Language selection

Government of Canada Government of Canada

Search

Final report: Complaint filed by the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress about the activities of Canadian Tire Corporation Limited and Mark’s Work Wearhouse Limited, known as L’Équipeur in Quebec

Country: Bangladesh
File number: 220835
Complaint filed: November 21, 2022
Date of publication: December 2024

Table of contents

Part 1 – Background

About the Canada Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise

The Canada Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) is a business and human rights grievance mechanism established by the Government of Canada. People can file complaints with the CORE about possible human rights abuses arising from the operations of Canadian garment, mining, and oil and gas companies outside of Canada.

For more information, see About the CORE.

What is the purpose of this report?

The CORE is providing a final report in relation to a complaint filed by the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress on November 21, 2022, about the activities of Canadian Tire Corporation Limited and Mark’s Work Wearhouse Limited (known as L’Équipeur in Quebec).  

In accordance with Section 16 of the CORE’s Order in Council, the parties had an opportunity to comment on this report. The comments received are included as an appendix to this report.

Who are the parties to the complaint?

The complainants are:

The respondent is Mark’s Work Wearhouse Limited, also known as L’Équipeur in Quebec (Mark’s/L’Équipeur). It is a Canadian garment company. Mark’s/L’Équipeur is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian Tire Corporation Limited (Canadian Tire). Canadian Tire is a company incorporated in Ontario, with its head office located in Toronto.

What is the complaint about?

The complaint alleges that Mark’s/L’Équipeur uses suppliers and/or factories in its supply chain in Bangladesh that do not pay workers, primarily women, a living wage.

Part 2 – Introduction

  1. On March 14, 2024, the then-Ombud shared an initial assessment report with the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress (the complainants) and Mark’s/L’Équipeur (the respondent). The initial assessment report stated that the CORE intended to move forward with independent fact-finding related to the payment of a living wage by the respondent’s local suppliers to their employees in the ready-made garment sector in Bangladesh, where the respondent sources some products.
  2. Technical delays prevented the publication of the March 14, 2024, initial assessment report. It will be published simultaneously on the CORE’s website with the present final report.
  3. I began my role as interim CORE on May 21, 2024. As this complaint was filed in November 2022 (almost 2 years ago), I undertook an in-depth review of this file on a priority basis. I independently collected information with respect to the issue of living wage, including the practices of the Government of Canada and the status of discussions in the International Labour Organization (ILO) on operationalizing living wages. I also examined guidance around living wage, articulated in key responsible business conduct guidelines including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, as well as other relevant international human rights instruments.
  4. As part of my fact-finding process, I met with the complainants on July 17, 2024, and September 23, 2024, and with the respondent on August 15, 2024, and September 9 and 16, 2024, to better understand the allegations brought forward by the complainants and the actions being undertaken by the respondent with respect to their practices and policies in Bangladesh.
  5. In light of the information I collected, and recent international developments with respect to living wage, I have decided to conclude this process and issue this final report.

Part 3 – Living wage: lack of international consensus and ongoing work by the International Labour Organization

  1. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are the principal internationally recognized human rights instruments that provide guidance related to living wage. While these instruments have been in existence for many years, at the time of publishing this report, it is my view that the content and operationalization of the obligation to provide a living wage remain unsettled in international law.
  2. Article 7 of the ICESCR states that State Parties “recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work, which ensure, in particular: a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant.”Footnote 1
  3. Article 23 (paragraph 3) of the UDHR recognizes “…the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself [the worker] and his [/her] family an existence worthy of human dignity…”.Footnote 2
  4. In the initial assessment report, the issue of the status of the obligation to provide a living wage was raised by the respondent. The initial assessment report noted that “it may be desirable to develop a list of criteria to define a living wage in Bangladesh for the purpose of the present complaint” (paragraph 41).
  5. On the basis of the fact-finding I have done, I have come to the determination that there are other organizations, such as the ILO, who have the required expertise, resources, mandate and reach to undertake this important work rather than the CORE.
  6. With respect to the ongoing work by the ILO, the initial assessment report was written at approximately the same time that the group of experts, established by the ILO, issued their report of the meeting of experts on wage policies, including living wages.Footnote 3
  7. This ILO experts’ report was informed by a background document of the ILO Office that provided a relatively exhaustive survey of existing voluntary living wage initiatives, including by some of the organizations referenced by the complainant.Footnote 4 The ILO Office report noted the similarities and differences between the various initiatives.
  8. Drawing upon their research and expertise, the experts produced a definition of a living wage, as well as a process for determining a living wage in each specific context.
  9. This report was subsequently submitted to the Governing Body of the ILO, which on March 13, 2024, issued a decision-taking note of the conclusions of the meeting of expertsFootnote 5, requesting the Director-General of the ILO to allocate sufficient resources to this issue and to take account of its guidance regarding future ILO activities on wage policies, including living wages and to present an implementation report in the fall of 2025.Footnote 6
  10. What does this tell me? That the issue of a living wage and how to determine it remains under active consideration in the ILO – the premier international body for establishing labour standards.
  11. Therefore, I cannot say that, at the time of the complaint or even today, there is a final international consensus on what constitutes a living wage and how it should be determined and operationalized. From that perspective, I do not know what standard to apply to assess the behaviour of the respondent or any other company as it relates to living wage. Choosing one of several voluntary processes would, in my opinion, be arbitrary as they are not authoritative.
  12. The ILO has already undertaken considerable work and research on the issue of living wage and that work is ongoing. Therefore, it is unclear on what basis the CORE would examine this issue and criteria with respect to Bangladesh. In my view, such a process risks being duplicative of the ILO’s work. Further, the ILO, with 187 member states and its tripartite nature, inclusive of representatives of governments, employers and workers, as well as a group of experts already seized with this issue, has a comprehensive approach and reach beyond that of the CORE.
  13. To the extent that the ILO experts have defined a process, they note that any process requires domestic buy-in and should be the result of tripartite negotiations between government, business and labour. In my view, it would therefore be inappropriate for a foreign third-party body such as the CORE to determine what should constitute a living wage in Bangladesh and what criteria should be used to assess whether a company has participated in a human rights abuse in this regard.
  14. I further believe that, should the CORE undertake this work, it would be contrary to the prohibition in the Order in Council for the CORE to set new standards in responsible business conduct.
  15. As I noted above, the report by the ILO experts was not available to the CORE at the time of the drafting of the initial assessment report. Now that I have had the time to review the findings by the experts and the commitments by the ILO, it is clear to me that the ILO is the appropriate body to develop the operationalization of the living wage and obtain international consensus. Pending the outcome of that work, I am not in a position to assess the performance of an individual purchasing company regarding the wages paid by its suppliers in relation to a living wage.
  16. My conclusion is further reinforced by the points made in the following sections.

Part 4 – Canada’s responsible business conduct expectations and living wage

  1. Responsible business conduct is about the expectations of Canadians and the Government of Canada for Canadian businesses operating abroad. While the Government of Canada has had a responsible business conduct strategy for all Canadian companies operating abroad since 2022, the strategy makes no reference to living wage. Given the lack of definition and operationalization of living wage, especially in 2022 at the time the complaint was submitted to the CORE, it is unclear what the expectations are with respect to living wages for Canadian importers sourcing goods from foreign suppliers. I have confirmed that the High Commission of Canada to Bangladesh does not provide advice on this issue to Canadian companies. I have also confirmed that domestically, the Government of Canada does not oblige companies to pay a living wage, but only the mandatory minimum wage. Indeed, the Government of Canada does not use the terminology of living wage in Canada as it neither explicitly aligns nor counters Canada’s wage, income and social assistance policies.
  2. How then should Canadian companies determine whether their foreign suppliers are meeting a standard that the Canadian government does not use or provide advice on? Given the foregoing, in my view, it would be unfair to assess an individual Canadian company’s performance with respect to a living wage retroactively or to otherwise characterize the failure to ensure foreign suppliers pay an unspecified wage amount as an abuse of human rights.
  3. This is not to downplay the importance of the living wage nor the importance for Canadian companies to conduct thorough due diligence and assess the conditions of employment for the workers in the facilities from which they are sourcing goods abroad.
  4. Canadian companies also need to be aware of the increasing expectations of consumers, as well as international developments with respect to the issue of fair and living wages. The ILO’s work is continuing and may result in an internationally agreed upon standard and operationalization. To accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, and in particular Goal 8, Decent Work and Economic Growth, the United Nations Global Compact has established the Forward Faster initiative, whereby they are seeking a commitment by organizations that 100% of employees across an organization earn a living wage by 2030, and that organizations establish a joint action plan with contractors, supply chain partners and other key stakeholders to work towards achieving living wages and/or living incomes with measurable and time-bound milestones. As 2030 approaches, further initiatives can be expected to define and operationalize the concept of a living wage.

Part 5 – Transparency issues raised in the complaint

  1. The initial assessment report noted several issues relating to transparency raised by the complainant including public disclosure of information of the list of suppliers related to the respondent’s supply chain according to the requirements of the apparel and footwear supply chain Transparency Pledge. The complainants also noted that concerns had been alleged that non-monetary benefits were only offered on the day of audit.
  2. Through my multiple engagements with the respondent, I take note of the following actions and commitments undertaken by the respondent:
    1. The respondent has made its supplier list publicly available.
    2. In accordance with Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to Amend the Customs Tariff, the respondent has fulfilled its reporting obligations, through publishing a report detailing the steps it has taken to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is being used within its supply chains.
    3. The respondent has confirmed that it is actively considering compiling and publishing information called for in the Transparency Pledge across all of its enterprises.
    4. The respondent has undertaken work to update its Supplier Code of Business Conduct and committed to publishing an updated code in the next 6 months.
    5. The respondent advised that it undertakes audits of its suppliers in Bangladesh using recognized global audit standards including amfori BSCI, SA8000, WRAP and SEDEX by certified third party auditors before issuing a purchase order, and at regular frequencies thereafter.
    6. The respondent advised that, based on recent data available to it, the respondent’s supplier factories in Bangladesh pay their workers approximately 10% higher than the wages earned in other factories in the Bangladesh ready-made garment industry.
    7. The respondent addressed the allegation of working with suppliers who only provide benefits on the day of audits. The respondent demonstrated to the CORE that it undertakes point-in-time audits with periodic follow-ups, has a grading system to ensure follow-up and to address areas of concern and has trackers to monitor conditions as well as complaint mechanisms for workers.
    8. The respondent advised that, as a founding member of Nirapon, a member-led not-for-profit organization, it supports and promotes a culture of workplace safety in Bangladesh. Nirapon works with over 300 factories to provide resources, tools and guidance through partnerships that advance factory safety. It also funds Amader Kotha, an anonymous help line which provides workers with the ability to voice health and safety risks/concerns, and it actively monitors and reviews complaints associated with all of its business partners.
  3. Given the foregoing, I am of the view that, in the context of this specific complaint, no further follow-up from the respondent is required.

Part 6 – Recommendations

Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development

  1. Given the importance and complexity of the issue of a living wage, the CORE recommends to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development to instruct the department to conduct a review of the advice that trade commissioners provide to Canadian companies operating abroad in the garment sector with respect to the payment of adequate wages that meaningfully tackle poverty, insecurity and inequalities.
  2. Supplementary recommendations to the Minister:
    1. That the Government of Canada continue to actively participate in discussions in international forums such as those ongoing at the ILO with respect to defining and operationalizing the concept of living wage.
    2. That the Government of Canada consider the formation of a working group, which brings together Canadian companies, civil society and implicated government departments, to determine best practices related to supply chains and ethical sourcing in relation to adequate wages as it relates to Canadian companies sourcing and operating abroad.

Canadian companies sourcing abroad

  1. Supplementary recommendations to Canadian companies sourcing abroad:
    1. All Canadian companies operating abroad should be aware of, and take steps to implement, Canada’s responsible business conduct expectations, including those put forward in Responsible Business Conduct Abroad: Canada’s Strategy for The Future, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As part of best practices, companies should also consider implementing sector or issue specific guidelines and frameworks such as the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, and the Transparency Pledge.
    2. As applicable, Canadian companies must comply with reporting obligations under An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to Amend the Customs Tariff.
    3. Canadian companies are encouraged to publicly disclose and publish supplier lists and put in place a supplier’s code of conduct which they review and update on a regular basis, and which is reflective of international best practices.
    4. Companies should prioritize senior-level leadership and create a culture committed to responsible business conduct, including as it relates to decent work conditions and responsible procurement.

Appendix – Comments from the parties

Comments received from the complainant are enclosed below. No comments were received for publication from the respondent.

Commentary by the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress

The Complainants in this matter, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers) and the Canadian Labour Congress (together, the “Complainants”) together provide the following comments on the Final Report of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (the “CORE”), released to the Complainants on October 2, 2024. The CORE concluded in the final report that it would not undertake an investigation into the issues raised by the complaint, including the issue of whether Mark’s Work Wearhouse/Canadian Tire (the “Respondents”) use suppliers that pay a living wage to workers.

Context of the complaint

On November 21, 2022, the Complainants filed a complaint with the CORE, alleging that the Respondents use supplier factories in Bangladesh that pay workers less than a living wage. The Complainants argued that the right to a living wage is protected under the international human rights instruments that form the basis of the CORE’s mandate. In the complaint, the Complainants outlined three living wage benchmarks applied in Bangladesh, which varied in terms of their underlying assumptions and calculations. Using publicly available shipping data, and data obtained from a non-governmental organization that surveys garment workers in Bangladesh on their wages, the Complainants alleged that it appeared workers working in factories used by the Respondents were being paid far less than any of the living wage benchmarks.

The Complainants have a long history of worker solidarity in Bangladesh. According to the International Confederation of Trade Unions, Bangladesh remains one of the 10 worst countries in the world for working people. In recent years workers have faced severe state repression, including violent clashes with the notorious Industrial Police, intimidation, harassment and murder when trying to advance their rights. Workers are obstructed in registering unions and left unable to participate in legitimate democratic industrial processes to bargain for fair wages and conditions of work.

In December 2023, after weeks of the wage-related protests, the minimum wage for garment workers in Bangladesh was set at 12,500 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) per month, or about $113 per month (in Canadian dollars). Protests continued because this increase fell far short of covering basic costs of living and lifting workers out of poverty-level wages.

At the time of submitting the complaint, the Complainants were concerned that there were sufficient guarantees for the protection of Bangladeshi stakeholders taking part in this complaint process. For this reason, only the United Steelworkers (USW) and Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) appeared as the official complainants, deliberately leaving out mention of any Bangladeshi stakeholders, such as independent unions and federations of garment workers, for fear of potential reprisal. During the two years that the complaint was being processed by the CORE, the situation in Bangladesh remained fraught for ready-made garment workers, especially for those involved in defending their rights.

Wages in factories in the garment sector have continued to stagnate, even through high rates of inflation.

The Complainants filed the complaint in solidarity with partners in Bangladesh, hoping that the CORE would investigate potential human rights abuses in the Respondents’ supply chain. While the CORE initially agreed that it would investigate the claims made in the Complaint, in the final report the CORE changed course and stated it would not be undertaking further investigation.

The Complainants’ view is that the final report is flawed in several respects, which are outlined in detail below.

Chronology of the complaint

The Complaint process with the CORE has been lengthy, lasting almost two years from when the complaint was filed to receiving this final report. The following steps were taken in the complaint process:

The delay in processing the Complaint has had a real impact on the Complainants’ abilities to advocate for workers affected by the Complaint. In the Initial Assessment meeting in February of 2023, the Ombudsperson requested that the Complainants keep the CORE’s processes confidential in order to participate in good faith. The Complainants have been exceedingly careful in their advocacy defending workers’ rights in Bangladesh so as to participate in the CORE’s processes in good faith. The excessive delay in the CORE’s processes has had an impact on the Complainants’ activities to advocate for the rights of garment workers in Bangladesh. Further, the CORE’s operating procedures do not clearly state which elements of the process are confidential, and what that confidentiality would entail in order to participate in good faith. This resulted in uncertainty in the process.

Commentary on the final report

The Complainants disagree with the conclusions drawn in the final report, and provide these comments to the CORE. In particular, the final report reflects a narrow view of the CORE’s jurisdiction to investigate human rights abuses perpetrated by Canadian companies internationally. The CORE office was created to hold Canadian companies operating in the mining, oil and gas, and garment sectors to account for human rights abuses abroad, in their supply chain. The CORE’s approach reflected in the final report would undermine this mandate to such a degree that it would render the office ineffective.

1. International consensus on a living wage, and the International Labour Organization (“ILO”) work

In the final report, the CORE states that other organizations, including the International Labour Organization (“ILO”), have the expertise and mandate to research the issue of a living wage, and that the ILO’s work in this respect is ongoing. He further concluded that there is no international consensus on what constitutes a living wage (see para 16). He concluded that the CORE is “not in a position to assess the performance of an individual purchasing company regarding the wages paid by its suppliers in relation to a living wage” (para 20).

Determining a living wage is a complex issue. Nevertheless, the complexity of a human right should not act as an obstacle to the CORE in investigating the breach of that right. The CORE office was created to investigate complaints made against Canadian companies operating abroad. By the very nature of the office, all complaints will involve international entities and complex factual and legal scenarios. Indeed, the CORE in its Initial Assessment Report on the very same complaint stated, “the level of complexity of a human right is not a factor in determining the CORE’s jurisdiction in reviewing a complaint” (see Initial Assessment at para. 109(b)).

Further, though the ILO is an important actor in international labour and employment rights, the Order in Council that created the CORE office does not have any mention of the CORE deferring to the ILO or other governing bodies. The ILO’s work is not binding on the CORE, and the fact that the ILO is undertaking research into a living wage internationally does not prevent the CORE from investigating the complaint.

2. Investigating the complaint would not create a new human rights standard

The CORE states in the final report:

I further believe that should the CORE undertake this work, it would be contrary to the prohibition in the Order in Council for the CORE to set new standards in responsible business conduct (at para 19).

The Complainants disagree. A right to a living wage is a concept that is deeply engrained in the international human rights instruments that form the backbone of the CORE’s mandate. Further, the CORE in a previous decision determined that investigating the complaint would not be creating a new standard.

The CORE mandate is established by the Order in Council 2019-1323Footnote 7 (the “OIC”). The OIC is the document that created CORE and it is that document from which CORE takes its jurisdiction and powers.

Section 5 of the OIC states:

5 In discharging the mandate, the Ombudsperson is to be guided by the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines.

Section 6 states:

6 In discharging the mandate, the Ombudsperson is not to create new standards concerning responsible business conduct.Footnote 8

Notably, section 5 of the OIC refers to the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines, defined in the OIC as follows:

OECD Guidelines means the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. (Principes directeurs de l’OCDE) 

UN Guiding Principles means the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. (Principes directeurs des Nations Unies)

Human rights abuse is defined in the OIC as follows:

human rights abuse means an adverse impact on an internationally recognized human right — including any of the human rights that are referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — arising from a Canadian company’s operations abroad. (atteinte aux droits de la personne)

In total, the OIC refers to five international instruments governing international human rights. For the purpose of this complaint, the Complainants rely on the following four international human rights instruments:

  1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the “UDHR”);
  2. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the “ICESC”);
  3. The UN Human Rights Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “UN Guiding Principles”); and
  4. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the “OECD Guidelines”).

In the complaint, the Complainants walked through how each of the above human rights instruments applies to the Complaint and creates a human rights obligation to ensure workers in a supply chain are being paid a living wage.

The CORE in the Initial Assessment Report agreed with the Complainants. The CORE concluded that the right to a living wage is an internationally recognized human right pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and therefore it was within the CORE’s mandate to investigate the complaint:

According to Section 4(c) of the OiC, the mandate of the Ombudsperson is “to review a complaint submitted [...] concerning an alleged human rights abuse [...].” The definition of a “human rights abuse,” according to Section 1(1) of the OiC, means “an adverse impact on an internationally recognized human right — including any of the human rights that are referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — arising from a Canadian company’s operations abroad” (our emphasis). As mentioned in para. 33, the right to a living wage is an internationally recognized human right in articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and articles 7 and 11 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESC”).16

Furthermore, according to Section 5 of the OiC, the Ombudsperson is to be guided by the UNGP and the OECD Guidelines. In para. 46 and 47, the CORE refers to Sections 11,12 and 13 of the UNGPs regarding corporate responsibility to respect human rights as well as Section IV of the OECD Guidelines. Therefore, reviewing a complaint that alleges an abuse of the human right to a living wage by a Canadian company is well within the mandate and jurisdiction of the CORE according to the OiC. The level of complexity of a human right is not a factor in determining the CORE’s jurisdiction in reviewing a complaint. In addition, reviewing a complaint of an alleged human right abuse does not equate to creating a new standard concerning responsible business (Initial Assessment at paras 109(a) and (b)).

The CORE in its final report directly contradicts its conclusion in the Initial Assessment, without providing any reasons or the basis on which its conclusion has changed.

3. The new “domestic buy-in” requirement

The CORE appears to indicate in the final report that it cannot investigate a complaint without domestic buy-in from the country in which the Canadian company operates. At paragraph 18, the CORE states:

To the extent that the ILO experts have defined a process, they note that any process requires domestic buy-in and should be the result of tripartite negotiations between government, business and labour. In my view, it would therefore be inappropriate for a foreign third-party body such as the CORE to determine what should constitute a living wage in Bangladesh and what criteria should be used to assess whether a company has participated in a human rights abuse in this regard.

With respect, the CORE’s conclusion with respect to domestic buy-in does not accurately represent its own role, and the role of international human rights instruments.

The OECD Guidelines, which form the backbone of the CORE’s mandate, are clear that an enterprise has an obligation to comply with international human rights standards, regardless of the domestic laws in the country in which it is operating. Even if a transnational enterprise is operating in technical compliance with domestic laws (for example, by ensuring factories in its supply chain pay workers a minimum wage), that does not absolve it of its responsibility to prevent human rights abuses in its supply chain:

  1. The chapeau and the first paragraph recognise that States have the duty to protect human rights, and that enterprises, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure, should respect human rights wherever they operate. Respect for human rights is the global standard of expected conduct for enterprises independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations.
  2. A State’s failure either to enforce relevant domestic laws, or to implement international human rights obligations or the fact that it may act contrary to such laws or international obligations does not diminish the expectation that enterprises respect human rights. In countries where domestic laws and regulations conflict with internationally recognised human rights, enterprises should seek ways to honour them to the fullest extent which does not place them in violation of domestic law, consistent with paragraph 2 of the Chapter on Concepts and Principles [emphasis added].

If the CORE refuses to investigate Canadian companies operating abroad due to it not wanting to enforce human rights standards in other countries, the entire office becomes meaningless. It is difficult to see what human rights abuses the CORE could investigate, on this reading of its mandate.

4. The Canadian Government does not require a living wage domestically

The CORE states that the Canadian Government does not use or provide advice on a living wage, and therefore it would not be appropriate to investigate the complaint regarding the Respondent paying a living wage abroad.

With respect, the actions of the Canadian government are not relevant to the CORE’s analysis. There is nothing in the OIC that indicates that the CORE should only apply human rights standards with which the Government of Canada has already fully complied, or even recognized. The OIC references human rights instruments that set standards internationally. Whether or not companies comply with human rights standards in Canada is not relevant to the CORE’s mandate to investigate the complaint relating to Canadian Tire’s business conducted in Bangladesh.

5. The transparency issues

The CORE indicated that he had met with Canadian Tire three times in August and September of 2024, and that the Respondent had taken various steps towards supply chain transparency, including publishing a list of supplier factories.

While publishing a list of supplier factories that the Respondent uses abroad is an important first step, it is not the end goal of the complaint. Having a list of supplier factories used by the Respondent abroad would greatly facilitate a full investigation into the living wage issue. Instead, the CORE appears to be satisfied that transparency in itself is an end goal, rather than a first step towards enforcing international human rights.

Many of the other steps the Respondent indicates it has taken involve publications and pledges around issues of child and forced labour and workplace safety. While these are crucial workplace issues, they do not relate to the issue at the heart of the complaint: whether workers are getting a living wage. Other steps are aspirational at this stage, such as the respondent “actively considering compiling and publishing information called for in the Transparency Pledge”. These actions have not yet been taken.

Conclusion

Canada’s unions and civil society allies are committed to improving living and working conditions for workers in the garment sector in Bangladesh. Close to two years after engaging in this process, it is worth emphasizing that the garment sector workers at the centre of this complaint, the majority of them women, are still facing potential human rights violations by not being paid living wages, as documented in the complaint. The women and men who make clothes in factories like those used by the Respondents work six days per week, ten or twelve hours per day, but earn wages so low that they cannot escape poverty, no matter how hard they work.

Although this reflects a sector-wide trend, the Respondents are market leaders and have the resources to be leaders in human rights globally and raise the bar in this industry on the issue of living wages. The Complainants looked forward to engaging with the CORE to achieve results in this precedent-setting case for garment sector workers in Bangladesh who make the clothes sold to Canadian consumers.

The Complainants are disappointed by the CORE’s change of course since the Initial Assessment, and refusal to properly investigate the issues raised in the complaint. The complaint raises the crucial issue of workers in Bangladesh being paid poverty-level wages to construct garments for a popular and hugely successful Canadian company.

While the CORE in the Initial Assessment stated it would investigate the complaint, the final report is a stark departure from its initial conclusions. The CORE reads down its mandate in the OIC to such a degree that it is difficult to conceive of what human rights abuse it would have jurisdiction to investigate.

Even had the CORE’s final report had gone forward with an investigation, with no independent powers to compel testimonies from witnesses and documents, next steps remained unclear. The Complainants’ experience only strengthens the position of many civil society actors that the CORE office needs to gain the independence and powers to compel testimonies from witnesses and documents, which are fundamental for it to comply with its mission effectively.

Sincerely,

The United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us.

Date modified: