I don't share your opinion on that, Minister. The commission has a very specific mandate to fulfil. When one acts as you did one undermines the confidence people should have in a body whose purpose is to protect Canadians when it comes to nuclear safety. You raised doubts in people's minds.
In the future, will we be able to trust the commission? Will it fulfil its mandate to protect Canadians, as we have a right to expect? You have raised doubts in this matter.
As you know, as I told you several times and we have already debated this, I think that nuclear energy is not clean energy. But you promote it. What is going to happen with the tar sands and the installation of the nuclear reactor? All of this raises concerns.
Will the commission and its new president be looking out for the safety of Canadians where nuclear energy is concerned, or will they be at the service of a government and politicians who want the commission to act according to their own values and ideas? Whenever things do not suit it, will the government set aside the people and leaders who do not see eye to eye with them?
Everyone knows that the chill in the relationship between Ms. Keen and the Conservative government dates back to before the Chalk River crisis. Ms. Keen was reluctant to give the go-ahead to granting pre-authorizations for new CANDU reactors, a position which prevents or slows down marketing and investments in new generation.
As minister, when you know that you are dealing with a woman who is a straight arrow, who respects the law and her mandate, and there is nothing you can do because the law is the law, why hound the president rather than try to find an alternative that could have respected the commission's mandate? Why did you attack the executive rather than look for another approach, another course of action? This would have allowed you as minister to say that you believed in the commission and its mandate, but because there was an emergency situation, another solution had to be found.