Maybe it would be helpful if I run through the timeline for mid-June. Mr. Pickard did that himself, but to elaborate on some of those details, I understand that his resignation occurred on June 12. Representatives of our government were informed by the institution on June 13—late in the evening the following day. It was the day after that, June 14, that we first heard why he had resigned, and those allegations made on social media were brought to our attention.
It is that same day, June 14, that the Deputy Prime Minister announced the halt of Canadian activities at the institution and that the review we are discussing would begin.
With respect to the launch of the review and our conversations with Mr. Pickard, the review did start immediately. June 14 was a Wednesday, and by Friday of that same week, June 16, we had reached out to Mr. Pickard to request a discussion with him. The first discussion with him happened on June 20. That was not an in-person discussion. That was a telephone conference, approximately 30 minutes in length, to start to hear his story and to have a first engagement with him.
The longer in-person conversation that we had with him, which is the one I think he was referencing in his testimony, took place on July 4. That was approximately a 90-minute conversation, providing him with the opportunity to share his story with us.
Subsequent to that, as he noted in his testimony, we have been open and encouraging of him to be able to share information with us. He has subsequently shared something on the order of 30 emails with us, providing additional observations with respect to his experience.