AN EVALUATION OF
CO-LOCATION ARRANGEMENTS AND
THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
TOWARDS PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL
REPRESENTATION ABROAD
Final Report
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Inspector General Office
Evaluation Division
June 2009
This document may not be fully accessible. For an accessible version, please visit
http://www.international.gc.ca/about-a_propos/oig-big/2009/evaluation/colocation_cohabitation09.aspx?lang=eng
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
1.0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2
DFAIT’s Management of Intergovernmental Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3
Evaluation Objectives and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4.1 Origin and Growth of Provincial Presence Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4.2 Provincial Objectives, Priorities and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4.3 British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.4 Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.5 Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.6 Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.7 Other Provinces and Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5
International Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6
Current Federal Policies, Practices and Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.7
DFAIT’s Expectations of Intergovernmental Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.0
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
Reference Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Evaluation Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Evaluation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
International Comparative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1 Evaluation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.2 Lines of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0
RELEVANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1
Co-location is Relevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
17
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
i
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.0
PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1
Effectiveness of Co-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.1 Effectiveness of the MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.2 Lines of Authority and Reporting Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.3 Cooperation with and Integration of Provincial Representatives at
Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1.4 Coordination of Priorities and Objectives, Strategic Planning . . 35
4.2
Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2.1 Building Canadian Capacity Abroad: Efficiencies, Synergies and
Complementarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3
Provincial Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4
Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4.1 Equity of Treatment among Provinces/Territories . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4.2 Respecting Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4.3 Protecting Confidentiality in Trade and Investment . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4.4 Branding Canada, Branding the Provinces and Conveying a
Consistent Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4.5 Responding to Provincial Representational Needs . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.5
Financial Planning, Budgeting and Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.6
Clarity of Rules and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.0
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.0
LIST OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.0
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
9.0
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND ACTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
ii
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
APD
International Platform Branch – Representation Abroad Secretariat
CBS
Canada Based Staff
CIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
CMM
Committees on Mission Management
DFAIT
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
EAC
Evaluation Advisory Committee
EDC
Export Development Canada
HOM
Head of Mission
IMC
International Marketing Centers (Ontario)
LES
Locally Engaged Staff
MCO
Management Consular Officer
MITNET
Departmental telecommunication network connecting DFAIT, its
partners and Canadian missions abroad
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MRI
Ministère des Relations Internationales (Québec)
NAFTA
North America Free Trade Agreement
OGD
Other Government Departments (Federal-Canada)
PERPA
Political Economic Relations and Public Affairs
PRD
Intergovernmental Relations and Public Outreach Bureau, DFAIT
SIGNET
Departmental computer network connecting DFAIT, its partners and
Canadian missions abroad
SPA
Special Purpose Account
STC
Senior Trade Commissioner
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat
TRIO
Database Connecting Clients, Contacts and Colleagues
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
iii
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This evaluation could not have been made possible without the collaboration of many
individuals in Canada, in the provinces, in Canada’s Diplomatic Missions and the
diplomatic and commercial representatives of foreign countries.
The evaluation team would like to express their appreciation to all who contributed their
time, energy, comments and advice for this evaluation. In particular, we would like to
acknowledge:
•
The Evaluation Advisory Committee members, who were generous in committing
their time and energy in providing their guidance and advice;
•
The representatives of provincial/territorial governments both in
provincial/territorial capitals and abroad, who provided detailed information about
their activities and comments on their relationships with Canadian missions; and,
•
The PRD and APD Secretariat, who provided documents, support, dedication
and energy. PRD in particular, was instrumental on international comparisons.
Finally, but not least, the Heads of Mission, Canada-Based Staff and Locally-Engaged
Staff, stakeholders, Canadian and external clients in China, Japan, India, Germany,
United Kingdom, Mexico and the United States of America who were hospitable in their
reception, and helpful in ensuring that the evaluation team was able to complete their
data collection in a timely (and friendly) manner.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
iv
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Evaluating the relevance and performance of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Canada’s (DFAIT) policies and practices towards facilitating and supporting provincial
representation abroad, at this present time of a global economic crisis, offers a timely
assessment of these practices. Since Confederation, the Government of Canada has
been supportive of provincial-territorial representation abroad with few exceptions. It
also has adjusted to the changes in the nature and extent of provincial representation
abroad both in times of fiscal restraint and economic prosperity.
In compliance with the TB Evaluation Policy and DFAIT’s Evaluation Five-Year Plan,
this evaluation examines the Department’s co-location with provincial representatives at
Canadian Diplomatic Missions. It also explores the Department’s relationship with and
practice towards provincial stand-alone offices and/or through independent contractual
arrangements.
The increased presence and role of sub-national entities and their impact on
international affairs highlighted the importance of assessing the role of DFAIT and how
it manages federal-provincial international relations.
At present, Alberta (AB), British Columbia (BC) Ontario (ON) and Quebec (QC) are the
most active provinces abroad with representation in 17 countries, representing 15% of
countries where Canada has representation. Alberta and Quebec have both co-location
offices and maintain a network of stand-alone offices. Ontario has co-location offices
and a number of locally engaged in-market consultants, while BC has only employed
locally engaged consultants to represent its interest.
Given the sensitive nature of federal-provincial relations in general and the relatively
limited availability of public information on these arrangements, the methodology for this
evaluation was based primarily on interviews and survey data from co-located and
stand-alone offices. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with provinces
active abroad, federal representatives, business clients, representatives of host
countries and representatives of other countries with sub-national representation
abroad. Based on the analysis of interview data, the evaluation findings; in summary,
showed that:
•
Canada, among like-minded federal nations, has an open, inclusive and
innovative model in its relationship and co-location arrangements with the
provinces.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
v
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
•
Federal practices and policies towards provincial representation are viewed
positively by provinces and are relevant to enhancing Canadian presence and
promoting Canadian economic interests abroad.
•
Provincial offices provide value-added to missions’ programs and are considered
assets that bring extra resources and specialized expertise.
•
Federal-provincial relations, while effective, are subject to challenges in terms of
integration with mission management, which continues to be in a process of
evolution and improvement. More specifically:
" The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an effective but limited tool to
manage federal-provincial relationships in the case of co-location.
" There is sound co-operation and good integration at Mission between Federal
officials and Provincial Representatives. However, respecting the separate
character of federal and provincial programs is a key challenge at missions.
" Federal officers are careful not to share sensitive information and give undue
trade and investment advantages to provinces that are present on site, and
this requires close attention and vigilance.
" Increased coordination of priorities and planning between federal and
provincial officials could lead to better cooperation and synergies.
" There is no systematic mechanism for reporting on results achieved from the
co-location program.
" The Canada brand is positively affected by provincial representation as most
provinces brand themselves as “Canada” and they all have an interest in
promoting a positive image of Canada.
" The precise impact of the presence of provinces within Canadian missions on
the use of federal resources is difficult to quantify but appears to be neutral.
" While a lot of progress has been made to simplify and improve the accounting
procedures, there is still a need to increase the level of understanding of
these procedures among federal officials and provincial co-locators.
The evaluation has established four main recommendations to continue to promote
efficiencies and effectiveness:
•
That Missions aim at reaching an acceptable balance between the objectives of
sound integration of provincial representatives and the respect for each level of
government distinct mandates.
•
That the Department and its Missions adopt measures to increase the knowledge
and understanding of the respective roles and mandates of federal and provincial
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
vi
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
representatives and of the policies and practices guiding this relationships with
provincial representatives.
•
That DFAIT, provinces and missions continue to improve the efficiency of the
administrative and financial procedures related to its co-location practices.
•
That DFAIT develop objective performance indicators to measure its activities
towards the effective management of its policies, practice and programs with
regard to provincial representation abroad subject to further dialogue in the
Department and with provinces and territories.
Please refer to “Section 6: Recommendations” for a more detailed breakdown.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
vii
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the relevance and performance of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s (DFAIT) current formal
co-location arrangement with Canadian Provinces and Territories. The evaluation also
examines the Department’s relationship with and policy towards other models of
provincial representation including stand-alone provincial representative offices and
independent contractual arrangements. In addition, this evaluation addresses to what
extent can and should the provinces integrate at missions.
Provincial representation abroad raises many issues in the field of international
relations. The two key issues that this evaluation examined were the increased
presence of sub-national interests abroad and their impact on international affairs as
related to their jurisdictions.
According to Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) policy on evaluation (April 2009), the
main focus of the evaluation is to assess relevance and performance. Evidence
gathered on the relationship with provincial representatives in general and co-location
arrangements in particular have therefore been assessed on those evaluation criteria
with regard to Canadian, Departmental, and Provincial interests.
1.2
DFAIT’s Management of Intergovernmental Relations
At Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, intergovernmental affairs represent
a crucial area in the provision of activities aimed to advance Canada's foreign policy as
well as its investment and trade priorities. This is accomplished by building an
international environment that is favourable to Canada's political and economic
interests.
The Intergovernmental Relations and Public Outreach Bureau (PRD) develops policies
and practices, and provides advice to ensure that intergovernmental affairs
programming reflects the government's international priorities.1 With regard to federalprovincial-territorial relations, these activities involve, but are not limited to, the provision
of advice on inter-governmental relations, consultations with the provinces, federalprovincial-territorial meetings, negotiation and establishment of MOUs with the
provinces as well as policies, practices towards provincial representation abroad. These
1
PRP Mandate, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2009. http://intranet.dfaitmaeci.gc.ca/department/pcd/menu-en.asp, accessed on May 15, 2009
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
1
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
policies and practices, and in particular co-location with the provinces, are the subject of
this evaluation, and are an area of responsibility for this Bureau.
To be more specific, when a province or territory decides to pursue representation
abroad, the provinces may present a co-location proposal to DFAIT as a form of
representation abroad. In this case, PRD interacts and faciliates the co-location process
with provinces in coordination with APD (International Platform Branch – Representation
Abroad Secretariat).2 The Department offers co-location at Canada’s Diplomatic
Missions on a cost-recovery basis.
Based on its recent and regular consultation processes with provincial officials, PRD
believes that provincial representation will either remain at the current level or grow
slowly in the short-term. One possible mitigating factor would be the current global
economic crisis, which might affect the capacity of provinces to sustain or grow their
presence abroad. In any case, the Department should be well prepared to manage the
relationship to promote Canadian interests globally. This evaluation, therefore, is timely
in its effort to analyse situations where difficulties or challenges arise.
1.3
Evaluation Objectives and Scope
The objectives of the evaluation are:
2
•
To examine the linkages between co-location and the Department’s strategic
outcomes and government-wide priorities.
•
To assess the role of DFAIT in supporting provincial representation abroad.
•
To assess the various practices of Canadian Diplomatic Missions concerning
their relationships with provincial representatives, co-located or in stand-alone
arrangements.
•
To demonstrate to what extent the co-location arrangement is efficient and is
achieving results.
•
To derive best practices from the relationships between Canadian Diplomatic
Missions and provincial representatives, particularly those in co-location, in order
to advise the Department on best processes and practices.
APD is responsible for 1) providing the strategic direction and planning of common services delivery to partner
departments and co-locators at Canadian Diplomatic Missions abroad; 2) coordinating and supporting the
implementation of the framework for managing growth at missions; 3) developing and negotiating MOUs with
partner departments on the services delivered including statement of roles, responsibilities and obligations,
service standards for services provided and financial arrangements; and,4) initiating cost recovery from partner
departments and co-locators for the costs of co-location and redistributing these funds to the appropriate fund
centres within the Department.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
2
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
The evaluation focuses on the following:
•
Co-location procedures and practices from both the perspective of Federal
officials and provincial representatives;
•
The nature and extent of the relationship between federal and provincial
representatives abroad in areas such as inter-intra communication, informationsharing, collaboration/co-operation aspects of working relationships (including
reporting relationships and lines of authority), as well as synergies, coverage and
equity in the delivery of federal services;
•
The impact of the co-location relationship on Canada - its image, brand and
interests;
•
The Department’s role as a facilitator of provincial interests such as immigration,
culture, trade and investment and labour to assess its impact as a value-added
service to Canada’s priorities and its foreign policy initiatives; and,
•
The relevant issues which promote and/or impede the effective collaboration of
the federal-provincial representation in the pursuit of their common and
respective objectives in other countries.
1.4
Context
1.4.1
Origin and Growth of Provincial Presence Abroad
Canada has a long history of supporting sub-national interests. Since Confederation,
the federal government has continued to support and represent sub-national interests in
its international efforts in recognition of the impact of international matters on areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces’ interest in international relations has been expressed, among other
ways, in the opening of provincial offices abroad. One of the first active provinces in
promoting its interests internationally was Quebec, which opened a bureau in Paris in
1882. This was followed by seven other provinces which opened representative offices
in London between 1885 and 1913. At the time, these were not foreign representation
because Canada was a Dominion of the British Empire.
The 1960s, ’70s and ‘80s were a time of strong growth in provincial representation
abroad. Their offices rose from 9 in 1960 (6 in London alone) to 76 in 1991. In 1991,
every province had at least one foreign office. Several of these offices were quite large,
offering a wide range of services, and were managed by provincial civil servants and
local employees. Provincial offices implemented programs in support of provincial
interests in areas of trade, investment, tourism and culture. Their activities added
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
3
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
resources to the promotion of overall Canadian interests. However, both the provinces
and the federal government realized at the time that more efforts should be made to
coordinate federal and provincial activities abroad to maximize the outcomes of their
presence.
In response to this challenge, Canada adopted a policy in 1985 that allowed for the
provinces to create offices within Canadian Diplomatic Missions through co-location.
This approach would allow the provinces and the federal government to collaborate in
their efforts, increase cooperation, coordinate their messages and positions and avoid
duplication. It would also ensure better responsiveness and sensitivity to provincial
priorities abroad.
Co-location arrangements started in the late 1980’s and early 1990s. In 1991, there
were 10 provincial offices co-located within Canadian missions. However, provincial
presence abroad, including co-location, was discontinued or reduced in capacity in the
mid-1990s when provinces were faced with fiscal restraint. With the exception of
Quebec and Alberta, all the other provinces closed their offices abroad. Alberta and
Quebec either closed offices or reduced them in size.
In early 2000, provinces started to expand their presence abroad. Most of the new
provincial offices were small (2-3 persons, generally including a civil servant coming
from the provincial capital) and focused mostly on the promotion of trade and
investment. Between 2001 and 2009, co-location arrangements have more than
doubled (11 in 2001 to 26 in 2009).
1.4.2
Provincial Objectives, Priorities and Plans
At the time of this evaluation, provinces and territories remain active abroad, but four
provinces in particular (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) have formal
representation abroad.3 They represent 53 offices and a number of locally engaged
consultants. Forty-nine percent (49%) of these offices are co-located (26) with missions,
while 51% are stand-alone (27). Provincial civil servants head or direct most of these
offices. The rest are either managed by locally engaged staff, through local consultants
or through contracted third party arrangements.
In the USA, and particularly in Washington DC, some provinces use the services of
lobbying firms to promote their image and economic interests and to convey their
perspective on developments that may have an impact on these interests.
3
Formal representation is defined as that they have established offices that receive their budgets from the
provincial governments, promote their interests and work on their behalf in the host country on a full-time basis.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
4
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
1.4.2.1
Nature and Extent of Provincial Co-location at Canadian Diplomatic Missions
Provincial offices co-located at Canadian Diplomatic Missions are present in 15% (17 of
110) of countries where Canada has representation. While this might look like a limited
presence, provinces are active in strategically important geographic regions of the
World such as Asia, Europe and the USA.
To be more specific, provinces are active in Asia (particularly in India, China and Japan)
— a region that continues to be significant for Canada in terms of its potential for
increased trade and investment. The growing importance of large countries such as
China, increasing global competition and the emergence of new business models
creates both challenges and opportunities for provincial economies. Provinces are
active in this region to attract investment, promote trade and compete for labour and
talents. Provinces also offer high quality educational opportunities for overseas
students.
Provinces are also active in the USA and Mexico. The USA remains Canada’s most
significant and closest economic partner (e.g., impact of free-trade under NAFTA (North
American Free Trade Agreement). Some provinces, as mentioned earlier, are involved
in policy advocacy and lobbying efforts in the USA, which is a relatively new dimension
in federal-provincial-territorial relations. Canada has strategically increased its overall
representation in the USA over the last 5 years and provinces have paralleled this trend.
Provinces have an important presence in Europe. Europe is our largest trade and
investment partner after the United States, and provinces have close historical,
institutional and cultural ties with many European regions. In addition, Europe offers
research, development and financial-services opportunities.
In other regions of the World, provinces continue to be active on trade and investment,
immigration, education and many other issues. South America arguably too is a region
that represents sustained commercial interest to Canada and its provinces and
territories; for example, a Canada-Chile partnership was signed only three-years ago.
The following is a brief overview of the international objectives and interests of the four
provinces that are formally represented abroad.
1.4.3
British Columbia
In the 1980s and 90s, British Columbia had an international network of ten (10) offices.
All of them were closed in 1999 and 2000 because of fiscal restraint. But, in 2005,
British Columbia decided to re-establish a more modest network of representatives,
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
5
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
consisting of small stand-alone offices managed by contract employees residing in the
host countries.
British Columbia’s representatives focus mainly on promoting investment and trade.
They are also involved in managing visits by the province’s premier and ministers, in
cooperation with Canadian missions. The “Asia Pacific Initiative” report, published by
the Ministry of Economic Development in 2005, examines the province’s representation
in Asia. It presents a vision of British Columbia as “Canada’s Pacific Gateway” and
recommended a network of representatives in major Asian countries.
After the report was published, British Columbia hired consultants to represent its trade
interests. Today, it has a network of nine representatives abroad. These representatives
are not British-Columbian civil servants, but contract employees hired locally either on
an individual basis or as members of small consulting firms, with the support of a few
locally-engaged employees. Six operate in South and East Asia, two in Europe and one
in the United States. Currently, British Columbia is not co-located within Canadian
diplomatic missions.
British Columbia is considering an expansion of its network, especially in Asia, but also
in Europe, the United States and Latin America. It is unknown at this time whether the
province will proceed with this expansion given the current economic situation.
1.4.4
Alberta
Alberta has a long history of foreign representation. As early as 1913, the province
opened an office in London. It was closed in the 1920s and re-opened in 1948. Another
bureau opened in Los Angeles in 1964. In the 1970s and 1980s, Alberta had a
significant network of foreign offices. All but three of these were closed in the fiscal
consolidation efforts of the 1990s. As of 2002, Alberta began to rebuild a more modest
network with small offices focussing on investment and trade, co-located within
Canadian missions.
Today, Alberta has in total ten foreign offices: seven offices co-located within Canadian
missions and two stand-alone offices that survived the cuts of the 1990s. Two of its
offices are located in China (including Hong Kong). The others are in the following
locations: the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, South
Korea and Taiwan. The offices are managed by Albertan civil servants with the support
of one or two (sometimes up to five) locally engaged employees.
The Alberta Foreign Offices Review Committee’s 2007 report, mandated by the Alberta
government to study this matter, indicates the importance of the province developing its
own network of representatives abroad to enhance Alberta’s competitiveness on
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
6
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
international markets. The report suggests new offices in India, California, Brazil and
China (Shanghai) and Russia, among other locations. It is unknown at this point in time
whether the province will move forward in this regard given the current economic
context.
Alberta’s foreign priorities are promoting investment and trade, finding skilled labour and
promoting higher education in Alberta. Albertan representatives also manage visits by
the province’s premier and ministers, in cooperation with Canadian missions. The
Washington office ensures understanding of Alberta’s perspectives on U.S. policies that
could impact Albertan interests (energy policy, for example). Alberta’s geographic
priorities are the United States, Asia and Europe.
1.4.5
Ontario
Like other provinces, Ontario had a vast network of presence abroad in the 1970s and
’80s. In 1991, this network consisted of 16 independent offices and one co-location.
Almost all were closed in 1993 because of fiscal restraint.
In 2002, Ontario began re-establishing its presence abroad. All of its representatives are
co-located within Canadian Diplomatic missions. Their representation is relatively
modest in size; with each one headed by one Ontario civil servant with the support of
one local employee.
Ontario’s objectives focus primarily on promoting trade and investment. Their co-located
representatives manage what is referred to as international marketing centers (IMC).
They also manage visits by the province’s leaders (premier and ministers), in
cooperation with federal officials at Canadian missions.
Presently, Ontario has eleven (11) offices co-located within Canadian missions in North
America, Asia and Europe. In addition, and separate from these offices, Ontario also
has a network of seventeen (17) in-market consultants who promote investment and
trade in many areas of the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Ontario does
not plan to expand this network in the near future.
1.4.6
Québec
In 1882, Quebec appointed a representative to Paris; followed by a general agent to
London in 1911. It opened the first provincial bureau in New York, the United States, in
1943. In the 1970s and ’80s, it developed a vast foreign network that was reduced
during the fiscal restraint of the 1990s. Some of these offices, however, re-opened a few
years later.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
7
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
The Government of Quebec’s international policy (2006) identifies the following
international priorities:
•
strengthen Quebec’s capacity for action and influence;
•
foster Quebec’s growth and prosperity;
•
contribute to the security of Quebec and North America;
•
promote Quebec’s identity and culture; and
•
contribute to international solidarity efforts.
Quebec’s network of representatives abroad is larger and more autonomous than any
other province’s. It has 19 independent foreign offices (eight in Europe, seven in North
America, two in South America and two in Asia). Some of these offices (the seven
“Délégations générales”) are large in size (employ at least 10 provincial civil servants in
addition to local employees) and cover a wide range of activities: trade and investment,
political and institutional relations, education, culture, immigration and public affairs.
Other Quebec offices are more modest in configuration where locally-engaged
employees manage satellite offices.
In addition, Quebec has eight co-located offices within Canadian Diplomatic missions.
Four of them focus mainly on promoting investment and trade and, to a lesser degree,
culture and education. These are relatively small offices in size, generally headed by a
Quebec civil servant with the support of one or two local staff. Another office handles
Quebec’s participation in Canada’s permanent delegation to UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
Quebec is the only province to administer the selection of its immigrants abroad. As
such, the province has immigration services at its independent offices in Paris, Mexico
and Sao Paulo, as well as immigration offices at Canadian missions (co-locations) in
Hong Kong, Vienna and Damascus.
The second review (2006) of Quebec’s international policy recommended certain
changes to the deployment of Quebec’s foreign resources: enhanced status for some
offices and new offices in Sao Paulo and Mumbai. These recommendations were
implemented. Quebec does not plan any further changes to its foreign representation in
the near future.
Although much of its representation efforts focus, as with other provinces, on promoting
investment and trade, Quebec also invests significantly in promoting its culture abroad.
Its delegations and offices also develop institutional ties with foreign countries in
Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
8
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
1.4.7
Other Provinces and Territories
The other remaining provinces or territories4 do not have a permanent network of
foreign representatives and there are no plans to implement permanent representation
in the near future. However, some of them hire consultants or lobbying firms to
represent their interests more or less regularly. The relations that these consultants
have with Canadian missions are relatively less frequent and systematic than the
permanent provincial offices of other provinces.
1.5
International Comparison
In most federations, sub-national entities can represent themselves abroad by opening
stand-alone offices. For some, co-location within missions of the central state is also an
option. Few of the world’s federations prohibit sub-national entities from establishing
their own offices abroad. Opening an office essentially helps further economic or trade
interests in a specific region and in most cases promotes investment. Often, these
offices are also involved in areas such as tourism promotion, culture, education and
immigration.
Sub-national entities abroad, when they are represented in stand-alone offices, do not
enjoy special or diplomatic status by their national governments. However, when
representatives of these entities co-locate with the federal mission, they generally obtain
diplomatic status.
There are few countries where constituent entities cannot open offices abroad. India is
probably the only country whose constitution does not permit their sub-national
governments a presence abroad. While Brazil’s constitution does not prohibit such a
presence, it does stipulate in article 21 that relations with foreign states fall under Union
jurisdiction. There is nothing that prevents Brazilian states from being represented
abroad, as long as their activities are not political or official in nature. It is interesting to
note that at present, none of Brazil’s states have an international presence.
In Switzerland, there is no legal basis for the representation of cantons at the
international level, and none are present abroad. However, a representative from the
cantons has been able to co-locate within the Swiss mission to the European Union in
Brussels.
All of Spain’s sub-national entities have one or more offices abroad. They are permitted
to establish a presence in sectors under their constitutional jurisdiction (tourism
promotion, economic and cultural development, etc.). For example, Catalonia has an
4
Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Prince Edward Island.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
9
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
extensive representation network (over 55 offices). There are no cases of co-location
with the central state in Spain, although a number of Spanish think tanks and academic
experts are looking at Canada’s practices, including co-location, as solutions for the
future.
American states are permitted to have representation abroad within their areas of
jurisdiction. Their activities are mainly in the areas of trade, investment and tourism
promotion. It is interesting to note that there are several cases of states joining forces
and sharing office space. For example, Indiana, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin work in
partnership and occupy the same office in São Paulo, Brazil.
Germany’s Länder all have representation at the European Union in Brussels, though
only a small number have offices abroad. Bavaria, with its network of trade and
investment promotion offices (around 18), is noteworthy in this regard. There is no form
of co-location with the central state in Germany.
Four of Australia’s states have an overseas presence, which translates into nearly 46
offices. They do not co-locate, though in rare instances, states do sublet space from the
central state that is physically separate from and not part of the mission. Russia’s
constituent entities are permitted representation abroad, as in the case of Tatarstan (12
offices), Baskortostan (2 offices), Sakha (3 offices), Moscow (3 offices) and
St. Petersburg (3 offices).
Belgium allows its constituent entities to open their own offices. In addition, under
“cooperation agreements” between the federal state and the regions and communities,
representatives of the regions and communities are entitled to an office at the Belgian
mission in countries where they do not have stand-alone offices. Representatives
known as “community and regional attachés” or “economic and commercial attachés”
thus enjoy diplomatic status. Belgium’s communities and regions have a large network
of offices abroad. For example, Wallonia-Brussels International has 17 delegations and
Flanders over 60 worldwide.
In the United Kingdom, the decentralized administrations of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland are authorized to open offices abroad (usually tourism or trade offices)
and to co-locate with the national missions under a Memorandum of Understanding and
concordats, all within their devolved responsibilities. In Washington, the Scottish
Executive has a representative at the Embassy (counsellor, Scottish Affairs), as well as
one in Beijing (first secretary, Scottish Affairs), also at the Embassy.
These representatives enjoy diplomatic status. Like all members of staff, they come
under the general authority of the head of mission, though they still report directly to
their decentralized administration. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office covers the
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
10
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
cost of services provided, just as it does for the central government’s sectoral ministries.
Because of the high cost of establishing stand-alone offices, the decentralized
administrations generally opt for co-location within the central missions.
When financially possible, sub-national entities choose to establish there own standalone offices. Even when co-location can reduce cost for some, it is not as widely used
as stand-alone. This study found this was the case in Belgium, the United Kingdom (for
decentralized administrations), Switzerland (specific case of Brussels) and Russia
(where co-locations are frequent).
During this period of accelerated internationalization, sub-national entities are all too
aware of the economic, trade and cultural challenges that lie ahead. They know how
important it is to raise their concerns with their key partners worldwide. We can see that
they have increased their presence since the 1970s (as in the cases of Spain, Canada,
Belgium and the United States). At the same time, we cannot ignore a general trend
towards greater decentralization within federations, which ultimately could also favour a
longer-term presence of sub-national entities at the international level.
1.6
Current Federal Policies, Practices and Arrangements
Canada has, over time, consistently supported the presence of provinces abroad. There
is no record of any province or territory that has been declined such support in
Canada’s recent history.
The Department’s policies and practices with respect to federal-provincial-territorial
relations, including their representation abroad, are facilitated within the current
government’s framework of open federalism.5 While the application of these practices
vary among missions because of differences in size and mandate as well as the
political, economic and legal environment in which they operate, the Head of Mission
(HOM) is key in manifesting the mission’s arrangements in consideration of any colocation agreements with the provinces.
In the case of co-located provinces, the mission’s support is detailed in co-location
agreements (memorandum of understanding) signed with the provinces. Canadian
missions obtain diplomatic or consular status for provincial civil servants appointed as
provincial representatives and provide them with the same services as federal
employees:
5
Open federalism is defined as “taking advantage of the experience and expertise that the provinces and
territories can contribute to the national dialogue; respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction; keeping the federal
government’s spending power within bounds; full cooperation by the Government of Canada with all other levels
of government, while clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each”. Office of the Prime Minister, April 21, 2006.
(Speech by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Montreal Quebec). http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1123,
accessed on May 15, 2009
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
11
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
•
supply of office space and housing (including purchase or lease, renovation and
maintenance),
•
furniture and computer equipment, access to shared premises and services
(mission vehicles),
•
security procedures and services,
•
children’s school registration, and
•
financial services (including management of operational accounts), and other
related support.
The missions also support provincial co-locators in the recruitment of locally engaged
staff and all aspects of human resource management associated with these employees.
In most cases, local engaged employees working for the provincial office are considered
as employees of the Government of Canada.
Co-location services are based on the principle of cost recovery. The provinces
reimburse the federal government for all costs related to their presence at the mission,
including the market rental value for the space they occupy and a proportional share of
the over-head cost.
In the case of independent (stand-alone) provincial offices Canadian missions facilitate
the process by officially informing foreign governments of the province’s intent to
establish such offices. This is done to reach support and agreement with host
governments (notably by granting certain privileges). In this case, Canadian missions do
not provide the same level of services as with co-located provinces unless it is required
and agreed upon.
A number of practices have been developed to foster cooperation with provincial offices
and integrate them at missions. They include:
•
sharing of strategic information, advice and business plans;
•
inviting provinces to meetings and events;
•
organizing and co-sponsoring with provinces joint-activities and events;
•
coordinating emergency plans;
•
supporting the activities of stand-alone offices and organizing joint activities; and,
•
sharing of contact lists and the offer, on a case-by-case basis, of certain services
(rooms, mission vehicles).
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
12
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
1.7
DFAIT’s Expectations of Intergovernmental Relations
The Department’s program activity architecture has situated its efforts on intergovernmental affairs within public outreach and advocacy. These efforts are expected to
engage and influence international players and deliver international programs and
diplomacy. PRD develops its strategies and business plans to support the Government
of Canada’s international priorities. PRD is involved on all relevant issues of importance
to the Department. It operates horizontally within and across governments.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
13
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
2.0
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
2.1
Reference Period
The evaluation was conducted from June 2008 to May 2009. Major milestones were as
follows:
•
Summer 2008: Scoping Exercise.
•
Fall 2008: Terms of Reference.
•
Fall-Winter 2008-09: Data Collection and Field Visits.
•
Spring 2009: Data Analyses and Report
2.2
Evaluation Advisory Committee
The evaluation was guided by an Evaluation Advisory Committee (EAC) comprised of
members who were knowledgeable and experienced in federal and provincial
international objectives and representation abroad. The members of this committee
were jointly determined in consultation with the Evaluation Division and the Intergovernmental Affairs Division of DFAIT. The Committee is a key source of reference
during the course of the evaluation. The role of Evaluation Advisory Committee (EAC) is
to 1) provide advice on the evaluation approach and methodology; 2) provide advice on
coverage, quality and completeness; and 3) provide advice and opinion on preliminary
findings, recommendations.
2.3
Evaluation Design
At the onset of the evaluation, the design, based on the scope of the evaluation, was to
collect views primarily on co-location arrangements with the provinces. This selection
excluded two provincial offices which were recently studied. They were: the Alberta
Office in the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC, USA and Quebec as a member of
the permanent Canadian delegation to UNESCO in Paris, France.
At the start of the evaluation, provinces were co-located in Canadian Diplomatic
Missions in twelve (12) countries/territories (USA, Mexico, France, England, Austria,
Germany, Syria, India, China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan). Most of these co-located sites
are trade and investment focussed, while others are more specialized and deal with
immigration selection such as Quebec’s co-location in Syria.
However, in order to obtain a broader view on Departmental polices and practices
towards provincial representation abroad and in consideration of where provinces
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
14
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
seemed most interested in pursuing their presence abroad, the evaluation expanded its
initial selection of locations to include two additional missions in South America. These
additional countries/territories were Chile and Brazil. South America has been
expressed as a location of future interest among those provinces currently active
abroad.
A total of fourteen (14) countries/territories were selected. Field visits were conducted at
seven (7) countries/territories (13 missions) with the relatively highest concentration of
provincial representation, while the other seven (7) were surveyed on their views or
experience with provincial representation. These field visits included where possible
interviews with provincial representatives in stand-alone offices or with locally-engaged
consultants hired to act on behalf of a province. At the completion of the data collection
exercise, 86%, or twelve (12) of the fourteen (14), of the countries/territories were
covered.
2.4
International Comparative Study
The evaluation included a separate survey on the nature and extent of sub-national
representation among federal countries. An email survey was sent to Canadian
missions in 11 federal countries (Germany, Belgium, India, Mexico, Australia, Russia,
Spain, England, USA, Switzerland, and Brazil). The survey asked about rules and
practices guiding the opening of sub-national representative offices abroad, roles of
sub-national offices, and future trends. Nine missions replied, representing an 81%
response rate.
2.5
Data Collection
2.5.1
Evaluation Matrix
The key evaluation issues are identified in an evaluation matrix. This matrix forms the
foundation for addressing the findings to the issues, key questions, indicators, and
sources of data.
2.5.2
Lines of Evidence
2.5.2.1
Document Review
Policy documents, interdepartmental Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) on
operations and support at Canadian Diplomatic Missions signed between DFAIT and
the provinces, documents on costing principles and visit-protocol guidelines, operating
procedures, issue-based relevant correspondence, consultation plans, relevant media
announcements and, Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) policies were reviewed. Other
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
15
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
documentation, such as other countries sub-national representation abroad, was also
reviewed to further understand the nature of representation abroad.
2.5.2.2
Key Informant Interviews
Individual and group interviews were conducted in-person and by telephone. The
interview sample was largely determined by referral; otherwise referred to as snowball
sampling. This is a social research technique used to develop a research sample where
existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances.
A total of 231 interviews were conducted; of which, 25% were in Canada,6 while 75%
were abroad. Interviewees were HOMs, DHOMs, STCs (Senior Trade Commissioners)
and Program Heads (PERPA - Political Economic Relations and Public Affairs - and
MCOs – Management Consular Officers), LES and other officials who deal with
provincial representatives, representatives of foreign host countries, business clients
and provincial representatives. EDC (Export Development Canada) was interviewed in
one location abroad.
Different sets of semi-structured open-ended interview questionnaires were developed
for each major occupational group (e.g., federal officials at missions, provincial
representatives, and others) to solicit information on relationship, areas of cooperation,
administration, branding, best practices and issues presenting difficulties or challenge.
The questionnaires were sent in advance of the interviews.
2.5.2.3
Field Visits
Field visits occurred at 13 missions in 7 countries/territories. The field visits gave an
opportunity to meet with federal officials abroad, business clients and representatives of
foreign host countries who deal with the various models of sub-national representation
abroad to gain their perspectives. It also gave an opportunity to discuss the
perspectives of provincial representatives. This helped understanding the conditions,
logistics and levels of cooperation and collaboration between federal officials and
provincial representatives.
The 13 missions included in the field visit were:
6
•
India: New Delhi and Mumbai
•
China: Beijing, Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shanghai
Included were headquarter interviews conducted with officials who are engaged in managing co-location or
directly related to collocation activities and who have experience dealing with provincial representation abroad.
These included officials representing trade, investment, geographic and corporate. Interviews were also held with
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Provinces active in representation abroad were also interviewed.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
16
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
•
Japan: Tokyo
•
Germany: Berlin and Munich
•
United Kingdom: London
•
Mexico: Mexico City
•
United States: New York and Los Angeles
The sample represented Canadian High Commissions (2), Consulate Generals (6),
Special Consulate General with Direct Report to Ottawa (1), and Embassies (4).
Field visits also included the provinces’ headquarters that currently have formal
representation abroad. The purpose of these field visits was to learn more about their
international offices’ objectives, the challenges faced by the provinces, the role of
DFAIT in facilitating their representation abroad, and future plans.
2.5.2.4
Survey
To complement field visits, the evaluation conducted an email-survey of seven
missions. The purpose of the survey was to explore the nature of their relationship with
provinces, their perceptions and any future directions on expanding or including
provincial representation at missions. Five missions replied to the survey and the data
were analyzed thematically.
2.6
Limitations
The availability and quantity of published information on co-location is limited because
of the specific nature of this arrangement. Co-location is an innovative configuration with
little public information and, as a result, does not lend itself easily to benchmark
analyses. Co-location is not a specific program with a logic model or performance
measurement strategy to guide its activities but a practice or an arrangement that exists
abroad between two levels of government within Canada. The results of this evaluation
therefore, were based on intensive and extensive primary data collection which has
been time-consuming, labour-intensive and driven by applied knowledge acquired
through experience.
All interviews were conducted in an open, semi-structured conversational approach.
The interview protocol or guide was used in the interviews and the questions were
tailored to the key informants depending on their positions and experience with
provincial representation abroad. The responses therefore were diverse in range and
scope. While this method is effective and successful given the high participation rate,
this does add more complexity in analysing this type of interview data.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
17
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
While three provinces (Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) permitted their
representatives abroad to be interviewed by the Department’s evaluation team, an
agreement between le Ministère des Relations Internationales (MRI) du Québec and
DFAIT was not reached on the conditions of the interviews of Quebec representatives
abroad. Instead, the MRI proceeded based on the DFAIT evaluation questions with its
own assessment of its representation abroad and their findings were shared with the
evaluation. While the findings seem to be consistent with the results of the evaluation,
they were not examined by the evaluation team. This represents a limitation in that it is
difficult to assess the methodology used and the types of questions asked.
Among those provinces represented abroad, Quebec has the most stand-alone offices.
Since the evaluation could not interview Quebec representatives abroad, the evaluation
could not capture the views of Quebec representatives in stand-alone offices. However,
the similarities between the findings of MRI's own internal assessment and that of this
evaluation, demonstrates the reliability of questions and measures used to examine
provincial representation abroad.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
18
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
3.0
RELEVANCE
3.1
Co-location is Relevant
The purpose of this section is to assess whether co-location arrangements and DFAIT’s
support to other forms of provincial representation are consistent with Canadian
priorities and are the most appropriate response to needs identified.
It also examines the role of DFAIT in ensuring the success of co-location arrangements.
The main question relevance asks is “are we doing the right thing”: in other words, is colocation the right thing?
Finding 1:
The practice of co-location is relevant to and supports the
Government of Canada’s and DFAIT’s approach on federalprovincial-territorial relations in the spirit of open federalism.
The Departmental annual reports on performance and on plans and priorities continue
to underline two departmental priorities: advancing Canada’s interests internationally in
partnership with Canadians; and advancing Canada’s commercial interests both in
Canada and internationally in collaboration with Canadian businesses and
stakeholders.7 These priorities include working with provinces and territories and
facilitating provincial representation abroad.
Provinces establish representation abroad to expand political visibility, trade,
investment, cultural and social links. Most Canadian provinces have some forms of
representation abroad, whether it be as an independent or stand-alone operation,
through third-party or contractual services or as a co-locator within Canada’s Diplomatic
Missions. As mentioned, three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario and, Alberta)
currently practice co-location within Canadian diplomatic missions.
Most provincial activities are related to trade and investment, with the exception of
Quebec, who is also quite active in immigration, international relations, and public and
cultural affairs. Also, provinces engage to some extent in policy advocacy in the USA.
Co-location, as an option of choice for some provinces in representation abroad, is a
partnership between the two levels of government. Each level, with its own expertise,
favours Canada in a competitive international environment. This partnership is also
useful in that Canada’s international relations involve areas of provincial or shared
jurisdiction (education, natural resources, immigration, culture and economic
7
Department Performance Report, 2007-2008, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Ottawa, Canada
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
19
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
development). In these cases, the provinces contribute expertise and benefit from an
opportunity to stay informed of and state their positions on international issues affecting
areas within their jurisdictions. Furthermore, co-location with the provinces shows
international partners the strength and harmony of the Canadian federation by
conveying an image of diversity, openness, pragmatism and cooperation.
Evaluation interviews support the view that provincial representatives are pragmatic
professionals who complement the efforts of Canadian diplomats, respect federal
jurisdictions and, promote Canadian positions /perspectives in various public forums
and international venues.
While stand-alone operations allow for greater provincial autonomy and hold the
province directly accountable for its own actions, some provinces prefer co-location.
The evaluation interviews revealed that some provinces believed that co-location
offered more opportunities to participate with federal officials on events, to leverage
federal resources and the benefits from establishing a presence within an international
platform of mission network.
Co-location is also favored in some countries of the world, such as China and India,
where the opening of stand-alone offices may be more challenging and requires special
approval from the host country. Nevertheless, BC has been able to promote its interests
in China through hiring locally-engaged consultants. In China and India, co-locators
indicated that they rely on the relationship with Canadian officials because it provides
legitimacy and credibility.
Also, the evaluation found that federal trade and investment officers were cognizant of
the need to ensure that trade and investment opportunities were appropriately shared
with provinces and territories in a fair and equitable manner. While it is recognized that
provinces representation abroad, regardless of whether they are stand-alone or colocated, may receive trade and investment information in a more timely manner than
those provinces who are not represented abroad, still there were mechanisms in place
to treat all provinces equally.
It would therefore be appropriate for DFAIT to continue to support provinces in their
consideration of co-location as an option as it is consistent with the Department’s role in
working with all Canadian provinces in order to promote Canadian interests abroad.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
20
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 2:
Co-location is a relevant practice in that it offers an
international network or platform of expertise to the provinces
or territories.
Provinces strongly believe that their interests abroad are under-represented and that it
is difficult for the federal government to respond to their specific need. This is one
reason why provinces pursue presence abroad. In doing so, some provinces prefer colocation because of the access it offers to missions’ services and support.
It is the province or territory’s decision on whether it should pursue representation
abroad and on the manner in which it chooses to pursue its objectives. The evaluation
interviews found that provinces would choose the option most suitable for them in an
independent manner depending upon their needs.
When a province decides upon co-location, in collaboration with Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Canada, it negotiates a MOU to reflect the general principles of the
arrangement in terms of reporting relationship, accountability, financial issues, office
space, human resources and other issues.
The evaluation noted that provinces who decide on co-location take into account such
factors as DFAIT’s infrastructure abroad which includes administration, security and
access to federal resources. Co-location also provides the provincial representative
diplomatic or consular status, as a Canadian representative, in the host country.
Alberta and Ontario, in their analyses of the differences between stand-alone and colocated offices, have reported no significant cost savings on either option; albeit colocation offers access to an already built-in infrastructure over stand-alones.8 Quebec,
British Columbia and all other provinces regardless of the extent of their representation
abroad, also practice stand-alone or contractual arrangements. British Columbia is of
the opinion that contractual arrangements are a more suitable option for them to pursue
at this time because it offers greater flexibility.
Recognizing its role as a common service provider internationally, DFAIT has started a
process of renewing its common service delivery model to ensure a cost effective,
responsive and high quality services to its partners including provincial co-locators. This
includes human resources services, financial management services, asset and materiel
services, comptrollership services, mail and diplomatic courier services, and acquisition
of radio-frequency bandwidths.
8
Alberta Foreign Offices Review, 2008.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
21
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 3:
Provinces gain competitive advantages by being present in a
market, but these advantages benefit Canada as a whole.
In their promotional activities abroad, provinces often complement the efforts of federal
officers by offering expertise on different sectors and have different networks of contacts
(e.g., oil and gas for Alberta; aerospace for Quebec; automotive sector for Ontario).
There are however occasions when provinces compete directly either for investment or
commercial interests. Most interlocutors interviewed (federal trade commissioners and
provincial representatives) consider that this competition is normal, healthy and often
will create more opportunities for Canada. Take a hypothetical example of where there
would be twelve (12) proposals worldwide for a new plant, which would include two
proposals from Canadian provinces and, as a result, Canada would therefore have a
higher probability of success because of the compounded effect of having more than
one proposal under consideration.
Finding 4:
Provincial co-location abroad is an important asset.
The evaluation found that the Department’s practice of co-location is a value-added
asset that must be managed carefully. Co-location supports Canadian and provincial
interests and offers a recognized infrastructure abroad and a recognized brand. Survey
and interview data indicated that provincial representation abroad adds much needed
resources both in terms of human resources and funds to support Canadian and
provincial initiatives.
Provincial representatives abroad contribute resources to expand international trade
and investment opportunities and effectively engage and leverage the “Canada Brand”
positively internationally. In addition, they are key focal points to provide follow-up
services to clients and potential investors. Provinces, such as Quebec, also promote its
identity abroad which helps contribute to the unique character of Canada’s federalism.
Another key contribution is that the provinces supplement the federal trade service by
offering the detailed knowledge of provincial targets, trends on trade and investment,
company profiles, and information and research on key industries. The additional
expertise and knowledge on industry sectors and market intelligence complement the
federal base at mission.
When co-located, provinces are in a position to directly benefit from on-site access to
federal trade and investment services. Some provincial offices are located in close
proximity to trade and investment sections of Missions, which could create situations
where sensitive client information or discussion on investment opportunities could be
overheard. This raised some questions in this evaluation on issues of client
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
22
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
confidentiality as these provinces may gain access to confidential information
concerning activities of other provinces.
Provinces in some co-located sites are located in trade annexes external to the main
mission and, as a result, create silo environments which are less conducive to an
integrated or harmonized structure. Opinions varied on this matter among co-located
provinces and their federal colleagues. Some provincial and federal representatives
preferred distance between provincial offices and federal trade and investment sections
while others preferred closer integration. It was interesting to note that those provincial
representatives who preferred more integration also enjoyed the autonomous nature
and mandate of their own representative office.
Canadian and provincial representatives work together when abroad to take advantage
of trade and investment opportunities. They collaborate to search for matching
opportunities for Canadian companies, support new and emerging market opportunities,
collaborate on joint corporate calls; to name a few. This collaboration may enhance
commercial opportunities for Canada. It does this by establishing working relationships
with business and officials in targeted regions and sustaining the relationship through
regular visits. Trusted and sustained relations also offer the opportunity to obtain market
intelligence thereby strengthening trade and investment promotion efforts. Provinces
can multiply their investment with federal collaboration.
A small minority of federal officials were of the opinion that the federal trade and
investment service offers excellent service and it was not necessary for the provinces to
pursue representation abroad as a means to address a perceived shortfall or gap
unless it was for specific in-depth market studies. However, the vast majority of federal
officials considered that the provincial presence abroad provided important additional
resources for Canada.
Finding 5:
While co-location is an asset, it poses a number of challenges.
While co-location practices are important assets, the information-sharing and integration
of provinces at Mission need to be managed well. Provinces, among themselves and
with the Federal government, do not always agree on issues. They do not always
support federal positions.
The evaluation found that the integration of provincial representatives (co-locator, in
stand-alone offices or consultants) poses challenges for the protection of classified
information and the equitable treatment of all provinces. Many missions are comfortable
with co-location and the presence of provincial officials and in some missions provincial
representatives including those on contract are invited to the committee on mission
management (CMM).
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
23
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Although the inclusion of provinces at the CMM is under the discretion of the HOM and
its practice varies, it is a practice that exposes co-located provincial representatives or
their consultants to sensitive mission management issues and information concerning
other provinces. In this regard, provinces who attend meetings of the CMMs are in an
advantageous position to influence.
The evaluation did find that those missions who include provinces in management
meetings were quite prudent in their discussions. In some cases often separating
management from operational issues; of which, the latter could involve provinces.
Regardless of this action, provinces involved at CMMs would heighten the risk that
sensitive information would be inadvertently disclosed.
Provincial offices bring several benefits to Canadian interests abroad. They bring more
resources to missions, in-depth knowledge of provinces and their capacity, and speedy
access to detailed information about local conditions and possible opportunities in
Canada. The evaluation found that the presence of provinces and their trade and
investment focus can be of great assistance when the political environment in the host
country is challenging. They can help in circumventing the political sensitivity of foreign
relations, particularly in a country like China, by focusing on economic relations. This
assistance has been recognized by DFAIT staff and the business community in the host
country.
Finding 6:
Canada’s federal–provincial co-location practice is open,
inclusive and innovative as compared to other like-minded
federal nations.
As indicated in the international comparison and interviews conducted with
representative of a number of host countries (i.e., China and Japan), Canada’s colocation model of federal-provincial relations is inclusive and innovative but, not
necessarily unique. The UK and Belgium, too, acknowledge its sub-national
representatives; in the case of the UK, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and
would support them at their diplomatic missions with diplomatic designation.
Although there is much literature discussing federal-provincial-territorial relations and
representation abroad,9 Canada’s approach to federalism is based on the spirit of
respect and equity among governments. The evaluation found that relations were
excellent in many missions but, information-sharing and communication was often onesided. In part, this is attributed to the nature of trade and investment activities which is
highly competitive and based on the need for client-confidentiality.
9
Internal Annotated Bibliographical Literature Search, 2008.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
24
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
However, the evaluation found that DFAIT and its missions accord a high priority to
constructing a seamless and consistent arrangement respecting federal and provincial
jurisdiction to deliver a truly equitable environment. This is done in an effort to
strengthen the ability to deliver a comprehensive and timely arrangement to provinces
and territories to pool resources and talent to contribute to Canada’s international
competitiveness.
Finding 7:
There is no clear indication of the effect of an absence of colocation on either mission activity or provincial representation
abroad.
Co-location is an option of choice for some provinces. It is not an exclusive option as
these provinces also operate stand-alone offices and hire locally-engaged consultants.
The evaluation could not ascertain what the impact would be if co-location practices
were discontinued. There are no policy papers or public literature available that has
dealt with this possibility and how it would affect representation abroad.
However, an indication of the relevance of co-location is that despite the economic
recession of the 1990’s, the Government of Canada did not discontinue this policy in an
effort to encourage trade, investment and national unity – an important sign for pursuing
economic prosperity and federalism. In the early 1990’s, many provinces and territories
had either closed or limited their presence abroad in response to that recession, but
when provinces started to establish their representation abroad again in the late 1990s,
many opted for co-location.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
25
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.0
PERFORMANCE
4.1
Effectiveness of Co-location
The purpose of evaluating effectiveness is to determine whether the most appropriate
and efficient means are being used to achieve the intended outcomes of co-location
arrangements and of DFAIT’s support to other forms of provincial representation
abroad. More specifically, it examines whether co-location and other policies and
practices are cost-effective mechanisms.
4.1.1
Effectiveness of the MOU
Finding 8:
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an effective but
limited tool to manage federal-provincial relationships in the
case of co-location.
Relationships between Missions and co-located provincial offices are guided by a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that is negotiated and signed by the two levels
of government. The evaluation found that the MOU works reasonably well in all the
missions visited. It is seen as an important instrument to identify agreed-to
arrangements. Most interviewed indicated that while it is a well-functioning instrument, it
is limited in its coverage and content.
A great part of the MOU is devoted to the use and access to common services and the
cost of co-location. However, it remains very general when it discusses reporting,
relationships, and coordination. Most of the interviewees indicated that there is no need
for a more detailed MOU, and that the MOU should allow for a certain level of flexibility.
However, they indicated that clarifying the working relationship between provincial
representatives and DFAIT staff at missions in the MOUs would encourage cooperation
and contribute to improving effectiveness of operations. This also could be done in part
through improved communication, training and pre-posting briefings aimed at both
provincial representatives and federal officers.
Survey and interview data highlighted that co-located provincial representatives
occasionally do not have a clear understanding of how missions work and of the
complexities of working relationships at missions. Therefore, it could be beneficial if the
MOU includes an annex about the context of the country and the mission structure
including provincial and Other Government Departments (OGDs) representations. It
may also include a clear description of the role and authority of the HOMs.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
26
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
As mentioned, the MOU provides information about the status of LES (Locally-Engaged
Staff), expenses, missions’ procedures, security requirements, medical requirements,
budgetary measures and dispute resolution. However, some terms and conditions are
not explicitly stated. For example, the Hong Kong Quebec MOU is not clear over the
employment provision of LES who work for the Quebec Office. Moreover, it creates a
number of other administrative issues when:
•
Provinces wish to pay higher salaries for their LES than the current DFAIT
allowable salary range.
•
Provinces wish to reclassify their LES at a higher level than current Mission’s
LES (In some missions, Mission’ Classification Boards have considered that
these situations could potentially create staffing inequality and friction at
Missions).
•
Provinces apply different financial rules, including per-diem rates.
•
Provinces experience some delays in staffing processes. E.g., a provincial colocated office representative has indicated that they had challenges when trying
to hire an LES. The job advertisement was changed by the mission’s Human
Resources section to include language requirements without consulting the
provincial office. More clarity in the staffing process and communications
between the two parties would have resolved the issue.
•
Provinces provide a more attractive work environment for LES already employed
by missions. For example provinces were seen as providing more training
opportunities, more autonomy and less need for a second language requirement.
•
Provinces unable to access their provincial network and database because of
SIGNET and the fire walls that prevent connection to other networks. This was
resolved in some missions by having two computers: one is connected to the
provincial network and the other is to SIGNET.
The MOU should be clear and easily understood. Perhaps the use of examples in an
annex would help in clarifying certain situations. For example, some provinces have
certain requirements for the use and storage of personal data. DFAIT also has its own
policy for security of personal and confidential information. The evaluation found that it
would be useful if the MOU contains annexes on communications and information
technology to clarify network use and software and any other exclusion.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
27
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.1.2
Lines of Authority and Reporting Relationships
Finding 9:
Lines of authority and reporting relationships are well
understood and well respected at missions, and are applied
with flexibility by HOMs.
The formal lines of authority between provincial representatives and heads of mission
(HOMs) are defined in the memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between DFAIT
and provincial governments. Most MOUs state that provincial representatives report to
their provincial headquarters and discharge their responsibilities “under the authority”
(or “under the general authority”) of the HOM. In the case of Québec, the MOUs state
that their representatives are “sous l’autorité hiérarchique” of their provincial
departments and “s’acquittent de leurs responsabilités sous la direction globale du Chef
de la mission.” Most MOUs also state that the provincial representatives should act in
close consultation with the Senior Trade Commissioner at the mission.10
While the MOU clearly defines roles and responsibilities, this is not always evident to all
officials at mission. The evaluation found that HOMs and STCs were clear in that they
do not give instructions to provincial representatives. They do not approve their work
plans, supervise their daily activities, contribute formally to their appraisal reports or
approve their leave.
The evaluation also found that many federal officers who work regularly with provincial
representatives do not clearly understand that provincial representatives report directly
to their province. Some DFAIT officers believed that the provincial representatives
report to the Senior Trade Commissioner (STC) or to the HOM. This was also reflected
in organizational charts which in some cases indicate that provincial representative’s
report to the HOM or to the STC.
The evaluation also revealed that provincial representatives work more closely with the
STC. This was expected as they mostly focus on trade and investment promotion. They
accept the STC as their main line of communication with the HOM in large missions.
This is again expected as the larger the mission, the more likely the provincial
representative will not have regular direct access to the HOMs. The working relations at
missions differ somewhat from the stated direction but not contrary to the spirit of the
MOU.
10
In some MOUs, the reporting relationship is stated differently. For example, the Alberta (AB) Seoul MOU (1993)
states that AB representative is accountable to AB management but functions under the direction of the HOM
through the relevant Program Manager. In the 2003 AB London MOU, the AB representative is accountable to
AB government, but will act in close consultation with the STC at the mission. In the 2005 Ontario (ON) London
MOU, the representative is expected to report to ON government and acts in cooperation and close consultation
with the STC, but does not have a position within the organization of the Mission.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
28
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
The evaluation also found that HOMs have a clear understanding of their role as the
authority under which the provincial representatives discharge their responsibilities. All
of them declared that they would evoke their authority in cases of misconduct or if they
felt that the actions of a representative was detrimental to the interests of Canada.
In situation where there are tensions or disagreements at missions between federal and
provincial representatives, they often are resolved at the mission-level, requiring no
direct intervention at more senior levels or any need for invoking formal resolution
mechanisms. For instance, the evaluation heard of a case where there were tensions
between a HOM and a provincial representative. The HOM had believed that the
provincial representative inadvertently and occasionally extended his prerogatives,
which may have misled external clients to believe that the province, although located at
the same location, was heading a mission separate from the Canadian diplomatic one.
This situation has now been resolved and underlines the importance of interpersonal
relationships at missions.
The HOMs have the authority to establish standard operational rules at missions. These
include working hours, security rules and procedures and statutory holidays. In some
missions, HOMs have decided to exclude provincial representatives from some of these
rules (working hours for example). This exception never applies to security rules, where
there is no exclusion. The evaluation found that mission’s rules, whether strictly applied
to provincial representatives or not, was well accepted and respected. The ability of
HOMs to apply the rules differently to provincial representatives depending on local
circumstances highlights the flexibility of co-location and reflects the autonomy of the
provincial representative offices with regard to their own working policies.
In some cases, however, (such as different hospitality and travel guidelines), it was
confusing because different standards and conditions were applied among provincial
and federal officers at the mission. The harmonization of these rules and standards
could reduce this confusion and the evaluation would suggest this be a point of
discussion among provinces and the federal government.
Another aspect the evaluation noted was that in one mission, the senior federal officer
had the same diplomatic level (consul) as the provincial representatives. While working
relations were excellent, this situation raised questions on the protocol or preference at
missions in terms of designated diplomatic positions and whether this issue should be
examined more comprehensively in subsequent dialogue among the provinces and
federal officials. In particular, what happens when the federal Consul is not available?
Would the provincial Consul assume responsibility for the mission?
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
29
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.1.3
Cooperation with and Integration of Provincial Representatives at
Missions
Finding 10:
There is sound co-operation and good integration at Mission
between Federal and Provincial Representatives.
The evaluation found that in most missions there is excellent social and professional
cooperation between federal and provincial representatives. Federal and provincial
officers work well together and are results-oriented in their approach. For example, as
part of an international seminar series organized by the Canadian Embassy in Beijing,
Ontario took the lead on the green technology component and invited their Minister of
Energy and partnered up with another Chinese province. Several projects and several
other leads/contacts were developed between Canadian and Chinese companies
interested in green technology.
The cooperative relationship can be best described as pragmatic - when both federal
and provincial officers are in a position to support a contact or a delegation, decisions
on “who does what” is done in a pragmatic and case to case basis. Decisions therefore
tend to focus on results and on leveraging available resources.
The evaluation heard many examples of co-operation between federal and provincial
representatives including information-sharing on trade and investment leads,
cooperating on the organization of visits and events and co-funding promotional
activities.
Most federal officers were positive about provincial presence in their missions. Many
federal respondents indicated that provinces are intrinsic to Canadian trade interests, so
their presence in missions presents a tremendous addition to these interests.
Cooperation seems very effective; all officers work together where and when
appropriate. Both provincial representatives and federal trade commissioners appear to
take a cooperative and productive approach. The evaluation received many reports that
“there is more than enough work for everybody”.
Head of Missions are central in the management of effective relations and the
evaluation found them committed to federal/provincial relations, supportive of provincial
presence and provide leadership, energy and resources to that commitment. The
autonomy of provinces is respected. Provincial representatives are encouraged to freely
engage in the promotion of their provinces’ interests and to develop their own networks
of contacts. The mission co-location culture is not rigidly rules-based. This approach is
considered as a means to facilitate the achievement of results and to protect the
interests of Canada including all of the provinces.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
30
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 11:
Integration of provincial representatives, encouraging the level
of cooperation and interaction, and fostering inclusiveness
while respecting the separate character of federal and
provincial programs is a key challenge at missions.
Formal Engagement
The evaluation did not find a consistent level of provincial integration at Missions. The
level of integration varied whether it was for social, programming or administrative
matters. For instance, in all missions where provinces are co-located, there was a high
degree of social integration but less integration on substantive trade and investment
programs. The latter is not surprisingly given that the federal and provincial programs
are distinct and respond to priorities and objectives set by different governments.
Respect for client confidentiality in trade and investment is another contributing factor.
Integration was also dependent upon such factors as the business culture of the host
country, their perception towards provincial (sub-national) representation, and whether
the province shared their business plans and objectives with the Mission.
Notwithstanding the excellent cooperation and the general satisfaction reported by
provincial representatives towards co-location, some provincial representatives are of
the opinion that they are of lower priority at missions. They feel isolated within the
mission and complain that there is not enough willingness from their federal colleagues
to share information, work as a team and support them.11
The evaluation found a disparity in engagement between federal and provincial
representatives at missions. In some missions, provincial representatives attended
Mission Management Committees (CMM) or they participated in the trade section
management meeting. In others, they participated in a trade section meeting, separate
from the trade management meeting. In a rather small number of missions, there was in
practice no meeting including provincial representatives.
In other missions, the evaluation found that provincial representatives participated in
annual trade planning meetings and either the HOM or Deputy HOM would extend
regular invitations to meet or socialize with provincial representatives in an effort to
develop closer relations. This opened channels of communications to provincial
representatives and contributes greatly to their integration within the mission. One
example of effective way to share information was found in Tokyo where the STC holds
monthly meetings in which all provincial representatives whether co-located, stand
alone or consultants are invited. In these monthly meetings, provincial and federal
11
This sense of isolation is further reinforced in some missions where provincial representatives have their offices
away from sections of relevance in the mission – such as trade and investment.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
31
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
officials share information about activities, discuss future events of mutual interest and
coordinate positions.
This disparity of practices in engagement between federal and provincial
representatives among missions reflects the flexibility and discretion characteristic of
the co-location model. In countries such as Germany, there is tolerance and
acceptability of multiple sub-national representations. As a result, Canada’s relation with
its provinces and territories in all its complexities was well-understood and acceptable
among those interviewed in the German or Lander governments.
Information Sharing
The evaluation also heard from a number of federal officers that the exchange flow with
co-located provincial representatives was not necessarily balanced. They believed that
provincial representatives were more restrictive in sharing information with their federal
colleagues. Provincial representatives also indicated that they believed the federal trade
and investment officers restricted information to them.
One possible reason for this imbalance is that it is the federal government’s mandate to
serve all provincial-territorial interests equitability and while this principal/value is
inherent in the Federal Trade Commissioner’s Service, provinces believe that
information provided to the federal government may be transmitted to other provinces
who in some cases might be competitors. When various trade and investment scenarios
were examined, the evaluation found that the federal trade and investment officers
acted prudently to respect client confidentiality and to limit unfair competitive advantage
among provinces/territories.
Another reason for this imbalance is that there are legitimate reasons why STCs might
decide to limit the flow of information and the intensity of cooperation with co-located
provinces. Federal officers have to respect principles of confidentiality and equity
towards all provinces. Provincial representatives report to different governments and in
some cases compete with other provinces over the same market-share. In
consideration of these matters, there is a need to establish certain distinctions between
federal and provincial representatives in limiting the sharing of information and the
management of files between federal and provincial representatives.
The evaluation also found that in missions where federal officers had devoted more
effort (particularly in trade sections) to generate a team spirit with their co-located
provincial counterparts,12 an increased sense of belonging of provincial representatives
resulted. The evaluation noted in interviews with provincial representatives that when
12
This included; invitations to meetings, working lunches, consultations with provincial colleagues, occasional face
to face meetings with HOMs (in large missions)
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
32
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
they attended functions at missions or when federal and provincial representatives
collaborated together on events that related to organizations or individuals active in their
provinces (such as municipalities, corporations or artists), unless not warranted for
reasons of equity or confidentiality, these contributed to their sense of belonging.
Although mentioned earlier, it is once again important to note that the CMM might not
always be the most appropriate venue for a federal/provincial dialogue at mission. The
presence of some provinces at the CMM raised concern on the optics and over the
impartiality of the mission towards reflecting the interests of all of Canada. Therefore,
this would suggest that additional study and dialogue should occur over the suitability of
provinces attending the CMM.
In consideration of the issues on integration, inclusiveness and co-operation, the
evaluation found that missions and provinces at missions believed that the receipt of
more in-depth and customized pre- and post-briefings would significantly increase
mutual understanding of co-location practices at mission. Such efforts would most likely
reduce possible misunderstandings and increase inter-governmental engagement.
Finding 12:
Provincial and Federal officers cooperate well but need at times
to remain cognizant that they represent distinct governments,
and hence respect the distinct nature of their programs.
The evaluation found that some provincial representatives consider that one of their
responsibilities is to leverage the resources of the Canadian mission towards the
interests of their province. They act as “inside lobbyists” for their province. It is an
acceptable practice for provinces to seek additional attention from Canadian missions,
but the evaluation found that while it is beneficial to leverage federal support, this
approach was easily misinterpreted. Federal officers viewed these actions of provincial
representatives as attempts to influence and direct the work of federal colleagues
without the mandate and authority to do so, which in turn led to a decrease in
cooperation and a reluctance in sharing information with federal colleagues.
The balance between too much and not enough integration of provincial representatives
is probably the most important and most delicate issue in co-location. The right balance
involves excellent interpersonal relations and team spirit, a seamless exchange of
information on issues of interest to the province, provision of advice and expertise on
the part of federal officers and cooperation on some events. But it also involves a clear
distinction between the activities of provincial and federal representatives and respect
for the confidentiality and discretion that protect the activities of each officer. When the
right balance is achieved, co-location amounts to a rewarding and productive
experience for all federal and provincial officers concerned because of the respect for
provincial autonomy and cooperation.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
33
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 13:
Federal officers are careful not to give undue trade and
investment advantages to provinces that are on site and this
requires close attention and vigilance.
The evaluation found that the federal trade commissioners were mindful in their efforts
to ensure that all provinces are treated equally. This is particularly important in case of
investment targets and leads. Trade commissioners are careful to ensure that all
provinces with a potential interest are informed simultaneously. They admit however
that information giving unfair competitive advantage to a co-located province can be
inadvertently passed during “coffee break conversations” or other informal occasions.
It is not always easy to draw a clear line between activities that represent good
cooperation and team work among federal and provincial representatives at missions
and similar activities that may be inequitable to other provinces. A case in point is the
practice of inviting a provincial representative to accompany a HOM or any other federal
officer during a call to a potential investor to Canada. If the province is clearly identified
by the investor as its preferred location, or if the call is the result of a provincial initiative,
this practice appears to be fair. However, when there is potential competition between
provinces and when the call is a federal initiative, the presence of one provincial
representative might represent an unfair competitive advantage. Federal officers must
be cognizant of this and apply caution and discretion when offering that kind of support
to a provincial representative.
In addition, the double status of provincial representatives, who represent their
provinces but are also Canadian diplomats, creates another challenge to the equity
among provinces. Given that Canadian diplomatic or consular status, a provincial
representative can give the impression that the Canadian government favours a
particular province for a potential investment. Interview data showed that provincial
representatives were clear about their status and that their interlocutors generally
understand that they represent one province, not the whole of Canada. However, a
potential for confusion does exist.
It must be noted however that not all competitive advantages are considered unfair
competitive advantages. It is expected that provinces are prepared to devote time,
energy and money to a certain market to gain advantages, including the support and
expertise from their federal colleagues. This reflects the spirit of co-location. Unfair
competitive advantages arise when provinces gain in a manner that is disadvantageous
to other provinces, for example by getting a head start on an investment lead initiated
by federal officials, when the foreign company interested in the Canadian market has
not expressed a preference for any specific province.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
34
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 14:
Provincial representatives are included in mission emergency
contingency plans; however, provinces are not mandated to be
involved in operational crisis cells at missions.
Provincial representatives are included, as all missions’ members, in the missions’
emergency contingency plans. However, in general, they do not participate in the small
crisis cells that coordinate missions’ responses to emergencies such as natural
disasters and terrorist attacks. During the evaluation, one province requested that its
representatives abroad be members of these crisis cells. In a recent emergency
situation, the communication between its representatives and the crisis cell was
considered unsatisfactory by that province. The province’s argument was if they
became members of crisis cells, their representatives could better inform their
government when residents of their provinces are in emergency situations.
Crisis cells fall under the Consular mandate of the federal government and are highly
operational units. Their mandate is to ensure the security and well being of all
Canadians and all mission staff in cases of emergency, and to provide consular
services to all Canadians. Consular services being the sole responsibility of the federal
government, such an inclusion would not appear adequate. Provinces or territories are
not mandated to participate in these units. They have no consular or emergency
management expertise and, more importantly, no consular or emergency management
responsibility.
However, provincial representatives should be kept informed of developments and be
included, as all diplomats and consular officials, in missions’ emergency plans.
Increased federal-provincial collaboration at times of international crisis would reduce
the information gap. This would contribute to an effort to share consistent and singlesource information with provincial representatives in order for them to inform their
government of the situation.
4.1.4
Coordination of Priorities and Objectives, Strategic Planning
Finding 15:
Increased coordination of priorities and planning between
federal and provincial officials leads to better identification of
opportunities for cooperation and synergy.
In terms of planning of activities, missions vary considerably in the way provincial and
federal trade promotional activities are planned. In some cases, it occurs formally and
regularly. In other cases, it is mainly done informally or not at all. Provincial business
plans are usually not incorporated into the mission’s business plan, but information on
activities is shared when there is an opportunity for cooperation. For example, missions
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
35
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
and provinces cooperate in the planning of ‘flagship’ events and share the cost of
events of mutual interest.
The evaluation found that provincial representations and federal missions generally
operate independently rather than in a coordinated fashion. Federal-provincial
coordination of priorities, objectives and strategic planning is practically non-existent. In
general, coordination is focussed on the short term (weekly meetings, joint work on
certain projects and visits). A review of missions’ business plans showed that they
usually contain only a few lines on provincial interests, regardless of co-location with
provincial representatives. At some missions, federal officers believed that provincial
representatives do not have clear priorities or action plans and that they mainly wish to
follow the Canadian mission’s actions.
Supported in the evaluation, missions should be encouraged to consult provincial
representatives at all phases of strategic planning. One example of effective strategic
coordination is that of the trade sector in Germany, which organizes a large planning
meeting every year for all the provincial representatives in Germany (whether with colocated or independent bureaus). This type of activity fosters synergy and builds team
spirit.
Another good example was found in Mexico where co-located provinces attend Mission
Program Management Committee meetings and Trade meetings, and are also invited to
mission retreats. In these meetings, provinces share business plans and activities.
Provinces attend also a bi-monthly meeting (called the group of five) which includes
Export Development Canada (EDC), Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and DFAIT to share
plans and activities. One interviewee said that the idea is “to act as one team based on
trust and respect”. In addition, the Ambassador has a bi-monthly lunch with the Délégué
général du Québec and there are weekly meetings with the representatives of Alberta
and Ontario who are co-located, and their events are posted in mission calendars.
Based on the above evaluation results, it would appear beneficial if federal and
provincial objectives at mission are agreed to be shared by both levels of government.
This would most likely enhance the reciprocal nature of the arrangement and federalprovincial relations and offer additional opportunities for co-operation and synergy to be
identified.
Findings 16:
There is no systematic mechanism for reporting on results
achieved from the co-location program.
The Department, while engaged in managing co-location arrangements with provinces,
does not have a performance measurement plan to review progress made and monitor
results achieved on its federal-provincial-territorial practices. The development of such a
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
36
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
plan would provide management with agreed-upon indicators to monitor internal use of
resources and activities towards achieving the desired objective of co-location
arrangements. Without such a plan, it is more difficult to assess data the success of
departmental activities on federal-provincial-territorial relations. The evaluation does
recognize that developing objective indicators in a field dominated by relations that are
highly political and qualitative would be challenging.
Although subject to further discussion in the Department, with respect to monitoring
responsibilities, PRP and APD could jointly be responsible, each in its respective
mandate, for the performance of signed MOU which could include:
•
systematically collecting data on issues raised related to co-location
arrangements;
•
identifying any issues or concerns related to the implementation of the MOU and
taking timely and corrective actions; and
•
providing input to the negotiation and consultation process of the development of
the MOU.
Missions, at regular intervals, could inform PRP and APD of any cooperation issues and
joint activities with the provinces in any program areas and their implication. This
information would facilitate resolving any issues as well as demonstrating the leveraging
of resources and synergies that are built at the missions to promote Canadian interests.
4.2
Efficiency
4.2.1
Building Canadian Capacity Abroad: Efficiencies, Synergies and
Complementarities
Finding 17:
Federal and provincial officials abroad complement each level
of government bringing specific and supplementary expertise,
thus increasing Canada’s competitive strengths abroad.
Federal officials in missions consider that the provincial presence in their host countries
is a success story. The evaluation heard consistently that provincial representatives
were welcome and that federal and provincial representatives at mission complement
each other. Apart from three Quebec co-located offices devoted entirely to immigration,
the priorities of most provincial representatives are investment and trade promotion and
to a lesser degree the recruitment of skilled labour and the marketing of post-secondary
education in their provinces.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
37
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
On trade and investment promotion, federal trade commissioners develop an expertise
on local markets in host countries. They offer value to export-ready enterprises on
market access. To supplement these efforts, provincial representatives have a solid
expertise of the business environment in their provinces. They can provide detailed
information to potential investors and buyers about locations, provincial legislations and
taxation and, incentives. For Canadian companies, provinces provide customized
follow-up services. This type of service complements the core services of the federal
trade commissioners.
Working co-operatively
The evaluation noted throughout its field visits that the federal and provincial trade
officers cooperate efficiently, using the strengths and added value of each level of
government. When a Canadian company requests from federal trade commissioners
particular support, at times the provincial representative, with the agreement of the
company, can offer specialised support. Provincial representatives often seek the local
expertise of their federal colleagues in their endeavour to offer the best support to
companies from their provinces. Federal officers will share investment leads with their
provincial colleagues (and simultaneously with the provinces not represented at the
mission) for further exchange of information with the potential investor.
Federal officials also appreciate the access to the provincial networks that the provincial
representatives bring to the mission. They consider that the presence of provincial
representatives makes it easier to communicate with provincial governments and to
raise their knowledge of the local environment.
It is usually the client (in most cases a Canadian company or a foreign company
interested in the Canadian market) who determines whether he/she will work with a
federal or a provincial representative or with both. Federal trade officers will inform
Canadian companies that there is a provincial representative who can also provide
assistance.
In some markets, the number of companies with a strong interest in Canada is relatively
limited which can increase competition for market-share. This may create a situation
when both federal and provincial officers call on the same companies or potential
investors. As a consequence, these companies could occasionally receive an excessive
number of calls from ‘Canadian officials’ requesting meetings and extending invitations
for business events. This is delicate and requires careful management. Representatives
of foreign companies expressed concern about such occurrences. The effect of this can
be minimal when federal and provincial representatives inform each other of their
promotion activities, but the evaluation found that some often prefer, for legitimate
reasons, to maintain a certain level of confidentiality around their activities.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
38
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Another example of excellent working relations and complementary efforts on program
integration was found with Quebec immigration offices and federal immigration
representatives. Immigration is recognized as a shared jurisdiction and responsibility
between Quebec and Canada. Quebec has established three (3) co-located immigration
offices; in Hong Kong, Vienna and Damascus. These offices assume responsibility for
immigrant selection for Quebec. Once eligibility has been determined for immigration to
Quebec, Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s officers’ review eligible candidatures for
admissibility to Canada. This is one example of excellent complementarities between
the Quebec immigration offices and their federal counterparts. It also showed effective,
integrated operations and sound working relations.
Finding 18:
Cooperation between federal and provincial representatives in
the organization of high level provincial visits is efficient, and
these visits enhance Canadian visibility abroad.
While Canada has the lead responsibility for visits, both federal and provincial
representatives work closely on the organization of visits of senior provincial officials
such as premiers and ministers. In many missions, however, the provincial
representative will lead in the organization of provincial visits and will engage federal
support when needed for political visits.
The evaluation heard accounts that on some provincial visits, there were issues of
protocol and timing that caused concern but these are areas that continue to be
improved on as the federal-provincial relationships at mission mature (or as each
become more familiar with the other). The evaluation found that in general federalprovincial coordination in the organization of visits was efficient.
In many missions, it has been noted that the provincial activity has contributed to
developing high level contacts between Canada and the host country. Visits of
provincial premiers and ministers have enhanced Canadian visibility in these countries.
In one mission, however, it was felt that visits from one province were of such a high
volume that it was over-whelming and had over-extended the services of the mission
given the demands for senior political- level contacts. In order to streamline and offer
best possible service to visiting politicians and dignitaries, the mission had developed
mission-specific visit guidelines to reduce the reoccurrence of this situation.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
39
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.3
Provincial Satisfaction
Finding 19:
Provinces co-located at Canadian Diplomatic Missions are
generally satisfied with the arrangement.
The evaluation explored the preference of provincial representatives who are currently
co-located in Canadian missions and, in general, found the preference is to remain colocated compared to a stand-alone option.
It is possible that provinces may at times hold opposing views to the federal government
which can be manifested at mission. In many ways, stand-alone operations may offer
the province a preferred option for representation abroad because it reduces the
potential for policy, program and administrative challenges. At the same time, the
evaluation found that many missions and foreign host governments were
knowledgeable of and did not appear overly concerned with stand-alone, co-location or
contractual arrangements.
Finding 20:
Foreign interlocutors were unanimously positive of the impact
of the presence of provincial representatives in their relations
with Canada and the image of Canada.
The evaluation included a number of interviews with a variety of interlocutors in foreign
countries, including members of the business communities and officials of foreign
ministries. These foreign interlocutors had a very good understanding of the respective
roles of federal and provincial representatives. They were unanimously positive about
the impact of the provincial presence on the reputation of Canada, as it projects an
image of openness and diversity.
Evaluation interviews held with foreign government officials showed that they were
receptive to Canada’s model of co-location with the provinces. It was seen as
representing diversity and acknowledgement of sub-national presence but it was not a
model that would replicate in their own countries.
The evaluation also heard from foreign governments’ officials that the nature and extent
of provincial representation is positive for the image and interests of Canada. However,
one host government official shared a word of caution that if this presence increases
significantly in his country, it could diffuse the “Canada Brand” or artificially create
unnecessary confusion among the business community. India, for example, is now
officially restricting stand-alone sub-national representation only to cities where the
central government of the sub-national entity has no diplomatic presence, although
there are exceptions to that rule.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
40
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.4
Issues and Challenges
4.4.1
Equity of Treatment among Provinces/Territories
Finding 21:
The precise impact of the presence of provinces within
Canadian missions on the use of federal resources is difficult to
quantify but appears to be neutral.
It is difficult to assess the precise impact of the presence of provincial representatives
on federal resources at the mission. On the one hand, provincial representatives
handled many of the activities related to the interests of their provinces in the host
country, thus allowing federal officials to devote more time and energy to the interests of
other provinces. On the other hand, the presence of provincial representatives tend to
increase the number of missions, visits and other activities related to that province, thus
increasing the amount of time and energy that the mission devotes to that province. On
balance, most interlocutors believed that the impact is neutral.
As noted above, in one mission, the HOM and other federal colleagues believed that
one province had over-extended the resources of the mission in undertaking an
excessive number of ministerial visits. The HOM in direct contact with the provincial
authorities addressed this issue and now established mission-specific guidelines to
assist in the planning and preparation of such visits.
Provincial representatives abroad accept to take responsibility for the activities related
to their provinces, for example the visits of provincial premiers or ministers. But
provinces believe that they should receive the same level of support from the Canadian
mission regardless of whether a representative is abroad.
The evaluation heard from a number of provinces that in some missions, requests
related to their provinces were deferred systematically by federal officials at the mission
to the provincial representative for their follow-up. For example, when a provincial
government would submit a visit proposal to the mission, the federal official at the
mission would give that proposal to the provincial representative.
Another example was requests for support and advice by companies from the province.
The federal trade section would consider them to be a responsibility of the provincial
representative. This did not appear to respect the federal commitment to provide the
same level of service to all provinces. The co-location MOU, between the federal and
provincial governments, indicates that it is the federal government’s responsibility to
promote the interests of the co-located provinces in their requests for support and
assistance on all relevant matters.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
41
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.4.2
Respecting Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions
Finding 22:
The vast majority of the activities of provincial representatives
center on trade, investment, education, immigration and
culture. Federal and provincial representatives are
knowledgeable of and respect their distinct jurisdictions.
There are few provincial offices abroad which have a mandate to discuss policy issues
with foreign governments. An example of one is the Alberta Office in the Canadian
Embassy in Washington DC which is involved in advocacy activities in the USA. Most
provincial advocacy positions are consistent with the positions of the federal
government. However, when they are not, it is important that their positions be
understood as representing the views of a province and may not be necessarily the
view of the Government of Canada.
Provinces are aware that there are limitations to their capacity to develop relations with
host countries at the ministerial level. Missions respect the right of provincial
representatives to develop contacts at the working level with central government
departments in the area of competence of the provinces (such as the departments of
education). Only in one mission did the evaluation find that the HOM objected to a
provincial representative (co-located) having direct contacts with the office of Protocol of
the local (sub-national) government. There is no evidence that would limit such contact.
4.4.3
Protecting Confidentiality in Trade and Investment
Finding 23:
Although federal and provincial officials share information of
mutual interest, co-location increases the possibility of
sensitive information being inadvertently shared with provincial
co-locators.
The evaluation found that federal officials are aware of the importance of protecting
confidential information. When a provincial representative informs a federal trade
commissioner that he/she is working on an investment target or an investment lead, the
federal official does not share the information with other provinces, unless contacted
directly by the company who might want to investigate other markets in Canada.
One contributing factor to possible disclosure of confidential client investment
information is due to the proximity of offices between federal and provincial
representatives. The evaluation heard that if federal offices are close to provincial
representatives, they could hear discussions concerning investment leads in other
provinces. The provincial representative could also drop in the neighbouring office of a
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
42
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
federal colleague to introduce himself/herself to a potential investor expressing interest
in another province. While the principle of co-location implies that offices of the
provincial representatives are housed inside the Canadian mission, the evaluation found
that the best arrangement is when the provincial offices are located in identifiable
sections, not far, but clearly distinct from the federal trade sections.
Most co-located provincial representatives have access to SIGNET similar to other
government colleagues. This is an important vehicle of integration and an indispensable
tool of communication at missions. However, in some missions, provincial
representatives receive all the messages addressed to MISSION-TD or to *MISSIONTD. Many colleagues at headquarters or in other missions, send messages to these
organizational mail boxes without knowing that they are automatically shared with some
(but not all) provincial governments. Therefore, caution should be exercised to avoid
any distribution of information to unintended recipients. The automatic access to
messages aimed at the mission in general, or at particular sections (organizational
boxes such as MISSION, MISSION-GR, *MISSION-GR, MISSION-TD or *MISSIONTD) strongly increases the risk of inappropriate information being shared.
Provincial co-locators have expressed an interest to access federal data bases such as
TRIO. TRIO contains client contact lists and commercial investment information. Access
to this information may offer unfair advantage to co-locators over others.
4.4.4
Branding Canada, Branding the Provinces and Conveying a Consistent
Message
Finding 24:
Most provinces brand themselves as “Canada” and they all
have an interest in promoting a positive image of Canada.
The evaluation found that, in general, provincial international activities do not have any
known impact on Canada’s brand. In fact, provinces act with prudence and
sophistication when it comes to presenting themselves to foreign communities. In
countries where provinces are not recognized, they benefit from the Canadian brand
because it is known and contributes to their ability to promote their trade and investment
interests.
Among provinces represented abroad, most focussed building business relationship and
commercial activities on trade and investment than on diplomatic relations and
branding. Québec is an exception in that the promotion of Quebec’s identity and culture
is one of its priorities. Federal colleagues understand this approach and as stated by a
senior Canadian ambassador “Québec is recognized as distinct and different”.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
43
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
It was not surprisingly therefore, that the evaluation found that provincial representatives
consistently promoted a positive image of Canada. This approach was seen by host
countries as an asset reflecting Canada’s diversity and richness.
4.4.5
Responding to Provincial Representational Needs
Finding 25:
The practice of refusing to accept LES as provincial
representatives limits the options available to provinces.
Since 2000, when many provinces recommenced their presence abroad, they have
explored and implemented new forms of representation abroad, focussing on costeffective and flexible formulas. British Columbia, for example, chose to hire locallyengaged consultants as its representatives. Other provinces also have hired local
consultants as part-time representatives.
DFAIT, with two exceptions, has been firm that provincial representatives should only
be provincial civil servants. However, in two locations (Taipei and Mumbai), due to local
circumstances, DFAIT has accepted that LES, selected jointly by the province and the
mission, act as provincial representatives. They report to the province but work under
the supervision of a CBS (Canada Based Staff) at the mission. They do not have
diplomatic or consular status.
Should DFAIT continue to support this type of provincial LES arrangement, this could
encourage provinces to increase their presence abroad. The Department may wish to
consider studying the implications of this approach more comprehensively. It may be an
additional and cost-effective option for promoting more co-location.
4.5
Financial Planning, Budgeting and Control Systems
Finding 26:
While a lot of progress has been made to simplify and improve
the accounting procedures, there is still need to increase the
level of understanding among federal officials and provincial
co-locators.
The evaluation found that the administrative/financial system which regulates the
expenses of provincial representatives at mission can sometimes be labour-intensive.
While the provincial representatives cost-share the maintenance of the administration
sections in the missions, they still need to devote, according to interview data, close to
50% of their own section workforce to the administration and management of work
associated to their finances. The (federal) administration sections of the missions
testified that the management of the financial issues related to the provincial
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
44
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
representatives was burdensome for them as well. There are clearly efficiencies to be
gained in that respect.
In order to increase the efficiency of the procedures, a new co-location funding
framework has been put in place. The framework is implemented through the creation of
a Special Purpose Account (SPA) (also called Permanent Advance Account). There is
only one SPA for all co-locations and two fund reservations (RS) per co-locator per
mission. One of them includes costs known at the beginning of the fiscal year. The other
includes costs that cannot be pre-determined such as possible program costs that may
arise during the year.
Funding requested from co-locators can be divided into three categories: initial costs;
annual invoices; and permanent advances. Initial costs include all one-time fit-up costs
associated with the set-up of the provincial office and could include capital purchases
and the acquisition of staff residences. When the purpose of the initial cost account is
completed, reconciliation is performed, and any un-spent funds return to the co-locator.
Annual invoices include co-locators’ share of missions’ operating costs, administrative
salaries and benefits, LES salaries and benefits as well as specific annual costs, such
as chancery rent, Staff-Quarter rent, and the use of SIGNET and MITNET services.
Permanent Advances include travel, hospitality, cell phone charges, and special order
for the sole use of co-locators. Permanent advances must be provided prior to the
arrival of co-locator at mission and reviewed regularly to ensure sufficient funds are
available.
Ideally all costs that can be pre-determined will be requested from co-locators in
advance, so that they can ensure their accounts contain the funds required for the upcoming fiscal year. For other costs, monthly statements are provided to provinces based
on program activities. Based on these statements, provinces replenish the funds. The
funds are then deposited in an HQ controlled suspense account and transferred via
journal voucher. Also, DFAIT requires that all program expenses must include the
Control Number (i.e., the number on the invoices that is provided to each provincial HQ
for approval).
The evaluation heard that missions receive provincial funds twice a year. While the first
instalment is often sent early in the fiscal year, the second is sent later in the year. This
delay in sending the second instalment causes two problems: Missions have to cash
manage throughout the year to fund provincial programs, and when they receive
provincial monies, it is too late in the fiscal year that they risk lapsing money. Since
missions receive about 75% of their funds in May, they essentially have all the funding
required until the end of December.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
45
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Missions are required to communicate with APD on a regular basis if and when
anomalies occur (i.e., unavailability of funds for payment of invoices), or if a new activity
is expected. Missions are also instructed not to pay from their own budget if they do not
have sufficient funds. The TB’s Common Services Policy is clear in that Common
Service Organizations are not permitted to use their appropriated funds to pay for colocators.
In fact, the purpose of the Permanent Advances was to ensure funds are available
before expenditures are incurred. APD coordinates with both missions and co-locators
when determining the level of funding that would be needed. So it appears that
missions, in the spirit of cooperation and provision of timely services to co-locators, do
sometimes fund co-locators’ activities. When missions process transactions from their
own budget, it becomes a challenge for APD to reconcile payments and provide a clear
picture to the co-locators’ HQs when requesting an increase for Permanent Advances.
Canadian staff and provincial representatives at missions have both mentioned the
presence of few administrative irritants. On the accounting side, there seems to be two
different sets of financial rules that are in place: one for DFAIT staff and the other for
provincial staff. For example, while LES are considered federal staff, provincial LES
were found in some cases to use provincial per-diem rates while on travel status rather
than federal ones – provincial rates are sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than
federal rates. When LES use federal rates, they sometimes get higher allowances than
the provincial representative him/herself. Also it was found that sometimes there are
different contracting procedures that are used. These situations were identified by
missions and efforts are being made to standardize both financial and contracting
procedures consistent with DFAIT and TB policies. If provinces could be convinced to
use federal rates at mission, the process would be simplified to the benefit of everyone.
There is a need for clearer guidelines, particularly with signing authority under
Section 33 and 34 of the Financial Administrative Act. Because each province has
different financial systems and processes, which may not correspond to DFAIT’s
systems, verification of deliverables is done by the province and Section 34 is signed by
the missions’ Financial Officers. This situation is based on the trust and confidence of
what the provinces attest to by approving invoices for payment. A number of federal
officers at mission expressed their uneasiness as they have to sign Section 34 while
they have no control over spending given the autonomy of provincial representatives,
who report directly to their headquarters.
Provinces differ in the level of financial delegation accorded to their representatives. For
example, Ontario co-locators are required to send all invoices for authorised activities to
Queen’s Park for approval, which may delay the process of payment. For AB, the
government delegates approval authority to their representatives. The evaluation did not
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
46
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
examine the situation with Quebec co-locators. At all missions, provincial
representatives sign their own travel authorizations based on pre-approved work plans
and approve those of their LES.
Provincial HQs are aware of these issues and work with DFAIT to resolve them. There
seems to be good communication between DFAIT’s APD and Provinces’ HQs and that
provinces have a good understanding of DFAIT financial procedures. However, more
effort should be made to clarify DFAIT’s financial processes and regulations to
provincial representatives.
Provinces’ HQs have indicated that they are satisfied with the new funding framework
and that it is a major improvement. For example, the new billing process is based on
user fees and ensures full-cost recovery of DFAIT’s expenses. Provinces are currently
charged based on what they use (e.g., telephone, space, etc). Nevertheless, at
missions, provincial representatives have indicated that they are overcharged and had
to pay for more than they received. When this was discussed with APD, the evaluation
found that this variance in opinions is because representatives at missions are not
always aware of provincial and federal costing issues due to communication delays or
training lags of the initial and overhead costs.
Raising the awareness of missions’ Financial Officers of the issues related to colocators and providing training on the new funding framework and business processes
may resolve the funding and payment issues. Also efforts should be made to encourage
better communication between missions and APD. Currently, APD lists all instructions
on the website and communicate information by email to provincial HQs. This
evaluation supports such efforts and calls for more use of technology to increase
knowledge of missions’ Finance staff such as developing an on-line training course or
an interactive website to deal with financial and accounting issues.
It may take a few years, to successful implement training and open communications to
test whether the new system does significantly improve efficiencies. If after two or three
years the system remains overly burdensome and labour-intensive, DFAIT could
consider giving provinces two options: to either manage their finances themselves (the
mission would only be involved in opening an account and processing payments, all
controls would be devolved to the provincial representative and his headquarters); or to
consider full integration in the mission financial system, with full application of federal
guidelines, rules, procedures and controls, including approvals of expenses by a senior
officer (e.g., STC) at the mission.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
47
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
4.6
Clarity of Rules and Expectations
Finding 27:
Although federal and provincial representatives have effective
relations; not all federal officials were aware of the policies and
expectations of DFAIT with regard to these relations.
The evaluation found that provincial representatives and federal officials work cooperatively and collaborate effectively with mutual respect (co-located or in stand-alone
offices). Some federal officials though expressed discomfort which they attributed to
their unfamiliarity with the policies and expectations of DFAIT regarding
federal/provincial relations. These officers while they were instinctively conducting
themselves in an appropriate manner remained uncertain whether they were supporting
Departmental expectations in this regard.
However, the evaluation found that in one mission, the HOM cautioned the actions of a
provincial representative in that the wider community may have an impression that the
representative was the head of a separate mission within the Canadian representation.
This approach was not deemed successful as it heightened tensions with the provincial
representative.
One possible reason for this heightened tension was in the interpretation or expectation
of the Departmental policies on the management of federal/provincial relations. They
are broad in scope, flexible and non prescriptive to allow for the use of discretion in
conduct. The evaluation found that while this flexibility is an asset, Departmental policies
and expectations could be raised in pre- or post briefings with the federal and provincial
representatives at post to increase their awareness.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
48
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
5.0
CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation found that the Department’s policies, practices and co-location
arrangements towards provincial representation abroad are relevant to the need for the
federal government to continue to support and engage provinces and territories on the
international scene. Co-location is also relevant to the provinces in that it offers an
international platform of expertise.
The Department’s interactions with the provinces including its consultation processes,
facilitation efforts with provincial representation abroad and co-location practices
support the Department’s priorities. These priorities include advancing Canada’s
interests internationally in partnership with Canadians as well as advancing Canada’s
commercial interests both in Canada and internationally in collaboration with Canadian
businesses and stakeholders.
It was also interesting to note from the evaluation interviews that Canada’s co-location
practices compared to other like-minded federal nations are open, inclusive and
innovative. In addition, they are not rigidly rules-based.
The evaluation found federal-provincial relations abroad, while generally effective, are
subject to challenges in terms how best to integrate provincial interests with mission
management and objectives. This continues to be in a process of evolution,
improvement and the basis of many evaluation findings and recommendations.
Areas for improvement included missions holding regular meetings with provinces to
understand each other’s mandates and objectives. Another consistent area for
improvement was to increase both communication and system efficiencies on dealing
with administrative matters between missions and provinces. It was apparent that in
some missions, provincial representatives spent considerable time and resources on
administrative issues while mission administrative staff was also found attending to the
same issues.
One other aspect to federal and provincial representatives to consider is whether LES
could be a provincial representative. This may in itself raises many other questions but
the evaluation has indicated this as an option for gaining efficiencies in streamlining the
processes followed to staff provincial directors at mission.
Evaluation findings and analyses were also limited because although co-location at
mission is based on cost-recovery, an effective performance measurement and
monitoring system with regard to the department’s efforts on facilitating provincial
representation abroad, is not available. This would be of assistance as it would provide
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
49
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
core or essential performance information to management for decision-making on areas
of vulnerability.
The evaluation found strong evidence to support that co-location and the Department’s
polices and practices towards the facilitation of provincial representation abroad should
continue. Such practices contribute significantly to the successful promotion of Canada
interests and image internationally. These policies and practices also contribute
significantly to the effectiveness of federal-provincial relations in international affairs.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
50
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1:
That Missions aim to strike the right balance between
the objectives of sound integration of provincial
representatives and the respect for the distinct
mandates and programs of federal and provincial
representatives.
In doing so, DFAIT and missions should continue to favour a pragmatic rather than
prescriptive approach to the relationship between federal and provincial representatives,
giving HOMs the flexibility to adapt general guidelines to local circumstances.
The following measures should be implemented to ensure a strong professional and
social integration of provincial representatives:
•
Co-located provincial representatives should be included in regular meetings
based on mutually-shared interests within mission.
•
Federal officers at missions, and particularly STCs should devote more efforts to
create a team spirit with their provincial colleagues through joint meetings,
informal consultations, working luncheons and occasional face to face meetings
with HOMs.
•
Provincial representatives should be invited to functions and be encouraged to
collaborate on events which relate to organizations or individuals active in their
provinces, except where the invitation could breach the principles of equity and
confidentiality and where the number of guests at the function is very limited.
•
DFAIT and the provinces represented abroad should consider engaging in
mission business planning sessions and should share their business plans and
mandate letters in a reciprocal nature.
The following measures should be implemented to protect the distinct mandates of
federal and provincial representatives:
•
Federal officers should continue to provide the same level of services to all
sectors of a province (such as government and business) as they would if there
were no provincial representatives on site; although requests for services can be
passed to provincial representatives, this should not be automatic and
systematic.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
51
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
•
Federal officers should be vigilant when they work with provincial representatives
on trade and investment leads, in order to treat fairly other provinces potentially
interested in the same business
•
Unless warranted by special circumstances, provincial representatives should not
be included in the meetings of the committees on mission management.
•
Whenever possible, the provincial offices should occupy an appropriate location
within the mission, close to but clearly separate from the trade section.
•
Federal and provincial representatives at missions should be sensitive to the
source of information received and treat it with discretion.
Recommendation 2:
That DFAIT adopt measures to increase the knowledge
and understanding of the respective roles and mandates
of federal and provincial representatives and of the
policies and practices guiding missions’ relationships
with provincial representatives.
•
Missions’ organisational charts should be consistent with the MOUs, which
indicate that there is only a line of authority (but no reporting relationship)
between provincial representatives and HOMs.
•
Where possible, the designation of the senior federal official at a mission should
be at least one level above the designation of the provincial representatives.
•
DFAIT should ensure that federal officers being posted to missions are made
aware of the policies and guidelines which manage the relationship with
provincial representatives.
•
DFAIT and missions should consider putting a context paper as an annex to the
MOU to explain local circumstances and rules relevant to the relationship
between provincial and federal representatives.
•
A session on relationship with provincial representatives should be included in
the pre-posting briefings of federal officers going to missions where there is a
provincial presence; a specific session should be prepared for HOMs.
•
DFAIT should organize an annual meeting with provinces to discuss relationships
between their representatives and federal missions abroad, particularly in the
context of co-location.
•
Federal officers at mission should inform Canadian companies of the presence of
provincial representatives in order to expand the services available to these
companies.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
52
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation 3:
That DFAIT, provinces and missions continue to improve
the efficiency of the administrative and financial
procedures related to co-location.
•
If recent changes to the financial procedures presiding over co-location do not
improve efficiencies significantly, DFAIT should consider giving provinces the
option of 1) managing their finances themselves (missions would only open bank
accounts and process payments) or 2) being fully integrated in the mission
financial system, thus adopting federal financial rules, guidelines and approval
process.
•
Missions and DFAIT headquarters should encourage provinces to adopt federal
travel and, most definitely, hospitality guidelines in situations of co-location in
order to promote clarity and equity among staff at missions.
•
DFAIT should regularize the situation of LES in missions where they remain
employees of provinces or where there is ambiguity in that regard; in the future,
all LES should be employees of Canada.
•
In the course of their pre-posting briefing, whenever possible, MCOs and/or
finance officers posted to missions where there is co-location should consider
visiting provincial capitals in order to gain in-depth understanding of the financial
arrangements between the province and the mission.
•
DFAIT should consider the option of renting offices outside the main chancery for
provincial representatives when space constraints risk delaying the
implementation of a co-location agreement.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
53
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation 4:
That DFAIT develop objective performance indicators to
measure its activities towards the effective management
of its policies, practice and programs with regard to
provincial representation abroad subject to further
dialogue in the Department and with provinces and
territories.
The following measures should be implemented to identify essential, or core, strategic
direction of the Department’s effort to support and engage provinces and territories on
the international scene. Within the Department, PRP and APD could jointly work
together to develop performance information and monitor its progress over time. For
example, this effort could be comprised of:
•
The collection of data on those activities or issues that address the Department’s
assistance to provinces and territories on representation abroad (such as colocation arrangements, negotiation and consultations);
•
The identification of any factors or concerns that may impede the successful
implementation of the MOU.
Missions, at regular intervals, could also inform PRP and APD of any joint activities with
the provinces in any program areas and their implication on mission management or
substantive policy matters.
The collection of this performance information is not meant to be onerous or a burden.
However, it would be beneficial for the Department to measure the nature, the extent of
and time spent on its co-location activities. This also would assist in the decision-making
process by identifying any issues that have either contributed to or impeded the
successful performance of its co-location practices.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
54
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
7.0
LIST OF FINDINGS
Finding 1:
The practice of co-location is relevant to and supports the
Government of Canada’s approach on federal-provincial-territorial
relations in the spirit of open federalism.
Finding 2:
Co-location is a relevant practice in that it offers an international
network or platform of expertise to the provinces or territories.
Finding 3:
Provinces gain competitive advantages by being present in a market,
but these advantages benefits Canada as a whole.
Finding 4:
Provincial co-location abroad is an important asset.
Finding 5:
While co-location is an asset, it poses number of challenges.
Finding 6:
Canada’s federal–provincial co-location practice is open, inclusive
and innovative among like-minded federal countries; it recognizes
and sustains the dual but not necessarily reciprocal nature of this
relations.
Finding 7:
There is no clear indication of the effect of an absence of co-location
on either mission activity or provincial representation abroad.
Finding 8:
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an effective but limited
tool to manage federal-provincial relationships in the case of colocation.
Finding 9:
Lines of authority and reporting relationships are well understood and
well respected at missions, and are applied with flexibility by HOMs.
Finding 10:
There is sound co-operation and good integration at Mission between
Federal and Provincial Representatives.
Finding 11:
Integration of provincial representatives, encouraging the level of
cooperation and interaction, and fostering inclusiveness while
respecting the separate character of federal and provincial programs
is a key challenge at missions.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
55
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 12:
Provincial and Federal officers cooperate well but need at times to
remain cognizant that they represent distinct governments, and
hence respect the distinct nature of their programs.
Finding 13:
Federal officers are careful not to give undue trade and investment
advantages to provinces that are on site and this requires close
attention and vigilance.
Finding 14:
Provincial representatives are included in mission emergency
contingency plans; however, provinces are not mandated to be
involved in operational crisis cells at missions.
Finding 15:
Increased coordination of priorities and planning between federal and
provincial officials leads to better identification of opportunities for
cooperation and synergy.
Finding 16:
There is no systematic mechanism for reporting on results achieved
from the co-location program.
Finding 17:
Federal and provincial officials abroad complement each level of
government bringing specific and supplementary expertise, thus
increasing Canada’s competitive strengths abroad.
Finding 18:
Cooperation between federal and provincial representatives in the
organization of high level provincial visits is efficient, and these visits
enhance Canadian visibility abroad.
Finding 19:
Provinces co-located at Canadian Diplomatic Missions are generally
satisfied with the arrangement.
Finding 20:
Foreign interlocutors were unanimously positive of the impact of the
presence of provincial representatives in their relations with Canada
and the image of Canada.
Finding 21:
The precise impact of the presence of provinces within Canadian
missions on the use of federal resources is difficult to quantify but
appears to be neutral.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
56
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Finding 22:
The vast majority of the activities of provincial representatives center
on trade, investment, education, immigration and culture. Federal and
provincial representatives are knowledgeable of and respect their
distinct jurisdictions.
Finding 23:
Although federal and provincial officials share information of mutual
interest, co-location increases the possibility of sensitive information
being inadvertently shared with provincial co-locators.
Finding 24:
Most provinces brand themselves as “Canada” and they all have an
interest in promoting a positive image of Canada.
Finding 25:
The policy of refusing to accept LES as provincial representatives
limits the options available to provinces.
Finding 26:
While a lot of progress has been made to simplify and improve the
accounting procedures, there is still need to increase the level of
understanding among federal officials and provincial co-locators.
Finding 27:
Although federal and provincial representatives have effective
relations; not all federal officials were aware of the policies and
expectations of DFAIT with regard to these relations.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
57
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
8.0
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1:
That Missions aim to strike the right balance between the
objectives of sound integration of provincial
representatives and the respect for the distinct mandates
and programs of federal and provincial representatives.
Recommendation 2:
That DFAIT adopt measures to increase the knowledge
and understanding of the respective roles and mandates
of federal and provincial representatives and of the
policies and practices guiding missions’ relationships with
provincial representatives.
Recommendation 3:
That DFAIT, provinces and missions continue to improve
the efficiency of the administrative and financial
procedures related to co-location.
Recommendation 4:
That DFAIT develop objective performance indicators to
measure its activities towards the effective management of
its policies, practice and programs with regard to provincial
representation abroad subject to further dialogue in the
Department and with provinces and territories.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
58
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
9.0
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND ACTION PLAN
Recommendation
Recommendation 1:
That Missions aim to strike the
right balance between the
objectives of sound integration
of provincial representatives
and the respect for the distinct
mandates and programs of
federal and provincial
representatives.
Management Response and Action Plan
PFM agrees with this recommendation and with
the nine sub-recommendations. They will have to
be implemented by missions.
PRP will send a message to missions with colocated provincial representatives reporting on
the results of the evaluation and consulting them
on a set of proposed new guidelines and best
practices for relations with provincial co-locators
based on the evaluation’s findings.
Responsibility
Centre
PRP/APD/missions
Time Frame
November 2009:
message to
missions
January 2010:
reports by
mission
Spring 2010:
new guidelines
The proposed new guidelines and best practices
will then be reviewed by DFAIT’s Mission
Management Board before being shared with all
missions.
APD agrees to sub-recommendation concerning
the location of provincial office space within
missions, subject to available space and
willingness of provinces to pay for additional
expenses and any required moves.
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
59
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation
Recommendation 2:
That DFAIT adopt measures to
increase the knowledge and
understanding of the respective
roles and mandates of federal
and provincial representatives
and of the policies and practices
guiding missions’ relationships
with provincial representatives.
Management Response and Action Plan
PFM agrees with recommendation no. 2 and
seven sub-recommendations. Action plan similar
to recommendation no. 1. PRP will inform
missions of recommendations, including need to
adjust org charts where required. PRP will renew
its efforts to offer, in collaboration with CFSI and
CFSD, briefing sessions for all officers going to
missions with provincial presence and for HOMs,
taking into account resource constraints and the
limited number of missions directly concerned.
New guidelines will be issued in the Spring 2010.
PRP will address those issues with provinces on
the occasion of the annual meeting already
planned (more in next paragraph). W e will seek
from missions a background paper on local
circumstances and rules for future MOUs,
information which could be added as annex.
APD has in the past and will continue to
organize with PRP an annual meeting with
provinces, as well as undertake bilateral visits.
Our next annual meeting (this summer/fall) with
all provinces will promote financial business
process standardisation. APD will ensure
that future MOU's include a clear outline of client
responsibility (financial and other) in cases
where they opt out of the DFAIT housing pool.
Responsibility
Centre
PRP/APD/CFSI/CFSD/
missions
Time Frame
November 2009:
message to
missions
Spring 2010:
new guidelines
October 2009:
first annual
consultation with
provinces on colocation
W inter 2010:
planning of preposting briefings
with CFSD and
CFSI
April-June 2010:
In agreement with
CFSI and CFSD,
first pre-posting
briefings
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
60
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation
Management Response and Action Plan
Responsibility
Centre
Time Frame
APD, in consultation with AID/AIS, is to provide
guidelines (by end of FY), outlining the
possibilities and restrictions of various IT
requests both at headquarters and abroad as
they relate to the co-location requests.
Recommendation 3:
That DFAIT, provinces and
missions continue to improve
the efficiency of the
administrative and financial
procedures related to colocation.
APD - W e will continue to monitor the effect of
the new funding framework, however we must
continue to balance the practicality of
administration with legal requirements (e.g.
DFAIT Act, Federal Accountability Act, Financial
Administration Act, Vienna conventions
etc.) Legal requirements might prevent the
complete delegation of all co-location financial
accountability to the provinces and political
concerns may prevent provinces from adopting
federal norms. Thus we expect the hybrid
system to continue.
APD/missions
Ongoing
As for the complexity of financial arrangements,
most of those comments arise from provincial
procedures for their own co-locations. There
are clear limits to our ability to change provincial
financial regulations. Nevertheless, we
will continue to promote a standardised and
simplified financial business process and point
out the benefits to our partners of doing so. W e
have made progress on this front but it is unlikely
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
61
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation
Management Response and Action Plan
Responsibility
Centre
Time Frame
that all provinces will agree to completely adopt
federal norms.
DFAIT has worked to remove ambiguity over the
status of Locally Engaged Staff (LES) by
regularizing employees working for provinces
where their status was unclear. Legally and
under international law, they are federal
employees. All new LES are being created as
federal employees and attempts are ongoing to
convert the remaining Quebec Immigration LES
to federal LES.
Renting diplomatic offices outside of the main
chancery due to space constraints is now in
place. (e.g. Quebec in Damascus)
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
62
An Evaluation of Co-Location Arrangements and the Policies and Practices
Towards Provincial/Territorial Representation Abroad
Recommendation
Recommendation 4:
That DFAIT develop objective
performance indicators to
measure its activities towards
the effective management of its
policies, practice and programs
with regard to provincial
representation abroad subject to
further dialogue in the
Department and with provinces
and territories.
Management Response and Action Plan
As the evaluation report rightly points out,
federal/provincial relations are qualitative and
political by nature, and therefore indicators
should be qualitative. As a first step, missions
will be asked to report to PRP any relevant issue
or event on an ongoing basis. An officer in PRP
will be assigned with the duty of keeping track of
all issues. PRP will propose an annual process
by which missions will report on
federal/provincial relationship, and input of
provinces will be sought as well. A questionnaire
will be developed for missions and provinces.
This process will be closely linked with the
annual consultation with provinces on colocation.
Responsibility
Centre
PRP/missions
Time Frame
November 2009:
message to
missions;
missions
requested to
report on ongoing
basis
February 2010:
development of
questionnaire for
missions and
provinces
Feb-Mar 2010:
consultation of
missions and
provinces
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General / Evaluation Division (ZIE)
63