Debates of June 4th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. I would like to give a clear example about access to healthy food that some members will find mind-boggling.

Not too long ago I visited Chevery, and there was just one pineapple for the 200 residents. I do not know whether they held a raffle or drew straws to decide who would get a taste of pineapple that month, but that was all they had and they had to wait.

Relais Nordik, the shipping company that was supposed to bring in food, had been unable to do so because of winter and ice conditions. We had to wait for a plane to be able to land. The community does not have a guaranteed regular supply of food, and the store owner even considered closing down because the conditions were not economically viable and it was difficult to bring in supplies.

This is what many northern residents live with every day. I wanted to share that.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a descendant of Innu caribou hunters from the north shore. The government would do well to learn from aboriginal values.

Caribou hunters in the north shore were not starving beggars. They sought out their own food. They had a long tradition of sharing their game. When they were in the forest they had a system for communicating with other hunters travelling in the area to let them know that there was meat available for other families. They had a network and no one died of hunger.

Individualism is a European invention. The worst insult in Innu means “individualistic”, or someone who does not care about others—my colleague knows how to pronounce the word. I would like to learn that word so I could use it for the other side of the House.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Early in our mandate, he travelled with me to Nutshimit, the traditional territories.

We use the word menashtau to describe someone who is egotistical and does not want to share. It is quite a pejorative term—not something people wanted to be called 400 years ago.

Today, the traditional way of life is quite difficult. Natural resource development has affected the caribou's traditional migratory routes. We call the traditional way of feeding ourselves Innu Mitsham. In 2015, that way has become hazardous and is no longer as reliable. We need to re-evaluate everything because caribou are becoming scarcer.

Even though there are not many menashtau individuals in our communities and we share everything as much as possible, caribou are becoming scarcer because of the impact of hydroelectric projects and natural resource extraction on natural systems.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a very nice subject of conversation. This is a humiliating and insulting Canadian failure. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world, but a significant portion of its population has been condemned to suffer from hunger because of its ethnicity. This is not true to Canadian values.

When I became active within the NDP, Tommy Douglas was still an MP. He was no longer the party leader, but he was still there. If he had seen situations like this, he would not have been very happy. This conflicts with all of my values.

This is a dismal failure on all counts. One by one, I have looked at all of the aboriginal affairs programs audited by the Auditor General of Canada, and not one of them is working. In no case did the Auditor General say that the government did a good job. Results are systematically poor. Given so many failures with respect to an ethnic community in Canada, we have to wonder if the government is serious about wanting to work with that community.

The nutrition north program is incomplete. The Conservatives say it is excellent, but that is definitely not the case, since it does not reach everyone who needs it. How can a service be useful when someone decides that 50 communities will not have access to it? That cannot work.

The Auditor General was not satisfied with the department's analysis of its own performance. Yes, that is right, the department assesses its own performance. The Auditor General said that the department was reporting lower prices, when he actually found higher prices. In theory, this program should help bring prices down. The Auditor General said he does not understand how the department could have come up with lower prices, but no one will talk about it.

We were told that things would be fixed, but when the Auditor General asked the department whether it had asked food retailers if they were keeping the subsidies for themselves or using them to lower prices, the department replied that it could not ask them that question, under the pretext that it would breach the businesses' commercial confidentiality. Wow. It is therefore abundantly clear that the people's right to have healthy, affordable food has been tossed out the window.

However, that is not all. The department said it would fix the situation, but the Auditor General is getting fed up. He reviewed all of the promises the department had made about fixing things and found that the government was not meeting its commitments. The Auditor General told us that this government made some commitments to follow up on his recommendations, but then it did not honour them. This government's commitments are worth about as much as the commitments that the Auditor General has verified in the past.

Food insecurity in remote communities is a serious problem. I would like to cite a Statistics Canada study. We could refer to studies by the United Nations representative or other studies, but this one is quite critical.

It is a Statistics Canada study from 2008-09 showing that the situation has deteriorated ever since. It has not improved. It has gotten worse. In Nunavut, 32.6% of the population experienced food insecurity, 11.5% of which experienced serious insecurity. That does not mean going without a meal a few times a week. It means rarely eating all week. We are talking quite literally about starvation.

What is this fine government's response? When children are too skinny and seniors are trembling with hunger, the government puts them on a plane to get treatment in southern Canada, where the hospital will feed them. What a wonderful solution. That is what we call sweeping the problem under the rug. Unfortunately, this government does that far too often.

Population growth in the Northwest Territories is quite extraordinary, which is fortunate because life there is not easy. Nevertheless, the population growth there is five times greater than it is here. In 10 years, the population grew by 45%. That is quite the boom. The problem is that when a population grows by 45% in 10 years and the services do not keep pace, then a larger number of people have to share fewer things. Unless the Conservatives take themselves for Christ and can multiply loaves and fishes, it is clear that people are going hungry and will continue to suffer. The population growth being what it is, more and more people will have to share the same amount of groceries that there ever was. It does not take a genius to figure that out. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of those across the way.

We spoke about housing, drinking water and access to quality education. Nothing is working, absolutely nothing. We have reached a point where, in a report on Indian residential schools, a judge declared that this constitutes cultural genocide. The government lets people go hungry knowingly and willfully. Everyone has told the government that people are hungry. They do not go to the dump for the fun of it. They want to eat and they do not have access to good quality food. They do not have access to quality housing, they do not have access to clean drinking water and they do not have access to health care. All of this has significant consequences for their situation, resulting in a high mortality rate for very young children, a much shorter life expectancy, major health problems and addiction problems. Name a problem and they have it. The only thing that they do not have are solutions.

This motion provides a solution. It is a balanced solution, one that does not reinvent the wheel. We were already on the brink of committing genocide when we refused to help communities at risk. Obviously, doing nothing when we know that these communities are at risk is definitely an act of genocide. We would be refusing to help communities at risk without being concerned about the people who would suffer. For that reason it is important to act now. There are some people who are too focused on budget measures. The situation must be addressed by doing what the motion proposes. We will not be rediscovering the world, but just simply ensuring that everyone can benefit from a program.

We are faced with budget cuts. I would like to know how many of us would accept budget cuts that would make our children go hungry?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague got into this issue, which is much more complex, but it needs to be said when it comes to first nations.

I think of the Conservatives talking about how they provided funding for students and schools equivalent to the provinces. In the Northwest Territories, we have isolated and remote communities. The average funding for communities in the Northwest Territories is some $22,000 a student. The government funds isolated and remote first nations communities at about $11,000 or $12,000. The money is simply not adequate.

It is the same with the nutrition north program. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the Conservatives added $11 million to the program this year. No, they did not. The program was $64 million last year and it is now about $65 million this year.

Is it not time that the Conservatives get off this idea that somehow they are doing the right thing with the funds they are providing to first nations and to isolated and remote communities, and actually deal with the dollars that are required?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, finding an honourable solution that would help Canada maintain its international reputation as a country that respects human rights would not cost a fortune. We are talking about negligible amounts. A fraction of what the government is spending in Iraq would solve all of our problems. The government would rather go to war in Iraq than transport food within our own country. If there were a famine in Africa, the government would send our air force to transport food by air, but it will not do the same thing for our own people. That is shameful and humiliating.

Some of the members here have aboriginal communities in their ridings. I cannot believe that they are not aware of this problem. There are people suffering from starvation. That is obvious. Those members must be deliberately turning a blind eye.

I am calling it a genocide because these communities are being refused aid when they are clearly in danger.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to ask a question, but my colleague, the member for Northwest Territories, prompted me because he is measuring dollars to measure the success of a program. We all know that we need to measure the results of the program, not how much we are spending on the program. If in fact we can spend less and do more with it, that is the objective we should have.

I would just point out that since 2011, we have seen the cost of a food basket for a family of four drop by $137 a month. That is impressive, and that is the kind of measurement we should be looking at, not how much money we are spending as a measure of success.

My question for my colleague who just spoke is really about the facts from the NDP. On April 2, the New Democrats said that they would like to see 55 communities made eligible for the subsidy. On May 26, they released a list of 46 communities that they would like to see fully eligible. Today, the opposition states in its motion that it wants to see 50 communities made eligible for the subsidy.

Which number is it?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking questions about the number of communities, but I am going to tell him very clearly what I want: I want all Canadians to have enough to eat. I do not give a damn about how many communities will have to be added to the list.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is a problem with the interpretation.

The member can continue. He has about 40 seconds left.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he is talking about the number of communities. I do not want to see any Canadian go hungry. We need to invest however much it takes to achieve that goal. We do not need billions of dollars. We simply need to say that no matter where people live, they will no longer go hungry. That is my objective.

If the government's objective is to calculate how much is going to be given to one community over another, then it will never successfully combat hunger.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to clarify why I cannot support the opposition motion. I can assure hon. colleagues that the government is committed to the welfare of northerners. We understand that the north is a fundamental part of our heritage, our future, and our identity as a country. In fact, no other government in history has done as much for the north as our government.

While the motion is motivated by good intentions, the opposition has failed to provide a new solution to what all parliamentarians agree is a real and pressing issue.

I find it somewhat odd that the opposition would even want to provide additional funds to a program that both the member for Northwest Territories and the member for Timmins—James Bay have previously claimed has failed. Northerners are well aware that this is not the case. Nutrition north has provided residents with access to healthy perishable food choices at affordable prices. Unlike past Liberal governments, which endorsed the ineffective food mail program, nutrition north is helping to meet the needs of those living in isolated northern communities.

As other speakers have outlined, the government recognizes that a host of factors drive up the cost of food in northern communities. These include the higher cost of energy, labour, and transportation. Our government is determined to discover how we can overcome these obstacles to increase northerners' food security. Our Conservative government has been unequivocal in its commitment to ensuring that northerners, like all Canadians, have access to perishable nutritious food at a price they can afford.

Thanks to the implementation of nutrition north by our government in 2011, there has been a strong reduction in the cost of nutritious food in remote communities. Between March 2011 and March 2014, the cost of the revised northern food basket for a family of four fell by an average of 7.2% in communities eligible for a full subsidy under nutrition north. That translates into savings of approximately $137 a month for a family of four.

Something else that differentiates members on this side of the House and the opposition is that we do not automatically presume that the government knows best. Instead, we engage directly with the people with the most at stake when it comes to paying for nutritious food, and that is northerners themselves.

Critical to the success of nutrition north is the program's advisory board. The board was created concurrently with the implementation of the subsidy in 2011. Its mandate is to improve program governance and to give northerners a direct voice in the program.

The Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board meets up to three times a year, holding meetings all across the north. When meeting in the north, the board, in public meetings, hears directly from northern residents and communities. Between May 2011 and June 2014, the advisory board held public meetings in Nunavut, Nunavik, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories. Each meeting provided the board with input from residents and communities on how the program was working.

Members of the board represent a wide range of northern perspectives. Transparency and accountability are ensured by choosing members who are volunteers and who serve as individuals, not as representatives of any particular organization, area, or special interest. Their experience and expertise inform the management and effectiveness of nutrition north. For example, the most recent addition to the board is Tracy Rispin. She is a heritage interpreter from Old Crow, Yukon, who works with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. She has held a variety of positions over the past 30 years pertaining to heritage, natural resources, and finance. She has also served as elected deputy chief of the first nation and has extensive experience as a filmmaker who has worked on projects such as the Vuntut Gwitchin oral history project.

Ms. Rispin has a thorough knowledge of Yukon first nations issues, history, cultures, and protocols. With a strong background and hands-on experience in first nations education, she will provide invaluable input from the community to direct the nutrition north Canada program. One of the many benefits of this approach is that board members often share their region's experiences. This makes nutrition north more effective and representative of the needs of northerners.

Northerners also provide input into the program in many other ways. For example, la Fédération des coopératives du Nouveau-Québec, which operates 14 co-operatives in Nunavik, has voluntarily implemented a point-of-sale in-store system. This system ensures that customers know how and when the nutrition north Canada subsidy is applied to their grocery bills. Consumers can clearly see the amount of the subsidy passed on to them, ensuring greater retailer transparency and accountability.

The advisory board is expected to return soon with an opinion as to whether this point-of-sale receipt system should be applied to all subsidized retailers. Our government believes that this receipt system could be an important step in creating greater transparency across the north. It also demonstrates an innovative way in which communities and retailers can work together to address the concerns of consumers.

The advisory board and local retailer innovation are just two examples of the avenues we have used to collect input from northerners. Our government is making every effort to ensure that northerners have their say about nutrition north and can contribute ideas about how to make the program work even better. Our government has carried out important reviews to assess areas for improvement. The advisory board continues to listen and learn from northern residents.

We are investing additional funds to make sure we increase access to perishable nutritious foods in isolated northern communities. I remind the House that our Conservative government, through budget 2014, added $11.3 million in 2014-15 to increase nutrition north's food subsidy budget. This was over and above the program's existing annual subsidy of $53.9 million. We also committed to a new, ongoing 5% compound annual escalator, beginning this year. Our government believes that this increased financing is a responsible approach to take.

We understand that taxpayers put their trust in parliamentarians to handle their money with great care.

I urge parliamentarians to reject this opposition motion. There is no doubt that subsidies offered by nutrition north have led to impressive results. Let me assure all northerners that this government will continue to act responsibly and in the best interests of northerners, assuring that they will have access to nutritious perishable food.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his statement, but once again, when he talked about the total amount of money in the program, he neglected the actual expenditures according to the public accounts in 2013-14, which were worth $64 million. When we add up the 2014-15 totals, we get to $65 million. The $11 million added to the program last October really amounted to a $1-million increase over the last year. That is hardly even 5%, which the Conservatives have indicated in their own documents is the rate of inflation that they should be applying to the amount of money in the program.

I was in Nunavut, and people talked about how the Northern store gives the subsidy rate according to what nutrition north applies, which is the rate for everyone. However, it achieves a much cheaper freight rate than what is applied through the program. People there are concerned that the nutrition north program, in some cases, is not being fully given back to consumers. What does my colleague think about this?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent some time working with public accounts. I understand the process involved, and I realize the difference between some of the statements that are coming in and the proposed expenditures that will take place at other times. I heard one of the other members speak to this as well.

It also looks at results. As I mentioned in my address, it is $137 per month a family is saving because of the program we have in place. It is that type of thing that is important.

I believe that the member opposite spoke about how this program should go to northern communities that are only accessible by air, yet within his own community, and within the list, we have a number of communities that are accessible by ferry or by road. When we look at how the opposition members would try to put input into the program, grabbing things from all different directions, it shows a little inconsistency.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use a specific example of a commodity we all acknowledge is essential. We all love milk, and we encourage our children to drink milk. A number of years ago, when I was in the Manitoba Legislature, I used milk as an example of the cost differential. This was in 2008, when four litres of milk cost $3.59. In Red Sucker Lake, it actually cost $11.89, and in Tadoule Lake, it cost $17.40.

Milk is one of those consumer products that is a critical need in the development of young people. I want to focus on children and the benefits of drinking milk. It costs far less to purchase two litres of Coca Cola than to buy two litres of milk.

Would the member provide some of his personal thoughts on the long-term costs, whether it is tooth decay or whatever it might be, and the issues of affordability and health?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree. Even when we go into our own stores, we can look at the price of two litres of pop and compare that to the price of milk or something that is nutritious. It is frustrating when we see that sort of thing happen.

It is one of the reasons we moved away from the food mail program, which also subsidized carburetors and snowmobile parts and so on. It was a case of moving that out of the program so that we could concentrate specifically on what the real needs were, which was as much perishable and nutritious food as possible.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to explain why I cannot support the motion introduced by the member for Northwest Territories.

Since its implementation in 2011, nutrition north has proven to be an effective, responsive and functional program that has lowered the cost of food in the north and increased the amount of nutritious perishable foods to northern communities. The program subsidizes the cost of perishable, nutritious food for Canadians in northern and remote communities.

Lowering prices for nutritious food, combined with increased knowledge of healthy eating, contributes to the Conservative government's larger vision for the north. We take tremendous pride in the support for self-reliant individuals living in healthy, prosperous communities.

While other members of this House have focused their arguments on the cost of the food in the north, how the program works and eligibility criteria, I will emphasize the important role that retailers play.

As my hon. colleagues recognize, making nutritious food accessible to residents in remote communities is a challenge far too great to be met by any single entity working on its own. Success requires willing partners. This is precisely why nutrition north Canada directly engages retailers.

These retailers are made up of men and women who not only have a deep understanding of the nature of supply and demand in the north, but also have a vested interest in satisfying their customers. In many cases, they and their families live in the communities served by nutrition north Canada. In other cases, they travel regularly to some of these communities and have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground. In every case, they want the program to succeed.

For all of these reasons, nutrition north Canada was designed as a market-based program to encourage retailers and suppliers to choose the most economical option for shipping foods. The program also assigns retailers an essential role in transparency in ensuring that subsidies and savings are passed on to the consumers by assigning responsibility for some aspects of the program to those directly involved in it.

For retailers and consumers, nutrition north Canada fosters competition and innovation, and I will elaborate further on each of these points, beginning with decisions about shipping methods.

Determining the most economical and effective way to transport a particular food depends on many factors. The most important factor is shelf life. For non-perishable items, such as dry pasta, rice and most grains, the best option usually involves transporting large quantities infrequently. Retailers tend to use the annual sealift or occasional truck transport on winter roads for these items.

For perishable items, such as eggs, dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables, retailers have little choice but to rely on regularly shipping small quantities by airplane. To minimize their potential losses, retailers strive to order only enough perishable items that their customers will buy within a certain timeframe. Ultimately, retailers and suppliers must manage their supply chains to ensure fresh food is available to customers at competitive rates and prices.

Along with shipping, retailers also play an essential role in the transparency of nutrition north. Under the program, registered retailers and suppliers are fully responsible for passing on the full subsidy to consumers. The Government of Canada closely monitors retailers' performance on this responsibility and posts regular compliance reports online.

To further ensure that consumers benefit fully from the subsidies, nutrition north recently added a new clause in the funding agreements that will ensure recipients provide all the information on eligible items, including profit margins. These agreements came into effect on April 1, 2015. Recipients, retailers and suppliers must now not only submit to audits, but also provide the government with all financial information and supporting documents for a seven-year period to justify subsidy claims. The new clause specifies that retailers must provide complete information on eligible items, including current profit margins and profit margins over time.

External independent auditors will undertake annual compliance reviews of retailers in order to ensure that the subsidy is being passed on to the consumer. These compliance reviews will then be made publicly available on the department's website. I want to be very clear that there is no requirement to publish the profit margins of individual businesses, as this is commercially sensitive information. This new measure helps to reassure Canadians that nutrition north is delivering effective results for northerners.

Assigning these responsibilities to retailers also helps inspire innovation. A recent example is an initiative of la Fédération des coopératives du Nouveau-Québec. The federation operates 14 co-operatives in Nunavut and has voluntarily implemented a point of sale system. In each of the 14 stores it operates in Nunavut, the receipt shows the amount of nutrition north Canada subsidy for each item. There is a total at the bottom of the receipt and a notation that says how much the nutrition north program has saved consumers on their purchases that day.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was so impressed with this innovation that he directed the nutrition north advisory board to take a closer look at the approach by la Fédération des coopératives du Nouveau-Québec and provide him with recommendations by June 1, 2015 on how to apply a point of sale system. Just this morning, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development released a statement after receiving the recommendations for the wider application of a point of sale receipt system from the nutrition north Canada advisory board. This new point of sale system will ensure that customers see how and when the NNC subsidy is applied to their grocery bill. This means that consumers will be able to clearly see the amount of the subsidy passed on to them, ensuring greater retailer transparency and accountability.

Our government strongly believes that northerners deserve to see the NNC savings on their grocery bill and that a point of sale system is a step retailers should take to clearly demonstrate that the full subsidy is being passed on to consumers.

Thanks to the program's close relationship with qualified retailers and suppliers, nutrition north Canada has experienced tremendous results. Northerners living in isolated communities now have far greater access to perishable nutritious foods compared to the program's predecessor, food mail. Since the implementation of nutrition north, the volume of healthy food shipped to northern communities has increased by 25%. Nutrition north Canada incorporates a market-driven, cost-effective and transparent model to deliver considerable value to consumers and overcome the fundamental challenge posed by the uniqueness of the Canadian north.

The truth of the matter is that shipping perishable food over long distances to small isolated communities is an expensive undertaking. However, by engaging the private sector and monitoring compliance closely, nutrition north continues to deliver solid results. Even the NDP's aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Churchill, admitted last week that the program is working. She said, "Well, I mean there's no question it does reduce the price by a couple of dollars, maybe two or three dollars”. Between March 2011 and March 2014, for example, the cost of the revised northern food basket for a family of four, in communities eligible for a full subsidy under nutrition north Canada, fell by an average of 7.2%. This same family is saving $32 per week. That translates into a saving of approximately $137 per month for a family of four.

Given this performance, I have no choice but to urge my hon. colleagues to join me in opposing the motion now before us.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by my colleague from northern Saskatchewan to be very rational. I am still concerned that he has communities in his riding that do not achieve the subsidy that should be there. However, I am sure he will be working on that.

My question to him is about the nature of subsidizing large retailers that can deal with different kinds of freight rates. When I travelled to Nunavut, my understanding was that the subsidy being applied in many communities was based on a freight rate that was a universal freight rate for the airline companies. The large companies were getting a discounted rate on the freight, but if they passed on the full rate to the consumer they did not have to pay that in terms of the subsidy for the freight. Therefore, there is a real need for an analysis of all of the freight rates in the north to ensure there is fairness in the system so that the communities that pay higher costs are getting as much as they can and communities such as Iqaluit, where freight rates can be negotiated to a much lower extent, may see some changes made to make the system fair.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at the freight rates and what the government is doing. It is trying to make nutritious food more available for northerners, like those in northern Saskatchewan.

The review board for nutrition north is going to be looking at the system as a whole and making recommendations for first nations communities, northern communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities to get produce to their stores and get nutritious food to consumers.

One of the things we are also looking at as a government is the profit margins and the addition of a new clause in the funding agreement that will ensure the recipients have all the information on all eligible items and profit margins from the independent auditors. That will make the independent suppliers more competitive and ensure competitive pricing for stores. That is what we are trying to do, give proper food and healthy food choices to the people in the north that would lower the costs of buying supplies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference at the beginning of his comments to the importance of working together. I want to pick up on that issue.

We need to recognize that we are talking about many different stakeholders, different territorial and provincial jurisdictions, which all have the same sorts of issues. There is only one real national entity, the federal government, that ultimately should be playing more of a role, not only with direct subsidies but also making sure that there is coordination with the different stakeholders.

That coordinated approach that stems from leadership coming from Ottawa is something we have found lacking with the government. It needs to work with the different groups to see if there is a better way to ensure that our young people are getting the nutritional food they require to do well in their communities.

Could the member tell the House precisely how he believes his government has been working with other stakeholders? Specific examples would be nice.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee that has been set up by nutrition north takes individuals from Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to meet the individual stakeholders and consumers. They are meeting with individuals and getting the information to look at innovative ways to address the special needs of getting consumers the proper products. That is what the government is doing.

It is doing the consultations. It has individuals out there who are doing the consultations to make the nutrition north program better.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill.

I rise today to speak in support of this motion put forth by the NDP member for Northwest Territories. I must also add my gratitude in recognizing the tremendous work that my colleague has done for many years in serving as the tireless voice of the people from the territories.

Many communities across Canada's three territories as well as in the northern parts of several provinces are accessible only by air for part of or all of the year. The cost of living and doing business in these isolated communities is higher than in many of the other southern regions of the country. Necessities such as perishable foods must be flown in to the communities, and it is not easy. In my community of Scarborough and Toronto we can walk down the street to a grocery store, but people in many northern communities do not have this luxury. Even though food insecurity is prevalent in Scarborough—Rouge River and north Scarborough, it is far worse in the northern parts of our country, and we need to recognize that. I thank the member for Northwest Territories for his work and for his recognition of this situation.

The NDP has taken a leadership role in trying to alleviate some of the problems by coming up with new solutions that might actually work.

Perishable foods should not cost such exorbitant amounts. For example, in April 2014, the price of two litres of milk was $7.99 in Old Crow, Yukon, compared with $3.35 in Edmonton, Alberta. In Fort Albany in northern Ontario, baby formula costs $60 and two pounds of frozen beef cost $16. These types of prices are through the roof. In Treaty 5 territory, bread costs $6, a jug of milk is $13, and a case of eggs is $37. If we are going to go all out and have the luxury of fresh produce, something as simple as a bunch of grapes will cost $12.

These exorbitant prices occur in communities that are living in crushing poverty, communities where people's main income is about $371 of social assistance a month. I do not know how much $371 can actually buy a person who is feeding a family, trying to feed children, trying to feed three or four mouths.

These types of high prices have been prevalent in our northern communities for far too long. To help with these high costs of food in the north, the federal government created the food mail program in the late 1960s. After 1991, the program was managed by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I would like to go through a little bit about this program, especially for the benefit of members of my community who may not know about the nutrition north program because they are in Toronto.

Under the program, Canada Post received a transportation subsidy from the department to deliver items to isolated northern communities. Over the years, because of population growth and increasing fuel prices, expenditures continued to increase and the program often exceeded its budget.

In April of 2011, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada introduced the nutrition north program. The objective of the program was to make healthy foods more accessible and affordable to residents of isolated northern communities.

Nutrition north Canada is a transfer payment program based on a market-driven model. It has an annual fixed budget of $60 million, of which $53.9 million is allocated annually to the subsidy component. The subsidy is provided directly to northern retailers, food suppliers, distributors, and food processors through contribution agreements. Retailers make their own supply chain arrangements.

About 40 retailers, suppliers, and food processors participate in the program, and three northern retailers have accounted for about 80% of the subsidy each year. Why are we giving these subsidies to retailers, suppliers, and food processors, rather than directly to the people who are the end consumers? We are counting on the government giving the subsidies to these retailers and hoping that the retailers will actually transfer these subsidies and cost savings over to the consumers, but in reality we are not seeing that.

I would like to quote Ron Elliott, former Nunavut MLA for Quttiktuq. He said:

That's been one of the problems from the onset of the program. You are providing a subsidy to the people who are responsible to board members or shareholders who are supposed to make profits. So there are conflicting interests.

He is right when he says that when they give subsidies in the hope the retailers will transfer these cost savings on to the end consumer, the retailers are not necessarily going to always make that their priority when their priority is, of course, lining their pockets and making profits for themselves and their shareholders. That is one of the many problems with the system.

However, let me go back. Soon after the program was initiated, complaints began. People were seeing increased food costs compared with those experienced under the old food mail program, which allowed a bit more control for the direct end user.

Norman Yakeleya, Northwest Territories MLA for Sahtu, said:

The transition to the NNCP was painful and frustrating for my people. We are basically at the mercy of our one or two stores, especially when these stores are now saying “believe us — this is how much you are saving and this is what you'll get...no more personal orders.” We feel our choices in the old Food Mail Program were stomped out by the New Improved NNCP.

Nutrition north is a failure because the criteria used to determine which communities receive assistance are flawed, with the result that close to 50 communities that should qualify actually do not receive the full subsidy or the full assistance. We know that at least 46 northern communities that receive either no subsidy or a 5-cent-per-kilogram partial subsidy on the food should actually qualify for the full subsidy.

We are speaking about families and children being able to leave the vicious cycle of poverty. The additional cost for the government to alleviate this situation and lift these families out of poverty would be about $7.6 million. That is what it would cost to add these 46 communities to the full subsidy list, but the government refuses to be there to support these communities that are living in conditions of extreme poverty.

We have also seen the Conservatives spending dollars on advertisements for the government's action plan, or inaction plan. Recently it spent $13.5 million just to promote its budget, but apparently $7.6 million is just too much money to spend on our northern communities to try to alleviate conditions for the many northerners who are living in poverty.

Of the 46 communities that I mentioned, 27 are in Conservative-held ridings. If the Conservatives wanted to at least support their own communities, these 27 communities, they should be able to do something to alleviate the situation, the condition, the reality of our elders in our communities, who are rooting through garbage to scavenge for food.

This really should not be the case. In such a rich country as ours, no one should be living in poverty, let alone so many entire communities.

When I put forward Motion No. 534 to end child poverty in this House, it was because far too many children in this country, 967,000 of them, are living in poverty or extreme poverty. UNICEF's report tells us that one Canadian child in five lives in poverty today. Among our aboriginal children, it is far more extreme: half—one in two—of our aboriginal children are growing up in extreme poverty. Just two days ago, I was in Toronto with Keep the Promise, where children were speaking out and asking our government to work to end poverty among children in this country.

Food insecurity is a real problem in many of our communities, even in Scarborough, but it does not even come close to the level of food insecurity in northern Ontario and in many other parts of northern Canada.

In conclusion, I would like to end my remarks for now with a reminder and a quote from a mother.

Her name is Leesee Papatsie. She is the creator of Feeding My Family, a Facebook page that she created. Of the aboriginal first peoples of this country and how their culture is one of working together and supporting one another and not creating friction, she said:

It's against our culture. The Inuit never protested. Traditionally, for the Inuit to survive, everybody had to get along and we didn't create friction. But if we don't start saying something about high costs, then people will think it's okay.

Our children are going hungry. Our country's children should not be going hungry, and it is our responsibility as legislators and as a government to ensure that all of Canada's children have food and security.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution to this debate about nutrition north, and I agree that if there is one child in Canada who is hungry or going hungry, our communities and all levels of government need to work together to address those concerns.

That aside, we did study this at the public accounts committee, and one of the points that was raised by officials is that nutrition north was never intended to be a food security program. Its aim was to provide more nutritious foods at a subsidized rate for northerners.

There have been many questions from the opposition members today about lack of funding. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development made an announcement last year of an escalator of 5%. Looking at that escalator using the rule of 72, we see that in 14 years the government will have actually doubled the overall budget of the program. That is a big commitment, moving forward. The program is desired and will hopefully be supported.

Will the member agree that the 5% escalator, given the fact that compounding interest will lead to doubling the program funding in 14 years, is a good, solid contribution from this government?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to hear that government members are not actually interested in food security for our northerners. The member said that this program was not created as a measure to alleviate food insecurity in the north, and it is sad to hear that. It is just not right. He said that it was created to send nutritious, healthy food to northerners.

I want to quote once again from Leesee Papatsie, an Inuit woman. She said:

What they consider healthy food is not traditionally the Inuit diet. It's imposing the idea of, 'Here, this is what we think is healthy for you guys.' What we've been saying all along is that we're not used to cooking fruits and vegetables....

Northerners are saying that they want to have access to nutritious food and food that is part of their traditional diet, instead of just having imposed on them what this member or the current government feels is nutritious or healthy food for Inuit. We should be respecting their cultures and their traditional way of life.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here is something from 2008 that I said in the Manitoba legislature. The price in Winnipeg of four litres of milk was $3.59. In Red Sucker Lake, the same product was $11.89. In Tadoule Lake, it was $17.40.

We can talk about all the numbers we want, but from a consumer's point of view on nutritious food, milk is pretty tough to beat.

Would the member not agree that we need to start maybe thinking outside the box or even working with different levels of government to find ways to deliver a product so that kids are drinking milk instead of Diet Coke or cola products, which are causing their teeth to deteriorate and causing all sorts of other issues in many of our northern communities?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, any produce and products that need refrigeration or need to be preserved are going to be more difficult for the communities to get. That is why we are seeing more and more of our parents having to feed their children pop and chips.

The member suggested milk or anything that is more nutritious than pop or chips. The problem is that even water is even a scarce resource. The parents do not have access to good, clean water. They do not have access to running water all the time in all the communities. We should not have a situation like this in our country. In Canada, which is such a have country, we should not have communities that do not have access to clean drinking water.

Of course I agree with the member in saying that we do not want to be feeding our children pop and chips. Those kinds of food habits are the reason we are seeing exponentially growing rates of diabetes and many other health concerns in our northern communities, and we should not have this situation. We, as legislators at the federal level, should be working with all levels of government to ensure that all our communities can be safe and that all our children can grow to their full potential and have healthy food.