Nutrition North must be more accountable to its stakeholders: researcher

Michael McMullen, then-executive vice president of the North West Company, speaks with reporters on April 1, 2011, the first day of the Nutrition North Canada program at Iqaluit’s Northmart store. (FILE PHOTO)

In April 2013, the price of a 10-kilogram bag of flour in Iqaluit was $39.19; the same bag cost $41.99 in Arviat and $42.81 in Pond Inlet.

That’s despite varying air freight subsidy rates for each of those communities through Nutrition North Canada — items like flour qualify for subsidy rates of $0.50 per kilo in Iqaluit, $2 per kilo in Arviat and $6.30 per kilo in Pond Inlet.

The federal program that aims to offset the high cost of food in the North bases its subsidy rates on geographic remoteness; while the level 1 subsidy rate sits at $2 per kilo in Arviat, one of Nunavut’s southernmost communities, the same subsidy jumps to $16 per kilo in Grise Fiord.

But a public health researcher from the University of Manitoba says there should be more transparency in how those rates are calculated and to what degree northern communities are actually benefiting from Nutrition North, which is administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

“Without transparency in how these rates of subsidy are calculated, it is difficult to determine whether they result in an equitable distribution of subsidy funds,” said Tracey Galloway in a commentary she wrote for the October issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health.

“Without some assessment of changing demographics, it is difficult to determine who is benefitting from subsidized food available in communities.”

Because the actual freight costs to retailers and wholesale shippers are not disclosed, Galloway says it’s impossible to see whether the federal government’s subsidy rates reflect the real cost of freight transport to communities.

Not only that, she said, but northern retailers appear “well-positioned for success” under this program.

The North West Co., which operates Northmart, Northern and Quickmart stores across the North, received 51 per cent of the Nutrition North subsidy in 2012-13, an amount totalling $31.6 million.

“It’s difficult to view this high degree of market concentration as significantly less monopolistic than under the old Canada Post contract,” Galloway said, referring to Nutrition North’s precursor, known as the Food Mail program.

Galloway is not alone in her assessment; a number of Nutrition North’s stakeholders have raised concerns about the transparency of the program since it launched in 2011, including Nunavut’s legislative assembly.

Galloway stresses that Nutrition North needs to be more accountable to the northern communities it’s designed to support.

In her commentary, Galloway calls on the federal government to modify Nutrition North’s reporting structure, so consumers can evaluate the accuracy of subsidy rates and how they’re passed on to customers.

Nutrition North reports the per capita weight of food shipped to communities under the program, so Galloway says customers can, to some extent, see how widely available food is in communities.

Between April 2011 and March 2013, Galloway found that per capita volumes decreased in the majority of northern communities, and in some cases, that drop was dramatic.

In Nunavut as a whole, where about 60 per cent of Nutrition North’s funding is focused, shipments per capita fell from 363 kg to 348 kg.

But without proper context, she said, it’s hard to understand why that occurred.

She points to booms in mining development in northern communities, where many people enjoy access to healthy, subsidized foods, but not necessarily local residents.

Galloway adds that there is no publicly available data on annual per capita food volumes shipped under the old Food Mail program.

And because the list of items eligible for subsidies changes under Nutrition North, it’s difficult to make a comparison of the two programs.

Galloway’s article comes just weeks before the Office of the Auditor General is set to release its performance audit on the program.

AAND has defended Nutrition North, contending that, overall, the program has increased access to healthy and perishable foods in isolated and remote communities.

Last year, the department cited a food price survey that shows prices have dropped on a number of food items since its implementation in April 2011, including a 27 per cent drop in the price of a two-litre carton of two per cent milk.