Thanks for the question. As I mentioned, 141 participants registered in these consultations, so our approach--and I'll let Caroline speak to the detail--was to determine, first of all, whether the personal information relating to these people was publicly available. The personal information was their name attached to their company name. Through legal analysis, that was determined to be the personal information we felt we could not divulge without their consent.
Based on using Google and the Internet, we determined that about 125, I think, individuals' names, plus company affiliation, were publicly available on the Internet and therefore we could release them without getting their consent. Therefore, 16 individuals remained from whom we felt an obligation to get consent, and to that end we called them and asked them. In most cases we received it. I think we received their consent in nine cases; in two cases we could not reach the people, and in five they declined to give us consent; they did not want their names released. Those were the steps we took.
We then had to technically excise those names from the audio recordings, which in itself was a serious technical challenge for us. We didn't have the equipment to do it in-house. We had to go to DND and use its equipment. It meant putting our audio recordings on a special and secure file it had and then going through the redaction process where you tried to zero in on the name precisely without getting any more information except the name, and that strained us, frankly, in terms of technical precision, to get the names out.
Mr. Chairman, we did go to a considerable length to focus on the personal information we felt we had a duty not to disclose.