I'm happy to respond on behalf of Mr. Cossette.
Just to provide some explanation, the bulk of our workload is responding to consultations from other government departments for sections 13 and 15 of the act. It's information that may have been obtained in confidence from a foreign government, for example, or an international organization, or that the release of the information could in itself possibly impact on our international relations. It is a big part of the work.
When another government department faced a legislative deadline and did not want to be late on their access request--they are the ones who receive the access requests; they consult us. When we were not in a position to respond within their timelines—sometimes they would ask for the response within two weeks, for example. If their legislative due date was approaching, we suggested they withhold those portions to safeguard that international relationship and provide an interim response to their applicant. Then we would follow up with the response once our consultation abroad was complete.
The Information Commissioner did not approve of this practice, in that the commissioner felt we were encouraging other government departments to shut down their requests while there were still outstanding consultations. So the process to stop that practice was to revise our response letter to the other departments when there was an outstanding consultation, to tell them they could invoke and close their file. We've removed that. It remains at the coordinator's discretion for that particular institution, whether they feel they are going to provide an interim response and close their file to meet the legislative due day. But we are no longer suggesting they can go ahead, invoke the exemption, and close their file. It was just a matter of removing it from our templates.