Canadian Initiatives Against Bribery by Foreign Investors
Building on the recognition that corruption threatens sustainable development, the report analyzes Canadian legal initiatives under both domestic and international law against bribery by Canadian businesses investing abroad.
This report builds on the broad recognition that corruption—with bribery as a particularly significant manifestation—is a grave threat to sustainable development.
It focuses on Canadian legal initiatives against bribery by Canadian businesses investing abroad. By digging into both domestic and international law, the policy brief identifies four key points of interest to sustainable development stakeholders: (1) a spike in enforcement of Canada’s Foreign Bribery Prohibition; (2) the recent expansion of firm-level anti-bribery compliance requirements; (3) the adoption of mandatory payment transparency rules for extractive industry firms; and (4) the Canadian government’s stated goal to move to a “progressive” trade (and investment) agenda.
The first key development pertains to Canada’s prohibition of foreign bribery, as mandated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Officials (OECD Convention). The paper begins by examining Canada’s mixed record in implementing this prohibition approach and the recent focus on enforcement.
The second and third developments aim at shifting away from simple prohibition toward reducing the risk of bribery. To date, this has taken two general forms. Canadian corporations are expected, in an increasingly wide range of circumstances, to implement risk-mitigation best practices through accounting protocols and compliance systems. Furthermore, in the case of extractive sector firms, industry-specific concerns are now addressed through mandatory payment transparency.
The fourth key development is Canada’s stated goal for adopting a “progressive” trade and investment policy. This should include a path towards global leadership for Canada in combatting corruption through international investment law. Global Affairs Canada has recently conducted a public consultation on its international investment agreements. There is a need for a new model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) that will address issues beyond investment protection, including the tackling of corruption.
In Manitoba, Canada, and indeed all over the world, policy-makers grapple with the costs of maintaining natural ecosystems, including wetlands, forests, protected areas, etc.
As public budgets diminish, decision makers are often viewing such spending as a luxury that can be ill afforded, especially in light of other seemingly more urgent upgrades in mobility, healthcare, education, transport, social housing and the like.
However, natural ecosystems provide a range of “services”—that is, ecosystem services—such as storing water, supplying water, protecting against floods, preventing erosion, reducing the impacts of heat and drought, reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution and improving aesthetics. With the advent of climate change, natural ecosystems are also critical, as they serve as buffers against catastrophic weather and the resulting floods, droughts, landslides and forest fires.
However, what is the financial value of these “services”? Also, if policy-makers, investors and citizens were better informed on these services and their values, would it support the conservation and regeneration of natural habitats? Alternatively, to put it another way, would citizens, businesses, industries, investors and governments be ready to spend on maintaining natural ecosystems if there were more predictability and certainty about the services natural ecosystems can provide?
This SAVi assessment responds to these questions. It gives a valuation of the ecosystem services provided by examples of built and natural infrastructure: (i) Stephenfield Reservoir is a civil engineered reservoir that was built for irrigation and domestic water supply; and (2) Pelly’s Lake is a natural wetland that is being actively managed for flood control.
Their added benefits are related to improved habitat and biodiversity, groundwater recharge, nutrient and sediment sequestration, carbon offsets and various economic uses of the biomass (plant material). From there, the assessment values the cost of the grey infrastructure that would be needed to provide the same level of service.
Canada Slow to Come Clean on Removing Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Without adequately addressing subsidies, the federal government undermines benefits from its own commendable carbon pricing policies.
June 6, 2019
A few weeks ago, researchers in Hawaii found our atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide is the highest it’s been in 3 million years. Back then, humans didn’t exist. Earth was significantly hotter. Sea levels were 15 metres higher.
We are heading toward a similarly unrecognizable world. The need to take bold climate change action could not be clearer.
In 2009, Canada joined other G20 countries in pledging to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.
A vital action Canada must take to avoid a future of runaway climate change is reform of fossil fuel subsidies. By distorting the market, these subsidies incentivize the emissions that cause climate change. As well as being fiscally irresponsible, they help lock in pollution and slow our transition to a low-carbon economy.
Over the past few months, there have been repeated high-level calls to end fossil fuel subsidies. The United Nations' recent biodiversity report, which projected one million species approaching risk of extinction, denounced these subsidies for their devastating impact on wildlife. World leaders, such as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the International Monetary Fund’s Christine Lagarde, have condemned fossil fuel subsidies as a driver of climate change.
Ten years ago, Canada and other G20 countries committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but progress has been slow. Our country is still the largest funder of fossil fuels per unit of GDP in the G7. While the federal government has taken steps to address subsidies, including committing to a peer review of its subsidies with Argentina, phasing out some subsidies such as the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit (AITC) and opening consultations on non-tax subsidies, more work is needed to meet the G20 goal—because our subsidies are still significant.
In past years, federal subsidies have reached more than CAD1 billion per year. From 2016 to 2018, the federal government committed to some reforms, including removing the AITC, but still provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually in fossil fuel subsidies
To be clear, ensuring access to affordable energy is important, particularly for vulnerable groups. However, the reality is that many Canadian fossil fuel subsidies go to producers, not consumers. Our priority should be reclaiming taxpayer dollars and foregone public revenue handed to private companies that promote fossil fuel production.
The kicker is that we don’t understand the full scope of this problem. Canadians don’t have access to information on who directly benefits from these subsidies, or just how much in taxpayer dollars is being spent. Numerous organizations have pushed for subsidy transparency, but pressure to act has also come from inside government. Earlier this year, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development criticized Canada’s lack of transparency and progress on this issue.
In response, Environment and Climate Change Canada began a public consultation on non-tax subsidies, which will remain open until the end of June. This is a positive step, and the results could build support for subsidy reform and improved policies to transition to a low-carbon economy.
However, more needs to be done. Despite clear calls to action from the commissioner, Finance Canada has yet to begin a similar public review process or consultation on tax provisions that benefit the oil and gas sector.
Without adequately addressing subsidies, the federal government undermines benefits from its own commendable carbon pricing policies. Significant emission reductions will only happen if Canada addresses those policies that encourage emissions in the first place.
The economics are clear. With billions redirected away from harmful subsidies, Canada has an incredible opportunity to support issues that matter to Canadians, such as job creation, healthcare and education.
We can move toward a low-carbon economy and a clean future for Canadians and at the same time use savings from subsidies to support industry, workers and communities that are affected by this transition. Canada already has a model to do this: the Just Transition Task Force on coal gave clear policy options to chart a safe, sustainable future beyond fossil fuels.
Geography Matters: Targeting "hotspots" for cumulative environmental benefits
Using open data from a variety of sources, we demonstrated how Manitoba can target its limited resources to deliver public programming to agricultural regions and gain better outcomes.
Using publicly available spatial data, we identified “hotspots” in Manitoba that will benefit most from targeted investment in natural infrastructure and improved beneficial management practices.
The three "hotspots" we identified for improved water quality are Southwest Red River Valley, Southwestern Manitoba and Southeast Red River Valley.
Targeting these areas will allow us to focus our limited resources and ultimately improve the overall environmental health of the province through better water quality, sustainable agriculture and carbon sequestration.
Geographic targeting, using new and historical datasets, is an important tool for environmental programming in Manitoba. Provincial priorities—including improved water quality, sustainable agriculture and carbon sequestration—can all be assisted by a geographically targeted approach to management actions.
Using publicly available spatial data, we identified “hotspots” in Manitoba—Southwest Red River Valley, Southwestern Manitoba and Southeast Red River Valley—that will benefit most from targeted investment in natural infrastructure and improved beneficial management practices.
Targeted approaches will optimize upcoming investments in both carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, while a Growing Outcomes in Watersheds program in Manitoba could support better incentive programs for priority environmental services.
What’s the Future of Sustainable Development Planning and the 2030 Agenda in Canada?
Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, countries like Canada have been developing their SDG implementation strategies and looking for linkages.
April 5, 2019
On March 4, 2019, IISD hosted a forum to discuss progress on Canada’s 2030 Agenda strategy:
The draft Federal Development Strategy (FSDS) for 2019–2022 (currently under consultation) was presented by Gail Haarsma, Acting Director, Sustainable Development Policy Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).
Proposed amendments to the act that mandates the development of the FSDS were presented by Nathalie Trudeau, Director, Information and Indicators Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).
Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada, shared lessons learned from the audit on Canada’s readiness to take on the 2030 Agenda.
An overview of the development of Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy was presented by Gail Mitchell, Director General, Intergovernmental Affairs, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).
Sustainable development is considered to be critical framework for protecting our planet and ensuring future generations can enjoy healthy and prosperous lives. That said, national and international strategies to advance sustainable development have been around for two decades, but have often varied in ambition and political will, and have been allocated limited financial resources to ensure results.
(Français suivre)
Canadians can provide input to this phase of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy until May 15, 2019.
The universal adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 created a renewed interested in sustainability—in part because the SDGs provide a clear, compelling vision of a world that embraces sustainability. This ideal world would foster equality, ensure access to health care and schooling, end hunger and malnutrition, and conserve our aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity.
Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, countries have been developing their SDG implementation strategies and reporting on progress to the annual High-level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development. In 2018, Canada submitted its Voluntary National Review (VNR) to the HLPF. In this report, we learned that the Government of Canada is committed to developing a national strategy on the 2030 Agenda.
The FSDS, which has been the Government of Canada’s vehicle for sustainable development planning since 2010, is a key contribution to Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The 2016–2019 FSDS includes linkages between the FSDS and 12 of the 17 SDGs, mostly involving goals targeting environmental issues. A draft FSDS covering 2019–2022 was released for public consultation on December 3, 2018. Forum presenters emphasized that this strategy aims to strengthen linkages between the environmentally focused SDGs and the goals listed in the FSDS. The consultation will last until April 2, 2019, with the updated strategy expected to be tabled later this year.
Several amendments have been suggested to the Federal Sustainable Development Act. In 2016, the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI) recommended changes such as moving the focus from environmental to sustainability decision making, adding SDGs and international commitments, and improving the enforceability and accountability of the strategy. Bill C-57, an Act to Amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, responds to these recommendations. One of the key issues raised during deliberations in the House of Commons and the Senate was the importance of considering crucial principles—such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the SDGs—and emphasizing the government leadership on sustainable development. Bill C-57 received royal assent February 28, 2019, and is expected to enter into force after completing the Governor in Council (GIC) process.
Had not developed a formal approach to implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
Had no communication plan and no engagement strategy on how to include other levels of government and Canadians in a national dialogue on the 2030 Agenda
Had no implementation plan or system to measure progress in achieving the goals.
In the fall of 2018, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) was tasked to lead the overall coordination of Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in collaboration with all ministers and departments.
In addition, seven core departments were flagged as “champions” to support the advancement of the SDGs. These include:
ESDC
Global Affairs Canada
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Indigenous Services Canada
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Innovation, Science and Economic Development
Status of Women Canada
The 2018 federal budget included funding over 13 years:
CAD 49.4 million to establish an SDG Unit and fund monitoring and reporting by Statistics Canada
CAD 59.8 million for an SDG funding program to support the implementation of the SDGs in Canada
The SDG Unit at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) is responsible for coordinating the overall implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This includes:
Raising public awareness of the SDGs
Engaging with provinces and territories, municipalities, Indigenous partners, civil society, businesses and academia on the development of a national strategy
Administering an SDG Funding Program that supports action.
Currently, from March 15 to May 15, 2019, Canadians can share their ideas and contribute to the development of the 2030 National Strategy.
Panelists discuss Canada's move to align development with the 2030 Agenda.
Based on information presented during the forum, it was well understood that everyone has a role to play in implementing the 2030 Agenda. Work is already underway by the government, civil society, non-governmental organizations, academia and the private sector to identify and address key priorities that can serve as a basis for Canada’s national SDG roadmap. Given the jurisdictional roles in a number of areas related to the SDGs, the provinces, territories and municipalities play a pivotal role in the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
In summary, the draft FSDS 2019–2022 provides linkages to the SDGs, and the final version will be tabled later this year. Once an amended Federal Sustainable Development Act enters into force, the focus of the FSDS will shift to sustainable development decision making, and it will have the flexibility to include more social and economic aspects and will complement a national strategy for the 2030 Agenda led by ESDC. During the discussion, the invited experts agreed that, similar to other countries, eventually one federal sustainable development strategy that includes the SDGs expressed as national priorities would be desirable, but Canada is not there yet.
IISD is grateful to all the experts for their contributions to the event.
Quel est l’avenir de la planification du développement durable et du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030 au Canada?
Le 4 mars 2019, l’IISD a accueilli une discussion axée sur les progrès à l’égard de la stratégie du Canada pour la mise en œuvre du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030 (Programme 2030).
Gail Haarsma, directrice intérimaire, Division des politiques relatives au développement durable, Environnement et Changement climatique Canada (ECCC) a présenté la Stratégie fédérale de développement durable (SFDD) pour la période 2019-2022 (qui fait actuellement l’objet d’une consultation).
Nathalie Trudeau, directrice, Division de l’information et des indicateurs, ECCC a fait un exposé sur les propositions de modifications de la législation qui prescrit l’élaboration de la SFDD.
Julie Gelfand, commissaire à l’environnement et au développement durable, Bureau du Vérificateur général du Canada a fait part des enseignements tirés de l’audit de l’état de préparation du Canada pour la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030.
Gail Mitchell, directrice générale, Relations intergouvernementales, Emploi et Développement social Canada (EDSC), a présenté un aperçu de l’élaboration de la Stratégie nationale du Programme 2030 du Canada.
Le développement durable est considéré comme le cadre fondamental de la protection de notre planète et de la garantie que les générations à venir pourront jouir d’une vie saine et prospère. Ceci étant dit, les stratégies nationales et internationales pour promouvoir le développement durable qui existent depuis vingt ans sont fondées sur diverses ambitions et volontés politiques et bénéficient de ressources financières limitées pour parvenir aux résultats prévus.
Les Canadiennes et les Canadiens peuvent faire part de leurs idées et contribuer à l’élaboration de la Stratégie nationale pour le Programme 2030.
L’adoption universelle du Programme 2030 et des objectifs de développement durable de l’ONU (ODD) en 2015 a suscité un regain d’intérêt pour la durabilité, en partie parce que les ODD donnent une vision claire et impérieuse d’un monde qui adopte la durabilité. Ce monde idéal favoriserait l’égalité, garantirait un accès aux soins de santé et à l’éducation, verrait l’éradication de la faim et de la malnutrition et la préservation de notre biodiversité aquatique et terrestre.
Depuis l’adoption du Programme 2030, les pays ont élaboré leurs propres stratégies de mise en œuvre des ODD, et ont rendu compte de leurs progrès chaque année au Forum politique de haut niveau (FPHN) sur le développement durable. En 2018, le Canada a présenté son Examen national volontaire (ENV) (disponible uniquement en anglais) au FPHN. Dans ce rapport, nous avons appris que le gouvernement du Canada est engagé envers l’élaboration d’une stratégie nationale pour la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030.
La SFDD, le véhicule du gouvernement du Canada pour la planification du développement durable depuis 2010, est un apport fondamental à la mise en œuvre, par ce pays, du Programme 2030. La SFDD 2016-2019 comporte des liens entre la SFDD et 12 des 17 ODD, portant principalement sur des objectifs axés sur des enjeux environnementaux. Un avant-projet de SFDD pour la période 2019-2022 a été publié le 3 décembre 2018 aux fins de consultation publique. Les conférencières du Forum ont souligné que cette stratégie vise à renforcer les liens entre les ODD axés sur l’environnement et les buts énumérés dans la SFDD. Les consultations se poursuivront jusqu’au 2 avril 2019, et déboucheront sur une stratégie mise à jour dont le dépôt devrait avoir lieu plus tard cette année.
Plusieurs modifications de la Loi fédérale sur le développement durable ont été suggérées. En 2016, le rapport du Comité permanent de l'environnement et du développement durable recommandait un certain nombre de changements, notamment opérer un glissement de la prise de décisions fondée sur l’environnement à celle fondée sur la durabilité, ajouter des engagements envers les ODD et les engagements internationaux, et améliorer le caractère exécutoire et l’aspect de reddition de compte de la stratégie. Le projet de loi C-57, Loi modifiant la Loi fédérale sur le développement durable, répond à ces recommandations. L’importance de tenir compte de principes fondamentaux, tels que la Déclaration des Nations unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones et les ODD, et de souligner le leadership du gouvernement fédéral quant au développement durable, est l’une des principales questions soulevées lors des délibérations devant la Chambre des communes et le Sénat. Le projet de loi C-57 a reçu la sanction royale le 28 février 2019 et devrait entrer en vigueur à l’issu du processus du gouverneur en conseil.
n’avait pas élaboré d’approche officielle de la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030 et des ODD,
ne possédait ni plan de communication ni stratégie de mobilisation décrivant la manière de faire participer d’autres ordres de gouvernement et la population canadienne à un dialogue national sur le Programme 2030,
ne possédait ni plan de mise en œuvre ni système de mesure du progrès quant à l’atteinte des objectifs.
À l’automne 2018, le ministre de l’Emploi et du Développement social (EDSC) a été chargé de la coordination globale de la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030 par le Canada, en collaboration avec tous les ministres et ministères.
En outre, sept ministères de base ont été décrétés « champions » du soutien de la promotion des ODD. Il s’agit des suivants :
EDSC
Affaires mondiales Canada
ECCC
Services aux Autochtones Canada
Relations Couronne-Autochtones et des Affaires du Nord
Innovation, Sciences et Développement économique
Condition féminine Canada.
Le budget fédéral 2018 contenait le financement suivant étalé sur 13 ans :
49,4 millions de dollars canadiens pour établir une équipe des ODD et financer le suivi et les rapports de Statistique Canada,
59,8 millions de dollars canadiens pour un programme de financement des ODD qui appuie leur mise en œuvre au Canada.
L’équipe des ODD d’EDSC coordonne la mise en œuvre globale du Programme 2030, ce qui comprend les mesures suivantes :
accroître la sensibilisation du public à l’égard des ODD,
mobiliser les provinces et les territoires, les municipalités, les partenaires autochtones, la société civile, les entreprises et les universitaires pour l’élaboration d’une stratégie nationale,
gérer un programme de financement des ODD qui appuie les mesures prises.
À la lumière du contenu des exposés réalisés au cours du Forum, il est manifeste que chacun a un rôle à jouer dans la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030. Le gouvernement, la société civile, les organisations non gouvernementales, les universitaires et le secteur privés ont déjà commencé à déterminer et à traiter les principales priorités qui peuvent servir de base pour la feuille de route nationale du Canada pour les ODD. Les provinces, territoires et municipalités joueront un rôle essentiel dans la réussite de la mise en œuvre du Programme 2030 étant donné les compétences qui sont les leurs dans un certain nombre de domaines connexes aux ODD.
En bref, l’avant-projet de SFDD pour 2019-2022 fournit des liens vers les ODD, et la version définitive sera déposée plus tard cette année. Une fois que la Loi fédérale sur le développement durable modifiée sera en vigueur, la SFDD sera désormais axée sur la prise de décision en matière de développement durable et elle possédera la souplesse nécessaire pour inclure un plus grand nombre d’aspects sociaux et économiques, ce qui complétera une stratégie nationale pour le Programme 2030 dirigée par EDSC. Au cours de la discussion, les experts invités ont convenu que, comme pour les autres pays, il serait souhaitable que le Canada possède une SFDD qui inclue les ODD reconnus comme priorités nationales, mais il n’en est pas encore à ce stade.
IISD est reconnaissante envers tous les experts pour leurs apports à ce Forum.
How Can Public Procurement in Canada’s Trade Agreements Contribute to Sustainable Development?
April 4, 2019
Imagine this: A municipality pledges to make all of its buildings carbon-neutral by 2050.
To do so, it needs to invest in renovations using the most innovative, energy-efficient solutions available. The procurement department, however, has limited capacity to work through the complexities of the procurement process and has no expertise in energy efficiency. Municipal budgets are tight. Many local start-ups are developing innovative solutions for efficient, clean energy in infrastructure projects, but there’s legal uncertainty about whether and how the municipality can buy these solutions. So plans stall.
Understanding the barriers to sustainable public procurement is a vital step for governments wanting to use their purchasing power for good.
Although the momentum around sustainable public procurement (SPP) is growing, implementation is still difficult. Understanding what is holding back action is a big first step.
First of all, what is SPP?
SPP is about delivering the best value for taxpayer money when buying goods, services and public works. It means moving away from buying based only on the cheapest price, and instead incorporating other socioeconomic, social and environmental values. SPP has different layers, and they differ in the way they are regulated.
Green procurement is an environmentally friendly approach to SPP: it entails buying products, infrastructure and services that have a low-carbon footprint and that reduce impacts on biodiversity, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce pollution and pressure on natural resources.
Social procurement encourages buying products, infrastructure and services that take into account working conditions, gender equality and respect for human rights throughout their operations and production processes.
Socioeconomic procurement is when procurement is directed at or reserved for specific economic actors, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, women-owned businesses, Indigenous groups and businesses employing disadvantaged groups, such as visible minorities or people with disabilities. This approach is meant to economically empower these groups and better integrate them in the economic system.
What do trade agreements say about SPP?
Over the years, international trade agreements have increasingly begun to cover public procurement between countries. For example, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO GPA) is now a plurilateral agreement between 15 WTO members, including the European Union, with its 28 member states. The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU has very broad coverage when it comes to public procurement, down to the level of municipal and provincial procurement in Canada.
Procurement chapters in these agreements are not very explicit when it comes to SPP, yet procurers are still often reluctant to move forward with SPP because of them.
The WTO GPA, revised in 2012, has made a significant step forward in promoting award methodologies going beyond the lowest price and in including technical specifications including references to the environment. However, other clauses can be read and interpreted in light of SPP and sustainable development more broadly.
How is Canada implementing SPP?
Canada has a few different initiatives to ensure public procurement becomes a strategic driver of innovation and of a low-carbon economy.
The Centre for Greening Government, under the Treasury Board Secretariat, focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the federal building stock and fleet through green public procurement. It also issued Canada’s Green Procurement Policy in 2006, which aims to consider the environment in various procurement activities, from planning to maintenance to disposal.
In 2018, the Canadian government also launched a one-year pilot project encouraging more women-owned or women-led businesses to supply catering services in the Atlantic Region.
A recent workshop in Ottawa, Canada offered policy makers recommendations to help different levels of government improve the sustainability benefits of their procurement processes.
Linking procurers and suppliers more directly on SPP opportunities
Aligning SPP approaches across governments
Accelerating development of a national database on life-cycle assessmentI
Incorporating social policy considerations directly and explicitly into trade laws that would include references to workers’ rights and fair labour conditions, and participation of specific economic actors, such as Indigenous communities and women-owned enterprises
Including environmental specifications, encouraging transparency and opening competition for the tender process
Instituting pilot or demonstration projects to raise awareness of SPP opportunities and approaches
Focusing on military spending under the Department of National Defence, as top government procurer.
What do we recommend to policy-makers?
Returning to our example from earlier, the municipality could:
Hold targeted dialogues with suppliers and procuring authorities to ensure each knows how they can actually work together in pre-procurement phases to inform the procurement process in a transparent way
Create accessible tool kits for municipalities on how to evaluate and utilize SPP in their procurement needs and processes
Translate and incorporate specific texts and clauses referencing municipal SPP procurement and distribute them to Canadian municipalities.
Emission Omissions: Carbon accounting gaps in the built environment
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies are the best tool we have to measure the carbon footprints of building products at each phase of their lifespan, but they have some flaws.
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies are the main tool used to measure the carbon footprints of building products at each phase of their cradle-to-grave lifespan (i.e., production, use and end of life).
With over 30 per cent of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in Canada coming from the communities and structures we build for ourselves, accurately measuring building materials' carbon footprints is key to crafting meaningful policy—from building codes to product preference—to meet carbon reduction targets. There is a clear need for us to get this right.
While LCAs are the best-available tool for evaluating the GHG (and other) performance of alternative building products and designs, policy-makers and building designers should be aware there are also limitations, challenges and uncertainties that must be considered.
Emission Omissions: Carbon Accounting Gaps in the Built Environment delves into those uncertainties. The report considers:
Limitations, challenges and uncertainties in existing LCAs, quantifying their significance to the current understanding of the relative GHG performance of buildings made alternatively of concrete, steel or wood structural elements.
Best practices that could improve the reliability and usefulness of LCA to support effective policies to decarbonize the built environment.
Longer-term opportunities to reduce life-cycle emissions in the built environment by supporting decarbonization efforts in the concrete, steel and forestry sectors.
The report includes three key recommendations to policy-makers looking to reduce carbon in the building sector:
Building efficiency and longevity should be the priority for decarbonizing the built environment.
LCA is the right approach, but more data, transparency and robust standards are needed, especially with respect to biogenic carbon.
To address embodied GHG emissions in buildings, policy-makers and building professionals need to focus equally on material efficiency and incenting decarbonization across all material manufacturing sectors.
The report was guided and peer reviewed by a diverse Advisory Committee of:
Keith Brooks, Environmental Defence
Trevor Hesselink, CPAWS
Dr. Jay Malcolm, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
Jamie Meil, Athena Sustainable Materials Institute
Jean-François Ménard, International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products
Heidi Nesbitt, Local Practice Architecture + Design
IISD Reaction to Canadian Environment Commissioner’s 2019 Spring Reports
“Slow action on climate change that is disturbing.” That stark assessment wraps up Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Julie Gelfand’s final report, released earlier today.
April 2, 2019
“Slow action on climate change that is disturbing.”
That stark assessment wraps up Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) Julie Gelfand’s final report, released earlier today. Coming a day after a government study on Canada’s rapidly rising temperatures was leaked, the report continues Commissioner Gelfand’s work to hold Canada accountable to its environmental pledges.
While the CESD audit found Canada had taken steps to defend against Asian carp, other species like zebra mussels were not resisted as strongly.
When it comes to protecting Canada’s abundant water supplies from aquatic invasive species such as zebra mussels, the report found Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) “did not distinguish its responsibilities with regard to aquatic invasive species from those of the provinces and territories.” Invasive species are a transboundary issue and a federal responsibility. The federal government should be coordinating provincial efforts to combat invasive species and providing the necessary provincial funds.
While the news that DFO has taken significant action to prevent Asian carp species from becoming established in the Great Lakes is encouraging, Canada’s approach to dealing with aquatic invasive species should be risk-based and informed by a national database of current invasive species in Canada that, surprisingly, still does not exist. This will likely result in stronger efforts to tackle, for example, zebra mussels, which pose a great threat to Western Canada, including Lake Winnipeg.
The report also found that DFO “met requirements to protect fish and their habitat from mining effluent.” To improve the monitoring process further, non-lethal methods of testing mining effluent impacts on fish should be more broadly adopted. This would protect fish populations—a pillar of Canada’s economy.
We also need to recognize fish are mobile and not necessarily exposed to contaminants at the site where they were captured. This opens the door for modelling exposures based on other means that do not require lethal sampling of fish—for example, passive samplers. Furthermore, with millions of dollars being spent by mining companies to compensate for loss of fish habitat, it is essential that such compensation be effective and that it be adequately monitored to ensure that it is having the desired effects.
Using an accurate definition is essential to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.
On fossil fuel subsidies, Commissioner Gelfand found both the Department of Finance’s and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC's) work to define both subsidies and “inefficient” subsidies to be incomplete and “not rigorous.” IISD is concerned that both Finance and ECCC disagreed with the audit’s findings, though last week ECCC put out a public call for feedback on non-tax subsidies.
Definitions matter. They are the first step toward meaningful action on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which in turn will speed the country’s energy transition and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to damaging climate change impacts.
From an international trade perspective, definitions also matter because countries can bring legal action against other countries’ subsidies through the World Trade Organization (WTO). That is why IISD uses the WTO definition of a subsidy in its work, a choice we will emphasize during the ECCC consultations. It is essential to get this first step right as Canada heads into its peer review with Argentina.
Transparency is good, and it is positive to see two major developments on Canadian fossil fuel subsidies in less than a week. However, the CESD report and our own preliminary assessment of the ECCC discussion document show that there is a lot more work to do on this file if the G20 process is going to be productive. ECCC and Finance must take a harder look at their prior assessments and strengthen both their approach and their definitions.
Hydro One is Canada’s largest electricity distributor and provides electricity to almost 1.4 million customers across Ontario alone, though most of its electricity system was built in the 1970s and 1980s. This investment would help maintain Ontario’s critical infrastructure, ensuring that when the next natural disaster strikes, electrical resources are better equipped to deal with increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related weather events. This means fewer power lines falling on roads, fewer malfunctioning traffic lights and fewer people being sent to hospitals.
On top of supporting the livelihoods of community members and ensuring their security, financing sustainable electricity infrastructure also helps Canada achieve the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Having agreed to reach these ambition targets in September 2015, Ontario’s decision to invest CAD 100 million into electricity infrastructure upgrades helps achieve five of the goals: no poverty; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; and sustainable communities and cities.
IISD’s Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) can also contribute to policy-makers and investors making informed decisions on financing sustainable infrastructure and curbing climate change while addressing its effects. SAVi has already been applied across the globe, helping governments achieve sustainable development goals.
Investing in Ontario’s electricity infrastructure provides Canadians with jobs, security and everyday necessities, while achieving Canada’s sustainable development goals in a climate-resilient way.
Canada's International Trade Obligations: Barrier or opportunity for sustainable public procurement?
This paper explores the extent to which international trade agreements could pose a barrier to sustainable procurement or, conversely, enable sustainability to take a more prominent role in the procurement process.
Canada's commitments under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement or the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) do not impede sustainable public procurement. Where sustainable public procurement is interpreted as favouring certain groups within an economy, such as local suppliers, however, difficulties arise.
The regulatory framework is often perceived as a barrier to sustainability in the procurement process, but it is not an actual one. Increasingly, regulatory frameworks, in Canada and internationally, make reference to green or sustainable procurement. The actual barriers to sustainable procurement are the capacity of procurement agencies, financial constraints, the absence of political will and recognizing that public procurement is a strategic rather than an administrative function of government.
This paper explores the extent to which Canada's international trade obligations pose a barrier or opportunity for sustainable public procurement. It finds that green procurement is increasingly encouraged in international trade agreements. Social procurement, where attention is paid to worker's conditions across the supply chain, is neither encouraged nor prohibited under the agreements. Favouring selected groups (small and medium-sized enterprises, women-owned or Indigenous-owned enterprises) in society is discouraged and "buying local" is prohibited.
The paper finds also that the number of Canadian entities bound by these international rules has increased with the adoption of the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Nonetheless, many procurement processes do not fall within the realm of the international trade agreements and therefore do not even have to take them into consideration.
Finally, the paper concludes that unpacking the legal framework around public procurement and its relation with sustainability is only one piece of the puzzle. Implementing sustainable procurement also means investing in the skillset of procurers, building in sustainability across the procurement cycle, and working together in a transparent manner with suppliers to ensure that public procurement is used in a strategic way and delivers the best value for money for taxpayers. A set of recommendations at the end of the paper provided input for discussion at a workshop in March 2019.
