By SCP Fellow Sarah Doyle and SCP Advisor Alex Himelfarb | Part of our Special Series: Always Canada. Never 51.
Canada’s National School Food Policy has the potential to significantly improve learning and life outcomes for hundreds of thousands of children. It could also benefit Canada’s agrifood industries and serve as a model of how to integrate economic, social and environmental objectives.
Every province and territory and parties across the spectrum have signed on, with good reason. Until this year, Canada was the only G7 country and one of the few in the OECD without a national school meals program. The benefits are well documented: children’s health, school attendance and scholastic achievement improve; dropout rates, socioeconomic inequality, food insecurity and pressure on household budgets go down.
What we have not yet fully exploited, however, is its potential to contribute to a more robust and sustainable agrifood sector.
In the face of U.S. threats, Canadian governments have rightly adopted procurement policies that give preference to Canadian businesses. Prime Minister Carney, in his party’s election platform, emphasized the imperative of directing government purchasing power to buy Canadian—specifically proposing to do so through the National School Food Policy. These policies open the door to a more strategic approach to food procurement—one that shifts the focus from minimizing price to maximizing public value.
Getting food procurement right is particularly consequential now, as Canadian governments work to build a more resilient, less dependent economy. Canada’s agrifood businesses—responsible for about 1 in 9 jobs and 7% of GDP—are grappling with escalating trade tensions with China and the U.S., which respectively account for 14% and over 60% of Canada’s agrifood exports.
Specifically, governments could require a minimum percentage of school meals procurement budgets to be spent on healthy food that is grown and made in Canada, with incentives for suppliers to adopt sustainable practices and decent work standards. Support could be made available to businesses that are willing to transform to improve nutrition, sustainability and labour standards, with smaller suppliers receiving additional support to help them compete for contracts against larger incumbents.
This is not uncharted territory. Brazil’s National School Feeding Program requires at least 30% of federal funding for school meals to be used to procure from family farms, with priority given to local and Indigenous farmers, and to those who adopt sustainable land use practices. This program contributes to creating more sustainable value chains for food and nutrition security—one of six “missions” in Brazil’s industrial policy.
The patchwork nature of Canada’s School Food Policy is unlikely to offer much of a boost to industry. But it is not too late to negotiate a coordinated, national approach that reconciles flexibility with solidarity. Governments should identify procurement criteria that transcend provincial and territorial barriers, complemented by mechanisms for pooled procurement and advanced purchasing agreements for certain products, enhancing market certainty for businesses.
A national agreement could apply to all public food procurement, including in schools, hospitals and programs for northern and remote communities, building on sophisticated local procurement approaches that already exist. Such an agreement would reflect the collaborative approach to federalism that all parties are calling for to weather the impacts of U.S. aggression. Failing a national approach, willing governments could move forward together with agreed targets and principles.
Canada’s School Food Policy commits the federal government to spend $1B over five years on top of existing provincial, territorial and municipal funding and to work towards universal access. The benefits to children make this a worthy investment, but the return on investment could be greater. Clearly school meals are good social policy, but if school meal procurement is leveraged as an instrument of inclusive and green industrial strategy, they could be good economic policy as well.
Orienting procurement around the challenge of providing sustainable, healthy meals that are grown and made in Canada could stimulate innovation across the value chain, driving investment in potential growth areas like plant protein and greenhouse production, and providing a path to scale for made-in-Canada innovations like Growcer’s modular vertical farms. A strategic approach to food procurement could work in concert with, and augment, other tools of industrial strategy, such as government support for agrifood research and development, infrastructure, concessionary financing and supply-chain adaptation.
Scaling up access to school meals is a big win for children and families. It could also be a win for agrifood businesses, the climate and workers, contributing to a more resilient, just, sustainable and less dependent Canadian economy—but only if Canada’s newly elected government takes an ambitious, collaborative approach to how food is procured.
–
Sarah Doyle is Policy Fellow at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose and a Fellow at Social Capital Partners and Alex Himelfarb is former Clerk of the Privy Council and Fellow at the Broadbent and Parkland Institutes.
Share with a friend
Related reading
Blame the denominator, not the economy
Over the last couple of years, there have been countless articles warning of Canada’s poor economic performance. The mic drop has increasingly been Canada’s poor performance relative to peer countries on “GDP per capita,” with growth rankings used to draw a variety of sweeping, negative conclusions about Canada’s economy. SCP CEO Matthew Mendelsohn and Policy Director Dan Skilleter draw on economist and SCP Fellow Dr. Gillian Petit's new research to explain why GDP per capita is a deeply flawed measurement for evaluating rich countries - and is easily influenced by a variety of factors having little to do with economic performance or economic well-being.
Non-Permanent Residents and their impact on GDP per capita | Summary
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. She also estimates the expected impact on GDP per capita in the coming years due strictly to planned reductions in Canada's intake of non-permanent residents. Among key findings: Canada’s GDP per capita is misleading and should not be used as if it were the sole indicator of economic well-being. Plus, if we had maintained our temporary resident numbers at two percent of the population in recent years, Canada’s GDP per capita would look much more like our peer countries: a little bit ahead of countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia and a little bit lower than countries like Belgium, Sweden and France.
Non-Permanent Residents and their impact on GDP per capita | Report
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. She also estimates the expected impact on GDP per capita in the coming years due strictly to planned reductions in Canada's intake of non-permanent residents. Among key findings: Canada’s GDP per capita is misleading and should not be used as if it were the sole indicator of economic well-being. Plus, if we had maintained our temporary resident numbers at two percent of the population in recent years, Canada’s GDP per capita would look much more like our peer countries: a little bit ahead of countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia and a little bit lower than countries like Belgium, Sweden and France.