2010 Foreign consultations conducted by DFAIT

The model is therefore in place. It has been fine-tuned over the years by the various managers of the Access to Information Division. The findings of the Information Commissioner in her report Out of Time beg the question: what exactly are the ramifications of the burden of DFAIT’s consultations with other countries and international organizations?

In terms of access to information, the consultations incumbent upon DFAIT greatly exceed the huge number of access to information requests it receives. With regard to consultations initiated on behalf of other departments and agencies, in an average year, foreign consultations account for approximately 10% of all files processed by DFAIT (Tables 1 and 2).^{Footnote 18} Of this number, a significant portion can be attributed to DFAIT’s obligations under the Act itself and the Treasury Board directive concerning the potential impact of access requests on Canada’s international relations.^{Footnote 19}

 

 

 

On behalf of other departments and agencies, DFAIT each year consults with some 30 governments in order to obtain their opinion on the disclosure to requesters of documents concerning them in one way or another. One thing is certain from a quick glance at Tables 3 and 4: the majority of these consultations involve the United States, and, to a lesser degree, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

 

 

 

The vast majority of these consultations on behalf of departments and agencies involved the Government of the United States and were directed more specifically to the State Department.

Consultations with international organizations on behalf of other entities of the Government of Canada mostly involved members of the United Nations system (Table 5).

 

 

The numbers could not be clearer: the time taken in consultations with foreign governments and international organizations on behalf of departments and agencies is considerable.

In actuality, barely some 10 counties and a few international organizations were approached by DFAIT following access requests made directly to it throughout the year (Tables 6 and 7). Once again, most of the requests were directed to the US government.

 

 

 

In these last two tables, the length of time reported is significant. Very few files are completed in less than 15 days. Generally, many months elapse before Ottawa receives a decision from the government consulted on a file.

By agglomerating the data on consultations conducted with foreign governments on behalf of other departments and agencies in 2008–09 and 2009–10, one has a better understanding of the significance and impact of this process, which takes place through traditional diplomatic channels. From the data recorded over the last two fiscal years, one can easily see the burden of the time factor in this process:

1. The average length of time for Ottawa to receive a decision from a foreign government ranged from 83 to 181 days during the two years under review (Tables 8 and 9).
2. In 2008–09, the length of time since the start of the consultation process was 574 days, i.e., more than 15 months.
3. A significant number of the files involved in this procedure during 2009–10 were already overdue by more than six months.

 

 

 

Lastly, Canada is also consulted by foreign governments that also have access to information systems. Their legislation also seeks to prevent prejudice to international relations between countries. The number of such consultations is relatively low, however. Overall, the response time reported by DFAIT ranged from 90 to 105 days (Table 10).

 

 

A few significant findings emerge from this cursory review of the consultations conducted by DFAIT in processing access requests made to it and in acting on behalf of other departments and agencies.

Of the some 1,450 access requests handled by DFAIT (see Table 1, page 15), the latter directly completes nearly 90%. The Access to Information Division handles this function, in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the procedures put into place over the years. In her study, Ms. Delagrave clearly noted the problems encountered by DFAIT in that regard. Furthermore, she proposed that new resources be added with a view, hopefully, to improving the Department’s performance.

In addition, the complexity of the consultation system compounds DFAIT’s work as regards access to information, even though this procedure applies to just 10% of all access and consultation requests.

The impact of the consultation process is unquestionably significant, not only for members of the public awaiting a response, but also for the access to information divisions at DFAIT and similar units in federal departments and agencies. Response times are gauged in half-years at least, hence the departments’ and agencies’ dissatisfaction and disgruntlement.

These affirmations must of course be put into perspective to further study the effects of foreign consultation practices on DFAIT’s performance in processing access requests that involve foreign consultations. This objective can be achieved by comparing these data with the procedures of, and the results obtained by, other countries where access to information is enshrined in legislation and the objective of administrative transparency.