Canadian industries are pushing back against the country’s planned January launch of the Modern Slavery Act, intended to fight forced labour and child labour in supply chains. Mining and apparel trade groups say the government has failed to spell out the details of the law’s requirements.
John McKay, the Liberal member of parliament who moved the bill, … said there was a lack of reporting and procedural guidelines, which he said were signs that the government was not prepared to meet the January launch date. But he expects most Canadian companies affected by the law to abide by the new rules.
It sounds like industry groups are ok with the bill, but the government is dropping the ball on explaining how it will be implemented.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The act, which passed in May, seeks to push corporations to provide greater transparency about their supply chains in order to avoid abetting what critics say amounts to modern slavery.
However, lobby groups, including mining companies and apparel manufacturers, are warning that a perceived lack of clarity about the rules could lead to unwanted penalties and prevent critical goods from entering Canada.
Under the new law, companies found to be in violation face penalties of up to $250,000, reflecting an increasing emphasis by global investors on ethical and social governance issues (ESG).
A spokesperson for Canada’s newly appointed public safety minister said the ministry “has been working expeditiously” to implement the law by January, and that the companies must do their first reporting on or before May 31, 2024.
In May, Canada’s corporate ethics watchdog initiated an investigation of Nike and Dynasty Gold Corp. on allegations that the companies benefited from forced labour from the Xinjiang province in China in their supply chains.
“The real anxiety right now is about getting guidance from the Canadian government about what are their expectations [related to the bill] and what’s going to be sufficient in terms of how detailed or high level things are,” said Sabrina Bandali, an international trade and investment partner at Toronto law firm Bennett Jones.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is that going to include prison labour or does that not count because reasons?
My understanding, which may be out of date, is that goods made in prisons aren’t generally sold (they go to supply the prisons themselves, or other government programs), so it isn’t a commercial supply chain, and inmates who work are supposed to be volunteers. So it’s likely to slither through based on one or the other of those things.
Your understanding is hella wrong. Also is it any better if they make stuff for the military industrial complex? You’re also wrong about supposed to be voluntary. Sure it’s voluntary, but inmates gets punished one way or another if they don’t.
https://www.mashed.com/785722/whole-foods-used-prison-labor-for-this-product-until-2015/
https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/prison-labor-is-remarkably-common-within-the-food-system/
A wide variety of companies such as Whole Foods, McDonald’s, Target, IBM, Texas Instruments, Boeing, Nordstrom, Intel, Wal-Mart, Victoria’s Secret, Aramark, AT&T, BP, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nike, Honda, Macy’s and Sprint and many more actively participated in prison in-sourcing throughout the 1990s and 2000s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States
It’s literally in the 13th amendment, slavery is legal for inmates.
13th amendment is not applicable in Canada. Note which community you are posting in 🙂.
But is there labour from American prisons in Canadian supply chains?
I never claimed anything I said held true for the US—the prison system is completely different there. Canadian prisons have Issues, but they tend to be about overcrowding and such, not the prison-industrial complex that exists south of the border.
Recently, we’ve even stopped stripping prisoners of the right to vote in federal elections.
But is there labour from American prisons in Canadian supply chains?
Possibly (it’s impossible to tell from outside the companies commissioning the goods where specific supply lines go), and yes, the law should be applied against companies using foreign prison labour unless it’s been specifically worded to dodge that case. As for whether it has been so worded, well, I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t see why it would be favourable for the legislature to do so, since they’re not likely to get votes, Canadian jobs, or even much goodwill from the US out of allowing that kind of loophole.
That being said, someone will probably have to bring a court case to get the law enforced against firms using US prison labour specifically. I’d expect that to take anything from a few years to a couple of decades. Once it gets to that point, I expect that the courts will apply the law as written (which may or may not be the law as intended).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The act, which passed in May, seeks to push corporations to provide greater transparency about their supply chains in order to avoid abetting what critics say amounts to modern slavery.
However, lobby groups, including mining companies and apparel manufacturers, are warning that a perceived lack of clarity about the rules could lead to unwanted penalties and prevent critical goods from entering Canada.
Under the new law, companies found to be in violation face penalties of up to $250,000, reflecting an increasing emphasis by global investors on ethical and social governance issues (ESG).
A spokesperson for Canada’s newly appointed public safety minister said the ministry “has been working expeditiously” to implement the law by January, and that the companies must do their first reporting on or before May 31, 2024.
In May, Canada’s corporate ethics watchdog initiated an investigation of Nike and Dynasty Gold Corp. on allegations that the companies benefited from forced labour from the Xinjiang province in China in their supply chains.
“The real anxiety right now is about getting guidance from the Canadian government about what are their expectations [related to the bill] and what’s going to be sufficient in terms of how detailed or high level things are,” said Sabrina Bandali, an international trade and investment partner at Toronto law firm Bennett Jones.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
