The federal Liberal government is finally making good on a years-old election campaign pledge, committing Monday to allocate $1 billion over five years to fund a new national school food program.

The funding, to be included in the upcoming April 16 budget, will launch with the aim of expanding existing school food programs, providing meals to an additional 400,000 Canadian kids a year.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland made the announcement in Scarborough, backed by members of cabinet and caucus as part of their latest pre-budget press tour.

    • K0W4L5K1
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      Glad it’s not just more money for Dougie to “lose”.

      Not saying I like how it’s being done though.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        23 months ago

        That’s how I feel too.

        I don’t like the federal government pretending to be provincial and the provincial governments blaming them for everything.

        If the premiers don’t want to run provinces, then dissolve the provinces.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      A lot of things should be handled by the provinces, but unfortunately there are premiers who care more about backroom deals with billionaires than administering social programs. I don’t mind the federal government stepping in to run social programs if the premiers have abandoned their province. It’s kind of hard to say the government is overstepping their boundaries by feeding children.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -25
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This should be handled by parents. If you want kids, you should be paying for them, not expecting people who work for a living to pick up the bill.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If you don’t live alone in the woods in a house you built yourself off the food you caught or grew in the clothes you made, you’re surviving on the support of others to one degree or another. We call it civilization. Moreover, these are kids, who had no choice in their birth. And finally, study after study has found a net economic benefit in making sure kids are fed enough to learn, so it is less of a burden than just letting kids starve.

        So what’s your reason for preferring to see kids go hungry?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The kids shouldn’t go hungry, their parents should be held legally and criminally responsible for not feeding them.

          What’s your reason for preferring parents to be negligent?

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)OP
        link
        English
        53 months ago

        That’ll show those ‘negligent parents,’ by letting their kids starve.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        33 months ago

        Fine, sure. I’m okay with this if you agree that every road should be a toll road and you pay for the cost of the road based on how far you drive and the weight of your car.

        Also, you have to pay for cops to patrol your neighbourhood. Also fire, if there’s a fire, you have to pay before your house burns down.

        I mean, Somalia’s still a real-life Galt’s Gulch, and you’re welcome to move there.

  • @FireRetardant
    link
    33 months ago

    This is great and I want the funding to follow through but I can’t help thinking delivering on a campaign promise this late and this close to an election is secretly more about the votes.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      Really, ya think?

      This has been the Liberal playbook for as long as I can remember:

      1. During the campaign, promise all sorts of progressive goodies (pharmacare, electoral reform, whatever)
      2. Flank the NDP by making swing voters think “What’s the difference between the two, anyway?”
      3. Get elected
      4. Do nothing progressive for four years, instead:
      5. Strike up a bunch of commissions, committees and studies for the progressive stuff you’d said you were going to do. Those commissions will either die a quiet death in bickering and obstructionism, or deliver their recommendations just before you call the next election
      6. On the other hand, do engage in the neoliberal stuff you really wanted to do: cut taxes for the rich, maybe buy a pipeline for Alberta, sell off some assets, do some expensive public-private partnerships
      7. Call an election and this time, pinkie-swear, we’ll really do pharmacare, or willd o daycare right, or will have an answer for housing. Just trust us this time, mmmkay?

      This is also while the Liberals don’t really mind the Conservatives, but are terrified of the NDP and truly pissed off at the Bloc: they’re okay with switching chairs every four to twelve years, but if the NDP gets traction it means that the Liberals might be away from the levers of power permanently. This is why electoral reform died: meaningful electoral reform would mean no more Liberal (or Conservative) majorities with ~35% of the vote.

      • @ikidd
        link
        English
        23 months ago

        You forgot “Get caught redhanded buttering the bread of Liberal cronies and somehow the media let them squirm out of it” about 2 years in.

    • @ikidd
      link
      English
      23 months ago

      about the votes.

      This is my surprised face.