The Global Fight Against Foreign Bribery: Is Canada a Leader or a Laggard?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores international responses to foreign bribery with a specific focus on Canadaâs increased role in combating the issue. It outlines international anti-bribery measures and their impact on Canadaâs approach to foreign bribery, with an overview of Canadaâs anti-bribery legislation, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). These measures have met with international criticism, to which Canada has responded with legislative amendments. Four Canadian legal decisions since the CFPOA amendment exemplify Canadaâs stricter enforcement of the Act. Transparency International (TI) issued a progress report that commented on Canadaâs current and future role in the fight against foreign bribery. The paper concludes with an examination of Canadaâs 2014 anti-bribery legislation, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA). Canadaâs recent measures suggest it is ready to follow international leaders in enforcing foreign bribery. This will result in more prosecutions of Canadian individuals and corporations.\nThis article is helpful for readers seeking to learn more about: \nforeign bribery, anti-bribery legislation, anti-bribery measures, corporate social responsibility, corruption, improper payments \nTopics in this article include: \nTransparency International, United Nations, OECD Convention, foreign bribery, facilitation payments, Bribe Payers Index, Corruption Perception Index, Global Corruption Barometer, UN Global Compact, Global Corporate Sustainability Report, TRACE, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, EITI Standards, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, OECD Working Group, nationality jurisdiction principle, Anti-Corruption Unit, Bill S-14, SNC-Lavlin Group, self-reporting \nAuthorities cited in this article include: \nDeclaration Against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions. \nConvention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions \nCorruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, SC 1998, c 34 \nExtractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, SC 2014, c 39 \nForeign Corrupt Practices Act \nBribery Act 2010, (UK) c 23 \nInter-American Convention Against Corruption \nOECD Convention Recommendations on Bribery in International Business Transactions \nCriminal Code of Canada, RSC, 1985, c C-46 \nUnited Nations Convention Against Corruption \nR v Watts / R v Hydro-Kleen Group Inc, [2005] AJ No 568 \nR v Niko Resources Ltd (2011), 101 WCB (2d) 118 (Alta QB) \nR. v. Griffiths Energy International, [2013] AJ No 412 (ABQB) \nR v Karigar, 2013 ONSC 5199
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".