Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 159, Number 32: Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations

August 9, 2025

Statutory authority
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act

Sponsoring agency
Canadian Food Inspection Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

Plant breeders’ rights (PBR) are a form of intellectual property for plant breeders to protect new plant varieties in the same way an inventor protects an invention with a patent. Plant breeders’ rights offer plant breeders a finite monopoly on their new variety and exclude others from using the specific variety without authorization. Like other forms of intellectual property, the objective of PBR is to provide incentives and rewards to stimulate investment and innovation in plant breeding. This results in increased research and development, diversification of crop varieties, increased productivity, market competitiveness, economic growth, and trade opportunities. For example, new plant varieties bred specifically for drought tolerance allow farmers to achieve high levels of productivity and stable yields, despite adverse growing conditions.

Stakeholders have raised concerns about the current PBR regime in Canada. In particular, stakeholders have raised issues around the scope of what can be protected, how long a variety can be protected, and requirements for filing a PBR application. Stakeholders note that these issues weaken the PBR regime and discourage breeders from filing for PBR in Canada. Proposed regulatory amendments to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations would respond to these issues, address stakeholder concerns, and support a business environment that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding. The proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations would address the issues below.

1. The scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption is too broad

The farmers’ privilege is an exemption to PBR that provides farmers with the ability to save and reuse seed of a protected variety to replant in following years. The intent of this exemption is to recognize the long-standing customary practice of farmers saving and reusing seed for some crops, such as small grain agriculture crops like cereals and pulses. However, the farmers’ privilege is currently not limited to those crop kinds, and the broad scope weakens the PBR regime. As a result, horticulture and ornamental breeders are reluctant to introduce their new and improved varieties where there is an unrestricted farmers’ privilege.

Specifically, fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties, and other plants should not be included within the scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption because it is not, or no longer is, a customary practice to save and reuse seeds of these varieties. In addition, many of these varieties can be propagated asexually (cuttings, budding, grafting, etc.). This means that growers can make an infinite number of copies of a plant without seeking appropriate authorization or paying fair compensation to the breeder. This results in an unfair playing field where some growers are bearing the costs of breeding a new variety while others are free riding by gaining economic benefit of reproducing a variety while not paying any compensation back to the original breeder.

In addition, the farmers’ privilege exemption should not apply to hybrid varieties because reusing hybrid seeds can be detrimental to the farmer and can harm the breeder. Hybrid varieties are the product of crosses between two or more parental lines, combining the characteristics of those parents. They provide a clear production advantage for farmers, exhibiting important characteristics such as improved disease resistance, higher yields, and greater uniformity. However, they are generally more costly, and resource intensive to breed, making it harder for a plant breeder to get a return on their investment. If the offspring of a hybrid seed is saved and reused by a farmer, the resulting crop will have diminished yield, performance, and quality characteristics.

The parental lines used to create hybrids should also not be subject to the farmers’ privilege. These varieties were never intended to be sold directly to the farmers; however, they inadvertently end up in lots of hybrid seeds sold to them. Often called “selfs” (self-pollinated parental lines) these seeds of parental varieties are the property of plant-breeding companies and represent millions of dollars worth of research and investment. Should a farmer find a “self” in their field of hybrids, and subsequently save this seed under the farmers’ privilege, they essentially possess 50% of the recipe to create a high performing hybrid without seeking the breeder’s authorization or fairly compensating them for the innovation. Consequently, parental varieties used in hybrid combinations should not be subject to the farmers’ privilege.

Finally, the current scope of the farmers’ privilege does not align with international interpretation. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), of which Canada is a member, provides clear guidance on which crops should be subject to the farmers’ privilege. These crops include highly self-pollinating agricultural crops, such as cereals and pulses, which remain uniform and stable after successive cycles of reproduction on farm. The UPOV recognizes the long-standing customary practice for farmers to save and reuse seed for crops such as cereals and pulses. However, an open-ended farmers’ privilege exemption is inappropriate for crop kinds such as fruits, vegetables, and ornamental varieties, which are often asexually reproduced, and where it is no longer a customary practice for producers to save and reuse seed.

Regulatory amendments to the PBR Regulations are required to narrow the scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption to exclude fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation, and hybrids. Narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege would strengthen Canada’s PBR regime and align with international interpretation.

2. The duration of PBR protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants is too short

Currently, a maximum of 20 years of PBR protection is provided for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants (e.g. berry fruit and flowering shrubs). However, due to the time frame required to breed and support market adoption, 20 years of PBR protection does not provide breeders a fair opportunity to recover their initial investment. This time frame may discourage the development of new varieties or the introduction of new foreign varieties in Canada. After the initial breeding, evaluation, and market introduction, the actual years of realized PBR protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants can be less than 10 years. More specifically

1. Potatoes generally require a minimum of 10 years of breeding and another 4 to 5 years of grower evaluation until a variety is ready for market introduction. Additionally, sufficient stock of seed potatoes must be propagated prior to being released into the marketplace, which can be a lengthy process. The potato market is also generally very conservative in its adoption of new varieties, often requiring several years of testing and evaluation to convince farmers and end users of the merits of a new variety.
2. Asparagus varieties require 10 to 15 years to breed. After planting, they require another 4 years of development before they are ready for full production and many growers will not adopt a new variety until it has shown acceptable performance for a few years, typically around 5 or 6.
3. Woody plants, such as ornamental shrubs and some berry fruits, require longer breeding and market adoption periods. For instance, raspberries only begin to bear commercially viable amounts of fruit 2 to 3 years after planting. Similarly, it takes a highbush blueberry variety almost 10 years to reach full maturity and can remain productive for 20 to 30 years. Ornamental shrubs can often take 7 to 12 years to breed and evaluate and sometimes up to 10 years to garner adoption in the marketplace.

Other key trading partners provide longer PBR protection for these varieties. For example, the European Union (EU) provides a 30-year term of PBR protection for these crop varieties. Changing the duration of PBR protection from 20 years to 25 years in the PBR Regulations is the longest time frame allowed under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act and would provide these crop breeders and producers the additional time necessary to recover their initial investment. The amendments would align more closely with other international trading partners such as the European Union.

3. Existing filing requirements may discourage PBR applications

a. Advertisement as a factor in determining novelty

To apply for PBR protection, a variety must be considered new or novel. One of the requirements in determining novelty is that a variety must not have been previously sold in Canada for up to one year prior to filing or sold outside Canada for up to four years (six years for trees and vines) prior to filing. However, the current definition of “sell” in the PBR Act includes various activities, including “advertise.” In the current business environment, it is not uncommon for a variety to have been advertised online prior to any actual physical sale of the plant variety taking place in the Canadian marketplace. A strict interpretation of the definition of “sell” could lead to a variety being ineligible for protection if promotional material, including online advertising, was distributed before the variety was physically available in the marketplace. This interpretation deters PBR applications. An adjustment to exclude advertisement as a factor in determining novelty would reduce confusion and encourage greater applications for PBR protection. It would also better align Canada with UPOV interpretation of novelty, which does consider whether a variety had been previously advertised. UPOV guidance specifically states that a variety shall be deemed new if it has not been sold to others or otherwise disposed of.

b. Additional costs for electronic PBR applications

To protect a new plant variety, a PBR application must be submitted to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Office (PBRO) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) along with the applicable fee. Applicants may submit paper-based applications directly to the PBRO or apply through an international electronic filing system (UPOV PRISMA), which has its own fee for filing electronically. Applicants are deterred from filing online, due to having to pay both the UPOV PRISMA online filing fee of 90 Swiss francs (approximately $135 based on an exchange rate of 1.5), and the Canadian filing fee to the PBRO of $260.89 (2022–23 fee). As a result, the majority of PBR applications filed in Canada are submitted directly to the PBRO in paper format. This creates a burden for applicants and for the PBRO due to the time required to complete and process physical applications. A reduced fee — one that offsets the UPOV PRISMA fee — is needed to encourage filing through the online electronic system. This would reduce costs for stakeholders through lower fees and reduce administrative burden for stakeholders and the PBRO associated with the completion and processing of paper-based applications.

c. Providing propagating material at filing

Currently, a sample of propagating material (seeds) must be provided to the PBRO at the time of a PBR application. However, applicants occasionally have difficulty providing this sample at the time of filing. For instance, when an agent in Canada files for a foreign applicant client, the seed may be physically located at the breeders’ premises in another country. In some cases, this can lead to delays and to missing the application window for filing, making a variety ineligible for PBR protection in Canada. Flexibility over the timing for accepting propagating material would allow, in exceptional circumstances, applicants to apply in Canada while following up with submitting the propagating material once it is available.

4. Administrative updates required to align with the 2015 PBR Act amendments and for housekeeping purposes

a. Alignment with the PBR Act

In 2015, legislative amendments to the PBR Act were made to align with the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 91). This included an update to the concept of interim protection by removing “protective direction” and replacing it with “provisional protection.” “Provisional protection” is a form of interim PBR protection for a variety that is automatically granted by the PBRO, free of charge, from the application’s filing date to the date the PBR certificate is issued. Prior to 2015, “protective direction” provided for interim protection; however an application was required, and a fee applied. Since “protective direction” is no longer used, the associated fee in the PBR Regulations (Schedule II, Item 2), and the reference to “protective direction” in paragraph 19(1)(f) are no longer required and should be removed.

Other regulatory amendments are needed to align with the PBR Act. These include

• Repealing subsection 7(2) of the PBR Regulations because conditions for the protection of a “new variety” found therein were added in subsection 4(3) of the PBR Act;
• Updating paragraph 19(1)(h) of the PBR Regulations to make a reference to subsection 4(4) of the PBR Act instead of subsection 4(3); and,
• Updating paragraph 20(b) of the PBR Regulations to make a reference to paragraph 4(2)(b) of the PBR Act instead of paragraph 4(2)(a).

b. Housekeeping

The fee associated with opening the register and index to public inspection in the PBR Regulations (Schedule II, Item 13) is obsolete and should be removed. This fee was relevant before the advent of the Internet. However, the content of the index and register is now published online in the quarterly Plant Varieties Journal, and therefore is freely available to anyone.

According to section 26 of the PBR Regulations, when a rights holder wishes to assign the rights to someone else, information must be provided to the PBRO in writing, including a letter of assignment that is signed in the presence of a witness. The requirement to have a witness is burdensome and is inconsistent with other relevant legislation and regulations (e.g. the Copyright Act and its associated regulations, the Patent Act and its associated Patent Rules, and the Trademarks Act and its associated regulations) and should be repealed. In addition, amendments are needed to allow for greater flexibility for information to be submitted in digital formats, as appropriate.

Fees and charges paid to the Government of Canada must be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada, as described in section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. However, the PBR Regulations state that the fees and charges associated with services rendered under the PBR Act and PBR Regulations should be made payable to the Commissioner. Amendments are required to align with the Financial Administrative Act.

Background

Legislative Authority and Regulatory Authorities

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) administers the PBR Act and its regulations, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations, which provide legal protection to plant breeders. The PBR Act sets out the conditions for the protection of plant varieties, and the nature of plant breeders’ rights. The supporting regulations, the PBR Regulations, are more administrative in nature and set out requirements such as application requirements, prescribed periods, assignment of rights, and payable fees.

The PBR Act was updated in 2015 through the Agricultural Growth Act to align with the 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 91), an international agreement that Canada ratified that same year. As part of the 2015 legislative update, new regulation-making authorities were included in the PBR Act to provide the ability to address various stakeholder issues. For instance, the addition of paragraphs 75(1)(l.1) and (l.2) provides regulation-making authority to adjust the scope and application of specific rights within the Act. While the PBR Act was updated to allow for new regulation making authorities, the regulations themselves have not been updated and still require amendments to further align with UPOV 91.

Plant Breeders’ Rights Office (PBRO)

The PBRO, within the CFIA, is responsible for the administration of PBR in Canada in accordance with the PBR Act and PBR Regulations. The PBRO examines PBR applications to determine whether applicants are eligible and meet the conditions of protection to receive a grant of rights. It publishes and distributes PBR information via the Plant Varieties Journal. The journal is distributed on a quarterly basis. The journal provides an opportunity for all interested persons to review the information concerning a variety and to object to the particulars of the published applications/descriptions if they feel the requirements for distinctness, uniformity and stability or other requirements of the PBR Act have not been met.

Economic environment

Plant breeders, the innovators that use PBR, include private companies and public entities such as federal and provincial government institutions and university-affiliated public breeders. Anyone can apply to have their rights protected in Canada. Plant breeders are based in Canada (49% of applications since 1992) and abroad (51% of applications since 1992). As noted in the IP Canada Report 2024, there was a 3% annual increase in PBR filings in 2023 from the previous year with 394 filings in total. The report also stated that there was a 20% increase in resident filings, and a decrease of 2% in non-resident filings.

There are several industry sectors that benefit from PBR. The seed industry, for example, boasts an estimated total economic impact (direct and indirect) of over $6 billion annually with over 63 000 jobs and $2.26 billion in wages and salaries (Canadian seed sector profile, 2019). Other sectors implicated by plant breeders’ rights include the horticulture sector, which includes fruits, vegetables, and ornamental plants; and agricultural sector, covering cereals, pulses, potatoes, oilseeds, and forages, which when combined, add over 114 000 jobs and contribute more than $24 billion to Canada’s economy.

A report assessing impacts of the 2015 legislative amendments to Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Act and UPOV 91 ratification anticipates that the proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations would foster innovation, investment, and collaboration between the Canadian industry and plant breeders, to develop crop varieties that can withstand Canada’s climate. This would further strengthen Canada’s agricultural sector which is foundational to the Canadian economy.

International context

Canada is a member of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), along with 78 other members, including the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU). UPOV’s mission is “to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society.” The 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plans (UPOV 91) is the current international agreement, which Canada ratified in 2015.

Canada’s current PBR Regulations, however, still differ quite substantially from the vast majority of UPOV 91 members. This places Canada as an outlier within UPOV 91 members, specifically when comparing the length of time for PBR protection for crops such as potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants. For example, the European Union provides a 30-year term of PBR protection for these crop varieties, while in Canada, 20 years is provided.

Canada is also an outlier regarding the scope of the farmers’ privilege. Currently, the farmers’ privilege in Canada is not limited in scope, and therefore offers weaker PBR protection for horticultural and ornamental plant varieties in comparison to the European Union, where the farmers’ privilege does not extend to those varieties. In the European Union, the farmers’ privilege only applies to specific agricultural crops, and does not extend to horticultural and ornamental varieties. In the U.S., under the plant patent regime, farmers’ privilege does exist. Any asexual propagation of a protected plant variety by a producer would be an infringement of the breeder’s intellectual property.

As a result, international breeders are reluctant, and sometimes even refuse, to introduce their new and improved varieties into jurisdictions that allow an unrestricted farmers’ privilege for horticulture and ornamental crop kinds. Since Canada has limited domestic breeding capacity in the horticulture and ornamental sectors and is highly dependent on access to new varieties from other jurisdictions, in particular the European Union and the United States, it is therefore important that Canada aligns closely with key trading partners and other UPOV 91 members.

Provincial and territorial context

PBR is strictly a federal responsibility under the constitutional division of powers. PBR is administered by the PBRO within the CFIA. Provincial and territorial governments are not implicated in the administration of PBR in Canada.

Objective

The objective of the regulatory amendments is to strengthen protection for plant breeders and facilitate access to the PBR intellectual property framework.

Strengthening protection for domestic and foreign plant breeders would incentivize investment and innovation, and the development of new and improved plant varieties with enhanced traits. It would also improve alignment with other UPOV members, and lead to Canada becoming a jurisdiction of choice for foreign breeders that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding. A more accessible PBR framework would increase efficiencies, support digitization, and encourage more applications for the protection of new varieties. Ultimately, this would lead to greater choices for farmers, nurseries, fruit growers, and Canadians.

Description

The proposed amendments would accomplish the following.

1. Narrow the scope of application of the farmers’ privilege exemption

The scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption would be narrowed to remove fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties; plants reproduced through vegetative propagation; and hybrid varieties, including their parental varieties. As a result, the exemption would only apply to small grain agricultural crops, such as cereals (wheat, barley, oats, etc.) and pulses (peas, lentils, chickpeas, etc.), where it is a long-standing customary practice of farmers to save and reuse seed. The proposed amendments would not apply to varieties that are in the public domain and are available to anyone, including farmers. Narrowing the scope of the exemption would strengthen the PBR regime for fruit, vegetable, ornamental, and hybrid varieties. It would also align with other like-minded jurisdictions, such as the European Union, and be consistent with UPOV’s interpretation of this exemption. These amendments would address the concerns of stakeholders by protecting breeders from inappropriate use of their protected varieties and allow them to be fairly compensated for their investments.

2. Extend the duration of PBR protection from 20 to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants

The duration of the PBR protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants would be increased from 20 to 25 years. Increasing to 25 years is the maximum time frame of PBR protection that can be done through an amendment to the PBR Regulations; any longer duration would require a legislative amendment to the PBR Act. This additional time would provide breeders of potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants greater opportunity to recover their initial investment, since these species require a longer time to breed and gain market adoption. This longer duration would also align more closely with key trading partners and other UPOV 91 members, addressing a key stakeholder concern.

3. Update the filing requirements to encourage PBR applications

a. Clarify that “advertising” is not a factor in determining novelty

The PBR Regulations would be amended to clarify that, for the purpose of determining the novelty of a variety [subsection 4(3) of the PBR Act], “sale” excludes advertisement. This means that a variety would still be eligible for protection even if promotional material was distributed before the variety was physically available in the marketplace, which is not uncommon these days. This amendment would remove any ambiguity around the eligibility of a variety to receive PBR protection and encourage applications.

b. Introduce a reduced fee for online PBR applications

A new filing fee for online applications would be added to Annex 2 of the PBR Regulations. This new fee would address stakeholder concerns related to having to pay both the UPOV PRISMA fee to file online and the PBRO fee to file in Canada. To address these concerns and encourage more filing online, the proposed amendments would introduce a new (lower) fee that would discount the cost of the UPOV PRISMA fee from the Canadian PBRO fee. This new proposed fee of $123.21 is a notional amount that was calculated by offsetting the PBRO fee of $260.89 (2022–23 fee) by the Canadian dollar equivalent of 90 Swiss francs based on an exchange rate of 1.5 ($135.00). The final fee amount would be updated at final publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to reflect the latest Canadian PBRO fee, which is updated yearly for inflation. Reducing costs for applicants who file online encourages digital PBR applications, improves the efficiencies for the PBRO and for applicants compared to paper-based applications.

c. Provide flexibility to receive propagating material

Amendments would provide the Commissioner with flexibility over the timing of when to accept propagating material. It is already a requirement to submit a sample of propagating material at the time of filing; however, stakeholders have indicated that they can have difficulty meeting this requirement, as the sample may have to be sourced from another country. This amendment would allow the Commissioner to provide additional time, in exceptional circumstances, to applicants for the submission of the propagating material once it is available.

4. Align the PBR Regulations with the PBR Act and make housekeeping amendments

a. Align the PBR Regulations with the PBR Act

1. The fee associated with “protective direction” (Schedule II, item 2), and the reference to “protective direction” in paragraph 19(1)(f) in of the PBR Regulations would be removed. This is required due to the fact the concept of “protective direction” was removed as part of the 2015 amendments and replaced with “provisional protection” in the PBR Act to align with UPOV 91.
2. Subsection 7(2) would be repealed, as conditions for protection of a “new variety” were added in subsection 4(3) of the PBR Act.
3. Paragraph 19(1)(h) would be amended to update the reference from subsection 4(3) to subsection 4(4) of the PBR Act to align with the 2015 legislative amendments.
4. Paragraph 20(b) would be amended to update the reference from paragraph 4(2)(a) to 4(2)(b) of the PBR Act to align with the 2015 legislative amendments.

b. Housekeeping amendments

1. The fee for the public inspection of the register and index (Schedule II, item 13) would be repealed. The information in the register and index are published online in the quarterly “Plant Varieties Journal”; therefore, a fee for their inspection is no longer needed.
2. The requirement for a witness for the assignment of plant breeders’ rights would be repealed. This would align with other forms of Canadian intellectual property regimes such as the Patent Act, the Patent Rules, the Copyright Act and the Trademarks Act and the subsequent regulations.
3. Additional measures would allow the Commissioner to be able to receive information in various acceptable formats. These formats would be described in guidance documents for stakeholders. This would result in greater clarity and flexibility for stakeholders.
4. An amendment to the PBR Regulations Schedule II would clarify that fees and charges should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada instead of the Commissioner.

Regulatory development

Consultation

The proposed amendments would directly respond to concerns identified through discussions and consultation with industry stakeholders, and through engagement with the Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee.

Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee

The Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee (PBRAC) is composed of 15 members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The PBRAC assists the Commissioner of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Office in the administration of the intellectual property framework. It also provides advice and guidance to advance legislation, regulatory, policy and process improvements that encourage greater investment and innovation in Canada’s agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors.

In January 2024, the PBRAC sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food reiterating the need for amendments to the existing PBR Regulations to strengthen the PBR regime. Many of the proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations are in direct response to recommendations from this Committee.

Pre-regulatory consultation

In May 2024, the CFIA conducted a 45-day online consultation to seek the stakeholder views on the major components of the proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Stakeholders were asked to comment on the narrowing of the scope of the farmers’ privilege; the extension of the protection period for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants; the narrowing of the concept of sale; and the introduction of a discounted fee for online filings.

In total, 109 responses were received from various stakeholders, including but not limited to national producer groups representing the agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors; provincial producer groups; commodity-specific producer groups representing crops such as potato, wheat and canola; groups representing the organic sector; international horticulture and ornamental growers; individual producers; plant-breeding and seed companies; seed growers; and seed retailers and distributors.

The overwhelming majority of respondents supported the proposed amendments, with many noting the benefits that the regulatory amendments would provide. Support was consistent across almost every sector that provided input, with nearly all submissions backing each individual amendment. A strong majority of respondents felt that the proposed amendments would support further innovation and investment in the Canadian agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors. Several respondents also remarked that the proposed amendments would put Canada on even footing with its international competitors.

A select few of the respondents (approximately 10%) raised concerns, particularly regarding the proposed changes to farmers’ privilege and the perceived impact on farmers’ rights. Given these concerns, the CFIA is proposing thoughtful and balanced enhancements to the existing PBR regime that would ensure that farmers and other stakeholders continue to have options and access to unprotected plant varieties in the marketplace.

A comprehensive What We Heard Report was published in December 2024. A summary of the key issues heard and the CFIA’s response is provided below.

Issue 1 — Reduced scope of the “farmers’ privilege” weakens farmer freedom

Some stakeholders argued that closing the door on the use of farm-saved seed and other propagating material for farmers, growers, horticulturalists, and orchardists, even if seldom used, or used by only a few farmers, takes away their freedom and weakens their autonomy. They further argued that farmers’ privilege also ensures farmers, growers, horticulturalists, and orchardists have access to propagating material in the event of severe supply chain disruptions that could prevent access to imported seed. In addition, some individuals argued that the amendment could disadvantage growers in less agriculturally favourable regions and primarily benefit corporate interests.

Specifically in regard to hybrid varieties, some stakeholders argued that the rationale for the amendment disregarded farmers’ seed saving and production knowledge. They also pointed out that some farmers who choose to save hybrid propagating material do so to further adapt that variety as an open-pollinated variety for their own farms.

CFIA response

It is the CFIA’s view that the farmers’ privilege was never intended to apply to fruit, vegetable, or ornamental varieties, which are often asexually reproduced. It is important to stress that these proposed amendments would not prevent growers from reusing or vegetatively propagating varieties that are in the public domain and are available without restriction, and which constitute a majority of varieties available in the marketplace. For example, there are currently 26 varieties of tomatoes under PBR protection, while there are an estimated 3 300 varieties available for sale on the marketplace. Further, PBR protection is finite in nature, lasting from 20 to 25 years. Once PBR protection ends, the variety is considered “public domain” and is available without further restrictions.

Additionally, the PBR Act already includes exemptions that may benefit small-scale and/or organic growers, allowing them to continue vital practices like using PBR-protected varieties as the source material to breed new locally adapted varieties. These exemptions include the breeders’ exemption, the private and non-commercial use exemption, and the experimental purposes exemption.

Removing hybrids from the scope of the farmers’ privilege also ensures that farmers receive high-quality seed with robust protection against pests and diseases, while preserving the full range of agronomic benefits, such as yield. Additionally, producing hybrids requires significant investment, and limiting the reuse of propagating material helps safeguard the reputation of the variety in the marketplace, while also protecting the breeder’s innovation and efforts.

A robust Canadian horticulture and ornamental sector thrives on innovation, diversity, and choice, ensuring growers can cultivate both PBR-protected and non-PBR-protected public domain varieties. Ultimately, it will be the grower who decides what variety they want to use.

Issue 2 — Questionable value of extending the period of protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants

Some stakeholders questioned how extending the period of protection on potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants would encourage greater domestic breeding or greater access to international varieties, as many international varieties are already introduced into Canada. They also noted that increased funding for domestic public breeders could help overcome the challenges that this amendment is seeking to address, rather than encouraging investment from private breeders.

CFIA response

While this amendment extends protection for PBR-protected varieties, it is important to note that they represent only a small portion of the varieties available in the marketplace. Farmers and growers would still have access to a wide range of choices and would not be restricted to only growing PBR-protected varieties. This ensures that farmers can select from a diverse array of plant varieties to suit their growing needs.

Issue 3 — Narrowing the concept of “sale” for filing a PBR application would effectively extend PBR protection periods

Some stakeholders stated that it is reasonable for breeders to continue to refrain from advertising new varieties until they are in a position to apply for PBR protection within 12 months. In their opinion, plant breeders operating internationally have the ability to restrict the geographies where their advertising is conducted to avoid promoting a variety prematurely in Canada. The respondents argued that removing advertising from the definition of “sale” would effectively extend the PBR protection period in Canada, particularly for varieties that have already been introduced in other jurisdictions.

CFIA response

This proposed amendment aligns with international standards and fosters access to new plant varieties in Canada. In today’s global economy, limiting advertising to specific geographic regions is becoming increasingly challenging, which complicates the preservation of novelty for filing purposes. By focusing the definition of “sale” on the physical exchange of propagating material, this amendment would provide greater clarity, protect breeders’ investments, and further facilitate access to competitive and innovative plant varieties for Canadian growers and farmers.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

During the initial assessment of modern treaty implications (AMTI), the geographical scope and subject matter of the initiative in relation to Indigenous Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements in effect were examined, and no potential Modern Treaty or Self-Government impacts were identified. Pursuant to the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, and in accordance with Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy, no implications were identified; therefore, a detailed assessment is not required. However, like other forms of intellectual property rights, PBR can voluntarily be used to advance Indigenous Peoples’ interests in the areas of food security, culturally appropriate food production, and economic opportunities.

Instrument choice

Both regulatory and non-regulatory options were considered, including the baseline scenario, as well as any feasible regulatory and non-regulatory actions. Regulatory amendments are the instrument of choice to address the issues and meet the objectives.

Option 1: Status quo

If the status quo were maintained, concerns would not be addressed and weaknesses in the PBR regime would remain. The opportunity and potential to further support a business environment that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding would be lost.

Option 2: Regulatory amendments

The regulatory option was selected because it is the only way to expand the duration of protection, limit the scope of the farmers’ privilege, clarify the concept of sale for the purpose of filing a PBR application, and introduce a discounted fee for online filing. Thus, it is the only approach that can help meet the objectives of strengthening the PBR regime. In addition, the intent has always been to amend the PBR Regulations following the amendments to the PBR Act in 2015 to further modernize the PBR framework, and to improve alignment with UPOV 91.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

This section assesses the incremental impacts (i.e. costs and benefits) resulting from the difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenarios for the key elements of the proposal.

Baseline scenario versus regulatory scenario

The baseline scenario describes the situation under the current federal regulatory framework. The regulatory scenario describes the future situation where the proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations are in force.

1. Scope of application of the farmers’ privilege exemption

Under the baseline scenario, the farmers’ privilege is not limited to appropriate crop kinds. This means that growers of fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and hybrid varieties are permitted to propagate protected varieties without needing permission from rights holders. For example, some growers in the horticulture sector could use the farmers’ privilege to make copies of PBR-protected varieties to expand their orchard production. While it is not a common practice in the industry, it has negative repercussions for the plant-breeding sector. This is because breeders are not fairly compensated for the use of their protected variety and it reduces revenue that supports the development of new varieties.

Under the regulatory scenario, horticulture and ornamental producers would not be able to use the farmers’ privilege exemption. They would need to seek authorization from the rights holder and provide fair compensation for access to the protected variety. This compensation is intended to support innovation and investment into the development of new varieties.

2. Term of protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants

Under the baseline scenario, potatoes, asparagus, and woody plant species can be protected for up to 20 years. This may not provide breeders enough time to recover their initial investment as these crops require more time to breed, evaluate, and garner market acceptance.

Under the regulatory scenario, potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants could be protected for up to 25 years. This additional time would give breeders a greater opportunity to recover their initial investment. This would impact approximately 800 varieties that are currently protected by PBR. It is anticipated that in most cases, the rights holder of those PBR-protected crop kinds would continue to pay the annual renewal fee for the additional 5 years.

3. Fee for online PBR applications

Under the baseline scenario, applicants filing for PBR in Canada using the UPOV PRISMA system must pay two separate fees: one for filing an application with the PBRO ($287.22 in 2024–25), and another for filing an application electronically through UPOV PRISMA (90 Swiss francs or approximately $135 based on an exchange rate of 1.5). This increases costs for stakeholders and deters online applications. As a result, a high percentage of applications continue to be submitted in paper format, which is burdensome for stakeholders and for the PBRO.

Under the regulatory scenario, applicants who file online using the UPOV PRISMA system would still need to pay the fee for filing electronically through UPOV PRISMA (90 Swiss francs). However, if applicants file online, they would then pay a new fee ($123.21) for filing an online application with the PBRO. This new proposed fee of $123.21 is a notional amount that was calculated by offsetting the 2022–23 PBRO fee ($260.89) by the Canadian dollar equivalent of 90 Swiss Francs using an exchange rate of 1.5 ($135.00). The final fee amount would be updated at final publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to reflect the latest Canadian PBRO fee, which is updated yearly for inflation. This new fee is anticipated to encourage more applications through the UPOV PRISMA system, which would reduce administrative burden for stakeholders and for the PBRO. It may also lead to an increase in PBR applications overall.

Benefits and costs

For all regulatory proposals, a cost-benefit analysis is required. The scope and depth of the analysis are commensurate with the anticipated costs linked to the proposal.

1. Narrow the scope of application of the farmers’ privilege exemption

Qualitative benefits

This proposed amendment would benefit the broader plant-breeding sector, giving breeders the assurance that their protected varieties would be protected if introduced into Canada. Any grower who economically benefits from a new variety would fairly compensate the breeder for the innovation.

Qualitative costs

The few growers who have used the farmers’ privilege in the horticulture sector would incur costs associated with buying PBR-protected plant material or seek proper authorization, instead of propagating existing stock.

2. Extend the duration of PBR protection from 20 to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants

Qualitative benefits

The primary benefit of this change is additional time for breeders to recoup their investment for the development of new varieties of potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants. This extended protection period would allow breeders to generate additional revenue from royalties and sales in the marketplace and help to support further research and innovation. This additional time would help breeders better manage the financial risks associated with plant variety development and provide a more sustainable environment for innovation in the industry. Ultimately, this change would support the long-term viability of the PBR system and encourage continued investment in the breeding of new and improved varieties.

If PBR holders of these varieties choose to renew their PBR for the five additional years available under the proposed amendments, the CFIA would collect revenue from the fees for five additional years (800 protected varieties x 5 years x $344.65 renewal fee). In return, PBR holders would realize the qualitative benefits of their PBR protection for five additional years. It is expected that almost all breeders of these varieties would take advantage of the longer duration of protection.

Qualitative costs

PBR holders would incur a fee for each additional year of protection they apply for, as noted above. From a costing perspective, currently a PBR holder must pay an annual fee of $344.65 to the CFIA to maintain their rights for each protected variety. With the proposed amendments, PBR holders would have the option to continue to renew and hold their PBR for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants for 25 years, instead of the existing 20 years (5 additional years). It is expected that almost all breeders of these varieties would take advantage of the longer duration of protection.

3. Introduce a reduced fee for online PBR applications

The impacts of this amendment were monetized. The period of analysis is 10 years, starting in 2026, the anticipated year of coming into force, and concluding in 2035. The following assumptions were made:

• The CFIA receives 400 applications per year (from domestic and foreign entities), of which 90% (360) are hard copies and 10% (40) are submitted electronically through UPOV PRISMA.
• Out of the 400 applications received each year, about 85% (342 applications) are from international applicants, while 15% (58 applications) come from Canadian stakeholders. Of these 58 applications, 31% (18 applications) are from Canadian public entities (such as universities), and 69% (40 applications) are from private businesses.
• When looking at the monetized impacts to the CFIA, all 400 applications — both Canadian applications (58 applications) and international applications (342 applications) — were included in the calculation of monetized benefits to the CFIA.
• When looking at the monetized impacts to stakeholders, the cost-benefit analysis only considered applications (58) from Canadian stakeholders.
• Applications from foreign entities (342) are outside the scope of the small business lens, and the one-for-one rule. Additionally, applications from Canadian public entities are not considered under the small business lens or the one-for-one rule.
• The application annual growth rate is estimated at 2.5%.
• The CFIA costs to process an application is roughly $1,661 for hard copy applications and roughly $785 for electronic applications through UPOV PRISMA.
• For hard copy applications to the PBRO, applicants (breeders, or agents on behalf of breeders) take two hours to print, handle and mail the application at an hourly salary of $35.00 (overhead included), along with a $21.00 expenditure for papers and stamps, plus a $287.22 fee paid to the CFIA.
• For electronic UPOV PRISMA applications, applicants pay a fee of $287.22 (2024–25 fee) to the CFIA and a fee of 90 Swiss francs (about $135 Canadian dollars based on an exchange rate of 1.5) to file with UPOV. Under the proposed Regulations, the fee to the CFIA would be reduced to $123.21.
• The CFIA estimates that the lower fee for an application through UPOV PRISMA would lead to a decrease in hard copy applications and an increase in electronic UPOV PRISMA applications over a 3-to-5-year period. The CFIA would then receive 70% of applications in hard copy and 30% through UPOV PRISMA.
• A 7% discount rate, a 2012 present value base year, and a 2012 price year are used in the “one-for-one rule” analysis, in line with Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) guidance.

Data for this analysis was sourced from

• CFIA subject matter experts;
• Data obtained through a breeder sector survey; and
• Statistics Canada (Table 18-10-0005-01, formerly CANSIM 326-0021).

Monetized benefits and costs

These results present a cost-benefit analysis of the reduced fee for online applications, including monetized benefits and costs for Canadian private breeders and for the CFIA, as well as the net impact of the proposal.

Monetized benefits

• There would be savings for breeders’ fees from the base year to the final year. The present total value of these benefits to breeders would be $11,142, with an annualized value of $1,586.
• There would also be savings related to printing, handling and postage, indicating operational efficiencies or process improvements. The total present value of these savings to breeders would be $5,944, with an annualized benefit of $846.
• Combining breeder fees and cost savings, breeders would experience an overall increase in benefits of about $2,432 annually.
• The CFIA would experience cost savings due to processing efficiencies of online applications. The total present value of these savings would be substantial at $392,752, with an annualized benefit of $55,919. The proposed amendments would lead to a reduction in operational expenses for the CFIA.

• Number of years: 10 (2026–2035)
• Price year: 2024
• Present value base year: 2025
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 1: Monetized benefits for reduced fee for online PBR applications

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Base year	Final year	Total present value	Annualized value
Breeders	PBR fees	$957	$2,057	$11,142	$1,586
	Printing, handling and postage cost	$0.00	$1,326	$5,944	$846
CFIA	CFIA processing cost for all applications (savings)	$0.00	$87,590	$392,752	$55,919

Monetized costs

The CFIA would forgo revenue from fees, which is reflected as a cost, due to reduced fees. The total present value of forgone fees would be $136,898, with an annualized cost of $19,491.

Table 2: Monetized costs for reduced fee for online PBR applications

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	Base year	Final year	Total present value	Annualized value
CFIA	Forgone fee revenue collected by the CFIA for all applications (cost)	$6,560	$27,593	$136,898	$19,491

Summary of monetized benefits and costs

The net impact for the proposal would be positive, indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs. The net impact would increase over time from a negative $5,604 in the base year to $63,379 in the final year, with a total present value of $272,939 and an annualized net benefit of $38,860.

Table 3: Summary of monetized benefits and costs for reduced fee for online PBR applications

Impacts	Base year	Final year	Total present value	Annualized
Total benefits	$957	$90,973	$409,838	$58,352
Total costs	$6,560	$27,593	$136,898	$19,491
Net impact	$5,604	$63,379	$272,939	$38,860

Summary

The proposal would generate a positive net impact for both breeders and the CFIA, with a net present value of $272,939. Breeders would benefit from both reduced operational costs (printing, handling and postage) and savings from reduced fees, leading to a combined positive outcome. The CFIA would benefit from significant cost savings, which would be more than sufficient to offset the forgone fee revenue.

Small business lens

The small business lens applies to proposals that either increase or decrease the administrative and compliance burden on small businesses as per the Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines. It is expected that 56 small businesses would stand to benefit from a reduction in administrative and compliance costs related to the proposed amendments.

These costs are outlined in the previous section under the heading “Introduce a reduced fee for online PBR applications.” The shift from hard copy toward UPOV PRISMA applications would be a benefit to small businesses. The standard cost model (SCM) was used to monetize the savings resulting from providing a lower fee to PBR holders who file using UPOV PRISMA.

Small business lens summary

• Number of small businesses impacted: 56
• Number of years: 10 (2026–2035)
• Price year: 2024
• Present value base year: 2026
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 4: Benefits — Small business lens

Administrative or compliance	Present value	Annualized value
Administrative benefits	$2,212	$315
Compliance benefits	$6,460	$920
Total benefits	$8,671	$1,235
Benefit per small business	$155	$22

One-for-one rule

In accordance with the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, the assessment of administrative impacts was conducted over a 10-year period starting from the date of registration in 2025. All figures in this section are expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 2012 using a 7% discount rate.

The one-for-one rule applies to this proposal, as it results in a net reduction in administrative burden on businesses. It is classified as a “burden OUT”, and no new regulatory titles will be introduced or repealed. The proposed amendments are expected to generate annualized administrative cost savings of $132, which corresponds to a net present value (NPV) of $929.

These savings are driven by reduced labour costs related to printing, handling and postage, due to a lower volume of hard copy applications.

In total, 72 businesses are affected, resulting in an average annualized administrative savings of $12.90 per business, or $1.84 per business per year when expressed as an annualized figure.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

These proposed amendments would further improve alignment with UPOV 91, specifically by reducing the scope of the farmers’ privilege and removing advertisement when determining novelty of a variety. They will also further align with UPOV members by encouraging UPOV PRISMA PBR applications through a discounted online application fee.

Additionally, extending PBR protection for potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants to 25 years would align Canada more closely with the European Union, which offers a 30-year protection for the same crop kinds.

Effects on the environment

A strategic environmental and economic assessment (SEEA) has been conducted. Stronger PBR incentivizes plant breeding and the development of plant varieties that enhance the efficiency of agricultural practices and improve the resilience of crops. For example, some varieties of crops are bred for better nitrogen use efficiency, which reduces the need for excessive fertilizer application, or for increased crop yields, which raises productivity of existing agricultural land. This may contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agriculture sector and contribute to Canada’s Net-Zero Plan by promoting sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture, reducing emissions, and enhancing carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector. The proposed amendments also align with the broader goals of mitigating climate change and achieving a more sustainable and resilient food production system and could have a positive impact on biodiversity.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment has been conducted. Analysis shows that amendments to the PBR Regulations and the strengthening of PBR would largely benefit plant breeders within the agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors, which tend to be predominately located in rural settings.

It is anticipated that in the short and medium term, the proposed initiative would be gender-neutral for plant breeders. However, this trend is slowly changing as a higher proportion of women are graduating from university programs in agriculture and biology, which is the prerequisite education to become a professional plant breeder. For example, from 2000 to 2009, the number of female agriculture degree graduates grew from 41.6% to 50.6%, and the number of female biology degree graduates grew from 62.6% to 63.1%.

IP rights are intended to incentivize and reward investment and innovation, leading to competitiveness and economic opportunity. The primary beneficiaries would be plant breeders.

The proposed regulatory amendments would also directly benefit farmers, producers, and growers, who would secure access to innovative new plant varieties to support their competitiveness and economic prosperity, while helping to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. In the short and medium term, it is anticipated that the proposed initiative would be gender- and diversity-neutral for farmers. However, long-term trends indicate that more women are working in this sector. From 2016 to 2021, the proportion of female farm operators increased from 28.7% to 30.4%. Similarly, a smaller proportion of diversity groups (visible minorities and Indigenous persons), only 7.9%, are farm operators, compared to the proportion in the overall Canadian population, which is 16.2%. However, this varies greatly by region and type of farming operation. Fruit and tree nut farms have the most diverse farm operator group, with a diversity index (DI) of 37.3%, followed by greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture farms (20.6%) and vegetable and melon farms (17.8%), all of which exceed the national average.

It is anticipated that more women and people of diversity could secure the economic benefits associated with strengthening the PBR framework over time.

Impacts on food security and cost of food

The proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations could have a positive impact on food security and the cost of food in Canada. Strengthening protection for plant breeders would increase competition and investment in the development of new and improved plant varieties. New and improved plant varieties offer benefits such as higher yields and disease resistance, allowing farmers to be more productive and competitive. This, in turn, would contribute to greater availability of safe, nutritious, and affordable food for all Canadians.

While plant breeders should be compensated for the use of their protected varieties, a practice that incentivizes investment and innovation, it is important to note that farmers and growers, and ultimately consumers, will always have a choice in the varieties they wish to access. For example, there are currently 26 varieties of tomatoes under PBR protection in Canada, while there are 3 329 unprotected varieties of tomatoes in the marketplace. A healthy balance in the availability of protected and unprotected varieties in the marketplace provides farmers and growers with plenty of options that can satisfy their business while consumer needs continue to be met.

Rationale

The objective of PBR is to strike a balance between promoting innovation and protecting the public interest. The proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations would continue to strike that balance while strengthening the PBR regime in Canada.

The proposed amendments would strengthen protection for domestic and foreign plant breeders by providing incentives and rewards for undertaking the process of plant breeding and encouraging the release of new and improved varieties in the marketplace. They would also improve alignment with other UPOV members, and they would lead to Canada becoming a jurisdiction of choice for foreign breeders that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding. Finally, the proposed amendments would improve the accessibility to the PBR framework by reducing burden, increasing efficiencies, supporting digitization, and ultimately encourage more applications for the protection of new varieties.

Ultimately, this would lead to new and improved plant varieties and greater choices, which would benefit the agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors, farmers, and consumers.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations will come into force on the date of registration.

The PBRO would engage with and provide information to all impacted producer organizations and the breeding community to ensure all stakeholders are aware of upcoming changes. This could include webinars, presentations, and meetings, as well as FAQs and InfoBulletins. When the proposed Regulations come into force, a list of the varieties impacted specifically by the PBR duration change from 20 to 25 years would be published in the Plant Varieties Journal.

Performance measurement of the proposed Regulations would be incorporated into existing performance frameworks. The PBRO would continue to provide metrics of performance in the Canadian national PBR report, published by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. In addition, another 10-year impact study could be conducted post implementation of the amendments.

Compliance and enforcement

The CFIA does not play a formal role in the enforcement of PBR. Legal remedies are between the title holder and the alleged infringer and are handled through the court system.

Service standards

The service standard for the PBRO to determine whether an application is acceptable for filing is one business day. This would continue to apply for the new fee added when an application is submitted using the electronic filing system.

Contact

Anthony Parker
Commissioner
Plant Breeders’ Rights Office
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Email: pbr.pov@inspection.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given, under subsection 75(2)^{footnote a} of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act ^{footnote b}, that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations under subsections 4(5)^{footnote c} and 75(1)^{footnote d} of that Act.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 70 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Anthony Parker, Commissioner, Plant Breeders’ Rights Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 1400 Merivale Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0Y9 (email: pbr.pov@inspection.gc.ca).

Ottawa, August 1, 2025

Janna Rinaldi
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations

1 Subsection 7(2) of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations ^{footnote 1} is repealed.

2 (1) Paragraph 19(1)(f) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Paragraph 19(1)(h) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (h) a statement that the plant variety is a sufficiently homogeneous variety as defined in subsection 4(4) of the Act and is stable;

(3) Subsection 19(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The applicant shall include in the application a representative reference sample of viable propagating material of the plant variety that is the subject of the application at the time of filing the application or at another time, in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) An applicant who does not include a representative reference sample may, as directed by the Commissioner, submit the sample at a later time and before the granting of the plant breeders’ rights if the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that a representative reference sample was unavailable at the time of filing.

3 Paragraph 20(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) photographs and a detailed description of the plant variety that illustrate that the plant variety is clearly distinguishable in accordance with paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Act.

4 (1) The portion of section 26 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

26 If the holder of plant breeders’ rights assigns the rights, an assignee shall, for the purposes of subsection 31(1) of the Act, provide the Commissioner, in a format accessible to the Commissioner, with the following information:

(2) Paragraph 26(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (d) a letter of assignment signed by both the holder and the assignee; and

5 Section 29 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

29 The fees and charges payable for the purposes of the Act and these Regulations are set out in Schedule II and are payable, in Canadian dollars, to the Receiver General for Canada.

6 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 30:

Non-application of the Farmers’ Privilege

31 The exception referred to in subsection 5.3(2) of the Act does not apply to the following classes of plant varieties:

• (a) fruit, ornamental and vegetable plants;
• (b) plants reproduced through vegetative propagation; and
• (c) hybrids and parental varieties used in hybrid varieties.

Term of Protection

32 In accordance with subsection 6(1) of the Act, the term of the grant of plant breeders’ rights for the following categories is 25 years, subject to earlier termination under the Act:

• (a) potato;
• (b) asparagus; and
• (c) woody plant species.

Sales of a New Variety

33 For the purposes of subsection 4(3) of the Act, a sale does not include advertising or any exposure that is not for a consideration.

7 Schedule I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the reference after the heading “SCHEDULE I” with the following:

(Section 3)

8 Item 2 of Schedule II to the Regulations is repealed.

9 Item 13 of Schedule II to the Regulations is repealed.

10 Schedule II to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 14:

Item	Column I Service	Column II Fees or charges
15	Filing, under subsection 9 (1) of the Act, of an application for plant breeders’ rights to the Commissioner using the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) PRISMA application tool	123.21

11 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain external links
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.