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.
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.
My understanding, which may be out of date, is that goods made in prisons aren't generally sold (they go to supply the prisons themselves, or other government programs), so it isn't a commercial supply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.
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.
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.