Free money alert: next Monday, the federal agriculture department will begin accepting applications for cash handouts that fund garden boxes, refrigeration units, greenhouses, ATVs, snowmobiles, tractors, hydroponic systems and more. But there’s a catch — anyone who receives these funds must use them to directly support “food production for equity-deserving groups.”
The program, called the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, expressly refuses to fund projects that “are not addressing food security for equity-deserving groups.” On the other hand, “Priority will be given to projects that predominantly serve equity-deserving groups, particularly those that are led by or focus on Indigenous and Black communities.”
Quite clearly, this is a discriminatory program — one of many that continue to exist in this new era of Liberal leadership.
It wasn’t always this way. Back when the Local Food Infrastructure Fund was first created in 2019, initially with a pool of $50 million to be given out until 2024, it was aimed at supporting the food security of “at-risk populations.” At least on its surface, it did not discriminate according to identity.
Applicants back then were asked to “include any available data on rates of food insecurity in the community where the project will be implemented” in their application forms. On the top end, multi-million dollar recipients included Food Banks Canada, the Breakfast Club of Canada and the Salvation Army.
From there, the Local Food Infrastructure Fund was extended for another three years. From 2025 until 2027, it will hand out $63 million in grants between $25,000 and $500,000 — now on the basis of identity. (This is not to be confused with the department’s AgriDiversity grant, which is also identity-based.)
No longer do the program materials ask applicants to produce data about food insecurity. Nowadays, they’re asked to state whether they support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); whether they’re “Black-led or Black-focused”; whether they have a DEI staffing plan; which “equity-deserving” groups they serve; and whether they’re majority-owned by women and individuals whose gender is “gender outside of the ‘woman—man’ spectrum.”
On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Agriculture Canada downplayed the change over time, stating that the new focus on “equity-deserving groups” was a matter of complying with a new federal language guide.
Whether the fund targets “at-risk populations” or “equity-deserving groups,” the spokesperson added, the target has “always included” the same people. He provided a long list: non-white people, Indigenous people, women, LGBT, the disabled, “persons who are homeless or street-involved,” low-income families, rural and northern communities, “groups with social or employment barriers including literacy and numeracy,” new immigrants and refugees, youth, seniors and official language minorities.
On its face, that list doesn’t make sense: race alone doesn’t render a person “at risk,” nor does speaking French in non-Quebec Canada, nor does living outside a city. Typically, in English, that term is used to describe homeless and low-income people.
The agriculture department’s explanation isn’t reflected in the actual record, either. The applicant guide for the Local Food Infrastructure Fund presents a closed list of “equity-seeking groups” that a potential grant recipient can claim to help: Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, women, youth, 2SLGBTQI+, “Not applicable” and “Decline to identify.” The government (which actually prefers the term “equity-denied group” over “equity-deserving group) limits the scope of the definition to race, gender, sexuality, religion and disability.
What’s certain is that the scope of this grant program is unclear, and that public-facing documents are giving potential applicants the impression that food programs serving, say, low-income, country-dwelling white seniors of Saskatchewan aren’t deserving of government support. Neither would be a replacement freezer for a food bank serving the poor — regardless of race — in small-town Atlantic Canada. A curious choice for the minister of agriculture, Prince Edward Islander Heath MacDonald.
Meanwhile, a free set of raised beds for a community garden in an upper- to middle-class, predominantly non-white neighbourhood of Toronto would appear to meet the program’s stated criteria, even though such endeavours are largely recreational. Indeed, the same can be said for low-income communities. Neighbourhood gardens can’t achieve the economies of scale found in industrial farming or the year-round stability of the grocery store, which is why a local Loblaws or Metro does a lot more for food security than a few raised beds.
This is just one grant, but it’s emblematic of the whole federal government’s approach to public service. It’s not enough to support food programs for the poor; the feds must also support the gardening hobbies across the cultural mosaic. Similarly, it’s not enough to hire deserving students as youth employment hits 20-year lows; the feds must select their new hires on the basis of identity. It’s not enough that Supreme Court justices are highly competent in the law — instead, they must be half-decent at their craft, bilingual and be the first person with their combination of diversity characteristics to join the court.
To the feds, managing a diverse population doesn’t just mean ensuring that discrimination doesn’t happen — it means actively discriminating to redistribute the goods of society. Even something as essential as food isn’t immune.
National Post
Comments are closed.