Summary#
This bill would require many Canada-based companies to prevent, fix, and remedy human rights harms tied to their business activities abroad. It creates a duty to act across a company’s own operations, its affiliates, and its wider supply chains and contractors. It also lets people harmed outside Canada sue these companies in Canadian courts for damages and other relief.
- Requires human rights due diligence (steps to identify, stop, and remedy harm), ongoing monitoring, and an annual public report within 1 year of the law taking effect (Bill s. 7(1), s. 9).
- Creates a private right to sue in a provincial superior court for harms abroad, including punitive damages, injunctions, and land remediation (Bill s. 10(1)).
- Allows lawsuits for failure to set up and carry out due diligence, even without proving a specific harm, if it concerns human rights protection (Bill s. 10(2)).
- Sets longer limitation periods and broad Canadian court jurisdiction; courts cannot refuse cases only because a foreign court might hear them (Limitation periods relating to s. 10; Jurisdiction of Canadian court).
- Lets the Minister recommend pulling government support or funding from non‑compliant companies (Withdrawal of government support).
- Requires the Minister of Justice to table, within 1 year, a proposal to create a commissioner to oversee compliance (Legislative proposal — commissioner).
What it means for you#
- Households and consumers
- No direct duties. You may see new public reports from companies about human rights risks and actions in their global supply chains (Bill s. 9).
- Workers and communities abroad affected by Canadian business
- You can sue qualifying companies in Canadian courts for loss or damage from human rights harms tied to their operations, affiliates, or business relationships (suppliers, contractors, security providers) (Bill s. 10(1); Definitions — “business relationship”).
- You can seek damages, punitive damages, injunctions, orders for specific action, and remediation of land, plus legal costs (Bill s. 10(1)).
- Time to sue: generally 5 years from when you learned of the act/omission or after related criminal cases end; no time limit for alleged sexual assault (Limitation periods relating to s. 10).
- Civil society and advocates
- You may bring a court action if a company fails to develop and implement due diligence, if you raise a serious issue, have a genuine interest, offer a reasonable way to advance the case, and have no conflict of interest (Bill s. 10(2)–(4)).
- Businesses operating in or from Canada (except charities, non‑profits, and unions)
- You must avoid causing human rights harms abroad through your own acts/omissions and those of affiliates, and must prevent harms via your business relationships (Obligations — Duty to prevent adverse impacts).
- You must set up due diligence procedures, including risk identification, stopping harmful activities, remedial action, risk mitigation, and an internal alert mechanism. You must monitor and document effectiveness (Bill s. 7(1)–(2)).
- In doing this, you must consult affected people and stakeholders, consider UN Guiding Principles, and consider links between human rights and the environment (Implementation).
- You must publish an annual due diligence report within 1 year of the Act coming into force, and every year after (Bill s. 9).
- You can be held liable for injuries from failures to meet these duties, even if the harm was caused by an affiliate or by a supplier/contractor (Obligations — Liability of entity).
- Defense: you can avoid liability by proving you exercised all due diligence. Courts may consider regulatory standards, your risk identification, history, and incentives you set for suppliers (Defence).
- Risk of loss of government support/funding if there are reasonable grounds to believe you are not compliant (Withdrawal of government support).
- Possible exemptions by regulation based on revenue or employee count; details not yet set (Regulations).
- Investors and lenders
- Companies face new legal, reporting, and compliance risks tied to overseas operations and supply chains. Annual reports and any regulatory standards will provide information for risk assessment (Bill s. 9; Regulations).
- Courts and governments
- Provincial superior courts would hear these cases. The Act broadens jurisdiction and limits refusal to hear cases based on foreign forums; related foreign cases do not block Canadian actions (Jurisdiction of Canadian court).
- The Minister of Justice must table a proposal for a compliance commissioner within 1 year (Legislative proposal — commissioner).
Expenses#
Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.
- No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.
- The bill contains no direct appropriations. Data unavailable.
- Administrative duties:
- Minister of Justice must develop and table a legislative proposal for a commissioner within 1 year (Legislative proposal — commissioner). Data unavailable.
- Federal government must develop and table proposed regulations; committees will review them (Regulations; Tabling and referral of proposed regulations). Data unavailable.
- Judiciary:
- New private rights of action may increase cases in provincial superior courts (Bill s. 10). Data unavailable.
- Business compliance:
- Companies must design, implement, monitor, and report on due diligence systems (Bill s. 7–9). Data unavailable.
- Potential savings:
- Government support/funding may be withdrawn from non‑compliant entities (Withdrawal of government support). Data unavailable.
Proponents' View#
- Improves access to remedy for victims of overseas abuses by allowing suits in Canadian courts and by not allowing courts to decline jurisdiction only because a foreign court exists (Bill s. 10; Jurisdiction of Canadian court).
- Creates a clear duty to prevent harms across supply chains and affiliates, aligning with UN Guiding Principles and setting a due diligence defense that rewards proactive compliance (Obligations — Duty to prevent adverse impacts; Defence; Implementation).
- Increases transparency through mandatory annual public due diligence reports starting within 1 year (Bill s. 9).
- Adds leverage through potential withdrawal of government support or funding for non‑compliance, creating incentives beyond litigation (Withdrawal of government support).
- Builds a framework for stronger oversight by requiring a proposal to establish a commissioner with compliance powers (Legislative proposal — commissioner).
- Uses recognized international human rights instruments, including the right to a healthy environment, to define scope (Definitions — “human rights”; Schedule).
Opponents' View#
- Imposes broad and potentially costly compliance duties on companies, including mapping and monitoring complex global supply chains; no thresholds are fixed in the bill, and exemptions depend on future regulations (Bill s. 7–9; Regulations).
- Expands litigation risk with punitive damages, long limitation periods, and suits even for failure to implement due diligence, which could increase legal costs and uncertainty (Bill s. 10; Limitation periods relating to s. 10).
- Limits courts’ ability to decline jurisdiction and allows cases to proceed despite foreign proceedings, which may strain court resources and create parallel litigation (Jurisdiction of Canadian court).
- Scope concerns: “Human rights” includes environmental harms, and “business relationship” and “affiliate” are defined broadly, potentially capturing minority holdings and indirect links (Definitions; Control; Affiliate; Business relationship).
- Regulatory uncertainty: key details (standards, audits, report content, exemptions) are left to future regulations; compliance targets and timelines beyond the first reporting deadline are not yet defined (Regulations; Bill s. 9).
- Enforcement design: the Act relies mainly on private lawsuits and withdrawal of government support; it does not itself create an enforcement agency, only a requirement to propose one later (Bill s. 10; Legislative proposal — commissioner).