It is a very important question, and I understand the time the committee is taking in reviewing these timelines. It's one that I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing myself.
I can tell you that the meeting of November 22 was one that was scheduled to address another issue. This was not the purpose of the meeting. The official who attended that meeting did receive information that was not at that time considered to be serious enough to report to anyone else in the department, and indeed it wasn't conveyed to anyone else in the department.
The reason for that was because in the discussion at the meeting there was also the very strong sense from AECL that their one-pump solution would be successful in getting the reactor up and operational and that the extended outage was temporary. That's the review I've undertaken in my department. The results of the November 22 meeting were not conveyed or shared with anyone in the department. It was seen as being information that was in no way urgent or of importance to report up to more senior people in the department, including myself.