Appetite for national school food program

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to be remembered as the Canadian leader who ended on the right side of history, introducing a national food program is a good decision.

Right now he seems hellbent on ending up on the right side of climate change history with the carbon tax. Time will tell on that one, and history will probably come sooner than later for Trudeau.

So we will talk about food instead of climate.

This week, the Liberal government made a prebudget swoop with a pledge to create a $1-billion national school meal program. It follows a promise the Liberals made during the 2021 election campaign.

The details of this program are still thin, but more will be known when the federal government brings down its budget on April 16.

At this point, the government says it intends to cover lunches for 400,000 students “beyond those served by existing school food programs.”

You could say that a national food program couldn’t come at a better time, although I’d say a better time would have been in 2021 when the promise was first made.

The past few years of inflation, with skyrocketing grocery prices, rising rent and housing costs, have only exacerbated the problem.

More children than ever are living in a state of food insecurity. According to Statistics Canada, one in four children do not have access to a healthy diet or aren’t always sure they can get that food.

The need has always been present, and researchers and food security advocates have been lobbying for a national program for years.

Canada is the only country in the G7 that does not have a national food program, according to the Breakfast Club of Canada, a charity that raises money and provides breakfasts to schools across the country.

Rather than create a national program to feed kids, Canada relied on the family allowance program, which distributed money directly to families with children.

The provinces filled the gap with a mishmash of programs. Earlier this year, Nova Scotia announced $18.8 million for a school lunch program. That will grow to $100 million by 2028.

Right now, there is heavy reliance on food banks, charities, church groups, corporate donations and community volunteers to coordinate efforts to feed children. This results in vastly different standards of food delivery to school children.

Food banks across the country say they are being slammed with an increasing number of people who can’t afford to feed their families a healthy diet. One-third of food bank users are children.

School teachers are on the front lines of child food poverty. They see the kids who come to class on an empty stomach. Some teachers have reported that they bring food themselves to give to the children in their classes.

They recognize that children who have not eaten do not perform well in the classroom. They fall behind, leaving them exposed to a litany of health, social and economic consequences in the future.

All of this in a rich country like Canada.

Whatever the national food program looks like, it should include at least one nutritious hot meal delivered in school cafeterias. This will mean the construction of kitchens in all schools that do not have them.

It will also mean hiring cooks and people to serve the food. A national food program should also offer cooking classes so children can learn how to prepare nutritious and affordable meals like soups.

I’m not sure whether the Liberal government should be praised for bringing in a national food program, or criticized for waiting so long.

If the moral argument to feed kids isn’t enough, then the economic case should be.

If a good chunk of the next generation isn’t getting enough to eat, how will Canada produce the strong and healthy workforce it will need to provide the services, start the businesses and generate the taxes to support the country?