The association, which represents global apparel and footwear companies including those operating in Canada, submitted these recommendations as part of the public consultations on the proposed changes.
In its comments, AAFA warned that without internationally recognised standards and transparent enforcement, the legislation could result in broad product bans and burdensome documentation requirements.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Key among AAFA’s recommendations is the need for the government’s planned list of high-risk goods to be “specific at the producer or facility level,” with impacted companies given a chance to challenge or respond to evidence before being listed.
The AAFA also emphasised the importance of sharing the evidence that underpins any enforcement action, stating, “Any list 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.”
AAFA’s submission drew heavily on lessons from the US experience with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and other American forced labour statutes.
The group outlined a number of challenges encountered under the US system, including inconsistent documentation requirements, lack of detail in detention notices, and enforcement processes that can leave shipments detained for months.
According to the AAFA, these issues have led to significant resource burdens for both importers and the government without always improving outcomes against forced labour.
The group cautioned that Canada’s proposed “black list” approach covering products and geographies worldwide could lead to “de facto” bans on a “broader range” of products beyond those that are genuinely at risk.
The AAFA warned that unless the Canadian government publicly shares irrefutable evidence meeting a very high evidentiary threshold, the resulting bans could “destroy industries” and throw thousands of people out of work based on limited evidence and no review.
AAFA has advised that enforcement and documentation requirements should align with internationally accepted frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD guidelines, and include recognition of due diligence by companies with good compliance practices.
Regarding enforcement costs, the association stated that any cost-recovery mechanism such as requiring companies to pay for the storage or disposal of detained shipments should only apply where there is a willful violation, not simply due to lack of paperwork or when goods are only deemed, not proven, to be made with forced labour.
The group further urged the adoption of a streamlined and urgent process for resolving disputes between the government and importers, noting that extended detention of shipments as experienced in the US can render goods worthless, particularly for goods with seasonal demand.
AAFA cited the forthcoming EU Forced Labour Regulation as a possible model, offering clear timelines for investigation and resolution.
It also stressed that transparency in enforcement is essential but cautioned against practices that could unfairly penalise businesses simply for re-exporting detained shipments, a right often exercised by smaller importers unable to challenge detentions in time.
These recommendations are intended to inform ongoing government deliberations and ensure Canada’s approach deters forced labour while safeguarding procedural fairness and supporting responsible importers.
The Government of Canada introduced Bill C-35, the Ban on Importing Goods Made with Forced Labour Act, for its first reading in the House of Commons on 12 June 2026.
The bill remains under review, with public consultation ongoing.
