Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Greenhouses aim to bring fresh produce to North, putting a dent in food insecurity

Published

1 year ago

9 minute read

INUVIK, N.W.T. — Rows upon rows of raised beds growing tomatoes, zucchini, beans, wildflowers and herbs line the inside of the Inuvik Community Greenhouse. 

Sunlight streams through the panes of the curved ceiling above as children sprinkle their crop with green plastic watering cans. 

The commercial greenhouse in the western Arctic community in the Northwest Territories is in a former hockey arena. There, community members can rent plots to grow vegetables and other plants, and learn about gardening. 

“Every time I come in here, I only ever see people smiling,” said Adi Scott, who co-ordinates the greenhouse.

Remote and Indigenous communities, particularly in the North, are increasingly using greenhouses to grow their own produce, promote self-sufficiency and in some cases create economic opportunity, said Andrew Spring, an assistant professor at Wilfrid Laurier University and a Canada Research Chair in northern sustainable food systems.

“Food security has been an issue across the North because of the high cost of groceries … (and) the long-term impacts of colonization on northern Indigenous communities,” Spring said. 

Data from Statistics Canada indicates that 46.1 per cent of people in Nunavut, 23.1 per cent in the Northwest Territories and 15.3 per cent in the Yukon lived in food-insecure households in 2019 compared with a national average of 10.6 per cent. 

Much of the food flown North is processed, not to mention expensive, and access to fresh fruits or vegetables is limited, said Spring. Meanwhile, participation in traditional activities like gathering or hunting have been declining for decades in many communities, meaning they rely more on food from stores, he said. 

Climate change “makes a vulnerable situation even more precarious,” said Spring, as it causes disruptions in air travel or on long-used ice roads. 

Scott said the Inuvik greenhouse, which runs from April to September, can help put a dent in the grocery bill, but isn’t enough to truly reduce reliance on food from outside the territory. Instead, the greenhouse’s main focus is on education and community-building. 

These days, it’s not difficult to get the funds to start up a greenhouse in a remote community, said Spring, with lots of federal programs available for agriculture and climate adaptation.

In December 2022, the federal government announced $19.5 million in support for up to 79 new projects across the country related to food security in Indigenous, remote and Northern communities as part of the fourth phase of the Local Food Infrastructure Fund. Since 2019, it  has supported around 900 projects across the country, including greenhouses in remote and northern communities. 

It’s important that organizations helping to start up greenhouse and other agriculture projects work with the community, said Raygan Solotki, executive director of Green Iglu. The non-profit helps remote communities plan, build and run projects, specializing in geodesic dome greenhouses. 

“We’re not coming in on a horse, riding in with a greenhouse,” said Solotki. “We’re here to work with the community to make sure we are doing what the community wants.”

The biggest challenges often come once the greenhouse has been built, Spring said. Some communities have had more success than others building a sustainable long-term greenhouse or garden project, and it often revolves around having one person or a small group of people willing to commit to running it, he said.

“This community champion, who is passionate about it, and who has the kind of skills and the knowledge to do the work. And having those people stay in the community is often the challenge.”

Tom Henheffer, co-chief executive officer of the Arctic Research Foundation, also stressed the importance of building relationships with communities for projects to be successful. 

The foundation partnered with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, National Research Council Canada, the Canadian Space Agency and the community of Gjoa Haven, Nvt., on the Naurvik project, a community-led hydroponic food system that started in 2019. 

“A number of similar projects have failed and what differentiates this is really the people building it from the ground up with the community,” Henheffer said. 

The work in the greenhouse is done by local technicians and its location was chosen by elders, Henheffer said. He added community members know best which vegetables local people want to eat to pair with foods like caribou stew and Arctic char.

Betty Kogvik, one of the technicians at the greenhouse, said it’s important for the community.

“The cost of food or produce we get from the store is really high …  and when we finally receive them, some are already mouldy.” 

Kogvik said high food costs are especially challenging for elders and people reliant on social assistance. She’s proud that everything grown at the greenhouse goes to elders and children.

The main food sources in the community are hunting and fishing, Kogvik said, and people share what they have harvested with friends and family. 

Kogvik said she’d like to see the greenhouse project extended to other communities, adding it also provides employment opportunities. 

The Naurvik project’s system is made from three retrofitted shipping containers and primarily uses wind and solar power year-round. Many northern communities are reliant on diesel, which can be costly and produce harmful emissions. 

Conditions in Gjoa Haven, about 250 kilometres north of the Arctic Circle, make it difficult to grow vegetables. Access to fresh produce in the community is limited and expensive, Henheffer said, with vegetables nearing expiration by the time they reach shelves. 

He said part of the project aims to replicate the system in other communities to increase access to fresh produce. The Canadian Space Agency is also interested in the technology to potentially grow food in space.

Hydroponics is a higher-tech way of indoor growing that doesn’t use soil, and is often used to grow herbs and leafy greens. Spring noted that in order to truly make a dent in food insecurity, northern growing projects need to be able to produce heartier vegetables that can be stored —  “things that go in stew” as opposed to “salad.” Because of this, he said he’s wary of high-tech solutions like hydroponics. 

But it all depends on what the community is looking for, he said, whether that’s a commercially viable greenhouse or a place to grow salad as an addition to the food available. 

“Anything helps,” he said. 

But the key to putting a dent in the food insecurity problem is “doing agriculture in a way that actually is the side dish to the traditional food system.” 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 21, 2023.

— With files from Rosa Saba in Toronto

Emily Blake, The Canadian Press

Related Topics:

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 8 months ago

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

COVID-19 / 9 months ago

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms

Alberta / 10 months ago

Alberta looking to ban electronic vote tabulators ahead of next provincial election

Alberta

Free Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

 

Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.

The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.

According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.

The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.

We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.

But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.

Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.

The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.

Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.

If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.

Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.

(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)

Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:

“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.

In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.

The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.

It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.

In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.

There’s just no way that that’s what happened.

Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.

Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.

In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.

For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.

Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.

A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.

By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.

The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.

Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.

We want to see that number.

If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:

Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.

Thank you for your support!

Regards,

The Free Alberta Strategy Team

Continue Reading

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on December 19, 2024

By

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X