What We Heard Report: Fall 2025 Indigenous Engagement on Seed Regulatory Modernization

On this page

Introduction

As part of the seed regulatory modernization process, we are reviewing and updating the following sections of the Seeds Regulations:

  • Part I – Seeds other than Seed Potatoes
  • Part II – Seed Potatoes
  • Part III – Variety Registration
  • Part IV – Registration of Establishments that Prepare Seed and Licensing of Operators

This report summarizes the feedback received from the fall 2025 Indigenous engagement on the modernization of Canada's Seeds Regulations.

Overview of Indigenous engagement

To facilitate identifying which Indigenous communities and Nations were most likely to be interested in participating, we undertook an extensive review of publicly available information. We also reached out to various organizations involved in agriculture for Indigenous contacts.

Between January 2025 and February 2025, 111 Indigenous communities and Nations were sent information inviting them to engage with us on seed regulatory modernization. These Indigenous communities and Nations were thought to be active in one or more of the following:

  • crop farming
  • seed growing
  • seed saving

Indigenous individuals known to be active in these same activities were also contacted. It is noted, however, that all Indigenous communities and Nations were welcome to participate regardless of whether they received an invitation.

Fifteen Indigenous Nations or organizations and 7 Indigenous individuals responded with interest in participating. These Nations, organizations and individuals were contacted in September 2025 to:

  • establish bilateral meetings to discuss the Seeds Regulations
  • learn of any impacts of potential amendments on inherent or treaty rights
  • help us learn about Indigenous perspectives on seed

Although significant efforts were made to reach out to Indigenous communities and Nations who may have an interest in the modernization of the Seeds Regulations, it is likely that some voices were inadvertently missed. As this was our first dedicated effort, we recognize that building trust and meaningful relationships takes time. Moving forward, we are committed to:

  • strengthening and expanding on these connections
  • improving engagement so that it is more:
    • comprehensive
    • inclusive
    • reflective of the perspectives of Indigenous peoples

Who we heard from

Meetings were held with four First Nations, two First Nation representative organizations, two Métis Nation representative organizations and four Indigenous individuals. The First Nations that responded are located in:

  • Alberta
  • Saskatchewan
  • Manitoba
  • Ontario

The two First Nation representative organizations (one tribal council and an assembly of chiefs) represented multiple First Nations in Nova Scotia. The two Métis Nation representative organizations represented Métis communities in British Columbia and Saskatchewan respectively. The Indigenous individuals that provided feedback are located in:

  • British Columbia
  • Ontario
  • Quebec

Some communities and Nations responded to indicate that they were too busy to participate this fall, while others either did not respond to our request for a bilateral meeting or indicated they were interested but did not subsequently confirm a time to meet.

We sincerely acknowledge and thank the Indigenous Nations, organizations and individuals who generously shared their time, perspectives and knowledge. We appreciate their engagement, especially given their many priorities and busy schedules. The feedback provided has been invaluable in helping us better understand:

  • Indigenous realities
  • values
  • any potential impacts that the Seeds Regulations and proposed changes may have on inherent or treaty rights

What we heard

Overall, the people we met with were passionate about:

  • seed
  • agriculture
  • food sovereignty
  • cultural identity
  • cultural practices
  • habitat restoration using native species

We were honoured by their willingness to learn about the Seeds Regulations and to learn about key proposals for change along with considering any potential impacts. We appreciated their openness to share their knowledge and beliefs for the benefit of future generations. Despite coming from different regions and having different realities and experiences, there were some commonly repeated themes in our discussions. The following feedback provided by Indigenous individuals is identified separately from feedback provided by Indigenous Nations and organizations.

Indigenous engagement process and participation in a future external seed advisory committee

Indigenous individuals, communities and Nations broadly welcomed the opportunity to engage with us and expressed a desire for ongoing relationship-building and involvement. Those we spoke with expressed that Indigenous voices were central to any discussion on seed. At most engagement meetings, one or more of our Indigenous liaisons were able to be present. These liaison positions are relatively new within our agency and they focus on advancing reconciliation through:

  • meaningful outreach
  • sharing information on our:
    • programs
    • policies
    • initiatives
  • implementing strategies to support Indigenous communities in emergency situations related to our mandate

Participants were happy to meet the liaisons and hear that such positions exist within the agency.

Three individuals provided specific feedback on the engagement method. One individual said they preferred a meeting with all interested Indigenous parties rather than bilateral meetings to receive feedback.

Another individual expressed their concern with the lack of Indigenous participation earlier in the process, including on the seed regulatory modernization working group and task teams that were established to develop proposals for change.

A third individual, who was not originally contacted and learned about the engagement later in the process, expressed their dissatisfaction that their community was not contacted and that every Indigenous community or Nation in Canada should have been. This individual also raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of our approach, which used an Indigenous third party to assist in identifying communities for outreach and developing an engagement plan.

One of the proposals we discussed was the establishment of an external seed advisory committee with balanced representation from across the value chain to provide advice to the seed program. The intent is to provide an opportunity to increase communication between us and members of the seed value chain. When asked if this committee may be a good place to also have rights holders' participation, every Indigenous Nation and individual we spoke with, except one, felt that participation in an external seed advisory committee was needed, including the interim advisory committee to establish the terms of reference.

Several recommended that honorariums for participation by Indigenous individuals be made available to recognize their time and contributions. The one individual who did not support Indigenous participation in an external seed advisory committee did not feel it would be appropriate. They emphasized that Indigenous participation should occur bilaterally, on a government‑to‑government basis. Engagement and consultation between governments are required to uphold the honour of the Crown and should not be replaced by participation in a multi‑stakeholder advisory body. This individual also raised concerns that Indigenous voices on such a committee would be outnumbered and potentially overruled. They also mentioned that any expressed support could be misconstrued as representing the views of all Indigenous communities, thereby undermining the Crown's duty to consult.

From those who supported Indigenous participation on the external advisory committee, we heard that representation on the advisory committee should reflect the diversity among Indigenous peoples. Suggestions included representation by:

  • ecoregion
  • treaty area
  • language family (that is, groupings of Indigenous languages that share common historical origins)
  • distinctions-based categories:
    • First Nations
    • Inuit
    • Métis

It was also emphasized that representatives should have both agricultural expertise and traditional knowledge. This would ensure that discussions reflect practical experience alongside cultural and historical perspectives. It was also suggested that discussions should not be limited to people with Indian status and that measures be established to confirm that individuals selected for the working group are Indigenous.

Our ongoing commitment

The approach of seeking the advice of an Indigenous third party was taken to ensure that the engagement was respectful and appropriate. This was done considering the more than 600 identified Indigenous communities and Nations in Canada and recognizing that we had not previously undertaken Indigenous engagement of this nature (national in scope, on multiple proposals in different program areas). We conducted the engagement directly, while the third party provided advisory support only.

Now that some initial contacts have been established with Indigenous peoples, the seed program is committed to fostering these relationships and when possible, establishing connections with additional Indigenous partners. Moving forward, we will work to prioritize early and meaningful engagement so that Indigenous perspectives are integrated from the outset of seed policy development. To reflect Indigenous knowledge and priorities in our work we will create opportunities for:

  • ongoing dialogue
  • building trust
  • working collaboratively

We would like to express that the external seed advisory committee is not meant to be a decision-making body and that it is meant to allow the seed program to hear directly from those who have an interest in the Seeds Regulations. Input from the advisory committee would not replace formal engagement and consultation processes with stakeholders or rights holders.

Need for reconciliation and capacity building

Overall, our engagement efforts were viewed as a meaningful step toward reconciliation, but there is still more work to do.

One individual expressed concern that the role and importance of Indigenous peoples and seed keepers in agriculture are not sufficiently understood, documented or acknowledged. They also noted that the impacts of colonization on Indigenous agriculture and associated knowledge have not been formally recognized. They advocated for wording to be included in the regulations to address these issues. Over the course of our conversations with different Nations and individuals, it became clear that land appropriation and the residential school system have significantly hindered the ability for many Indigenous peoples to engage in agriculture across Canada. This has also contributed to the loss of knowledge of traditional farming practices.

Some of the individuals we spoke to expressed frustration at this knowledge loss and were working hard to preserve, share and teach this traditional knowledge. Others, particularly Nations in western Canada, were interested in starting, expanding or re-establishing farming within their territories as an income source. A few were also looking for capacity building opportunities related to:

  • education
  • training
  • resource sharing
  • funding

One First Nation expressed the challenges they've faced due to climate change and widespread chronic flooding of their farmland. Another individual expressed that community gardening would not achieve food sovereignty.

Our ongoing commitment

We recognize the significant contributions of Indigenous peoples to agriculture through their stewardship of the land, seed‑keeping and cultivation practices and the transmission of agricultural knowledge. These contributions played a foundational role in the:

  • development of agricultural systems
  • establishment of food security by early settlers
  • evolution of agricultural practices that continue to shape agriculture today

We acknowledge the profound and lasting impacts of land appropriation and the residential school system on Indigenous communities. These historical injustices have disrupted traditional practices and created barriers to participation in farming and agriculture. We recognize that these experiences continue to shape the realities faced by Indigenous peoples today.

While wording acknowledging the importance of Indigenous peoples and seed keepers in agriculture, as well as the impacts of colonization, cannot be incorporated directly into the regulations, we hope that our Indigenous engagement process for seed regulatory modernization will support ongoing reconciliation. We also hope that this report, along with the text in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanies the draft and final regulations when published in the Canada Gazette, will contribute to this objective.

We also recognize the diversity of goals among Indigenous Nations and individuals and will keep this in mind as we move forward. These range from:

  • food security
  • sustaining and teaching traditional practices
  • participating in modern agriculture

As a regulatory agency, our role is to develop regulatory programs and enforce regulations. Many of the needs expressed, such as capacity building and funding to support agriculture in Indigenous Nations do not fall under our mandate. As a result, we will share the feedback gathered through this engagement with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and other partners to help inform future programs and initiatives that support farming by Indigenous communities and Nations.

The importance of seed genetic resources in Canada and concerns about genetic theft

Three individuals expressed concern over the lack of protection of genetic crop diversity in Canada and worldwide. They expressed frustration that the majority of varieties available for purchase are controlled by a small number of multinational corporations. A more holistic view of protecting and preserving plant genetic resources and genetic variability was recommended to ensure sustainability and health for future generations. This concern was expressed not only for food crops, but also for medicinal plants and other plant species native to Canada.

One individual expressed frustration at the lack of protection for all plant species. They noted that individuals and corporations are able to harvest genetic resources from the wild and use them for profit with no compensation to the original stewards of the land and no concern for environmental consequences.

Two Nations spoke about their involvement in native species restoration. Two individuals spoke about their efforts to restore and protect Indigenous ancestral varieties of corn. It was noted that the lineage of todays varieties can be traced back to Indigenous peoples, yet there has been no acknowledgement of this or compensation. It was expressed that Indigenous ancestral varieties need to be protected to preserve and value their:

  • history
  • knowledge
  • genetic diversity

One individual indicated they could not sell ancestral varieties outside of the Indigenous community due to the fear of genetic theft. Another individual indicated that Canada must find a way to allow for the intellectual property protection of ancestral varieties.

Our ongoing Commitment

We acknowledge the importance of plant genetic resources and the preservation of genetic diversity for the health of future generations. We will share feedback gathered with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).

AAFC manages the Canadian National Plant Germplasm System which is comprised of several gene banks including Plant Gene Resources of Canada. The system is a network of centres dedicated to preserving and providing access to the biodiversity of crop plants and their wild relatives and other plants that are relevant for agriculture. In addition, AAFC in cooperation with international and provincial and territorial partners, works to safeguard plant genetic resources for present and future generations. This includes implementing policies under the Convention of Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These policies include managing the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resource use, including provisions for Indigenous traditional knowledge. For more information visit Genetic Resources: access and benefit sharing.

With respect to the protection of Indigenous ancestral varieties from misuse via genetic theft, we note that the Seeds Act was not designed to address this issue and does not provide sufficient regulatory-making authority, for example, to restrict who can sell a variety. Intellectual property legislation such as the Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) Act and associated regulations likely does not assist to protect ancestral varieties in view of the novelty requirements for registration. Under the PBR Act, which is also administered by the CFIA, the conditions for obtaining protection are that a variety must be:

  • new
  • distinct
  • uniform
  • stable

To be considered new, the variety may only have been sold in Canada for up to one year prior to the date its PBR application is accepted for filing in the Plant Breeders' Rights Office. Furthermore, protections offered by PBR are for a defined term and require a yearly fee. Under the Seeds Act however, we can consider amending the Seeds Regulations to add labelling provisions to help ensure that seed identified as ancestral are labelled accurately and fairly in the marketplace. Concerns raised with the lack of Indigenous intellectual property rights and preservation of crop genetic diversity are being brought forward to both the CFIA's and AAFC's senior management for consideration.

Traditional practices related to seed sharing and gifting

Both individuals and Nations emphasized that seed plays an important cultural role, symbolizing:

  • heritage
  • connection to the land
  • the preservation of traditional practices and knowledge

The ancient practice of sharing, gifting and/or bartering for small quantities of seed among Indigenous peoples was described as a common tradition which should be allowed to continue unhindered by the Seeds Regulations. One individual expressed that it was their Constitutional right to be able to sell seed to anyone in Canada without needing to meet Canadian requirements.

Our ongoing commitment

The definition of "sell" in the Seeds Act is broad and potentially captures some transfers of seed for non-monetary consideration. In our view this definition should not impede established traditional practices of sharing or gifting small quantities of culturally significant seed among Indigenous peoples, in accordance with treaty and Aboriginal rights under the Constitution. We will further examine how best to reflect this interpretation in the regulatory framework or accompanying guidance materials.

Feedback related to our proposals to amend the Seeds Regulations

We published proposals to modernize Canada's seed regulatory framework in July 2025 and reviewed with participants proposals that were relevant to them. Overall, the proposals that were discussed were seen as positive. The majority felt that the proposals would help to streamline the regulations and processes. It was felt that the proposals were consistent with helping to ensure that farmers have access to high quality seed that minimizes the spread of weeds, protecting the environment. The proposals listed are those that were discussed and commented on the most.

Incorporation by reference: with an exception noted in the next section, no one expressed any concerns with our proposals to incorporate by reference the seed standards or labelling provisions. One individual opposed incorporating by reference the list of varieties subject to variety registration, stating that such a substantial change should be subject to full due process. Without this, they reasoned, agri‑business and industry would gain disproportionate power and control over seed.

One individual expressed broader opposition to incorporation by reference as a mechanism to enable flexibility and more rapid decision‑making. They felt that incorporation by reference does not allow for sufficient due diligence to consider all perspectives. They also raised concern that Indigenous communities would be engaged only after decisions have already been made. However, this individual supported using incorporation by reference when the changes help prevent potential serious or lasting harm.

Registration of heritage and heirloom varieties: there was particular interest in the heritage and heirloom proposal to provide a regulatory pathway for varieties currently subject to merit-based evaluation to become registered without needing to meet merit-based criteria. This was seen as a way to preserve:

  • history
  • genetic diversity
  • ethno-botanical knowledge

Alternative service delivery: proposals to have a third party provide services currently provided by us were generally seen as positive to improve service delivery timelines and efficiencies. One individual supported retaining us as an option to conduct import conformity assessments. They cited our impartiality and expressed concern that reliance solely on third‑party assessors would give industry too much control. Another individual expressed concerns with industry self regulating.

Improving purity standards: the proposal to raise minimum purity standards for sale and import by eliminating the no. 2 purity standard was seen as positive. This would allow for the purchase of purer seed and protect farmland and the environment from the spread of weeds.

Grading of common seed: only one comment was received on this proposal from a Nation involved in using native species for habitat restoration. It was recommended that if an accredited grader must grade common seed that the option to label common seed with the purity and germination data be maintained.

Import proposals (reduction in the small lot exemption for large-seeded crop kinds and import conformity assessments): generally, the import proposals were seen as positive by most to protect farmland and the environment from prohibited noxious weeds. One Nation whose traditional territory extends into the United States expressed concern about how these proposals may impact the movement of small quantities of culturally significant seed coming from within their traditional territory for planting in community gardens, including seed such as:

  • corn
  • beans
  • squash
  • rice

A representative from a First Nation organization also questioned whether the import proposals could impact inherent rights to harvest seed in their traditional territory. Another First Nation organization representing the same people saw the import changes as positive for protecting against the spread of weeds.

Our ongoing commitment

Feedback received from Indigenous individuals and Nations on our proposals will be considered alongside feedback received from stakeholders before deciding on the changes to be proposed to update the Seeds Regulations. We are determining whether any changes need to be made to the regulations to address concerns expressed related to our import proposals and will seek additional input as needed before proposing any changes in Canada Gazette Part I.

Additional Feedback

The following additional feedback was received:

  • it should be made clear that minimum purity and germination standards apply to seed sold in the artisanal marketFootnote 1 and it is unclear if variety registration requirements apply to artisanal growers
  • clarity is needed to understand whether a crop type is subject to variety registration by providing guidance on what is meant by:
    • field scale
    • small scale
    • vegetable market
  • desire was expressed to see the modernization support:
    • agriculture
    • small farmers
    • small-scale crops
    • food safety
    • sustainability
    • agricultural best practice
  • the modernization should be implemented in such a way that respects:
    • food sovereignty
    • cultural heritage
    • values
    • traditions
  • a concern was expressed about making the regulations more adaptable and flexible to allow faster change in the future as this could ignore traditional knowledge and result in irreparable damage to the environment
  • it was felt that Indigenous traditional knowledge is often given less weight than Western scientific evidence
  • concern was expressed over planned changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations

Our ongoing commitment

Seed advertised, sold or distributed in Canada for planting (that is, not for eating) needs to meet minimum standards for purity and germination, including:

  • common seed
  • farm-saved seed
  • seed used for land reclamation or rehabilitation
  • flowers
  • herbs
  • vegetables

This includes seed sold or distributed at farmers markets intended for planting. Only crop types listed in Schedule III of the Seeds Regulations are subject to variety registration and must be registered before sale. This includes:

  • field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
  • flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)
  • non-ornamental sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

We will work to provide added clarity in guidance. We appreciate that there is some ambiguity in what is meant by:

  • "field scale"
  • "small scale"
  • "agricultural"

Next steps

Thank you to those who participated in our Indigenous engagement for modernizing Canada's seed regulatory framework. We will:

Date modified: