Canada has been a global leader in crop production and plant breeding for a long time. But leadership is never permanent.
We are in a fight for investment, innovation and productivity on Canadian farms. Other countries want the investment that has historically come here, and some are moving faster than we are.
That’s why I’m encouraged by the alignment we’re seeing among producer groups, breeders, government, seed companies and other stakeholders. Conversations that once happened in the hallway are finally happening in the room. That’s progress. But optimism alone doesn’t attract investment.
Companies deciding where to invest don’t make those decisions on passion. Whether the investor is a university, farmers starting a breeding company, a Canadian business or an international company, the questions are similar: Is Canada open to change? Is it open to innovation? Is it open to business?
And how does the expected return here compare with Australia, the United States or somewhere else?
Plant breeding requires patience. An investment made today may take a decade or more to produce a commercial variety. Investors need confidence they can access the market, navigate regulation and eventually earn a predictable return.
Regulatory efficiency matters. Variety registration matters. Plant breeders’ rights and royalty mechanisms matter. But the ultimate test is simpler: does the farmer win? Because if farmers don’t win, nobody wins.
We have extraordinary breeding success stories. AAC Brandon is one. It remains dominant a decade after being commercialized. In 2025, its acreage was roughly 30% larger than the second-largest variety in its class. The top five varieties in Canada’s largest wheat class came from the same breeding program.
That’s an incredible accomplishment. It should also make us uncomfortable.
In other crop segments, farmers have gained roughly 15% in yield over a similar period. The continued dominance of an older wheat variety raises a difficult question: how much genetic gain are farmers leaving on the table?
At today’s margins, that matters enormously. Farmers need more production from the same acre simply to absorb rising costs, and breeding decisions have a long lag. We may be experiencing the consequences today of decisions made years ago. We won’t fully see the consequences of today’s funding reductions for years either. That’s why waiting is dangerous.
Canada is moving in the right direction, but we’ve been too reactive.
We can’t wait until everybody agrees on every detail. Sometimes leadership means making the best decision possible with the information available and adjusting as we learn. That applies to how breeding is funded.
Systems like trailing royalties may not be perfect, and they represent a cultural change for farmers accustomed to saving seed. But predictability matters. If breeders understand how an investment can generate revenue, they can make a business case for investing in Canadian genetics.
We also shouldn’t overlook service. A farmer’s retailer is often one of their most trusted advisers, helping select varieties and providing agronomic and seeding support. Distributors and breeders add another layer of expertise.
Farmers aren’t simply purchasing a bag of seed. They’re accessing genetics, knowledge and support. Particularly when margins are tight, that has value.
The same thinking needs to apply to regulation and variety registration. I’ve been encouraged by discussions about reimagining variety registration. We need modernization, and some changes cannot wait for broader regulatory reform.
We should ask of every process: What benefit does this deliver to farmers? Does that benefit justify the resources required? Could those resources create more value somewhere else?
In some crops, I don’t believe farmers receive enough benefit from the way merit testing is currently conducted. That doesn’t mean lowering standards. It means focusing resources where they create the greatest value.
There is significant money already flowing into crop improvement. Farmers contribute levy dollars. Taxpayers fund public research. Certified seed and new royalty models generate revenue. All those dollars are ultimately intended to improve performance in farmers’ fields. What I want to see over the next year is stronger alignment around how those funds are used across plant breeding, agronomy and agricultural science.
My view is that seed development should increasingly be funded through seed sales and effective royalty mechanisms. Regardless of where individual dollars originate, however, the objective should be measurable producer benefit.
That may require structural change, but I believe we can get there.
Reduced public budgets also mean we need new ways to maintain research capacity. Private businesses already operate disease nurseries and other infrastructure and can potentially support public and university breeding programs.
Public and private breeding don’t have to exist in separate worlds. Universities, government researchers, producer organizations, private breeders, distributors, retailers and farmers all possess different pieces of the system. The opportunity is to put those pieces together differently.
We have to decide what kind of plant breeding ecosystem we want Canada to have 10 or 20 years from now — and have enough faith in that vision to start building it today.
