Regulations Amending the Plant Protection Regulations: SOR/2025-236

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 25

Registration
SOR/2025-236 November 21, 2025

PLANT PROTECTION ACT

P.C. 2025-815 November 21, 2025

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Plant Protection Regulations under section 47footnote a of the Plant Protection Act footnote b.

Regulations Amending the Plant Protection Regulations

Amendments

1 The long title of the Plant Protection Regulations footnote 1 is replaced by the following:

Plant Protection Regulations

2 Section 1 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

3 Section 10 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10 (1) The Minister may publish a notice setting out the manner in which any document that is required to be provided to the Minister or to an inspector under the Act or under any regulation or order made under the Act is to be prepared and provided.

(2) A document referred to in subsection (1) must be prepared and provided in the manner set out in the notice, unless the provision of the document is required by an inspector who specifies a different manner.

(3) If a document referred to in subsection (1) that is provided to the Minister or an inspector is not the original of the document, the original must, if requested, be provided within a reasonable period.

4 Subsection 29(1.1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1.1) A person may furnish to the inspector the number of the applicable certificate referred to in subsection (1) instead of the certificate itself if the number is sufficient to give the Minister electronic access to the certificate.

5 Sections 50 to 52 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

50 (1) A person must not move within Canada a thing that is a pest or that is identified in the Agency document as being a thing that could be infested with a pest or that is or could be a biological obstacle to the control of a pest if

(2) In this section, Agency document means the document entitled Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act, published by the Agency, as amended from time to time.

6 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 54:

Requirement to Move

54.1 An inspector or a peace officer acting on the request of an inspector may require any thing to be moved to a specified place for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Act and all regulations and orders made under it.

7 Schedules I and II to the Regulations are repealed.

Coming into Force

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

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the regulations.)

Issues

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for plant health, which includes preventing the introduction and spread of plant pests that could damage Canada’s plant resource base, the environment and plant-related industries. The Plant Protection Act (PPA) and the Plant Protection Regulations (PPR or the Regulations) set out various requirements to mitigate risks associated with plant pests in Canada, such as domestic and import control measures. Domestic control measures include prohibitions and restrictions on the movement of certain pests, plants or other things within Canada. Because these domestic control measures are set out in the Schedules I and II to the PPR, they require a regulatory amendment to update. This limits the CFIA’s ability to quickly update these domestic controls to reflect the latest science and to align with Canada’s import control measures and international obligations. As a result, stakeholders could face unnecessary burden and costs, such as obtaining a movement certificate, to meet control measures that are no longer supported by science.

Setting out domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in a document that is incorporated by reference (IBR document) into the PPR, rather than in the Regulations, would improve regulatory agility and reduce red tape. Making use of modern regulatory tools, such as incorporation by reference, will enable the CFIA to update domestic control measures in a more timely and efficient manner to respond to the latest science and risks.

The PPR also contains outdated and prescriptive documentation requirements. For instance, the prescriptive text in the Regulations does not fully support the exchange of electronic documents received from foreign governments. In addition, the Regulations stipulate that stakeholders must submit the original hard copy of a document, even if the document has already been submitted electronically. This outdated requirement creates an unnecessary administrative burden for stakeholders and for the CFIA. Changes to these prescriptive requirements are needed to support a modern approach to documentation that is technology neutral, removes prescriptive requirements and aligns with the Government of Canada’s efforts to support digitization and reduce red tape.

Background

Federal legislative and regulatory context

The PPA and PPR provide the main authorities and tools to the CFIA to help prevent, contain and control the import, export and spread of plant pests. In turn, this protects plant life, the agriculture and forestry sectors of the Canadian economy, and the environment.

Legislative authority

The PPA provides the legislative framework and sets out the prohibitions, restrictions and authorities to prevent and manage plant pests that present a risk to plant health.

In 2015, the PPA was amended through the (ARCHIVED) Agricultural Growth Act to provide the authority to incorporate by reference documents into the Regulations (PPA, section 47.1). This authority includes the ability to incorporate internal documents developed by the CFIA, as well as external documents, on an ambulatory basis (i.e. the document can be modified from time to time without a regulatory amendment). IBR documents have the same force as the regulation into which they are incorporated.

The PPA also includes the authority to issue ministerial orders and legislative notices, such as written notices to help control the domestic spread of plant pests. Ministerial orders can be used to declare areas infested with pests in Canada and may control the movement of people and goods in and out of the infested areas. They are a regulatory tool that may be used to address an emerging situation. However, as situations evolve (e.g. when a pest cannot be eradicated in a particular area), there may be a need to transition the control measures set out in a ministerial order into the Regulations. Setting out the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in a document incorporated by reference into the Regulations will facilitate this transition.

Regulatory authority

The PPR outline specific regulatory requirements related to controlling and eradicating plant pests in Canada. This includes domestic control measures and import control measures. These domestic and import control measures prohibit or restrict the movement of plant pests and things that have the potential to spread pests across Canada.

Domestic control measures

Domestic control measures include movement prohibitions and restrictions, which prohibit or restrict pests and things that have the potential to spread pests (e.g. plants and plant products, or things, such as vehicles and equipment), from being moved from one location to another unless specific requirements are met. These domestic measures were previously set out in sections 50 to 51 of the PPR and applied to the pests and things identified in Schedules I and II of the PPR. For example, the oriental fruit moth (a plant pest to peaches and other stone fruit species) is not known to exist in British Columbia, but is known to exist in other parts of Canada. As a result, Schedule II outlined the requirement for a movement certificate to be obtained to move regulated commodities, such as peach plants from any area in Canada identified as being infested with oriental fruit moth, to British Columbia. As Schedules I and II were part of the PPR, any updates to the schedules to reflect the latest science and plant health risks could only be made through a regulatory amendment.

Import control measures

Import control measures are set out in sections 28 to 44 of the PPR. This includes the requirement to obtain an import permit for pests and things that have the potential to spread pests into Canada. The List of pests regulated by Canada is used to capture pests that are subject to import requirements. This list is a document that is already incorporated by reference into the PPR on an ambulatory basis, meaning it can be updated to reflect the latest science and plant health risks without a regulatory amendment. When a pest is added to the List of pests regulated by Canada, the associated import requirements set out in sections 28 to 44 of the PPR apply. Given that the List of pests regulated by Canada is an IBR document, updates to add or remove a pest from the list can be done rather efficiently, in line with the CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Guide to Incorporation by Reference in Federal Regulations.

Updating control measures

Domestic and import control measures are regularly evaluated by the CFIA based on the latest scientific evidence. As science evolves, this can result in changes to a pest’s plant health risk status, as well as the corresponding control measures needed to support its management.

Updates to import control measures can be made efficiently, as these measures are listed in a document incorporated by reference. The same agility and responsiveness did not exist for the domestic controls set out in the schedules to the PPR because they required a regulatory amendment each time an update was necessary. Increased regulatory agility was needed for domestic controls to ensure that they reflected the latest scientific information, remained consistent with import requirements and international obligations and did not subject stakeholders to burden related to implementing domestic control measures that were no longer supported by science. In some cases, the CFIA made risk management policy decisions to inform enforcement discretion on certain movement prohibitions and restrictions that were described in Schedules I and II of the PPR. The decisions were made in consultation with stakeholders using a formal and transparent decision-making process. The CFIA notified stakeholders of the decisions and notified trading partners through the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) notification process when applicable.

Provincial and territorial context

Agriculture, including plant protection, is a shared federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) responsibility. While the CFIA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the PPA and the PPR, provinces and territories may develop and implement their own legislation related to plant protection at the provincial and territorial (PT) level.

The CFIA and PT ministries responsible for agriculture, environment and forestry work closely together when developing and implementing federal and provincial plant protection programs. The CFIA consults with relevant provinces and territories when considering changes to plant protection control measures in Canada in response to changes in the presence or distribution of pests in Canada.

International context

As a member of the WTO, Canada has obligations under the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. This includes developing and implementing measures consistent with the international standards set by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

The IPPC is an international treaty that establishes a common approach to preventing the introduction and spread of plant pests. It is recognized by the WTO as the international standard-setting body for plant health. The CFIA is Canada’s representative under the IPPC and is considered the National Plant Protection Organization for Canada.

While the IPPC mainly focuses on the standards for the import or export of plants and plant products, it also specifies that domestic control measures should be consistent with the standards set by the IPPC. Incorporating by reference domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions will provide the CFIA with more agility to facilitate the alignment of Canada’s domestic control measures with the international standards set out by the IPPC.

In addition, the IPPC is leading on the harmonization of requirements and standards for the implementation of a single global secure government-to-government electronic phytosanitary certification exchange system. A phytosanitary certificate is an official document issued by a foreign authority confirming that plants, plant products or other regulated articles have been inspected, are free from quarantine pests and meet the import requirements of the destination country. The CFIA has started to send electronic phytosanitary certificates through the electronic exchange system, but is not yet ready to receive them from foreign governments. When the system is fully implemented, it will have a positive impact on the importation of plants, plant products and other regulated articles into Canada by reducing the opportunity for fraud, increasing efficiency and facilitating trade. The regulatory amendments made through this initiative will support Canada’s future implementation of this electronic system.

Objective

The objectives of the amendments are to increase regulatory agility to respond to the latest plant health risks, to reduce red tape and to promote the use of electronic documentation submissions, in support of the CFIA’s plant protection mandate.

The objectives will be achieved with

Description

Incorporation by reference of the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions

The domestic plant pest movement prohibitions and restrictions previously set out in Schedules I and II of the PPR have been consolidated into a single new document entitled “Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act.” This document has been incorporated by reference into the PPR on an ambulatory basis. This will allow the CFIA to make changes to domestic controls without a regulatory amendment. Further, by consolidating the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions into a single IBR document, this will provide improved clarity for stakeholders, as they will now have one location to access all the requirements for domestic movement controls. Sections 50 and 51 of the PPR, which referred to Schedules I and II have also been amended and condensed into a single subsection 50(1) that refers to the new IBR document.

The new document “Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act” will be published and maintained by the CFIA in both official languages on its website. Any future updates to this document will be made in line with the CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy and the TBS Guide to Incorporation by Reference in Federal Regulations, and will follow a formal risk analysis process. This process will include science-based risk assessments to inform the development and/or the updating of domestic control measures that are effective, efficient, feasible, and no more restrictive than necessary. It will also include stakeholder consultations (which may include provinces and territories, and international trading partners), an assessment of the impact of the change on the CFIA and stakeholders and communications to stakeholders using various means, such as publishing the decision on the CFIA’s website and email notifications.

In line with the previous risk management policy decisions taken by the CFIA to inform enforcement discretion on certain movement prohibitions and restrictions that were described in Schedules I and II, the following pests and things have been removed from the new IBR document:

  1. Tobacco veinal necrosis strain of Potato virus Y (PVYN) [the decision was made and communicated in the 1990s; this pest is now captured under the CFIA’s seed potato program and regulated under the Seeds Regulations, Part II]
  2. Scleroderris canker, Gremmeniella abietina, Morelet (expect for species Pinus spp) [the decision was made and communicated to stakeholders in May 1998]
  3. Cereal leaf beetle (October 2008)
  4. Soybean cyst nematode (November 2013)
  5. Pear trellis rust (November 2013)
  6. Apple ermine moth (August 2014)
  7. AAC Madam Blue variety of blue skin potato plants (the decision was made and communicated to affected stakeholders in 2015)
  8. Filbertworm (November 2019)
  9. Balsam woolly adelgid (the decision was made and communicated to affected stakeholders in 2019)
  10. Pine shoot beetle (November 2020)

Other improvements have also been made to the new IBR document that will provide clarity to stakeholders and improve the readability of the document. This will in turn improve stakeholder compliance with the requirements.

Other related housekeeping amendments have also been made to the PPR. Subsection 52(1) of the PPR, which provided an inspector with the authority to examine pests and other things listed in Schedule II that are expected to be moved within Canada, has been removed from the PPR because section 25 of the PPA already provides inspectors with this authority. Subsection 52(2), which provided an inspector or peace officer with the authority to require any pest or thing to be moved, has been renumbered as section 54.1 and placed under the heading “Requirement to Move” to improve the logical flow of the Regulations.

Finally, minor consequential amendments to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (AAAMPR) have been made to reference the new IBR document and the new section 50(1) in the PPR in Schedule 1, Part 2, Division 4 of the AAAMPR. There is no change to the monetary penalties and therefore no impacts on stakeholders.

Removal of the automatic requirement to provide an original hard copy of a document submitted electronically

Section 10 of the PPR required stakeholders to submit the original hard copy of a document that had already been submitted electronically. This created an unnecessary administrative burden and red tape for stakeholders and for the CFIA.

Therefore, in 2019, the CFIA made a policy decision to provide stakeholders with the flexibility to no longer submit the original hard copies of plant protection import permit applications. In April 2022, a similar approach was adopted for phytosanitary certificates issued by foreign authorities. These decisions, which aimed to reduce the administrative burden on stakeholders and to promote electronic submissions, were communicated to stakeholders.

To align with these policy decisions and to reduce red tape, section 10 of the PPR has been amended to remove the requirement to automatically submit an original hard copy document when that same document has been submitted electronically. The Regulations will still provide authority for the CFIA to request the original hard copy if needed, on a case-by-case basis.

Amendments to section 10 also clarify that the CFIA can publicly set out (e.g. on its website) the method by which documents must be prepared and provided, while also allowing an inspector to request a document in a different manner as needed. Having this information publicly available will provide clarity to stakeholders regarding the documentation requirements and allow the CFIA to keep pace with changing technology and different forms of communication.

Removal of prescriptive text to support the future implementation of an electronic phytosanitary certification exchange system

The CFIA supports digitalization efforts and seeks to remove regulatory barriers that prevent the use of digital tools and the exchange of information. In this regard, minor amendments to the PPR were needed to support a future electronic phytosanitary certification exchange system.

The PPR provides an exception under subsection 29(1.1) to support the acceptance and verification of certificates to be sent through the system. The exception allows a phytosanitary certificate number to be provided to a CFIA inspector, rather than the certificate itself, allowing the inspector to use the number to verify the certificate in the system. However, the previous version of the Regulations stated that, for the exception to be used, documents must be sent directly from the phytosanitary certification authorities of a foreign country. The word “direct” was problematic, as it would not allow for the electronic exchange of phytosanitary certificates from government-to-government through an electronic exchange system. That version of the Regulations also limited document exchanges to be made in accordance with an “agreement.” This prescriptive wording could be interpreted as excluding other conventions or understandings that the CFIA is part of, such as the IPPC.

To ensure that the exception in the PPR will support the acceptance and verification of electronic phytosanitary certificates, the PPR has been amended to remove the prescriptive text related to the description of the system. This will allow the CFIA to fully benefit from the implementation of the exchange system in the future.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultations on incorporating by reference the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions

Early in 2023, the CFIA consulted Canadians about the proposal to incorporate by reference the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in Schedules I and II of the PPR. The CFIA received a few comments from stakeholders, which were all supportive of this approach, in particular because of the greater responsiveness it will afford to address plant pests in Canada.

Stakeholders also noted the continued importance of consulting with stakeholders on changes to the IBR document containing the plant protection movement prohibitions and restrictions. The CFIA will continue to follow its current practices, which include a formal and transparent risk management decision-making process, as well as stakeholder consultations, in line with the CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy and the TBS Guide to Incorporation by Reference in Federal Regulations.

In regard to the risk management policy decisions to inform enforcement discretion on certain domestic movement restrictions previously identified in Schedule II of the PPR, the CFIA also consulted with stakeholders prior to making and communicating each decision, including

Given previous stakeholder engagement and support for risk management policy decisions related to certain domestic movement restrictions, these changes have been reflected in the new IBR document.

Consultations on documentation requirements

Given that the regulatory amendments to the documentation requirements reflect what is being done in practice and have no impact on stakeholders, the CFIA determined that there was no need to formally consult with stakeholders on the amendments.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

The assessment of modern treaty implications examined the geographical scope and subject matter of the initiative in relation to Indigenous modern treaties and self-government agreements in effect, and did not identify any potential modern treaty or self-government impacts. This initiative amended the PPR to enable agility in the Regulations but did not amend the context of the Regulations and/or the position of the CFIA on any regulated pest. As pursuant to the Cabinet Directive on Regulation, as no implications were identified, a detailed assessment was not required.

As part of broader Government of Canada priorities and obligations, in alignment with the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, this assessment considered Indigenous communities that may not have a treaty with the Crown, or a historical treaty with the Crown, in addition to modern treaties and self-government agreements. Indigenous peoples are not directly impacted by enabling agility in regulatory amendments.

In the future, when considering changes to the domestic plant protection control measures set out in the “Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act” IBR document, the CFIA will consider potential impacts on Indigenous communities as part of its analysis.

Instrument choice

A range of options were considered, including maintaining the previous version of the Regulations (no action) as well as other regulatory and non-regulatory actions.

It was determined that regulatory amendments to the PPR were the only option to provide the CFIA with the agility needed to more effectively respond to new scientific information or approaches to domestic plant protection measures, reduce red tape and administrative burden by eliminating automatic paper documentation, and support the ability to implement an electronic phytosanitary certification exchange system in the future. These amendments also support the Government of Canada’s regulatory modernization efforts to foster an agile regulatory environment and to reduce administrative burden on stakeholders.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Baseline scenario
Domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in Schedules I and II of the PPR

Under the previous version of the Regulations, updates to Schedules I and II of the PPR could only be made through regulatory amendments. However, in certain cases, the CFIA made risk management policy decisions to inform enforcement discretion on certain movement requirements described in the Schedules.

If no changes to the Regulations were made, domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions described in the schedules would not reflect current practices. Further, there would be no mechanism to quickly update theses domestic measures as needed. This could cause stakeholders to be subject to burden and costs related to domestic control measures, such as obtaining a movement certificate and complying with its requirements and associated costs, that are no longer required and not supported by the latest science.

Documentation requirements

If no changes to the Regulations were made, they would not reflect current practice, whereby stakeholders have the flexibility to no longer submit hard copies of documents that have already been submitted electronically.

Additionally, if there were no changes to the prescriptive text in the Regulations, it would impact the CFIA’s ability to fully implement a government-to-government electronic system for phytosanitary certificates.

Regulatory scenario
Domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in a new IBR document

By consolidating the domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions into a single IBR document, stakeholders will have one location to access all the requirements for domestic movement controls. Further, by incorporating the document on an ambulatory basis, it will provide the agility needed to update the domestic movement control measures based on the latest science and risks.

Documentation requirements

The regulatory amendments related to the documentation requirements align with current practices by removing the regulatory requirement to automatically submit an original hard copy document when that same document has been submitted electronically.

For phytosanitary certificates, given that this amendment only removed the prescriptive text for an exception that is not yet in use, it is not considered in the cost and benefit analysis.

Cost benefit analysis

Stakeholders are expected to experience savings without incurring any additional costs. Notably, stakeholders have already realized savings, since the CFIA provided flexibility regarding the requirement to automatically submit the original-hard copy document starting in 2019. The movement of Schedules I and II to an IBR document is cost neutral for stakeholders because the new IBR document reflects current practices.

Domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions in a new IBR document

The regulatory scenario is considered cost-neutral for the CFIA and stakeholders when compared to the baseline scenario.

Since the IBR document reflects current practices, there is no incremental cost to stakeholders. Going forward, the process for updating the new IBR document will be made by the CFIA in line with the CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy and the TBS Guide to Incorporation by Reference in Federal Regulations. As this process is the same as the formal process the CFIA has been following when making risk management policy decisions, no additional CFIA resources are required. While stakeholders will be engaged, they are not expected to experience costs associated with the process for updating the IBR document, as it is a CFIA responsibility.

The improved ability to update domestic movement prohibitions and restrictions will allow the CFIA to address plant health risks in Canada, which will reduce the risk of adverse outcomes for importers; individuals or businesses moving plants, firewood and soil; and those working in the forestry, cereal, nursery and landscape, or horticulture sectors.

Documentation requirements

In 2019, the CFIA provided stakeholders with flexibility to no longer submit the original hard copies of import permit applications sent electronically. Approximately 6 100 hard copy import permit applications were sent to CFIA from 2 500 importers in the year prior to waiving the requirement.

In 2022, the CFIA provided stakeholders with the flexibility to no longer submit original hard copies of foreign phytosanitary certificates. The CFIA received approximately 71 000 hard copy certificates in the year prior to providing this flexibility.

Providing flexibility regarding the requirement to submit hard copy documents benefited businesses by saving them the labour and capital costs (e.g. envelopes and postage) associated with printing out and mailing documents. Note that phytosanitary certificates are submitted by international stakeholders and, therefore, the benefit associated with the flexibility regarding the hard copy requirement was realized by international stakeholders. Businesses realized these labour and capital savings when the policy changes were made in 2019 and 2022.

In addition, at the time the policy decisions were made, the CFIA experienced minor time and space resource savings due to no longer having to process and store hard copy documents.

Small business lens

Small businesses benefited from a reduction in administrative costs (e.g. the labour associated with printing and sending a hard copy) and compliance costs (e.g. the costs associated with printing and mailing, such as paper, envelopes and postage) related to the flexibility of no longer having to submit the original hard copies of import permit applications. Since the amendments to the Regulations will be aligning requirements with current practices, these impacts are not considered.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there is an incremental decrease in administrative burden on businesses associated with the removal of the requirement to submit hard copy import permits, and the amendments are considered a burden out under the one-for-one rule. Only the administrative burden for Canadian businesses is considered; phytosanitary certificates submitted by international stakeholders are not considered under the one-for-one rule. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced through these amendments.

In practice, businesses have not submitted original hard copies of import permit applications submitted electronically since the 2019 policy change and have already realized the decrease in administrative burden associated with the amendments. However, the reduction in administrative burden resulting from this amendment must be quantified as per the Red Tape Reduction Regulations. Therefore, this section assumes that all businesses would have continued to submit hard copy import permits until the date of registration of these amendments.

The removal of the requirement to submit original hard copies of import permits will lead to a total annualized administrative savings of $21,451.19, impacting 2 250 businesses, which equates to a reduction in administrative costs (or savings) of $9.53 per individual business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

As a signatory of the IPPC and to comply with its international obligations, the CFIA updates its import restrictions to align with the latest scientific evidence and international standards. For example, Canada removes import restrictions when a pest no longer meets the IPPC definition of a regulated pest. This requirement is meant to facilitate economic and trade development through the promotion of harmonized scientifically based phytosanitary measures.

The ability to update domestic controls by updating the IBR document “Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act” will facilitate the regulatory alignment of Canada’s domestic plant protection measures with import requirements and international obligations. As a result, these regulatory changes will support the ability to more rapidly align domestic controls with international standards set by the IPPC.

Furthermore, the amendments will support the CFIA’s ability to implement the secure government-to-government electronic phytosanitary certification system being led by the IPPC in the future, thereby promoting alignment with foreign governments related to the exchange of phytosanitary information to facilitate trade.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment (SEEA Directive), a comprehensive strategic environmental and economic assessment has been conducted. Regulatory proposals subject to the Cabinet Directive on Regulation are exempted from the economic analysis elements of the SEEA Directive. The findings from the strategic environmental and economic assessment concluded that there are no significant impacts on the environment as a result of the amendments. However, the amendments related to the documentation requirements will have a minor positive impact, as they will reduce the number of documents required to be printed and mailed.

Gender-based analysis plus

The objectives of the amendments to the Regulations are to support the CFIA’s continued ability to effectively and efficiently meet its plant protection mandate. It is expected that the Canadian population at large will benefit from the amendments and the greater regulatory responsiveness they will provide to address plant health risks in Canada. While a range of Canadians, businesses and sectors may experience broad, indirect impacts related to the amendments (such as importers; individuals or businesses moving plants, firewood, soil, etc.; or those working in the forestry, cereal, nursery and landscape, or horticulture sectors), the impact on these groups is expected to be positive and no gender or diversity issues were raised by these groups during stakeholder consultations.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The amendments to the Regulations will come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Following the publication of the amendments to the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II, the CFIA will publish on its website the IBR document “Movement prohibitions and restrictions in Canada under the Plant Protection Act.” The CFIA will also update its policy directives and other guidance documents that refer to Schedules I and II so that they now refer to the IBR document and will update the references to the various sections of the Regulations that have been amended. The CFIA will ensure stakeholders are aware of the new IBR document, as well as the other amendments to the Regulations, by publishing a Notice to industry on its website, posting updates on its social media accounts and sending messages through its email subscription service.

For all future updates to the domestic movement restrictions or prohibitions in the new IBR document, the CFIA will continue to follow its formal decision-making process, which includes stakeholder consultations and is in line with the CFIA Incorporation by Reference Policy and the TBS Guide to Incorporation by Reference in Federal Regulations.

There are no changes to the compliance and enforcement related to plant protection. The CFIA will continue to follow its Compliance and Enforcement Policy.

Contact

Anthony Anyia
Senior Director
Plant Protection Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Email: cfia-ias_acia-eee@inspection.gc.ca