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


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top