OGGO – Fact Sheet – June 5, 2023

IRCC Submissions to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO)

Key Facts and Figures on Submissions:

• A total of 11,941 pages of documents and emails were provided in English (over 23,000 pages have been submitted in both official languages)
  • This includes - over 1,900 pages were email correspondence (over 3,800 pages in both official languages) have been provided to the Committee.
  • A total of 604 work product documents (decks, presentations, memos) were translated and provided to the Committee (excluding emails).
• The translation of IRCC’s submission cost the department approximately $1.3 million.
• 1,091/ 11,941 pages included redactions – many of which were very minor (ie, personal email or picture)
• There were approx. 50 people working on the submission. Seven of which were the core working group.

Redactions Based on Following Legal Rationale:

• Solicitor-Client Privilege
• Personal information
• Redactions under the Access to Information Act (ATIA)

PCO Guidance

At the beginning of the process, PCO direction was to not consult or contact McKinsey.  This direction pivoted on April 4, 2023, and departments were requested to seek consent for the release of proprietary information given McKinsey had provided all records to the committee unredacted.

• As such, IRCC sought consent from McKinsey to provide third-party information. We are pleased that they have agreed and these are included in Tranche 22 of our submission.
• IRCC remained sensitive to the powers of Parliamentary Committee to order the production of documents, and the role of members of the Committee in holding the Government to account.
• At the same time, in line with Privy Council Office direction, the Department took the longstanding approach, taken by successive governments, to reconcile the exercise by the Parliamentary Committee of its privileges with other fundamental constitutional principles such as the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government, and the separation of powers.
• IRCC was constrained in what information it could disclose by its obligations under the Privacy Act, and the common law (Solicitor-client privileged material) and it is also guided by the interests that are protected in the Access to Information Act that serve as a guide to what types of information are normally disclosed.
• Note as a matter of law, the ATIA does not apply to requests for documents from parliamentary committees or the House of Commons; however, the ATIA provides a useful reference to identify the types of information that the government would normally make public or protect from disclosure.
• Throughout this process, IRCC remained responsive to the request for documents and was always committed to transparency.
• The redaction exercise was conducted with the goal of providing as much information to the committee as possible.
• As a result, the records that have been submitted to the committee contain a very limited number of redactions to protect:
  • personal information, including information that could endanger the personal safety of individuals.
    • For example, personal telephone numbers and email addresses were removed as this falls outside the scope of the Committee’s request.
    • The personal information that has been redacted include the pictures of McKinsey & Company consultants and IRCC employees.
    • Regarding personal safety, some employees working oversees could be vulnerable if their names were known
    • Should the Committee wish IRCC release that information, IRCC can seek consent from those individuals. However, such an exercise could take some time and may not result in a full lifting of these redactions.
  • program integrity
    • For example, some documents contained detailed HR process information to hire IT professionals. Should this be released, it would give prospective candidates an advantage in the selection process.
    • As another example, certain IT architecture, for security  that if released, would decrease the effectiveness of these controls and could jeopardize the integrity of programs and create vulnerabilities.
    • If pressed to provide this information, it may be appropriate for IRCC to release the information to the Committee if OGGO can guarantee no public disclosure.
  • banking information
    • For example, invoices in tranche 2 included banking information.
  • Scope
    • For example, some emails contained a mix of discussions that fell outside the scope of the McKinsey contracts. These elements have been removed. This also applies to certain attachments.

Timeline of the Submissions:

• MfPP adopted on January 18
• IRCC immediately established working group (Parl Affairs, DSSI, ATIP, COMMS) and began retrieving documents pertaining to its contracts with McKinsey and Company.
• Due to the large amount of documents, submissions divided into tranches, to ensure the Committee received documents as they became available.
• The following documents were provided to the Committee, on time, on February 22 as part of tranche 1:
  • (i) requests for tenders or other procurement requests related to contracts awarded to McKinsey & Company
  • (ii) tenders, bids, proposals or other applications received in respect of those procurement requests
  • (iii) contracts entered into, including any amendments thereto
  • (v) statements of work performed by McKinsey & Company under each contract
  • (ix) the hourly and or daily rates McKinsey & Company charged for each employee working on all respective contracts the company has received since November 2015
  • (x) the names of project managers and or project authorities from McKinsey & Company on all respective contracts and projects the company received since January 01, 2011.
• Tranche 2 was provided on March 10:
  • (vii) invoices provided by McKinsey & Company
  • (viii) records of all payments made to McKinsey & Company
• Tranche 3 was provided on March 31:
  • (vi) all work product provided by McKinsey & Company under each contract
  • This tranche included all work products pertaining to IRCC’s 2018 contract with McKinsey.
• Tranche 4 to 18:
  • These tranches were provided as they became available.
  • They contained all work products pertaining to IRCC’s 2019 contract with McKinsey.
  • Tranche 4: Provided on April 5
  • Tranche 5: Provided on April 5
  • Tranche 6: Provided on April 11
  • Tranche 7: Provided on April 14
  • Tranche 8: Provided on April 18
  • Tranche 9: Provided on April 25
  • Tranche 10: Provided on April 25
  • Tranche 11: Provided on April 26
  • Tranche 12: Provided on April 26
  • Tranche 13: Provided on April 26
  • Tranche 14: Provided on April 26
  • Tranche 15: Provided on April 26
  • Tranche 16: Provided on May 2
  • Tranche 17: Provided on May 2
  • Tranche 18: Provided on May 2
• Tranche 19, 20 and 21 pertain to:
  • iv) all correspondence and electronic communications including emails, text messages, message app communications, and handwritten notes pertaining to these contracts.
  • Attachments to these communications are found within the submission or previously provided in an earlier tranche.
  • These were provided to the Committee on May 8 and 10.
• Tranche 22 included McKinsey work products which were partially or fully redacted in order to protect third party confidential business information.
  • The Department believed that these redactions related to third party information were releasable, but confirmed with McKinsey to lift these redactions.
  • Documents pertaining to this lift were included in this tranche and were provided to the Committee on May 10.

Translation of Documents:

• IRCC worked with Public Services and Procurement’s (PSPC) Translation Bureau to conduct the translation.
• All translations provided to the Committee were professionally translated by the Translation Bureau.
• While some of the translations in the documents may not have been perfect, IRCC believed that  providing the documents to the committee quickly was more beneficial than delaying the submissions. The time and effort to quality control almost 10,000 pages would likely have delayed the process by months.