Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations: SOR/2026-74

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 9

Registration
SOR/2026-74 April 23, 2026

PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS ACT

P.C. 2026-379 April 23, 2026

Whereas, under subsection 75(2)^{footnote a} of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act ^{footnote b}, a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on August 9, 2025 and a reasonable opportunity was given to interested persons to make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, 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 Breeders’ Rights Regulations under subsections 4(5)^{footnote c} and 75(1)^{footnote d} of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act ^{footnote b}.

Regulations Amending the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations

Amendments

1 Subsection 7(2) of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations ^{footnote 1} is repealed.

2 Section 12 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

12 An assignee shall comply with the requirements of subsection 31(1) of the Act and section 26 of these Regulations within one year after the day on which the plant breeders’ rights are assigned.

3 (1) Paragraph 19(1)(f) of the Regulations is repealed.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) At the time of filing the application, the applicant shall submit to the Commissioner a representative reference sample of viable propagating material of the plant variety that is the subject of the application if one is available.

(3) If the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that such a sample was unavailable at the time of filing the application, the applicant shall, as directed by the Commissioner, submit the sample at a later time, but before the grant of plant breeders’ rights.

4 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.

5 (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 them, the 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

6 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.

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

Non-Application of Farmers’ Privilege

31 The exception set out 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 For the purposes of subsection 6(1) of the Act, the term of the grant of plant breeders’ rights is 25 years, subject to earlier termination under the Act, with respect to a certificate that is issued after the day on which these Regulations come into force for any of the following categories:

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

Sale of 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.

8 Schedule I to the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading “SCHEDULE I” with the following:

(Section 3)

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

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

11 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 and by means of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) PRISMA application tool, of an application to the Commissioner for grant of plant breeders’ rights	152.32

Coming into Force

12 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.)

Executive summary

Issues

Plant breeders’ rights (PBR) are a form of intellectual property (IP) 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 economic monopoly on their new variety and restrict certain uses of the variety without authorization. Like other forms of IP, 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 producers (including farmers, growers, orchardists, horticulturists, etc.) to achieve high levels of productivity and stable yields, despite adverse growing conditions.

Stakeholders have raised concerns about weaknesses in Canada’s current PBR regime. In particular, they 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. This limits producers’ access to the newest and highest-performing varieties and negatively affects their competitiveness. As producers in jurisdictions with stronger IP regimes gain earlier access to these innovations, Canadian producers risk falling behind competitors in other countries.

Regulatory amendments to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations (PBR Regulations) will respond to these issues, address stakeholder concerns, support a business environment that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding and support competitiveness of Canadian producers. The amendments to the PBR Regulations will 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 producers with the ability to save and reuse seeds of a protected variety. 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. The farmers’ privilege is intended to be limited only to those crops, where a portion of the harvested grain can be saved and resown as seed in subsequent years, providing the producers with autonomy, not having to purchase certified seed every year. This includes traditional agricultural crops, such as cereals (e.g. wheat, barley, oats) and pulses (e.g. peas, lentils, chickpeas, etc.). However, the broad scope of farmers’ privilege exemption weakens the PBR regime in Canada. As a result, horticulture and ornamental breeders are reluctant to introduce their new and improved varieties, where there is an unrestricted farmers’ privilege. This limits producer access to the newest, highest-performing varieties and reduces their ability to compete in the domestic and export market.

Specifically, fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties should not be included within the scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption because it is not customary practice for producers to save and reuse seeds of these protected varieties. In addition, many of these varieties can be propagated asexually (cuttings, budding, grafting, etc.). This means that producers 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 producers are bearing the costs of breeding a new variety by paying the appropriate compensation to the breeder, while others are 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 producer 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, known as hybrid vigour, for producers, with important characteristics such as improved disease resistance, higher yields and greater uniformity. However, they are more costly and resource intensive to breed. If the offspring of a hybrid seed is saved and reused by a producer, the resulting crop will have diminished yield, performance and quality characteristics due to segregation. When hybrid seed is saved and reused, the variety is no longer uniform and stable. Negative factors, such as disease susceptibility, diminished yield and poorer quality, can result in significantly higher costs and lower productivity for producers as well as others in the value chain. Furthermore, the disease and quality issues resulting from saving and reusing hybrid seed could have significant impacts when the resulting grain is sold into export markets (e.g. blackleg susceptibility in canola).

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 producer; 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 producer 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 scope of the farmers’ privilege does not align with international guidance. 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. UPOV recognizes the long-standing customary practice for producers to save and reuse seed from the harvested grain for crops such as cereals and pulses. This affords producers autonomy and control over their production not having to purchase certified seed each year. 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 not a customary practice for producers to save and reuse seed. For these types of crops, asexual propagation means an infinite number of copies can be made by one or a handful of plants, and a farmers’ privilege is inappropriate, since it fundamentally undermines the breeder’s IP rights.

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. This aligns with international standards and strengthens protection for plant breeders by ensuring they are compensated fairly, while maintaining access to public domain varieties.

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 varieties in Canada, limiting producer access to new and innovative varieties, impacting their ability to compete domestically and internationally. 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. Here are a few clarifications on this subject:

• Potatoes generally require a minimum of 10 years of breeding and another 4 to 5 years of producer 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 producers and end users of the merits of a new variety.
• 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 producers will not adopt a new variety until it has shown acceptable performance for a few years, typically around 5 or 6 years.
• 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, a highbush blueberry variety requires 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.

The amendments will align more closely with other key trading partners who 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 (PBR Act) and will provide plant breeders the additional time necessary to recover their initial investment.

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 Canada. 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 will reduce confusion and encourage greater applications for PBR protection. It will also better align Canada with UPOV interpretation of novelty, which does not 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 and the Canadian filing fee of $307.96 in order to submit an online application to the PBRO. 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 of $152.32, one that offsets the UPOV PRISMA fee, will be implemented to encourage filing through the online electronic system. This will 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 will allow, in exceptional circumstances, applicants to apply in Canada while following up with submitting the propagating material once it is available, and reduce unnecessary administrative pressure for applicants.

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 will be removed.

Other regulatory amendments will be made 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 will 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 will be repealed. In addition, amendments will allow for greater flexibility for information to be submitted in digital formats, as appropriate. These amendments will directly reduce red tape and administrative burden.

The current timeline of 30 days to notify the PBRO of a transfer of rights from one holder to another is unnecessarily short. The timeline to notify the PBRO of the transfer of rights will be extended from 30 days to one year in order to reduce administrative pressure by providing rights holders with sufficient time to notify the transfer without negatively impacting the PBRO’s ability to administer PBR rights.

Finally, 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 will be made to align with the Financial Administrative Act.

Background

Legislative authority and regulatory authorities

The CFIA administers the PBR Act and its regulations, the PBR 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, for the most part, are 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 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 the farmers’ privilege exemption. 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

The PBRO, within the CFIA, is responsible for the administration of PBR in Canada in accordance with the PBR Act and the 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 published 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, producer cooperatives, individual breeders 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, has 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 PBR include the horticulture sector, which includes fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants, as well as the agricultural sector, covering cereals, pulses, potatoes, oilseeds and forages. Together, these sectors add over 114 000 jobs and contribute more than $24 billion to Canada’s economy.

Canadian producers benefit economically from strong PBR protection because it incentivizes the development and release of higher-yielding, more resilient crop varieties that enhance productivity and farm profitability. Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector accounted for 7% of the national gross domestic product (GDP), contributing $150 billion in 2024, illustrating the scale of economic activity supported by innovation in plant varieties. Effective PBR IP protection encourages both domestic and international breeders to introduce cutting-edge genetics into the Canadian market, strengthening competitiveness and ensuring producers are not disadvantaged relative to growers in other advanced agricultural economies. With agriculture generating approximately $92 billion in farm revenues in 2024, improvements driven by PBR-enabled innovation directly support sector growth and long-term economic resilience.

A report assessing the impacts of the 2015 legislative amendments to Canada’s PBR Act and UPOV 91 ratification anticipates that the amendments to the PBR Regulations will foster greater innovation, investment and collaboration between the Canadian industry and plant breeders to develop crop varieties, ensuring high levels of productivity in Canada’s changing climate. This will further strengthen Canada’s agricultural sector, which is foundational to the Canadian economy.

International context

Canada is a member of UPOV, along with 79 other members, including the United States (U.S.) and the 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.” UPOV 91 is the current international agreement, which Canada ratified in 2015.

Canada’s PBR Regulations differ quite substantially in specific areas from many international trading partners, including UPOV 91 members. This weakens Canada’s IP regime within the UPOV community, specifically when comparing the length of time for PBR protection for crops, such as potatoes, asparagus and woody plants. For example, the EU provides a 30-year term of PBR protection for these crop varieties, whereas in Canada, only 20 years are 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 EU and the United Kingdom (U.K.), where the farmers’ privilege does not extend to these types of varieties. In the EU and the U.K., the farmers’ privilege only applies to specified agricultural crops and does not extend to horticultural and ornamental varieties.

Unlike Canada, the United States also provides patent protection for plant varieties, which are often used by fruit, ornamental and vegetable breeders. Patents are more restrictive because they prohibit any unauthorized use and do not include farmers’ privilege. For small-grain crops, the United States does not include farmers’ privilege in their PBR law, in line with Canada. Overall, the amendments move Canada closer to the U.S. model, but the Canadian framework remains less restrictive by retaining key exemptions, such as the breeders’ exemption. As a result, international breeders are reluctant, and sometimes even refuse, to introduce their new and improved varieties if there is an unrestricted farmers’ privilege for horticulture and ornamental crop kinds. 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 EU and the United States. It is important that Canada aligns closely with key trading partners and other UPOV 91 members. This will help ensure that the best and most productive varieties are available to Canadian producers, helping them to maintain or improve their overall competitiveness, both domestically and abroad.

Provincial and territorial context

The administration of the PBR Act and the PBR Regulations is solely a federal responsibility. Provincial and territorial governments do not administer or enforce PBR. Nonetheless, growers and consumers across provinces and territories may experience practical, localized benefits from the regulatory amendments, reflecting the diversity of climates, crops and agricultural practices in different regions, particularly where horticulture, greenhouse production, potatoes, or ornamentals play an important economic role.

For example, Ontario and Quebec, which represent the majority of Canada’s field vegetable production and host most greenhouse vegetable operations, may benefit from enhanced clarity around the use of proprietary hybrids. This can help ensure continued access to innovative, high-performing varieties, supporting productivity and competitiveness in local markets and delivering consumers a wider range of high-quality produce.

British Columbia may also experience positive, though limited, impacts due to its strong fruit, nursery, ornamental and greenhouse industries. Because these sectors are already integrated into international breeding programs, the amendments may help maintain or improve access to cutting-edge varieties, supporting growers in meeting market demand for diverse, high-value crops.

Provinces with significant potato industries, such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Alberta, may be more directly affected by the extension of PBR protection for potatoes from 20 to 25 years. This longer protection period is expected to encourage breeders to introduce more new, high-performing potato varieties into Canada, benefiting growers through improved yields, disease resistance and marketability. Consumers may similarly benefit from greater availability of high quality, reliable potato varieties.

In the Prairie provinces, overall impacts are expected to be minimal. While Alberta and Manitoba may see some benefits related to expanded potato variety access, the broader Prairie region, particularly Saskatchewan, is dominated by cereals, pulses and hybrid canola. Hybrid canola already relies on biological seed production limitations and contractual arrangements that make seed saving impractical. As a result, the amendments are not expected to change current practices, and growers may benefit from the continued clarity and consistency the updated regulations provide.

Canada’s territories are not expected to be materially affected due to limited commercial crop production under PBR. However, increased access to improved plant varieties suitable for greenhouse production could encourage expanded greenhouse activity in the North.

Objective

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

Strengthening protection for domestic and foreign plant breeders will incentivize investment and innovation and the development of new and improved plant varieties with enhanced traits. It will also improve international alignment with other UPOV members and lead to Canada becoming a jurisdiction of choice for foreign breeders, thereby attracting investment and innovation in plant breeding. A more accessible PBR framework will encourage more applications for the protection of new varieties. Ultimately, this will lead to new and improved plant varieties that support producers’ competitiveness and provide greater choice for consumers.

Description

The amendments will accomplish the following:

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

The scope of the farmers’ privilege exemption will be narrowed by removing fruit, vegetable and ornamental varieties; plants reproduced through vegetative propagation; and hybrid varieties, including their parental varieties. This aligns with other like-minded jurisdictions, such as the EU and the U.K., and is consistent with UPOV’s interpretation of this exemption. With this change, the farmers’ privilege exemption will only apply to small grain agricultural crops, such as cereals (e.g. wheat, barley, oats, etc.) and pulses (e.g. peas, lentils, chickpeas, etc.), where it is a long-standing, customary practice of producers to save a portion of the harvested grain to reuse as seed. The amendments will only apply to PBR protected varieties and will not apply to varieties that are in the public domain and are available to anyone to use freely, including producers. It should be noted that the vast majority of varieties available in the marketplace are not PBR protected and, therefore, are considered “public domain” and available to use without restriction. This means that producers will always have a choice in the varieties they wish to use to meet their needs, either PBR protected varieties or unprotected public domain varieties. For example, 26 tomato varieties currently hold PBR protection, whereas 3 329 unprotected tomato varieties are available for sale in the Canadian marketplace.

Ultimately, the decision of which variety to plant, whether a PBR-protected variety or one in the public domain, rests with the producer. The PBR Act requires that a protected variety be sold on the Canadian marketplace by its approved denomination (i.e. variety name). If a producer is uncertain whether a variety is protected or not, they simply need to consult the public registry of PBR varieties available on the CFIA website.

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 will be increased from 20 to 25 years. The extension will be available to varieties granted PBR protection following the publication of the amendments.

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 requires a legislative amendment to the PBR Act. This additional time will provide breeders of potatoes, asparagus and woody plants a greater opportunity to recover their initial investment, since these species require a longer time to breed and gain market adoption. This longer duration will also align more closely with key trading partners and other UPOV 91 members, addressing a key stakeholder concern.

The CFIA has determined that the new 25-year protection period will only apply to varieties protected after the amended regulations take effect. This means that the longer duration of protection will apply only to new applications and those pending examination when the amended regulations come into force and will not be applied retroactively to varieties already granted PBR. This is because many breeders and producers have established licensing agreements based on the protection term in place at the time of granting PBR rights. Varieties currently protected will remain under their original terms, with a maximum 20-year protection period.

3. Update the filing requirements to encourage PBR applications

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

The PBR Regulations will 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 will 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 will 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 will be added to Annex 2 of the PBR Regulations. This new fee will 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 amendments will introduce a new, lower fee that discounts the cost of the UPOV PRISMA fee from the Canadian PBRO fee. This fee will be set at $152.32 and be subject to annual inflationary increases in accordance with the Service Fees Act, like the current PBRO fee for paper-based filings. The fee amount was updated from the amount at prepublication ($123.23) to account for the inflationary increases to the PBRO fee amount and adjustments to the effort needed to process PBR applications, as two years have passed since the prepublication of the PBR Regulations. This new fee is anticipated to encourage more applications through the UPOV PRISMA system, which will reduce administrative burden for both applicants and the PBRO. It may also lead to an increase in PBR applications overall.

In addition to the reduced online filing fee, the PBRO will also explore other measures to further encourage electronic submissions, such as streamlined intake processes, promotional activities and training for applicants, and support digital by default objectives.

c. Provide flexibility to receive propagating material

Amendments will 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 will allow the Commissioner to provide additional time, in exceptional circumstances, to applicants for the submission of the propagating material once it is available, reducing unnecessary administrative pressure.

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) of the PBR Regulations will 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) will be repealed, as conditions for the protection of a “new variety” were added in subsection 4(3) of the PBR Act.
3. Paragraph 19(1)(h) will 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) will 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) will be repealed. The information in the register and index is 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 will be repealed. This will align with other forms of Canadian IP regimes, such as the Patent Act, the Patent Rules, the Copyright Act and the Trademarks Act, and the subsequent regulations.
3. Additional measures will allow the Commissioner to receive information in various acceptable formats, such as electronically. These formats will be described in guidance documents for stakeholders. This will result in greater clarity and flexibility, and will reduce the burden on stakeholders, as the prescriptive nature of the format required to submit information has been removed.
4. An amendment to the PBR Regulations Schedule II will clarify that fees and charges should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada instead of the Commissioner.
5. An amendment to section 12 of the PBR Regulations will be made to extend the timeline to notify the PBRO of an assignment from one holder to another from 30 days to one year. This extension will provide rights holders with sufficient time to notify the transfer without negatively impacting the PBRO’s ability to administer PBR rights.

Regulatory development

Consultation

The amendments will directly respond to concerns identified through discussions and consultation with industry stakeholders and through engagement with the Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee (PBRAC).

Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee

The PBRAC is composed of 15 members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The PBRAC assists the Commissioner of the PBRO in the administration of the IP 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 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 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 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 producers; individual producers; plant-breeding and seed companies; seed producers; and seed retailers and distributors.

The overwhelming majority of respondents supported the proposed amendments, with many noting the benefits that the regulatory amendments will 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 will support further innovation and investment in the Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental sectors. Several respondents also remarked that the proposed amendments will put Canada on an 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. A comprehensive What we heard report was published in December 2024.

Canada Gazette, Part I, prepublication consultation

On August 8, 2025, proposed amendments to the PBR Regulations were published in Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 70-day public comment period, during which 217 participants submitted 887 comments.

Overall, the majority of impacted agricultural stakeholders across several sectors were supportive of the proposed amendments.

Some stakeholders were supportive of all the proposed amendments. This included the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Potato Council, the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association, the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, the International Association of Horticultural Producers, KeyStone Agricultural Producers, Seed Association of the Americas, America Seed Trade Association, CropLife Canada and Seeds Canada.

Some stakeholders were supportive of specific amendments that would benefit their specific sectors. For example, the reduction in scope for farmers’ privilege was supported by the BC Raspberry Council, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Canola Council of Canada, Sask Wheat and the Seed Potato Growers Association of Manitoba. In addition, the extension of the duration of protection from 20 to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants was supported by the BC Raspberry Council, L’Union des producteurs agricoles, the Ontario Potato Board, the Potato Growers of Alberta, the Prince Edward Island Potato Board, the Seed Potato Growers Association of Manitoba and the Edmonton Potato Growers Cooperative.

Together, these groups represent the majority of impacted producers from across Canada who expressed support for the amendments in some form.

In addition, a broad range of stakeholders — including small and large plant breeding companies, both domestic and international — have expressed strong support for the proposed amendments. Feedback received specifically from international breeders also indicated that the amendments would increase willingness to release new and innovative plant varieties into the Canadian marketplace.

While there was significant support for the proposed amendments, some stakeholders who have long-standing ideological views against IP rights on plant varieties expressed concerns and opposed all the proposed amendments. These include the National Farmers Union (NFU) along with the support of like-minded organic and social advocacy groups (Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network, L’Association pour le commerce biologique du Canada, Canadian Organic Growers, Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, FarmFolk CityFolk, Friends of the Earth Canada, Growers of Organic Food Yukon, Manitoba Organic Alliance, Organic Alberta, Le Réseau canadien d’action sur les biotechnologies, SaskOrganics Association Inc., SeedChange, Young Agrarians).

These concerns included assertions that the narrowing of the scope of farmers’ privilege to no longer include fruits, vegetables, ornamental or hybrid varieties would increase costs to producers, reduce choice for producers and consumers, negatively impact food prices and food security, lead to a loss of biodiversity and reduce competitiveness in the Canadian agriculture sector. After the prepublication, these groups also sought support from two members of Parliament to launch an e-petition in opposition to the amendments (Petition e6778). The Minister of Agriculture tabled a response to the e-petition on November 24, 2025, in which he stated that the CFIA’s proposed amendments aim to modernize Canada’s plant innovation framework by aligning it with international standards, clarifying the scope of farmers’ privilege and strengthening the conditions that support continued public and private breeding investment, ultimately enhancing farmers’ access to resilient, high-performing varieties and supporting Canadian food security and sustainability.

Other stakeholders raised concerns about the impacts of the extension of 20 to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants for varieties that currently have PBR protection, and the time frame required to notify the PBRO of a transfer of rights from one holder to another. One Métis group from British Columbia also provided feedback, seeking a specific exemption to the PBR Regulations for Métis and other Indigenous persons in Canada.

A summary of the key issues and the CFIA’s response is provided below.

Issue 1: Narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege would weaken producer freedom by taking away the ability to reuse any seed

Many producers and industry groups and breeders strongly support narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege, understanding that respecting IP rights encourages a continuous release of new and innovative plant varieties, benefiting producers. However, concerns were raised by some producer groups that the amendments would weaken producer freedom by taking away the ability to save, adapt and reuse farm saved seeds of any variety, which would force producers to purchase seeds or propagating material every year.

CFIA response

It is important to note that the amendments to reduce the scope of farmers’ privilege only impact fruit, vegetable, ornamental and hybrid varieties that currently hold PBR protection. It does not impact the farmers’ privilege for open-pollinated, small grain crops such as wheat, barley and oats or pulses, such as beans, lentils and chickpeas, or non-protected varieties. Producers who grow small grain crops or non-protected varieties will still be able to save and reuse farm saved seeds without having to pay royalties back to the breeder.

In Canada, PBR protection is finite. Once PBR protection ends, the variety enters the public domain, where it can be grown, reproduced and used without further restrictions. Breeders must pay annual renewal fees to maintain protection, which encourages them to continue protecting a variety only when it remains commercially viable. If a variety no longer generates sufficient royalties — often because it has been surpassed by newer, more competitive options — breeders typically allow protection to lapse before the maximum term. This creates a natural cycle: breeders are rewarded during the period when a variety is most valuable, and society ultimately gains unrestricted access to it. To illustrate this point, since 1991, the PBRO has granted IP protection to over 7 510 different plant varieties. Of these, 2 384 currently have PBR protection, while 5 126 have entered the public domain and are free to use without restrictions.

Furthermore, it is a standard commercial practice for breeders of vegetatively propagated plant varieties (fruit crops and ornamentals) to require producers to agree to non-propagation contracts at the time of purchase. Similarly, in commercial vegetable production, producers do not normally remove the seed, as it would require the destruction of highly valuable produce otherwise destined to be sold in the marketplace. Rather, breeders of vegetable varieties contract with highly specialized growers to perform this function, ensuring that the seed sold to producers is of the highest quality and free from disease and pathogens. Consequently, narrowing the farmers’ privilege for fruits, vegetables and ornamental varieties aligns with existing commercial industry practices.

Ultimately, producers therefore retain significant choice between PBR-protected varieties, which require royalty payments for a limited time, and public domain varieties, which can be grown and reproduced without restrictions. The vast majority of varieties available in the marketplace are not PBR protected, as illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Number of BBR-protected and public-domain varieties by crop

Crop kind	Number of PBR-protected varieties	Number of varieties available in public domain table 2 note * (PBR does not apply)
Asparagus	4	16
Rose	66	463
Potato	291	745
Raspberry	40	77
Apple	62	191
Tomato	26	3 329
Cucumber	10	521
Table 2 note(s) Table 2 note * Public domain figures are minimum estimates; actual numbers are likely higher due to informal exchange, seed fairs and community seed sharing. Return to table 2 note * referrer

With these regulatory changes, producers who are currently using a PBR-protected variety and benefiting from the advantages of an innovative plant variety will be required to respect the IP rights of the breeder by seeking proper authorization and providing fair compensation. Ultimately, if the producer believes that compensating the breeder is not an economically viable option for the continued use of the PBR-protected variety, a producer can still use varieties of various crop kinds that currently exist within the public domain. In many cases, public domain varieties often greatly outnumber the amount of PBR protected varieties available in the marketplace. These existing (non-PBR protected varieties) can suit a wide range of producers’ needs and are available to use without restriction.

Issue 2: Narrowing the scope of farmers’ privilege would result in the loss of choice for producers and loss of biodiversity

Some stakeholders expressed concerns that a limited scope of farmers’ privilege would reduce the choice of varieties and on-farm diversity, and have a negative impact on biodiversity in Canada overall.

CFIA’s response

The purpose of the regulatory amendments is to expand the variety of choices available to producers whether those varieties are protected under PBR or are in the public domain. Strong PBR protection supports this goal by encouraging breeders to invest in developing new, innovative varieties. When IP protection is weak or absent, breeders have less incentive to invest, which can reduce both varietal choice and overall genetic diversity.

At the same time, it is essential to maintain a balanced system, one that encourages continued innovation while preserving producers’ ability to use and reuse farm saved seed from public domain varieties. The goal is not to restrict producers, but to ensure a sustainable, competitive environment where innovation and traditional practices can coexist and thrive.

Regarding concerns about biodiversity loss, the amendments to the PBR Regulations are expected to increase varietal and genetic diversity in Canada. Strong and effective IP protection encourages breeders to introduce more varieties from diverse genetic sources. This broadened pipeline of innovation increases the genetic variation of crops grown in Canada, which in turn improves biodiversity, climate resilience and resistance to emerging diseases and pests.

The positive impacts of enhanced IP protection are already evident. After Canada ratified UPOV 91 in 2015, the number of vegetable varieties receiving PBR protection increased by 230%, many destined for greenhouse production. Strengthened incentives for breeders to introduce new, high-quality varieties into the Canadian market, ultimately enhancing on-farm biodiversity and increasing the availability of locally grown food options for Canadian consumers year-round.

Issue 3: Narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege would increase costs for producers and negatively impact their competitiveness

Many producer groups recognize that narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege encourages greater investment in plant breeding, resulting in increased choice for producers to source high-performing varieties to suit their needs. However, concerns were raised by some producer groups that the narrowing of the scope for farmers’ privilege would force producers to purchase seed or propagating material annually, increase input costs for producers, and negatively impact the competitiveness of the sector.

CFIA’s response

Providing breeders with enhanced protection, allowing them to recover their research and breeding costs, will incentivize the development and release of new varieties into the marketplace. This expansion of available high-performing varieties increases competition among breeders and, in turn, provides producers with new and innovative options, helping them stay competitive in domestic and global markets. For instance, new varieties of plants with pest and pathogen resistance lower input costs for pesticides, while higher yields and better quality improve producer profitability. High levels of competition, along with a wide range of available, public domain varieties, also help keep seed and propagating material costs in check while providing producers with choices and options.

Producers have many costs associated with running their operations, including labour, fuel, renting land, taxes, fertilizer, pesticides, equipment and machinery, as well as seed or other planting material. Depending on the type of operation (row crop versus greenhouse versus orchard), the costs of seed or propagating material can range from 1%–10% of total costs annually. If producers prefer to reduce costs by not purchasing PBR protected varieties, they have the choice to grow existing public-domain varieties. As demonstrated by the chart above, producers have access to many varieties that are in the public domain. The enhanced PBR regime will apply only to new plant varieties being developed.

Issue 4: Narrowing the scope of farmers’ privilege would increase food prices and negatively impact food security

Concerns were raised by some groups that the narrowing of the scope for farmers’ privilege could increase seed costs that are passed along the value chain, contributing to higher food prices for consumers and perpetuating food insecurity.

CFIA’s response

The amendments are intended to encourage the introduction of new, innovative varieties into the Canadian marketplace by both domestic and international breeders and expand the range of varieties available to producers. Increased access to higher yielding, climate resilient and pest and disease-resistant varieties can reduce input costs, improve production efficiency and support stable agricultural output. Furthermore, feedback from international breeders noted that a strengthened PBR framework is needed to bring new plants and crops into the Canadian marketplace, including improved greenhouse varieties. These high-performing greenhouse cultivars support food security by enabling local production of fruits and vegetables throughout the year, increasing access to fresh fruit and vegetables for Canadians. Ultimately, a strengthened plant breeders’ rights framework is anticipated to contribute to a more reliable domestic food supply through high performance, climate resilient and pest and disease-resistant varieties, enhancing food security in Canada.

Issue 5: Narrowing the scope of farmers’ privilege removes producers’ ability to adapt a variety specific to their growing conditions

Some stakeholders raised concerns that the narrowing of the scope for farmers’ privilege would limit producers’ ability to save, select and adapt seed over time to suit their local growing conditions. They are concerned that this could reduce farm-level innovation and flexibility, particularly in regions where on-farm adaptation plays an important role in managing climate, soil and pest variability.

CFIA’s response

PBR is designed to be an open and balanced form of IP protection by supporting innovation while preserving access, competition and traditional agricultural practices. PBR incorporate multiple benefit-sharing mechanisms that support breeders, producers, researchers and the public, supporting the development of new varieties adapted to diverse growing conditions. The PBR Act contains key exemptions that maintain producers’ ability to adapt a variety to local climates, pests and production systems. These existing exemptions to PBR include the following:

• The breeders’ exemption allows any breeder or producer to use any PBR-protected variety to develop new varieties without needing permission. If the new variety is clearly different from the original, it can be bred and sold freely. However, if the new variety is very similar to an original protected variety (essentially derived variety), the new variety cannot be commercialized without the initial breeder’s authorization. This system keeps high-quality plant varieties available for ongoing improvement, while still protecting the work that went into developing the original variety.
• The private and non-commercial use exemption protects the ability of subsistence producers, individuals who grow food for their own consumption and not for sale, to use PBR-protected varieties on their own farms for their own personal and non-commercial use. This exemption preserves important social and food-access objectives while maintaining the integrity of breeders’ rights in commercial spaces. It operates alongside the broader balance in the PBR system, under which most varieties available in Canada remain in the public domain and may be used freely by anyone without restriction.
• The experimental use exemption allows growers, researchers and plant developers to use a PBR-protected variety to conduct trials, evaluations and research activities without the need to seek authorization. This helps support informed variety selection and adaptation to local production conditions for new varieties.

Together, these exemptions help maintain a balanced system that protects the IP of breeders while supporting innovation and enabling growers to adapt new varieties to their specific growing conditions.

Issue 6: Concerns on impacts of extending the term of protection from 20 to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants, particularly for varieties under current PBR protection

Stakeholders indicated that providing an additional five years of protection for varieties that are already PBR-protected would be unfair to producers. This is because producers plan their activities in anticipation of varieties becoming public domain at a certain time according to the original 20-year protection term. If an additional 5 years of protection was provided to an already PBR-protected variety, producers would be faced with burden associated with either waiting an additional 5 years to grow that variety when it becomes public domain or compensating breeders for the use of a protected variety for an additional 5 years. Some stakeholders also stated that the extension of the term of protection for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants is not in the public interest, as it will delay valuable varieties from entering the public domain.

CFIA’s response

After careful consideration, the CFIA agrees that the 25-year extended protection duration should only apply to varieties protected after the PBR Regulations are amended and come into force. This change is reflected in the final PBR Regulations. Varieties currently protected will remain under their original terms, with a maximum 20-year protection period. The longer duration of protection will apply only to new applications and those pending examination when the amended PBR Regulations come into force. It will not be applied retroactively to varieties already granted PBR. This approach ensures predictability for producers, maintains fairness for those who rely on established timelines for varieties entering the public domain, and still provides enhanced incentives for breeders developing new varieties.

Extending the PBR protection period aligns Canada with international standards and ensures breeders have sufficient incentives to continue developing and releasing new and improved varieties, which provides Canadian producers continued access to high-performing, climate resilient varieties suited to Canadian conditions. This amendment supports long-term innovation while preserving producer choice, as only PBR protected varieties are affected; the majority of varieties in the Canadian marketplace remain in the public domain and can continue to be grown, reproduced and exchanged freely without restriction, while preserving producer choice, as only PBR protected varieties are affected.

Issue 7: Concerns that the amendments go beyond obligations under UPOV

Stakeholders argued that Canada’s current PBR framework already meets UPOV 91 requirements, and that the proposed amendments go beyond what is necessary, strengthening breeders’ rights at the expense of producers.

CFIA’s response

UPOV 91 sets minimum terms of protection of 20 years for all plant species, except for trees and vines, which are 25 years, while allowing member countries to tailor their PBR systems to national needs. In Canada’s case, extending the protection period to 25 years for potatoes, asparagus and woody plants responds directly to the needs identified by producers and industry, who rely on long-term, high-investment breeding programs for these crops.

In addition, narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege aligns Canada’s regulations with existing UPOV guidance, ensuring consistency with international interpretations while maintaining producers’ ability to save and reuse propagating material from unprotected, public-domain varieties. These updates strengthen Canada’s IP environment to promote innovation while increasing choice for producers.

Issue 8: The timeline to notify the PBRO of an assignment of rights from one holder to another is too short

A stakeholder raised concerns that the current time frame to notify the Commissioner of a change in an assignment of rights from one holder to another is too short and causes unnecessary pressure. The stakeholder indicated that there is no need for such a short time frame, as notifying the transfer of rights is a transactional process, and that a one-year delay is more reasonable.

CFIA’s response

The CFIA agrees to extend the time frame to notify the PBRO of an assignment of rights change from 30 days to one year. This change is reflected in the final Regulations. This extension will provide rights holders with sufficient time to notify the transfer without negatively impacting the PBRO’s ability to administer PBR rights. A defined notification period is essential to ensure that the PBRO maintains accurate and up-to-date information on rights holders, which is necessary for administering the PBR Act and collecting fees. A one-year deadline strikes a balance between minimizing administrative burden on rights holders and ensuring the PBRO can manage rights and collect fees effectively.

Issue 9: Amendments would impact traditional Indigenous seed saving practices

A provincial Métis group provided feedback citing concerns that the amendments could restrict traditional Indigenous seed saving practices and submitted a proposal that would create a special exemption that would give Indigenous, Inuit and Métis people the ability to continue to save and reuse seed of PBR protected varieties.

CFIA’s response

The amendments to PBR Regulations are not intended to interfere with traditional Indigenous seed saving, sharing or stewardship practices that are foundational to Indigenous food systems and cultural traditions. PBR only applies to protected commercial varieties, and not traditional, heritage and wild plant varieties, which are outside the PBR regime and remain unaffected. The PBR Regulations already contain broad exemptions (the breeders’ exemption, the researchers’ exemption and the private/non-commercial use exemption), which apply equally to everyone and protect many traditional and small-scale practices without requiring a separate exemption.

Creating a broad, identity-based exemption from PBR would undermine the economic foundation that sustains breeding, potentially reducing incentives to develop varieties tailored to Canadian conditions. It would also create an uneven playing field, whereby non-exempted producers are seeking proper authorization and paying fair royalties, thereby incurring additional costs, while others are not. It would also be inconsistent with Canada’s other IP frameworks, including patents, copyright, trademarks and industrial designs, which do not provide for identity-based exemptions.

At the same time, PBR can be a useful tool for Indigenous communities that wish to breed, commercialize and steward native Canadian plant species. A clear, predictable framework for protecting new, community-developed varieties enables Indigenous breeders, communities and enterprises to secure rights over improved or culturally significant plants they develop. This can support Indigenous-led breeding programs, create opportunities for commercial seed production and help build value chains around native species. In this way, PBR can serve not as a barrier but as an enabler of Indigenous innovation, economic development and the long-term stewardship of plant resources, while preserving traditional practices and varieties.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

During the initial Assessment of Modern Treaty Implications (AMTI) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIPA), the geographical scope and subject matter of the initiative in relation to Indigenous modern treaties and self-government agreements in effect and potential intersections with UNDRIPA were examined, and no potential modern treaty or self-government impacts or UNDRIPA intersections 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. Further, there is no connection between the PBR regime and any species, practices or resources associated with the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights. PBR protection regulations apply to new plant varieties (distinguishable from all existing varieties at the time PBR are sought) that are created through intentional breeding, using modern technology and techniques, and often applied to non-native species. As a result, traditional Indigenous foods, medicines and culturally significant species remain entirely outside the scope of PBR protection. However, like other forms of IP rights, PBR can be a voluntary tool 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, weaknesses in the PBR regime will remain and the potential to create a business environment that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding would be lost. This would subsequently limit the choice producers have to grow new and improved varieties that support their business and Canadian consumers.

Option 2: Regulatory amendments

The regulatory option was selected because it is the only way to strengthen Canada’s PBR regime and improve international alignments, including with UPOV. Regulatory amendments to the PBR Regulations are needed to expand the duration of protection for certain plant types, 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.

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 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 certain crop kinds. This means that producers of fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants and hybrid varieties are permitted to propagate PBR-protected varieties without permission from rights holders. This discourages the development and introduction of new plant varieties.

Under the regulatory amendments, producers of fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants and hybrid varieties will not be able to use the farmers’ privilege exemption to further propagate a PBR-protected variety without authorization from the rights holder. This encourages fair compensation for the rights holder and is designed to facilitate continued innovation and investment in the creation of new plant varieties for producers to grow.

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 does not provide breeders enough time to recover their initial investment, as these crops require many years to breed, evaluate and garner market acceptance.

Under the regulatory amendments, new varieties of potatoes, asparagus and woody plants will be protected for up to 25 years. This additional time will give breeders a greater opportunity to recover their initial investment, as these crop kinds take longer to breed and reach market viability. This will impact any new variety of these crop kinds in which rights are granted on or the day after the Regulations come into force.

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, and another for filing an application electronically through UPOV PRISMA. 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 both the stakeholders and the PBRO.

Under the regulatory amendments, applicants who file online using the UPOV PRISMA system will still need to pay the fee for filing electronically through UPOV PRISMA (90 Swiss francs). However, if applicants file online, they will pay a new fee ($152.32) for filing an online application with the PBRO. Like the current PBRO fee for paper-based filing, this new fee for online applications will be subject to annual inflationary increases in accordance with the Service Fees Act. This new fee is anticipated to encourage more applications through the UPOV PRISMA system, which will reduce administrative burden for stakeholders and for the PBRO. It may also lead to an increase in PBR applications overall.

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Benefits for the plant breeder

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

Benefits for the producer

This amendment will increase investment in plant breeding, which will result in producers having access to new and improved varieties suited to Canada’s diverse and changing climatic conditions. This will provide farmers with additional choices for what they grow on their land, helping them to maintain or improve their overall competitiveness, both domestically and abroad.

Benefits for Canadians

This amendment will strengthen Canadian food security by supporting the development of new varieties suited to Canada’s climate. This amendment may also support the development of a wider variety of plant products, giving Canadians more choice and access to a wider variety of domestically grown food.

Qualitative costs

Costs for the plant breeder

This amendment does not impose any additional costs on plant breeders beyond those associated with enforcement (i.e. the costs involved in exercising their rights against unauthorized use of propagating material).

Costs for the producer

This amendment is expected to impose limited costs on producers. Presently, it is commercial practice for breeders to require that a producer accept non-propagation agreements upon the sale of fruit and ornamental varieties. Similarly, in the vegetable sector, commercial producers do not save and reuse vegetable seed, as it would require the destruction of high value produce intended for sale in the marketplace. Only producers who have circumvented these established commercial agreements would be impacted. While producers will benefit from increased access to protected varieties, they will correspondingly be responsible for paying fair royalties when using these protected varieties.

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 regulatory amendment 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 will allow breeders to generate additional revenue from royalties and sales in the marketplace and help to support further research and innovation. This additional time will 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 will support the long-term viability of the PBR system and encourage continued investment in the breeding of new and improved varieties.

Under the regulatory amendment, the option to extend PBR protection by 5 years only applies to newly protected varieties (not the 800 varieties that are already protected). There have been an average 52 new protected varieties per year over the last 5 years. After 20 years, the CFIA would begin receiving renewal fees for the additional 5 years of protection (52 protected varieties per year Ã— 5 years × $359.81 renewal fee), while breeders would benefit from 5 extra years of IP rights. Most breeders are expected to use this extended protection.

Qualitative costs

PBR holders will incur a renewal fee cost for each additional year they choose to maintain PBR protection. Currently, PBR holders pay an annual fee per protected variety of $359.81, which increases annually with inflation. Under the new amendment, PBR holders will have the option to continue renewing protection for new varieties of potatoes, asparagus, and woody plants for up to 25 years, rather than the current 20 years. While this would result in an additional 5 years of annual renewal fees, the cost of the fee is minimal relative to the additional revenue breeders can generate from the extended period of exclusive rights.

When a plant breeder releases a new variety, they earn revenue either through annual variety sales (common for potatoes) or possibly by collecting royalties (more common for perennial crops like fruit trees).

In some cases, the additional five years of sales or royalties from the amendment will provide enough incentive for breeders to invest in developing varieties that would not have been created under the baseline scenario. Consequently, paying the additional five years of sales or royalties on these varieties does not represent a net cost to producers because these varieties would not exist in the baseline without the longer protection period, and producers will only purchase them if they offer improvements over existing options.

However, other varieties would have been developed in the baseline scenario, even without the extended protection period. For these varieties, producers still retain the choice to buy them, but the longer protection period requires them to continue purchasing the variety annually or potentially paying royalties for an additional five years. In this case, producers, who decide to keep growing a variety, will be paying more during the five years of extended protection in sales and royalties than they would have without these regulatory amendments.

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 projected annual growth rate of new applications is 2.5%.
• The CFIA cost to process an application is $1,715.41 for hard copy applications and $909.72 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 $21.00 (overhead included), along with a $21.00 expenditure for papers and stamps, plus a $299.86 fee paid to the CFIA.
• Under the current Regulations, for electronic UPOV PRISMA applications, applicants pay a fee to the CFIA of $307.96 and a fee of 90 Swiss francs (about $135 Canadian dollars based on the five-year average exchange rate of 1.5) to file with UPOV, for a total of approximately $443. Under the new Regulations, the fee for online applications will be reduced to $152.32, making the total cost about $287.
• The CFIA estimates that the new 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 three- to five-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 will be savings for breeders’ fees from the base year to the final year. The present total value of these benefits to breeders would be $7,965, with an annualized value of $1,134.
• There will also be savings related to printing, handling and postage, indicating operational efficiencies or process improvements. The total present value of these savings to breeders will be $5,944, with an annualized benefit of $846.
• Combining breeder fees and cost savings, breeders will experience an overall increase in benefits of about $1,980 annually.
• The CFIA will experience cost savings due to processing efficiencies of online applications. The total present value of these savings will be substantial at $360,940, with an annualized benefit of $51,390. The amendments will lead to a reduction in operational expenses for the CFIA.

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

Table 2: 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 savings	$860	$1,257	$7,965	$1,134
	Avoided printing, handling and postage cost	$0.00	$1,326	$5,944	$846
CFIA	CFIA processing cost for all applications (savings)	$0.00	$80,496	$360,940	$51,390

Monetized costs

The CFIA will forgo revenue from fees, which is reflected as a cost, due to reduced fees. The total present value of forgone fees will be $115,108, with an annualized cost of $16,389.

Table 3: 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)	$5,902	$22,111	$115,108	$16,389

Summary of monetized benefits and costs

The net impact for the amendments will be positive, indicating that the benefits outweigh the costs. The net impact will increase over time from a negative $5,041 in the base year to $60,968 in the final year, with a total present value of $259,741 and an annualized net benefit of $36,981.

Table 4: Summary of monetized benefits and costs for reduced fee for online PBR applications

Impacts	Base year	Final year	Total present value	Annualized value
Total benefits	$860	$83,079	$374,849	$53,370
Total costs	$5,902	$22,111	$115,108	$16,389
Net impact	-$5,041	$60,968	$259,741	$36,981

Summary

The amendments will generate a total net benefit for both breeders and the CFIA, with a net present value of $259,741. Breeders will benefit from both reduced operational costs (printing, handling and postage) and savings from reduced fees. The CFIA will benefit from significant cost savings, which are 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 will stand to benefit from a reduction in administrative and compliance costs related to the 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 will 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: 2026
• Present value base year: 2026
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 5: Benefits — Small business lens

Administrative or compliance	Present value	Annualized value
Administrative benefits	$2,212	$315
Compliance benefits	$4,909	$699
Total benefits	$7,120	$1,014
Benefit per small business	$127	$18

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 2026. 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 the amendments, as they result in a net reduction in administrative burden on businesses. The amendments are classified as a “burden OUT,” and no new regulatory titles will be introduced or repealed. They 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. Assumptions made for these calculations are described in the “Benefits and costs” section; related labour cost estimates have been translated to 2012 equivalent price levels using the consumer price index, as required by the Red Tape Reduction Regulations.

In total, 72 businesses are affected, resulting in 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 amendments will further improve alignment with UPOV 91, specifically by reducing the scope of the farmers’ privilege and removing advertisement when determining the 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 will align Canada more closely with other international partners, such as the EU, 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 amendments also align with the broader goals of mitigating climate change and achieving a more sustainable and resilient food production system, and will 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 will 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 initiative will 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 will be plant breeders.

The regulatory amendments will also directly benefit producers who will 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 initiative will be gender- and diversity-neutral for producers. 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

Plant Breeders’ Rights contribute to food security by incentivizing the development and release of higher-yielding, disease resistant, and climate-resilient plant varieties. Strong PBR frameworks attract investment from both domestic and international breeders, encouraging them to introduce a wider range of innovative varieties into the Canadian marketplace. This expanded pipeline of improved genetics supports producer productivity and resilience, helping maintain stable yields despite challenges such as drought, extreme weather, emerging pests, and evolving diseases. After Canada strengthened PBR in 2015, the number of vegetable varieties receiving PBR protection increased by 230%, many of which were specifically bred for greenhouse production, expanding domestically grown food options available year-round. This demonstrated link between strengthened PBR and an increase in available high-quality varieties directly supports a more reliable and affordable supply of food for Canadians.

Because the regulatory amendments further strengthen Canada’s PBR regime, these benefits are expected to increase. By narrowing the scope of the farmers’ privilege and extending protection for long-cycle crops, the amendments encourage breeders to bring their most advanced varieties to Canada. This is anticipated to result in greater access to high performing, climate-adapted varieties that support stable domestic production and, by extension, enhance food security. This is supported by feedback received from international breeders in the Canada Gazette, Part I, which noted the strengthened PBR framework as an incentive to introduce improved greenhouse varieties into the Canadian market. These high-performing greenhouse cultivars support food security by enabling consistent, local production of vegetables throughout the year, even when outdoor growing conditions are challenging.

Importantly, strengthened PBR protection does not diminish choice for producers, growers, or consumers. Canada continues to have a large and diverse pool of unprotected, public-domain varieties that remain freely accessible to producers. For example, although 26 tomato varieties currently hold PBR protection in Canada, there are 3 329 unprotected tomato varieties available in the Canadian market, demonstrating that protected varieties make up only a small fraction of total choice and that producers retain extensive freedom to select varieties that best meet their business and consumer needs. This balance between protected and public-domain varieties ensures that innovation is encouraged, while choice, affordability, and accessibility are preserved.

Rationale

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

The amendments will 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 will also improve alignment with other UPOV members, and they will lead to Canada becoming a jurisdiction of choice for foreign breeders that attracts investment and innovation in plant breeding. Finally, the amendments will improve accessibility to the PBR framework by reducing burden and red tape while increasing efficiencies, supporting digitization, and ultimately encourage more applications for the protection of new varieties.

Ultimately, this will lead to new and improved plant varieties and greater choice, which will benefit the agriculture, horticulture, and ornamental sectors, producers, and consumers.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

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

The PBRO will engage with and provide information to all impacted producer organizations and the breeding community to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the amendments. This could include presentations, meetings, frequently asked questions, and InfoBulletins.

Performance measurement of the PBR Regulations will be incorporated into existing performance frameworks. The PBRO will continue to provide metrics of performance in the Canadian national PBR report, published by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

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 will 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