The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says implementing the idea fully could take as long as a decade.

Seeds Canada’s push  for a transformative industry advisory body is just one part of its ongoing efforts to modernize the agricultural sector. Yet, the road to regulatory reform is fraught with complexities, as attendees of its annual meeting in Edmonton, Alta., discovered in July.

The advisory body, known as the Independent Standards Setting Body (ISSB), was envisioned to play a crucial role in setting standards, but according to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Seed Section National Manager Wendy Jahn, implementing the recommendation for this body to include moving standard setting for seed crop varietal purity to the CFIA requires amending the Seeds Act. 

The current process of Seed Regulatory Modernization (SRM) affects the Seeds Regulations, and doesn’t propose to change the Act itself.  

It is not possible to say exactly how long it would take to change the Act, but it could take as much as 10 years, she says. However, she says implementing an advisory body and realizing all the benefits from that can be done without this change. 

The first step is for Seeds Canada and others to demonstrate the urgency and the significance of the problem that this amendment would need to address, according to Jahn. Considering SRM is set to wrap up in 2026, that timeline might not be a workable one.

Why? Because according to the draft plan released by Seeds Canada leading up to the meeting, the ISSB would recommend standards to the CFIA, a role currently given to the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA). 

“While regulatory modifications can address some issues, any change to the authority given directly to the CSGA in the Act would necessitate opening the Seeds Act,” Jahn says.

“The authority to establish seed crop varietal purity standards and assess if those standards have been met is currently given directly to CSGA by the Act — not delegated to them by CFIA.”

Frustration

Seed industry representatives are pushing for evolving regulations to better serve the agricultural sector. Lauren Comin, policy director for Seeds Canada, says the SRM process was initially seen as a groundbreaking opportunity to revolutionize seed production and commercial seed sale regulations. From her perspective, that’s changed.

Comin says Seeds Canada expected significant changes to be made via SRM, even if it meant reopening the Seeds Act. 

She says Seeds Canada was led to believe that major change was possible through SRM, including those that would require opening the Seeds Act. 

“It was my understanding that if there was a significant change that required opening the Act, it would be entertained. CFIA encouraged seed industry stakeholders to ‘think big.’ CFIA’s recent comments seem to indicate their willingness to make the required changes for modernization and future-proofing is no longer there,” Comin says. 

If the sector is facing significant challenges because of a stipulation in the Act, or if the Act, as written, is too prescriptive to allow for the sector to respond to future market demands, then that warrants the Act being opened, she adds. 

“The authority given to the CSGA through the Act is a significant oversight in our existing legislative framework. If there’s general agreement, beyond the CSGA, that this arrangement is inappropriate by today’s governance standards, and there is no workaround via regulation, then that warrants a change.”

Seeds Canada is motivated to achieve the original goals established by the CFIA for the SRM process, she says: modernize and future-proof our framework, and create a level playing field for all parties in seed production. 

Jahn says if the CFIA ever decides to make changes to the Act, having input from balanced stakeholders would be invaluable. 

She added that CFIA is open to making changes to the Act when there is a clearly demonstrated need.

“Having a solid advisory board to provide well-rounded input could make the process smoother and more effective in the long run,” she adds. 

The ISSB is Meant to Emphasize Independence and Inclusivity: Jordan

The most significant difference between proposals or concepts related to standards setting for seed lies in their organizational structure and inclusiveness, says Trish Jordan, an independent consultant who authored Seeds Canada’s draft report on its Independent Standards Setting Body (ISSB) proposal unveiled at its annual meeting in Edmonton, Alta., in July. 

That’s why, according to her report, Seeds Canada’s ISSB concept is a viable way to help propel the Canadian seed sector into the future that stands out compared to the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) idea for a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee.

“The seed industry is broad and diverse, encompassing grain companies, breeders, seed analysts, and life science companies. In contrast, the CSGA is a more focused entity, comprised solely of seed growers with centralized decision-making power,” she says.

“The ISSB concept stands out for its emphasis on independence and inclusivity. Unlike CSGA’s proposed initiative, the ISSB is designed to be an industry-wide concept.”

Jordan is no stranger to the seed industry. During her extensive career in agriculture, she’s worked for Bayer Crop Science as senior business partner, government and industry affairs; Monsanto as director, public & industry affairs; and in senior communications roles for the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian Foodgrains Bank and Alberta Wheat Pool.

If formed, the ISSB would represent a diverse collective, bringing together varied viewpoints, experiences, and perspectives, she says. This is a significant departure from the CSGA proposal, which consolidates decision-making within a single board of directors, made up only of seed growers, according to Jordan. 

Jordan points out that while CSGA’s efforts to develop committees for input are commendable, the centralization of decision-making power remains a concern. “For those within the industry seeking inclusivity and broader representation, this poses a significant challenge,” she says.

In her draft report, Jordan emphasizes the need for collaboration between these differing entities to find a way forward. “There’s a general consensus that action is necessary, and we need to make decisions promptly,” she says. “Ultimately, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), as the regulator, will make the final decision. I don’t think the CFIA should be deferring to the CSGA based on their perception of the power delegated to CSGA in the Seeds Act. We need to think much more broadly.”

In discussions with CFIA, Jordan found a receptive attitude towards the ISSB concept, she says. 

“The ISSB would not be a decision-making body but an advising one, providing well-rounded advice from the industry,” she says. 

For instance, if the ISSB recommends a legislative or policy change, CFIA could proceed with greater assurance, backed by industry support. 

“If the change proves successful, it’s a collective win. If it doesn’t, CFIA has the backing of the industry’s recommendation to defend the decision, and they can work together to fix things if a suggested change doesn’t turn out to be helpful,” Jordan says.