National School Food Policy Engagements – What We Heard Report

Ministerial roundtables and site visits

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development’s predecessor, the Honourable Karina Gould, hosted roundtables with stakeholders. The Minister’s predecessor also visited many school food programs in communities across Canada.

Targeted thematic stakeholder virtual roundtables

The Minister’s predecessor, the Honourable Karina Gould, also hosted 4 thematic roundtables in November and December of 2022. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) hosted 1 thematic roundtable in November 2022. More than 130 stakeholders participated in these roundtables from across the country representing:

• service delivery organizations
• school communities 
• health organizations
• academics
• food and agricultural organizations
• community advocacy organizations

We made efforts to ensure diverse representation from:

• Northern, remote, urban, rural and Indigenous peoples
• marginalized populations
• key players in delivering school meal programs
• the populations most affected by this policy area, including school administrators and children and youth 

Consult Annex A for a list of organizations that participated in the virtual roundtables.  

Children and youth engagement sessions

Three engagement sessions with children and youth were held in May and June of 2023. Two in-person sessions took place with children in grades 3 to 6. One bilingual virtual session took place with youth in grades 7 to 12.

Public online questionnaire

5,283 responses were received from the online public questionnaire posted from November 16 to December 16, 2022.

• 83% of respondents completed the questionnaire as individuals, and 16% as representatives of an organization. The remaining 2% responded “prefer not to answer”, “I don’t know”, or specified another answer in a text response
• 89% of respondents completed the questionnaire in English, and 11% completed the questionnaire in French

Of all respondents:

• 16% identified as male, 78% identified as female, 1% identified as non-binary and 5% chose not to respond
• 28% identified as a teacher, school administrator or education support professional
• 54% identified as being a parent or legal guardian. They had at least one child under the age of 18 living in their household
• 965 respondents identified as Indigenous or as an individual working with Indigenous communities
• there was representation from every province and territory among respondents. Most respondents were from Ontario (39%), British Columbia (12%), Quebec (11%) and Manitoba (11%)

Of the organizational respondents:

• 74% identified as an organization providing school meal programming
• 26% identified as an organization interested in delivering school food programming
• 69% of organizations responding were non-profit, 18% were governmental, 6% were for-profit; and the remaining 7% either responded “I don’t know” or “prefer not to answer”
• In decreasing order, the 832 organizational respondents received funding from:
  • provincial or territorial governments
  • charitable organizations
  • the private sector
  • municipal governments
  • the federal government
  • parents or guardians

Consult Annex B for a summary of key results from the completed questionnaires.

Written submissions

Over 76 organizations and individuals provided written submissions from November 2022 to May 2023 including:

National Advisory Council on Poverty (NACP) engagement sessions on lived expertise

The NACP led engagement sessions in late 2022. These sessions took place in Montreal, Toronto, Regina and Vancouver. They included persons with lived expertise of poverty and/or food insecurity. They also included organizations that relate to poverty and food insecurity. During these sessions, participants discussed their views on the Policy.

Meetings with stakeholders

Since January 2022, officials from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and AAFC met on numerous occasions with:

• stakeholders
• experts
• academics

Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council (CFPAC)

Officials at ESDC and AAFC engaged CFPAC’s working group on school nutrition. They shared their views on a Policy.

Canadian Agricultural Youth Council (CAYC)

Officials at ESDC and AAFC engaged Council members. They shared their views on a Policy.

We have consulted with representatives from provincial and territorial governments and Indigenous partners. We continue to consult with these representatives and partners as we work on a Policy.

“The immediate need is to get healthy food to children. Families right across Canada are in crisis and often choosing between paying their rent and putting food on the table. Children must be in school, so we know that through a National School Food Program they, at least, will have access to food while they are there.”

“My child is never hungry upon waking but is hungry by the time they arrive at school. Having food available upon arrival is tremendously valuable.”

“There are many different school food program models across Canada. Even within provinces and territories there are regional differences. This is one of the greatest strengths of the program, as communities understand the needs of their children and how best to nourish them. It follows that communities have different challenges and operational needs.”

“I would say there is some stigma [about the school food program], but I feel like the whole reason why the students who maybe don’t have the income to afford food [at home] don’t go to this program is because they feel like it’s not worth it. I’ve heard it from so many that the food just doesn’t look appealing at all, or it doesn’t keep you full. We don’t really have any biases from my school about it. We just wish there was much more, so much more to give them so then people actually can access it better.

“Many families have more than one child, buying lunch for each child can be very expensive”

“We know that children as young as 10 years old will skip eating if they feel embarrassed about their families’ socio-economic circumstances. Therefore, it is vitally important that no child feels stigmatized by accessing a school food program. To achieve this, the principle of universal access for all students within prioritized school communities is crucial... While the goal may be to nourish all Canadians at school, the reality is that funding is limited. Therefore, priority must be given to low-income communities identified through Census Canada data.”

“…unhealthy eating constitutes a tremendous economic burden to Canada that is similar in magnitude to the burden of smoking and larger than that of physical inactivity… A status quo in promoting healthy eating will allow this burden to continue.”

“I try not to view food necessarily as unhealthy versus healthy. I know that there are some foods that are better for me and some that are less, but I value balance. Of course, I'm going to go and try to seek out more vegetables, more protein, but you know, once in a while, I want to have an Oreo to keep myself happy and I think that's really important.”

“By ensuring improved access to adequate healthy food, the Program would begin to address critical problems associated with insufficient and non-nutritious food for millions of school children in Canada, affecting their physical and mental health, risks of lifelong chronic diseases, school attendance and performance, self-esteem, and longer-term personal development and well-being.”

“Hands-on participatory programs are linked to increased nutritional knowledge, higher intake of nutrient-dense foods such as vegetables and fruits, and increased preference for healthy foods, especially among younger children. Children of all ages can participate in age-appropriate food skill activities.”

“I'm about to move out next year. So having [a program that] shows me how to make the nutritious meals with… cheap ingredients [would be] something that is really useful for me.”

“The kids at the school who have programs should have a certain say into what's happening with the program itself because ultimately they're the ones who are going to be impacted by what's being served. Like [other participant] said earlier, if they're eating the same thing every day for 4 years at some point it will discourage some people to use it because they're looking for diversity in their food… It doesn't need to be run 100% by the students, but at least have some type of committee by the students to help set menus and work with the school administration or whoever runs the program…

“Giving students the opportunity to have a say, provide feedback and see their voices heard by staff will build acceptance of and commitment to the program.”

“We strongly advocate using locally owned and operated companies to provide meals to schools. This will stimulate local economy and employment as well as making it easier to use locally sourced products and produce appropriate cultural meals.”

Infrastructure

Service delivery organizations and school communities noted a lack of infrastructure. They shared that this is a barrier to program delivery and expansion.

Some service delivery organizations shared that some of their funding has limits on non-food related costs. These costs include infrastructure, equipment and administration costs. They noted the goal of these limits is to ensure funding goes towards increasing access to food. Many organizations lamented that these limits constrain their ability to deliver programs. For example, participants noted that, to deliver programs, volunteers and staff need documents like:

• Vulnerable Sector Checks
• safe food handler certification

They explained that non-food funding limits make costs like these difficult to absorb.

School communities shared that many schools do not have dedicated kitchen spaces. This requires them to:

• find space outside schools to produce and package meals
• create space inside schools for storage before service

Some service delivery organizations voiced their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. They relied on pre-packaged goods and single-use plates and cutlery to deliver programming. They raised the need to invest in reusable goods and dishwashing to deliver programs sustainably and reduce costs.

Some service delivery organizations also noted challenges in dealing with food waste. They expressed that programs need to invest in infrastructure to manage food waste.

“Inadequate infrastructure limits programming in many schools. Capital funding projects provide an opportunity to ensure adequate kitchen and storage space… bright, non-stigmatizing eating areas; and external building features such as transportation access for food deliveries and outdoor lighting to facilitate after hours food preparation for [school nutrition programs].”

Need for paid staff

Participants shared that school food programs rely on volunteers to deliver programming. They also noted challenges recruiting volunteers. This increases pressure on teachers and administrators to provide programming.

Organizations agreed that more paid staff would allow programming to be more sustainable.

Organizations stressed the potential benefits of more paid staff including:

• increased local employment opportunities
• increased food preparation yields and lower food waste
• increased program accountability
• more efficient program operations and management

Organizations receive funding that may have limits on non-food related expenses. They also rely on voluntary contributions that can be unpredictable. Organizations noted that these 2 factors make hiring paid staff difficult.

“[W]e recognize that current school food programs are highly dependent on volunteers and school staff who volunteer their time… funding should be flexible so that schools can decide to hire a community member or pay an existing school staff to do this important work.”

Data and governance structure

Many participants raised the lack of data at a program and a national level.

Many organizations voiced the lack of data and web-based tools as a gap in their operations. They expressed a desire to adopt more of these tools in their work.

On the national level, many academics and service delivery organizations observed a lack of program data. They expressed this data gap makes it difficult to:

• understand where and how many students have access to programming
• measure program benefit and impact
• compare and contrast different program models

They voiced the need for common reporting metrics and reporting structure. They noted programs need to invest in infrastructure and capacity to deliver this reporting.

At a program level, some service delivery organizations noted the benefits gained using data and web-based tools to:

• make informed program decisions based on data analytics
• efficiently organize and manage their internal operations
• host web portals for families to easily pay for meals and provide feedback

Academics and organizations raised the need for more information sharing and governance. Participants noted that they were able to learn from each other through the Government's engagements on school food. Many lamented that they lack a permanent mechanism to discuss across the country.

Many participants recommended establishing a community of practice. This community of practice could serve as the forum for school food across Canada. Through this, the sharing of information, lessons learned and best practices could continue. Additionally, the community of practice could explore key issues programs generally experience. They shared that it was also an opportunity to collect, analyze and review data together.

“We believe that the Policy [and] program will be successful if it supports communities of practice to enhance coordination, share best practices, and develop evidence-informed programming.”

Rural, remote and Northern communities 

There are challenges when delivering programming in rural, remote and Northern communities. Participants voiced that these challenges include:

• higher costs for food, labour and transportation
• differing levels of infrastructure. Some communities face higher program costs
• water and sewage issues in the North can impact food preparation and create food safety concerns
• severity of seasonal and climactic impacts. This creates challenges with growing and transporting food in winter months
• lengthy commutes. Students can arrive at school after breakfast programs have already ended
• human resources are more limited in rural and remote areas. Attracting and retaining paid staff is essential in these areas

“[I]n [N]orthern rural communities, schools are often isolated and are at great distance from grocery stores. In this instance there is a need to use some funding for gas costs. In other communities, food must be shipped frozen, and multiple freezers are essential. In urban areas, schools have large populations and commercial food preparation equipment and additional labour is needed.”