Thanks, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, through you to Mr. Anderson, I'm just trying to get a handle on the rationale. It's my understanding that a letter was sent by the minister to the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission alleging, effectively, that she's incompetent in the true sense of the word and is not able to or may not be able to continue in her responsibilities there.
I thought the logical flow here of having the minister come first and put his case to Canadians through us at this committee made eminent sense. Ms. Keen, who is on the reaction side of this equation, then has an opportunity to put her case, raise questions, and in fact respond to what might very well be, and I'm sure will be, very legitimate concerns manifested by the minister.
I just don't understand this idea of recalling the minister for half an hour to respond...to what exactly? What would the minister want to respond to if the minister has a solid case that warranted the writing of a letter to a regulator? What would the minister need to respond to if it's already been reduced to writing?