Debates of June 4th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Nutrition North Canada

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. Not only did she share her thoughts based on her travels to northern Quebec, but she also very clearly said that as a member from southern Canada, she recognizes that the solutions must come from the people of the north and that we need to work together, in partnership.

I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on the fact that there are nearly 50 communities, most of which are first nations communities, that are completely excluded from the Conservative government's nutrition north Canada program. We are asking that they be included immediately. That is something tangible the government could do today, not just to make the program fairer, but to be part of the solution to a crisis that is happening right now in many communities in this country.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague put it so well, that is part of the solution, but that is not the whole solution. That is just putting out fires.

Some people are being forced to go to the dump to scavenge for food. Others are spending $1,000 a week on groceries, even though they are unemployed. My colleague's suggestion would be a temporary fix, only until we find a better solution. As I said, that would only be putting out fires.

We need to ensure that everyone has enough to eat in the north, as we are trying to do in southern Canada. This is even being discussed in our children's schools here in southern Canada. Why should it be any different in the north? It makes no sense.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have come at this by saying that some communities have winter roads, and this and that. Clearly, in our motion we seek to create equitable eligibility criteria for northern communities based on their real circumstances. The real circumstance for the mother who has to buy food for her child is the cost of food. Would the member not agree?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I agree with my colleague.

We often hear that the average family food bill has dropped by 15%. A weekly bill of $1,000 that drops by 15% means that food still costs $850 a week. With respect to what I talked about earlier, that is still more than one and one-half times that person's salary. We really need to look at the needs of each community and not the current criteria.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this today. I think it would be instructive for those who are following this debate to have a quick look at what the motion actually says. It is a motion put forward by our member from the Northwest Territories, and it reads thus:

That the House call on the government to take immediate action to fix Nutrition North...and to improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by: (a) immediately including in the Nutrition North...program the 50 [fly-in] isolated Northern communities...that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy; (b) initiating a comprehensive review of the Nutrition North program, with Northerners as full partners, to determine ways of directly providing the subsidy to Northern residents and to [determine] supports for traditional foods; (c) creating equitable program-eligibility criteria for Northern communities based on their real circumstances; (d) providing sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities; and (e) working with all Northerners to develop a sustainable solution to food insecurity.

If members have been following this debate over this afternoon and this morning, it is interesting that the Conservatives keep talking about the numbers and that the numbers are different. The 50 communities we have identified in the motion have really been identified by the Auditor General, so we are just agreeing with the Auditor General that something needs to be done.

What does the motion actually mean? What we are hoping is that Canada will create equitable program eligibility criteria for northern communities based on their real circumstances, will provide sufficient funding to meet the needs of all northern communities, and will work with all northerners to develop a sustainable solution for food security.

Let me go back a bit and tell a little personal story about when I lived in the Northwest Territories for five years. I lived under a different program to help with the high cost of food. The federal government, in the early sixties, started the food mail program, and when I lived in the Northwest Territories, that is what I lived under. I lived in two different communities, one on the road system, which was Yellowknife, and one that was off the road system, which was Rankin Inlet, which at that time was part of the Northwest Territories, not part of Nunavut. In my job I had to travel around. I thought it was interesting back in those days that food costs were so high, even under the food mail program, but in Coppermine, which was a fly-in community further north of Yellowknife, a case of beer cost the same as it did in Edmonton. Back in those days, we could have a subsidized alcohol program so that it essentially cost the same as it did in the provincial capital.

That has changed now. I know that there is a liquor board in the Northwest Territories and it is not that way now. However, I think it is instructive to know that there always were some inequalities and some problems with the way the old food mail program worked.

In 1991, when the program was managed by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the communities 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 increased, and the program often exceeded its budget.

In April 2011, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada introduced nutrition north Canada. The object of the program was to make healthy foods more accessible and affordable to residents of isolated northern communities, which is certainly a worthy goal. However, nutrition north Canada was a transfer payment program based on a market-driven model, which was quite a bit different from the old mail program.

In the spring of 2011, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development conducted hearings on nutrition north. There were many recommendations, but I would like to highlight one of those recommendations, which was that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development conduct a comprehensive review of the nutrition north Canada program after three years.

The government has indicated that it is looking at it. I think that is the terminology I heard today, that it is looking at it. It is going to review it. It has used some other words too, but it does not sound like a comprehensive review to me. Perhaps the intention is to leave it for the next government, after the election on October 19.

One of the other recommendations in the Auditor General's report was that 50 communities be included in the program, either because they were receiving no subsidy at all or were under-subsidized.

We are always talking about Canada's far north. In fact, the northern parts of all provinces should and can be part of this program. For example, in the Kenora riding, if we just look at northwestern Ontario, there are 11 excluded first nations and seven first nations that receive a partial subsidy. It is certainly my belief that all of them should be receiving not just a partial subsidy but possibly a full subsidy. That needs to be determined. Those are the kinds of things we need to have action on. In fact, next door, in Thunder Bay—Superior North, there are three communities identified that should be receiving subsidies and currently do not.

It is not just an issue of Canada's far north. It is an issue that straddles sea to sea to sea, right across Canada and the northern provinces.

What would be really good for isolated and rural Canadians to hear from the government after the AG's report is that it will undertake a comprehensive review. I am not sure that is going to happen. It will be unfortunate if it does not.

The program, at least according to a number of northerners, was not rolled out very carefully. It was not clear what the parameters were of this program. In fact, in March 2012, Yukon's legislative assembly voted unanimously for changes to the program. In May 2013, the Nunavut legislative assembly and the Northwest Territories legislative assembly both voted unanimously for the audit the Auditor General eventually did. That indicates that there are problems with the program and that there were problems, perhaps, with the rollout of the program.

To be fair, even back in the early 1960s, there were problems with the old mail program too. I do not have the background to know what kind of comprehensive reviews were done of that program in the 1960s and 1970s, but I am sure that there were calls to look at that program.

I am sure I will have a question from one of my Conservative friends, but perhaps someone could give us an idea, from their point of view, as to why nutrition north actually came in to replace that other program.

The Auditor General agreed to conduct the audit, and it was released this past fall, the fall of 2014. Here are some of the things the Auditor General found.

First and foremost was that the department has not based community eligibility on need, which is interesting. Members should keep that in mind as I go down the list.

The Auditor General also found that the department has not verified whether northern retailers passed on the full subsidy to consumers. That is another interesting one, because we have a government that talks about transparency, but apparently, this program is not that transparent, and it needs to be.

As well, the Auditor General found that the department has not collected the information needed to manage the nutrition north Canada program or measure its success. The program has been in place since April of 2011, yet there do not seem to be any tools to actually measure how successful it has been or is presently.

The Auditor General also found that the department has not implemented the program's cost-containment strategy.

There are a number of things that the Auditor General has found. The point I am trying to make with respect to the Auditor General is that I hope that instead of looking at that, the government would do a comprehensive review, which could start right now, even though there is an election on the horizon.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud that our ministers have embraced the Auditor General's report and have almost instantly engaged in dealing with some of the recommendations that were made.

Earlier in my comments I made note of the fact that there really is not a comprehensive position from the opposition members. The member for Churchill said that there is no question that nutrition north does reduce the price, but then the member for Timmins—James Bay said that the program is not lowering the costs. They have criticized the program but then said that 50 communities should be added to it. It is not a coherent position. Is the program lowering the costs, as the member for Churchill said, or is it not, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said? Is it a good program that we should add 50 communities to or is it not? They do not have a coherent position. Therefore, I am wondering if the member opposite can offer a coherent position from the NDP side once and for all.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I think a comprehensive review would answer the question of whether the program is running well, whether it needs to add 50 communities, or whether it is not running well. Some of the things I just mentioned that are found in the Auditor General's report should be easy to look at and to make determinations as to whether the program is or is not working well. A good way to put it is that appears to not be working as well as it should.

It is interesting that 27 of the communities that were identified as needing a full nutrition north subsidy are in Conservative ridings. I am not sure why those members have not spoken up. I mentioned three communities in the riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North. I do not know why that member has not spoken up with respect to the program.

When nutrition north was developed, eligibility was determined by lack of access and whether the community had used the old food mail program. As I indicated in my comments, the old food mail program did not always work the way it was supposed to either. Therefore, I am not sure whether the criteria for the new program should be based on a program that really was not working then.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow northern colleague for speaking to this very important motion, as well as speaking on behalf of a lot of northern Ontarians, his neighbours, who are not getting the representation they deserve from their Conservative member of Parliament, such as in Kenora. We are talking about 18 communities in the constituency of Kenora that either receive a partial subsidy or 11 that are entirely excluded. I know from my own constituents what it means to live in a community that is excluded from nutrition north. As I mentioned, the cost of a jug of milk is $15 and a bag of fruit is anywhere from $8 to $15. These are fundamentals. Children and elders are going hungry. This is unacceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada and at a time when we know there is plenty.

I would ask my colleague to speak to the need for leadership from the Conservative member for Kenora and from the Conservative government when it comes to standing up for northerners.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a lot of lip service rather than real concrete action.

I will go back to my earlier comments about a comprehensive review and comprehensive action. I do not believe a review would take that long. It could probably be done in a couple of months if there was a real political will to make it happen.

I think we agree on both sides of the House that if we have a government program that is spending some $60 million annually the taxpayers deserve to know that money is being well spent. The money is being spent. Therefore, as the Auditor General suggested, I think we need to determine whether that money is being spent to the full advantage of taxpayers and of those who are receiving subsidies.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, The Environment.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to a very important motion.

I am hoping to pick up on a couple of points, because this is an issue on which I have had previous opportunities to speak, particularly the issue of milk. I hope to spend a bit of time on that particular issue in my comments this afternoon, because I did so while I was a member of the Manitoba legislature. People will understand and appreciate the relevance as I get to it.

Where do I start? I would suggest that maybe a good starting point might be the attitude the government has toward the north, particularly if we look at the nutrition north program. This is not a program that has been running for decades but, rather, a program that the Conservatives brought in a few years after they were elected.

I would argue that the reason they brought it in was not because the old program was not working. Programs do need modifications over time. The food mail program, from what I understand, was fairly well received. Does it mean that it was a perfect program? No one will say it was a perfect program, but it had merit, and as with any national program, we can always look for ways to improve upon it.

A number of years ago, the government made the decision that it wanted to communicate a message with that Conservative spin that routes out of the Prime Minister's Office and try to give an impression. It wanted to give the impression that it wanted to provide more food, healthier food, to northern Canada through government subsidy, so it came up with a program it calls nutrition north Canada.

On paper it looks great. Some might even suggest it is a little sexier a headline than the food mail program, but that is something the government has been known to do for photo opportunities and props, the naming and titling of bills and so forth.

Here the Conservatives have come up with a new name. They put the Conservative brand on it as opposed to trying to change and modify some of the areas in which the old program could have been improved.

It is much like having the member for Yukon stand in his place and talk about how great our Prime Minister is. After all, he has travelled more in the north than any other prime minister. I will not necessarily buy into the facts of that particular statement, but I will say that the Prime Minister, whenever he travels up north, makes sure that the rest of Canada is aware of it, through wonderful, expensive, taxpayer-expensed photo ops.

Many of my colleagues would argue that if some of the money used for those photo opportunities were reprioritized for food, we would probably have that much better a program. I am a bit suspicious about the government's true intentions on the program.

Some of the members say that the program is healthier, and they use one or two examples. The Auditor General of Canada pointed out that the nutrition north program pays for bacon. I would not rank bacon at the same level as milk or other fresh produce, but that is something the government subsidizes.

When we look at what the Auditor General really had to say, a couple of things come to mind.

We heard the government talking about savings for consumers. There is no doubt that there are some savings, but let us not kid ourselves. There were savings under the old program too.

The government will say that it compares year over year and that a bag of groceries is less than it was the previous year. However, we have the Auditor General of Canada saying that this is not necessarily accurate. Therefore, we question the numbers being provided. Again, it is not the Liberal Party or New Democrats questioning them. It is the Auditor General of Canada, a truly independent office, calling into question whether the claims the Conservative government is making about year-over-year decreases are factual. The Auditor General is saying that this is not necessarily the case.

We talk about the subsidy and that it is really important to provide it. I do not think there is any member in the House of Commons who would say we should not provide a subsidy. We all recognize the importance of northern Canada. Whether it be the northern tip of provinces, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, or Nunavut, they are all very important to our country, and it is important that all regions of our country are provided the opportunity to have healthy food.

It is important when we talk about northern sovereignty that we substantiate that by ensuring that there are actually people living in northern Canada. For many it is a wonderful, great life, but others might find it more of a challenge. However, there are certain things that government can do to help accommodate an easier lifestyle in terms of affordability of some of the food that is so accessible here in Canada, much of it produced in Canada.

There are things we can do. I suspect that if we were to canvass Canadians as a whole, we would find that there is wide support for having a food subsidy program to help facilitate the lifestyle. It makes sense.

For those who might try to spread misinformation and ask why we in the south should support the north, I suspect that if we looked at the bottom line in terms of where the money is flowing, we would find that the south benefits immensely, economically and socially. I suspect that there is a very high net positive for the south.

In Manitoba, we have the Golden Boy on top of the Manitoba legislature that points to the north, because we believe that is where the real future is in terms of potential for Canada. We are so very much dependent on the north.

I like to think we have established that it is absolutely critical that we provide that subsidy, that assistance, for nutritious foods. However, now the issue is how we make sure we turn that into reality. It is one thing to say that we are going to provide x number of dollars. The parliamentary secretary is here and can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is around $60 million. It is a substantial amount of money.

At the end of the day, it is not just the amount of money that is put into the envelope targeted for a particular program; it is how effectively that money is utilized to maximize the benefits of the product that they ultimately want to deliver to the many communities in need of that subsidy.

Once again the Prime Minister and the current Conservative government have been found wanting. They have not been able to clearly establish that they are maximizing the benefits of the tax dollar in terms of actual fresh produce on the tables of northerners. Again, it is not just I or the Liberal Party talking about it; all we have to do is go to the Auditor General of Canada.

Last fall we had a detailed report from the Auditor General, and some of the comments were really interesting. I will quote just a couple of them. It was a CBC news story, and I will quote from it because I want the members opposite to realize that this is not coming from the Liberal Party or from me but from a story that quotes our Auditor General of Canada. It said:

Aboriginal Affairs does not know whether retailers in the North are passing on savings to consumers as a result of its Nutrition North program to make healthy food more affordable in remote northern parts of the country, the federal auditor general has found.

It is one thing to talk about a program and to assign a budgeted amount of tax dollars to it, but it is another thing at the end of the day to actually deliver this absolutely essential program in a way that maximizes the benefits.

In other words, we can put the money in the envelope, but we have to have the follow-through. The Auditor General has been somewhat critical of the government in this area because the government has demonstrated that it does not do the follow-through. It does not even confirm, from what I understand or have been told, that the receipts and paperwork that are being provided to it are in fact verified. These are real, serious, genuine concerns, and the government has again been found wanting. I hope to be able to get back to this point.

However, I mentioned an issue at the beginning of my comments that is really important for me, and it is something that is not new. Today I have been afforded the opportunity to ask a number of questions, and I tried to focus my questions on milk. The reason is that in 2008, as a member of the Manitoba legislature, I had the privilege of introducing Bill 213 on the floor of the Manitoba legislature, and what a privilege it was. The essence of Bill 213 was that the price of milk should be universal in the province of Manitoba, much like the price for alcohol. A bottle of beer costs the same in one community as it does in another.

I talked about why Manitoba had an important role in trying to deal with the issue of milk. I noticed the member for Churchill provided a quote in regard to Tadoule. Here is a price, and this is something I would have said in 2008: “...the four-litre price of milk today in Winnipeg you can get for $3.59.” I do not think it has gone up much since then, but I am not necessarily the best person to ask on it.

This was back in 2008. It was $3.59 for four litres of milk in the city of Winnipeg. In Red Sucker Lake, it was $11.89 in 2008. I know the member for Churchill made reference to Tadoule Lake. I made reference to Tadoule Lake also. It is about as far north as one can go in Manitoba. One would follow the bay virtually all the way up and then kind of cross over, and then one would see Tadoule Lake.

At that time, four litres of milk was $17.40. In Winnipeg it was $3.59. It showed in a very real and tangible way the difference in the cost of living.

Members may be somewhat familiar with many of the different issues that face my province, and I am just talking about milk but in many ways the same principle applies for nutritional food of all sorts. Let us imagine people who with a limited income and have a choice between $17.40 for four litres of milk and a two litre bottle of pop for a couple of dollars, and they have child who is quite often keen on taking the pop.

Far too families are choosing an alternative to milk, not because it is a healthier product or that it is really and truly what they want. In many cases, it is an affordability issue. They are buying a milk alternative because it is a whole lot cheaper. The alternative may not be healthier for the child.

The government has a choice. It can either try to assist the population in certain regions to eat healthier at the beginning, and there is a cost to it, but if that is not done, then there is the potential for a far greater cost at the other end.

The government could check with some of the health care professionals who travel to some of our northern regions. We hear some of the horror stories about children who have virtually all of their teeth eaten away because of sugar. Let us think of the cost of diabetes as a direct result of not having access to or not being able to afford quality nutritional food. The health care costs to society are enormous.

When we talk about a program that costs $60 million and compare it to how much money it could cost at the other end, it is a savings that can be achieved if we are prepared to be more proactive, as much as possible.

It does not mean the Government of Canada has to pony up for everything. There is in fact an argument to be made that the Government of Canada should not only be providing financial assistance or support, but it also needs to be working with the first nations communities, the different provinces, municipalities and the many different stakeholders that live and breathe the issues the north faces on a daily basis to develop a more comprehensive strategy in how to best deliver nutritional food at an affordable cost.

At the end of the day, we will have a healthier population. Everyone will benefit, if we are prepared to do that. However, that takes a great deal of leadership.

We had this discussion in our caucus. The leader of the Liberal Party has a teaching background and has an understanding of the needs of students. When unhealthy kids are in the classroom, it takes away from their ability to focus on their education. If that leads to people dropping out, just think of the cost to the economy, let alone the social aspect of the community.

There is much to lose if we do not get this thing right, and I am not convinced that the government has its priorities right. Yes, it has the nutrition north program and, yes, there is a significant amount of money in that envelope, but there is a lot more to it than just the photo op and putting money into an envelope. There has to be more dialogue and working with others and stakeholders to really have the type of impact that we need to see, not only in our territories, but in many northern regions of our country.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about one thing that I would agree with, which is that this file requires leadership. This side of the House has demonstrated leadership, but it is not leadership that the opposition is prepared to follow.

He talked about a suite of measures that need to be put in place to ensure food security and nutritional choices for northern families. We have done that through the Growing Forward 2 program, the northern greenhouse initiative and direct investments through the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, not only to provide economic opportunities but to provide those nutritional opportunities for communities. They are community-based solutions for community-based challenges. Some of those vary from different regions of the country, from Nunavut to Yukon.

Interestingly enough, however, every time we put forward either a legislative amendment, an operational consideration or a policy direction, the NDP and the Liberals find a convenient way to vote against those measures. That includes significant, record levels of transfer payments to the provinces and territories. The member mentioned the necessary partnerships with those provincial leaders, but every time, yet again, the opposition votes against record levels of transfer payments. The Liberals are voting against those sorts of things.

I am not sure how they expect us to deliver those kinds of investments with their support if they just stand up every time that we provide those kinds of measures and vote against them. It is disingenuous. Canadians know that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not born yesterday. I know how our parliamentary system works.

The minister, the member and his party voted against the Kelowna accord, which dealt with many of these types of issues that we are talking about today. The government voted against the mail food program, which provided hundreds of millions of dollars of food over many years to northern Canada.

If the government actually worked with the different stakeholders to build consensus on the legislation that it brought in, I suspect that it would have more sympathy from opposition parties saying that they will vote for it. If it does not do that, meet with people, or build consensus, then it should not expect the opposition to be voting for its legislation. If the government really wants to have an impact, it has to do the work. If it is not prepared to do the work, it should not come to the House saying here is a piece of legislation that it wants us to pass, even though it did not do the work. The opposition takes its job a little bit more seriously than the government takes its job, obviously.

At the end of the day, we did an admirable job providing in the past, through other Liberal administrations, and we look forward to the day when we will be able to add more value to the nutritional programs in the future.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Winnipeg North speak, but not as much as I enjoy hearing two cats fighting at midnight outside of my window. It is almost as much, though.

The point that I wish to make is that people should be judged by what they do, not by what they say. I remember, back in about 2003, I took the leader of our party, Jack Layton, to a series of northern Ontario and Manitoba fly-in communities to look at the cost of food. That was at the height of the Liberal majority government, after it had imposed a 2% cap on all spending for first nations and aboriginal people. Even though their growth was 6% per year in those communities, the Liberals decided in their wisdom that they only needed a 2% cap, which I would argue has created the social crisis that we are experiencing today.

This was in the early days of BlackBerrys, but Jack had one with him and I remember him taking photographs of the appalling, ridiculous, unaffordable prices of food in Pauingassi, Poplar River, Little Grand Rapids, Pikangikum and these places where people were starving. They were starving under the days of the Liberal regime.

When we listen to the Liberal member try to say “back when we were in charge, everything was rosy”, we know that it was rotten then. They starved. For that prime minister to say he is now in conversion on the road to Damascus is like St. Paul, talking about aboriginal issues. They had nine balanced budgets, nine surplus budgets in a row, and there was not a nickel for first nations spending until he was finished.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, more so out of an understanding and appreciation of the issue, I had chosen not to comment on the milk issue to the degree I could have. However, I will do that now.

The milk issue was a big issue in the Manitoba legislature. The NDP minister had something to say about the initiative. I believe we actually even had the Progressive Conservative Party supporting my motion to go to committee. This is what the minister said at the time: “It is a delight for me to be able to speak against this bill.”

It was the NDP administration in Manitoba that allowed for and supported Tadoule Lake paying $17.40 for a four litre jug. That was a provincial NDP responsibility, and it chose to do nothing.

All I was asking for at the time was to allow it to go to committee and to allow the committee to go to Thompson, to The Pas, and I believe even Churchill, too, to allow northern Manitobans to come and talk to us about nutrition. The NDP provincial government refused, without any justification. In fact, one minister indicated that they could always eat Cheez Whiz as opposed to having fresh milk.

The NDP government at the time, when it was in a position to do something that would have made a difference, chose not to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. It is always wonderful to hear from a fellow sesquipedalian.

I would like to reference the point the previous member made. He referred to the previous record. There used to be a mail program. We have heard about it a lot today. It subsidized transit costs for things like snowmobile parts. Clearly, that was not getting the job done. Our government brought in a new program, with the idea of more nutritious food, specifically for northerners.

The Auditor General pointed out a number of recommendations that are helpful and are being implemented, such as reviewing the actual grocers to make sure that they are supplying the full value of the subsidy. We are also making sure that there is more money coming from the program to make sure that the people who rely on it can get the nutritious food they need. In fact, it is actually indexed to a 5% escalator. Again, using the rule of 72, in 14 years, that would in effect double the amount of money available to the program. That is a huge commitment.

Would the member not realize the point of the previous member, which is that the previous Liberal program failed northerners and that at least this program is supplying more nutritious foods? With the help of the Auditor General, we will continue to build on that success. Does he agree that the previous Liberal government did not get it done?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member at all. I would challenge the member, in fact, to show me an auditor's report that supports what he just said. He cannot show me the auditor's report that substantiates what he just finished saying.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It was in the transcripts of the public accounts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to go to a committee. I am going to the Auditor General of Canada. I have quotes I can provide from the Auditor General of Canada that say that the government's program has fallen short. The member cannot provide something likewise on the former program.

At the end of the day, Canadians are not going to be fooled. As the Auditor General has pointed out, it is not just a question of putting $60 million into an envelope and saying “Look how well we have done”. It is about the delivery of the program also, and the Auditor General has said that the government has failed to realize efficient delivery of the program. That is not me or the Liberal Party. That is the Auditor General of Canada. That is someone who is independent.

The government is wrong. It is more interested in photo ops than in reality in helping people in northern Canada.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. As I only have 10 minutes, I will definitely run out of time, just as I do nearly every time I rise in the House.

I am grateful for the chance to speak about such an important subject. I have the opportunity to comment on the motion moved by my colleague from the Northwest Territories, whom I have come to know fairly well over the past four years. I have had the opportunity to see him at work, for example, in committees. He really defends the rights of northerners with exceptional vigour and passion.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by not just my colleague from the Northwest Territories, but all the representatives from the north, from Churchill Falls to Whitehorse. They are responsible for areas that are bigger than the average European country. They often have to defend very complex and specific files that concern such issues as the economy, the need for access to services and the environment.

Today's topic, nutrition problems in Canada's north, is a good example of a specific problem that my colleagues from the north must address.

People who, like me, live in the south need to understand that basic necessities, including perishable goods, are often shipped to the north by plane. Stores necessarily have higher hydro, maintenance and food storage costs. Naturally, this affects the cost of the food on the shelves.

For example, in April 2014, the price of two litres of milk was around $8 in several communities in the Yukon, while people in the Edmonton area were paying about $3.30 or $3.35 for two litres of milk. That is over 200% more.

One story that really struck me is one Quebeckers may not be aware of. In May 2012, Leesee Papatsie of Iqaluit, Nunavut, created a Facebook page called “Feeding my Family”. With the example I just gave about milk costing 200% more, we can see how difficult it is to feed a family.

Now, this page has more than 25,000 members and, unfortunately, the food situation in the north continues to be very difficult.

This citizen-driven initiative showed us images that struck Canadians and my colleagues. We saw older first nations members rooting through the garbage for food to eat. They were not there to eat properly, but to survive.

The nutrition north Canada program has a fixed annual budget of $60 million, $53.9 million of which is supposed to be earmarked annually for subsidies, in order to lower the price of food in the north. Unfortunately, despite all these millions of dollars, the program is not working.

My colleague's motion is well thought out and illustrates his knowledge of the subject. I will read the motion and comment on it, as it points to major aspects of the problem.

The motion reads as follows:

That the House call on the government to take immediate action to fix Nutrition North Canada and to improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by: (a) immediately including in the Nutrition North Canada program the 50 isolated Northern communities accessible only by air that are not currently eligible for the full subsidy;

On the Government of Canada's website, we read:

To be eligible for Nutrition North Canada (NNC), a community must:

lack year-round surface transportation (for example, no permanent road, rail or marine access).

I do not get it. When I read this official definition and I hear that communities that can be reached only by plane are getting partial subsidies, there seems to be a disconnect. I do not understand how it came to this.

In fall 2014, the Auditor General, whose findings I will keep referring to, said that the department did not base its eligibility criteria on the needs of the communities.

The criteria for the nutrition north program were not based on the needs of northern communities. This creates scenarios where the most remote communities that need more support to make food more affordable receive less in the way of subsidies than other communities.

Here is another excerpt from the motion:

...to improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by...initiating a comprehensive review of the Nutrition North program, with Northerners as full partners, to determine ways of directly providing the subsidy to Northern residents and to improve supports for traditional foods.

It is important to understand that the subsidies do not go directly to families who need better access to healthier food, but rather to retailers and distributers. At the same time, in the fall of 2014, the Auditor General noted that the department had not verified whether those northern retailers had passed the full subsidy on to consumers.

That is a very troubling conclusion. We are talking about millions of dollars in very small communities, and yet the Auditor General had to conclude that no one had verified whether the subsidy served to lower prices for the people who needed it.

I would just like to go off on a tangent about what we saw this week from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. When we see how badly the Conservative government messes up initiatives and so-called solutions targeting northern communities and sometimes primarily first nations, we have to wonder why a government would be so negligent.

This week, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stayed seated while all of the representatives of Canadian communities gave some of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's findings standing ovations.

There is something awry with this government's mentality and its approach to the problems that northerners and first nations have. It is astounding. It needs to change as soon as possible, but that will probably only happen if there is a change in government.

Here is another part of the motion:

...improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by...creating equitable program-eligibility criteria for Northern communities based on their real circumstances;

Once again, judging from the Auditor General's findings, the minister did not collect the information needed to manage the nutrition north Canada program or measure its success. We are talking about $60 million shared among small communities to meet an essential need: improving access to healthy food. However, the Auditor General found that the government did not have measures in place to assess the program outcomes.

We need to go back to the communities and, in the future, make sure that we are taking their real circumstances into account throughout the process.

Here is another part:

...improve the well-being of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in Northern Canada by...providing sufficient funding to meet the needs of all Northern communities;

Once again, this is in line with the Auditor General's conclusions about how the department had not implemented the program's cost containment strategy.

Since I do not live in the north, but on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, I will share one or two quotes from people who live in the north. An MLA from the Yukon, Mr. Elias, said:

The change from a transportation subsidy to a retail subsidy, combined with the decision to no longer cover surcharges and taxes, has dramatically increased the cost of getting food into Old Crow.

Someone who lives in the area, like hundreds of others who testified, told us quite clearly that the multi-million dollar measures the Conservative government put in place in the past few years have not helped reduce prices significantly, which would have helped thousands of people feed themselves better. This result is absolutely pathetic.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the day, and I believe this is the last speech on this supply day motion, we now have yet another position from the NDP. In the last six weeks, it has gone from 55 to 46 to 50 communities that it wants added. During the first speech of the day, the member for Northwest Territories said that he thought all communities in the north should be added. Now the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup just said at the very end of his speech that we should return to the food mail program, to the transportation subsidy, rather than subsidizing the food for the consumer.

The Auditor General recommended none of these things. We have accepted the Auditor General's report. He said that there should be a new process for evaluating communities. We have agreed and we are going through the real work necessary to evaluate those communities that should be added. We do not do it in a haphazard way and pick communities that have year-round rail or road access or changes from day to day, like the NDP has done today.

Why will the member not accept the recommendations of the Auditor General, as the government has, and allow the government to assess the eligibility of communities according to their need?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I followed roughly two-thirds of the debate in the House today. I have heard the minister of state make that same twisted argument three times now.

Even if that were so, even if in recent months, the evaluations had determined that 46 communities should have had better access to the program and at some point, someone had assessed that there were perhaps 52 communities in need, the fact remains that we are talking about people who do not have enough access to a program to help them feed themselves better. Whether we are talking about 23, 27, 52 or 60 communities, there is a serious problem.

What is the point of the argument that we do not have the exact number of communities that are suffering? As long as the experts have not determined the exact number of communities that are suffering, should we continue to get this wrong and apply a program that does not provide tangible solutions for people who are hungry? To me, that argument borders on despicable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel the same way as my colleague who just spoke. When I hear people arguing about numbers and statistics like that, I wonder how many people the government members would be prepared to allow to go hungry. I wonder if they have a number in mind.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made some comments similar to those made by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

When members start making excuses based on some uncertainty around the numbers of people who are suffering, you have a serious problem.

There is an important question here. The numbers may not be exact according to the findings of some of the people who have examined this issue. However, how many suffering communities must there be before the government will deem it necessary to review the program? Twenty-two communities is apparently not enough, so should we let them starve?

Will we have to list 75 communities before this issue becomes a priority and the government admits that changes are urgently needed? I do not know. It is not up to me to give those answers. The government's approach to this issue is completely inadequate. It is not up to me to justify this kind of approach.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?