Stand Up for Farmers! Your guide to commenting on the CFIA’s Seed Regulatory Modernization Proposals
The NFU created this guide to help you comment on proposed changes to Canada’s Seeds Regulations. After a five-year Seed Regulatory Modernization (SRM) process that had input from members of the SRM Working Group, agricultural stakeholders, public surveys, and ideas from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) itself, the CFIA is now asking for your input on a series of proposed changes to seed regulations and policies.
You have until October 3 to submit your response to the proposed changes to Canada’s Seed Regulations. Your input has been extremely valuable at every stage of the SRM process and remains extremely important!
Read the NFU’s analysis of the CFIA’s proposals to see the full text of each of the CFIA’s numbered proposals along with a more detailed explanation for our support or opposition to them. You also might want to review the NFU’s web page about the Seed Regulatory Modernization process to better understand its implications.
Please share this guide with other farmers to ensure any changes to the Seeds Regulations will support seed quality in Canada and farmer livelihoods!
If you have any questions about this guide or the SRM process, please contact nfu@nfu.ca
Thank you for your time and effort during such a busy season!
How to use this guide to submit your comments via the CFIA Consultation Form:
- Fill in the demographic information on the form
- For the question on the Stakeholder Feedback page, highlight the text below with your mouse and “copy” (right-click on your mouse and select “copy” or select “copy” from the edit menu on your computer or phone)
- “Paste” the text into the question box (right-click on your mouse and select “paste” or select “paste” from the edit menu on your computer or phone)
- Press the “continue” button at the bottom of the page, then review your answers. You can edit the text you copied and pasted at this point if you wish. The CFIA’s form has limited space so if your edited response is too long you will be prompted to shorten it.
- Press “Submit” to register your answers.
If you wish to make additional comments beyond the space allowed on the CFIA’s consultation form, put them in an email, include the proposal number(s) you are commenting on, and send them to cfia.seedregmod-modregsem.acia@inspection.gc.ca. Be sure to provide your name and mention you are a farmer (or if not a farmer, your relationship to the seed system).
Your guide to the CFIA’s consultation on Future-proofing Canada’s Seeds Regulations for a stronger tomorrow – Proposals to modernize Canada’s seed regulatory framework:
I support the following regulatory and policy proposals recommended by the CFIA for the benefits they may provide for improving seed diversity and seed quality in Canada:
Proposal 3.2.3: The CFIA should develop a regulatory pathway for heritage and heirloom varieties to become registered so they can be legally sold as seed. However, it should be easy and accessible to use for farmers while maintaining important seed quality standards (such as disease testing) within Canada’s variety registration system. The CFIA should work with heritage grain farmers, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, SeedChange, Recommending Committees, the CSGA, AAFC plant breeders, and other relevant stakeholders to design this regulatory solution to ensure all the needs and concerns on this issue are met.
Proposal 3.1.2: This will increase communication between Eastern Recommending Committees and help them make better-informed decisions about regional restrictions and that will benefit farmers.
Proposal 3.2.4: The CFIA should work with Recommending Committees to develop policies that support appropriate testing conditions and performance standards for varieties bred specifically for organic, low-input,, and other alternative farming systems. This provides an appropriate pathway for testing and registration that supports farmers and plant breeders who are developing varieties that perform well in farming systems that incorporate cover crops and composted manure to maintain fertility and do not use synthetic inputs and agrochemicals. Due to the public good these varieties could generate, these testing systems should be part of publicly funded co-operative trials, instead of trials privately organized by the variety developer.
Proposal 3.1.4: Transferring theory training for crop inspectors to the CSGA will make training more accessible, and lead to more inspectors working and providing services to seed growers.
Proposal 3.3.8 : I am in support of labelling the country of origin of production for all seeds imported into Canada. Growers have a right to know where their seeds come from, and encouraging more transparency will help farmers make appropriate decisions about what seed is best for their farms.
I do not support the following regulatory and policy proposals recommended by the CFIA and believe they will ultimately have negative impacts on farmer livelihoods and seed quality in Canada:
Proposal 3.2.1: I do not believe that farmers and independent seed growers would have a fair seat at the table on a permanent external advisory committee to review the Seeds Regulations. Farmers must take time away from earning a living by farming in order to participate, while industry representatives are well paid, often professional lobbyists. Further, if certain aspects of the Seeds Regulations move into Incorporation by Reference, I feel that this body would have too much influence over future regulations and policies. The Seed Regulatory Modernization process has been inclusive, comprehensive, and transparent. If future reviews or calls for input on seed regulatory matters are needed, the same kind of process should be used again. The CFIA can balance the influence of the private sector by ensuring that the public interest is a priority, by providing technical expertise and research to inform participants, and by ensuring information is shared openly through public channels.
Proposal 3.2.2: I do NOT support the use of Incorporation By Reference for variety registration in Schedule III. Variety Registration is the cornerstone of Canada’s seed system, and ensures that the most important field crop varieties in Canada are subject to thorough agronomic, disease, and end-use quality standards. There should be a relatively high bar for adding or removing crop kinds to/from this process, and for moving crop kinds between parts. Removing crop kinds from Schedule III altogether would have very serious implications that would affect the quality and value of Canada’s seed supply, our crops, and farmers incomes. Any changes to Schedule III should be done through the Canada Gazette process which is public and transparent.
Proposal 3.2.8: I do not support Proposal 3.2.8 to Incorporate by Reference the list of weeds currently found in the Weed Seeds Order and I do not believe we need to amend the Seeds Act. There is no need to amend the Seeds Act to speed up the process for updating the Weed Seeds Order. The Minister already has the authority to issue Weed Seeds Orders and can do so at short notice once the CFIA makes its recommendation. Delays are not due to a problem with the Act or the Regulations.
Proposal 3.3.2 and 3.3.3: I do not support the ability for Variety Registrants to cancel a variety at will. For that reason I do not support Proposal 3.3.2 and Proposal 3.3.3. In the Winter 2024 SRM consultation survey, over 60% of responses opposed allowing variety registrants to cancel varieties at will. Farmers should be able to access the varieties they need for their farms – the existing variety cancellation regulation and these two proposals make it easy for registrants to take good varieties off the market in order to reduce farmers’ choices and push them towards using other varieties that require royalty payments. The CFIA is required to cancel registration of varieties that are susceptible to disease or harmful to health or the environment. If a registrant is not capable of maintaining or interested in selling a variety, there should be a way to automatically transfer the registration to AAFC to maintain the variety for use by farmers.
Proposal 3.1.12: I do not support Proposal 3.1.12 to amend the definition of pedigreed seed declaration to remove the reference to use a specific form supplied by the CFIA. The information on the declaration needs to be submitted in a standardized way. A standardized digital format should be required so that the information collected can easily be organized and available as a useful data source for the CFIA.
Proposal 3.1.1: I am in support of a regulatory pathway to legally sell seed of heritage and heirloom varieties of grains, but I am not in support of Proposal 3.1.1 as the solution. Using Schedule III, Part 2, as it is currently designed, would pose financial and bureaucratic barriers to farmers to register these varieties. A different solution that is accessible to farmers and maintains seed quality standards in Canada is needed.
Proposal 3.1.3 : I do not support this proposal to let the CFIA expedite variety registration decisions for crop types listed in part 3 of Schedule III when the variety has already been recognized in a foreign jurisdiction. It is already easy to get a variety registered under part 3. Seed companies should be willing to do this to get access to Canada’s market. By virtually eliminating the cost of registration in Canada, this proposal opens the door to companies dumping unsuitable or low-value foreign varieties into our market, increasing the risks to farmers growing them, and making extra work to decide which variety to buy, since part 3 varieties do not require Canadian performance data. The reliability of other jurisdictions can change quickly. Maintaining Canadian control of our own seed registration system is necessary for our sovereignty.
Proposal 3.1.19: I do not support this proposal to explore enabling more companies and seed growers to inspect their own pedigreed seed crops. Allowing seed companies to self-inspect is a conflict of interest. The integrity of the seed certification system relies on third-party inspection.
Proposal 3.2.7: I do not agree that the list of recognized standard methods should be Incorporated by Reference. Seed standard methods are already incorporated by reference. Changes to what are recognized seed standard methods would have far-reaching and long-term effects on our seed system, so this requires a full public review as is done when regulatory changes are done through the Gazette process.
Proposal 3.2.12: I do not support expanding recognition of foreign grader programs outside of the United States. This would add complexity and workload for the CFIA without clear benefits.
