Why the National School Food Program Is a No-Brainer

The program’s launch is another major achievement for Canada’s progressive movement.

In northern Ontario, a charity recently pointed out a small but significant change: school food programs it supported could now give a whole banana instead of half to students. That simple shift, made possible by new federal funding, speaks volumes about how stretched local school nutrition programs are—and how transformative Canada’s new National School Food Program (NSFP) could become.

It may not have made splashy headlines like child care, dental care, or pharmacare, but in 2025 Canada finally joined the ranks of countries with a nationwide school food program. And it’s about time.

Canada finally joins the club

Unlike most wealthy countries, Canada had no nationwide school food program until now. Kids in Finland, Brazil, the UK, France, and Japan have long had access to free or highly subsidized meals at school. Canadian children, by contrast, have typically relied on packed lunches from home—sometimes supplemented by patchwork programs varying wildly in quality and scope.

In recent times, the Green Party first floated the idea in its 2015 federal campaign, promising “federally funded, community-guided school lunch programs across Canada.” The NDP joined in ahead of the 2019 election, pledging to “work towards a national school nutrition program.” The Liberals under Justin Trudeau finally committed to it in their 2021 platform.

Notably, the NSFP wasn’t part of the Liberal–NDP supply-and-confidence deal of 2022. Even so, Trudeau’s government committed $1 billion over five years in Budget 2024, introduced a national policy framework, and began signing bilateral agreements with all 13 provinces and territories. Mark Carney’s new Liberal government completed the process this past March, inking the final deal with Alberta.

The program is now rolling out coast to coast. In Nova Scotia, lunches will expand this fall to 104,000 students at 334 schools. In northeastern Ontario, nutrition programs are being extended through the end of the school year instead of being cut off prematurely. And in northern Quebec, Cree and Nunavik school boards are providing breakfast for every child who wants it.

The National School Food Program isn’t just a patch job. It envisions a universal, stigma-free program that eventually makes healthy meals available to all children, regardless of income. The guiding framework emphasizes that food must be culturally and regionally appropriate, locally sourced, and environmentally sustainable.

Just as importantly, the program doesn’t stop at food purchases. Federal funding is also geared towards building kitchens, purchasing equipment, and modernizing logistics—signs that this is a long-term investment, not a token gesture. Monitoring and evaluation are also emphasized, recognizing that nothing undermines a school food program faster than unhealthy or unappealing meals.

The payoffs: Health, learning, jobs, and more

The global evidence is clear: school food programs work. Children who participate enjoy better nutrition, sharper concentration, and improved academic outcomes. Over time, they also develop healthier eating habits that carry into adulthood. Families save both time and money—one U.S. study estimated that grocery bills could drop by as much as a fifth when schools provide meals.

The benefits ripple outward. If domestic farmers and suppliers are prioritized, they can gain stable demand for their products, which in turn allows them to invest in more sustainable production. Jobs multiply: one estimate from 2019 suggested that a universal program could generate as many as 62,000 new food preparation jobs in schools, and another 200,000 positions across supply chains. And there’s even a consumer upside—U.S. research found that grocery prices dropped by 2.5 percent in areas with robust school food programs, as retailers adjusted to shifting household demand.

With U.S.–Canada relations in the dumps, Ottawa pushing for more self-reliance, and cost of living concerns at the forefront, the NSFP hits all the right notes. Healthier kids who do better in school, families spending less on food, more support for local farmers and Canadian jobs—it’s a win-win-win. A fully funded, universal school food program is a no-brainer.

What it would cost

So what does universal school food actually cost? Less than you might think. Feeding all 5.3 million public school students in Canada two meals a day for 190 instructional days—at roughly $12 for both breakfast and lunch each day—would amount to about $12 billion annually. But because the NSFP is designed as a cost-share program with provinces and territories, which bear responsibility for education under the Constitution, Ottawa wouldn’t bear the full amount.

For instance, in Nova Scotia, currently a leader in school food, federal funding covers only about six percent of the province’s $80 million school food program for 2025–26. That means even relatively small amounts of federal money can have an outsized impact.

Now imagine Ottawa got really ambitious and dramatically increased its current commitment to $3 billion each year. Even that big jump would represent just 0.56 percent of federal expenditures (based on the last $538 billion federal budget) or 0.1 percent of GDP. Compare that with military spending plans: the Carney government is boosting spending by $9 billion this year alone on the path to 2 percent of GDP by 2026 and 5 percent by 2035.

Even if Ottawa picked up the full bill for a universal NSFP, the cost would represent about 0.4 percent of GDP. In other words, universal school food is easily within reach for a country as wealthy as Canada.

A boost from sugary drinks?

There’s also a compelling way to fund a good chunk of the program: a national levy on sugary drinks. The UK introduced such a levy in 2018 and raised the equivalent of more than CAD $600 million in 2023–24, even after many companies reformulated their products to dodge the tax.

In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that a 10 percent levy could bring in $400 million—nearly triple what Ottawa has allocated to the NSFP this year. (While Ottawa has committed $1 billion for the NSFP between 2024 and 2029, the allocation for 2025-26 is $140 million.)

The government could frame such a sugary drinks levy as not only a way to generate government revenue, discourage unhealthy consumption and incentivize firms to produce healthier products, but also to fund food for school children—capturing broad public support. Carney’s government hasn’t shown any interest in such a levy yet, but it’s an option too smart to ignore.

Is Carney serious about school food?

Carney’s government is preparing an austerity budget. That casts doubt on the future of nascent social initiatives such as the NSFP, despite its clear benefits. At present, moreover, funding is flowing, but the program is not protected by law—unlike child care, dental care, and pharmacare. This makes it even more vulnerable to shifting political priorities.

Still, there are reasons for optimism. The sum committed so far is modest—$1 billion spread over five years. Furthermore, Carney himself is publicly promoting the program, including in a June tweet from his hometown of Fort Smith highlighting the NSFP’s rollout in the Northwest Territories. Additionally, in August the Liberals proudly declared that “all 13 provinces and territories are participating in our National School Food Program.” And just this month, Secretary of State for Children and Youth Anna Gainey promised to make the NSFP permanent—presumably through legislation. She added that the government will also “prioritize Canada-made food as much as possible.”

Limited attention for a big achievement

Curiously, while child care, dental care, and pharmacare have all received substantial media coverage, the NSFP has received far less attention. So far this year, the Globe & Mail has mentioned it only six times, with just three articles offering substantial discussion (including an editorial arguing against the program).

Even within the labour movement, which is generally quick to show support for social program expansions, the NSFP has received minimal attention. In fact, the Coalition for Healthy School Food, a national advocacy organization with over 375 members and 151 endorsers from civil society, counts almost no labour groups among its supporters.

Yet, a universal NSFP has the potential to generate tens of thousands of new jobs. Paired with the Canada Child Benefit, the Early Learning and Child Care Plan, the Canada Dental Care Plan, and National Pharmacare, the NSFP could help reshape the lives of millions of families for the better while contributing to the country’s economic strength and resilience. The program’s launch is another major achievement for Canada’s progressive movement.

Sometimes the payoff is as simple as it is profound. That full banana in a child’s hand isn’t just a fruit—it’s proof that federal money can make an immediate and much-needed difference in children’s lives. Indeed, given the programs many benefits, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion: it’s bananas that Ottawa hasn’t already committed funds to making the NSFP universal.