Set up

It may only be a minor piece of the wider issues surrounding the Cons' efforts to gut the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. But the Globe and Mail's report on what Gary Lunn knew when about the Chalk River fiasco looks to have trapped Lunn in a claim which is itching to be soundly refuted - raising the question of whether the apparent evidence will surface:

Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn was sent information about the impasse between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Canada's nuclear regulator at least two days before the afternoon he says he learned about the problem, a source alleges.

Mr. Lunn has testified before a parliamentary committee that his staff first alerted him on Dec. 3 to the fact that the nuclear reactor that produces more than half of the world's medical isotopes had been shut down indefinitely due to an ongoing, month-old dispute between the Crown-owned AECL and its regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

However, a highly placed source close to Atomic Energy told The Globe and Mail that an e-mail was sent to Mr. Lunn before the Dec. 1 weekend underscoring the need for him to turn his attention to the mounting problem.

"I sent an e-mail on Nov. 29 or 30 ... which said this is serious, we need to get on this," the source said.

Mr. Lunn took a break from skiing in British Columbia on Dec. 1 to respond to the e-mail, the source said, adding that Mr. Lunn confirmed he "knew it was a situation he needed to work on."...

In an interview with The Globe this week, Mr. Lunn denied communicating with the source.

"I don't know. I didn't see an e-mail," Mr. Lunn said, adding, "But it's not uncommon in this age ... my computer, I won't turn it on for three or more days, so you know ..." he said, trailing off. "I'm telling you, I don't recall any conversation. In fact, you know ... there was no contact ... those are the facts," Mr. Lunn said.

"Whether he's thinking of something else or a conversation we had another time, I don't know."

Now, Lunn's response itself seems bizarre enough to raise some questions. Considering that he's already faced public grilling over what he knew and when, there's no apparent reason why he would have to tell stories about what's "not uncommon" rather than having some idea what he did and didn't do at the time.

But it should be an extremely simple matter for the source's story to be resolved based on Lunn's denial of any knowledge or involvement at the time. If Lunn did indeed send an e-mail on December 1, then a copy of that e-mail would seem to put the whole matter to rest - leaving only the question of how the Cons would try to change the subject from yet another attempt to mislead the public.