Canada has a critical affordable housing shortage: 4.4 million households require affordable homes, including three million very low- and low-income households who require deeply affordable housing. But it takes more than housing to create a thriving community. Access to affordable child care can unlock education and employment opportunities. Child care is an essential aspect of the social infrastructure that should be located alongside homes.
Building on the federal government’s commitments to rights-based national housing and child care plans, this report summarizes the potential benefits of co-locating the two and provides recommendations to scale up co-location. Low-income single mothers are the group most likely to be in core housing need. Low-income areas are often poorly served by child care services, and areas with easy access to employment and services are lacking affordable housing. Child care centres near homes simplify commutes to employment or educational opportunities and help address affordability and opportunity challenges. The federal government can improve both affordable housing and child care ‘deserts’ together through Build Canada Homes and the next iterations of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Program and the National Housing Strategy.
Licensed non-profit child care centres can be incorporated into the ground floor of new non-market housing developments, they can be added to acquired and/or retrofitted older apartment buildings, or they can be part of an integrated housing and social services ‘campus.’ Three in-depth Canadian case studies, as well as five other examples, provide information on the intergovernmental enablers necessary to improve equity-based outcomes.
Recommendations for the federal government include:
Facilitating combined long-term capital and operating financing through clear housing and child care targets and intergovernmental conditional agreements between federal, provincial/territorial, municipal/regional, and Indigenous governments.
Only funding non-market housing and public or non-profit child care centres, to most effectively use government resources and ensure the best outcomes for parents and children.
Taking a locational approach to improving access to both affordable non-market housing and non-profit and public child care services: encouraging local and provincial partners to map ‘deserts’ where one or both are missing and addressing these two basic needs together in one location.
Introduction
The Build Canada Homes Act proposes a new generation of perpetually affordable non-market housing, created through a combination of financing, land policy, and construction enablers.1 But it takes more than housing to create a thriving community. Social infrastructure like medical clinics, schools, recreation centres, libraries, and parks add local jobs while helping individuals and families live healthy and productive lives. Specifically, Canada’s Housing Plan recommends “considering access to early childhood education and the expansion of non-profit and public child care in the development process” of non-market housing.2
This report examines Canadian good practice to recommend enablers for a new generation of co-located non-market3 housing and non-profit child care. Co-locating these two essentials is hardly a new idea. Vienna’s extensive public housing stock, dating from the early 1920s, has had child care centres as well as neighbourhood houses and wellness services integrated into their design from the first.4 During the Second World War, Canada created about 30,000 homes through a wartime housing agency, which eventually was transformed into the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (or CMHC).5 It simultaneously co-funded 4,000 child care spaces through federal-provincial agreements to serve women workers contributing to wartime industries, often in the neighbourhoods in which they lived.6 Fifty years ago, Toronto’s St. Lawrence Neighbourhood was conceived of as a mixed-use, mixed-tenure, mixed-income “true community” – and part of implementing that vision was to integrate a child care centre for infants and children under the age of five to serve its 4,000 households, as well as three schools with ‘out of school hour care’ programs.7
Today, the necessity to scale up both affordable housing8 and affordable child care9, prioritising people over profit, has never been greater. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate estimates 4.4 million households – one in four – are without adequate affordable housing in Canada, three million of which require deeply affordable housing.10 The most common type of household in core housing need – living in unaffordable, overcrowded and/or poorly repaired housing and without local adequate and affordable alternatives – is led by a single mother.11 Women and gender-diverse people still predominate in minimum-wage and part-time work and continue to bear a disproportionate burden for child care, leading to lower incomes and fewer housing choices.12 Quality child care not only enables parents to enter the workplace, it is proven to improve outcomes for the next generation.13
The shortage of affordable living options for families14 – combined shortages of housing and child care – has hit Canada’s two most populous regions hardest: Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe and B.C.’s Lower Mainland. A net outflow of 80,000 people – predominantly adults in their 20s and 30s and children under five – have left the Greater Toronto Area every year since 2021.15 The net loss of affordable housing affects not only individuals, but the economic viability of Canada’s employment centres: the most likely to leave are “early childhood educators, teachers, daycare providers… and other key workers whose contributions underpin the region’s daily life.”16 In the words of Canadian band Arcade Fire, we have never been closer to a “city with no children in it.”17
Policy context
In response to these related social infrastructure crises, the federal government has embarked on two ambitious strategies over the past decade. The National Housing Strategy has targets of reducing housing need by 530,000 households and reducing homelessness by 25,000 individuals by 2028,18 while the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) Program had a target of creating 250,000 child care spaces costing no more than an average of $10 a day, by 2026.19
Both plans have struggled to reach these targets. As of the last update to the National Housing Strategy in September 2025, the Apartment Construction Loan Program – low-cost, long-term financing for purpose-built rental homes that represents half of the $110 billion budget – has completed 18,497 homes of its 131,000-home target over the past nine years, 14% of the desired total.20 Only 3% of the homes created are affordable to the low-income households most likely to be in housing need, and none of these deeply affordable homes are a suitable size for families.21 Almost four in five households in core housing need are very low or low income.22
Compared to the National Housing Strategy, the five-year, $30 billion CWELCC Program has been a success, with 154,000 of the promised 210,604 new full-time spaces created by April 2025, and New Brunswick and B.C. exceeding their targets.23 However, some provinces are coming from a low baseline, both in terms of provision and affordability. The federal government has a target of 5.9 full time spaces for every 10 children who are aged 5 and under, and only Quebec and P.E.I. are likely to reach that ratio by 2026. Calgary would need 23,000 new full-time spaces, Toronto over 17,000, and Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Brampton would each require over 10,000 new spaces, to meet federal targets.24
Part of the problem with both affordable child care and housing provision has been poor coordination between levels of government – federal, provincial/ territorial, municipal/ regional, and Indigenous – combined with extremely weak enforcement of human rights commitments through the ‘spending power’ of conditional federal funding agreements. While the federal government – as the level of government with the most revenue and powers – has an essential role in providing funding for child care and housing construction and enforcing national standards, both child care and housing need to be coordinated by provincial/territorial governments, which may choose to delegate to other public authorities such as municipalities and regions.25
The federal government signed bilateral agreements with provinces and territories in 2017-18, setting out targets in relation to non-market and affordable housing. However, the Ontario government had a target of increasing non-market homes by only 6% by 2025, not the 15% in the legal agreement, and was the only province to report no progress in increasing affordable homes by 2023. Instead of channeling funds to the 47 municipal and regional governments directly providing services, the federal government backed down.26
Similarly, despite a national child care framework, some provinces are held to a child care space creation target (an output indicator), while other provinces are given a coverage rate target, referring to the percentage of children who have access, in theory, to a licensed child care space (an outcome target). Some provinces are required to predominantly or exclusively fund the expansion of non-profit and public child care operators, but some (most notably Alberta, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Ontario) negotiated within their bilateral agreements to fund the expansion of for-profit child care operators.27
Faced with an intensifying housing crisis, the federal government refreshed its policies with Canada’s Housing Plan, which has led to the creation of a new federal agency called Build Canada Homes.28 Build Canada Homes’ mandate is to build affordable, primarily non-market housing at scale. It will leverage public lands, offer flexible financial incentives, attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects, and support modern manufacturers.
However, none of the first four large scale projects that advertised requests for qualification as part of the first phase of Build Canada Homes mention child care as part of the proposed development. These four projects are:
Heron Road, Ottawa: 1,110 homes over 8 hectares. A site for a new school and park has been identified, and it is possible that a child care centre may be located there, although that possibility is not explicitly mentioned;
Naawi-Oodena, Winnipeg: 2,100 homes over 20 hectares, with the potential of a partnership with Treaty One Nations in an adjacent 40-hectare property;
Griesbach, Edmonton: part of a larger 64-hectare development of 2,400 homes, there are two sub-projects: 55 homes in stacked townhouses and one 300 home apartment building. There are schools planned as part of the larger development, but no specific mention of child care;
Downsview, Toronto: part of a larger 25-hectare development planned for 4,200 homes, the project is for 540 homes in several low and mid-rise mixed-use apartment buildings, which are required to incorporate 100 seniors’ homes (which may include assisted living, long-term, and memory care). There is no explicit mention of child care.29
All have the potential for child care services integrated into new communities of family-friendly homes, but no specific commitments have been made.
Housing and Child Care: A natural policy fit
Both housing and child care30 are recognized by Canada as economic and social rights. The National Housing Strategy Act commits the federal government to “progressively realizing the right to adequate housing” with a focus on “those in greatest need.”31 In 2023, MPs unanimously supported Bill C-35, An Act Respecting Early Learning and Child Care in Canada, which took a similar approach to a national child care policy grounded in universal human rights.32
The principles of rights-based housing and rights-based child care are similar. In both cases, affordability is an essential element. So is a location close to transit and services. Housing should be “highly accessible to public transportation and conveniently walkable” to nearby jobs and services, which include child care and schools.33 However, the limited transit-oriented locations that allow higher-density housing usually command higher land prices. This allows market developers targeting higher income households to outbid affordable housing providers, often displacing lower-income households in the process.34 In the example of child care, “operators, especially for-profit operators, are less likely to establish themselves in lower-income communities where new immigrants and racialized people are more likely to live,” which reduces access for the families that need affordable child care the most.35 Inclusivity, also known as accessibility, is an important principle when it comes to homes or child care for those with mobility or other disabilities, with an understanding that apartments may be more physically accessible than either townhouses or walk-up flats,36 and that children with disabilities need to be fully accommodated within child care services. 37Cultural adequacy is vital, particularly for Indigenous people. Yet despite the fact that the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres (OFIFC) reports at least 10,000 urban Indigenous child care spaces are required to meet the needs of urban Indigenous families in Ontario, there is no provincial plan to expand Indigenous-led culturally safe child care.38
Part of the problem in achieving ambitious goals for both housing and child care is the mismatch between a rights-based framework and the outcome measurements that are currently relied upon. The CMHC does not measure the rents or ownership costs of all housing it subsidized through the National Housing Strategy, nor does its reporting measure the number of permanently affordable non-market homes available in each city and region in relation to need (i.e. affordable housing ‘deserts’). The federal government does not measure net loss of affordable housing, although research suggests that up to 15 homes affordable to low-income households were lost for every new one created between 2011 and 2021.39
When it comes to child care, there are some excellent suggestions on how to measure outcomes from a rights basis. The European Union (EU) has developed an Early Childhood Guarantee for every child at risk of poverty and social exclusion: they should have access to a social safety net of interlocked rights, including child care, housing, education and healthcare. Using a rights-based lens, the EU created a baseline report that not only measured access to child care but also evaluated how effectively national governments were using funding streams.40 One important element is measuring child care participation, which is expected to be somewhat lower for infants but to come close to 100% for four- and five-year-olds. Peters (2025) argues that Statistics Canada should provide finer grained data than simply lumping together children aged under five. Another helpful concept is that of a child care “desert” defined in Friendly et al.41 as a postal code in which more than three children under five years of age compete for a single preschool child care space. Almost half of Canadian children live in a child care desert, with risk intensified by, but not limited to, living in a rural or remote community.
Co-locating child care and housing has benefits over workplace or school-based child care. As the U.S. Low Income Investment Fund argues:
including child care where families live removes one stop on a parent’s commute to work, thus helping reduce congestion and supporting community health, environmental and transit-oriented efforts. Co-location also supports community building in the areas where developments are located. Since child care is generally also available to families who do not live in the affordable housing project, the positive impact of development extends into the community beyond the people living in the units. In addition to providing care for families in the community, the presence of ECE facilities can improve the sense of safety and quality of life in a neighborhood.42
While workplace child care can allow for more timely pick-ups, many low-income parents do not have access to a car or frequent public transit, and commuting can be a challenge with a young child. It can also create a problem if the workplace changes.43 Child care centres located on school grounds can make pick-up of multiple children (both pre-school and school aged) easier and reduce transport emissions.44 But it can be stressful if children attend multiple schools or a school far from the home.
All forms of licensed affordable child care need to be encouraged, including family child care (FCC) in a provider’s home. This can be encouraged through designated units with access to outdoor space as well as mixed-use zoning. The City of Vancouver has 878 child spaces, 15% of total spaces, in family child care, some of which are located in non-market housing. Home-based family child care centres are licensed to provide care for up to eight children without a development permit. Because care is often provided by an individual with a young child who lives in the home, there can be issues with stability; a large proportion close within four years. In addition, there can be problems with cost and with availability of child care throughout the year: most family child care services have a single proprietor rather than a non-profit provider, and sometimes close for vacations or because of the child care provider’s illness. The City of Vancouver recently expanded opportunities for larger (9 or more children) licensed child care centres in residential areas, which can now include a residential unit as part of the building or in a laneway suite on the same lot. These child care centres could be non-profit and employ multiple caregivers, including a resident child care provider.45
Canadian case studies
Three in-depth case studies, which were gathered through interviews with providers, architects, and City staff, illustrate complex funding and design challenges involved in combining affordable non-market housing with child care in two of the least affordable regions in Canada. All examples are aimed at low- and moderate-income families and are intended to improve circumstances of marginalized children and adults.
Cindy Beedie House in Greater Vancouver combines housing for women and children fleeing violence in their homes with child care services that allow them to pursue educational and job opportunities. Biindigen in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area will combine housing, healthcare, and child care in an integrated approach to improving access to Indigenous-led services. 1388 Highland Rd. W. in Kitchener has faced barriers related to short-term funding horizons and underfunding for new construction capital, operations, and the inevitable capacity building involved in scaling.
Five other case studies are included, which illustrate other specific issues in relation to integrating child care and housing: child care in acquisitions and retrofits, a second project delayed due to short-term funding from multiple sources, the need for non-standard hours in some employment settings, and the question of long-term viability.
Cindy Beedie Child Care (Burnaby, B.C.)
British Columbia, along with Quebec,46 has seen some of the most impressive outcomes in terms of co-location of housing and child care. This is not surprising, given that these two provinces kept a small non-market housing sector solvent in the three decades after the federal government largely withdrew from housing infrastructure financing.47
In 2018, British Columbia released a housing strategy, Homes for BC, at the same time as a child care strategy, ChildCareBC.48 While neither the $6 billion housing program – which included a target of 1,500 transitional housing spaces for women and children survivors of intimate partner violence (Women’s Transition Housing Fund)49nor the $237 million allocated to construct 22,000 new licensed non-market child care spaces (ChildCareBC New Spaces Fund) specifically mentioned co-location, non-market providers were quick to access both funds.
The City of Burnaby, a municipality in Greater Vancouver with a population of 250,000, has had a comprehensive child care policy worthy of emulation, since 1993.50 As part of that policy, it established an advisory committee called the Child Care Resources Group, wherein child care professionals and advocates work with staff to monitor the supply of, and demand for, child care in the municipality. Burnaby’s planning policies include “providing appropriate and sufficient opportunities” for local child care facilities through:
Rezoning and offering density bonuses to developers for child care facilities to which the City gains title, and then making the space available to operators on a rent-free basis
Providing property tax exemptions
Working with developers, architects, and operators in planning and designing the facilities in order to facilitate approvals
Working with local schools, recreation centres, and parks, to explore possibilities for co-location with child care services, including planning them into proposed new facilities
Working with experienced and qualified non-profit child care operators who have the ability and desire to provide services to a diverse clientele (including those with additional needs and English as a second language).
Burnaby has also been a leader in the use of government land for non-market and affordable rental housing. Since 2015, the City of Burnaby has issued standardized Requests for Proposals for well-located municipal land, with nominal or below-market long term leases in return for affordability and non-market outcomes. Linking municipal land to provincial funding streams, particularly the recently cut Community Housing Fund, allows capital and operational support for deeply affordable housing.51
YWCA’s Cindy Beedie Place in Burnaby is a four-storey building, with 58,893 sq ft of residential space and 4,873 sq ft of child care space. The residential portion has 45 two-bedroom and 11 three-bedroom homes for single mother-led families (including four fully accessible and seven adaptable units), all offered at rents geared to income, which in most cases means deeply affordable housing. Households reliant on income assistance will pay a maximum of $695 a month for a two-bedroom and $790 a month for a three-bedroom.52
The child care centre on the ground floor includes 12 spaces for infants and toddlers with 25 spaces for children aged 3 to 5. Tenants of the building have first access to the child care spaces. The building includes shared amenity spaces such as a communal kitchen, a residential courtyard, and a children’s outdoor play space.
The building was designed by NSDA Architects, who specialize in non-market housing, including supportive housing and health care facilities. Construction began in February 2024 and the housing opened in November 2025, with the child care centre expected to open in spring 2026 (architect interview).
The funding stack represents a partnership between philanthropists, a non-market provider, a municipality, and the province. Cindy Beedie is a local philanthropist whose commitment to women being able to pursue educational and work opportunities led to a large donation to the child care centre, along with another donation by an anonymous donor. The YWCA Metro Vancouver operates the housing and the child care centre. The City of Burnaby maintains ownership of the land and has entered into a 60-year lease with BC Housing, which provides a free-lease to the YWCA; the child care space is free-leased to the YWCA. BC Housing contributed $40.2 million for the housing through the Women’s Transition Housing Fund and the provincial government provided approximately $4 million toward the child care facility through the ChildCareBC New Spaces Fund. Reporting on expenditures was complicated: BC Housing wanted all costs (electricity, roofing, walls) divided into ‘housing’ and ‘child care,’ which was difficult in a shared facility (architect interview).
Aside from affordability and on-site support services such as child care, location is an important aspect of housing adequacy. The YWCA’s wrapround services for the housing include employment and skills training programs, education and career pathway support, and bursary opportunities. The site is located close to transit, the B.C. Institute of Technology, and other services.
The YWCA considered several sites before settling on the one in Burnaby, in part due to that municipality’s good policies (YWCA Vancouver interview). In addition to its government land policies, Burnaby has been improving its zoning to allow child care in residential districts as well as those zoned for institutional uses. They have also reduced parking requirements in transit-rich areas, which reduces project costs (City of Burnaby interview).
The design emphasizes family-friendly features and sustainability. Units are sized for families, with adequate storage for strollers and bikes, and the building incorporates energy-efficient systems such as heat pumps. Outdoor spaces include a landscaped courtyard and a dedicated play area for children, designed to foster connection and belonging. These elements reflect a growing recognition that housing for families must go beyond shelter to include social and environmental qualities that support well-being.53
Despite its strengths, the project faced challenges common to integrated developments. Licensing and operational ramp-up for the child care centre require careful sequencing in relation to sometimes unpredictable building timelines. Ensuring adequate staffing remains a concern, given province-wide shortages of early childhood educators. This was an unusual case, where housing and child care have the same provider. More often, there must be regular and open discussion between the two providers before, during, and after the building process. Philanthropy played an important role in closing the funding gaps and addressing delays in relation to multiple sources of capital and operational funding. However, reliance on two charitable donors for up to one fifth of the capital and operations costs raises questions about scalability (YWCA Vancouver interview).
Cindy Beedie Place offers a powerful precedent for future policy and program design. By leveraging partnerships between a housing and social service agency with a committed municipality, such projects promise to deliver pathways to safety, stability, and opportunity for single-parent families. The case also highlights the need for integrated capital programs that bundle housing and child care funding, as well as adequate operating supports to sustain affordability and service quality at the federal and provincial level.
Biindigen Well-Being Centre (Hamilton, ON)
Ontario is the sole province in Canada where municipal-level government entities have a mandated role in child care and housing services. The provincial government has grouped the 444 municipalities in Ontario into 47 Service System Managers (SSMs) and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs). One of their responsibilities is developing and implementing five-year Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) service plans, which are publicly accessible.54 This regional coordination is a potential “strong asset” for the coordination of housing and child care. However, rights-based equity is threatened by the provincial government’s calls for allowing “unlimited for-profit expansion” of child care55 as well as its declining support for new non-market affordable housing, especially the deeply affordable housing most needed by struggling parents.56
Figure 1. Conceptual design for Biindigen Well-Being Centre (Source: McCallum Sather, “New Renderings Released for Biindigen Well‑Being Centre.”)
Hamilton’s Biindigen Well-Being Centre (figure 1) offers an exemplar of integrated planning for equity outcomes. The City of Hamilton’s Early Years Community Plan, originally covering the years 2016 to 2020, was updated in 2023 in response to the CWELCC program. Informed by a community scan developed by child care providers and advocates, its first priority is to implement a strategy for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB). Hamilton, with a population of 570,000, takes a strong rights-based approach to child care, with a Parents’ Charter of Rights in 2010 followed by a Children and Youth Charter of Rights in 2015.57 Currently, only one of 223 child care centres is Indigenous-led, offering an environment for children aged under six that follows Indigenous teachings and knowledge. Guided by Hamilton’s Access and Inclusion Framework, the city’s child care expansion will “focus on children with special needs, families with low income, those who are most vulnerable, children from diverse communities, Francophone children, and Indigenous children.”58
Biindigen Well-Being Centre addresses a critical shortfall of Indigenous-led child care centres. The development will combine affordable non-market housing, licensed non-profit child care, health services, and cultural programming on a former school site in East Hamilton adjacent to McQuesten Urban Farm.59 When complete, the centre will include a six-storey residential building with 60 affordable units, a two-storey Indigenous health centre, and a two-storey child care and family services hub. Outdoor spaces will feature medicine gardens, a sacred fire circle, and play areas, embedding cultural safety into the design.60 Construction is expected to begin in late 2026 and be completed by the end of 2028.
The project is led by De dwa da dehs nye>s Aboriginal Health Centre in partnership with Niwasa, Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services, McMaster University, and the City of Hamilton. It is a holistic approach to create a complete community for Indigenous families in an urban setting.61 Financing includes $13 million from the federal Green and Inclusive Community Buildings program, supplemented by provincial contributions and municipal land transfer of a former Catholic school.62 The free lease of a large piece of public land with a value of $7-8 million by the City of Hamilton, like the Burnaby example above, is key to making the building economically viable (architect interview).
There is a team of three architectural firms engaged in the project, which shares expertise in health service, housing, child care and landscape design. There was an early decision to move away from a vertical stacking of the services in one building and toward a lower rise ‘campus’ approach, partly because Indigenous healing features, such as a sweat lodge and sacred fire circle, are intended to be easily accessible to both residents and visitors. The setting is also quite suburban. Because there is only limited bus access and there are few employment opportunities nearby, there are two parking lots planned, one reserved for residents. The family services building will include an elders meeting room, a youth hub, and a gym, as well as the child care centre. This is intended to provide joint programming opportunities (architect interview).
While post-occupancy evaluation is still years away, Biindigen is already influencing policy and practice. It is being cited as a model for Indigenous-led urban development in Ontario and beyond (architect interview), demonstrating how federal and provincial programs can align with Indigenous governance to co-locate culturally safe housing and child care. For replicability, the project suggests three critical enablers: government land, multi-stream funding that supports integrated services, and Indigenous-focused design for greater cultural accessibility.
1388 Highland Rd. W. (Kitchener, ON): A delayed process
The proposed development of a combined child care centre and housing complex in Kitchener, Ontario, illustrates some of the current risks in relation to funding uncertainty as well as lack of clarity over housing and child care coordination.
In May 2024, the Region of Waterloo provided a piece of well-located government land to a midsized local for-profit developer, Savic, which specializes in purpose-built rental housing. At least one third of the 208 rental homes, ranging in size from one to three bedrooms, will be maintained as ‘affordable’ for 40 years.63 Savic is creating a non-market arm to administer this housing. But with the provincial definition of affordability set at 80% of median market rate about $1,450 per month in Kitchener, where the median market rate is $1,850 – most of the homes created on government land will not be an appropriate size or cost for low-income single parents, who can afford a maximum of $1,088.64 If the federal housing finance stack was more generous, the housing provider could offer lower rents and not charge the child care provider market rent. The housing program’s shortfalls cascade into child care program shortfalls.
The Region selected Rising Oaks Early Learning, a non-profit provider with 45 years of experience, to operate an 88-space child care centre for children ages 0-4. The project, which was intended to be completed by the end of 2026, has been delayed. As a result, CWELCC approval has been rescinded and the provider will need to re-apply should provincial government reach a new agreement with the federal government.
The child care provider commented that the design of the child care centre by the architect is still very incomplete, with the emphasis being on the housing. The developer has asked for two separate building permits, in order not to delay the housing construction. In the case of Cindy Beedie Place, there was the extremely unusual situation of a single entity providing child care services alongside housing, which facilitated coordinated design and interaction with the architect. This Kitchener example has different sources of funding through one team to coordinate design across both components. The project is now being phased, adding to difficulties in accounting for expenditures and design delivery.
The child care specifications that Waterloo Region had described as outdated by an interview participant, as were the expectations of cost per square foot provided by the province. The child care provider is being charged market rent by the developer, which is a sum greater than the accommodation benchmark under the provincial child care funding program. The CWELCC approval was removed as the project no longer met the timeline under the Canada-Ontario region. Again, Cindy Beedie had the unusual circumstance of aphilanthropist to make up both capital and operating shortfalls. In this case, the affordability and accessibility of child care provision for low-income families is threatened.
This leads to considerable risk being assumed by this experienced child care provider, who had previous experience working with schools and a church, on co-located projects. Furthermore, child care centres in schools only involve interaction with one provincial ministry: Education. This innovative project requires that this ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing coordinate funding and requirements. The child care provider will need to hire a facility and project manager to coordinate this level of complexity. The provider expressed concern that child care boards may decide that growth is no longer a priority.
The Waterloo Region interviewees also point out that pre-development funding is lacking from both provincial and federal sources, and that the original source of funding for the housing is no longer accepting applications (the Affordable Housing Fund). The federal government has said that the housing may be funded as part of a portfolio approach with Build Canada Homes, but there is no certainty on that front, leading to considerable risk by Savic Homes, who have already outlaid money for design and time for negotiation. Child care and housing capital funding delays threaten operating funding commitments as well as the involvement of experienced providers. The next five examples are based on desktop review only.
Cedar Brook Apartments and Children’s Choice West (Prince Albert, Sask): Child care as part of retrofits, part 1
The next two exemplars demonstrate renovation of aging buildings combined with development of a new child care facility. Cedar Brook is an older example, predating the National Housing Strategy, involving the acquisition and renovation of two aging private-sector apartment buildings in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, creating 34 low-income rental units alongside a licensed child care centre with 16 spaces. The child care program includes six infant spaces, six toddler spaces, and four preschool spaces, with six designated as KidsFirst spaces for children identified as vulnerable or at risk.65 This explicit prioritization of equity within the allocation underscores the social purpose of the development.
The initiative, launched in January 2005, was conceived and managed by the River Bank Development Corporation (RBDC), a local non-market developer with deep roots in community development.66 The design and construction process addressed the structural deficiencies, outdated mechanical systems, and poor energy performance in the existing buildings. RBDC phased the work to minimize tenant displacement, moving residents between the two buildings during renovation work.67
Financing came through the Centenary Affordable Housing Program (CAHP), which pooled federal, provincial, and municipal resources. The total investment of $1.43 million included $1,289,790 from the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan and $143,310 from the City of Prince Albert.68 This funding supported the capital costs of both housing and child care.
Operationally, the child care centre is delivered through a partnership with Children’s Choice, which expanded its services to create Children’s Choice West. This ensured that the centre had an experienced operator from day one, reducing barriers for Cedar Brook’s parents seeking employment or education and strengthening the social fabric of the neighbourhood.
The project faced typical renovation risks, including unforeseen conditions and cost pressures, but its success rested on several enablers: a dedicated community development corporation, a supportive funding program, and a child care operator willing to expand capacity. For replication, Cedar Brook offers two key lessons. First, pairing renovation funding with child care capital can deliver significant returns in smaller cities where land acquisition for new builds is challenging. Second, embedding priority access policies ensures that support is provided for those who need it most.
Lawrence–Orton Community Centre and Child Care Facility (Toronto, ON): Child care as part of retrofits, part 2
The Lawrence–Orton Early Learning and Child Care Centre (figure 2) has been developed as part of a retrofit of aging public housing in Toronto’s eastern suburb of Scarborough. It reimagines the ground floor of a 1960s Toronto Community Housing (TCHC) tower, creating a new social hub for residents and the surrounding neighbourhood.69 The centre provides five classrooms, a dedicated outdoor play yard, and administrative spaces for 54 children, ranging from infants to five years old.
The project emerged from TCHC’s ReSet program, which aims to modernize aging towers while improving liveability and energy performance. In this case, the child care centre was integrated into a comprehensive retrofit that included structural and envelope upgrades, funded through the Ontario Social Housing Affordable Retrofit Program and the federal-provincial Social Housing Energy Efficiency Program – two programs which predated the National Housing Strategy.70 These programs enabled a range of energy improvements, addressing exposed slab edges and thermal bridging typical of mid-century concrete towers. The child care addition itself required significant structural innovation: a steel frame was grafted onto the existing underground parking garage to support a one-storey extension, opening onto the central courtyard. This also animated the shared outdoor area, which was previously an underused space, into a vibrant focal point for community life.71
The project reduces barriers to employment and education and strengthens ties among resident families. Community consultation conducted in 2016 was central to the process, shaping both program and design. Residents emphasized the need for safe, accessible child care and improved outdoor spaces, priorities that were reflected in the final scheme. Design leadership by SvN Architects and ERA Architects ensured that the intervention was both technically sound and socially responsive.72 The City of Toronto’s Children’s Services division operates the centre, ensuring stable governance and integration with municipal child care planning. This partnership between TCHC and the City illustrates an important enabler for co-location: aligning housing renewal cycles with child care capital planning to maximize impact.73
Financing the project was complex but instructive. The child care component alone required approximately $5.3 million, up from an initial $3.9 million budget approved in 2016, reflecting cost of construction by 2018. These funds were drawn from the City’s Child Care Capital Reserve, while SHARP and SEP supported the broader tower retrofit, estimated at $18 million.74 This layered funding approach highlights a key lesson for replication: co-location succeeds when capital streams for both programs are bundled together, rather than pursued in isolation.
Despite its success, the project faced some barriers. Building over an existing garage introduced structural and sequencing challenges, and compliance with child care licensing standards in a high-rise context demanded careful coordination. Cost escalation beyond inflation was another hurdle. Yet the enablers were equally clear: public land control, municipal child care operations, and a strong design team capable of navigating technical complexity.75
Figure 2. Lawrence-Orton Early Learning & Child Care Centre (Source: SvN, Lawrence‑Orton Early Child Care Centre.)
Lawrence–Orton offers a compelling precedent for cities grappling with aging non-market housing stock and child care shortages. It demonstrates that renewal programs can be expanded to enable complete communities. For federal policymakers, the case reinforces the importance of supporting municipal retrofit programs with flexible capital that accommodates co-located uses, and of promoting design standards that anticipate expansion and new programming.
Tamitik (Kitimat, B.C.): Expanding non-standard child care hours in a remote Northern community
Across Canada in 2019, only 2% of child care centres provided extremely flexible hours such as overnight care. Yet at least one parent works a non-standard schedule in 39% of families with one or more children under six years of age. Non-standard workers are more likely to be women, parents, young adults, racialized and recent immigrants, Indigenous persons, and to have less formal education and earn lower incomes overall, so the case for more flexible care is strong.76
Kitimat is a small town of 8,000 people in Northern B.C., dominated by an aluminium smelter that employs 1,000 people, and which has overnight shifts. Since 2024, the Tamitik Status of Women Association, a non-profit agency, has provided a four-storey building that includes a 12-bed transition house (emergency shelter), 12 units of second-stage housing (housing for a limited period of six to 18 months) and 20 units of permanent affordable housing for women, two-spirited and non-binary parents and their children leaving violence. Rent for the second-stage housing and townhomes is calculated at 30% of residents’ income or the provincial shelter rate for people receiving income or disability assistance. Since transition house spaces provide an immediate safe space for women to start rebuilding their lives, people using those spaces do not have to pay rent.77
The ground floor has 60 child care spaces, including 24 overnight ones. Twelve are for children under three years of age, 16 are for school-age children and 32 spaces are unspecified.78
The land was free-leased from the District of Kitimat, who also provided $471,000 toward the project. Most of the housing capital costs, $17 million, were provided by BC Housing in partnership with the CMHC’s Affordable Housing Fund, while the capital funding for the child care, $3 million, was provided by B.C.’s New Spaces child care fund. Ongoing operations costs for the child care centre, $979,000 per year, are subsidized by the District of Kitimat, in partnership with the B.C. Ministry of Education and Child Care and the Haisla Nation. The Haisla Nation has been contracted to provide culturally adequate Indigenous child services.79
While the child care centre is for the community, residents have priority. This allows residents of the second-stage and permanent housing to access jobs in the smelter, if they choose. As Katrina Chen, then B.C. Minister of State for Child Care, said at the opening: “Access to safe, high-quality child care will not only give these women peace of mind knowing their children are well cared for, it enables them to pursue education, training or other opportunities. Ensuring child care is available is one less barrier to a new start.”80
Coal Harbour (Vancouver, B.C.): High density housing and child care
Coal Harbour stacks multiple public programs on scarce urban land in central Vancouver. Since the 1990s, the City of Vancouver’s policy framework has emphasized “community facility co-location” to optimize public land and create complete communities. Coal Harbour operationalizes this vision by stacking housing, education, and child care vertically on a single site (figure 3).81
Figure 3. Coal Harbour design plan as of 2021, with school, child care and non-market housing (Source: Vancouver School Board, “New School at Coal Harbour Building Update.”)
The City of Vancouver led the development of this 11-storey building with approximately 60 units of non-market housing, a 340-student elementary school, and a licensed child care centre with 65 spaces operated by the Vancouver Society of Children’s Centres. This ambitious co-location strategy promises to respond to pressing urban challenges of housing affordability and child care shortages while adding educational infrastructure in a high-demand waterfront neighbourhood. Construction is still underway, with occupation expected in time for the 2026-2027 school year.82
The financing of this new build illustrates the complexity and opportunity of multi-partner projects. The total budget of approximately $80.8 million was assembled through contributions from the Vancouver School Board ($31.7 million), provincial child care capital ($3 million), City development cost levies and community amenity contributions, and municipal reserves for replacement housing.83 Design and construction required careful coordination among multiple agencies, including the City, Vancouver School Board, and Park Board. The building targets high-performance standards such as Passive House and LEED Gold, reflecting Vancouver’s commitment to sustainability.
Despite these ambitions, the project faced barriers: governance challenges across agencies, cost escalation, and dependencies on utility relocation (B.C. Hydro’s West End substation) which has delayed occupancy.84 With all these cautions, Coal Harbour offers a powerful precedent for cities seeking to maximize public land for social infrastructure. By supporting integrated funding streams and enabling municipalities to bundle uses on scarce sites, governments can accelerate the creation of complete communities in Canada’s largest cities.
Evergreen Terrace (Victoria, B.C.): The need for reliable infrastructure funding
Unfortunately, uncertainty around federal and provincial capital funding threatens the final example, as in the case of Kitchener.
For 20 years, BC Housing has planned to redevelop Evergreen Terrace, initially developed in the 1970s as provincial public housing. The proposal was to create 900 rental units on the 7.8-acre site. It would replace 175 existing low-income units, as well as 21 existing supportive housing units managed by Spoken House, an Indigenous women’s organization, with a net increase of at least 145 further new non-market units and provide new publicly accessible outdoor amenity areas. Already approved, the first phase includes providing 37 child care spaces in a redeveloped ground floor.
Victoria City Council learned in January 2026 that the development could no longer meet that criteria “due to recent discontinuation of grant funding for new child care facilities.” A decision to move forward with the entire redevelopment has been deferred.85 Uncertainty about funding has been exacerbated by a moratorium on the Community Housing Fund announced in the 2026 B.C. Budget.86
Federal-provincial-territorial child care agreements expire in December 2026.87 Federal funding through the Affordable Housing Plan, Canada Housing Benefit, and Cooperative Housing Development Program all sunset in 2026-27, and without renewed programs, federal funding will decline by 56%.88
Overcoming Barriers: Discussion and recommendations
Co-locating child care and housing makes sense for families and communities. Canadian governments have co-located housing and child care centres for 80 years, since the Second World War highlighted the importance of women’s presence in the paid work force. Over the past 20 years, projects across Canada have shown how to integrate child care into new build and renovated housing projects.
Key issues identified by Child Care Now89 resonate with Canadian housing policy analysis:90
The need for rights-based non-market provisions, highlighting people over profit: making fees and rents affordable to those most in need, even if projects do not ‘break even’ in market terms
The key role of maximizing social benefit outcomes from public land by favouring non-profit operators, rather than subsidizing higher cost market housing and/or child care
The complexity of agreements: both in terms of multi-governance (federal, provincial/territorial, municipal/regional, Indigenous) but also between housing and social service functions at the same level of government
The importance of accountable operators: non-profit child care providers are licensed, but there is no licensing system yet for non-market or market housing providers
Comparable, replicable, and transparent outcome data in relation to national targets, highlighting “desert” areas without adequate child care and/or deeply affordable housing
Democratic participation and learning from end users
Barriers to scaling up the good practices outlined in this report remain.91 Housing developers do not always know how to find child care providers with the resources or capacity to join the project, nor are they familiar with child care facility regulations. Housing developers may find a mixed-use development unfamiliar, as is the case in Kitchener. Low or no cost government land may not coincide with sites that are perfect for outdoor play, necessitating flexibility with roof decks or multi-use outdoor spaces, as is the case in Coal Harbour. Child care providers have likely never overseen the construction of a new facility. As a result, when the two parties come together to work through the planning process, there is often a steep learning curve.
The siloes between developers and architects of housing and child care can be mirrored in government siloes. Different departments may control permits, funding, and licensing, and may have varying standards, some of them very restrictive. Approval processes can be particularly lengthy because of multiple sources of funding and regulation, with cascading delays in approvals if one aspect of the funding stack falls behind, as is the case in Victoria. Anything that expands the timeline for a development increases financing costs and risks – for the developers and providers, as well as the governments.
Both child care and housing are expensive. Child-sized plumbing, child-safe kitchens, furniture and fittings, play spaces and other elements specific to a child care centre all require significant funds. Extended hours, such as those offered in Kitimat, are costly. Similarly, even if parking requirements are relaxed near transit, accessible and energy efficient design standards expected of non-market housing (but often not expected of market counterparts) can add costs. Family-sized housing is costlier than single-bedroom apartments. Requiring a child care centre can be seen as just another pricey hoop for non-market housing providers to jump through, as was certainly the case in Kitchener.
Funding program changes can hinder the ability to meet ongoing costs, particularly in the current era of funding uncertainty related to the renewal of both the National Housing Strategy and the CWELCC program.
In the face of these challenges, what are federal enablers and recommendations? They can be divided into work that can and should be done directly by the federal government, and work that should be required as part of conditional agreements with other levels of government – provincial/ territorial and municipal/ regional.
Direct federal enablers
Generational long-term infrastructure funding should be guaranteed for both non-market housing and child care: both capital and operating programs should be committed to for 30 to 40 years, with a review every five years
The federal government should create a funding stream dedicated to adding child care facilities as part of non-market housing renovations and redevelopments
The federal government should earmark child care infrastructure financing for co-located projects in large sites, either at the ground floor of multi-storey residential, or nearby in larger ‘campuses’
Build Canada Homes should be an exemplar of community building, including innovative ways to integrate social infrastructure like schools, libraries, health care and child care centres in portfolio planning
Federal expectations of government partners as part of conditional co-funding agreements
The federal government should include clear definitions (e.g. deeply affordable housing, non-profit child care) and targets (e.g. percent of those aged 4-5 with access to nearby affordable child care; percent of low income households with access to nearby deeply affordable housing) and require annual outcome reports in all intergovernmental infrastructure agreements for child care and housing.
The federal government should expect that planning regions map and track child care and non-market affordable housing ‘deserts’ – well located areas lacking one or both – and ensure that improvements to address these deserts are included in action plans.
The federal government should expect that provincial, territorial, municipal and regional governments prioritize government land for non-market housing (as opposed to market housing) and public and non-profit child care (as opposed to market child care).
The federal government should expect evidence of coordinated funding and portfolio planning within these regions, from multiple levels of government (provincial/territorial and municipal/regional) and departments within these governments. It should track length of time from ‘concept to approval to keys.’
The federal government should ensure that planning regions provide technical assistance support for developers engaging in co-location projects, as well as providers seeking to build, retrofit or expand their facility. Planning regions should foster better communication between real estate, land use planning, housing and social and community services without putting the onus on local housing or child care providers to navigate complex rules from multiple departments.
The federal government should require local and regional governments to demonstrate that zoning, building code, and design requirements such as minimum parking requirements encourage affordable mixed uses such as child care centres in residential areas.
The federal government should require that planning regions work with local Indigenous providers to improve cultural adequacy and Indigenous-led projects.
As projects from Cindy Beedie and Tamitik in British Columbia, to Prince Albert in Saskatchewan, to Biindigen and Lawrence-Orton in Ontario show, co-locating child care and non-market housing can work well to improve outcomes for low-income parents and children. This future-focused work must be scaled up to address Canada’s affordability challenges.
Acknowledgements
The School of Cities was contracted by Child Care Now to prepare this independent report, as part of Child Care Now’s Growth by Design project.
The ideas, views and opinions in this publication belong to the authors. They may not reflect those of the Government of Canada.
The School of Cities bears sole responsibility for the accuracy and appropriateness of this publication. Child Care Now accepts no responsibility for the content, interpretation, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this publication or other materials resulting from the supported work.
Macdonald, David. “Cash Cow: Assessing Child Care Space Creation Progress.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2025. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/cash-cow-assessing-child-care-space-creation-progress/.
McCallum Sather. “New Renderings Released for Biindigen Well‑Being Centre.” September 25, 2025. https://www.mccallumsather.com/new-renderings-released-for-biindigen-well-being-centre/.
Pasolli, Lynne. “‘I Ask You, Mr. Mitchell, Is the Emergency Over?’: Debating Day Nurseries in the Second World War.” The Canadian Historical Review 96, no. 1 (2015): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3138/chr.2642.
Pomeroy, Steve. “Coming Full Circle: Federalism and Responsibility for Housing.” In Fiscal Federalism in Canada: Analysis, Evaluation, Prescription, edited by André Lecours, Daniel Béland, Trevor Tombe, and Eric Champagne, 284–305. University of Toronto Press, 2023.
Taskforce for Housing and Climate. Blueprint for More and Better Housing: How Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Governments Can Ensure We Build 5.8 Million Homes That Are Affordable, Low‑Carbon and Resilient. 2024. https://housingandclimate.wpcomstaging.com/blueprint/.
Government of Canada, Solving the Housing Crisis, 10. ↩︎
In the case of housing, this report uses ‘non-market’ to connote provision by governments (‘public’ housing or child care), non-profit cooperatives, and other not for profit organizations, including charities. ‘Non-profit’ child care includes provision by public authorities as well as not for profit organizations. ↩︎
Forster, 80 Years of Social Housing in Vienna, 8.↩︎
Globe and Mail, “Why Toronto’s St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Is a Model.” ↩︎
In this report, we use the standard Statistics Canada measure of housing affordability, which is housing costs, including energy, that do not exceed 30% of pre-tax household income. We further use the income categories developed by the Housing Assessment Resource Tool project (HART, 2023) to define “deeply affordable” housing as that which is affordable to very-low and low-income households, and “affordable” housing as housing which is affordable to moderate- and median-income households, recognizing that the majority of those in housing need require deeply affordable housing. Very low income: 0-20% of area median household income (AMHI) Low income: 21-50% AMHI Moderate income: 51-80% AMHI Median income: 81-120% AMHI ↩︎
In this report, we use the Canadian government goal of $10 per day per child as ‘affordable child care’. ↩︎
Whitzman, A Human Rights–Based Estimate of Canada’s Housing Shortages. ↩︎
A ‘family’ is defined as one or two parents, married or unmarried, living in the same dwelling as their unmarried (or living in common law relationship) children, whatever their age. Grandchild(ren) living with grandparent(s) are included as a census family is there is no parent living with them (Statistics Canada, 2021). Adequate (not overcrowded) family housing thus requires at least two bedrooms, one for parent(s) and one for child(ren). ↩︎
In this report, we are following common practice (e.g. Peters, 2025) and simplifying ‘early childhood education and care’ for those under five years of age as ‘child care’ ↩︎
Government of Canada, National Housing Strategy Act. ↩︎
Peters, “Designing a Rights‑Based National Child Care Strategy.” ↩︎
Taskforce for Housing and Climate, Blueprint for More and Better Housing, 1. ↩︎
Hemingway, “Worried about Infrastructure Costs?” ↩︎
Peters, “Designing a Rights‑Based National Child Care Strategy.” ↩︎
Smith, “The American Elevator Explains Why Housing Costs Have Skyrocketed.” ↩︎
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, Roadmap to Universal Child Care in Ontario. ↩︎
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, Roadmap to Universal Child Care in Ontario. ↩︎
Pomeroy, “Updating Analysis on Erosion of Lower‑Rent Stock.” ↩︎
Peters, “Designing a Rights‑Based National Child Care Strategy.” ↩︎
Friendly et al., Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada, 11. ↩︎
Low Income Investment Fund, Building Better for Families, 11. ↩︎
Child Care Now, Physical Environment Matters in Child Care. ↩︎
City of Vancouver, Enabling Greater Flexibility for Childcare.↩︎
The decision was made to exclude Quebec case studies from this report, because Quebec has negotiated separate housing and child care agreements from other Canadian provinces and territories. ↩︎
Pomeroy, Gazzard, and Gaudreault, Promising Practices in Affordable Housing. ↩︎
Government of B.C., Homes for BC; Government of B.C., ChildCareBC.↩︎
In 2023, the province funded another 15,000 transitional housing spaces in their subsequent strategy, Homes for People (Government of British Columbia, 2023). ↩︎
It was revised in 2000; City of Burnaby, Burnaby Child Care Policy. ↩︎
