There was no specific conversation with the minister on this. I believe that it was more of a back-and-forth on email and it was basically: When I referred to an apology, you asked if the information was going to be included. I advised you that it was. Sorry, that was not the case, I was misinformed. I was given the wrong information and it was not in fact included.
It did, in fact, get included in a question-and-answer later on. In that particular meeting, that is when I was actually advised that no further information would be given, because it might affect the integrity of future investigations. That was relayed back to bureaucrats and the minister's office, saying that we won't be speaking any further about the weapons at this point. That was the end of the conversation.