statistics Canada - Labour force status of person - Definition https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3Var.pl?Function=DEC&Id=84961 [14] Early childhood education and care in Canada 2019 (and earlier editions) Martha Friendly et al. — 12th edition p.184 –187, 242 https://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/ECEC-Canada-2019-full-publication-REV-12-2-21.pdf

[Type here] [15] Statistics Canada, “Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, 2019,” The Daily no. 11, April 10, 2019. [17] Reported in “Daycare Vacancy Rates in British Columbia: The Untold Story” https://www.cardus.ca/article/daycare-vacancy-rates-in-british-columbia-the-untold-story/ [18] Freedom of Information request: City of Toronto response to Access to Information request for 2015-2017 vacancy rates on April 5, 2017 and Helen Ward “Is There Really a Daycare Shortage?” Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, (April 2015) .

City of Toronto “Toronto’s Licensed Child Care Growth Strategy For Children Under 4, 2017-2026, CD19.2 Appendix A,” Toronto (April 2017). 4. City of Toronto response to Access to Information request for 2015-2017 vacancy rates on April 5, 2017 and Helen Ward “Is There Really a Daycare Shortage?” Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, (April 2015): 4. Accessed April 20, 2017 http://www.imfcanada.org/sites/default/files/Daycare_%20surplus.pdf With calculations by author. [19] Spring 2006.

IMFC – polling report (PDF): “Canadians make a choice on child care“ [20] Statistics Canada Child Care in Canada 2006 see p 6 and 1 [21] “You Bet I Care! 2” by HELPS’s Hillel Goelman et al, p. ix-x [22] Gillian Doherty, co-author of “You Bet I Care!” “Quality & Predictors of Quality in Canadian Child Care” Centre for Excellence for Early Childhood Development, Regina, June 2005, p. 4 [23] “You Bet I Care! 2” (broken link) , p 34,73, ix , Report 3 Executive

Summary [24] 2008 Canadian Paediatric Society position statement – Health implications of children in child care centres Part A: Canadian trends in child care, behaviour and developmental outcomes [25] “Thresholds of Quality: Implications for the Social Development of Children in Centre-based Child” Child Development April 1992 – Howes, Phillips, Whitebrook [26] “Quality Counts!

Assessing the Quality of Daycare Services Based on the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development,” Dec 2005, by the Institute for Research on Pubic Policy (IRRP) [27] OECD Country Note Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in Sweden p .29, 30 [28] Pre-School in Transition: A national evaluation of the Swedish pre-school 2004 [29] “The Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program“ August 2019 – peer-reviewed empirical research – by Drs.

Michael Baker (U of T), Jonathan Gruber (MIT), Kevin Milligan (UBC) – American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2019), pp. 1-26 [30] “Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being” by Michael Baker (University of Toronto), Jonathan Gruber (MIT) and Kevin Milligan (University of British Columbia) p.1 [31] ibid p.4 [32] Robert Baril, Pierre Lefebvre and Philip Merrigan -“Quebec Family Policy: Impact and Options” [33] .

Institute of Marriage and Family Canada – interview: Talking to economist Kevin Milligan On all-day kindergarten, Nobel laureate James Heckman and the purported economic benefits of universal plans [34] Interview with Heckman Thursday, February 25, 2021 | 4:00 PM to 5:15 PM ET The Role of Families in Human Flourishing: A Conversation with James Heckman https://www.aei.org/events/the-role-of-families-in-human-flourishing-a-conversation-with-james-heckman/