Why doesn't anyone want to talk about student nutrition?

The issue Mayor Chow wants the media talking about this week is her move to establish a universal student nutrition program in Toronto -- a plank of her candidacy in her last two mayoral runs -- with the prospect of the program being a tremendous legacy of hers that will lift many youth and students and support their learning. If a provincial or federal government had announced such a program, it would rightly receive province and nationwide attention, with many ministers trotted out alongside leadership to talk about how they are putting kids first. This time still may come, as the province inches closer to an election and interest between the City and province to work together has proven to be popular for all decision makers.

What the media and public really want to dig into is another legacy project that is going to develop during Mayor Chow's term in office, and that is the never-ending discussion about the future of the island airport. We all know the drill at this point: the airport says it is in trouble if it doesn't get the ability to do more, everyone makes reference to a tripartite agreement, the media reports these two statements, the governments respond and say that the airport is important, and the issue quietly goes away until the next time the airport says its in trouble.

The island airport is popular. No doubt about that. Even the advocacy group NoJetsTO knows that taking the position that the airport should be eliminated is not a winning, nor popular stance. Before the airport was blossoming and Porter was growing, that may have been the time to fight back against its growth, but now -- as the 9th most popular airport in Canada -- its removal would be the type of fight Mayor Chow does not want to pick. So her committee approved an expansion of the airport lands (with more fill added to Lake Ontario) to ensure that the impacts of federal guidelines not immediately negatively impact the operation of the airport.

And then BlogTO ran the story suggesting that the future of the airport is uncertain.

And Councillor Carroll penned a letter expressing her thoughts on the need to extend the tripartite agreement to secure funding for this work.

And outspoken public figures have rushed in to put the brakes on giving the airport carte-blanche.

Mayor Chow and the City's position on the airport was spot on. Give them some of what they want, show willingness to negotiate and be a partner, but hold the operators of the airport accountable to protect the waterfront from jets and further expansion into Lake Ontario. I may be letting my political colours show here, but no 'selling off' of public land should ever occur without significant consideration of how the public realm is impacted and anyone who has been around an international airport can attest, they are loud, they pollute, and their infrastructure needs are immense.

But the airport is not in trouble. It will get the extension it needs. This is how negotiation works, and the public pressure is being applied to the City to further bend.

And this all amounts to nearly zero ink spilled to discuss a new student nutrition policy and program.

Perhaps the cheeky thing is to plug the policy when you are at any media availability, or to force feed the media availabilities to talk about the benefits of the program...but will Torontonians care? Will this move the needle for them? Will this be received across the City in much the same way depictions of the poor have become synonymous with addiction, crime and violence? That anyone who needs to access these poverty reduction programs should receive the bare minimum, and society should not pay for their personal failures?

In my experience at City Hall, staff and elected officials alike were treated most aggressively by their constituents when dealing with issues related to poverty. From addictions treatment, to encampment support, the establishment of shelters, and everything in between, Council was either never doing nearly enough, or 'enabling' those experiencing poverty to continue their anti-social behaviour. I have to wonder if the apathy to such a program stems from the same general 'distaste of the poor' except when children are involved, you don't say the quiet part aloud. You just shrug. At least the children won't consume drugs near my house.

The student nutrition and youth poverty issue failed to resonate with voters in 2014, and I don't think many cared about it in 2023. The challenge for this administration becomes, how do you make people care? How do you raise the profile and attach your name to what will be a successful and worthwhile investment in the future of our City and children? This is not just important from a political survivorship perspective, but if the program wants to live beyond the current Mayor, it needs to be something the public is clamoring for and it's elimination a non-starter.

Right now, the people and voters care about their quality of life above that of others, and this needs to be accounted for when determining how a student nutrition program is sold, and during ongoing negotiations around the future of the airport. The reality of governing is something a lot of people in the public have a hard time understanding and also contributes to Chow's opposition playing up (completely unfounded) fears about her being an ideological nightmare.

Good leadership understands that they need to make hard decisions, and sometimes take steps that may upset their base in order to build and maintain the political capital to spend on other issues. Chow's team is continuing to build that political capital (some of which they spent on the large property tax increase in 2024) so that they may spend it on the issues her office is looking to be hallmarks of her time as Mayor. This will be tested as she will spend a little more of her earned capital on the nutrition program, while navigating the agreement for the extension at the airport in the months and years ahead.