Food insecurity is generally defined as a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food. In 2017–2018, 12.7% of Canadian households were food insecure, representing at least 4.4 million individuals. Food insecurity is disproportionately worse in the North than elsewhere in the country, with rates of household food insecurity reaching 16.9%, 21.6% and 57% in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut respectively.
Among Northerners, Indigenous peoples are particularly at risk of being food insecure. The high rates of food insecurity among northern and Indigenous populations can be explained by several factors, such as the relative remoteness and isolation of their communities, financial hardship and socioeconomic inequities, the legacy of colonial policies, climate change and environmental dispossession and contamination. Food insecurity has severe consequences on health and well‑being; it has, for instance, been linked to malnutrition, infections, chronic diseases, obesity, distress, social exclusion, depression and suicidal ideation.
By providing a subsidy to eligible retailers in remote and isolated communities, Nutrition North Canada, a federal program, targets one of the causes of food insecurity: the high cost of perishable and nutritious food in the North. Introduced in 2011, the program has been criticized for several reasons over the years, with critics noting that the cost of perishable and nutritious food in the North remains too high for too many families. As of March 2019, the average cost to feed a healthy diet to a family of four in the North was $422.07 per week.
Regional and local initiatives have been implemented to address food insecurity in the North. These include a wide range of measures, from culturally appropriate food guides to comprehensive poverty‑reduction initiatives. Communities have their own solutions, from food banks and soup kitchens to hunting and harvesting support programs.
Food insecurity is a serious public health issue that risks worsening in coming years. To reduce food insecurity in the North, the government will need to address its social, economic and environmental roots.
In Canada, at least 4.4 million individuals were food insecure in 2017–2018.1 Due to several factors, Northerners – in particular, women, children and Indigenous peoples – are more at risk of experiencing food insecurity than other Canadians. This situation has substantial impacts on their health and well‑being.2 This paper provides a brief overview of the factors contributing to food insecurity in northern Canada3 and the consequences resulting from this situation. Additionally, it looks at initiatives directly or indirectly addressing this issue.
Food security is generally defined as a “situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”4 Conversely, food insecurity is defined as a “situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life.”5
Some researchers have argued that these broad definitions of food security and insecurity may not fully address considerations that are unique to Indigenous peoples, such as the place of food in their cultures, identities and ceremonies, as well as the nutritional and sociocultural value of traditional (or country) foods.6 Others have instead proposed to define food security as “a condition where all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes community self‑reliance and social justice.”7
Since 2004, data on food security has been collected through the Household Food Security Survey Module of the Canadian Community Health Survey.8 The most recent results, collected in 2017–2018, indicate an increase in food insecurity in the North, with rates of household food insecurity reaching:
By comparison, rates of household food insecurity in the provinces in 2017–2018 ranged from 11.1% (Quebec) to 15.3% (Nova Scotia).10 The national rate of household food insecurity was 12.7%.11 Households with children are generally more at risk; 17.3% of Canadian children aged 18 and under lived in a food‑insecure household in 2017–2018. In Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, 78.7%, 30% and 18.3% of children lived in a food‑insecure household.12
Among Northerners, Indigenous peoples are particularly at risk of being food insecure. In 2012, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food reported that the Inuit of Nunavut had “the highest documented food insecurity rate for any [A]boriginal population in a developed country.”13 Across Inuit Nunangat (the area covering the land, water and ice of the Inuit homeland in Canada), the rate of food insecurity among Inuit aged 25 and over was 52% in that year.14
Similarly, rates of food insecurity are higher in First Nations communities, compared with the rest of Canada. According to the First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study, which collected data from 2008 to 2016 in 92 randomly selected First Nations south of the 60th parallel, “[t]he prevalence of food insecurity is very high in First Nations communities (48%)” with “rates [being] also significantly higher in remote communities with no year‑round road access to a service centre (58%).”15
It is more difficult to be precise about the situation of the Métis population, as peer‑reviewed data about its experience of food insecurity in the North are limited.16
Several interconnected factors contribute to food insecurity in the North. The relative remoteness and isolation of northern communities contribute to a high cost of living, coupled with high costs to ship and store perishable and nutritious food. Another important factor contributing to food insecurity is socio‑economic status. Research shows that poverty, financial hardship, unemployment or underemployment, low income and low educational attainment contribute to food insecurity.17 In Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Métis populations generally have a lower socio‑economic status than non‑Indigenous Canadians.18
Indigenous peoples are also particularly at risk of experiencing food insecurity due to the long‑lasting and ongoing effects of colonial policies – including forced relocations and residential schools – that disrupted their relation to the land and to their traditional food systems.19 These policies also negatively affected intergenerational knowledge transfer of harvesting and hunting skills, and of healthy eating habits.20 Access to (and consumption of) traditional foods is further affected by environmental dispossession (that is, diminished access by Indigenous peoples to the resources of their traditional lands), climate change and the presence of contaminants in the environment.21
The consequences of food insecurity are far‑reaching; it can have negative effects on physical and mental health for both children and adults. Among other things, food insecurity has been associated with malnutrition, infections, chronic diseases and obesity, as well as with distress, social exclusion, depression, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.22 Some researchers have identified food insecurity as being the “largest [contributor] to the concentration of psychological distress and suicidal behaviours among low‑income Indigenous peoples in Canada.”23 In the case of children, hunger caused by food insecurity has been found to have a negative impact on the ability to learn, thus contributing to poor educational outcomes.24
Indigenous peoples in Canada’s North have also been experiencing changes in their dietary habits.25 The transition from nutritious, traditional diets to store‑bought processed foods has been found to potentially “increase the risk for diet‑sensitive chronic diseases and micronutrient deficiencies in northern Aboriginal communities.”26
Finally, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami notes that food insecurity is not only a threat to public health, but also to the “overall social and cultural stability in Inuit communities.”27
At the provincial/territorial, regional and local levels, there have been efforts to address the causes of food insecurity and mitigate its consequences. For its part, the federal government is playing a role through the Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program,28 which provides retail subsidies to improve access to perishable, nutritious and traditional food in certain communities. It should be noted, however, that reducing food insecurity is not part of NNC’s mandate. Rather, the program targets one of its causes: the high cost of perishable and nutritious food in the North.
Additionally, the federal government recently launched the Food Policy for Canada (the policy), which sets out a vision where “[a]ll people in Canada are able to access a sufficient amount of safe, nutritious, and culturally diverse food.”29 The policy identifies four areas for short‑ and medium‑term actions, one of which is the need to support food security in northern and Indigenous communities.30 The development of a national food policy has been described as “a critical opportunity to address food insecurity,” in part because of the need for coordination among several federal departments and agencies along with other levels of government.31
In place since 2011, NNC aims to improve access to perishable and nutritious food in northern communities lacking year‑round ground or marine access (see Appendix A for a map of eligible communities).32 “Perishable” refers to “food that spoils quickly especially if it is not stored at the proper temperature,” while the notion of “nutritious food” refers to the items and quantities prescribed by the Revised Northern Food Basket33 (see Appendix B). NNC subsidizes the cost of traditional food at a single subsidy rate (which varies by location) and other types of nutritious food coming from the South at three subsidy rates, according to a scale of importance:
NNC also provides funding for nutrition education initiatives, though these activities only account for a small portion of the program’s annual budget. The program’s main objective is to offset the “inherent disadvantage faced by isolated northern communities which have no other option but to fly in perishable foods.”35 By offering a subsidy to eligible food retailers, NNC replaced the Food Mail Program (also known as the Northern Air Stage Program), which had subsidized the cost of shipping food to eligible northern and isolated communities since the 1960s.
To contain costs, NNC’s annual budget was initially fixed at $60 million in 2011. However, in subsequent years, the federal government committed to enhancing the program and increased its funding. An annual compound escalator of 5% was also added to the food subsidy budget in 2014 to account for growing demand and population growth.36 As such, planned program spending increased steadily over time (see Figure 1). Program spending should reach $109.2 million in 2020–2021.37 Changes to the program in 2019–2020 include a revised list of subsidized products, increased subsidy rates and the creation of a new Harvesters Support Grant “to help lower the high costs associated with traditional hunting and harvesting activities.”38
Figure 1 – Annual Spending on Nutrition North Canada, 2012–2013 to 2018–2019 ($millions)
The figure illustrates the planned and actual spending of the Nutrition North Canada program from 2012–2013 to 2018–2019. Since 2014–2015, actual spending has increased steadily, but not as quickly as planned.
2012–2013 – planned spending: $60.3 million; actual spending: $68.1 million
2013–2014 – planned spending: $60.1 million; actual spending: $68.9 million
2014–2015 – planned spending: $71.3 million; actual spending: $70.2 million
2015–2016 – planned spending: $74.6 million; actual spending: $73.2 million
2016–2017 – planned spending: $79.2 million; actual spending: $75.3 million
2017–2018 – planned spending: $93.8 million; actual spending: $78.8 million
2018–2019 – planned spending: $98.7 million; actual spending: $86.5 million
Sources: Figure prepared by the author using data obtained from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Departmental Plans and Results Reports; and Government of Canada, Departmental Plans for Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
At first, NNC went over its budget by 12.9% in 2012–2013 and 14.6% in 2013–2014. These variances were attributed “to growth in demand for subsidized food” and changes to the subsidy rate in the program’s first year.39 According to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG), the department responsible for NNC (then Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada [AANDC]) had to transfer funds away from other programs and activities to cover these variances.40 The trend gradually reversed and the program spent 12.4% less ($12.2 million) than planned in 2018–2019. Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, which succeeded AANDC as the lead department for NNC, explained that the variance between planned and actual spending in 2018–2019 was “due to a late implementation of program updates announced in December 2018.”41 Notwithstanding these variances, actual program spending grew by 27% (or $18.4 million) from 2012–2013 to 2018–2019.
In 2014, the OAG concluded that AANDC “ha[d] not managed the Program to meet its objective of making healthy foods more accessible to residents of isolated northern communities” and “that the Department ha[d] not done the work necessary to verify that the northern retailers are passing on the full subsidy to consumers.”42 The NNC’s Advisory Board, tasked with providing Northerners with a direct voice in the program, noted similar concerns.43
NNC has also been criticized for its inadequate evidence base and accountability structure, its lack of responsiveness to concerns by community members and experts, and its failure to address inequities in food availability and affordability between regions and communities.44 Furthermore, a 2019 assessment of NNC “suggests that food insecurity has worsened in Nunavut communities after the introduction of the program.”45 According to the researchers who conducted it, their study “raises serious concerns about the federal government’s continued focus on food‑subsidy initiatives to improve food access in the North.”46
In 2016, the federal government sought input from community members and stakeholders in the program. Despite participants being “largely appreciative of the program,” it was noted that “many families are [still] not able to afford healthy food” and that the “subsidy is not having a big enough effect on the price of food.”47 The program has been successful at maintaining stable prices; however, prices have not decreased significantly since it was implemented. From March 2011 to March 2019, the average weekly cost of the Revised Northern Food Basket decreased by only 1.03% (from $426.48 to $422.07).48
On 17 June 2019, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri‑Food announced the Food Policy for Canada. With a commitment of more than $134 million by the federal government, the policy’s stated aim is to “shape a healthier and more prosperous future for Canadian families and communities.”49 The policy is the result of consultations held in 2017, which outlined several priorities, including the need to:
The policy also confirms the commitment made in Budget 2019 to allocate $15 million over five years to create the Northern Isolated Community Initiatives Fund to support community‑led food production projects.51 The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency will be responsible for this initiative.
In a 2014 report, the Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge on Food Security in Northern Canada noted that “[l]ong‑term alleviation of food insecurity requires drawing on the assets, talents, and abilities of northern communities.”52 These communities, alongside regional organizations and provincial/territorial governments, are already developing and implementing their own strategies to address food insecurity in northern Canada.53
Examples of provincial/territorial and regional initiatives include the strategies and action plans developed by organizations such as the Nunavut Food Security Coalition;54 the culturally appropriate food guides prepared by the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services and the Department of Health of Nunavut;55 and comprehensive poverty‑reduction initiatives, such as the Makimaniq Plan.56 Local community initiatives also offer short‑term (e.g., food banks and soup kitchens) and medium‑term (e.g., nutrition education and knowledge‑sharing programs, and hunting and harvesting support programs) solutions.57
Given that each northern and Indigenous community has its own needs and circumstances, any sustainable solution to food insecurity must build on local knowledge and existing initiatives.
Food insecurity remains a severe public health and human rights issue in northern communities and among Indigenous peoples. To date, the federal government has yet to develop and implement a strategy to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of northern food insecurity in a holistic way. The phenomenon is rooted in complex issues, such as socio‑economic gaps, climate change and the long‑lasting and ongoing effects of colonialism. Addressing food insecurity in northern Canada will thus require a comprehensive, multi‑faceted and coordinated approach that fully takes into account these issues.
* This background paper is largely based on Olivier Leblanc‑Laurendeau, Food Insecurity in Northern Canada: An Overview, Publication no. 2019‑18‑E, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament, Ottawa, 5 July 2019. [ Return to text ]
† Library of Parliament Background Papers provide in depth studies of policy issues. They feature historical background, current information and references, and many anticipate the emergence of the issues they examine. They are prepared by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, which carries out research for and provides information and analysis to parliamentarians and Senate and House of Commons committees and parliamentary associations in an objective, impartial manner. [ Return to text ]
(792 KB, 27 pages), PROOF – Food Insecurity Policy Research, 2020, p. 3. [ Return to text ] (4.6 MB, 296 pages), Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa, 2014, p. 193. [ Return to text ] (21.8 MB, 202 pages), Rome, 2018, p. 159. [ Return to text ] (87 KB, 3 pages),” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99, No. 2, 2008, pp. 95–97. [ Return to text ] (613 KB, 11 pages),” International Journal of Circumpolar Health, Vol. 70, No. 5, 2011, p. 489. [ Return to text ] (604 KB, 21 pages), A/HRC/22/50/Add.1, 24 December 2012, p. 16. [ Return to text ] (403 KB, 14 pages),” Insights on Canadian Society, Catalogue no. 75‑006‑X, Statistics Canada, 1 February 2017, p. 3. [ Return to text ] (5.4 MB, 252 pages),” Assembly of First Nations, University of Ottawa and Université de Montréal, Ottawa, November 2019, p. 54. [ Return to text ] (784 KB, 46 pages), September 2014, pp. 29–31; EPSKFS (2014), p. 193; Government of Canada, What We Heard: Consultations on A Food Policy for Canada (2.6 MB, 44 pages), Ottawa, 2018, p. 14; Tarasuk and Mitchell (2020), pp. 10–13; Arriagada (2017), p. 5; and Charlotte Reading and Fred Wien, Health Inequalities and Social Determinants of Aboriginal Peoples’ Health (1.7 MB, 36 pages), National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health, 2009, p. 17. [ Return to text ] (667 KB, 4 pages), 2009–2010; and Reading and Wien (2009). [ Return to text ] (2.0 MB, 36 pages), May 2018, p. 1; EPSKFS (2014), pp. 33–34; UNGA (2012), pp. 18–20; First Nations Information Governance Centre, National Report of the First Nations Regional Health Survey – Phase 3, Volume Two (6.7 MB, 168 pages), (2018), p. 62; and Reading and Wien (2009), p. 23. [ Return to text ] (3.3 MB, 32 pages), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, March 2017, p. 17; and Inuit Circumpolar Council, Food Security across the Arctic: Background Paper of the Steering Committee of the Circumpolar Inuit Health Strategy (146 KB, 12 pages), May 2012, pp. 7–9. [ Return to text ] (112 KB, 12 pages),” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 191, No. 12, 25 March 2019, p. E334. [ Return to text ] (2.5 MB, 40 pages), p. 12. [ Return to text ] (648 KB, 18 pages),” Canadian Food Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2018, p. 237. [ Return to text ] (3.2 MB, 20 pages),” International Journal of Circumpolar Health, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2017, pp. 12–17; and Andrée‑Anne Fafard St‑Germain, Tracey Galloway and Valerie Tarasuk, “Food insecurity in Nunavut following the introduction of Nutrition North Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 191, No. 20, 21 May 2019, p. E556. [ Return to text ] (5.9 MB, 464 pages), Budget 2019, 19 March 2019, p. 101. [ Return to text ] (293 KB, 40 pages). [ Return to text ]Figure A.1 – Eligibility of Communities for Nutrition North Canada as of 1 April 2019
This map of Canada identifies the 116 communities that are eligible for the Nutrition North Canada subsidy.
In Alberta, the following community is eligible for program: Fort Chipewyan.
In Saskatchewan, the following three communities are eligible for the program: Uranium City, Wollaston Lake, Fond‑du‑Lac.
In Manitoba, the following 16 communities are eligible for the program: Tadoule Lake, Brochet, York Landing, Granville Lake, Shamattawa, Lac Brochet, Red Sucker Lake, Gods River, Oxford House, Gods Lake Narrows, Waasagomach, Island Lake (Garden Hill), St. Theresa Point, Negginan (Poplar River), Pauingassi, Little Grand Rapids.
In Ontario, the following 27 communities are eligible for the program: Ogoki, Webequie, Lansdowne House, Eabamet Lake (Fort Hope), Summer Beaver, Wawakapewin, North Spirit Lake, Cat Lake, Poplar Hill, Deer Lake, Favourable Lake (Sandy Lake), Keewaywin, Sachigo Lake, Kasabonika, Angling Lake (Wapekeka First Nation), Wunnummin Lake, Kingfisher Lake, Weagamow Lake, Pikangikum, Kashechewan, Fort Albany, Attawapiskat, Peawanuck, Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake, Muskrat Dam, Big Trout Lake.
In Québec, the following 22 communities are eligible for the program: Port‑Menier, Pakuashipi, La Tabatière, Tête‑à‑la‑Baleine, Mutton Bay, Harrington Harbour, Chevery, La Romaine, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kuujjuaq, Tasiujaq, Aupaluk, Kangirsuk, Quaqtaq, Kangiqsujuaq, Salluit, Ivujivik, Akulivik, Puvirnituq, Inukjuak, Umiujaq, Kuujjuarapik.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the following seven communities are eligible for the program: Black Tickle, Rigolet, Makkovik, Postville, Hopedale, Natuashish, Nain.
In Yukon, the following community is eligible for the program: Old Crow.
In Northwest Territories, the following 14 communities are eligible for the program: Wekweètì (Snare Lake), Gameti (Rae Lakes), Whati, Lutsel K'e, Sachs Harbour, Ulukhaktok (Holman), Paulatuk, Aklavik, Fort Good Hope, Norman Wells, Tulita, Colville Lake, Deline, Sambaa K'e.
In Nunavut, the following 25 communities are eligible for the program: Qikiqtarjuaq, Pangnirtung, Iqaluit, Kimmirut, Clyde River, Cape Dorset, Pond Inlet, Hall Beach, Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, Igloolik, Coral Harbour, Naujaat, Resolute, Taloyoak, Kugaaruk, Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Rankin Inlet, Whale Cove, Arviat, Sanikiluaq.
Since Nutrition North's expansion in 2016, four communities have gained road access, and no longer meet the isolation criteria for the program and one community was relocated by the province. These include: Tuktoyaktuk (Northwest Territories), Stony Rapids (Saskatchewan), Black Lake (Saskatchewan), Berens River (Manitoba), Williams Harbour (Newfoundland and Labrador).
Source: Government of Canada, “Map of community eligibility as of April 1, 2019,” Eligible communities.
The Revised Northern Food Basket (RNFB) is a tool developed by the federal government that lists 67 food items and the quantities required to nutritiously feed a family of four for one week. The government uses the RNFB to monitor food prices in northern communities. The RNFB was introduced in 2007 and replaced the Northern Food Basket of 1990.
Not all items in the RNFB are eligible to the Nutrition North Canada subsidies.
| Food Group | Perishable | Non-perishable |
|---|---|---|
| Dairy products (Total: 15.35 La) |
|
|
| Eggs |
|
|
| Meat, poultry, fish (Total: 6.7 kg) |
|
|
| Meat alternatives and meat preparations (Total: 1 kg) |
|
|
| Grain products (Total: 5.5 kg) |
|
|
| Citrus fruit and tomatoes (Total: 4.4 kg) |
|
|
| Other fruit (Total: 9.95 kg) |
|
|
| Potatoes (Total: 3.7 kg) |
|
|
| Other vegetables (Total: 8.7 kge) |
|
|
| Oils and fats (Total: 1.05 kg) |
|
|
| Sugar (Total: 600 g) |
|
(196 KB, 35 pages), Ottawa, 2007, pp. 5–6.
© Library of Parliament