Debates of Feb. 7th, 1997

Supply

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. Also, I would like to point out that this inquiry has been hamstrung by the very people it is investigating to a large extent. Documents were withheld, information was slow to come forward. Then we had that magic Easter egg hunt where people were shut down for a day and they went through all their files and they amassed a whole gigantic bunch of information that was then presented to the commission. I understand there were absolutely thousands of pages of testimony that the commission then had to do through, page by page, because it cannot overlook anything. It might omit something important. This was a deliberate withholding of evidence for the commission and it caused a delay.

No one doubts that the problem in Somalia was one of command and control. That command and control stretched from the theatre right the way back to national defence headquarters in Ottawa. It also had to do with leadership and discipline. The people on the ground obviously were not properly led nor were they properly disciplined. We are hearing stories of things that went on that are just unacceptable, whether it be in an operational situation or anywhere.

When the murder of Shidane Arone took place, it was in a relatively small compound with at least 80 people in the vicinity who could not have helped but heard what was going on. Yet none of them intervened, and I do not understand why.

Where was the platoon commander, where was the regimental sergeant-major, where was the company sergeant-major, where was the company commander? How could they let this go on and not interfere or intervene? I know there were a number of people who actually went into the bunker and saw this going on and they chose not to take action. This is totally unacceptable and should not have been allowed.

The problem I think is that we cannot fix something we do not know is broken. We have to find out what has gone wrong before we can say "this is the problem, now we can fix it". I do not know just how that can be accomplished unless we go right to the end of the chain and say "This is what happened. This was the input. This

was how it was dealt with". If the dealing with it was inadequate, then it is only appropriate that we finish it.

I want to go to the minister's comments with regard to my leader's submission. He has mentioned a number of times. I quote the leader of the Reform Party from Hansard on September 17, 1996, page 4308: ``Mr. Speaker, to ensure there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully public before the next federal election?'' In no way does this suggest that the inquiry should be shut down. It merely says completed.

The Prime Minister and his government were elected in October 1993 for five years, which gives them until October 1998. My leader does not call the election; the Prime Minister calls the election, and he can call it whenever he wants to. If he is not afraid of the inquiry coming out, why does he not wait until the inquiry reports and then call the election?

I will now propose an amendment to the motion.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "inquiry" and adding the following:

"and directing the commission to make its final report as soon as possible but not later than December 31, 1997".

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is in order.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands, who has over 36 years of military experience, to explore further the notion of the culture that allowed the horrific events of March 16 to happen and the horrific events that took place before March 16.

In the member's military experience is it possible in a closed environment of a military base for a corporal to find himself in a situation in a bunker with nobody else knowing about it, with nobody else accepting responsibility other than one sergeant?

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have said this before and I believe it in my heart. If I had been the commander on scene this would not have happened. It would not have happened because my personnel would have known that I would not allow it to happen. It would not be acceptable to me.

The member for Edmonton Southwest has put his finger on a lot of the problem. Problems were evident in the airborne regiment before it was deployed. These problems were made known to higher headquarters, yet the people who were recommended to be left at home were still taken there. It was one of those people who was recommended to be left at home who was found to have committed the crime.

Obviously there is a problem somewhere along the line.

Was it in Petawawa? Was it at land force headquarters in Ontario? Was it at national defence headquarters? Where was it? I am not sure. I guess the commission has that information. Obviously the military culture does not accept this sort of behaviour as being normal.

What is required is to establish how this aberration happened, how it was allowed to happen and who was responsible for having not taken action to rectify it.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I want to take it in a slightly different direction and try to put a somewhat more human face on the actual tragedy that befell one particular individual, Kyle Brown.

I would also like to show how the terrible circumstances of March 16, 1993 in Somalia inextricably linked three lives and how these lives were affected so differently as a result of it. There was the Somalia teenager, Shidane Arone, who was tortured and killed, for which there is no excuse; Robert Fowler, who was at that time the deputy minister of defence; and Kyle Brown, who at that time was a corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces serving in Somalia.

I joined the navy when I was 17. When I joined the navy it was really the first time in my life that I learned a sense of brotherhood. It was the first time in my life that I ever felt I was just the same as everyone else because I grew up on the other side of the tracks. As with many people who are in the military for the first time, it is the first time that they really get a foundation. One of the tragedies is the fact that we do not have a military any longer that allows for this kind of involvement, citizenship, renewal and growth.

I want to get back to the specific situation of trooper Kyle Brown. He was born and raised in Alberta. When he was 14 years of age, Kyle's mother died of a drug overdose. A year later his father committed suicide. Kyle Brown and an elder sister raised and helped look after a younger sibling. Kyle Brown was a struggler and a fighter all his life. Kyle Brown did not come from a privileged background. He came from a background that many Canadians come from, of struggle, and joining the Canadian Armed Forces was the pinnacle of his life. He was so proud of this and worked so hard to get in. He did not get in right away. He had to work to get into the armed forces.

I know something of the way the military works, having joined the navy when I was 17. When I saw the results of what had happened in Somalia I thought it was passing strange. It was wrong. There was something inherently not correct in the fact that the lowest ranking member found himself with five years in jail,

yet the very people who allowed the culture to develop got nothing. It just did not seem right.

When I was in the service, if the ship hit an iceberg the captain was at fault. It did not matter who was on the bridge. It had to do with responsibility. It goes all the way up the line to ministerial responsibility. In our culture, in a greater sense, the fact is that we as legislators or leaders accept the mantle of responsibility that comes with leadership we must also accept responsibility.

I initiated a meeting with Kyle Brown because I wanted to speak with him to find out what was going on but, more importantly, I wanted to say to Kyle Brown: "Look, Kyle, what went on is inexcusable but you are not alone. Some of us know that we all bear some responsibility for what has happened to you".

I first met Kyle Brown when he was in the Edmonton maximum security penal institution. It was the first time I had ever been in such an institution. I went through all the checks and the clanging doors to get in to see this man. At our very first meeting he was gun shy because everybody he had encountered in a position of authority had screwed him and had worked him over some way: journalists who had used him for a story and had dropped him; the military justice system that screwed him right from the beginning. Kyle Brown, by turning over the film, incriminated himself and prevented a cover-up from happening. This is the individual who by knowingly incriminating himself prevented a cover-up from happening, knowing full well that he would end up carrying the can for it. Nobody else would. He ended up in jail.

I believe that denotes character of the highest order. It is character from a person who did not come from a privileged background. Contrast that to the character of another person involved in this, Robert Fowler. He came from a privileged background. He had a position of high moral authority in our nation. What did he do? He misled the Minister of National Defence, to whom he was responsible, for one reason or another and as a consequence he was left in his position, either because the Prime Minister of the day was incompetent and did not remove him or for another reason. That person is still enjoying the confidence of the government.

I visited the person at the other end of this, the one that showed character by incriminating himself to ensure that a cover-up did not happen. He knew right from the beginning that what was going on was wrong. He knew his participation in it was wrong. He participated in it because of the culture of the regiment of which he was a part. He was a minor serving person.

I saw him in jail. He had tears in his eyes. He said: "I bear the responsibility for this in the eyes of every single citizen of this country. I am the lowest form of life. I joined the army and when I went to Somalia I wanted to bring honour to our country. I wanted to come back to Canada having brought glory to my country and to my regiment. Instead I am in jail. Other people that were involved in this are scurrying for cover. No one has accepted responsibility".

The statement which I am about to quote is in response to questions posed at a parole board hearing when Kyle Brown was at Bowden waiting to get out. I would point out as well that Kyle Brown had to pay for his defence himself. His sister went into debt to pay for his defence because he had no confidence in the military justice system. The first two counsel who went to Somalia took the first two people in the line of the people who had been charged. The other four people in line had no defence whatsoever. The first two people got off. The other four got charged. After that, because they are not stupid over there, they realized that anybody who came forward with any information was charged, so no one else came forward with information.

Kyle Brown said at his parole hearing: "A soldier is taught to obey orders without question. He is also taught that he has the moral obligation not to execute an illegal command". Kyle Brown has said to me and to others: "I got what I deserved. I knew better and I should not have done it. I did it. I should have fought to protect him. I was wrong. I accept the punishment I got". But why the hell did anybody else not end up in jail? Why did the person who allowed the culture to develop not end up in jail? Why is Bob Fowler, who was the deputy minister of defence who misled the defence minister, at the United Nations representing our country?

Kyle Brown said further at his hearing: "The thing that we are not told is what to do in a situation where superiors not only give illegal commands but execute them". What do you do in a situation in Somalia where the senior non-commissioned officers are going around drunk? There is no leadership. There is no accountability. Then the lowest ranking member of the armed forces ends up in jail. What kind of a signal does that send to everybody else in the armed forces? That is what we are talking about here.

We are talking about people in positions of authority accepting the responsibility for their positions and not sloughing it off to somebody else like the corporal who showed character while the deputy minister showed none. That is what this is all about.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the two Reform members who spoke on behalf of their party.

I have had the pleasure of working with the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands whom, I think, is a true gentleman. The hon. member was in the military for a number of years. He knows the problems that plague the Canadian forces. We sat together on the joint committee. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands

knows what he is talking about when he discusses the morale of our troops.

I also want to congratulate the other member who spoke. I believe these people, like us, want to get at the truth.

At this point in time, it is estimated that the inquiry will have cost $25 million. However, the really sad thing is that we will still not know exactly what happened after, Canadians will not know how some tried to hide the facts, and this is an aberration. Canadians can accept the spending of money, provided it is done properly.

There is a problem in the Canadian forces. There are, and my party certainly agrees, extraordinary people in the military. There are people who work hard, but the morale of our troops is currently being undermined, and we think it is coming from the top. This is why we must do whatever is necessary.

What we are asking, and I see that the Reform Party agrees with us, is for an extension of a few months, not 10 years, just a few months.

I want to ask the hon. member if, based on his experience, he believes the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are asking for a reasonable extension. Does he think this would allow us to get at the truth and then take the necessary steps to correct the situation?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my view the only way that we will ever retain any confidence-not just us but the Canadian people and the military-in it is to exorcise all the ghosts and demons. No matter how long it takes and no matter how much it costs, it will be worth it.

Let me bring one more instance into this. Sergeant Mark Boland was asleep at the time that this took place. He was a section commander. He accepted responsibility for what happened because it happened on his watch. Even though he was not on site, these people were under his direct command and he accepted responsibility. He pleaded guilty to dereliction of responsibility because it happened. He did a plea bargain and got nine months.

He is a career military person. He recognized it was wrong. The military said: "Okay, plead guilty. We will give you nine months and you can get on with your life". He got his nine months and then the military appealed. Then he got over a year and they could then kick him out.

Mark Boland was an exemplary career soldier. If the commission wants to hear horror stories about what really went on in Somalia it should interview him. Mark Boland was given a direct order by a superior commissioned officer who was pissed out of his mind to shoot a Somali in cold blood. He would not do it. All the commission had to do is ask him.

Mark Boland does not have standing before the commission. How can this possibly be? When the military police came to Mark Boland's home in Petawawa to arrest him the second time, they did so in front of his wife and children. He hauled him out of his home with his children screaming: "Daddy, what is happening? What is going on?"

This was the kind of treatment afforded the lower deck as differentiated from the treatment afforded the upper deck. That is why there is a morale problem in the Canadian Armed Forces today and people do not have to be rocket scientists to figure it out.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right off the bat, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

"The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors." These wise words are not from me, but from the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada. It goes on to say: "A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government."

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party came out as a model of integrity, advocating integrity and transparency, wanting to restore the public confidence in politicians and their institutions. Instead, Liberals have become masters of cover-ups, shady deals, obfuscation, hidden and hypocritical actions.

It is with great pleasure that I support the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Shefford, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry until December 31, 1997.

Just as the commission itself asked for.

As we all know, this inquiry was abruptly and prematurely terminated by the defence minister and the federal government. We have the right to ask why this commission of inquiry is not being treated with the same tolerance usually shown other royal commissions.

This decision is unprecedented. This is the first time a government refuses to extend the mandate of a royal commission or any

other judicial inquiry. So it is quite normal that we should question the motives behind this precedent, which will unfortunately go down in history.

However, we are all the more puzzled when the commission chief, Mr. Justice Létourneau, says that this deadline means that he and the commission will be unable to get to the bottom of this affair.

Thanks to our Liberal colleagues, Quebecers and Canadians will not be able to get the full story on the role of the top army and government brass in this affair. Once again, therefore, it is the little guys who will pay, in this case, the lower ranks.

Just when the Somalia inquiry was getting to the meat of its mandate, it is suddenly reined in. Why? "Because it has already cost the taxpayer too much", is the defence minister's reply. And a wonderfully deceptive reply it is, coming from a Liberal minister whose government will soon call an election.

Of course, they trot out figures of $25 million, which may seem huge to the ordinary person, but they neglect to say what they include. The amount is actually more like $14 million, when you deduct the cost of legal representation for certain witnesses, and the $10 million spent by the Department of National Defence getting ready for the inquiry.

In addition, if the costs of this commission are compared with those of commissions held over the last 15 years, it can be seen that this latest one is not out of line, far from it. As an example, the 1994 commission on new reproductive technologies cost the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada exactly $29,726,730, while the commission on aboriginal peoples, which ran from 1991 to 1996, apparently cost the astronomical sum of $51,220,732.

As you can see, the first point raised by the minister regarding the fact that the Somalia inquiry was costing too much simply has no basis in fact.

They also referred to the time involved. As I said earlier, the commission on aboriginal peoples went on for five years; the commission on new reproductive technologies took four years; the commission on the future of the Toronto harbour area-imagine, the future of the Toronto harbour area-nearly four years; and this one, which goes to the very heart of organization and discipline within the Canadian armed forces is taking too long? This argument does not hold water.

This is like hiring a detective to investigate a somewhat unsavoury situation, and after a while, when the detective has almost found what he was looking for, I tell him "Listen, you already cost me $10,000. This is getting too expensive. We are going to stop there", although I know perfectly well the detective is about to find out the truth. "Besides, it is taking too long. I can wait no longer. I must find a way to deal with the problem".

If I want the detective to stop his investigation at this point, it may be because I realize he is about to discover that I am involved. That is what we are talking about here.

It is important for the commission to use the available tools carefully and with restraint, so as to shed every possible light on the events, and to do so as efficiently as possible. We should not be surprised that all this takes time.

And when a commission ends up looking for months on end at documents that have been tampered with and when it is inundated with thousands of documents that suddenly came to light, as happened in this case, obviously this slows down the commission's work. The government also tells us the procedure is too time-consuming and that we have to get on with the solutions instead of dwelling on the problems. But how can we find a solution to a problem that must be further defined and clarified? Unless of course we want to avoid shedding any light on the problem we want to solve.

Did not the former Minister of National Defence promise that the commission would have all the time and all the resources it needed to get to the bottom of this issue? Since this involves getting to the heart of the problem, and the heart of the problem is the senior political and military authorities in this country, the government prefers to skim the surface.

It would have been embarrassing for the Liberal government to admit that Mr. Anderson, appointed by this government as Canada's ambassador to NATO, Mr. Fowler, appointed by this government as Canada's ambassador to the UN, and Ms. Campbell, appointed by this government as consul general in Los Angeles, had been involved in something illegal. Rather than asking these VIPs, these honourable folks, to appear before the Somalia inquiry, they terminated the commission so as to get off the hook.

I believe that the government's decision is motivated purely by a desire to gain votes. The government has asked the commission to wrap up its public hearings on March 31, and to table its final report by June 30. There are rumours of a general election in early June, with the 9th being mentioned. The Prime Minister has not consulted me, of course, but there is talk of June 9. The public hearings would, therefore, be over by the time the election is called, and the government would not be embarrassed by the report either, as it would be published after the election.

If this is the case, if the government makes this kind of decision purely for electoral reasons, and thinks that the voters will not

remember the turpitude of the government when they mark their ballots, well the Bloc Quebecois will be there to remind them.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in the situation that we have before us we have seen Canadians participate in Somalia. They were part of a team that went in to take over a state that had failed. All the infrastructures, political and otherwise, had gone and it was led by gangs.

Canadians followed the call of the United Nations and the United States. The airborne battle group was sent to participate. It was stationed at Belet Huen and the situation there was out of order. It was under fire on many occasions. This was unlike any other peacekeeping group, one where live bullets were being fired on a regular basis. Thievery, looting and raiding of the group's lines were a daily action. The group was under the kinds of stresses that no other peacekeeping operation was under.

As a consequence, our Canadian soldiers undertook operation deliverance as a humanitarian mission of unprecedented complexity and difficulty. The environmental conditions were the worst faced by Canadian personnel in war. There was 35 degree to 40 degree weather throughout the period and our troops contended with sandstorms, venomous snakes, insects and the ever present threat of malaria and dysentery.

Nature represented one threat. Our personnel were susceptible to mortar and artillery fire, small arms fire as well as stonings and swarmings. It was a dangerous duty.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the point of my colleague's remarks. Is he speaking as part of questions and comments or is he beginning his speech?

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is only five minutes. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to make his comment or question and wrap it up fairly quickly please.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been only three minutes.

As part of the specific mission they secured an area of about 30,000 kilometres, escorted humanitarian convoys, carried out extensive demining operations, destroyed or put under guard vast quantities of weapons. But their condition did not end there.

They also did their best to improve the lives of the local population. Let me give a few examples. At the Medina hospital at Mogadishu the airborne did much the same in Belet Huen. Field engineers fixed machinery, soldiers helped repair the local jail, doctors and nurses from the battle group surgical team assisted the staff at the international medical corps hospital. This is the side of the story that does not get told.

They were awarded commendations by the Americans for executing their job in a very professional manner as the best operators in the field at that time.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence wanted to use this period to begin his speech ahead of time. I do not hold it against him.

The arguments he raised are totally irrelevant to the speech I just made. He intimates that we do not in our speeches recognize the worth of the job done by the military on bases and in missions around the world and, particularly, in the case of the mission to Somalia.

That is not the issue. This week, I heard the Minister of National Defence giving a member of the Reform Party a dressing down, saying that she lacked respect for the military because she raised the question.

We are not questioning the quality of the work the military does here and throughout the world, but rather the quality of the work of this government, which is taking away the credibility of the Canadian military.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Shefford, who is renowned for his integrity and perspicacity. If only these qualities were contagious, because, as you know, in light of a number of recent decisions, we have every right to criticize, be concerned and demand an explanation. That is what opposition days are for.

To those joining us, I would like to point out that we, as the official opposition, an informed and responsible opposition, have decided to ask this government to explain its actions in what has now become the unfortunate Somalia scandal.

Let me remind everyone of what our motion states, so as to make the terms of this debate perfectly clear. It reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry until December 31, 1997.

I hope government members will rise and give us an explanation on this. You know full well that Privy Council legislation provides for the establishment of commissions of inquiry. Inherent to the democratic process is this mechanism whereby outsiders, often experts, are asked to look into a particular matter or contentious issues.

Is this something anyone from British Columbia to Quebec to Newfoundland can be proud of? Can this government show support for the unfortunate incidents that have taken place in Somalia?

What is it all about? First of all, it involves people who have died, were killed, murdered under mysterious circumstances. As parliamentarians, we deal with foreign policy matters. The members of this House, and government members in particular, although there is a consensus around this, all of us, regardless of our affiliation, have been recognized as believing in the international community. Not only do we believe in the international community, but we believe in sending people over, who, through their action, presence, conviction or expertise, will be able to help settle conflicts quickly or before they even start.

Will someone from the government tell us why, after it was decided to deploy our forces in Somalia-where, I admit, the situation was unclear-Canadian soldiers became involved in murder and people were killed in their own country? This is what we are talking about.

Of course, when we raise this issue, the minister adopts a holier-than-thou attitude. He tries using his well known eloquence, but it will sound hollow in the ballot box when Canadians render their verdict on the attempted coverup by this government.

What we are asking for is simple. We are not trying to discredit the military. We all know there are people who decided to join the Canadian Armed Forces because it gave a meaning to their life. These are honest, brilliant and studious people who made a career choice. We do not question that. What we question is the way decisions are made, the way the chain of command works. Why are we faced with situations such as the one we are discussing today?

Our hope was that the government would get to the bottom of this issue, and we will continue to urge it to do so. It is not true that the inquiry was given every possible opportunity. We all know that the inquiry went through all kinds of tribulations, that it had trouble obtaining some documents.

We all know the defence department did not offer the co-operation it should have provided early on to help commissioners get all the documents that would have allowed them to do their work properly.

What is the government trying to hide? There is a long tradition of commissions being set up and, generally speaking, the results have been positive. One can think of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which helped define Quebec's needs. As a rule, commissions of inquiry are tools to first gain expertise and knowledge, and then, ideally, to lead to very specific measures. We could, with the material from this inquiry, if it is able to get to the bottom of things, restructure, review the chain of command, restructure the decision making process within the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is sad. It is not a memorable day in a democracy when the authorities, when one is an authoritarian minister as the defence minister is, when one chooses to use one's power to intimidate. When all is said and done, what has the minister decided? He has decided to intimidate. The inquiry and its commissioners are told: "You will not get to the bottom of things; you will not be given free rein".

It is true that it may call witnesses up until the month of March; it is true that it may table a report in the month of June, but the workload, all the documents that must be dealt with, the complexity of the subject are such that time becomes a determining factor in the commissioners' ability to tackle the full scope of the matter.

There is nothing to be proud of in the lengths to which the minister is going in his refusal to be transparent, because that is what it boils down to. But you should have heard the Liberals on the campaign trail talking about transparency, ethics and integrity. It was one superlative after another when this government was telling us how determined it was to govern differently. But each time anything slightly controversial comes up, each time an explanation is called for, we find ourselves up against an aging government, worn down by time, whose instinct is to cover up and, let it be said, not just to cover up but to forget about integrity.

There is still time because, thanks to the vigilance of the member for Shefford and his colleagues, we are giving an opportunity to this government, a government that will have to face the people in a while, and you know how ready we are on this side of the House.

I see that the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle is once again nodding his head. I hope he will vote in favour of the motion. We are giving the government and all members an opportunity to rise one after the other and put an end to this coverup operation, to vote for integrity, for honesty, for transparency. And if these words still mean something to the people on the government side, they will vote in favour of our motion, allowing the commissioners to get to the bottom of things, and they will grant the extension the commissioners are requesting, because that is the right thing to do, in light of what went on in Somalia.

I hope that the government members will take advantage of this opportunity.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, with great interest.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Listening is not enough, understanding is needed too.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Exactly, I listened, and I understood.

If I may, I would like to make a few comments. It is true that the Somalia inquiry is looking into a very complex matter, the events that occurred in Somalia, what happened before the troops were sent over, and what happened afterward, of course.

We have always respected the inquiry's independence, and the government has never commented on what ought to be looked into by the Somalia inquiry, nor on the testimony given to it. Its mandate was extended until the end of June 1997, which means that it will have sat more than two years.

If, for internal reasons, the commission wants to hear testimony which reflects the opposition's concerns, it is free to do so. We are anxiously awaiting the final report in order to-

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the member reading his speech, asking a question or making a comment?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

It is a comment, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is a very important point for the House, but in our parliamentary system we do indeed have the right to read notes. I regret this, personally, but it is up to the hon. members to deal with the issue.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, on this side of the House, we are anxiously awaiting the final report of the inquiry in order to implement its conclusions.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a model of ingenious spontaneity. I have every respect for the hon. member, and I am sure that if he looks at the Privy Council documents, which I would urge him to read, that he will agree the Privy Council admitted when the previous extensions were granted that the estimates of the time it would take the commission to finish its work had not been accurate.

What the hon. member should consider is this. At this stage, and considering the importance of the subject-the hon. member must never forget that human lives were involved-would he not prefer to avoid any recurrence of this kind of situation in the future? And if we are to avoid a recurrence, would the hon. member agree that it is preferable to get to the bottom of all this and let the commissioners do their job?

No one in this House has any reason to doubt the dedication of the commissioners, so if they need more time to do their job, I think the hon. member should be mindful of the point I just made, show some maturity and keep an open mind, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has about a minute and his colleague has about a minute to reply.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government was very keen to pursue the inquiry while it was examining things that happened under the Tory mandate, but now we are getting toward the post-deployment phase. Although the events happened in March 1993, events followed and after the October 1993 election when the Liberals were in power a substantial amount happened since then.

Does the member see any connection between the fact that the inquiry was fine when it was at arm's length but now that it is getting closer it may be not so appropriate?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a quick mind, as we all know, and of course we were making those connections. We see a government that will be hard pressed to defend the choices that were made. This takes us back to the chain of command. The hon. member for Verchères pointed this out in his comments on recent appointments and the politicians involved in the way in the government managed this crisis after the deployment in Somalia. We are very much aware of those connections.