What we know so far about the new AYCTE meal plan
As part of our research, we made an Access to Information (ATI) request for all
documentation and correspondence relating to the new All-You-Care-To-Eat (AYCTE) meal plan
that is set to start in Fall 2023. Unfortunately, although a sort of timeline of events can be
scavenged from the ATI, a lot is still unclear. Information is blacked-out, deemed ‘’out of scope’’,
including the salaries of the food service higher-ups at McGill. In addition, there is no proof of
meaningful student consultation in the process of creating or deciding to execute the new meal
plan. Students’ voices appear to be at the far back, with the little suggestions that came through
from the student body not appearing anywhere in a significant way. A few representatives from
the residence student council were considered in a “dining hall food committee meeting’’ which
only occurred 1-2 times according to the ATI documents we received. While students in
residence are a vital demographic to be taken into consideration, it is regrettable that other
student food advocacy groups, floor fellows, non-residence students, professors, and staff, may not have been consulted in the process of a new meal plan.
Although it was painfully clear to students that exorbitant food prices were increasing food
insecurity in their lives, this suffering is not listed explicitly in the reasons for the meal plan
review. Instead, 3 reasons were given:
- To compare McGill’s Meal Plan Program with other main Canadian universities and some
US Universities. - To foresee the impact of the recruitment and the mission to provide a great meal plan for
our population. - To analyze the option to provide a Dining Service with the cost of food rising.
No information was given on whether or not there is a regular systematic review of the meal
plan. Reviewing the meal plans seems to be at the whim of the higher-ups involved (all of which
trickle down from the Deputy-Provost, Fabrice Lebeau, and Mathieu Laperle, Senior Director of
Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS) who is under Mr. Lebeau’s supervision)
instead of a true assessment of student needs. What is stronger still is the pressure to conform
to the trends of other universities, a pattern that reappears several times in the ATI. Additionally,
the reasons are not fleshed out in process or scope. The parameters of what a ‘’great meal
plan’’ is unclear. Finally, is it unclear whether the effect of rising food costs on students is what
will be considered, or the way in which this affects the possibility of providing a Dining Service at
all (a financial not social choice).
Another valuable finding from our ATI request was the statistics from the Fall 2023 Dining survey,
which was sent to only students in residence to complete. The presentation of the results by
Dining service highlight their understanding that a high majority of students are concerned about
the price of meals and food items in the cafeterias. Despite this apparent awareness of the
situation, food affordability does not appear to be priority for dining services. Similarly, hundreds of students sent emails during our free food distribution week to food services about the necessity of affordable food on campus, yet we did not receive any response. Ultimately, such actions makes one wonder, if the cafeteria is not prioritizing students and their needs when it comes to food, what are they valuing?
Brief timeline of food services as it pertains to the ATI
Prior to 2003, food services were under the supervision of Ancillary Services and Residences. A
meal plan, the Board Plan, operated in Bishop Mountain Dining Hall (BMH), Douglas Dining Hall
(DH), Royal Victoria Dining Hall (RVC) only. This plan allowed students three meals per day,
Monday to Friday, at BMH and DH Dining Halls. Meals were offered seven days per week only at
the RVC Dining Hall so students would miss meals. The Board Plan was included in the
residence rental fee through a debit card concept where funds were deducted from the Meal
Plan account with every transaction.
In 2003, the New Residence Hall (NRH) and another hotel were purchased by McGill. The
declining balance Meal Plan Program (essentially identical to the plan available until this fall) was
adopted in 16 locations on the two campuses, but not in the three (3) residences (BMH, RVC
and DH) that had a Board Plan. The total amount was incorporated into the monthly residence
rental fee.
In 2009, McGill Food and Dining Services (MFDS) was created under the Office of the Deputy
Provost (Student Life and Learning). Their mandate was a systematic review of food services,
including the Meal Plan Program. The declining balance system was kept. Even at this time,
though it was acknowledged that ‘’students found the declining balance plan costly’’, it remained
due to it being more popular than the Board Plan and its popularity as dining model among other
universities in Canada. Despite knowing the plan was too expensive, even 15 years ago, no
further assessments were done to evaluate the model, consulate for or find a solution.
In 2022, the ATI indicates a correspondence in September as the first discussions of the AYCTE
model (most of which is blacked out). It is reiterated at this time that the influence of other
universities and the financial doability of the project are at the front of consultations. Two
universities in Ottawa were visited to assess their ‘’all you can eat’’ model. It was mentioned that
they were operated by contracted Financial Service Providers and that large dining halls were
being used.
In October 2022, the Marketing Communications Manager asked the managers of SHHS to make
comments on the survey they wished to send to students in residence about the old and new
meal plan. The answers are blacked out except for a mention of making a flex component of
AYCTE.
The following first two weeks of November 1st-14th, the survey was sent to students in
residence. McGill community members who purchase meals on campus, but that do not live in
residence were not included. The questions were evaluating the old meal plan and only two
questions pertained to the AYCTE (whether they would like to see it adopted and wether they
would like to see it adopted for zero-waste purposes). The results were presented in January
2023.
The following correspondence in 2023 follow a quick succession of letting different McGill groups
know that the meal plan is going to go into effect without meaningful consultation. Mid-January,
SHHS and elected student representatives of NRH, Upper Residences, C4, Douglas Hall met for
a ‘’dining hall food committee meeting’’. The students reps discussed what was reflected in the
survey: a lot of budgeting is involved, because students want to save money and food prices are
increasing; despite the high price, food quality is poor in terms of vegan and vegetarian options.
Additional suggestions around specific foods and increasing social media as a tool for dining
information dissemination were brought up by the students. And finally, students expressed
interest in meeting the chef managers, but there is no indication in the ATI that this ever
happened, and no indication of a follow-up meeting of the ‘’dining hall food committee’’.
A couple days later the Executive Summary of the fall survey is presented, highlighting the top
challenge as ‘’the amount of food per dollar does not meet the needs of students and they are
using other strategies to eat 3 meals a day’’: buying groceries, skipping meals, topping up before
the end of the year. Strong interest was indicated for AYCTE (91%), with 94% in favor of the
concept to support zero-waste. Interest is high despite not being given any details of the plan in
the survey, indicating that even a plan the students know nothing about is better than the current
one due to food prices being too high. No indication is given as to whether AYCTE will be more
affordable, in the survey or in any correspondence.
On February 8th, a McGill Daily journalist asked Food & Dining Services about the Board of
Governors (BoG) community session and the AYCTE proposed change. In the community
session, AYCTE was discussed as an already-adopted concept. How the new meal plan would
impact students, dining hall employees and the food remained unclear to the journalist from the
Daily (as well as the wider community). In response to this email (with the Daily removed from
the chain), the higher-ups correspond that before discussing it with the journalist, they would
have to tell their employees, further cementing the fact that this was an incredibly rushed
decision, grossly lacking in consultation. The next day, SHHS discuss how the AYCTE was
positively received (by who is unclear). It was also asked what should they tell the ‘’SEU (service
employees union) if they ask about their jobs’’.
Next to ask SHHS about AYCTE details is SSMU, writing ‘’it seems like University if going forward
with it from the BoG meeting’’ and they want to know more about it – indicating that they were not consulted and plan already adopted before consultation. A meeting was apparently set up for February 24th.
Minutes from a ‘’food committee meeting’’ on Feb 14 between SHHS and some blacked-out
names describing AYCTE parameters and other content which is blacked out. AYCTE will be
dine-in for residences with take-out options at other outlets on campus. The plan will be
all-you-can-eat, self-serve, swipe-a-card model and local (unclear as to how this is achieved or
what is means). There will be defined hot meal options for breakfast, lunch, and dinner with cold
options available all day. The plan is mandatory for residences and available for non-residences.
Two weeks later the meal plan is announced to ‘’colleagues’’ of SHHS as starting in the Fall of 2023. Highlighted concepts in the email include: students choosing ‘’healthy and local foods based on nutritional needs and preference over choosing meals on price’’, ‘’encouraging communal dining’’, being more ‘’sustainable’’ – eliminating single-use beverage and takeout containers, disposable cutlery, packaging to obtain McGill’s goal of zero-waste by 2035 (concrete parameters and climate science behind the latter is lacking).
In March and April, communications about meal plan details to employees were exchanged. The
role of SHHS role is described as to support students to ease the transition from home to enable
students to concentrate on academics. Along with: SHHS is a ‘’self-financing, mixed-business
model. (..) self-operating locations, providers, tenants. (..) (SHHS) has to generate revenue to
meet financial expectations of the University, so cost of Meal Plan and Dining hall operations
must be covered (renovations, mortgages, repairs and maintenance, utilities, etc.).’’