Almost five years after Canada’s July 2020 ban on importing goods produced using forced labour, we have very little to show for it. Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) reports that roughly 50 shipments have been detained under this ban and only one of those was ultimately denied entry into Canada. This extremely low number is at odds with the numerous documented and suspected uses of forced labour in markets around the world from which Canada imports a variety of goods. 

Canada’s forced labour import ban is an amendment to Canada’s Customs Tariff following the 2018 Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) negotiations. The final agreement included a provision that all parties must ban the import of products made using forced labour. The U.S. had already been actively banning such products since 2016 and in recent years has applied significant pressure on Canada to strengthen the enforcement of our ban.

For more than two years, the government of Canada has been publicly promising to improve our forced labour import ban, signaling that they recognize it remains ineffective. We have seen deferred budget promises, multiple rounds of public consultations, and a proposal to improve the import ban in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement which was never voted on due to parliamentary delays and closure.

Now, post federal election, it must finally be time to deliver on these promises and proposals, and to do so in a manner that is in line with workers’ wellbeing and civil society demands. While the future of Canada’s relationship with our largest trading partner is uncertain, we cannot simply rely on them to push us forward as we have done so far. We need to take action ourselves, in line with other global partners.

Shifting U.S. priorities

In the U.S., those concerned about cases of suspected forced labour can issue petitions to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Given enough credible evidence, CBP can then issue a Withhold Release Order which publicly names a company that is effectively banned from importing goods to the U.S. while CBP conducts an investigation. The U.S. also has the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in which the state assumes that any goods originating from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, which some Uyghur independence movements refer to as East Turkestan, were produced using state-imposed forced labour and places the onus on importers to prove otherwise. All U.S. enforcement actions combined have resulted in denying entry to thousands of shipments. 

March 2025 marked a shift in the U.S. approach to addressing forced labour outside of its borders. Amid numerous and expansive cuts to government services, we saw the U.S. administration cancel around $577 million from the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) in grants allocated to various programs meant to promote labour rights abroad. This also means that many of those with expertise on identifying and advocating against forced labour have lost their jobs.

At the same time, a Withhold Release Order issued to Dominican sugar producer Central Romana was quietly lifted before the company demonstrated any evidence of improved working conditions, according to advocates.

Despite the substantial efforts and successes of the past decade of U.S. enforcement of its forced labour import ban, these latest moves are raising questions about the U.S. government’s interest in preventing products made with forced labour from entering the North American market from elsewhere in the world, beyond the forced labour, child labour and prison labour that exists within the U.S. borders.

An opportunity to align with the global leaders

Despite these recent changes in the U.S. approach, the country still leads global efforts to ban goods made with forced labour. 

Like Canada, Mexico agreed to institute a forced labour prohibition as part of CUSMA negotiations and officially adopted a ban in 2023. CUSMA includes a provision that parties to the agreement cooperate on the identification and movement of goods produced by forced labour. Canada and Mexico can and should continue this cooperation in an effort to strengthen their efforts, even if the U.S. is less actively engaged.

Last year, the European Union approved a regulation to prohibit the sale, import, and export of goods made using forced labour in the EU single market.

The governments of the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea are also pursuing forced labour import bans as awareness of forced labour grows and civil society momentum builds to eradicate it. 

This is not the time for Canada to backtrack on its promises.

Civil society advocacy

A number of U.S. labour rights groups have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. administration as the sudden cuts to ILAB have undermined the various efforts to ensure global labour rights and seek remedy for victims of labour abuse. Several groups have issued a public call to restore funding.

Meanwhile, unions and human rights groups around the world continue to push for labour justice. The 18 members of the Coalition Against Forced Labour in Trade (CAFLT), representing groups from Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the UK and the EU, have also been particularly active in advocating that no country become a safe harbour for forced labour by calling for worker-centred import bans. 

The ILAB cuts and shifts in the U.S. approach, while devastating, should not harm Canada’s ability to address this issue. Instead, we have an opportunity to become a leader in refusing to import goods produced with forced labour by taking up civil society demands and aligning with other countries taking action to protect workers globally.

Georgina Alonso is a senior research and advocacy officer with Above Ground.