Skip to content

Updated guidance on business reporting obligations under Canada’s supply chain transparency legislation

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

Introduction

As we reported on November 30, 2023, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, with the first reporting deadline on May 31, 2024. The Act 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 now published updated guidance for reporting entities on how to prepare and submit their reports.

Who needs to report

The Act applies to corporations, trusts, partnerships and other unincorporated organizations that either:

  1. are listed on a stock exchange in Canada; or
  2. have a place of business in Canada, do business in Canada, or have assets in Canada, and that meet at least two of the following conditions for at least one of their two most recent financial years based on their consolidated financial statements:
    1. $20 million in global assets;
    2. $40 million in global revenue; or
    3. employs a global average of at least 250 employees;

and that are:

  1. producing, selling or distributing goods in Canada or elsewhere;
  2. importing goods into Canada; or
  3. controlling an entity engaged in any of these activities.

Requirements of the report and questionnaire

Public Safety Canada has clarified that reporting entities must prepare a report for publication on the entity’s website and also complete an online questionnaire. The report will also be published in a publicly accessible government database. Each reporting entity must report the steps they took during the prior financial year to prevent and reduce the risk that forced or child labour was used at any stage of the production of goods in Canada, or of goods imported into Canada, including:

  1. the entity’s structure, activities, and supply chains;
  2. the entity’s policies and due diligence procedures related to forced and child labour;
  3. the parts of the entity’s business and supply chains that carry a risk of forced or child labour being used and the steps taken to assess and manage that risk;
  4. any measures taken to remediate any forced or child labour;
  5. any measures taken to remediate the loss of income to the most vulnerable families due to any measure taken to eliminate the use of forced or child labour in the entity’s activities and supply chains;
  6. the training provided to the entity’s employees on forced and child labour; and
  7. how the entity assesses its effectiveness in ensuring that forced and child labour are not being used in its business and supply chains.

The recent Public Safety guidance discusses minimum standards, joint reporting requirements, official language requirements, page limits, and approval and attestation requirements, including specific wording for the attestation itself. Entities should use discretion in determining the appropriate level of detail to include in their report proportionate to their size and risk profile. All reports must reference the activities undertaken during the entity’s previous financial year.

The online questionnaire has mandatory closed-ended questions and optional open-ended questions which address the Act’s requirements.

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. For more information please contact the authors, or a member of our Corporate Governance group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top