That is appreciated. I suppose in the moment we have in front of us, committees are able to be masters. If the witnesses are here and available, I don't see why there would be any reason to be against such an idea. It allows the discussion. Because these groups are so interconnected on this issue, it just seems to make more sense to have it that way. I don't see why not.
I understand the procedures of committees and this was issued, but if we are here now and the space is available and witnesses are ready to go, why not? I think it will allow committee members a better ability to question the witnesses to find out how this communication was or was not going on, which is essentially the point of this exercise. It seems it will be very disjointed to have one set of testimony, where there will be allusions to what AECL or the other players in the game are doing, and then to hear from them an hour later and have answers in the second hour that we'd prefer to ask the witnesses in the first hour.
I don't know why committee members, particularly on the government side, can't agree to this. The opposition is showing willingness to amend the agenda and have it done this way.
If the witnesses are here and this leads to a better committee hearing, I don't see why not.