Debates of April 7th, 2005

Supply

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, right now for example, the Justice Gomery inquiry is going on. Partial testimony has been raised here on the floor of the House of Commons. People who are subject to criminal charges are appearing in front of Justice Gomery's inquiry. There have been media blackouts which have evidenced themselves on websites in the United States and then media blackouts have been dropped.

Surely we have learned from the Gomery inquiry that it is very difficult, very challenging to have a criminal prosecution proceeding at the same time as a public inquiry. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot seriously believe that, in light of the Gomery commission, these are your fears about what will happen in connection with the search for the answers everyone has been waiting for, including the Liberals, when they were in opposition. It is not an issue all that different from what has been going on currently in the House.

I am, however, absolutely certain that times are changing. Canada's level of education has risen considerably. It will be possible to find juries, well instructed by judges, capable of making decisions.

In any case, we are perhaps at the start of an appeal process. It could well be a long one, so that, if another trial is ordered, it will probably be held long after the findings of the commission of inquiry. This would not be the first time, either, that a person was put on trial following a commission of inquiry.

I myself think today, as most of the jurisprudence demonstrates, that the best jury is not the least informed. The best jury is an informed one, which gets tonnes of information in the press it has not got the time to verify and, while it sits in court and hears testimony, it is in the best position to decide on the evidence. It is perfectly capable of differentiating between prejudices it might have acquired from scanning the papers and evidence to which it gives careful attention during the trial. Generally speaking as well, it follows the judge's instructions carefully and honours its promise to judge only on the evidence.

The idea that legal proceedings are currently holding up a commission of inquiry—one which you appear to consider useful—strikes me as totally illusory. That is why I do not understand your resistance today.

We, and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada especially, have everything to gain by bringing the rivalry between CSIS and the RCMP to light and finding out who is involved in infiltration and a lot of other things.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my party to indicate that the New Democrats are quite strongly in support of the motion brought forward by the Conservatives which calls on the government to put in place a public judicial inquiry into the Air-India crash.

It is quite important for us to put in context the situation the country is in at this point to address this tragedy, which is not a strong enough term, which occurred so long ago. Here we are 20 years later addressing the issue of the inquiry.

In terms of the context, 331 people were killed. It is by far the single largest mass murder in Canada's history. We can also set it in context in terms of the magnitude of the severity of the incident and also why we should have an inquiry by comparing it to similar types of mass murders faced by some of our allies.

When we compare this incident to the 9/11 incidents in the United States on the basis of proportion of the population, the number of people murdered in this incident is actually greater. If we compare it to the Bali bombing that affected our Australian allies so significantly as Australian citizens were the primary targets, again the number of deaths in the Air-India crash on a proportional basis is higher.

In both of those other cases very extensive investigations were conducted, authorized and directed by the legislatures in the United States and Australia. How the inquiries and investigations were conducted, the individuals conducting them, the mandates they were given, how they were funded and over what period of time they ran set very clear precedents as to what we should be doing and what we should have done a long time ago.

The families of the victims have made a number of proposals as to how the inquiry should be conducted.

I would like to digress for a minute. I know it is not appropriate for me to acknowledge persons in the gallery, but you can, Madam Speaker. I invite you or any other person who may be in the chair throughout the day to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of family members of the victims of the Air-India crash. I would ask the Chair to consider doing that at some point throughout the day.

What the victims' families have done, and certainly we know they have had plenty of time to do it, is they have come forward with a number of proposals as to how the inquiry would be mandated and what its responsibility would be.

The Deputy Prime Minister, and she said it again today, has indicated a willingness to meet with the families. We all know generally that has not been greeted by much enthusiasm by the families. They clearly see the situation as one where a meeting to discuss issues is away out of date. They want action. They want to see that the government is serious, that some meaningful attempt at giving them justice will be pursued. A simple meeting sounds almost patronizing in some respects. To meet with them will not be sufficient. I think they have made that very clear.

If the minister needs to know the issues they want addressed, they have prepared a detailed document and have set out a number of the points that need to be addressed in the inquiry. I will come back to that in a bit.

I want to go back now to set the scene a bit more. The incident took place over 20 years ago. It is the worst mass murder in our country ever. There have been repeated calls for the public judicial inquiry. It is interesting because those calls were made initially to a Conservative government by some of the members of the current Liberal government. When fortunes changed and the Liberals became government, it seems they forgot about their insistence on the inquiry and the importance of having it. However, it has gone on and in that period of time, it seems at every turn there has been more indication of a need for the inquiry.

Some of the evidence that came out in the course of the criminal trial over the last 12 to 15 months has raised serious doubts about the quality of the work that was done by our intelligence and police services. It raises serious doubts about whether there were other agendas that were being followed as opposed to looking directly at getting justice. The list is quite lengthy. There is a cry from the family and from the community generally to know what really happened.

One comment in one of the statements that the families put in writing was interesting. They are very clear. They know nothing we can do will in any way reduce the pain they have suffered from the loss of their families. It will not bring any of their family members back, and they have said that. To their great credit, they have pursued the need for the public inquiry to assure them and the country that we do everything in our power to ensure that other families never go through the type of pain and sorrow they have. They set that out very clearly and quite eloquently. It is a cry to which we must respond.

With regard to the mandate of the public inquiry, I believe it is important because it is necessary to respond to the concerns that have been raised. The very first concern that comes to mind is: Was everything done that possibly could have been done to gather the necessary evidence to obtain a conviction?

That question I think inevitably asks the second one which is: Why did it take so long to get to the point where we finally laid charges? It was roughly 17 years into the process before the charges were laid. Why would it have taken so long? That is an obvious question that the inquiry should have put to it, and hopefully we would obtain an answer that would satisfy the families.

Given the results up to this point in terms of the acquittal, there are obvious questions about how money was spent. That has to be part of the inquiry.

I also would pose the question and press this as a mandate on the inquiry, for it to assess the risk that we face as a country of an incident like this ever occurring again. That will require a number of sub-questions for the inquiry to be asked. It goes without saying that in the general public's mind the quality of the work by both CSIS and the RCMP has to be assessed. For instance, did we have proper training for the individual police officers and agents who were involved in the investigation? Did they have the proper methodologies in conducting the investigation? That has to be assessed.

We can go into some specifics such as the destruction of notes. That evidence came out in the course of the trial. Is there a policy within those agencies as to how evidence is supposed to be handled, including handwritten notes? There was destruction of other evidence, some tapes in particular. Is there policy now as to how that is to be handled?

One thing that came out in both the 9/11 report and the Bali bombing report, and which has come out in a number of other jurisdictions, is the whole problem of conflict between agencies that impedes effective law enforcement. Was that a problem here? There is certainly some evidence that came out in the course of the trial that would suggest it was. We need to assess that. It would have to be part of the mandate of the public inquiry.

One has to question whether the security at our airports is adequate. The Deputy Prime Minister has said repeatedly that this has been taken care of. From the input we get from the families, they are not convinced of this and at the very least they want reassurance, and they are entitled to that.

We heard that there has been a bit of an investigation by SIRC. A part of the mandate of the public inquiry will be to assess SIRC and how it conducted the investigation which basically cleared CSIS. That was done before the criminal trial. In the course of that trial, one had to ask if one knew anything about intelligence. How could it have cleared it when that kind of evidence was coming out, whether it was the tapes, the notes or the conflict between the RCMP and CSIS?

In that regard as recently as Monday the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the government finally would be moving forward on parliamentary oversight of our intelligence services.

Having been involved in the preparation of that report, I know full well of the historical conflict between CSIS and the RCMP, the lack of oversight, not only between those agencies, but among all our intelligence agencies. I know about the limited mandates some of the governmental agencies have to do oversight. I believe that is the problem we will find with SIRC.

SIRC did an assessment of the role that CSIS played. However, due to its limited mandate in reviewing and accessing to information, it came its conclusions. My belief is they are not the proper conclusions and that needs to be looked at.

I expect that the whole issue of meaningful parliamentary oversight of our intelligence services would also be one of the items the public inquiry would investigate. A good deal of that work has been done. It would be helpful, in this specific circumstance, for an analysis of whether proper oversight was in place.

One other issue the families have asked about is the question of whether the plea bargain with regard to Mr. Reyat and his sentencing process were adequate. That needs to be addressed.

I think I have so far listed somewhat in excess of 10 specific issues that the public inquiry would be mandated properly so to cover. In concluding this part of my comments, it is also important to recognize that we will have to give it a broad enough scope that if issues arise which have not even been identified up to this point, it would have to ability to investigate.

We have heard the comment from the government as to whether this motion is premature. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney, the Liberals under Mr. Chrétien and now the current Prime Minister have had repeated requests to conduct an inquiry.

When we put this in the context of other inquiries, such as Westray or Walkerton water inquiry, in terms of magnitude, this one, in any kind of logical argument, requires an inquiry.

The fact that the criminal case may be appealed, a decision which has not been made yet, does not put us in any different position than where we have been for quite a number of years. It is obvious that there should be an inquiry. If ultimately the crown makes the determination it will appeal, it does not have to enter into the consideration as to whether we go ahead with the inquiry now. We should have done this a long time ago.

My final point is in terms of favouring the reason for an inquiry. There have been repeated accusations and calls for the inquiry. It has come out of the Indo-Canadian community and the Sikh community, that if this had happened to an other segment of the community, we would have had an inquiry.

The current Minister of Health of this government has made statements to that effect in the last few years, as he comes out of that community. It is another reason we should have the inquiry. Whether that has any validity or not, the very fact that it is out there in the community should be put to rest once and for all. We should conduct this inquiry.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the families of the victims are concerned, it is my understanding that the minister will be meeting with a large number of the family representatives next week. The purpose of that meeting will be to identify what issues the families feel are still outstanding and how realistically those issues could be dealt with and answers brought forward.

The other thing I need to respond to immediately is the notion that if it happened to another group, there would be a differential response by the Government of Canada. I reject that out of hand completely. I know that our government rejects that out of hand completely. This has nothing to do with race, politics or anything of that nature.

On a personal note, in my riding of Etobicoke North I am blessed with a very large Indo-Canadian population. I have a very strong relationship them. To even suggest that it might be the case that because it is a group of Indo-Canadians who are affected as opposed to another group of Canadians is preposterous. The government I know rejects that type of thinking right out of hand.

I come back to a couple of issues that I am seized with. If there is an inquiry, what additional information will we be able to glean from that? That is partly the purpose of the meeting with the families. As the Deputy Prime Minister outlined, there is a large amount of work that has been done on this case, admittedly with some inconclusive answers which are troubling to all of us, especially the families of those who died in this terrible tragedy.

I am not going to reread the list of events that have taken place since the tragedy. However, it has been hugely thorough. In fact, it is the longest and most complex trial in Canadian history. There was the civil lawsuit which was settled, the security and intelligence committee review, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board investigation, and the investigations conducted in Ireland and India.

I guess I have a question for the member. What new information would be gleaned by an inquiry at this time?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was the former Premier of British Columbia, the current Minister of Health, who said on June 4, 2003, that the Air-India crisis was treated in a casual manner because it involved people from the South Asian community. I am not making that up. That was in the public domain at that point. It was in the community in particular and it is still there. Whether the government wants to recognize it or not, that feeling is there. It is a very strong reason why we should be looking definitively at an inquiry.

To answer the second part of the member's question and comment, as to what would I expect to come out of this? I will just use SIRC as an example. It is quite clear to me, as a lawyer, when I see the report that we received from SIRC, and I see both the evidence and the comments from the judge in the criminal trial, that SIRC failed us. That is one area. The question that I would ask and I would expect to get an answer during the course of the inquiry: how did it happen and what was SIRC's problem?

I have indicated already that I think the problem with SIRC was that its mandate was too limited. Whether the resolution of that is to expand its mandate or to set in place the parliamentary oversight committee, I would lean toward the latter, but that is one of the points that I would see coming out.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation based on what I heard earlier this morning from the Minister of Public Safety. She spent a lot of time talking about what we have learned from this and she kept referring to the anti-terrorism bill.

The anti-terrorism bill was passed in 2002 in response to the tragedy that had happened on September 11 in the United States. It was largely modelled on the Great Britain anti-terrorism legislation that had come into place much earlier to deal with terrorism from the IRA in Great Britain. After 17 years, 1985 to 2002, we finally get some measures put in place to deal with terrorism. My point of view on this is that we did not really learn a whole lot during the 17 years on terrorism.

I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is very well thought of in the legal community and I think he could shed some light on the public inquiry. I am a lawyer. I have heard these questions and I do not have a clue what the answers are. I would like to know what the answers are. Canadians would like to know and certainly the families of the victims would like to know what the answers to those questions are. We are totally in the dark on this.

This matter cries out for an inquiry. We should find what went wrong. The justice system and the whole system has let many people down and we failed to address it. The minister said that if we hold a public inquiry, this will be very damaging to the justice system. I am scratching my head. I have not seen a lot of justice come out of this situation and there are many questions that have not been answered.

I wonder if the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, with his legal background, could possibly explain what great damage a public inquiry would do to the justice system.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the member's statement that somehow the anti-terrorism bill came out of the Air-India crash. His point is obviously well taken over the length of time, but anyone who has been involved in the process, and I am currently involved in the review of it, I can assure the House that if it had not been for 9/11, we would not have an anti-terrorism bill today. The Air-India crash did not provoke that legislation from this government whatsoever.

With regard to the main question, a survey has been done on the impact that the decision has had on the community. It was done in British Columbia. It showed that, as a result of the outcome, 61% of the population surveyed felt a loss of confidence in the justice system. So to suggest that the justice system has performed well in these circumstances and that the community generally was satisfied with it, and that somehow by having the inquiry we would damage it, that damage has already occurred.

It seems to me that one the principal aims and goals of the inquiry would be to say to the families that here is how the system worked, it failed in these regards, if those determinations were made, we have put in place remedies for all of those and the families should feel reassured and confident that it will not happen again. This would build up both the credibility in the system and confidence that the problems that occurred surrounding the Air-India crash would never occur again. It will build up confidence in the system. It will rehabilitate the criminal justice system rather than damage it.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Newton--North Delta. He is an outstanding advocate on behalf of both his constituents and members of the Indo-Canadian community. This matter is before the House because of the leadership he has taken. He is a respected member of this House and I am proud to call him my colleague.

The motion put forward by my friend from Newton--North Delta follows upon a well known adage of Mr. Justice Brandeis, one of the western world's most respected jurists. It, stated simply, was this: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Our leader, Stephen Harper, has repeatedly called for a government probe into the Air-India disaster. He has called in effect for the exposure of the truth. Sunlight and sunlight alone will cleanse this miscarriage of justice.

All Canadians want to know what happened. They want to know what happened in public and they want to know what happened through an inquiry. I am pleased to see that the Deputy Prime Minister is taking the lead of our leader, Stephen Harper, and will be meeting with the victims' families.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would encourage the member to refer to the leader as the member for Calgary Southwest or the Leader of the Opposition.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the Deputy Prime Minister will be meeting with the victims' families. This is an important step following upon the same steps taken by the member for Calgary Southwest.

However, the issue before the House today is why the government has no further plans to investigate the Air-India case in the context of a public forum or a public inquiry. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister put forward a number of propositions that really do not bear directly on the question before the House.

I will not comment on much of what she said this morning, but I will debate the motion and I will, in a non-partisan way, address several propositions which I consider to be quite remarkable and which have been put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister and by the parliamentary secretary here today.

Let us return for a moment to the specific motion before the House, which reads as follows:

That, in light of the fact that the Air-India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India bombing of June 23, 1985.

The motion before the House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation. This is not a motion to investigate many of the questions, matters and issues which the Deputy Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary spoke about this morning. This is not an inquiry into air transport issues or public safety issues in respect of air transportation. This is a specific inquiry into a bungled investigation.

Specifically, the motion calls for a public inquiry to determine how and why the agencies that report to the Deputy Prime Minister bungled their investigation into the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history. The issue really is that simple, lacking a lot of the complexity which has been introduced in the House this morning by the government.

The facts, simply stated, are these. Canada's worst terrorist incident, mass murder, occurred on Air-India flight 182 approximately 17 years ago. Last month, the judge who heard the criminal trials held that those who had been charged should be acquitted in part because of unacceptable negligence on the part of CSIS in destroying evidence. CSIS reports to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Those are the facts. Those are the only facts which are completely germane to the motion before the House. In any western democracy, these questions and these facts cry out for public scrutiny.

Our hearts go out to the families of the victims today. All Canadians, especially the victims' families, are confused and disappointed. There is no closure. There is no sense of justice. There is no sense of completion. Most significant, as many of the families of the victims have said, there are no assurances that this type of incident cannot be repeated again.

This incident happened on June 23, 1985. It resulted from two bags which were loaded onto flights at the Vancouver International Airport. One of those bags exploded in transit at the Tokyo airport, killing two baggage handlers. The other bag exploded as the Air-India flight approached the coast of Ireland at 31,000 feet. Three hundred and twenty-nine people were killed on flight 182 and two were killed in Tokyo. A total of 331 innocent victims died in this act of terrorism. Eighty-two of them were children and the vast majority were Canadian citizens.

To return to the fundamental issue before us today, the question is whether a public inquiry should be struck to determine why the investigation into the Air-India bombing has been bungled.

In a non-partisan way, I would say at the outset that the Deputy Prime Minister is conflicted in her ability to address this question. I say this with all due respect and with no desire to be partisan in any way. The question before us, simply stated, is whether the agencies that report to the Deputy Prime Minister and which bungled the investigation should themselves be investigated.

Sunlight, as Justice Brandeis notes, is the best and only disinfectant.

As I listened to the debate this morning, there were a number of very remarkable propositions that were put forward.

First, I refer to the commentary of the Deputy Prime Minister, who referred to a number of investigations, trials and hearings which have been conducted in the past 20 years. The proposition which she put forward, as I understand it, is that because these other inquiries have taken place there is no need at this point for this House to pass a motion calling for a judicial inquiry into the bungled investigation. She referred to several inquiries, I would note, first, the Seaborn report, and a report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.

Let me note right off the top that those reports have nothing whatsoever to do with a public inquiry into the bungled investigation. Those inquiries related to air transport issues, and fair enough, those issues have been dealt with. That is not the question before the House today.

Second, and quite incredibly, really, the Deputy Prime Minister put forward the proposition, through some reasoning and some leap of logic, that because there have been inquiries conducted in other countries we should not have a judicial inquiry in Canada into the bungled investigation, because there has been a previous investigation in Ireland or in India.

I cannot follow the logic of why the Canadian public should be satisfied and why their fears should be alleviated with respect to a bungled investigation in Canada on the premise that there has been an investigation in Ireland or in India. Since when do we, as Canadians, look to other countries to investigate the activities of our own law enforcement agencies to reassure Canadians that we are safe? It is a proposition that makes no sense.

Equally hard to imagine is how, as the Deputy Prime Minister put forward, because there have been criminal proceedings in Canada this has led us closer to resolution of the issue before the House. Again, the issue before the House arises directly from the comments of Justice Josephson in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the very matters that the Deputy Prime Minister is referring to. In his acquittal decision, he stated clearly that one of the reasons for the acquittal, in part, was the bungled investigation of CSIS and the destruction of evidence.

It just does not follow logically that because we have had his finding somehow there is no need to pursue it further. His finding that the evidence was bungled cries out, demands and pleads for some sort of further step in terms of a public inquiry.

If I may, I will examine this question in another context, but before I do that, let me note that we have another remarkable proposition which was put forward today and that is the emergence of the eminent Canadian, the eminent person. It is not clear who the eminent person, the eminent Canadian, is. The last time we heard of eminent Canadians, they were engaged in a circumpolar expedition with the Governor General. I assume they are back. I do not know who these eminent Canadians are.

[An hon. member]

The former mayor of Winnipeg.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

There are many suggestions emerging from the House as to who some of these eminent Canadians might be.

The Deputy Prime Minister of Canada puts forward the proposition that we will not have a public inquiry, we will not have an investigation, we will not have it in public. Rather, we are going to have the spectre of her seeking the independent advice of an undetermined person who will identify the public interest questions and give her advice so that we, collectively she says, can all move forward.

It is a remarkable proposition that a public interest question would be resolved in private by the Deputy Prime Minister. What is wrong with a public inquiry? That is what the Indo Canadian families and the victims' families have been demanding for some time. That is what this House should be sensitive to. That is what all Canadians are interested in.

It is very noteworthy that in other circumstances this government and this Deputy Prime Minister have been prepared to embrace a public inquiry as exactly the way to get to the bottom of things. I quote the Deputy Prime Minister from February 16, 2004, speaking about the Gomery inquiry. She said:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have been absolutely clear. We want to get to the bottom of this matter for the Canadian public. That is why we have instituted what can only be described as the most comprehensive action plan that probably any government has ever put in place: a public inquiry...

On that same day she said:

That is why we called for a public inquiry. We want to get to the bottom of this. We all want to know what happened here. We believe that is what the Canadian public deserves to know.

By parity of reasoning, that is what the Canadian public wants to know in this case. That is what the Indo Canadian families of the victims want to know in this case. They want a public inquiry. They want sunlight as a disinfectant in this miscarriage of justice. They want to know what happened. They do not want to see someone described as an eminent Canadian meeting in private with the Deputy Prime Minister, investigating the very people who report to the Deputy Prime Minister, to conduct a review outside of public scrutiny, not in public.

Returning to the motion, there is really only one question before the House today, and that is whether we strike an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation itself, the bungled investigation. There is a real question that emerges from all of this. What is the Deputy Prime Minister, and her agencies, seeking to withhold from public scrutiny? What is the difficulty with a public inquiry?

There are many questions which remain unanswered. Why was this investigation bungled? What investigative errors of the government is the government attempting to hide from public scrutiny? What errors were made? Who made them? What steps have been taken since that time to ensure that those sorts of errors are never made again? Who was responsible? What has been done to change the situation?

Why were the working relationships between the RCMP and CSIS so strained that individuals destroyed investigative evidence, specifically tape recordings, wiretap evidence, as I understand it, of witnesses who were taped or in some cases interviewed? We are not speaking, as I understand it, of the inadvertent destruction of small portions of evidence. We are talking about the wholesale erasure of hundreds of hours of investigation, destroyed by the very agents who were supposed to be responsible for the investigation and the protection of Canadian public security.

What kind of law enforcement agency would take it upon itself in the context of the worst terrorist act in Canadian history, and at that time one of the worst in the world, to destroy the evidence? All Canadians are puzzled by that and ask themselves that question. The court described the destruction of the evidence as “unacceptable negligence”.

Returning to the eminent Canadian, the Deputy Prime Minister points out to the House that we need the assistance of an eminent Canadian to find out what questions we need to investigate. There is no need to hire anyone, eminent or otherwise, to determine what the questions are. The questions have been put right before this House by another eminent Canadian, Mr. Justice Josephson, who said very clearly that one of the reasons for acquittal was unacceptable negligence on the part of the investigative agencies.

That is the issue, that is the question and that is the matter that should be before a judicial inquiry. It has nothing to do with all the other matters that have been brought before the House today by the Deputy Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary.

In addition to the questions surrounding the bungling of the evidence itself, there are, not surprisingly, accusations of a cover-up on the part of some of those who are involved, an intentional cover-up to make sure that this matter was not investigated. What we need to know is whether that is true.

The purpose of the inquiry would be to get to the bottom of that. Perhaps we will find that much of this has been put to rest. Perhaps we will find there has been no cover-up, but that in itself is of importance because these are important law investigative agencies. CSIS, in particular, is very important to the safety of Canadians. We need to go forward in the future knowing that sunlight has cleansed the situation, that Canadians have confidence in CSIS in its capacity to do its work and that there has not been a miscarriage of justice in this case.

Why is the government not prepared to convene a public inquiry? What is the issue? The Deputy Prime Minister's spokesperson says that cost is not an argument. Several weeks ago the minister's own spokesperson said publicly that the question of cost was not a consideration and not the reason for not having a public inquiry.

Several weeks ago the Deputy Prime Minister said that the reason we were not having an inquiry was that it was not possible for her to say that there would be any benefit from a public inquiry. If there is no benefit from a public inquiry, why is the Deputy Prime Minister hiring an eminent Canadian to investigate the situation? What is the benefit of hiring an eminent Canadian if there is no benefit to having an investigation or inquiry to begin with? The bottom line is that the government does not want to see a public inquiry. It does not want to see sunlight as a disinfectant getting to the bottom of this issue.

Justice Josephson, in his acquittal of the accused, said that there had been unacceptable negligence in the investigation. Those facts demand and cry out for some sort of investigation. The best way to get to the bottom of this for the sake of the victims, for the sake of the families who remain, for the sake of all Canadians and, indeed, for the sake of the law enforcement agencies, is a public inquiry, which is what the motion put forward by the member for Newton—North Delta is asking for.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Calgary Centre-North outlined his rationale for a public inquiry, and that would be a witch hunt. I am pleased to have that kind of clarity around his rationale for having such an inquiry.

I just want to correct a couple of points that the member made. First, the Deputy Prime Minister has not eliminated any option. She talked about bringing in an eminent Canadian. The member for Calgary Centre-North wants to know where these eminent Canadians are. I and this government are very confident that we have many eminent Canadians so we do not share the member's anxiety that he proposed earlier.

We also need to make it clear that the government is not attempting to hide anything. In fact, if the member had been in the House or had listened to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say, she said that the eminent Canadian would help her work with the families to identify what issues are still outstanding and, in doing that, to meet with any person with whom the eminent Canadian would like to meet. It is not a secret process that the government is proposing. It is a way to facilitate the identification of the issues.

How do we look at today's world in relation to the world 20 years ago when we know that so much has changed in the world of terrorism, in the world of combating terrorism and in the way that we have structured government and the policies? With so much time having elapsed, how do we reconcile a review today of something that happened 20 years ago when the world has changed so rapidly and so fundamentally?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises two separate issues, one being the question of eminent Canadians as opposed to a public inquiry, and the second being what has happened over time, the passage of time and the change of circumstances.

No one disagrees that a lot has happened in the last 20 years but the parliamentary secretary misses the point. The point of the motion is to find out why the investigation was bungled and why hundreds of hours of transcript were destroyed resulting in the inability to pursue this case through to conviction.

I assume that there are transportation related questions with which the government has dealt. Perhaps on another day and in another time those will be investigated. I hope, as a Canadian, that some of those issues have been dealt with by the government but that is not the question in front of us.

The question in front of us concerns one of the most significant trials in Canadian history in which a respected judge made a decision in favour of acquittal and uncategorically said that one of the reasons he acquitted was because of the bungled investigation. What assurances do Canadians have that that miscarriage of justice will not happen again?

The only way we can get to the bottom of that is to do it in public. It is not eminent Canadians or any eminent Canadian who needs to have that question answered, it is all Canadians, eminent or not. All Canadians, including the families of the victims, want to get to the bottom of this but not through a secretive, reclusive process between the minister and a hand-picked person.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Air-India disaster was one of the greatest tragedies and that the follow up investigation has become an even greater tragedy on the side of justice, certainly for the families of the victims, but also for all Canadians.

These agencies that bungled the investigation are the same agencies that have the authority and unfettered rights under the new anti-terrorism legislation that jeopardizes civil liberties and puts Canadians at risk and yet we are supposed to trust them. I believe it is crucially important that Canadians be given the opportunity to regain trust in those agencies as well as in those people who were involved in the investigations. The only way to do that would be through an inquiry into what took place, find where the faults were and, if there was a miscarriage of justice and a deliberate tampering with or destruction of evidence then that would be found out.

Is my colleague hearing the concerns of other Canadians, not just the families involved, about these agencies that were involved in the travesty toward justice now being the ones dealing with the anti-terrorism bill, and what kind of faith Canadians have in these agencies?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have indeed heard from other Canadians with those very concerns.

I want to return to the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister. She put forward the case for the government that there should not be a public inquiry. In her comments today she referred to CSIS working closely with the RCMP. She also referred to a 1992 report by an arm's length independent security intelligence review committee that lauded CSIS. She quoted the immediate and full cooperation between CSIS and the RCMP.

What is puzzling to all Canadians, if one stops and considers this, is how an independent review in 1992 could be laudatory of CSIS when in 2005 the judge who heard all the evidence accused it of unacceptable negligence. That contradiction alone demands some sort of investigation. How then can we place any confidence in another so-called independent review conducted outside of public scrutiny to get to the bottom of this? Clearly, we cannot as Canadians.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate from the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for York West.

I rise today to address the motion before the House, which reads:

That, in light of the fact that the Air-India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India bombing of June 23, 1985.

I am speaking today to share some of my personal experiences, to convey the concerns of my constituents and of Canadians from coast to coast and to examine the role of government.

What is my position on this motion? If we carefully examine the motion it clearly indicates that the government has a role to play in providing Canadians and, more important, the families with answers regarding the investigation of the Air-India bombing.

I fully support that the government should examine all possible options. No stone should be left unturned. However, I believe the government needs to examine all the facts, not jump to any harsh conclusion and do what is in the best interests of the families.

Let me start by stating that my thoughts and prayers are with the families. I was eight years old when this tragic event took place and I recall not understanding why anyone would want to kill so many innocent people. After all these years I still have no answer. I recall sitting in the living room watching the evening news with my parents. The news reporters were still trying to determine what the caused the plane to explode. Shortly after, it was brought to my attention that it was a terrorist attack. I remember looking to my parents and asking them how and why this happen. For the first time that I could recall, my parents were speechless.

A few days after the event my mother sat me down and explained to me that there was absolutely nothing that justified that type of behaviour. Ever since that time I have been following the investigation.

I want to put this discussion in a certain context. I think the notion of public safety is paramount in this discussion. The motion highlights that it is a major priority and concern of many Canadians. I believe the safety of citizens in this country is very important, especially for such a flourishing democracy. However government must always strike the balance between public safety and civil liberties. That is the framework and that is what we should keep in mind today.

We should also acknowledge that the government has a role to play to prevent an event like this from ever again taking place.

Those are some of my personal thoughts. I also want to reflect some of the concerns and issues brought forth by Canadians. Over the past few weeks I have received many calls and emails and I have met with many Canadians from across the country regarding this issue.

This is not an Indo-Canadian issue by no stretch of the imagination. This is a Canadian issue. People are concerned about the process and about the role of the RCMP and CSIS. To that effect I think it is very important in the House today that we examine some of the facts.

Let us look at what the government has done. I do not claim to be an expert but I do want to bring forth some of the issues.

The verdict in the Air-India trial was handed down on Wednesday, March 16, 2005. The defendants, Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, were found not guilty. The B.C. attorney general was responsible for this prosecution and it has 30 days from the decision to appeal.

In 2003, Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted in relation to this particular case.

In 1989, the federal government settled a civil suit related to this matter.

The security intelligence review committee, SIRC, conducted a review and process and released a summary report in 1991, an annual report that is available to the public.

Investigations were also conducted in Ireland and India. Justice Bhupinder Kirpal Nath was appointed by the government of India to head an inquiry into what happened.

In the last 20 years many things have changed. The government has invested billions of dollars to improve the security of Canadians, including airport security.

After the Air-India bombing, the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence issued a review of airline and airport security. This review resulted in a number of actions by Transport Canada. There was the establishment of a restricted area access clearance program for airport workers, rigorous background checks for airport workers, and the introduction of passenger and baggage reconciliation on international flights.

One must acknowledge that this has been one of the longest and most complex trials in Canadian history. The trial lasted over two years, cost tens of millions of dollars, and over 100 witnesses were heard.

Let us begin to examine some of the financial contributions made by the government.

In 2001 the federal government began to contribute to the cost of the Air-India trial. The assistance of the government in the cost of the Air-India trial was premised on various factors, including: the impact of the high cost of the Air-India trial itself, which would severely strain the legal system; the magnitude of the offence and the public interest and significant international interest in the trial; the complexity and the volume of the evidence presented in the trial; and the national security implications of the particular case.

While the trial involved a criminal prosecution within the provincial jurisdiction, the national and international dimensions of its scope, character and implications called for significant federal assistance. It was the right thing to do. Up until today the Department of Justice has contributed some $30 million for the Air-India trial.

Specifically, the federal contributions to British Columbia have included 100% of the cost of victim family services, 100% of transportation costs, 100% of court reporting costs, and 100% of judiciary support. The federal government also has underwritten 50% of the cost of legal aid, 50% of prosecution costs, 50% of management services, and 50% of communications and media event costs.

It is also the policy of the Government of Canada to work with all the provincial and territorial partners to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. That is why the federal government has agreed to contribute in this specific case of the Air-India prosecution 100% of the victim family services cost, which by British Columbia estimates will amount to about $2.5 million.

I wanted to highlight the work that has been done, but we must do more. We must continue to pursue justice. It is vital.

There cannot be a Canadian who is not aware of the tragic event that took place on June 23, 1985 when Air-India flight 182 travelling from Montreal to London, England and carrying luggage loaded in Vancouver exploded in the air off the coast of Ireland and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. It was and remains the most serious terrorist incident in Canadian history. All aboard the aircraft perished, 329 persons, the majority of whom were Canadian citizens. It was a horrific tragedy.

I would like to join my voice with others in condemning those who perpetrated this act and extend my sympathy to the families of those who died on Air-India flight 182.

I want it to be clear that I support the principle that the government must continue to explore all avenues and get to the heart of this matter in the most appropriate fashion. I truly believe that the ultimate goal is to work with the families and help bring about closure. I have full faith that the government will act accordingly.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's eloquent speech, which was very clear and very well done. In his speech the member said that he did want the families to have closure. The member pointed out the many things that were done for the families, but at this point in time there are few or no answers about who is responsible or what was done. There are questions about the inquiry itself.

Does the member believe that a public inquiry should be held? If he does, would he tell me why, and if he does not, would he tell me why not?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member put her question in a non-partisan fashion. She shows genuine concern for the issue and I really appreciate that.

I was trying to illustrate the point that very clearly this is a non-partisan issue. The issue has nothing to do with the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc. It has to do with Canadians and those Canadians who lost their lives.

I wanted to demonstrate very clearly what the government has done in the past and what we are presently positioned to do. I have full faith that the government will examine everything. Even looking into an inquiry is still an option that we have and which we will pursue vigorously.

We must examine everything. We must also wait for the appeal process to be fully exhausted at the provincial level in B.C. Then we will make a decision, but we will make a decision that is in the best interests of Canadians.

The member asked whether I agreed with the notion that the government should do something. Absolutely, the government should do something. It is paramount that the government do something to provide closure for the families. I have full faith that the government will act accordingly.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today may I also say that my most sincere condolences go to the families of all of the victims of this horrific air crash.

Twenty years ago the sun rose on a terrible day for Canadians when the debris of a jetliner blown out of the sky in the early dawn was our stark evidence of an act of brutal violence and our grievous reminder of the evils of terrorism. That day we as Canadians were united in our disbelief. We were united by our outrage. We were also united in our grief and our feelings for the families. In a word, all of Canada and Canadians were united by our humanity.

Those sentiments which emerged in the early hours will never grow old and will never be forgotten. For as long as there is a Canada, Canadians and people around the world will remember Air-India and we will honour the memory of the 329 souls so senselessly taken from all of us.

What would they be doing today if they had not been on that Air-India flight? Some of them would have continued on with their children and their grandchildren. Some of them would have been married. Some would have had the chance to watch all of the interesting debates ongoing in our chamber. They would have continued to be good Canadians.

It is only right that I join my fellow members in the renewal of my expression of deepest condolences to the victims' families.

It is my firm belief that it is the things which unite us as Canadians, grief, outrage, compassion and remembrance, which will endure as our most fitting memorial to the victims of the Air-India bombing.

The motion which the House will decide upon brought forward by the official opposition calls for an independent judicial inquiry. We recently learned with great disappointment that a very lengthy investigation and trial process had failed to secure any new convictions. We are seemingly without answers, left only with an anguished silence in the place of justice. It is a hard and cruel result, and it is only natural that in these frustrated days, we have the demand for a public inquiry.

Nonetheless, this is a deliberative House. Our role, difficult as it is, is not just to follow without reflection the instructions of the moment. While I too want to see justice prevail, I am going to speak against the idea of a public inquiry at this time and I believe with good reason. I realize that I am taking an unpopular stand in the House and all I ask is for a decent hearing of my views.

The prime motivation for an inquiry among Canadians is the search for justice. We all want to see the perpetrators of this despicable act behind bars. The public inquiry proposed today would get us no convictions. It would give us no answers to the central question of who is guilty. Who were the terrorists?

There is no question that Canadians want justice, no question that the government wants justice and no question that all of us in the House want justice. I think we would pay any price to see those responsible for this tragedy behind bars, but cost is simply not an issue here. That is why we have had an investigation and a trial of monumental proportions. It is a hard fact to face but it must be underlined. An inquiry would not identify the guilty parties and that is not what is proposed. Canadians need to understand that.

The next question in people's minds is, what did go wrong? Canadians want to know so as to prevent it from happening again. They want to be assured that a terrorist act can never again be visited on an aircraft carrying Canadians and that they are safe in our country.

There were very significant reviews and reforms in safety and security in the aftermath of the attack. In 1986, a review of airline and airport security was released, the Seaborn report, as the Deputy Prime Minister referred to this morning. It led to secure areas at airports, background checks of all airport workers, and a system to link passengers to their baggage. I am sure many of us have heard of people being removed from an aircraft because somehow luggage was there but not all passengers were there. All the luggage would be removed from the aircraft and often flights were delayed.

In more recent days the focus of air security has been intensified. The creation of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada was an investment of $2.1 billion since 2001. Explosive detection systems for baggage and, on the broad level, the passage of the anti-terrorism act and the national security policy were backed by the investment of over $9 billion in security related initiatives since 9/11.

The government treats air transport security with the gravity it deserves. We know that terrorists continue to look for vulnerabilities. The September 11, 2001, perpetrators knew that security measures had been enhanced and that bombs would not achieve their evil goals. Devoted public servants work daily throughout our country to ensure that gaps are filled before those who would do harm can exploit them to their advantage.

This motion sets aside all these important questions to order an investigation into an investigation. Here we come to the crux of the matter, and some of the hardest and most difficult facts of all. A public inquiry is not a trial. Its purpose can never be to determine guilt or innocence, civil or criminal liability. It would get us no closer to a conviction and it would do nothing to prevent a terrorist attack in the future. At most an inquiry could make a finding of misconduct and it would traditionally be used to make recommendations to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

There is ample reason to doubt that a public inquiry would be successful in accomplishing any of the aspirations we would have for it, chief among them, because the purpose is to investigate the investigation, to ensure that a better job is done if we should ever have to conduct such an investigation again. Heaven forbid that it ever happens in Canada or any other country.

The most we could hope for from such an inquiry would be a diagnosis of our ills of 20 years ago. We would learn, and even this is doubtful, about the problems of a national security structure so radically revised since then as to make any recommendations from the inquiry inapplicable to have the organizations concerned operate today.

CSIS was one year old when this tragedy occurred. It was the cold war and CSIS was not focused on terrorism like it is today. The relationship between CSIS and the RCMP was not ideal. It reflected the fact that security intelligence activities had been removed from the RCMP as a result of the MacDonald commission. This relationship was changed in 1989 by an agreement laying out their specific roles and responsibilities.

Everyone agrees there were problems then. I would remind Canadians that the Liberals called for an inquiry at the right time in 1985 and at that time the Conservatives refused it and without good reason. The time was then, not now. The organizations concerned are charged with the crucial work of keeping us safe today. All concerned must admit that an investigation of this scope would be a crushing burden on current operations. It is also unreasonable to impose on an organization charged with our security in the present an inquiry about the past where it is not likely that new answers will result to enhance public safety today.

There can be no partisanship on the most important things that we deal with in the House: our common grief, our common outrage, and our common search for justice. We all recognize that time does not heal all wounds, but the remedy proposed today is premature.

It is not the answer to the agonies of who and why, nor even to the demand of never again. It can never help us know the unknowable. On those grounds, reason and conscience dictate. I must oppose this public inquiry at this time. I would urge other members to do the same, as this motion is premature today.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to what the member for York West had to say. It is along similar lines to what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Canada is a country that, in its deepest roots, is a strong, bold, confident and principled place. What the government and the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrated today is an attempt to prevaricate, to manipulate, to control, and to hide from the very principles that we should be trying to enhance, preserve and protect.

I listened to the attempts by the member for Etobicoke North to put a wedge between whether we are calling for a public inquiry or a judicial inquiry. They are not mutually exclusive and the member knows it. I heard partisan attempts by the member who just spoke and by the Deputy Prime Minister who are saying essentially that if we disagree with the government, we are being partisan, but they are allowed to be as partisan as they want on this issue in disagreeing with us.

Why would Canada behave in a way that shows to the world and the international community that we will not turn over every stone to find out why justice has been denied, when other western countries would do exactly that and have done exactly that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was the largest trial and the most thoroughly investigated, from the information I have, in Canada's history, and so it should have been. I believe every rock was turned and every avenue was looked upon to find those guilty.

I go back to the issue of what a public inquiry would do here. It would not find out who is guilty because that is not its role. The role here is to look to see what else we can learn from that.

I would suggest, when we look back at all of the different things that have been done since that horrific accident 20 years ago, we have made major steps in securing Canada's safety. The investment of billions of dollars have gone into the national transportation agency. An awful lot of issues have been looked at very carefully.

The question for us now is not whether or not we are all trying to politicize this. I would suggest that had we had an inquiry back in 1985, it would have been more appropriate. We have now spent 20 years looking under every rock and everywhere possible to find out who was guilty. But how can we protect Canadians? How can we ensure this never happens again?

Second to that, the Deputy Prime Minister is quite clear that, on behalf of all of us in the House, there will be a meeting with the families to find out what other questions they feel need answering and how we can help them have whatever level of closure that they possibly can have on this horrific issue.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have news for the member for York West. The families have represented their position quite well. I do not think she needs to patronize them in the way she just suggested.

I would like to know why the member has concluded that the inquiry will not determine anything? Why is she predetermining that an inquiry would not get to the bottom of anything? That is certainly contradictory to the logic that anyone I know would apply to the exercise.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we all have the very best intentions. I believe that the hon. member, in his questions, feels the same way most of us do.

Let me outline for him a few of the different reports that have been done as a result of that: the Cork inquiry, the Seaborn report, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board inquiry, the Kirpal inquiry, the SIRC inquiry, and I could go on and on.

This was not an issue taken lightly by any government. We have all worked extremely hard as government officials with all of the departments to look at how we can improve the safety of Canadians based on that horrific incident.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Island North.

I am pleased to put some comments on the record. I want to read the motion into the record once again. The member for Newton—North Delta presented the motion on April 5. It reads:

That, in light of the fact that the Air India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air India bombing of June 23, 1985.

There is a reason why this motion came forward. As some of the members opposite and members on this side of the House have said, this should not be a partisan issue. It is a question of closure. It is not about what this government did or what that government did. It is about families. It is about the fact that the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy have not had closure.

It has been 20 long years and there has not been an adequate examination of the circumstances. The trial faced one setback after another. Even the RCMP's key suspect died in 1992 under suspicious circumstances. There have been problems with defence counsel. The trial was forced to be postponed twice. So, over the period of 20 years, there have been many challenges.

A few minutes ago the member for York West said that the Conservatives should have started a judicial inquiry right at the beginning. The fact of the matter is that the proper thing to do at the beginning was to go through a proper trial. The expectations are always that a trial will bring the witnesses, the suspects, and the people who have to testify in to the court setting and conclusions will be arrived after all evidence is examined.

Clearly, after 20 long years and after the longest, most expensive trial in Canadian history, we find now that there were many inadequacies with how that trial was conducted, with what happened with key witnesses, and with some investigative questions that have been less than thoroughly answered. And now we are hearing 20 years later how distraught the families are because that closure has not occurred.

The member for Mississauga—Brampton South outlined the costs and all the things that have been done. I acknowledge that there have been many costs that have been incurred. I acknowledge the fact that there certainly was a strong attempt to find out what happened in this tragic event. However, after all is said and done, in actual fact, the answers are not forthcoming.

Why this is so important is because we hold dear what the member for Vancouver Island North just stated. We hold dear the safety of our citizens. We hold dear the fact that we need to ensure that our country and our citizens are protected.

We know that in this day and age, since 9/11 and since we look at the global terrorism attacks in different countries, terrorism is an issue that must be addressed and must be stopped. The message out to the world must be that things happening on Canadian soil will be examined and that perpetrators will be brought to justice.

Twenty years after this tragic event, the families of the victims have said that they only way for government to rectify what they see as a second tragedy is to convene an inquiry. It has been a tragedy that the answers have not been forthcoming, that there has not been a resolution of who was responsible, why it happened and what connections and networks have to be addressed.

The Leader of the Opposition called for a public inquiry on March 16, shortly after the decision was released. This is very important because the Leader of the Opposition did not dilly-dally. He did not stop. He went straightforward, made a decision and called for the judicial inquiry.

Since then, what have we heard in the House of Commons? We have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that an inquiry is of no value, that nothing will be learned from the inquiry, but that the Deputy Prime Minister will meet with the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy.

They are not interested in meeting. What they are interested in hearing is that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are listening to their request for closure. The way they get closure is to find out what really happened. Therefore, this is a tragedy that has still not come to the answers that all Canadians need.

This is a bigger global issue. This trial is a precedent for anything that might happen in the future on Canadian soil. The world is watching to see, when something like this happens on our soil, if the government ruling the country can be decisive, clear and meet the needs of the people, protect the country and Canadians on our soil.

Quite clearly I fully support a judicial inquiry and call upon the government to ensure that this happens immediately, and to have a compassionate heart for the families of the victims who have lived through this for so long and are still living the nightmare of not finding out what really happened.