Mr. Chair, I understand the nature of Mr. Harris's remarks. Ultimately, perhaps it would be more desirable to have a meeting next Thursday, perhaps an extended meeting, because we don't want this kind of crisis to reoccur and we want to find solutions.
But as parliamentarians, it's important to understand what is currently going on because, when we read the newspapers, we don't understand what is happening. I think our duty is to try to understand, and that's what we could do on Thursday, perhaps in an extended sitting.
I would propose a compromise, that the committee sit for three hours instead of two in order to examine the entire question, to understand and hear from people from the lab and from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I believe these people could come and answer our questions so that we could understand what's going on. After that meeting, the committee could decide whether to make it a subject for further study in order to find potential solutions to prevent this from reoccurring.
I'm interested in understanding what's going on between the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Atomic Energy of Canada, and I believe that on Thursday—I'm sure my Liberal colleague would agree on this compromise—we could extend the meeting and take the time to hear from witnesses in order to examine the entire question before deciding to make it a subject of study as such. The idea is that we elected members must understand what is going on by holding an extended sitting on Thursday of this week. I believe that would be a good compromise acceptable to all members.
I don't think we should spend two hours on it; my impression is that there could be a consensus on my proposal.