International Trade Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 18, 2025, the committee is commencing its study of Canadian supply chains, forced labour and related imports.

We have with us today, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Stuart Trew, senior researcher. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Elizabeth Kwan, senior researcher. From the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, we have Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood, network coordinator.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Chair, the interpreter says there's an issue with the sound.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will wait a minute until we get this corrected.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Maybe you could switch microphones with one of the analysts, since they don't speak very often during meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Resuming the meeting, from the Canada Tibet Committee, we have Sherap Therchin, executive director.

Welcome to you all. I'm sorry for the delay.

We will start with opening remarks and then proceed with a round of questions. You have up to five minutes each.

Mr. Trew, I invite you to do your presentation for five minutes, please.

[Stuart Trew, Senior Researcher, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thanks very much to the chair and to the committee.

It's a pleasure to be back here with you.

I'll say a few words about the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We're a forward-looking research institute dedicated to the pursuit and defence of social, economic and environmental justice. We advocate for policies that protect workers from corporate and state exploitation, that hold companies accountable for their human rights, environmental and other international legal obligations, and that bring down the cost of living by increasing the labour share of national income and by expanding free and affordable public services.

The CCPA, therefore, strongly supports measures to eliminate forced and child labour, and the still too pervasive basic labour rights violations, as well, from domestic and international supply chains.

We were pleased to see the Bloc Québécois introduce Bill C-251, amending the Customs Act and Customs Tariff in such a way that Canada may more vigorously uphold its legal obligations to block imports of goods from anywhere in the world—including North America, we hope—that are made in whole or in part using forced or child labour.

This is a vital piece of legislation required before the Canada Border Services Agency workers can begin to effectively screen and detain imports from entities, including countries, regions or companies, on a future forced labour list. Quite simply, we need this or similar legislation to pass in order to meet our domestic legal obligations and our CUSMA obligations to our trading partners to stop forced labour goods entering the North American market.

The fine details of the system would need to be hashed out in regulations to make sure CBSA officers have a clear idea of what goods to detain and when to detain them, but we can't get to that point without legislation allowing for that kind of guidance. We strongly encourage this committee to push the government to pass Bill C-251 or something similar as soon as possible.

I will make a few small points on other elements of forced labour in Canadian supply chains.

I think that, while it's good to see attention on the problem of forced labour, it is not the only or the most pervasive type of human rights violation in Canadian supply chains or Canadian imports. Companies should have a duty to prevent violations of internationally protected human rights, including the right to organize, health and safety obligations, gender discrimination, environmental standards and so on. This must be an enforceable legal obligation on firms within a comprehensive corporate due diligence regime.

The second point I'll make is that we need to address forced labour in North America as well, right here in our backyard and in our country. We've seen a report out recently from the University of Toronto human rights program talking about how much we bring into this country that was produced using prison labour in the United States, even though this has been illegal in Canada for over a hundred years. There's prison labour in the auto sector, food, meat processing, fast-food chains and so on. Much of this is involuntary in prisons and poorly paid.

We have examples of large companies that operate in the U.S. and Canada. For example, Bumble Bee, a seafood company that is linked with Clover Leaf here in Canada, both of which are owned by FCF, is using forced labour on their fleets bringing in tuna—Indonesian forced labour on their boats—and those products are ending up on North American shelves. We have union busting at the Mercedes plant in Alabama, for example, that's going through the courts right now. There was a complaint from the union there in the United States.

These are other things that we should be thinking about enforcing somehow, either through trade regimes or through bans on forced labour and other types of human rights violations in our supply chains. Also, of course, there is contemporary slavery in Canada's temporary foreign worker program.

The third point I'll make, the final point, is that we need to coordinate on import screening with Mexico and the United States. There's an opportunity to do this in the labour chapter of the CUSMA during the upcoming review of the agreement next year.

As Above Ground points out in its submission to the Canadian government's consultation on the CUSMA review:

This crisis [of forced labour in global supply chains] cannot be solved by one nation acting alone. Canada, the U.S., and Mexico—linked by deep trade flows under CUSMA—have an opportunity to improve their response to this crisis by better coordinating action to block goods made with forced labour from entering their marketplace at any of its access points.

Canada is obligated to do this by CUSMA article 23.6, but as this committee has heard many times in past studies, the enforcement of this obligation is highly uneven between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Since 2021, Canadian border agents have reportedly intercepted only 50 shipments of goods on suspicion that they were produced using forced labour, and only one single shipment was denied entry into Canada. While U.S. customs and border officials have stopped more than 7,000 shipments this year alone, only four new withhold release orders were issued, and enforcement of the forced labour measures has become inconsistent and politicized. The goal should be to prevent forced labour, not punish countries that you don't like. Also, Mexico's enforcement of the ban has been even worse than Canada's.

On top of passing Bill C-251 and getting on with the regulations to make it work, the CCPA further agrees with Above Ground that the current review of the CUSMA labour chapter and broader trade deal next year is an opportunity. As I was saying, it could include things like a shared definition of forced labour aligned with ILO convention 29, on the private use of forced labour, and convention 105, on the state use of forced labour. You could include intergovernmental information sharing about corporate supply chains and forced labour investigations. You could include mutual recognition of enforcement actions to stop transshipment of goods coming in from one country versus the other, and more transparency with respect to investigations and enforcement. You could also have more co-operation with labour unions, affected workers and civil society groups, similar to procedures for submitting evidence of forced labour violations by importers and producers.

In conclusion, I'd say that for too long, trade policy and international trade and investment agreements have provided strong, enforceable rights to multinational corporations but minimal guidance on adequate protections for the environment, workers and human rights. If, as the Prime Minister likes to say, this old model of free trade is dead, it is our obligation to build better, more sustainable trading and investment relationships that prioritize and enforce high standards of protection for workers and the environment.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Trew.

Ms. Kwan, you have up to five minutes, please.

[Elizabeth Kwan, Senior Researcher, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, committee members.

It's an honour to be with you today.

I want to start with a little bit about the Canadian Labour Congress. The CLC represents over three million workers across Canada, including hundreds of thousands of workers in the public and private sectors engaged in trade activities. Canadian unions fight every day against labour exploitation, including forced labour, which is abhorrent. We have repeatedly called for the eradication of forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensuring that Canadian businesses operating abroad and at home do not contribute to labour and human rights abuses.

Chair, I'd like to present the CLC's recommendations on this matter.

First, we ask the government to immediately introduce legislation to strengthen Canada's ban on imports of goods produced with forced labour. That includes increasing Canadian importers' obligations to address forced labour in their supply chains.

Second, the CLC supports robust oversight of Canada's new import ban regime to ensure effective compliance by importers with strong transparency and accountability measures.

We also call on the government to introduce legislation to create a new mandatory supply chain due diligence regime that would require governments and businesses to identify forced labour risks and take actions to eradicate these risks.

Lastly, we ask the government to ensure the meaningful and active engagement of the Canadian Labour Congress in the government's development and implementation of these measures.

Chair, I'd like to elaborate on some of the reasons for our recommendations.

Forced labour remains a pervasive issue in global supply chains. It is a critical issue that affects workers globally and has direct implications for Canadian labour standards, trade policy and ethical business practices. The ILO estimates that over 28 million people are trapped in forced labour globally. Forced labour violates core labour rights in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Workers in forced labour have few to no labour rights or social protections. They are abused and exploited and often face coercion and violence. Such gross exploitation of workers and their labour undermines fair wages, working conditions and equal opportunities and treatment at work.

As Mr. Trew said, many of these tainted goods end up in Canada. That is why forced labour in supply chains is an unfair trade practice and must be stamped out. All trade agreements should have strong, enforceable and comprehensive labour chapters that include the elimination of forced labour. An effective ban on forced labour imports would level the playing field for more equitable and competitive trade while leveraging strong labour provisions for all workers covered by a trade agreement.

The import of goods produced with forced labour is an important issue for Canada's relations with trade partners, especially the United States. The current CUSMA import ban, implemented under Canada's Customs Tariff act, has proven to be weak and ineffective. Since 2020, when CUSMA came into force, Canada has denied one shipment of goods made with forced labour entering this country, while the U.S. has denied almost 10,000 shipments. That's actually today's number. This large discrepancy has provoked the ire of some American politicians, including Senator Marco Rubio, as recently as September 2024, during the Biden administration. The current Trump administration also prioritizes the banning of goods made with forced labour in trade, as evidenced in the recent U.S. trade deals with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, Argentina, Malaysia, Cambodia and Thailand.

It is urgent that Canada act now and bring in a new, effective ban on imports made with forced labour for the 2026 CUSMA renegotiation and all of our new trade agreements. An effective ban on forced labour imports would address the race to the bottom for labour standards, which in turn would provide stability and resilience in the supply chains.

Countries and businesses must be held accountable for using forced labour to trade unfairly. Fundamental labour and human rights are integral to fair and equitable trade.

Thank you, Chair. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Gilchrist-Blackwood, please go ahead.

[Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood, Network Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the honourable members of this committee.

Thank you very much for inviting me to join you this afternoon.

I'll start by briefly introducing the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. We were founded 20 years ago, in 2005, and unite more than 40 organizations and unions from across Canada that are working to put in place measures to ensure that Canadian companies respect human rights and labour rights throughout their supply chains around the world. Collectively, our members represent the voices of millions of Canadians.

Our members come from diverse sectors of civil society: human rights, environment, international co-operation organizations, faith-based organizations, grassroots solidarity movements and responsible investor groups. Our members also have long-standing relationships with partners around the world who have been adversely impacted by Canadian business activity.

I would like to thank the committee for examining the issue of human rights violations in Canadian supply chains. It's a major issue.

Canadians across the country are still deeply concerned about the many reports of abuse, including forced labour linked to the global operations of Canadian companies.

I would like to draw your attention to three elements.

First, I want to make a general intervention that Canadian supply chain legislation must put impacted workers and communities' needs first. Any legislation considered by this committee, including an import ban, must absolutely centre rights holders. This requires close engagement with rights holders throughout the development and implementation of the policy. Import bans have been identified as a valuable tool by some rights holders, especially in the context of state-based forced labour. There is also a risk that import bans could encourage lead firms in global supply chains to simply cut and run from suspected forced labour, which, if there are no effective safety nets in place, could leave workers without wages or guarantees that they will find better work with a future employer. Thus, in the development of the regulations on an import ban, rights holders and civil society will need to be consulted in order to make sure these kinds of unintended consequences are avoided.

My second intervention is that Canada needs an effective non-judicial mechanism to provide remedy for workers and communities facing harm in Canadian supply chains. However, currently, Canada's non-judicial mechanism, the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, has yet to be granted the powers and independence it needs to do this important work. I want to highlight that a large portion of cases brought to the CORE to date have concerned allegations of forced labour in Canadian supply chains. Yet, since May 2025, the position of ombudsperson has been left vacant, which harmfully leaves complainants in the dark. I want to highlight again that Canada's approach to addressing forced labour in supply chains should include a clear commitment to staffing and empowering the office of the CORE.

The final intervention that I'd like to make is that, in its efforts to meaningfully address forced labour in Canadian supply chains, a key piece that Canada must adopt is comprehensive mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. Import bans are a tool that addresses human rights abuse after harm has occurred. If Parliament chooses to move forward with amendments to Canada's forced labour import ban, this should not be the only action taken. Our network would expect the government to make a firm and time-bound commitment to adopt comprehensive mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence, mHREDD, legislation, which can help proactively prevent forced labour and other serious human rights abuses in Canadian supply chains.

There is a very clear consensus in Canadian civil society, working with partners around the world, that a law like this is necessary, as mHREDD legislation requires companies, engaged with rights holders, to take stock and take measures to prevent and remedy all human rights abuses in their supply chains, which are interrelated and interdependent. Effective mHREDD legislation must also ensure effective remedy for impacted communities that are harmed, by providing access to remedy in Canadian courts. This would help align Canada's policy approach with the expectations established in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as the OECD guidelines for responsible business conduct. I'll highlight that the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, in his report on his 2023 visit to Canada, recommended that Canada introduce mandatory human rights due diligence obligations on all Canadian companies.

Tens of thousands of Canadians have called on our government to pass a law like this. Our network has developed model legislation. I note as well that the government has previously recognized the need for due diligence measures to address human rights abuses in Canadian supply chains, including in the 2024 fall economic statement.

Finally, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability recommends that the government take into account impacted communities and workers when it drafts its supply chain legislation; give the office of the Canadian ombud for responsible enterprise real powers and appoint a new ombud as soon as possible; and pass comprehensive due diligence legislation for companies.

Thank you very much.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Therchin, go ahead, please.

[Sherap Therchin, Executive Director, Canada Tibet Committee]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

I deeply appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today on the important matter of studying Canadian supply chains, forced labour and related imports.

I'm here today to share findings and perspectives to contribute in support of Bill C-251. I would like to focus my presentation on the significant but often overlooked risk emerging from the Tibetan regions in China, where coercive labour practices, mass relocation and environmentally destructive mining intersect with global supply chains that could reach Canadian consumers through electric vehicles, batteries and other technologies.

Given that Tibet hosts some of China's largest lithium reserves, which are essential to global EV production, there's a credible risk that Chinese-manufactured EVs that could be imported into Canada may indirectly incorporate critical minerals extracted under conditions that violate international labour and human rights norms.

Recent research, including the Turquoise Roof bulletin, shows that the majority of China's domestic lithium reserves are located on the Tibetan plateau, which is around 3.6 million tons out of a total of four million tons of reserves in China. It is located in the historically Tibetan regions of A-mdo and Khams. Chinese state geological surveys describe this area as a vast ore belt, home to what they call Asia's largest lithium deposit. These minerals feed the supply chains of BYD, CATL and other major EV and battery manufacturers.

As Canada considers importing low-cost Chinese EVs, the supply chains cannot be viewed in isolation. Tibet is geographically remote but economically central to China's green technology ambitions.

In 2023, six UN special rapporteurs warned that China's so-called vocational training and labour transfer schemes in the Tibetan region may constitute forced labour, noting that Tibetans cannot refuse participation or freely leave assigned jobs.

Reuters revealed in 2020 that over 500,000 Tibetans, which is 15% of the region's entire population, were transferred into labour programs in the first seven months of that year alone. Labour programs included military-style training centres, ideological instruction, labour transfer quotas, and relocation to factories, construction sites and industrial zones. This system mirrors the structure of forced labour that is documented in East Turkestan and other high-risk regions. Displacement, combined with restricted mobility and political pressure, creates a structural coercion. People who lose land and livelihood have no meaningful choice but to enter state-directed work.

Lithium mining in Tibet is linked to severe environmental damage as well. Turquoise Roof documented contaminated rivers from “quick and dirty” processing methods; dead fish and livestock downstream of mining operations; community protests met with force, detention or disappearance; and heavy militarization in mining areas, limiting community oversight. Environmental destruction leads to the loss of herding land, which is one of the main pillars of Tibetan livelihoods. When herders can no longer survive from the land, they become vulnerable to state-directed labour placement, including mining. In this context, labour cannot be considered voluntary.

Chinese EVs and electric battery products entering the Canadian market may rely on lithium extracted from the Tibetan regions where communities were relocated, by workers transferred through state-run training programs, in areas where dissent is criminalized under conditions inconsistent with the ILO standards.

Canada's forced labour ban, its public commitment to ethical sourcing and its climate transition strategy require that Canada not inadvertently reward or subsidize abusive extraction regimes.

I would like to share some recommendations.

The Canada Tibet Committee respectfully recommends that the Standing Committee on International Trade advise the government to require full supply chain transparency for Chinese EVs and batteries entering Canada and to adopt a mandatory human rights due diligence legislation. Companies must identify, mitigate and remedy forced labour risk.

It also recommends that Canada apply a presumption of non-compliance for EVs with untraceable mineral supply chains. Coordinate with G7 partners. Treat Tibet-sourced, high-risk minerals similarly to conflict minerals, subject to a shared exclusion framework.

Finally, support independent monitoring of Tibet. Fund satellite-based monitoring, open-source analysis and civil society research to bridge the transparency gap created by Chinese state restrictions.

Tibet today sits at the heart of China's critical minerals strategy. At the same time, this region is where forced labour risks, mass relocation, restricted freedoms and environmentally destructive extraction converge.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you all very much.

I will now open the floor to questions.

Mr. Mantle, you have six minutes, please.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen and lady, for your attendance and for providing testimony on this important topic.

My first question will be for Mr. Trew and Mr. Gilchrist-Blackwood, picking up on some comments made about the temporary foreign worker program in Canada.

As you're aware, that's been a topic of discussion here in Parliament. I think over 1.25 million temporary workers are now in Canada. Despite promises to address that, the numbers continue to rise. The promised cap was 82,000 this year. We're at well over 100,000 this year. The problem seems to be getting worse, especially in the low-wage stream, as it's called.

As you mentioned, there was a recent UN report on that. The report referred to the temporary foreign worker program as serving as “a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery”. In your considered view, would you view the TFW program in certain situations as tantamount to modern slavery?

[Stuart Trew]

I mean, the results of the UN study suggested that. It's in certain cases. It's not across the board. There are cases of very poor conditions and people's rights not being respected by the employer. Of course, the flaw in the program is that there's no pathway to any kind of regularization here for these workers. They're completely vulnerable to the companies that bring them in. Basically, good behaviour determines whether or not you come back next year. There are no real formalized pathways to some kind of citizenship.

That's the kind of thing we would promote at the CCPA: some kind of regularization, recognizing the essential work these workers do in Canada and the value they create for the economy. They should be basically treated like other people who provide the same value to the Canadian economy.

[Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood]

I absolutely agree that the special rapporteur's report was very clear on this. I would direct you to resources produced by CNCA member organizations that have worked on this question more specifically. In the case of the CNCA as a network, our focus as a network is more on corporate human rights and environmental impacts outside of Canada. This is an issue that CNCA members have worked on individually.

Absolutely, though, I think the report is clear. I would echo a lot of what my colleague has shared in terms of the importance of pathways to regularization in particular.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you.

I want to turn now to the state of play with respect to enforcement. I think there was great hope that the introduction of a ban on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part by forced labour as part of the renegotiation of NAFTA would lead to some movement on this in Canada. The numbers certainly tell a different story. In the entire time, the rough numbers are that about 50 shipments have been interdicted on suspicion. Part of the problem, if we get to it, is transparency. We just don't know, because the CBSA doesn't tell us. That's in contrast with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which has a nice dashboard where you can look and see how many shipments have been stopped, where they're coming from, what industries they represent and so on.

Now, the government's marquee program in this area was something called the supply chains act, which I'm sure you're familiar with. It was a transparency law that required companies and government entities of a certain size to prepare reports on their supply chains. That's now been enforced for two.... We're entering the second round, I believe, of reporting.

Could you tell me whether, to your knowledge, that marquee legislation, the supply chains act, has resulted in any additional shipments being stopped at the border?

I'll open that up to all the witnesses.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

In terms of the supply chain act that you're referring to, which is the former Bill S-211, unions and other activists in Canada actually spoke very loudly against that piece of legislation. It is merely a transparency piece of legislation. It does not compel anyone to act to address the forced labour risks identified in the supply chains.

That's why I think all of us here are calling for new legislation to come in that would actually be effective in this regard and would stop goods made with forced labour from entering Canada.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Ms. Kwan, just to clarify, then, the supply chains act, to your knowledge, has not resulted in any additional stoppage of goods produced by forced labour entering the Canadian market.

[Elizabeth Kwan]

That's precisely the question. That piece of legislation was never designed to actually compel action to stop anything.

[Aidan Gilchrist-Blackwood]

In response to that question, and very much in agreement with my colleague, I'd underscore that from the start, when Bill S-211 was being discussed, there was a very clear position from Canadian civil society highlighting that legislation requiring companies to only submit reports was just not up to the task. At the time, we talked about it being, frankly, meaningless and about how what is needed is comprehensive due diligence legislation that requires action.

I do think the evidence we've seen so far, in the two years of the supply chains act being enforced, does speak to that and to the ongoing need for legislation that actually requires action to prevent abuses and not just submit reports.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

I realize I'm out of time.

I don't know if the other two witnesses have a brief comment or a yes or no. To your knowledge, has the supply chains act resulted in any additional goods being stopped at the border?

[Sherap Therchin]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Fonseca, please.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'll actually follow along with some of the questions that Mr. Mantle was asking. This will be for all the witnesses, and each of you can answer.

What enforcement mechanisms—be it administrative penalties or import suspensions—should be considered for non-compliance with the proposed legislation? If you think that through, what would your answer be?