Debates of Dec. 9th, 1997

Canada Co-Operatives Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to suspend until 4.30 p.m. in order to proceed with private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that we suspend the sitting until 4.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The sitting is suspended.

The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.20 p.m.

The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 4.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Revocation Of Mandate Of Inquiry Commission

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should obtain the consent of two-thirds of the said House before revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.

Mr. Speaker, the motion I am tabling today, Motion M-20, refers directly to events that occurred during the 35th Parliament and that continue to have repercussions today. The aim of this motion is to correct a practice by the government opposite and by the governments before it.

My motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should obtain the consent of two-thirds of the said House before revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.

You will understand that this motion is in reaction to the problems that occurred during the course of the latest commissions of inquiry set up by the government, more specifically, the Somalia inquiry.

You will recall that on July 2, the Minister of National Defence published the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, better known as the Létourneau Commission. The work of that commission became extremely important because of the events that were being revealed, but also because the media was following it closely.

In their final report, the commissioners expressed strongly their concern over the major obstacles they had to face in carrying out the work of the commission. So that the scope and the importance of my motion can really be understood, I will quote some parts of the report, including from the chairman of that commission, Mr. Justice Létourneau.

Mr. Justice Létourneau said:

The Inquiries Act provides the authority to subpoena witnesses, hear testimony, hire expert counsel and advisers, and assess evidence. Under normal circumstances, such powers should have given us the confidence to present our findings without qualification. However, on January 10, 1997, while Parliament was adjourned—

Mr. Justice Létourneau continued:

—the Minister of National Defence announced that cabinet had decided that this inquiry had gone on long enough, that all hearings must be cut off on or about March 31, 1997, and that a report with recommendations was required by June 30, 1997.

This was the response of the government to our letter setting out reporting date options and requesting an extension until at least December 31, 1997, a period of time that would have allowed us to conclude our search for the truth.

You must realize that the Létourneau Commission only had one objective, and it was to uncover the truth on extremely serious events surrounding actions by people in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Justice Létourneau continued:

The unexpected decision to impose a sudden time constraint on an inquiry of this magnitude is without precedent in Canada. There is no question that it has compromised and limited our search for the truth. It will also inhibit and delay corrective action to the very system that allowed the events to occur in the first place.

He continued, and this is important also:

As our investigation progressed, we were able to move closer to the key centres of responsibility as we moved up the chain of command. Unfortunately, the Minister's decision of January 10, 1997, eliminated any possibility of taking this course to its logical conclusion—

The minister, the Liberal cabinet, realizing that the investigations and the search for the truth carried out by Mr. Justice Létourneau were getting dangerously closer to the political decisions of that government, announced in January, on January 10 more precisely, that it had decided to put an end to the commission's work.

Need I remind this House that the commissioners were appointed by the Minister of National Defence, by the government opposite?

These commissioners can certainly not be said to be big, bad separatists or sovereignists who were there to break up the country. They were appointed by the government to seek out the truth. It would be one thing if he had been the only commissioner to make such remarks, but there were three of them saying the same thing.

One of them, Peter Desbarats, even wrote a book entitled Somalia Cover-Up , from which I would also like to quote, because he goes even further than Mr. Justice Létourneau. He wrote:

Before we had a chance to resume hearings in January, after the Christmas holiday, on January 10, the Minister of National Defence announced that the commission would wrap up the hearings by the end of March and table a final report by the end of June—This announcement floored us all. I expected the Minister of National Defence to give us one or two months less than what we asked for, but the decision to put an end to the inquiry was unprecedented. Even four decades of watching politicians did not prepare me for this.

This is not a man totally unfamiliar with how things are done in Ottawa. This is a man who studied political and governmental decisions extensively and was familiar with procedure. After all, he had been appointed to the commission on the basis of his great qualifications.

He wrote in his book that he simply could not believe that the Minister of National Defence would decide to suddenly end the inquiry, without warning, when it was so close to its goal of finding out exactly what had happened. So, the commissioners were about to uncover the truth when the government opposite, in a move that could almost be called dictatorial, put en end to the inquiry.

He also wrote, and I will end with this excerpt:

When observing my two fellow commissioners, I came to appreciate the expression—and this is very important—“judicial independence” as a reality. A government that acts so as to affect the independence of a public inquiry can only be foreign to our political traditions and jeopardize the principles of accountability.

This commissioner in the Somalia inquiry says that the government jeopardized the principles of accountability. This is a very harsh judgment. The author made a comparison with our American neighbours. As we know, Americans are very structured too. They have many commissions of inquiry, even more than here. We also know that the president enjoys a very strong central power. The author points out that:

In the United States, even a president could not stop the Watergate investigation. Here, a simple cabinet can put a stop to a federal inquiry for political reasons, and no one gets upset about it.

As for the in-depth analysis of the motion, all agree that public inquiries are essential elements of a democratic system. It is a universally recognized principle that, without the existence of public inquiries, administrative democracy would be meaningless. These inquiries are tools at the service of those who are governed, that is the citizens, to monitor their administrative institutions. They are tools given to Canadians and Quebeckers to know what goes on in the federal apparatus, since we are in the federal Parliament.

It is not the first time we look at this issue and at the powers of commissions of inquiry. In 1977, the Canadian Law Reform Commission described public inquiries as “a complement to the essential agencies of the state. They can investigate the government itself, a task which must of course be the mandate of a body outside the executive and the public service”.

The quasi-judicial process of which commissions of inquiry are a part is a major guarantee of objectivity, which is of considerable importance when an agency must assess the exigencies of public interest. By setting up boards or commissions with quasi-judiciary powers, the lawmakers institute a mechanism of preliminary investigation and participation by the governed in administrative action.

But these inquiries must be left to follow their course without undue interference by the government. This requires respect for the independence of the judiciary.

And what is the independence of the judiciary? I refer to it because it has already been addressed in this House. It must be understood that what I am proposing in Motion M-20 is a solution to establish some semblance of credibility in our democratic institutions, which suffer from undue interference by the government in the process of public inquiries. It must therefore be understood that the very principle of the independence of the judiciary is what justifies the adoption of this motion. In other words, once a government creates a commission of inquiry, because the situation requires it, because the situation is so important that a commission of inquiry is required, the commissioners must have complete freedom to conduct the inquiry.

And, among other things, the government should have seen to it that Mr. Justice Létourneau, a man with training, a highly credible individual with a law degree and many qualifications, had complete freedom to conduct the inquiry, to ask questions. Above all, there must be guarantees that the executive arm or the government will not interfere.

The legislation, because this is governed by section 2 of the Inquiries Act, stipulates that the governor in council may, whenever the governor in council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof. When we look at the powers given the commissioner of a commission of inquiry, we see that the process must have been considered quasi-judicial. And there is a difference between a commission of inquiry and a decision by the superior court, for example, or the supreme court or the court of appeal.

For instance, commissioners have powers to summon witnesses, powers to enforce, and certain special powers associated with the inquiry, such as entering offices, examining documents or whatever.

In addition, section 12 of the legislation stipulates that commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act to be represented by counsel. And in the Somalia inquiry we saw that, whenever members of the Canadian Armed Forces appeared before the commission, they were all accompanied by a lawyer, which is provided for in the act and which was completely legal.

This shows that a commission of inquiry is something very serious. We must give as much power as possible to those who hear witnesses and who search for the truth.

In conclusion, those who were here during the 35th Parliament, those who witnessed the whole debate on the Somalia inquiry, those who saw certain things the government did during the Krever inquiry and those who witnessed certain things in the past all feel that commissions of inquiry deserve the close attention of the members of this House. Commissions of inquiry deserve that we remove, once and for all, the possibility for the executive branch, the cabinet or a minister to suddenly revoke the mandate of a commission as important as the Somalia inquiry.

To support motion M-20 is to support the improvement of procedures regarding public inquiries. To support motion M-20 is to ensure that our institutions truly reflect the concern of Canadians and Quebeckers to maintain a sound and sustainable administrative democracy. To support motion M-20 is to choose to know the truth rather than to let the interests of the bureaucracy take precedence. To support motion M-20 is to give Canadians and Quebeckers an opportunity to adequately take part in the affairs of our society.

To those who are about to speak against this motion, or who do not really support it, I will simply say that to oppose motion M-20 is to allow the government opposite to once again muzzle commissions of inquiry.

To oppose Motion M-20 is to say that responsible individuals who agree to chair similar commissions could find themselves overnight with less time or insufficient time to really achieve the goal sought, that is, the truth.

To oppose the motion is to allow those who mock their integrity to move beyond all control.

I am convinced that this House, given the appropriateness of the purpose and the fact that the motion is an attempt to find a better approach in this House, will see that its sole purpose is “to obtain the consent of two-thirds of this House”. That means that people on both sides of the House must speak before a commission of inquiry is terminated.

Once a government decides to set up a commission of inquiry, I think it is up to the House of Commons to decide with the pros and cons of a debate here in the House whether the commission should be terminated.

I think that democracy in general would be the winner if this House passed the motion.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bloc Motion No. 20 concerning commissions of inquiry. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member for Berthier—Montcalm.

Inquiries of various sorts are a fundamental concern for both Parliament itself, this House, and for the government. Such inquiries are important tools which both Parliament and the government can use to deal with special issues, special problems, special concerns of particular times in our history. Parliament itself has extensive authority in this area.

In addition to the inquiries which we are discussing under this motion, which are set up under the Inquiries Act, Parliament has extensive authority to set up a committee or committees to conduct inquiries into any area of concern to members. These committees have the usual full control of the House.

Recently there was the special joint committee on the constitution which was chaired by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. That is an example of a committee which was set up as a national base for an inquiry.

In addition, as the member has said, under the Inquiries Act the government, as distinct from Parliament, has the authority to establish commissions of inquiry. In this case a commission of inquiry is created by an order in council under the statutory authority of the governor in council. This provides the terms of reference, the names of the commissioner or commissioners, and establishes the timeframe for the work of the commission.

That is important. The government of the day, under the Inquiries Act, sets up an inquiry. It gives it its terms of reference and, as the member said, appoints the commissioners.

From that point the inquiry runs as an autonomous, quasi-judicial body. It is the arm's length characteristic of these inquiries which is a very important feature.

The member rightly pointed out, and described extremely well, the great powers which commissioners have once such a commission of inquiry is set up and running.

Therefore, these are arm's length bodies which the government of the day uses to look at special matters in the public interest. They are set up by law in a very particular way. Any change to the overall mandate of such a commission requires a new order in council.

The Inquiries Act recognizes that the government has a role in ensuring that the operation of a commission of inquiry is consistent with its mandate. Commissions of inquiry have been widely used by governments throughout the history of this Parliament and have been an important source of information and policy development.

I notice that the hon. member mentioned just two or three commissions of inquiry, but since Confederation there have been over 350 public inquiries under part I of the Inquiries Act. A considerable number of these have had major impacts on Canadian public policy.

I would mention the Rowell-Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations,the MacMillan inquiry into banking and currency, the famous Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism which has had such an important effect ever since and that was in the 1960s on the way this government operates in a bilingual and bicultural way.

I could also mention the McDonald commission into certain activities of the RCMP. Another in the late sixties was the Bird commission on the status of women. That for the government of the day was a conscious effort to look into gender issues, into issues of equality. Again, right through debates in this Chamber to this very day I think we have seen the impact of the Bird commission and the way the government of the day took the time in the sixties to look at gender issues in a broad way really for the first time in our society.

Another I would mention is the Donald S. MacDonald commission on the economic union in the 1980s.

All of those commissions are examples, as I mentioned, from 350 which have had a considerable impact on public policy in Canada since Confederation.

This government is committed to making sure that the terms of reference, the budget and the time limits for completion are made as clear as possible for any commission of inquiry to reduce the risk of undue delays and expenses.

To conclude, I would like to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for his interest in this important matter. Commissions of inquiry are an important matter. It is a very important aspect of life in this country.

I would suggest in considering this motion members should take note of the need to maintain the balance which exists in the Inquiries Act that provides the government with the ability to establish inquiries into public policy matters and not just with that power to establish them, but with the responsibility to ensure the efficient conduct of these inquiries.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion put forth by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I am supportive of the general aim of this motion because it allows the important decision of whether to revoke the mandate of an inquiry commission to be made by the elected members of this House rather than in secret by the government.

The need for such a motion arises from the fact that commissions of inquiry are often investigating situations or events that took place as a result of a government action. Leaving the power to shut down the inquiry in the government's hands clearly puts it in a conflict of interest.

In addition, members of an inquiry commission are undoubtedly aware that their mandate could be terminated if they uncover information that is embarrassing to the government. We have actually seen that happen already. They have no incentive really to investigate in such areas. If anything, there is an incentive to not investigate in areas that might uncover things embarrassing to the government. How can an inquiry be expected to carry out its job properly under such conditions, even when the most conscientious and honest people are conducting that inquiry?

The government member mentioned that there have been over 300 commissions of inquiry. He gave a few examples of some which produced reports consistent, I would say, with government policy of the day and so they were acted upon. The vast majority simply end up gathering dust like the petitions to this place on shelves or in vaults somewhere without ever seeing the light of day.

Our constituents send petitions to this place thinking that we are going to act upon the requests that are in those petitions. As all members of this House know, they simply end up in the vaults of this place along with petitions that have been gathering since the turn of the century with no action ever being taken and the government taking the position that because it cannot verify the signatures, the petitions are hardly worth taking any notice of.

When Reform first came to this place we suggested there be one day a month set aside just to discuss the largest petitions submitted to this place. That would at least show constituents that we care. That has never happened. Similar things happen to these inquiries. They just disappear.

One of the most recent and glaring examples of the need for reform, which was mentioned by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, was the shutting down of the Somalia inquiry by the former defence minister, Doug Young. It became very apparent from questions asked by Reform members during question period in the last Parliament that there really was no legitimate reason for revoking the mandate of the inquiry and that his only motivation was to prevent any proof of a government cover-up being made public.

Surely the power to halt an inquiry like that should not rest with the minister of the department that is under investigation, as was the case in that instance. The voters of the minister's riding administered the ultimate punishment to him in the 1997 election by replacing him. We will never know whether it was because he shut down the Somalia inquiry, but there was some reason they removed him from his position.

Unfortunately, the decision to revoke the mandate of an inquiry commission is only one of many important decisions that are made behind closed doors by the government, often by order in council. Take, for example, the decisions made by the subcommittee on private members' bills which decides whether a bill will be votable or not. It is bad enough that bills can even be declared non-votable, let alone the fact that the government can make the decisions about those bills in secret with no minutes and no explanation.

Before I rose to speak in the House I called the deputy speaker in New Zealand, who is a personal friend of mine, to ask him some questions about a private member's motion I took to the subcommittee yesterday. In passing, I mentioned that I was struggling to get the motion made votable. He was aghast that we still have non-votable bills and motions in this place for private members' business because in New Zealand they are all votable.

This motion has been deemed non-votable by the committee. This creates the suspicion that the government really does not want to address the issue by seeing the reaction of members to the motion. It could be quite embarrassing. With this in mind and in the interests of democracy, this may be an appropriate moment to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for North Vancouver has moved for unanimous consent that the motion of the member for Berthier—Montcalm be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for North Vancouver.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, no surprises there, Mr. Speaker. As usual, members from the government side demonstrated their commitment to democracy in this place by rejecting a votable motion.

Just as shutting down an inquiry can be used as a way of protecting the government agenda, designating a bill or a motion non-votable is an effective way for the government to stop the advance of a measure that may be popular with the public but may not fit into the agenda of the government, the Liberal party line.

In this way the government is able to stop a popular bill from becoming law without having to go through the embarrassing process of voting against it. It is a shame that we do not have the opportunity to have public votes where our constituents can watch us cast our judgment on such issues.

An especially interesting aspect of this motion is that it would require a two-thirds majority rather than a simple 50% plus 1. While I am in favour of the general purpose of the motion, the two-thirds figure seems to have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It was possibly selected in order to make the motion effective against the present government, although I find it strange that a Bloc MP would have chosen this threshold.

Consider for a moment what would happen in this Parliament if the Bloc wanted to help the government shut down a commission of inquiry. With the present balance of power in this House, the Bloc and the government combined would not be able to shut down that inquiry without the support of at least one other member, which reduces the influence of the Bloc in that regard.

The second interesting aspect of the percentage chosen is the present insistence by the Bloc that the result of a 50% plus 1 vote in Quebec is decisive in terms of a sovereignty vote.

Yet it adopts a two-thirds requirement to disband a commission of inquiry; two-thirds to disband a commission of inquiry, 50% plus one to disband the country.

That having been said, as I indicated at the beginning of this speech, I am in favour of the general thrust of the motion. The appropriate percentage vote is certainly up for discussion.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon, which says the government should obtain the consent of two-thirds of the members of this House before revoking the mandate of a commission of inquiry. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for bring the motion forward. I assure him at the outset of my support of this bill.

Everyone I think knows what is behind this motion and that is the Somalia commission which the member has upper most on his mind and our minds. The Canadian peacekeeping mission to Somalia and the subsequent muzzling of the commission of inquiry by the Liberal government opposite constitute a sad and tragic episode in Canadian history.

As we know now, something went horribly wrong in Somalia. Some Canadian soldiers sent there to keep the peace became the torturers and murderers of the very people they were sent to help. I know that only a very few Canadian soldiers were involved, but we cannot deny or hide under a rug what happened there. Nor can we deny the ugly strain of racism that showed itself in at least one of our regiments stationed in Somalia.

This behaviour was appalling enough. What is even more shocking is the cover-up that occurred, a cover-up that included some of our senior defence personnel. I think it is worth recalling how we found out about the tortures and killings in Somalia and about the cover-up.

We first learned about it through some enterprising news reporters. I congratulate members of my former profession and I would single out Michael MacAuliffe from CBC radio for bringing this unsavoury information to light in this country. We learned more when soldiers with a conscience blew the whistle as well. Throughout all this the upper echelons of the military establishment continued to stonewall and, even worse, to destroy some documents and tamper with others. We were not getting the full story on Somalia, so in 1994 the Liberal government named a commission of inquiry.

Initially the Liberals were great truth seekers and democrats. One might summarize that they enjoyed having a commission of inquiry probing into events that occurred during the term of the previous Mulroney government. We all watched as the commission began its work. We watched the stonewalling and obfuscation by military brass and their attempts to avoid having the real story come out. This subterfuge and these attempts at evasion prolonged the hearings and frustrated the commissioners.

The commission and its proceedings also began to frighten the Liberal government. They were now well into their term. They did not want to see the defence department's dirty linen washed in public, particularly in the run-up to the federal election of this last June. We all know what happened. In the run-up the Liberals ordered the Somalia commission shut down as of June 30.

One of the three Somalia commissioners, Peter Desbarats, a former distinguished journalist and now an instructor of journalism at the University of Western Ontario, described that shutdown as “one of the most brazen cover-ups and denials of responsibly in the history of this country”. He also called the Liberal action a “brazen cover-up and a denial of responsibility”.

Because the inquiry was snuffed out we will never know exactly what happened in Somalia, and we will never really know who was responsible for the ensuing cover-up. Exchange of information is the oxygen of a free and democratic society. By shutting down the Somalia inquiry the Liberals deprived of that vital oxygen in this instance.

To the best of my knowledge this is the first time ever that a federal government has shut down a commission of inquiry in mid-term. In his remarks earlier the parliamentary secretary, who had done some extensive research, talked about 350 commissions of inquiry, royal commissions, et cetera, but I did not hear him say how many had ever been shut down by the government. I think our research is correct on this.

This is the first time in the history of the country that a commission of inquiry has been closed down before it finished its work. It is profoundly undemocratic and it set a very dangerous precedent for the future.

I want to remind members opposite of just how valuable commissions of inquiry and royal commissions have been in the nation's history. In the 1930s, for example, the Rowell-Sirois commission looked deeply into federal-provincial relations in this country. That commission did groundbreaking work and its recommendations set the stage for a social contract that vastly improved life for millions of Canadians. This was extremely important to people in the province of Saskatchewan, where I come from, who had been ravaged by the depression.

The Rowell-Sirois commission was an embarrassment to the federal government of the day because Ottawa had been sitting back and appeared content to continue to sit back and allow Canadians to suffer through that horrible depression. The royal commissioners had a very different idea and outlined it. As I said, it was an embarrassment to the government but it certainly did not move to shut down the commission.

What the Liberals did in this present context in snuffing out Somalia was self-serving and undemocratic. In political terms the issues here are arrogance and accountability. The Liberals believe they were born to govern and think they can do almost anything and get away with it. They paid for this arrogance, however, in the last election. Despite pre-election polls that indicated that it was going to be a cakewalk, they only won a narrow majority and only one seat in the province of Saskatchewan. They should be asking themselves why this happened.

This arrogant and unaccountable government has to be contained. It is for this reason that I support the motion of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm which states the government should obtain the consent of two-thirds of the members of the House before revoking the mandate of an inquiry commission.

I want to remark on the hon. member's choice of the 66% figure. Government appoints a royal commission or commission of inquiry for a reason. Once appointed the commission should remain free of interference and be able to complete its work.

This private member's bill states that it should take more than a simple majority vote to shut a commission down. For this reason I support the 66% figure used by the hon. member. I also add parenthetically that a 66% vote would also make a good deal of sense when we talk about certain referenda in this country that could eventually break it up.

For the moment I will contain my thoughts on that and simply say that I support the hon. member's motion regarding commissions of inquiry and congratulate him for bringing it forward today.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion today. However, it saddens me that we in this House have to stand here and debate a motion that seems so obvious. Unfortunately it does not seem obvious to this government. In fact, it is this government that has made it necessary to introduce this motion by behaving in an irresponsible manner.

I am speaking in particular of the Somalia commission inquiry. As members know, the Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons earlier this year which is what brings us here today.

Unfortunately closing down the Somalia inquiry proved that it is not incumbent on the government to do the right thing. In that instance the government did the wrong thing. I will speak about Somalia more in a moment.

First I want to tell this House that we do support this motion. We support this motion for the simple reason that public inquiries are not called on a whim. Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials in this House, it is incumbent on all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there is a good enough reason to begin an inquiry commission then there is probably a real reason to complete an inquiry commission.

Of course there might be real reasons to cut short an inquiry. If I could I would like to outline some of the reasons why a government, maybe this government, might want to end a public inquiry. First, the inquiry might start revealing information the government does not want heard because it might prove embarrassing.

Second, one of the people being investigated by the commission might just be the brother-in-law of Canada's vice regal.

Third, there might just be an election looming and the government might just want to ignore the inquiry and get on with business or the business of getting re-election. These are very important reasons to shut down a public inquiry. I hope members will understand my point.

It is sad to say it was so easy for this government to shut down Somalia. This motion will ensure that there are real reasons to shut down a public inquiry. If I could I would like to quickly outline what was the cost in real terms of prematurely shutting down the Somalia commission.

Robert Fowler, then deputy minister of defence and now Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, says that on March 19 he told minister Kim Campbell and acting chief of staff Richard Clair that Somali teenager Shidane Arone had died three days earlier as a result of foul play at the hands of Canadians.

Richard Clair, then acting chief of staff to the minister of defence, Kim Campbell, says he did discuss the death with Fowler and vice-admiral Larry Murray, then vice-chief of defence staff, on March 19 but nobody mentioned foul play.

He said at the time that to him the death was still a mystery. The right hon. Kim Campbell, then minister of defence, says that she was aware that there was an investigation going on March 17. She knows this because she received a briefing note on that day.

In that briefing note the death of the Somali is listed as perplexing and that Canadian forces had acted appropriately. The right hon. Kim Campbell also knew from the same briefing book that Corporal Matchee had tried to kill himself because “he had roughed him up”, meaning Shidane Arone. The truth was he beat him to death.

It was not until March 30, 11 days later, that minister Kim Campbell learned that there was an investigation into the death. Because the Somalia inquiry was cut short, this has never been resolved.

The result is that Canada's fine military has been dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians have less faith in their public servants as Robert Fowler remains Canada's ambassador to the United Nations and Larry Murray has just been appointed ADM in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians do not know what the true story is, and still there is no resolution.

This is evidence enough that the government lost the right to unilaterally end a public inquiry. If it is not, I would like to refer to the words of one of Canada's most respected sons, Chief Justice Brian Dickson.

In a speech given just last month Chief Justice Dickson said: “Something is drastically wrong when the public feels that its military is incompetent and led by an inept, if not corrupt, hierarchy”. It was not fair to the dead Somalis whose death has not been fully understood.

Ending the Somalia inquiry early was not fair to the military, which needed a just resolution. And it was not fair to Canadians who deserve to have faith in their public institutions.

I want to close today by informing this House that the government is still scared, but of what I do not know. Less than two weeks ago I submitted a motion to the defence and veterans affairs committee.

I would like to read the motion: “That the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before the committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”'. I am sad to say that this motion was voted down. What are they hiding?

When this motion is passed, the government will not be able to hide so easily. Again, we do support this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As is customary, the last few minutes of the debate are reserved for the mover of the motion.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that the position taken by the government on Motion M-20 did not come as too much of a surprise.

To take a different position would have been tantamount for it to admit it made the wrong decision regarding the Somalia inquiry. It would also be against their principles, that is to act to cover something up. If there is one thing that this government does not seek it is to shed light on certain administrative decisions.

I am not too surprised that the government is not in favour of this motion. Something worries me and bothers me to some extent, though, and that is the fact that, when a member of the official opposition asked that my motion be made into a votable item, government members said no.

In a way, that both surprises me and does not surprise me, because we must understand that, with the support of the Reform Party, the NDP and the Conservative Party, all that would have been required for my motion to pass would have been the support of five Liberal members. I can understand that, to be on the safe side, they would rather this motion not be put forward or not be voted on in this House, just in case there were five members on their side who would vote against the party line, as some have done on other issues.

I would like to thank the opposition parties, that is to say the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive-Conservative Party, for truly grasping the meaning and, more importantly, the significance of this motion. What I heard was also repeated often and dealt directly with the objective I was pursuing, namely the legitimacy of the commission, the importance of knowing the truth, the search for that truth and the protection of the population. I think that all opposition parties understood that. It is unfortunate that the government opposite is refusing to be responsive to an extremely important issue.

The government often says that opposition members are here only to criticize and do nothing that is positive. I think that this was an opportunity for the government to acknowledge that an opposition member was right on an extremely important issue, namely that when a commission of inquiry is created, considering how important that is, a vote of two thirds in the House should be required to end the inquiry. This is how the opposition parties are being thanked.

There is perhaps only one thing that they did not understand, and I would like to come back to that briefly. Members from the Reform Party and from the NDP mentioned that they did not really understand, at least the Reform Party did not, the two thirds requirement, for two reasons. The first was that this would limit the influence of the Bloc Quebecois on government decisions because the Bloc Quebecois does not have enough members to bring about an end to the commission.

In this respect, it was not undue influence that I was looking for with this motion, but fairness, and I think that the two thirds rule would allow to demonstrate clearly that all members in this House wish to end or to continue an inquiry. My objective was absolutely not to give the Bloc Quebecois special influence over Parliament. I believe that with 44 members, we have more than enough to do to represent Quebeckers properly.

The other point that bothers me a bit more, and I would like to mention this, is that members of the Reform Party and the NDP claimed not to understand why it took 66% to terminate a commission or allow it to continue, while it took 50% plus one in the case of a referendum for Quebec to become a sovereign nation. I hope that they said this off the top of their heads, that they did not think before they spoke.

I believe very sincerely that there is a difference between a vote by elected officials on an administrative matter, such as the continuation or termination of a commission of inquiry, whether it is important, as I was saying, or not, and the democratic vote of a people. I think there is a fundamental difference between the decision of a people and an administrative decision.

I did not pluck the two-thirds rule out of thin air. All members know, if they listen to their constituents occasionally, that in order for non-profit organizations to be able to change their by-laws they often require the consent of two-thirds of their general assembly. This is not a criterion selected out of the blue, but one that I think is generally recognized in administrative circles.

However, 50% plus one in a democracy is a criterion that is also recognized internationally. When a people vote in an election or a referendum, the majority, the 50% plus one, rules. There is nothing contradictory about this and I think that, if members give a little thought to their position, to what they have just said, they will understand that there is a fundamental difference between the two, and that the 50% plus one is the principle that Quebeckers defend each time a referendum is held in Quebec.

I will close with that. I again offer the government an opportunity to agree to a vote on this motion.

Once again, I ask the government to agree to put Motion M-20 to a vote, so that we may really know what this House of elected representatives, this House representing Canada and Quebec, among others, thinks of the motion I am moving.

I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that this motion be made votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has requested that his motion before the House be deemed votable.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to suspend the House until the vote at 5.30

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.22 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.30 p.m.