Part 2: ...and How to Fix it
More than a decade after its launch, Nutrition North Canada (NNC) continues to fall short for many Northern and Indigenous communities. Prices remain high, access is uneven, and the program’s design often overlooks the cultural and dietary realities of Northern and Indigenous communities. For subsidies to work, they must reflect the cost of food, AND the way people live, eat, and sustain themselves in the North. In part 2 of our coverage of the NNC and story on Canada’s food insecurities of the North, I deep dive into the cultural misalignments, weaknesses, and inefficiencies of NNC.
Cultural Disconnect
The Revised Northern Food Basket (RNFB), an aggregated measure of the weekly cost of 67 nutritious food items for a family of four, reflects a southern Canadian, western view of nutrition. It inadvertently misses the realities and logistics of Northern Canada, which is dominated by Indigenous (Inuit) communities and customs. The necessity of country foods (such as caribou, seal, and Arctic char for some regions) is central to many Northerners’ diets, yet they are only partially supported. Gaps in subsidy design, feedback communication, as well as program responsiveness and the improper recognition of Indigenous priorities, continue to limit food security potential.
Efforts to improve subsidy rates, transparency, and cultural relevance have been made, but remain incomplete, have assessment delays, and are poorly responsive to community needs. Let me explain further this disconnect between culture and the programs available.
Hunting goes far beyond food security; it is deeply tied to traditional land stewardship and cultural identity. It is a necessary component of Northern food security; however, relying solely on these country food sources has its own security risks, as alluded to by climate-caused landscape and migration route alterations that make hunting difficult. Community strength has also played a role in the current prevalence of country foods, as the declining trend in availability and food sharing is partially reflective of the costs and societal acceptability of traditional foods. As a result, country foods are commonly sourced outside of an individual’s community, bringing additional costs that, with the exception of Nunavut, are not subsidized. While a case can be made that newer programs, such as the Harvesters Support Grant in the NNC framework, support Indigenous communities and country resources, it is an incomplete addition.
When country food is too expensive and must be omitted from weekly purchases, communities are forced to turn to market sources, which may be insufficient substitutes either preferentially, culturally, or qualitatively. Batal et al. (2022) were able to compile a list of 100 foods more representative of Northern diets and traditional foods than the 67 items in the RNFB without compromising the health and perishability initiatives of NNC. The subsidization of this new basket of culturally and traditionally representative food would cost the government more, but would better reflect what Northern health and food security could be. It would also limit over-reliance on any one food source. This creates a gap between what’s subsidized and what’s culturally relevant.
Understanding Weaknesses in Nutrition North Canada
One of the main critiques of NNC is the lack of monitoring, delaying program improvements, especially in subsidy impacts, which improve local prices. After replacing the Food Mail Program (FMP) with NNC subsidy mechanisms, only two out of the 13 participating Northwest Territories communities observed price improvements. In the first four years of implementation, the RNFB’s monthly cost rose by $94, and it took another four years before Northern communities saw a decline in weekly food costs. The improvement would amount to an approximate $4 difference from the RNFB in 2011 and would be experienced by fewer than 40% of participating communities.
Inconsistent Data
Unfortunately, voluntary, under-monitored reporting and confidentiality agreements with retailers (who deliver the subsidy to consumers) further limit transparency, making it difficult for communities to verify whether the program is working as intended. Inconsistent data across regions hides the full picture.
If data were available, similar observations may exist for communities in other provinces or territories, but this highlights the lack of consistent cost-related reporting across provinces and across communities. For example, only a third of recommended basket items in Nunavut are price comparable to the rest of Canada. Assessment can only be made if the data is reportable. Unfortunately, many details regarding NNC transactions are confidential between the retailer and supplier. Canada’s Auditor General has used similar statements about NNC, stating there was insufficient information available, largely due to the administration requirement by the retailer and problems therein, to determine whether the program is or could be used to alleviate food price pressures among Northern families. If NNC is to make meaningful improvements to subsidy distribution, it is paramount that program mechanisms work for Northern isolated communities and their needs, not to food security characteristics assumed from urban centres.
Inefficiencies and Gaps
Like any program, there are bound to be some inefficiencies; one in particular is the narrow definition of “isolated,” which excludes communities that still face high food costs and limited access. The isolated requirement creates a redundancy in the definition of an NNC eligible community and limits what the government considers food insecure in the North, leaving certain households without support, even though their food security challenges are similar to those in eligible communities. For instance, despite recognizing there are 21 isolated communities in British Columbia, those communities do not experience the same logistical impacts on living costs as other provinces or territories, and therefore corroborate why NNC is absent from British Columbia but involved in 78 percent of isolated Ontario communities. Similarly, the Canadian Community Health Survey, which assigns food security classifications, omits reserves (perhaps telling of the lack of public access to reserve data) and ultimately skews provincial security values as reserves are strong representatives of the isolation factor.
Inefficiency Beyond Price
While the range of technicalities in NNC limits program accessibility and creates inefficiencies, the thought process behind the condition may have some substance. Transportation infrastructure, income disparities, and housing conditions all influence whether families can access and store healthy food. A narrow focus on price risks overlooks these broader determinants. For instance, the annual transportation costs between towns can differ by $1.74 million depending on the presence of all-weather roads. In retail conditions, these costs are indirectly passed on to consumers, which partially explains the difference between Northern and Southern food prices.
Northern households spend 14% of their lower incomes on food (vs. 9% nationally), and in some territories, food can account for 80% of retail sales. The combined high food prices, lower average income, and limiting physical conditions of the North lead to varying degrees of food insecurity and associated problems that may warrant variable NNC participation. Unfortunately, food prices are limiting metrics for food security due to the same variability. To determine the efficacy of the NNC retail subsidy in alleviating food insecurity, the program and its involvement in Northern livelihoods must be holistically viewed under all aspects of food security, not just price.
There is a place for NNC
Despite the disparaging tone, there is a place for NNC, as the subsidy does roughly reduce prices dollar-for-dollar in most situations. However, allowing direct purchases from distributors (which does not match the current retailer intermediary requirement of NNC) could cut food costs by up to 25% per household. The current framework for NNC does not allow for this kind of consumer decision making, providing a stark reminder that improving availability guarantees neither security nor efficient food (market) environments.
Maybe it’s time that the NNC reform their policy, reflecting on what they have learned from the decade-plus of implementation. The RNFB is inconsiderate of true Northern diets and food habits, and should be expunged so as not to force the diets and culture of the South. There is also the issue that, beyond what has already been discussed, the annual NNC budget has been underspent despite increasing over the last few years. Therefore, they could explore the current exogenous influences on Northern food prices and how the efficacy of NNC, particularly in the distribution of the food price subsidy, can be improved to make meaningful price differences in Northern Canada.
How to Fix the Problem
If we want true food security in the North, subsidies must be part of a broader, culturally grounded strategy, one that values both affordability and the preservation of traditional foodways. But the question we all need to ask ourselves, as those living in Southern Canada, is whether we actually care enough about this problem to act?
