AAFA calls for transparency in Canada's Forced Labour Ban proposals

The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) has called for greater transparency and due process as Canada moves to strengthen its ban on goods produced with forced labour.

The US trade association, which represents more than 1,100 apparel, footwear and sewn product companies, submitted comments to Global Affairs Canada on August 21 on the proposed regulatory approach under Bill C-35.

Canada introduced the legislation in June, proposing a new framework to replace its existing forced labour import ban. Under the proposals, the government would be able to identify high-risk goods by region, company or individual, while importers of certain products would face additional supply chain tracing requirements.

AAFA calls for clearer rules

AAFA said its members support efforts to remove forced labour from supply chains, but warned that any list of high-risk goods should be specific and backed by evidence.

“Any list should be specific (at the producer level, if not the facility level), should provide the impacted entity reasonable due process to refute claims before listing, should provide evidence for the listing, and should provide a reasonable removal process,” the association said.

It also called for enforcement actions to be transparent and for documentation requirements to be based on internationally recognised due diligence and testing standards. AAFA said the Canadian government should work closely with businesses when developing the new system.

“First, we believe effective regulations to prevent imports made with forced labor are most effective when built on strong public-private partnerships, giving government and industry the space to work together to identify good actors and target bad actors,” it noted.

Concerns over proposed list

The association further raised concerns over plans to create a list of goods considered at risk of forced labour. AAFA said the list should identify specific facilities, producers or other entities, rather than potentially covering entire industries or regions.

“The list should be specific, listing the specific facility, farm, plantation, vessel, or mine, or at a minimum, the producer,” it said.

The group also questioned the proposed requirement for importers to prove that goods are not linked to forced labour when products appear on the list.

“We encourage the use of, and would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to develop, common sense due diligence procedures that afford an opportunity for importers to use industry recognized due diligence processes, software tools, or testing to satisfy the requirements,” AAFA highlighted.

The association drew on its experience with US forced labour rules, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, saying lengthy detention and review processes can create significant difficulties for apparel and footwear companies, particularly where products are seasonal.

AAFA called for Canadian disputes over detained goods to be resolved within “days or weeks” and said importers should be given clear information about why a shipment has been detained and what evidence is being used.

It also suggested any costs linked to detained goods should only apply where an importer has “willfully” violated the ban. AAFA said it welcomed the opportunity to continue working with Canadian officials as the new framework is developed.