Mr. Chairman,
I think there are two aspects to the question from the honourable member.
First of all, as I indicated in my letter of January 8 to the minister, I strongly believed that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was an independent organization and that we knew what it was like to be a quasi-judicial tribunal. I was the chair of the tribunal organization. I understood what it was and I understood what the guide said.
I put that chronology in my letter, and I thought about it very seriously, of the phone call the minister made to me on December 8—you'll recall that this was a Saturday—at home, and the subsequent letter I received on December 10, which asked me to justify the actions.... When, as it is discussed in adjudicative terms, the commission was “seized with the matter” of the AECL possible amendment, and because of it, this was a stepping over the line of what was reasonable for a minister in this case.
The second part of the question is.... As I noted again in my letter of December 8, I strongly believe that this action, including the letter the minister sent to me on December 27, wherein he asked me to justify why I shouldn't be fired.... It's not just the firing; it was the actions of December 8 and 10, as these were reported, and then it was the letter of December 27. Then finally there was the firing. This is the first time there has been discussion of what was actually in the letter. I think all of this will continue to put a chill through those organizations.
I can honestly say that the phone calls I get at night from people who will phone me at home—not from their offices.... They'll phone me at home with support or they'll send a note to my private e-mail. They won't send it to that.... I'm also a director of the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals, and it was discussed quite recently.
It's inevitable that people will at least look at this and ask what it means for them during the time period for which they're appointed.
That's my opinion.