This bill amends the Educational Childcare Act to create a formal recognition and regulatory framework for “persons responsible for a community educational childcare service” — self-employed natural persons who provide paid educational childcare in locations other than private residences. It renames and expands the role of coordinating offices (now “home and community educational childcare coordinating offices”), sets location and health-safety conditions for recognition, and prescribes how these community providers may operate alone, with an assistant, or in collaboration with another recognized person.
The legislation also fixes operational details: recognition is location-specific and time-limited, maximum group sizes depend on staffing and children’s ages, coordinating offices gain evacuation and enforcement powers, and the group representation and collective-negotiation regime that applies to home providers is extended to community providers. The bill folds an existing pilot project into the statutory framework and gives the Minister of Families regulation-making authority and limited power to extend the pilot period to smooth the transition.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires accredited coordinating offices to recognize self-employed community childcare providers who meet location, safety and regulatory conditions and issues recognition tied to a specific site for five years. It establishes capacity rules (different caps when a provider is alone, assisted, or collaborating), requires collaboration agreements for co-located providers, and grants coordinating offices powers to order evacuations and impose penalties.
Who It Affects
Self-employed childcare providers operating outside private residences, home-and-community coordinating offices, parents who contract privately for childcare, existing associations that negotiate group agreements, and municipal/regulatory actors responsible for taxation, zoning and safety standards.
Why It Matters
The bill formally legitimizes and regulates a growing model of non-residence community childcare, shifting regulatory attention from permit-holders and homes to place-based recognition. That change creates new compliance obligations and enforcement tools while extending collective-bargaining coverage and folding a pilot project into permanent law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill carves out a new regulated category for natural persons who operate as self-employed community childcare providers in premises that are not private residences. Recognition is granted by home and community educational childcare coordinating offices and is valid only for the named location.
The law requires that those locations be reserved for childcare while services are provided, meet standards set elsewhere in the Act, and allow the coordinating office to be satisfied that children’s health, safety and well‑being can be ensured.
Recognition is granted for five years and can be renewed, suspended or revoked under regulatory conditions. A recognized person may work alone, hire an assistant (subject to regulatory conditions), or collaborate with another recognized person at the same location.
When two persons collaborate, they must sign a childcare agreement with parents that identifies which person is the main person responsible for each child; the Minister may propose an agreement model and regulations can make clauses mandatory. If the collaboration agreement expires or is cancelled, both recognitions are suspended unless one person withdraws; the coordinating office has limited discretion, by regulation, to lift suspensions.The bill sets explicit capacity ceilings tied to staffing and child ages: a single recognized person may care for up to six children (no more than two under 18 months); a single person with a non-recognized adult assistant may care for up to nine children (no more than four under 18 months); and two collaborating recognized persons may jointly care for up to twelve children (no more than four under 18 months), with lower maxima permitted by coordinating office regulation.
Coordinating offices gain the power to order evacuations of locations where children’s health, safety or well‑being are severely affected; the Act creates penalties for allowing access to premises under such an order and establishes fines for breaches.Beyond operational rules, the bill amends registers and municipal-taxation language, extends group representation and the group‑agreement negotiation process that applies to home providers to community providers, and incorporates existing pilot-project recognitions into the permanent framework while allowing the Minister to extend the pilot briefly to manage the transition. The government has broad regulation-making authority to fill in technical requirements, limits for alternating use of locations, collaboration agreement content, and situations that allow coordinating offices to reduce authorized group sizes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Recognition is location-specific and lasts five years; renewal, suspension or revocation rules are to be set by regulation.
Capacity limits: a lone provider may care for up to 6 children (≤2 under 18 months); with a non‑recognized assistant up to 9 (≤4 under 18 months); two collaborating providers together up to 12 (≤4 under 18 months).
Two recognized persons may be authorized to share the same non‑residential location only if they enter a written collaboration agreement and both sign the childcare contract with parents indicating which is the main person responsible for each child.
Coordinating offices can order evacuation of a location when children’s health, safety or well‑being are ‘severely affected’; permitting access to an evacuated site can trigger fines ranging from $5,000 to $50,000.
The bill extends the existing group representation and collective‑negotiation regime for self‑employed home providers to community providers and deems pilot‑project recognitions to convert into the new regime subject to a compliance review and short corrective period.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Accredited coordinating offices and exclusive name use
The bill tightens accreditation: only an office accredited as a 'home and community educational childcare coordinating office' may recognize persons responsible for educational childcare services and coordinate those services. The title protection means unaccredited bodies cannot present themselves as coordinating offices; that limits private actors from stepping into recognition and coordination roles and centralizes responsibility with accredited offices.
Common duties and recognition mechanics for all recognized persons
These provisions standardize baseline obligations across home and community providers: recognition runs five years, recognized providers must commit to providing childcare in accordance with law and manage their operations to protect health, safety and well‑being, and may use adult assistants under regulatory conditions. The mechanics give coordinating offices a predictable recognition term and a regulatory lever (renewal/suspension/revocation) to enforce standards.
Who may be recognized as a community provider and where
Section 56 defines eligible community providers as natural persons who are own‑account self‑employed (not day‑care permit holders) and who provide childcare in non‑residential locations that meet standards (premises must be reserved for childcare during service hours and satisfy criteria under section 106). Recognition is explicitly bound to the specific location; coordinating offices may authorize alternating use of locations or multiple locations within an immovable under regulatory limits. This section is the operational core: it sets the boundary between community providers and regulated day‑care centres or home providers.
Group size, assistant rules and collaboration agreements
These sections set concrete capacity rules and the framework for collaboration. They define the child-count rules based on whether the provider is alone, assisted by a non‑recognized adult, or collaborating with another recognized person, with special counts for children under 18 months. Collaboration requires a written agreement and joint signature on parent contracts, and regulatory powers let the government mandate specific clauses or permit lower local maxima. Practically, this creates predictable staffing thresholds but also administrative requirements for contracts and agreements.
Evacuation orders and enforcement fines
The coordinating office obtains the power to order the evacuation of a location when it has reasonable grounds to believe children's health, safety or well‑being are severely affected; the office can notify the recognized person in writing and apply the same authority across home and community contexts. The bill also sets a criminally framed fine regime: allowing access to premises subject to an evacuation order can attract fines between $5,000 and $50,000. This gives offices an immediate enforcement tool but raises liability and operational disruption risks for providers.
Regulation‑making authorities to fill technical gaps
The amendments to section 106 add explicit regulatory tasks: define standards for alternating-location recognition, criteria for recognizing multiple locations in one building, the mandatory contents of collaboration agreements, circumstances allowing coordinating offices to reduce authorized group sizes, monitoring measures, and non‑renewal and suspension triggers. The broad regulatory mandate signals that many operational details (zoning, capacity exceptions, monitoring regimes) will be left to future regulations rather than this Act.
Pilot integration and short compliance window
The Act preserves pilot‑project recognitions while the pilot is in force and deems the pilot to end when the new section on community providers comes into force. Coordinating offices must review pilot recognitions for compliance within a three‑month window after key regulations are published, and can require corrective measures with a three‑month cure period. The Minister can extend the pilot for up to 18 months to ensure an orderly transition. These rules manage legacy cases but impose tight timelines for administrative compliance work.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Self-employed providers seeking to operate outside a private residence — the bill creates a clear statutory path to recognition and market legitimacy for non‑residential, small‑scale community childcare operators.
- Parents looking for local, non‑centre childcare options — the new category may increase supply and choice in neighbourhood‑based settings (subject to provider uptake and coordination).
- Home and community educational childcare coordinating offices — the statute expands their remit and authority, centralizing recognition, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities and giving them new tools (evacuation, registration details).
- Associations representing providers — group representation and collective agreement coverage now extend to community providers, strengthening bargaining reach and the ability to set sectoral terms.
- Regulatory clarity for municipalities and tax authorities — amendments to municipal taxation and register requirements clarify which activities (a recognized community provider’s operation) fall under the Educational Childcare Act.
Who Bears the Cost
- Community providers — must meet location standards, administrative registration and contract/collaboration requirements, possibly invest in site upgrades, and face exposure to evacuation orders and fines, increasing compliance and insurance costs.
- Coordinating offices — will need resources to evaluate locations, monitor compliance, issue evacuation orders and manage recognition reviews, tasks that may require new staffing and technical capacity.
- Parents and children during transition — compliance reviews, suspension of recognitions or forced evacuations could disrupt childcare arrangements on short notice, shifting short‑term costs to families.
- Municipalities and zoning/building regulators — may face increased inquiries and pressure to clarify how municipal codes, building permits and zoning rules apply to newly recognized community childcare locations.
- Insurers and third‑party service providers — demand for liability, property and business‑interruption coverage may rise as providers move into community spaces, raising premium costs and underwriting scrutiny.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is supply versus safeguards: the Act aims to expand non‑residential, self‑employed childcare supply by legalizing and standardizing community providers, but it does so by imposing location‑specific standards, contract and collaboration formalities, monitoring obligations and strict enforcement powers — measures that protect children but raise compliance costs and may constrain the very supply the law intends to grow.
The bill leaves many operationally decisive details to regulation: which specific facility standards in section 106 will apply, how strictly 'premises reserved exclusively for childcare while services are provided' is interpreted, and the conditions for alternating‑use recognitions. Those regulatory choices will determine how many existing pilot providers can convert, whether providers can use multi‑purpose community rooms flexibly, and how much retrofit investment is required.
Collaboration agreements and the suspension mechanics create a knot of shared risk and administrative complexity. If the expiry or cancellation of a collaboration agreement suspends both recognitions, providers who jointly share a site face mutual vulnerability unless regulations offer workable cures.
At the same time, evacuation powers and hefty fines give coordinating offices strong immediate tools to protect children but risk rapid service interruptions. The Act requires coordinating offices — which are given central authority — to absorb monitoring and enforcement costs without specifying new funding or operational supports.
Finally, extending group bargaining to self‑employed community providers raises questions about labour classification, dues collection, and how a traditionally independent business model will interact with collective agreements.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.