Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank you for introducing my colleagues who are with me today.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain PWGSC's actions regarding the audio recordings of our industry consultations on the Government Enterprise Network Services.
By way of background, let me begin by outlining the origins of these consultations on which the audio recordings in question are based.
On June 17, 2008, PWGSC committed to formally consult with industry on the implementation of IT shared services and government enterprise network services, or GENS. This commitment was in response to concerns raised by members of the IT industry before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with regard to the government's bundling of procurement of IT products and services.
Accordingly, three separate consultation sessions were held between December 2008 and February 2009, with 141 company representatives confirming their attendance. We prepared an extensive report on these consultations. This was then sent to the committee on operations and estimates, as well as to your public accounts committee, on May 7. The report was released publicly that same day, with a communiqué that also noted the favourable response of many members of the industry to the consultation process and its results.
On March 24, the committee asked us to provide as well the audio recordings of our consultations. We have worked diligently to comply with this request.
As part of the consultation process, I should note that we advised the participants that we would record the proceedings to help us prepare a summary report on the industry consultations, which, in turn, would be made available to the public. It was never the department's intent to make the recordings public.
After this committee requested the recordings, Department of Justice lawyers advised that the names of the industry participants, in combination with the names of the company they represented, is considered personal information within the meaning of section 3 of the Privacy Act. Under this interpretation, as per subsection 8(1) of the act, participants' names cannot be disclosed without their consent, except where the information is publicly available or in accordance with subsection 8(2). None of the provisions under subsection 8(2) would appear to apply in this case.
Following a review of 31 hours of recordings, stored on 18 compact disks, it was determined that consent would need to be obtained from 16 of the consultation participants. The names of the other industry representatives were found to be publicly available.
On May 15, the department sent letters to the 16 individuals requesting a reply by May 22. Five individuals declined to grant consent, one could not be located, and one was away and could not be reached. As a result, on May 26, PWGSC provided the committee with 12 of the 18 CDs in their entirety. The remaining six disks were provided to the committee on May 29, after the department had deleted the names of the five individuals who declined to provide consent.
Unfortunately, during the editing and removal of the names some errors were made. A new, complete set of CDs was delivered to the committee on June 15, with the errors rectified.
We want to stress to the committee that the seven participants' names are the only information missing from these recordings and that these were removed for the sole purpose of allowing us to meet our obligations under the Privacy Act. In all, about 12 seconds of recording time have been redacted from a total length, as I mentioned, of 31 hours.
We have acted in a manner consistent with our legal advice to uphold the act to protect the rights of individuals whose personal information is held by the government.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would like to underscore again that, in all of its actions, PWGSC has worked diligently to respond to the committee's request, while at the same time respecting our statutory obligations under the Privacy Act.
I'm happy to take your questions.