Is Canada Building Greenhouses in the Right Places?

Canada’s greenhouse industry is growing.

The more interesting question is where that growth should happen next.

For decades, Canadian greenhouse production has concentrated in a relatively small number of regions—particularly Southern Ontario, British Columbia’s Fraser Valley, and parts of Quebec.

There are good reasons for that concentration. These regions combine established greenhouse expertise, transportation infrastructure, access to major consumer markets, supplier networks, and favourable production conditions.

But Canada’s food system is changing.

Greenhouses are becoming more automated. Energy systems are evolving. Western Canadian cities are growing. Food-security objectives are receiving more attention. Governments are investing in controlled-environment agriculture, while growers are looking for ways to produce fresh food closer to the markets they serve.

That raises an important question:

Are Canada’s future greenhouses necessarily going to belong in the same places as its existing ones?

The answer depends on much more than climate.

The best location for a greenhouse in Canada is ultimately the location where energy, water, land, labour, logistics, market demand, infrastructure, and technology can work together as an economically viable production system.

Canada’s Greenhouse Industry Is Highly Concentrated

Canada already has one of the world’s most technologically advanced greenhouse industries.

In 2025, Canadian greenhouse fruit and vegetable sales reached approximately $3.1 billion, increasing 10% from the previous year. Total greenhouse area reached approximately 35.9 million square metres.

But that growing area is far from evenly distributed across the country.

Ontario accounted for approximately 64.9% of Canada’s total greenhouse area in 2025, followed by British Columbia at 17.4% and Quebec at 10.4%. Together, those three provinces represented more than 90% of the country’s greenhouse area.

The concentration is even more noticeable when greenhouse vegetable production is considered.

In 2024, Ontario produced approximately 72% of Canada’s greenhouse vegetables, followed by British Columbia at 13% and Quebec at 9%. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada identifies Southern Ontario, the Fraser Valley, and Quebec as Canada’s primary greenhouse-production clusters.

This concentration did not happen by accident.

“

To protect our sovereignty and take control of our future, we must take control of our food system.

Why Did Greenhouses Concentrate in These Regions?

Large greenhouse industries often develop as clusters. Once production reaches a certain scale, a supporting ecosystem begins to grow around it.

Growers gain access to experienced employees, crop consultants, equipment suppliers, biological-control providers, greenhouse builders, maintenance technicians, packaging companies, transportation providers, distributors, and other specialized services.

As a result, infrastructure attracts more infrastructure, while experience attracts more experience. Each additional greenhouse can therefore make the region more attractive for future investment.

In addition, market geography plays an important role. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada notes that Canada’s major greenhouse vegetable regions sit close to large consumer markets, transportation networks, and the U.S. border.

This proximity matters because Canada’s greenhouse vegetable industry serves more than the domestic market. In 2025, approximately 99% of Canada’s greenhouse vegetable exports went to the United States.

Therefore, for export-oriented greenhouses producing tomatoes, cucumbers, or peppers, easy access to the U.S. market can provide a major strategic advantage.

Canada’s existing greenhouse map makes economic sense. But that does not mean future greenhouse development has to follow the same pattern.

The Best Greenhouse Location Is an Operating-System Decision

When evaluating greenhouse locations in Canada, it is tempting to begin with land.

Where is inexpensive land available?

That is important, but land is only one component of a much larger operating system.

A commercial greenhouse continuously interacts with energy infrastructure, water systems, labour markets, transportation networks, suppliers, customers, telecommunications, and local climate.

A cheaper site can quickly become an expensive greenhouse if it creates higher costs somewhere else.

A strong site-selection process therefore needs to evaluate at least:

• energy availability and long-term energy cost;
• natural solar radiation and supplemental-lighting requirements;
• water availability, quality, treatment, and regulation;
• land cost and expansion potential;
• labour availability and technical skills;
• proximity to customers and distribution centres;
• trucking and transportation infrastructure;
• access to greenhouse suppliers and technical services;
• electrical, natural-gas, communications, and utility infrastructure;
• climate-related heating and cooling loads;
• biosecurity considerations;
• municipal permitting and development requirements; and
• opportunities for future expansion.

The correct question is not simply:

Where can we build a greenhouse?

It is:

Where can we operate one competitively for the next 20 years?

“

Canada has some of the best farmers, ranchers, harvesters, processors and food distributors in the world. This strategy will help strengthen every link in the food value chain while creating new opportunities for growth, innovation and resilience.

Energy Can Change the Economics of the Entire Project

Energy deserves particular attention because Canadian greenhouse production is energy intensive.

Greenhouses may require energy for heating, supplemental lighting, pumps, irrigation, fertigation, ventilation, cooling, dehumidification, controls, sensors, automation, and post-harvest operations.

Statistics Canada reported that total greenhouse operating expenses reached approximately $4.2 billion in 2025.

Electricity costs increased 21.2% from the previous year to $181.9 million, while natural-gas costs increased 4.7% to $265.4 million.

Those numbers reinforce an important point:

The energy strategy should be part of site selection—not something designed after the site has already been purchased.

A location with inexpensive land may become unattractive if electrical capacity is insufficient or expensive to upgrade.

A cold location may require more heating but offer other advantages.

A sunnier location may reduce supplemental-lighting requirements during certain periods, while another region may provide opportunities for waste heat, combined heat and power, geothermal systems, biomass, renewable energy, or industrial-energy integration.

Natural Resources Canada maintains detailed solar-resource mapping across the country, illustrating how solar availability also varies significantly by location.

Greenhouse location therefore needs to be evaluated through total energy economics, not a single utility rate.

Water Is Just as Important as Energy

Greenhouses can use water very efficiently, especially when operators capture, treat, and recirculate irrigation water and nutrient solutions. However, every greenhouse still needs a reliable water source.

For that reason, site evaluation should examine both water quantity and water quality. Key questions include:

• How much water is available?
• What is its chemical composition?
• Will the greenhouse need water treatment?
• What will treatment cost?
• Can the operation capture and reuse drainage water?
• Will the available supply support future expansion?

In addition, water quality directly affects fertigation design, nutrient management, equipment life, sanitation, and crop performance.

Therefore, as greenhouse production expands into new Canadian regions, water infrastructure may become just as important as access to land.

Labour Cannot Be an Afterthought

Automation can change labour requirements, but it does not eliminate them.

Modern greenhouse operations still need people who can manage crops, irrigation, fertigation, environmental controls, automation, maintenance, food safety, harvesting, packaging, data, and production planning.

Across Canadian crop production, the job-vacancy rate reached 4.0% in 2024, compared with 3.3% across the broader economy.

That raises an important site-selection question:

Can the greenhouse recruit and retain the people needed to operate it?

A remote site may offer inexpensive land and favourable utility conditions, but recruitment can become much more difficult. In contrast, a location near a growing city may provide access to a larger labour pool while bringing higher land costs.

Highly automated facilities may need fewer people for repetitive tasks. However, they often create greater demand for technicians, growers, automation specialists, maintenance personnel, and data-literate operators.

Project teams should therefore develop the labour model and location strategy together.

Logistics May Matter More Than Distance on a Map

Fresh produce is perishable, which means greenhouse economics are closely connected to transportation.

A site should therefore be evaluated according to the markets it is intended to serve.

For an export-focused greenhouse, access to the U.S. border may be critical. A facility supplying Western Canadian retailers may require a very different logistics strategy. Greenhouses serving northern, Indigenous, institutional, or regional food markets may also create value by reducing dependence on long-distance transportation.

The objective is not always to locate production in the place with the largest existing greenhouse cluster.

Sometimes the better question is:

Where is the food going?

A greenhouse positioned closer to its customers may reduce transportation distance, improve freshness, simplify regional distribution, and strengthen local supply resilience.

However, those benefits still need to be weighed against production costs. Local production only works when the complete operating model works.

Could Alberta Support More Greenhouse Production?

This is where the Alberta greenhouse industry becomes particularly interesting.

Alberta currently represents a relatively small share of Canada’s greenhouse vegetable production compared with Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

However, the province has several characteristics that justify closer examination when evaluating future controlled-environment agriculture investment.

Alberta has an extensive agricultural economy, large areas of agricultural land, established transportation infrastructure, major population centres in Calgary and Edmonton, and significant irrigation infrastructure in the south.

The province reports nearly 680,000 hectares of irrigated land, with more than 80% located within 11 irrigation districts supported by reservoirs, canals, and pipelines.

Alberta is also positioned on major rail and highway networks. The province highlights direct access through both CN and CPKC rail systems, two international airports, and highway connections into Canadian and U.S. markets.

Perhaps more importantly, Alberta is actively encouraging controlled-environment agriculture development.

The province’s Growing Greenhouses Program was created specifically to increase year-round locally grown food production by supporting new greenhouse and vertical-farm construction and productivity improvements at existing facilities. The program includes eligible activities related to efficient energy, advanced lighting, automation, engineering, commissioning, and operator training.

The program attracted enough interest that the current application intake has closed.

That does not mean Alberta automatically becomes the best greenhouse location in Canada.

Cold winter temperatures create real heating requirements. Infrastructure varies substantially between sites. Water access must be assessed carefully. Skilled greenhouse labour and supporting industry networks are less concentrated than in established greenhouse regions such as Southern Ontario.

But those are exactly the variables that feasibility analysis should test.

The question is not whether Alberta can grow greenhouse crops.

It already does.

The more useful question is:

Under which production models, markets, energy strategies, and locations can Alberta greenhouse production become most competitive?

New Greenhouses Do Not Have to Copy Ontario

One of the mistakes in greenhouse development is assuming that a successful model from one region can simply be transferred to another.

A greenhouse designed for Southern Ontario does not automatically represent the optimal greenhouse for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canada, or a northern community.

Climate changes the engineering.

Markets change the crop strategy.

Energy changes the economics.

Labour changes the automation strategy.

Water changes the irrigation system.

Logistics changes the production and distribution model.

The crop itself may need to change as well.

A location optimized for large-scale tomatoes intended for export may be very different from one designed to supply lettuce, herbs, strawberries, seedlings, or specialty crops to regional Canadian markets.

Instead of asking where Canada’s existing greenhouse model can be replicated, developers should ask:

What greenhouse model makes sense for this specific location?

Site Selection Should Happen Before Greenhouse Design

Site selection is sometimes treated as a real-estate decision followed by an engineering project.

For controlled-environment agriculture, those decisions should happen together.

Before committing to a location, a project team should model the interaction between:

Market

Who will buy the crop, at what volume, at what price, and during which months?

Crop

What will be grown, and what environmental conditions does that crop require?

Energy

How much heating, cooling, electricity, and supplemental lighting will the facility require throughout the year?

Water

Is sufficient water available, and what treatment and recirculation systems will be required?

Labour

What positions will be needed, and can the region realistically supply them?

Logistics

How quickly and economically can inputs arrive and finished products reach customers?

Infrastructure

Does the site have the electrical capacity, natural gas, roads, communications, drainage, and other services required?

Operations

Can the facility be staffed, maintained, serviced, and supported once construction is complete?

Only after these variables are understood does the land itself become meaningful.

Canada’s Greenhouse Map May Become More Diverse

Southern Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec will remain important greenhouse-production regions.

Their existing clusters provide significant advantages that should not be underestimated.

But future growth does not necessarily need to follow historical concentration perfectly.

Different greenhouse models may make sense in different parts of Canada.

Large export-oriented facilities may continue benefiting from established greenhouse clusters and proximity to U.S. markets.

Regional greenhouse operations may expand around growing Canadian cities.

Controlled-environment projects may support food production in communities where transportation distances make imported fresh produce expensive or unreliable.

Western Canada may develop greenhouse projects around different combinations of energy, irrigation infrastructure, regional markets, and automation.

The result could be a more geographically diverse Canadian greenhouse sector.

But diversification should not happen simply because a province has available land or wants local food production.

Every new location still has to prove its operating case.

Build Where the Complete System Works

Canada does not necessarily need to move greenhouse production away from its established regions.

It needs to become more deliberate about where the next generation of greenhouse capacity is built.

The strongest location is not automatically the warmest location.

It is not automatically the cheapest land.

It is not automatically the location closest to the largest city.

And it is not automatically the province offering the strongest incentive.

The best greenhouse location is where crop strategy, market demand, energy, water, labour, infrastructure, logistics, technology, and operating capability align.

That is a much more complicated calculation.

It is also a much better way to decide where millions of dollars in greenhouse infrastructure should be invested.

At NuLeaf Farms, greenhouse and indoor-farm planning begins with feasibility—evaluating the technical, operational, and financial factors that determine whether a project should be built before major capital is committed.

Because the first greenhouse design decision may not be the greenhouse at all.

It may be where you decide to put it.

Planning a Greenhouse or Indoor Farm? Start With the Location.

A successful greenhouse project begins before equipment is selected or construction drawings are produced.

NuLeaf Farms helps developers, growers, communities, and institutions evaluate market demand, production strategy, site conditions, infrastructure, energy, technology, operations, and financial feasibility before committing major capital to a project.

Evaluate the site. Validate the assumptions. Then design the farm.

Explore:

• Project Planning
• Greenhouse Automation-The Leaf
• Contact Us