IT WILL BE INTERESTING, indeed, to see whether Linda Keen, the recently fired president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, accepts an invitation to appear before the House of Commons natural resources committee next Tuesday.

Ms. Keen was to have appeared before the committee on Wednesday of last week, but declined the invitation, possibly because she was no longer in a position to represent the commission, having been replaced as president the previous evening.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended the government's action on grounds Ms. Keen had failed to provide any assurance that the commission would not order another shutdown of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) reactor that produces about two-thirds of the world's supply of medical isotopes.

As no doubt all our readers know, a shutdown of the reactor in November led to a critical, life-threatening shortage of the isotopes that ended only after Parliament unanimously passed a law that permitted the reactor's return to service before the installation of new safety equipment had been completed.

There's little doubt that the law was required in the circumstances, and even less that Ms. Keen and the commission were, and likely still are, inflexible.

However, that's hardly surprising in view of the mandate given the regulator, once known as the Atomic Energy Control Board.

The Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which governs the commission, gives it authority to regulate all aspects of nuclear energy production and requires it to prevent" unreasonable risk to the environment and to the health and safety of persons ... [and] national security" in the operation of nuclear reactors.

The reference to health and safety is purely in the context of the risks posed by an accident that exposes plant workers or the public at large to dangerous levels of radioactivity. There is nothing in the Act that suggests the commission should also consider the safety of Canadians who are in need of isotopes for medical treatment.

It seems clear now that in the case of the Chalk River reactor, AECL had long been told to install a back-up power system that would ensure continuous operation of the reactor's cooling system in the event of an earthquake. The shutdown was ordered when an inspection disclosed that the required work had never been performed, and it ended when one of the planned two emergency generators had been installed.

As we see it, Ms. Keen and her commission were merely doing their job, and any finger-pointing should have been at whoever it was in AECL that decided not to carry out the required safety upgrade.

Interestingly, both AECL and the commission report to Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, who was the only person in Ottawa in a position to deal with the impasse and quickly came to realize that legislation was required.

Although there's no doubt that in the appropriate circumstances the government can fire a commission member, the big question is whether the circumstances here were appropriate. The Act says each permanent member of the commission "holds office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding five years and may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council [the cabinet] for cause."

The issue here is whether Ms. Keen's stubborn insistence on adhering to the commission's legislated mandate constitutes "cause" for her dismissal. Ordinarily, such dismissals occur only for serious misconduct, such as accepting a bribe or, in the case of a regulator, failing to regulate.

Interestingly, the fact Ms. Keen remains a member of the commission may make it difficult for her to sue the government for wrongful dismissal unless (as we suspect is the case) the demotion meant a reduction in pay as well as responsibilities.

There's little doubt the firing is seen by the opposition as little more than an attempt to muzzle a critic. However, it's also a troubling precedent that must be more than a little unsettling for members of other quasi-judicial government boards and tribunals.

After all, the commission is supposed to be arm's length from the government of the day so that it can pursue its mandate without fear of political interference. But if its head can be turfed for making a decision with which the government disagrees, that independence is cast in serious doubt.

Mr. Lunn has told the Commons committee that Ms. Keen was fired for exercising poor judgment that had spawned "a national and international health crisis." She had made too big a deal about a licensing issue while ignoring the health consequences of the lost isotope production.

As for the prime minister, he told reporters in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, last week that his government "had to intervene to stop a course of action from the president of the nuclear commission which would have needlessly jeopardized the health care system and the lives of Canadians and people around the world."

Really? Wouldn't it have been equally possible for the government simply to ask Parliament to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to make the commission's mandate include balancing the competing interests of nuclear safety and the health benefits gained from maintaining production of medical isotopes?

Obviously, the Commons committee needs to hear Ms. Keen's side of the story. Assuming she doesn't turn up next Tuesday, the committee should summons her to appear and, if it has the power, require her to give evidence under oath.