Skip to content

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth

Introduction

The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) are due by May 31, 2024.

As we previously reported (see here and here), the Act came into force on January 1, 2024, and creates a legal obligation on certain organizations to publicly report on the risk of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. Public Safety Canada has published updated guidance for reporting entities on how to prepare and submit their reports.

Updates to government guidance

The federal government most recently updated its guidance on March 20, 2024, including the following:

Report Form and Scope

  1. Reports may be submitted in either or both of English and/or French to be compliant. If English and French reports are being submitted, they should be uploaded as two separate PDFs at the end of the submission questionnaire.
  2. Only the PDF reports and select identifying information will be made publicly available through the government’s online database. Questionnaire responses will not be made publicly available.
  3. The May 31st reporting deadline applies only to the submission of reports. Entities must publish their report to their website at their earliest convenience following submission.
  4. The questionnaire should be used as a “resource” rather than a “template” for the preparation of the report. This indicates that more information than is disclosed in the questionnaire responses may be required for a report to be compliant.
  5. The 10-page limit has been reduced from a requirement to a recommendation.

Entity Threshold Analysis

  1. Entities are responsible for assessing how the Act applies to their specific circumstances, including whether they meet the thresholds.
  2. Whether an entity is “doing business in Canada” is based on the Canada Revenue Agency’s factors for determining if a non-resident is “carrying on business in Canada” for GST/HST purposes.
  3. When assessing parent-subsidiary reporting relationships, the parent company and its subsidiaries must each be assessed individually based on their own consolidated financial statements (i.e. the entity being assessed plus any of its subsidiaries but excluding its parent or siblings). If the parent and/or any of its subsidiaries qualify as entities, they may file a joint report if the information contained in the report generally applies to all the joint reporting entities.

Activity Threshold Analysis

  1. References to “distribution” and “selling” as reportable activities have been completely removed from the guidance, with renewed emphasis placed on production, importing, and control of an entity engaged in reportable activities. However, “distribution” and “selling” remain reportable activities under the Act. This may signal a change in the scope of reportable activities for future reporting periods, subject to further clarification from the government.
  2. Although provincial and municipal government institutions are not captured by the “government institutions” portion of the Act, they may still be captured to the extent they meet the reporting entity thresholds.
  3. Whether an entity is engaged in “importing” is based on whether the entity is responsible for accounting for those goods under the Customs Act. Entities that buy goods in a domestic transaction, who do not cause the importation, are not, generally, importers. Further, purchasing goods from outside of Canada from a third party, where that third party is considered the importer under the Customs Act, does not qualify as “importing”.

Next steps for compliance

Preparing the report and responding to the questionnaire should be undertaken with considerable diligence and care to ensure that the information contained in each is consistent and materially true, accurate, and complete in order to comply with the prescribed board attestation. Given the unique operations and supply chain of each organization, we would be pleased to discuss a customized approach to compliance with the Act and navigating the reporting process.

For preliminary guidance on who needs to report and the high-level required contents of the reports, refer to our prior Thought Leadership article.

We have developed detailed, practical guidance for reporting entities on preparing their first report, including template reports and board approval materials. We would be pleased to advise on the preparation of your report, and to assist with reviewing and finalizing your report and questionnaire prior to board approval and submission. We have experience advising organizations of all sizes, including domestic and foreign corporations, on the application of the Act and reporting best practices.

Given the extensive requirements of the report and questionnaire and the pending deadline of May 31, 2024, it is recommended that businesses begin the process of developing their report as soon as possible.  Failure to comply with reporting obligations or remedial measures under the Act may result in summary conviction and fines of up to $250,000.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Corporate Governance Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top