A registry tells you which products are flagged; it doesn't investigate companies.
In a moment when the world is reckoning with the moral weight of global supply chains, Canada has chosen to dismantle the very office tasked with asking whether its corporations were complicit in forced labour abroad. The Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, born in 2019 with a mandate to hold Canadian companies accountable for human rights violations overseas, has been quietly folded into an austerity budget — its six years of sparse output offered as justification for its end. The decision arrives precisely as Washington presses Ottawa to prove its seriousness about slavery in supply chains, leaving a troubling gap between Canada's stated values and its institutional choices. What endures is the question the office was created to ask — and the workers, particularly Uyghur labourers in Xinjiang, for whom that question was never merely procedural.
- Canada is eliminating its only dedicated watchdog for corporate human rights abuses abroad, even as American tariff threats demand stronger forced labour enforcement, not weaker.
- The office investigated just five cases in six years — all tied to Xinjiang forced labour — and issued formal recommendations against only two companies, giving the government its rationale for closure.
- Critics like Green Party leader Elizabeth May argue the watchdog was never given the independence or investigative powers it needed to succeed, making its failure a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- The government is replacing an enforcement body with a transparency registry — a public list of flagged products — shifting the burden from corporate accountability to importer disclosure.
- The contradiction is glaring: Ottawa is dismantling oversight of Uyghur labour abuses while simultaneously trying to convince Washington it takes forced labour seriously.
Canada is shutting down its human rights watchdog for corporate conduct abroad just as Washington turns up the pressure on Ottawa over forced labour enforcement. The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, created in 2019 to investigate whether Canadian companies were complicit in labour abuses overseas, is being eliminated as part of austerity cuts championed by Finance Minister Mark Carney. His defence was blunt: the office hadn't worked.
In six years, the watchdog opened only five investigations — three targeting American clothing brands operating in Canada, two focused on mining companies — all centred on allegations of forced labour involving Uyghur workers in Xinjiang. It issued formal recommendations against just two firms. That thin record became the official justification for closure, even as critics argued the office had simply never been given the tools to do its job.
The timing sharpens the contradiction. The Trump administration has recently flagged Canada among dozens of nations it views as insufficiently serious about stopping slavery in supply chains, threatening tariffs on Canadian goods. Just months ago, a federal minister pointed to the watchdog as evidence of Canada's commitment to the issue during a trade mission to China.
Carney has proposed new legislation — a public registry of products linked to forced labour in specific regions, with importers required to certify their goods are clean. But the shift is significant: from investigation and accountability to disclosure and transparency. Elizabeth May called it the wrong direction entirely, arguing the office needed real investigative authority, not elimination. Whether the registry satisfies Washington is uncertain. What is clear is that the institution built to ask whether Canadian companies were profiting from Uyghur labour will no longer be there to ask.
Canada is shutting down its human rights watchdog just as the country faces mounting pressure from Washington over forced labour enforcement. The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, established in 2019 under Justin Trudeau's government to investigate allegations that Canadian companies were complicit in labour abuses abroad, will be eliminated as part of austerity cuts announced by Finance Minister Mark Carney. Carney defended the decision by saying the office simply hadn't worked. "Part of government is to look at things and see whether or not they're effective," he said, noting the decision was made months earlier.
The timing is awkward. The Trump administration has recently singled out Canada—along with 80 other nations—for what it views as inadequate efforts to stop forced labour in supply chains. The White House has already threatened tariffs on Canadian goods, citing weak enforcement around products made through slavery. The watchdog's elimination appears to undercut Canada's stated commitment to the issue, even as the government scrambles to respond to American pressure.
In its six years of operation, the office launched only five investigations. Three targeted American clothing companies operating in Canada: Ralph Lauren, Nike, and Levi Strauss. Two others focused on mining firms, GobiMin and Dynasty Gold Corp. All five cases centred on allegations of forced labour in Xinjiang, China's northwestern region, where human rights groups have documented the systematic use of Uyghur workers in factories and mines. The watchdog issued formal recommendations against just two companies and used its mediation powers in one case involving Hugo Boss. The sparse output became the rationale for its closure.
Carney acknowledged that while Canada has passed legislation—the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act—the country has been "less effective" at enforcing it. He framed the watchdog's elimination as part of a broader government efficiency review, suggesting that resources would be redirected where they could have greater impact. The Liberals are now proposing new legislation that would create a public registry of products linked to forced labour in specific regions and require importers to certify that goods from flagged areas were not made through slavery.
But critics argue the government is moving in the wrong direction. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, said the watchdog needed strengthening, not elimination. "CORE has never been given the independence or powers it needs to do its job properly," she stated, calling for the office to be granted real investigative authority and the power to compel evidence. Federal ministers have previously defended the watchdog as an essential safeguard. When Canada's finance minister François-Philippe Champagne visited China in spring as part of a trade mission, he pointed to the office as proof that Canada was serious about preventing forced labour in Chinese automobiles that might eventually reach Canadian consumers.
The contradiction is stark: the government is eliminating oversight of corporate human rights abuses while simultaneously trying to convince the Trump administration that it takes forced labour seriously. The new legislation may address some American concerns, but it replaces an investigative body with a registry system—a shift from accountability to transparency, from enforcement to disclosure. Whether that satisfies Washington remains unclear. What is certain is that the office that spent six years investigating whether Canadian companies were profiting from Uyghur labour will no longer exist to ask the question.
Notable Quotes
Part of government is to look at things and see whether or not they're effective and try to improve it.— Mark Carney, Canadian Finance Minister
CORE has never been given the independence or powers it needs to do its job properly. The solution to a flawed office cannot be to simply do away with it entirely.— Elizabeth May, Green Party leader
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Canada eliminate a watchdog just as the US is threatening tariffs over forced labour enforcement?
Because the office only launched five investigations in six years. The government saw it as inefficient and decided to cut it as part of austerity measures, even though the timing looks terrible.
But didn't that watchdog actually do something important—investigating Nike, Ralph Lauren, companies with real supply chain exposure?
It did investigate those companies, yes. But it only issued formal recommendations against two of them. The output was thin relative to the mandate, which gave Carney the opening he needed to justify closure.
So is the new legislation—the registry system—actually stronger than what the watchdog was doing?
It's different. A registry tells you which products are flagged for forced labour concerns. But it doesn't investigate companies the way the watchdog did. It shifts the burden to importers to prove their goods are clean, rather than having an independent body dig into corporate practices.
That sounds weaker.
Many people think so. Elizabeth May said the watchdog needed more power and independence, not elimination. But the government is betting that a public registry and stricter import rules will satisfy the Trump administration's concerns without maintaining a dedicated investigative office.
And the Uyghur labour issue—the whole reason the watchdog was created—what happens to that?
It doesn't disappear. But there's no longer a dedicated body investigating whether Canadian companies are benefiting from it. The registry might flag products from Xinjiang, but no one is actively investigating corporate complicity the way the watchdog was.