Government Affairs

Legislative Resources

Bill C-59 Compliance and Enforcement Update

In June 2024, Canada's Competition Act was amended to expand significantly the scope for challenging environmental claims made by businesses as "greenwashing." In short, and not as legal advice, CAC notes the new legislation put the onus on companies to prove the accuracy of their claims about the environmental benefits of a product using an "internationally recognized methodology." Before that change in legislation, the onus was on the Competition Bureau to prove that a claim was not accurate.

The amendments also broadened the range of environmental and sustainability claims that were subject to actions under the Competition Act. The law was expanded to include topics like claims about the environmental benefits and impacts of a business or business activity, not just specific products. It also gave private parties, for example environmental groups, the right to launch actions if they could show "public interest."

The Carney government narrowed the scope of those changes significantly in its 2025 budget implementation bill, which is now in force. The Competition Act is now amended to:

Require that environmental representations about a business or business activity be based on "adequate and proper substantiation." The person or company making the representation still has the burden of proving it.
Eliminate the private right of action under the business-activity greenwashing provision. Private parties, however, continue to be able to bring applications under the product-specific greenwashing provision and the general deceptive marketing practices provisions.

For most CAC members, the key requirements continue to be that a business must be able to back up product-specific claims about environmental benefits and sustainability. CAC encourages members to seek legal advice with regard to specific questions about their own environmental and sustainability claims related to their products, services and operations.

Difference Between Bill S-211 and Bill C-35

Bill S-211, which came into force in 2024, is fundamentally a transparency and reporting law. It requires certain organizations and government institutions to publicly report on the steps they have taken to identify and address risks of forced and child labour within their supply chains. The legislation was designed to increase public accountability and encourage better corporate practices, but it does not impose mandatory due diligence obligations or create significant new enforcement mechanisms. Bill C-35, introduced in June 2026, is the federal government's response to concerns that Canada's current framework lacks sufficient enforcement tools. Rather than focusing on reporting, Bill C-35 is aimed at strengthening Canada's import ban on goods produced using forced labour. The legislation would provide authorities with stronger powers to investigate supply chains, require supporting documentation from importers, detain goods at the border, and prevent the importation of products where concerns about forced labour cannot be resolved. In practical terms, the Government appears to have concluded that transparency alone is not enough. Bill S-211 tells companies to report on what they are doing, while Bill C-35 seeks to verify and enforce compliance through border controls and enhanced scrutiny of supply chains.

Key Differences

Bill S-211 is a reporting regime; Bill C-35 is an enforcement regime.
Bill S-211 requires disclosure; Bill C-35 may require evidence and supply chain tracing information.
Bill S-211 focuses on corporate transparency; Bill C-35 focuses on preventing goods made with forced labour from entering Canada.
Bill C-35 would provide CBSA with stronger powers to detain and investigate imported goods.
Bill C-35 would allow the government to identify specific high-risk goods, regions, or producers that could be subject to additional scrutiny.

Potential CAC Considerations

From a CAC perspective, the principal issue is not the objective of the legislation—which aligns with industry support for eliminating forced labour from supply chains—but rather how the new requirements may be implemented. Previous CAC discussions on Bill S-211 emphasized the importance of practical compliance measures, clear guidance, and avoiding unnecessary duplication. Similar concerns are likely to arise with Bill C-35.

Potential CAC Considerations

Whether reporting already undertaken for S-211 can be leveraged to satisfy any future C-35 requirements.
The type of documentation that importers may be required to produce.
How "high-risk" goods or sourcing regions will be identified.
Implementation timelines and opportunities for consultation.
The potential impact on complex agricultural supply chains involving multiple intermediaries and smallholder producers.

Bottom Line

The Government is not replacing Bill S-211 with Bill C-35. Rather, it is attempting to address what it sees as a significant gap in the current framework: the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms. Bill S-211 requires organizations to explain what they are doing to address forced labour risks; Bill C-35 would give the Government greater authority to ensure that goods produced with forced labour do not enter the Canadian market. This Bill will be debated again in the fall session of Parliament before being sent to Committee for review. For CAC members, the key question will be ensuring that any new compliance requirements are practical, risk-based, and complementary to—not duplicative of—the reporting obligations already established under Bill S-211.

Forced Labour Policy Update
Q&A for CAC Members

What’s happening in Canada right now?

The federal government has introduced Bill C-35 to strengthen Canada’s ban on imports produced by forced labour by creating a more formal enforcement framework. Parliamentary debate will resume in September.

Why is the government acting now?

The move is largely driven by U.S. pressure, including concerns that Canada is not fully enforcing its current ban. The U.S. is pushing for greater alignment with its own stricter enforcement approach.

What is Section 301 and why does it matter?

Section 301 is a U.S. trade tool used to respond to perceived trade issues. The U.S. has raised the possibility of tariffs (around 10%) on certain Canadian exports, creating real risk for exporters.

Will CAC members face new reporting requirements?

Not immediately. However, due diligence is increasingly becoming a requirement to maintain market access, especially through expectations imposed by customers and partners.

What will the legislation focus on?

Expected areas of focus include stronger enforcement, clearer importer obligations, supply chain verification, and closer alignment with U.S. rules. Much will depend on future regulations.

Is this better or worse than the current approach?

It could be an improvement if it shifts toward a risk-based approach focused on higher-risk imports rather than broad, prescriptive reporting. This will depend on how regulations are designed.

What does this mean for CAC SMEs?

This is primarily a market access issue. Companies that cannot demonstrate a traceable supply chain may lose business. Requirements will often come indirectly through customers, particularly in the U.S.

What should members be doing now?

• Map key suppliers and inputs
• Keep basic supplier assurances
• Focus on higher-risk areas
• Be ready to respond to information requests
• Engage suppliers early
• Monitor U.S. expectations closely