Canada's Forced Labour Bill Puts the Burden of Proof on Importers

Canada has banned imports made with forced labour since 2020, and since January 2024 it has required certain companies to report publicly on the forced and child labour risks in their supply chains. Ottawa now wants to go further. Bill C-35 would flip the default at the border: once a good is on a government list, it is the importer's job to show it is not tainted. The consultation reports released on October 8 show broad support for that shift, and they also show exactly where it will hurt. The proof an importer needs is usually held by somebody else, several tiers upstream.

What Bill C-35 Would Change

According to the government's October 8 announcement, Bill C-35, An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour, was introduced in June. It would create a list of goods suspected of being made with forced labour, and importers of listed goods would have to demonstrate, when asked, that their goods are not linked to it. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and Jobs and Families Minister Patty Hajdu presented the findings together. "Our trade must reflect our values," Anand said. Hajdu added: "No one should profit from the exploitation of workers."

The government says Canada is the first country to have both supply chain reporting legislation and a forced labour import ban. Two reports came out of the summer consultations, which ran from late July to August 21. One, led by Global Affairs Canada, covers the import ban. The other, led by the Labour Program at Employment and Social Development Canada, asks whether certain companies should be legally required to identify, prevent and mitigate forced labour risks across their international operations and supply chains, and whether victims should be able to sue those that fail to. The government says it will review the feedback before advancing legislative and regulatory measures.

The Evidence Lives Upstream

The Global Affairs Canada report counts 129 participants, of whom 46 came from industry, trade and business associations and 27 from the private sector and legal community. Input arrived through four stakeholder roundtables and 73 written submissions. The support for stronger controls was broad, but the business feedback kept returning to one practical problem: an importer can only hand over the records it can actually get.

Participants asked that importers not be deemed non-compliant solely because an upstream supplier controls the necessary information, provided they can show reasonable efforts to obtain it. They said tracing beyond direct suppliers is difficult and costly where relationships are indirect, supply chains change frequently or upstream data is commercially sensitive. Some jurisdictions restrict or penalize collecting or disclosing the relevant information at all, so an importer may be unable to lawfully produce certain records. Respondents asked for staged responses that start with readily available documents and allow more time for complex upstream evidence, and for specific reasons when goods are detained rather than generic notices.

The report also carries a warning about the documents companies already lean on. Participants wanted existing due diligence and supplier assurance systems recognized to avoid duplicate paperwork, while others cautioned that certifications and audits vary in reliability and should be validated. On the list itself, stakeholders asked that listings rest on credible, current and corroborated evidence, that broad sector or regional listings be reserved for systematic or state-imposed forced labour, that Canada draw on U.S. and EU findings while keeping the final call, and that the framework address transshipment and rapid re-export. The report contains no enforcement figures for the existing ban. Participants instead asked the government to start publishing aggregate counts of shipments examined, detained, released and prohibited.

Due Diligence Is Coming, Liability Is Contested

The due diligence and civil liability report drew 71 stakeholders, including 21 industry, trade and business associations and 22 civil society, labour and NGO participants. It sets no revenue or employee thresholds for which companies would be covered, and a significant number of respondents questioned size thresholds altogether, arguing they could miss high-risk entities. Most wanted any thresholds calculated on consolidated group data.

Civil liability is where the room split. Supporters argued that a civil right of action is essential for victims to have meaningful access to justice, and generally favoured fault-based models over strict liability. Business groups and some legal practitioners raised legal uncertainty, litigation costs, causation and liability for harms beyond a company's control, and some warned that suppliers could disengage from higher-risk regions. Many respondents backed a defence or safe harbour for reasonable due diligence efforts. There was strong support for harmonizing definitions, evidence standards and reporting with Bill C-35, and for recognizing equivalent foreign due diligence systems under a "comply once, demonstrate many" approach.

That interoperability matters because the EU is on a similar clock. Its Forced Labour Regulation applies from December 14, 2027, including to goods made before that date and still on the market, according to a supplier briefing published October 17. Operators that receive a preliminary request have 30 working days to answer, and investigation submissions get 30 to 60 working days. The Commission's guidelines list the evidence authorities expect, from chain-of-custody certificates and tiered supplier maps to grievance records and contract clauses, and state that social audits are not credible where workers are under threat or access is limited. As of October 3, the Commission's risk database was still listed as in development, past its legal deadline.

The Importer Evidence Playbook

• Map which imports could be listed: Listings are expected to draw on U.S. and EU findings. Start with the goods, producers and regions those regimes already flag and trace your exposure to them.
• Build the file before the request arrives: Both Canada and the EU are moving toward request-and-respond enforcement with short windows. Assemble shipment-level records now, not after goods are held.
• Write evidence rights into supplier contracts: If the proof sits upstream, the right to obtain it has to sit in the contract, including obligations that flow down to sub-suppliers and cover transshipment.
• Document your reasonable efforts: Businesses asked Ottawa to credit importers that tried and were blocked. That defence only works if the attempts are recorded and dated.
• Stress-test your audits: Both governments are signalling that certifications and social audits will not be accepted at face value. Know which of yours rely on worker voice and which do not.
• Design one system for several regimes: Canada's reporting law, Bill C-35 and the EU ban overlap heavily. A single evidence base that can answer all three is cheaper than three parallel efforts.