On June 12, 2026, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-35, the Ban on Importing Goods Made with Forced Labour Act. Bill C-35 establishes a new statutory framework to prohibit forced labour imports, replacing the Customs Tariff‘s current prohibition on importing goods produced wholly or in part by forced or child labour. Bill C-35 is available here.
Bill C-35 empowers the Minister of Foreign Affairs to list goods (by country, region, manufacturer) that it suspects are manufactured wholly or in part with forced labour. Importers of listed goods must provide prescribed information to the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) failing which the goods are deemed as prohibited from import into Canada. The change to a list-based import prohibition generally provides more clarity for importers related to forced labour risk, but it also raises heightened supply chain tracing obligations.
Bill C-35 is reportedly spurred on by the USTR Section 301 investigation report proposing a 10% tariff on Canadian origin (non-CUSMA compliant) goods due to Canada’s alleged failure to enforce its forced labor prohibition. Bill C-35 aligns Canada more closely with the US statutory regime to deter imports of goods manufactured with forced labour and provides the legal means to match US enforcement activities.
Background: Canada’s existing forced labour prohibition
Baker McKenzie provides an in-depth background on the state of Canada’s forced labour regime here. The current tariff classification re-determination scheme used to prohibited goods mined or manufactured with forced or child labour into Canada has been subject to domestic and international scrutiny (largely by the US) for its lack of enforcement.
Canada’s Customs Tariff includes an import prohibition for goods manufactured wholly or in part by forced labour and child labour, as defined under Canada’s Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (“SCA”), which contains mandatory supply chain transparency reporting for certain importers. In contrast, Bill C-35 does not rely on these existing definitions and instead focuses on a narrower definition of forced labour imports. Under Bill C-35 “forced labour” is defined as having the same meaning assigned by the term “forced or compulsory labour” in Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization. (travail forcé). Should Bill C-35 enter into force as drafted, importers will have broader reporting obligations under the SCA as compared to goods subject to Bill C-35.
In addition to Bill C-35, a private members bill (Bill-251) introduced in Fall 2025 also sought to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, with a focus on enhancing Canada’s enforcement of its forced labour import prohibition. With the tabling of Bill C-35, Bill C-251 will likely no longer have Parliamentary support to become law.
From Discretion to Designation: A Shift to a List-Based Regime
A key feature of the proposed legislation is its transition from a largely discretionary, shipment-specific enforcement model to a structured, list-based prohibition regime. Under the current framework, goods mined or manufactured with forced or child labour are addressed as prohibited goods under Canada’s tariff classification regime. CBSA officers have discretion to re-determine the classification of a good, and reclassify it as a prohibited import under 9897.00.00.
Bill C-35 repeals the current prohibition and provides authority to the Minister to designate goods as having been manufactured with forced labour based on having reasonable grounds to suspect that a good produced in a particular region or a producer is manufactured/manufacturing goods with forced labour. The proposed list will identify either the producer or a particular geographic region. CBSA officers can detain goods for up to 90 days, or longer if prescribed by law. Finally, the CBSA can assess whether imports are produced by forced labour regardless of whether the producer/ particular geographic region where the goods originate are listed.
This shift resembles the US approach to forced labour under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) and section 307 of the Tariff Act (the US’ core forced labour prohibition), which relies on geographic regions, entity lists, Withhold Release Orders and Findings against specific entities to prohibit goods from import. This is an approach that the US has pushed in recent FTA negotiations by requiring its trading partners to presumptively prohibit goods imported from entities on the UFLPA Entity List or where there is a finding under s. 307 of the Tariff Act. The list-based approach in Bill C-35 may signal a concession to US concerns, that permits Canada to maintain sovereignty over the geographic regions /entities listed.
Practically, this reduces the discretion exercised by individual CBSA officers and enhances predictability for importers by clearly identifying goods at a high risk for forced labour. At the same time, it creates a quasi-presumptive framework whereby listed goods will attract heightened scrutiny and evidentiary obligations, including an onus on importers to present prescribed documentation to the CBSA.
Limited Appeal Rights: Judicial Review as Primary Recourse
Bill C-35 bypasses administrative appeal mechanisms available under the Customs Act. Decisions made under the proposed Bill, including determinations that goods are produced by forced labour, are explicitly excluded from appeal, review, or re-determination under the Customs Act.
Instead, affected parties must rely on judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. Consequently, judicial review applications will result in the development of a new body of administrative law on the issue of forced labour in Canada. Importers will be subject to the strict 30-day timeline for filing applications for judicial review with the Federal Court with a mixed chance of success given that the court is likely to defer to the CBSA as a specialized administrative decision-maker.
Outstanding Questions: Regulatory Detail and Practical Uncertainty
Bill C-35 contains several ambiguities which should be supplemented by regulation or CBSA guidance, especially the scope of the prescribed information to be provided by importers. Further questions arise on how the list will be populated and maintained, including the evidentiary threshold applied by the Minister and the role of interdepartmental information sharing. It remains to be seen whether listed entities or affected importers will actively pursue judicial review of their listing, particularly given the potential reputational and commercial consequences of being associated with forced labour allegations.
Legislative Outlook: What Comes Next
Following the first reading, Bill C-35 will proceed to the second reading, a committee review, the report stage, and the third reading in the House of Commons, before consideration by the Senate. Bill C-35 is unlikely to advance to its second reading before Parliament adjourns for the summer.
While amendments are possible at committee stage, the policy alignment with international obligations and trade pressures suggests that the core elements of Bill C-35 are unlikely to undergo substantial revision. Certain provisions, particularly those relating to importer obligations, will come into force on a date fixed by order in council, allowing time for the development of supporting regulations.
Key Considerations for Importers
In light of the proposed framework, importers should proactively a prepare for a heightened enforcement environment. Key considerations include:
- Monitoring legislative developments
Importers should closely track the progress of Bill C-35 and any associated regulations or guidance. - Enhancing supply chain visibility
A comprehensive understanding of upstream suppliers, including raw material sourcing and production processes, will be critical to responding to information requests and mitigating enforcement risk. - Assessing geopolitical and enforcement risk
Importers should consider whether their supply chains involve regions or entities already identified as high-risk by United States authorities, as these may be likely candidates for designation under the Canadian list-based regime.
