Canada’s childcare system stands at a critical crossroads. While the federal government promised affordable, accessible care through the $10-a-day Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) plan, the daily reality tells a far different story. Center operators face frozen fees alongside surging inflation, while long waitlists leave working families stranded without care. In many communities, rigid funding models and mounting administrative red tape threaten the survival of independent centers, leaving educators exhausted and parents with fewer choices than ever before.
As The Executive Director of the Association of Canadian Early Learning Programs (ACE) Krystal Churcher advocates for a realistic, sustainable approach to early learning. Representing licensed childcare operators across home-based, non-profit, and independent settings, Churcher is calling on federal and provincial leaders to reform policies before more centers close their doors. In this interview, Churcher examines the core flaws of the current framework, explains why parental choice matters, and shares practical solutions to protect quality care for families nationwide.
Q: The rollout of the $10-a-day childcare program promised relief for families, but operators across the country are facing severe financial strain. What are the main systemic gaps in the current funding model that are pushing providers to the brink?
Krystal Churcher: The biggest systemic gap is that we have treated affordability as though it can be separated from access, flexibility, parental choice and sustainability. It cannot.
A childcare space can be $10, $15 or $22 a day on paper, but if a parent cannot actually get that space, the affordability means very little. Statistics Canada found that in 2025, 50% of parents using childcare reported difficulty finding it. That should cause us to rethink how we measure success.
One of the fundamental problems is that public funding has largely been attached to approved physical spaces and providers rather than following the child. Government policy therefore determines not only how much support a family receives, but effectively which licensed childcare spaces that family can access at the publicly funded fee.
Ontario provides a clear example. There are licensed childcare spaces and providers operating outside CWELCC while families continue to wait for affordable care. Ontario reported 359,544 licensed spaces for children aged zero to five as of March 2025, compared with 328,610 spaces enrolled in CWELCC. At the same time, the province is working toward creating 86,000 net new CWELCC spaces by the end of 2026.
That raises an important question: Why should a parent remain on a waitlist for affordable childcare while an existing licensed space in their community is available simply because that provider has not been permitted into the publicly funded system?
We absolutely need to build new infrastructure where there is demonstrated need. But before spending public dollars creating new spaces, we should understand what licensed capacity already exists, where the vacancies are and what families actually need.
This is particularly important when access to funding is influenced by ownership structure. Ontario’s Early Learning and Child Care Infrastructure Fund, for example, specifically supports the creation of new not-for-profit CWELCC spaces in identified underserved communities.
That is a policy choice, and Canadians should be willing to ask whether ownership structure should take precedence over getting a family into an available, regulated childcare space.
If a program meets provincial licensing, health and safety requirements, satisfies appropriate accountability requirements for receiving public funding, and a parent believes it is right for their child, why should that child be denied the same affordability support because of the business model behind the program?
There is also a flip side to attaching funding to physical spaces: funding does not necessarily move when families and demand move.
We see very different realities across provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia. Rural and remote communities can have significant shortages, while some urban communities can experience much greater supply relative to local demand.
Families move. Communities grow and change. Employment patterns change. Birth rates change. Demand changes. But a funded childcare space stays where it was created.
That can leave a rural family desperately searching for care while, elsewhere, licensed operators have vacancies because supply has grown faster than local demand. That mismatch affects both access and sustainability.
A funding model that follows the child would respond more naturally to those changes. If families move or communities grow, the public investment supporting childcare affordability moves with them to eligible licensed providers.
That does not eliminate the need for government investment. Portable funding cannot create a building or an educator where neither exists. Governments would still need targeted capital investment and incentives in rural, remote, rapidly growing and genuinely underserved communities. But those investments could be driven by demonstrated gaps in access rather than trying to predict years in advance where families will need care.
We should be funding access, not simply funding addresses.
And ultimately, this comes back to parental choice. Families do not all need the same childcare. A nurse working twelve-hour shifts may need something very different from a parent working traditional office hours. Some families need full-time daycare; others need preschool, part-time care, a family day home, extended hours or specialized programming.
Instead of government deciding in advance which building, ownership model or provider gets to offer affordable childcare, establish strong eligibility, quality and accountability requirements and allow public funding to follow families to the licensed care they choose.
Success should not be measured simply by how many funded spaces governments announce or how low the advertised daily fee becomes.
The real test is: When a parent needs childcare, can they find it? Can they afford it? Is it available when and where they need it? And do they have a meaningful choice of care that works for their child and family?
If the answer is no, then we have not solved the childcare crisis.
Affordability without access is not true affordability.
Q: Many operators report that fee caps and rising operational costs make it difficult to maintain program quality. How are these economic pressures impacting daily classroom resources, staff retention, and specialized support for children with diverse needs?
Krystal Churcher: Funding has been challenging from the beginning of this program because even the goal of $10-a-day childcare raises a fundamental question: Is $10 a day actually connected to the real cost of delivering high-quality childcare?
The cost of care does not stop increasing because government freezes or caps parent fees. Wages increase. Food, insurance, rent, utilities, supplies and professional services increase. Yet in many funding models, operators have very limited ability to adjust their revenue to reflect those realities.
That creates a ripple effect on quality.
How do you meaningfully increase wages to attract and retain qualified educators when your approved fees are frozen below the actual cost of delivery or do not adequately reflect annual inflation? How do you invest in professional development, classroom resources, additional staffing or specialized programming when those costs continue to rise but your revenue does not?
You cannot separate the financial sustainability of a program from the quality of care it is capable of delivering.
But there is another issue here that I think deserves much more attention: the unequal treatment created when access to workforce and inclusion supports is tied to whether a program has been admitted into a particular government funding stream.
In some provincial implementations of CWELCC, licensed programs have been excluded from parts of the publicly funded system because of ownership structure, regional allocations, space caps or other eligibility rules. The consequences of those decisions do not stop with the operator.
They can reach educators and children.
When an educator doing the same work, holding the same qualifications and caring for children under the same provincial licensing standards has different access to publicly funded wage enhancements, benefits or professional supports because of the program where they work, we need to question that policy.
And I feel even more strongly when that distinction reaches children.
If a child requires inclusion funding, specialized resources or additional support, that need exists because of the child—not because of the funding status or corporate structure of the childcare program their parent chose.
A child does not become less deserving of inclusion support when they walk through the door of a program outside CWELCC.
These policies can also create exactly the instability we say we are trying to prevent. If educators can receive significantly better publicly funded compensation or benefits simply by moving to another eligible program, of course that creates recruitment and retention challenges for excluded providers. High turnover then affects continuity of care, relationships with children and ultimately program quality.
So I think we have to ask a very uncomfortable but necessary question: Who is served when public policy creates different levels of support for educators and children based on the funding status or ownership structure of the licensed program they attend?
Because it is difficult to argue that this advances quality if the result is educator turnover, fewer resources, reduced access to specialized supports and instability for children.
Public funding should absolutely come with accountability. But if our goal is genuinely to improve quality, then workforce investments should support the qualified educator, inclusion funding should support the child who needs it, and affordability funding should support families in accessing licensed care.
Quality should follow the child and the educator—not the corporate structure of the program.
That is where I think we need to refocus the conversation. The objective cannot simply be achieving a politically attractive daily fee. It has to be building a system where the funding is sufficient to deliver high-quality care, educators can build sustainable careers, children can access the supports they need, and parents have meaningful choices about where that care is delivered.
Q: ACE emphasizes that a one-size-fits-all approach hurts families by restricting options. Why is it vital for funding frameworks to treat licensed independent and home-based operators with the same priority as non-profit centers?
Krystal Churcher: Because families are not one-size-fits-all, and childcare cannot be either.
At ACE, we are not advocating for one business model over another. We believe the priority should be the child and family—not the corporate structure of the provider.
Parents choose childcare for very personal reasons. One family may want a smaller home-based environment, another a preschool program, extended hours, culturally specific care, specialized programming or simply a program that works with their schedule and their child’s individual needs.
That diversity is a strength of our childcare system.
Governments absolutely have a responsibility to establish strong standards for safety, quality and accountability for public dollars. But if a licensed provider meets those standards, why should its ownership structure determine whether the child attending that program has access to affordable care?
Choice without affordability is not really choice.
When government heavily subsidizes one childcare option while excluding another, families will understandably follow the funding. That does not necessarily mean they preferred that model—it may simply be the only option they can afford.
That is why we advocate for funding that follows the child. Set strong standards. Require accountability. Protect children. But then trust parents to decide which qualified licensed environment works best for their family.
A truly universal childcare system should not mean every family receives the same type of care. It should mean every family has equitable access to affordable support and meaningful choice among diverse, high-quality licensed options.
Government should build a childcare system around families—not ask families to fit into the system government has chosen for them.
Q: Small business owners and independent operators make up a major portion of the childcare sector, many of them women. How has the rise in regulatory red tape and reporting requirements affected their ability to run their centers effectively?
Krystal Churcher: Childcare should be highly regulated. We are caring for children, and strong standards for health, safety, quality and financial accountability are essential.
But regulation and bureaucracy are not the same thing.
Increasingly, operators are not only running childcare programs; they are administering complex government funding systems. They are navigating licensing, funding agreements, cost approvals, wage programs, audits, reporting requirements and changing policy directives—often while also managing staff, supporting families and overseeing the day-to-day operation of their centres.
For independent operators, there often isn’t a government-relations department, finance department or compliance team behind them. The person completing that reporting may also be the license holder, employer and director.
But I think the bigger issue is what this environment is doing to entrepreneurship and investment in childcare.
Opening a childcare centre requires significant capital and personal risk. Someone has to secure a building, finance renovations, purchase equipment, hire educators and carry payroll while enrolment grows. Often that entrepreneur has personally guaranteed the debt.
Those investment decisions require predictability.
In a recent ACE survey of Ontario childcare operators, nearly nine in ten respondents said they had delayed, reduced or cancelled expansion plans since CWELCC was implemented. Among operators identifying barriers to expansion, 85% pointed to CWELCC funding uncertainty and 73% to government overreach or regulatory restrictions.
That should concern us because when an operator decides not to expand, we don’t just lose an investment.
We lose potential childcare spaces.
There is no government statistic for the childcare centre someone considered opening but didn’t. There is no waitlist for the spaces families never knew could have existed.
Canada talks extensively about reducing barriers, creating predictability and encouraging entrepreneurs to invest and build. We should apply the same economic understanding to childcare.
Accountability for public dollars is necessary. Strong regulation is necessary. But we should be asking whether every administrative requirement actually improves safety, quality or accountability—or whether we have created unnecessary barriers that discourage the very people willing to invest their own capital to create childcare spaces.
High standards and entrepreneurship are not opposites.
Government can demand rigorous standards and accountability while still creating an environment where people are willing to invest, innovate and build.
Because if we make childcare increasingly difficult and unpredictable to operate, eventually people will choose not to build.
And when that happens, it isn’t only the entrepreneur who loses an opportunity.
Families lose access to childcare that could have existed.
Q: You have advocated for funding models that reflect the true cost of care or consider means testing to ensure public dollars help those who need them most. How would this shift create a more equitable system for both parents and providers?
Krystal Churcher: I think we need to separate the goal from the mechanism. The goal should be that every Canadian family can afford the childcare they need. A universal $10-a-day fee is one mechanism for trying to achieve that, but it is not the only one.
In fact, the federal framework already allows room for income-based approaches. Manitoba’s CWELCC agreement explicitly contemplated an income-based parent-fee system, and provinces including British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have used income-tested childcare supports alongside broader affordability measures.
So means testing is not incompatible with a national childcare system.
The question we should be asking is whether it is equitable or financially sustainable to subsidize every family to exactly the same degree, regardless of income, while some lower- and middle-income families still cannot find a space at all.
I would rather see us guarantee that families who genuinely cannot afford the cost of care receive the greatest support while asking whether higher-income families need exactly the same level of public subsidy.
That could also give governments more flexibility to fund the actual cost of delivering care instead of trying to force every program into an artificially low parent fee.
For providers, that means funding that better reflects wages, inflation, occupancy costs, geography, age groups and the additional cost of supporting children with diverse needs. For families, it means affordability support based on their circumstances, with the ability to take that support to the licensed care that works for them.
And that is where I think means testing and funding that follows the child can work together.
Fund the family based on need, fund the provider based on the true cost of care, and allow the support to follow the child.
That would allow us to protect affordability for families who need it most without pretending that childcare costs $10 a day to deliver.
Because ultimately, equity does not mean giving every family exactly the same subsidy. Equity means making sure cost is not the reason a child cannot access the care their family needs.
Q: As provincial leaders push for greater policy flexibility, what immediate changes must the federal government make to build a childcare system that is truly sustainable for the long haul?
Krystal Churcher: I think the first change is actually very simple: the federal government needs to work with the people who are living this system every day—families, educators and the operators actually delivering childcare.
We need to put children back at the heart of a national childcare program, rather than building policy around ideology, ownership structure or space quotas.
The federal government’s own framework says childcare should be affordable, accessible, flexible, inclusive and high quality, with consideration for families who need childcare the most. Yet we have become incredibly focused on one measure of success: how many low-fee spaces can we create? The federal government set a goal of creating 250,000 new affordable spaces by March 2026.
I think we need to move beyond that mass-production approach to childcare.
Children and families have incredibly diverse needs. Some need a large facility-based centre. Others need a small home-based environment. Some need preschool or part-time care. Nurses, first responders and shift workers may need evenings, weekends or extended hours. Children with additional needs may require specialized environments or supports.
A national childcare program should embrace that diversity rather than trying to funnel families toward one preferred model.
And access needs to be determined by the needs of the community—not ideology about who should be allowed to provide the care. If a community needs spaces and qualified licensed providers are willing to provide them, government should be enabling that response while maintaining strong standards and accountability.
We also need to have a serious conversation about financial sustainability—not only for providers, but for taxpayers.
The Fraser Institute estimated that the average Canadian family paid 42% of its income in total taxes in 2025. Whatever one’s view of that methodology, it underscores the broader affordability pressures households are already facing. We should therefore be asking whether continually expanding the public cost of providing the same deeply subsidized childcare fee to every household, regardless of income or need, is the most equitable and sustainable use of public dollars.
I believe we can protect affordability while being much more targeted.
Families who need the greatest support should receive the greatest support. Some families may need fully subsidized care. Others may be able to contribute more. And public funding should be flexible enough to follow families into the licensed model of care that actually works for them.
That is consistent with the original federal framework, which specifically speaks about considering families who need childcare the most.
We also cannot call a system successful simply because the fee is low. Statistics Canada reported that 50% of parents using childcare in 2025 had difficulty finding it, and among those experiencing difficulty, 65% identified finding available care in their community as a challenge. More recent Statistics Canada analysis also found regular childcare use was substantially lower among low-income families—47% compared with 71% among higher-income families.
Those numbers tell us affordability alone is not enough.
I want to see Canada move from funding a childcare model to funding children and families.
Work with real stakeholders. Fund care based on the true cost of delivering it. Prioritize public support for families who need it most. Include all forms of licensed childcare—home-based, part-time, preschool, extended-hours and facility-based care. Allow funding to respond to actual community demand. And give parents meaningful choice in deciding where their child receives care.
A sustainable national childcare system should not be measured by how successfully families fit into the model government created.
It should be measured by how successfully the system responds to the children and families it was created to serve.
A national childcare system cannot run on good intentions alone. Real-world solutions require funding formulas that match actual operating costs, respect the vital work of early childhood educators, and value every licensed provider regardless of ownership structure. When policies ignore market realities and pile on excessive bureaucracy, the children and families who rely on consistent, high-quality care pay the highest price.
Stabilizing early learning across Canada demands genuine collaboration between policymakers and the operators who deliver care on the ground. By embracing diverse childcare models, cutting unnecessary administrative burdens, and protecting parent choice, leaders can build a resilient system that serves future generations. Krystal Churcher and ACE continue to champion these vital reforms, ensuring that affordable care remains viable for the long term.
To learn more visit https://aacenational.ca/
