Nutrition North Canada Stakeholder Meeting: Summary of discussions

1. Local retailers and restaurants

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• How can NNC update the program criteria to better include small retailers?
• How do we get small (for example, less than 3 stores; <$450K in annual sales) retailers to participate in the program?
• What kind of initiatives might be considered to reduce the administrative burden to retailers while maintaining the required program accountability requirements and to ensure subsidy is fully passed to the consumer?

All meeting participants endorsed finding a way to support the inclusion of smaller retailers through adapting the reporting requirements, such as through a graduated system of reporting that still allows NNC to collect enough data to report price trends, and ensure the subsidy is fully passed on. Suggestions included:

• reduce the reporting burden by providing Point of Sale (POS) technology in addition to reporting templates/databases
• restrict the subsidy to a fixed percentage to account for the size of annual sales for smaller retailers and benchmark prices to sustain competition and make sure the subsidy is being passed on to consumers
• reduce reporting frequency to annual for smaller retailers, moving to quarterly as sales volume increase
• skills building and training through partnerships with other federal/provincial/territorial programs

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• How can NNC work with restaurants that are accessing the NNC subsidy, to ensure that they are providing healthier meal choices and essentially passing on the subsidy to customers?

All of the meeting participants shared the view that policing restaurants (what they charge and their menus) should be outside federal government responsibility and NNC's mandate. Suggestions on where parties could work together included:

• facilitate connections to local harvesters so restaurants can serve country food
• enhance communications and awareness around the program and its functions for small retailers and restaurants
• increase visibility at the establishment that food was subsidized
• future focus on promoting healthy options by educating the public and restaurants through nutrition education initiatives and using symbols on menus to highlight healthy choices

2. Scope of eligible items

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• Keeping in mind that Northerners want all community members to benefit from the program, and even lower prices, what should be the scope of items eligible for the NNC's Subsidy?
• What key factors should be considered when developing or reviewing the eligibility list?
• What might the impacts of those changes be on the current list and budget?

Consistent with the public engagement feedback, most participants supported a universally applied list so all community members can benefit, with some suggestions to target vulnerable populations such as elders or young children (for example, subsidize diapers). There was, however, a sense in the room that NNC could not be all things to all people, its niche is market food, and that the benefits of NNC could be enhanced when working with other partners and programs (such as provincial/territorial income support programs which provide support for incidentals such as detergents, toothpaste, diapers, and so on). Better communication on what exists seemed to be the main theme, for example:

• develop a broader communication strategy with other parties (provinces/territories, other depts.) so NNC can better align with other services leveraging opportunities to enhance the services to communities
• better communicate the rationale behind how an item makes its way onto the eligibility list to communities
• keep subsidy on items flown in by air (most expensive form of transportation) and do not expand to sealift / winter road items as that would significantly reduce subsidy for most perishable items; expand to other forms of transportation

Participants favoured a food list that focuses on nutrition and targeted to support healthy families. Views varied regarding how to target the list itself. Suggestions made by meeting participants on how to proceed included:

• subsidize fruits seasonally and limit unhealthy varieties such as sugary cereals
• customize the food eligibility list by region to allow for regional diversity
• use health studies to see what is needed for vulnerable populations to adjust eligibility list
• focus on a shorter list (for example remove tofu, sorbets), so that non-perishable key staples can be considered
• support items with a hardier shelf life (for example, apples, root vegetables)
• implement a pilot project to remove certain items from the list (for example, ice cream, sugar laden cereals) to offset the costs of necessary items, and track responses and consumer behavior
• adjust the food eligibility list to better support community initiatives underway (for example make your own meals/home cooking programs, healthy meals and recipes initiatives, school meal programs) that are subject to other program requirements
• partner with economic development (loans for building and running warehouses) to store staple items (such as flour) in order to reduce cost of heavy items that don't have to be flown in

3. Community subsidy rates

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• Keeping in mind that Northerners want even lower prices, and that NNC must operate within its means, how should NNC determine subsidy rates: community-specific based on isolation criteria (such as distance to community) or by region (if so, what criteria should be considered)?
• What factors should be considered in determining the rate at which an item is subsidized and why (Level 1, Level 2, additional levels?)
• How should subsidy rates be adjusted and how would this be measured (for example based on Revised Northern Food Basket price trends? Or to achieve regional price comparability or North-South price comparability?

Participants primarily felt that subsidy rates should be set per community as to account for the different realities faced by each community, with a future aim towards regional comparability in prices. Participants held the view that the subsidy rates should be reviewed on a regular basis (suggestions ranged from every one to five years). Similar to the public engagement feedback, there was a range of diverging views and many ideas were put forward. More than half the participants thought the subsidy rates should be based on existing criteria (distance flown, distance from supply centre, population and minimum wage). Others suggested NNC consider other factors such as flight distance plus freight rate, affordability (social assistance income), wellness factors, hydro rates, or rates of inflation. Some proposed the minimum wage factor should be eliminated from current consideration as it was believed it does not reflect the income levels of many communities, and others noted that distance factors into the cost of food, but sometimes closer is not cheaper.

Remaining suggestions took into consideration the food eligibility list in conjunction with the subsidy rates and levels, for example:

• develop a super subsidy for certain staple items (for example, a "Bannock" list, or a few items such as milk, flour and sugar), aim for North-South price compatibility only on those items, and forego the Level 2 to offset the increased cost for the super subsidy
• forgo the Level 2 subsidy to be able to increase Level 1 subsidy, or keep Level 2 subsidy and make it more meaningful within budget
• keep Level 1 (most perishable foods) and Level 2 (less perishable foods), with regularly adjusted rates and determine a process on how to decide which communities get increases and which get decreases

Other points raised by meeting participants were:

• examine issues around why people shop outside of the community, competition implications, etc.
• identify an economist to develop a cost benefit analysis and provide NNC with options on subsidy rates
• if prices caps on food are considered by governments, there would need to consider the jurisdictions, mechanisms and regulations to implement

4. Service standards and food quality

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• Keeping in mind that Northerners want even lower prices, and NNC has to operate within its means: What are the merits of each proposed new principle?
• Who has a role/responsibility regarding food quality along the supply chain and in store?
• Should the suggested principle be considered as an addition to NNC?
• If so, how would it be implemented by all parties in a cost-effective manner?

Participants strongly felt that while food safety and food quality are very important, they fall under the responsibility of other jurisdictions, and it is not a role for NNC to become involved in. Education and consumer awareness were discussed as key to ensuring food quality in stores (take advantage of money back guarantees, ask for other products, raise issues with store managers, understand best before dates), and it was suggested that community led nutrition education initiatives could have the capacity to address this. In addition, retailers could consider putting up signage on how to pick fresh / ripe fruit and posters in local languages. There was discussion on the risks associated with doing business in the North and the numerous factors that affect food quality along the supply chain which are outside of anyone's control (such as weather delays). It was seen that it is the responsibility of the retailer/supplier (packaging, service standards, contracts, monitoring, and spot checks) and the transportation company (meeting service standards, monitoring, and insurance) to ensure the safety and quality of food items sold in stores. Participants felt that there was little that NNC could do in this area, and if NNC had to become involved, the only thing participants proposed was to put a requirement in the funding agreements that the retailer/supplier ensures the airline has insurance to cover food spoilage.

Participants proposed the subsidization of food sold rather than food shipped but that further work and costing should be done before a new program model could be considered. For example, participants suggested:

• undertake a pilot project in one community to gather more information on what consumers are buying vs. what is being shipped and determine whether there would be a net benefit of such a model change
• collect data on what has been shipped vs spoilage as some retailers are able to track this information

5. Traditional and country foods

During the stakeholder meeting, participants were asked:

• How can NNC better support country/traditional foods within the current mandate and program budget?
• What partnerships are required to support access to country/traditional food outside NNC?

All meeting participants agreed upon the importance of country food to the northern diet, and acknowledged that there was very limited room for increased support of country/traditional food that are sold in stores. One idea put forward was to seek increased funding for nutrition education activities to work with Hunter and Trapper Organizations (HTOs)/Hunter and Trapper Associations (HTAs) and to support community led initiatives being delivered through existing infrastructure (such as cooking classes, Elders and youth programs).

Participants agreed that increased support for country/traditional food harvesters was very important, but outside the purview of NNC and it should remain this way. There appeared to be agreement from all participants that the most pressing need was for subsidies for gas, and ammunition. Some suggested additional support for harvesting equipment and community or personal freezers. Others suggested increased Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) support for communities to assist in addressing the regulatory issues around the transportation and sharing of country foods between communities / jurisdictions (such as, invest in CFIA approved mobile processing units). There were diverging views on how to provide this support, but all tables suggested leveraging funds, and pursuing partnerships with wildlife agencies and hunters and trappers organizations to develop new programs to support better access of country/traditional foods with their foundations built in accordance to the strengths identified in targeted communities. The protection and conservation of all natural resources was identified as a consideration when encouraging the harvesting of country foods. While it was stressed that the need was great, concern was raised regarding the length of time it takes for partnership-based programming to be put in place, and some speculated that it may be better to use NNC funding to provide subsidies for gas, even though it would significantly reduce the amount of funds available for food.

List of participating organizations

• Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board to the Minister of INAC
• Nutrition North Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
• Health Canada
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Transport Canada
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Government of Nunavut
• Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
• Government of Manitoba
• Government of Quebec
• Government of Northwest Territories
• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
• Assembly of First Nations
• Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
• Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs
• Nishnawbe Aski Nation
• Makivik Corporation
• Old Crow, Yukon Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
• Kativik Regional Government
• Nunatsiavut Government
• Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
• First Air
• Air Inuit
• North West Company
• Arctic Co-op
• Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau-Québec