International Trade Committee on Dec. 4th, 2025

[Sabrina Bandali]

I can just add one point, because you asked about recommendations.

I can appreciate the sensitivity of information and of putting it out into the public domain. One of the difficulties when you highlight, for example, a geography—for a government to do so—is that it raises political considerations. I think that's well understood.

However, when you are in the situation of having your goods detained and you are being asked for information, not being able to have some disclosure of what gave rise to the concern—so you can focus your efforts on the supply chain to provide probative information in that context—is problematic. If there was a recommendation to make, I think even confidential disclosure to affected importers would be very helpful.

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

Thank you.

The CBSA deals with confidential information all the time, and there are legal mechanisms to provide undertakings or protect that information, at least on a counsel basis.

You mentioned the D-memo, or departmental memorandum. I think it was 2021 when it first emerged. Would it be helpful if the CBSA finished that review and issued some sort of guidance for clients?

It's not a trick question.

[Sabrina Bandali]

Yes.

[Sean Stephenson]

Yes.

[Stephen Pike]

Given the passage and coming into force of what was Bill S-211 on January 1, 2024, which added child labour to the forced labour tariffs number, I think we want to get that in the D-memo, because the memo right now doesn't refer to child labour.

[Sabrina Bandali]

It really comes down to the issue of focus. Importers don't have clarity on whether they are to focus on the diligence that they can do to their immediate counterparty, where the good that's being imported into Canada is what is most important for making sure that production activity is forced labour-free, or whether all tiers of the supply chain are equally important to the CBSA. Even having clarity about what the policy is going to be from an enforcement perspective—the expectation. It's about being able to use resources wisely that are not unlimited.

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

Thank you.

I have 30 seconds left.

On that expectation point, it always seemed odd to me that we have a broad-based ban, which is the heaviest hammer you can use—a complete importation ban—but there is no guidance on what it means. If I have one bolt in my car that was made by forced labour, am I offside now? What they did in Bill S-211 was give some more information about de minimis and things like that. Would that type of information be helpful to include in the D-memo?

[Sabrina Bandali]

Yes.

[Sean Stephenson]

Yes.

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

You have to say “yes” so that we get it on the record.

[Sean Stephenson]

In the CBA working group, we made submissions we thought would be helpful, at least from a counsel perspective, for the CBSA. The intent was for them to consider our wish list. We might not get everything, but from a legal perspective, this is what importers want.

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

Was the wish list for the supply chains act or the forced labour ban?

[Sean Stephenson]

It was for the forced labour ban.

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

Could you provide that to the committee?

[Sean Stephenson]

We could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's the information you had previously submitted.

We're off to Mr. Naqvi for six minutes.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today. It's always good to have independent legal advice. It's great to have you all.

I'm not an expert on this issue, even though I practised international trade law. This is not an area I ever focused on, so I'm learning as I go through these hearings. From a public policy perspective, I recognize that forced labour is an issue we need to find a way to address. However, I'm also learning that it's fairly complicated for all the compliance reasons you have highlighted in your submissions.

Let me ask you something. As lawyers, we have opinions, and we know, if we were writing laws, how we would write them so they would actually work. If you were to write laws tackling the issue of forced labour, what are some key ingredients you would make available in the law and in the policy to allow us, from a public policy perspective, to deal with an odious practice but do so in a way that is actually effective?

I'll start with you, Ms. Bandali.

[Sabrina Bandali]

Civil enforcement is very important. The reason for that is.... To the extent that this is a question of getting information about something that may be very far away from your own operations, anyone who's engaged in due diligence—certainly any lawyers who have engaged in due diligence—knows you can go forever.

Draft the law in a way that gives people some sense of the scope of the legal obligation that falls on their shoulders and would result in legal consequences for them, be they civil or be they criminal. I'd venture to say that in this context, civil is the appropriate mechanism, tied to what is practical, reasonable and appreciates the fact that some goods today are just tremendously complex. The burden that puts on trade—if people cannot trade in complex manufactured goods without having absolute traceability back to raw materials—is an unrealistic standard.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Pike.

[Stephen Pike]

One thing I would include, which was in the supply chains act, is the participation of federal government institutions in abiding by the same rules the private sector is dealing with for procurement.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Stephenson.

[Sean Stephenson]

To step back a little, as a regulator, I'd say that there are three buckets we've seen being developed globally. First is reporting legislation; we have that. Second is a trade ban; we have that. The third bucket, which we don't have in Canada, is due diligence. Certain European countries have gone that far. There may be EU-wide diligence legislation coming down the pipe.

Those are the three regulatory buckets. We have two of them. We need to work on strengthening our enforcement of the buckets. Transparency at the CBSA would be great. Clarity and guidance would be great. Closing the information gaps of our regulators would be great.

As well, we should be looking at other trade programs. For example, the U.S. has a program called the CTPAT, the customs trade partnership against terrorism, that it has introduced, which essentially designates trusted importers who can then go past the border with fewer inspections. It has introduced forced labour requirements for folks who are registered in those programs. We have not done the same. Canada has the PIP, the partners in protection program, but we have not done the same.

There are still levers that I think we can pull without additional legislation.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In previous testimony, I asked what other jurisdictions we may look at that have done a better or finer job in dealing with the issue. The answer was that the European Union probably has a set of laws or regulations that are superior to ours. Would you agree with that assessment, and if so, which elements of their rules and regulations make theirs better such that if we incorporated them into our laws, it would improve our compliance as well?

[Stephen Pike]

I wouldn't characterize them as better; I characterize them as different. They have much different legal regimes from ours. Again, with the EU structure, it is a way to have a large number of countries collaborate and ensure that they can move together within that union. It's based on a due diligence regime and on reporting.

What we see in many of the other European laws, such as the French duty of vigilance law and the German supply chain diligence act is a very high threshold. They're only talking about putting hundreds, or 200, 300, 400 or 500 companies—the biggest companies—to be covered by the act. It's not as widespread as you'd see in the Canadian supply chains act. It really has a different target and is really looking at the biggest companies in those jurisdictions and getting them to take on the compliance burden and comply with those laws.

There is a significant compliance burden on businesses in all of these reporting regimes, including the Canada supply chain act, but with respect to the European legislation, it's more intensive in its requirements for companies. That is different from what we have, but it's something to be aware of if you're looking at regimes that are like the CSDDD or other EU activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, sir, for the information.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay for six minutes, please.