NOTE TO READERS Military Ranks and Titles In recounting events and reporting on testimony received, this report refers to many members of the Canadian Forces by name, rank and, sometimes, title or position held. Generally, we have used the rank and title in place at the time of the Somalia deployment or at the time an individual testified before this Commission of Inquiry, as appropriate. Thus, for example, the ranks mentioned in text recounting the events of 1992-93 are those held by individuals just before and during the deployment to Somalia, while ranks mentioned in endnotes are those held by individuals at the time of their testimony before the Inquiry. Since then, many of these individuals will have changed rank or retired or left the Canadian Forces for other reasons. We have made every effort to check the accuracy of ranks and titles, but we recognize the possibility of inadvertent errors, and we apologize to the individuals involved for any inaccuracies that might remain. Source Material This report is documented in endnotes presented at the conclusion of each chapter. Among the sources referred to, readers will find mention of testimony given at the Inquiry's policy and evidentiary hearings; documents filed with the Inquiry by government departments as a result of orders for the production of documents; briefs and submissions to the Inquiry; research studies conducted under the Inquiry's commissioned research program; and documents issued by the Inquiry over the course of its work. Testimony: Testimony before the Commission of Inquiry is cited by reference to transcripts of the Inquiry's policy and evidentiary hearings, which are contained in 193 volumes and will also be preserved on CD- ROM after the Inquiry completes its work. For example: Testimony of LCol Nordick, Transcripts vol. 2, pp. 269-270. Evidence given at the policy hearings is denoted by the letter 'P'. For example: Testimony of MGen Dallaire, Policy hearings transcripts vol. 3P, p. 477P. Transcripts of testimony are available in the language in which testimony was given; in some cases, therefore, testimony quoted in the report has been translated from the language in which it was given. Documents and Exhibits: Quotations from some documents and other material (charts, maps) filed with the Inquiry are cited with a document book number and a tab number or an exhibit number. These refer to binders of documents assembled for Commissioners' use at the Inquiry's hearings. See Volume 5, Chapter 40 for a description of how we managed and catalogued the tens of thousands of documents we received in evidence. Some of the references contain DND (Department of National Defence) identification numbers in lieu of or in addition to page numbers. These were numbers assigned at DND and stamped on each page as documents were being scanned for transmission to the Inquiry in electronic format. Many other references are to DND publications, manuals, policies and guidelines. Also quoted extensively are the National Defence Act (NDA), Canadian Forces Organization Orders (CFOO), Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO), and the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (which we refer to as the Queen's Regulations and Orders, or QR&O). Our general practice was to provide the full name of documents on first mention in the notes to a chapter, with shortened titles or abbreviations after that. Research Studies: The Commission of Inquiry commissioned 10 research studies, which were published at various points during the life of the Inquiry. Endnotes citing studies not yet published during final preparation of this report may contain references to or quotations from unedited manuscripts. Published research and the Inquiry's report will be available in Canada through local booksellers and by mail from Canada Communication Group Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0S9. All other material pertaining to the Inquiry's work will be housed in the National Archives of Canada at the conclusion of our work. Acronyms and Abbreviations This report contains many acronyms and abbreviations for government departments and programs and Canadian Forces elements, systems, equipment, and other terms. Generally, these names and terms are spelled out in full with their abbreviation or acronym at their first occurrence in each chapter; the abbreviation or acronym is used after that. For ranks and titles, we adopted the abbreviations in use in the Canadian Forces and at the Department of National Defence. A list of the acronyms and abbreviations used most often, including abbreviations for military ranks, is presented in Appendix 8, at the end of Volume 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On one level, public inquiries are temporary agencies of government with an official life of their own, reported in the media and identifiable to citizens as in our particular case, The Somalia Inquiry. On another level, they are organizations of expert personnel summoned to work together for a limited period of time. They have a life-cycle of birth, learning, productive maturity, and death -- somewhat untimely, in our case. The crisis that usually calls public inquiries into being, the urgency of the task and its difficulties, create an almost wartime atmosphere that demands great effort, close teamwork, and a tight focus on the ultimate goal. This challenge can bring out the best in men and women, as it did in our group. Public inquiries are identified publicly with their Chairs and Commissioners but they flourish or fail in large part according to the strengths or weaknesses of their staffs who work behind the scenes. Our excellent staff was led and was largely the creation of our Secretary, Stanley Cohen. A brilliant lawyer with deep experience and understanding of government, he was able to quickly assemble a core team in the spring of 1995. His skills as an administrator, counsellor, negotiator, and animator of our group were extraordinary and vital to our success. As have other inquiries in the past, we relied primarily on the work of legal and research components. Our Senior Counsel were Simon Noël and Barbara McIsaac who dealt masterfully with an overwhelming amount of documentary evidence, sometimes conflicting requirements of lawyers for the various parties, and the task of examining witnesses fairly and comprehensively during our televised hearings. They were assisted by Intermediate Counsel Ian Stauffer, Sylvie Roussel, and Thomas Conway, as well as Junior Counsel Hélène Dorion, Lynn Lovett, John McManus, Eloïse Arbour, and Jennifer Oulton. During part of our Inquiry we also benefited from the wisdom, wit, and courtroom experience of Hymie Weinstein before he was called back to Winnipeg by the demands of a public inquiry in his home city. François Daviault and François Lemieux also played an important role in our counsel group at different stages of our Inquiry. Our research group, consisting of lawyers and academics with varied and extensive experience, was under the able direction of David Pomerant: Glenn Gilmour, Janice Tokar, Holly Solomon, Laura Farquharson, Donna Winslow, Claude Bouchard, David Goetz, Ellen Margolese, and Robert Young. This team carried out the monumental task of reviewing, analyzing, and distilling thousands of pages of material related to our terms of reference and, under our direction, participated in the drafting of major portions of this report. Eric Myles served as Special Assistant to the Secretary and Chief Historian responsible for the supervision of the group of file analysts who organized, classified, summarized, and evaluated the massive documentation that we obtained from hundreds of sources (Judith Shane, Robert LeBlond, Stephen Bierbrier, François-René Dussault, Deirdre Hilary, Christopher Bolland, Pierre Léonard, Tom Clearwater, Deryn Collier, Karen Capen, Ella Heyder, Maureen Armstrong, Ouafaa Douab, Suzanne Alexander, Cheryl Ringor, Marcia Waldron, Sophie Boulakia, and Alain Laurencelle). Eugene Oscapella and Greg Rose also provided invaluable assistance to both the research and the file analyst groups in the final report writing phase of our process. Our military advisers brought a wealth of domestic and international experience to their role as our Technical Advisors: BGen (ret) Jim Simpson, LGen (ret) Jack Vance, LCol (ret) Doug Bland, Col (ret) Ted Nurse, and François Lareau. Their selfless service to our Inquiry embodied the true meaning of "fidelity to the military institution". Special investigations were the responsibility of Inspector Gerry Braun and Inspector Dan Killam on loan to us from the RCMP. Their tireless professional service was crucial to the success of our operation. Director of Administration, André Plante, managed our own personnel and resources efficiently, assisted by Management Adviser Maurice Lacasse. Some of the essential services that we depended on throughout our Inquiry, and which were always performed above and beyond the call of duty, were provided by Library Technician, Linda Cameron; Neil Blaney, Dennis Brook, and Stephen Charron in Network Support for our computer system; Gail Bradshaw in Information Management; Finance Officer, Hélène Berthiaume; Records Manager, Gilles Desjardins; and Jane Simms, our supervisor of document processing clerks. John Koh was both a member of our counsel group and Manager, Litigation Support. He, along with Michael Burn and Paul Harte, was of great assistance to us in organizing and gaining mastery over the enormous flow of documentation that we were obliged to process. Our interface with the public, through hearings and media exposure, was the responsibility of Hearing Co- ordinator, Françoise McNamee, and Communications Manager, Sheena Pennie, of Delta Media, who handled more than 100 media calls daily on occasion. During the hearings we relied on the experience and abilities of our Registrars, Linda Martel and Susan Fraser. We also wish to thank Denis Vezina, Marc Mayer, Michel Valiquette, and Gilles Franche who provided security and other support to us during our hearings. In writing this report we were fortunate to have had the assistance of a team of hard working and professional writers and editors, under the direction of Tom Gussman, Ian Sadinsky, and Pauline McKillop. In addition to these, we depended on a daily basis on the dedicated work of our able secretaries, Suzanne Yule, Kim LaViolette, Rachel Sauvé, Kim Lutes, Sandra Racine, and Ghislaine Trottier, and our receptionist, Ann McAuliff as well as many specialists and technicians throughout our Inquiry, all of whom worked together as a team and exceeded the formal requirements of their tasks. Outside our own group, we worked closely with military personnel who were designated to assist us, as we describe in this report. But we want to pay special tribute to the soldiers and officers, serving and retired, who volunteered to appear before our Inquiry and who assisted us informally by providing information of many kinds to Commissioners and Counsel, even when it was damaging on occasion to their own interests. Their bravery was an inspiration to us and their support encouraged us throughout. Finally, we wish to express our thanks to the organizations that submitted briefs to us and the hundreds of individuals who communicated with us by e-mail, mail, and phone during the course of our Inquiry. They reminded us constantly that we were not alone in seeking answers to the difficult questions confronting our soldiers and politicians. PREFACE From its earliest moments the operation went awry. The soldiers, with some notable exceptions, did their best. But ill-prepared and rudderless, they fell inevitably into the mire that became the Somalia debacle. As a result, a proud legacy was dishonoured. Systems broke down and organizational discipline crumbled. Such systemic or institutional faults cannot be divorced from leadership responsibility, and the leadership errors in the Somalia mission were manifold and fundamental: the systems in place were inadequate and deeply flawed; practices that fuelled rampant careerism and placed individual ambition ahead of the needs of the mission had become entrenched; the oversight and supervision of crucial areas of responsibility were deeply flawed and characterized by the most superficial of assessments; even when troubling events and disturbing accounts of indiscipline and thuggery were known there was disturbing inaction or the actions that were taken exacerbated and deepened the problems; planning, training and overall preparations fell far short of what was required; subordinates were held to standards of accountability that many of those above were not prepared to abide by. Our soldiers searched, often in vain, for leadership and inspiration. Many of the leaders called before us to discuss their roles in the various phases of the deployment refused to acknowledge error. When pressed, they blamed their subordinates who, in turn, cast responsibility upon those below them. They assumed this posture reluctantly -- but there is no honour to be found here -- only after their initial claims -- that the root of many of the most serious problems resided with "a few bad apples" -- proved hollow. We can only hope that Somalia represents the nadir of the fortunes of the Canadian Forces. There seems to be little room to slide lower. One thing is certain, however: left uncorrected, the problems that surfaced in the desert in Somalia and in the boardrooms at National Defence Headquarters will continue to spawn military ignominy. The victim will be Canada and its international reputation. This is the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia. To the best of our ability, it fulfills our obligation with respect to various orders in coucil to investigate the chain of command system, leadership, discipline, and actions and decisions of the Canadian Forces, as well as the actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence in respect of the Canadian Forces' participation in the peace enforcement mission in Somalia during 1992-93. During the deployment of Canadian troops, certain events transpired in Somalia that impugned the reputations of various individuals, Canada's military, and the nation itself. Those events, by now well known to most Canadians, included repugnant hazing activities prior to deployment involving members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (revealed through the broadcast of videotapes made by participants), the shooting of Somali intruders at the Canadian compound in Belet Huen, the beating death of a teenager in the custody of soldiers from 2 Commando, an apparent suicide attempt by one of those Canadian soldiers, and, after the mission, alleged instances of withholding or altering key information. Those events, with the protestations of a concerned military surgeon acting as a catalyst, led the Government to call for this Inquiry. Ironically, a military board of inquiry into the same events was considered insufficient by the present Government because it was held in camera and with much more restricted terms of reference. It was considered to fall short of Canadian standards of public accountability, and a full and open inquiry was demanded. Our overall conclusion, as the title of this report and the opening passages of this preface make clear, is simple: the mission went badly wrong; systems broke down, and organizational failure ensued. Our report canvasses a broad array of issues and events to reach this unhappy result. The Inquiries Act provides the authority to subpoena witnesses, hear testimony, hire expert counsel and advisers, and assess evidence. Under normal circumstances, such powers should have given us the confidence to present our findings without qualification. However, on January 10, 1997, while Parliament was adjourned, the Minister of National Defence announced that Cabinet had decided that this Inquiry had gone on long enough, that all hearings must be cut off on or about March 31, 1997, and that a report with recommendations was required by June 30, 1997. This was the response of the Government to our letter setting out reporting date options and requesting an extension until at least December 31, 1997, a period that would have allowed us to continue and conclude our search for the truth. That search had already involved, among other things, thousands of hours of preparation and cross-examination of the individuals who played various roles in this mission -- and as time progressed, the superior officers to whom they reported. Because of the initial difficulty of estimating the actual magnitude of the work, compounded by the late arrival of certain documents we requested, we were twice granted extensions to enable our Inquiry to proceed. Each time the Inquiry was given an extension, however, it was for a shorter period than we had requested on the basis of the estimated work involved. Each 'compromise extension' left us short and generated more requests for additional time than would have been necessary if our initial time forecasts had been accepted. Adjustments to our plans or schedule were always made to respond specifically to our mandate from the Government and were communicated to and understood by the Government and officials in the Privy Council Office. As our investigation progressed we were able to move closer to the key centres of responsibility as we moved up the chain of command. Unfortunately, the Minister's decision of January 10, 1997 eliminated any possibility of pursuing this course to its logical conclusion and prevented us from expanding the focus from those who actually committed the deplorable acts in the field to those who were responsible before, during and after the Somalia mission throughout the full chain of command. The Government's decision to cut off our hearings and impose a reporting date rendered it impossible for us to address comprehensively all the matters assigned to us under our original terms of reference. Applications were brought before the Federal Court Trial Division by John Edward Dixon (a potential witness whom we concluded could not be called because of time limitations) to challenge the legality of the Government's actions. In a decision rendered on March 27, 1997, Madam Justice Sandra J. Simpson ruled that the Government's actions were ultra vires and unlawful. Essentially, her ruling meant that the Governor in Council would have two choices: to extend sufficient time to the Inquiry to complete the work set out in the terms of reference, or to revise the original terms of reference and, in so doing, limit what we would be required to cover in our report. On April 3, 1997, the Governor in Council issued another Order-in-Council recognizing "that the Commissioners will not be able to address all issues within their Mandate" (P.C. 1997-456). That Order-in-Council directed us to report on all paragraphs of our original terms of reference pertaining to the pre-deployment phase of the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia. On all other matters, we were given discretion concerning the extent to which we would inquire and report within the imposed June 30, 1997 time frame, which was again confirmed. This report, in compliance with that Order-in-Council, now addresses, in some sense, every paragraph of our original terms of reference. However, we have not been able to explore several important matters (notably, the March 16th torture death of Shidane Arone, the response of the upper echelons of National Defence Headquarters to the events of March 4th and March 16th, 1993, and allegations of high-level cover-up pertaining to those events) because of the curtailment of our mandate. The decision to impose time constraints of the kind that have been forced upon us is without precedent in any previous Canadian inquiry of this magnitude. It has compromised our search for the truth. It will also inhibit or delay corrective actions to the system that allowed these events to occur in the first place. The careful search for truth can be painstaking and, at times, frustrating. Public inquiries are equipped with the best tools our legal system can furnish for pursuing the truth, but even with access to significant procedural powers, the goal may prove elusive. Even in the areas where we were able to conduct hearings -- on the predeployment phase of the mission and part of the in-theatre phase -- we were too often frustrated by the behaviour of witnesses whose credibility must be questioned. The power to compel testimony was our principal mechanism for determining what transpired in Somalia and at National Defence Headquarters. Some 116 witnesses offered their evidence to the Inquiry in open sessions that were televised across Canada. We are cognizant of the institutional and peer pressure on witnesses appearing before us. Giving testimony before a public inquiry is a test of personal integrity that demands the moral courage to face reality and tell the truth. It also involves a readiness to be held to account and a willingness to accept the blame for one's own wrongdoing. Many soldiers, non-commissioned officers and officers have shown this kind of integrity. They have demonstrated courage and fidelity to duty, even where doing so required an acknowledgement of personal shortcomings or the expression of unwelcome criticism of the institution. These soldier-witnesses deserve society's respect and gratitude for contributing in this way to improving an institution they obviously cherish. With regret, however, we must also record that on many occasions, the testimony of witnesses before us was characterized by inconsistency, improbability, implausibility, evasiveness, selective recollection, half truths, and even plain lies. Indeed, on some issues, we encountered what can only be described as a 'wall of silence'. When several witnesses behave in this manner, the wall of silence becomes a wall of calculated deception. The proper functioning of an inquiry depends upon the truthfulness of witnesses under oath. Truthfulness under oath is the foundation of our system of justice. Some witnesses clearly flouted their oath. Perhaps more troubling is the fact that many of the witnesses who displayed these shortcomings were officers, non-commissioned members (active or retired) or senior civil servants -- individuals sworn to respect and promote the values of leadership, courage, integrity, and accountability. For these individuals, undue loyalty to a regiment or the military institution or, even worse, naked self-interest, took precedence over honesty and integrity. By conducting themselves in this manner, these witnesses have also reneged on their duty to assist this Inquiry in its endeavours. In the case of officers, such conduct is a breach of the undertakings set out in their Commissioning Scroll. Soldiers, even those of high rank, can become confused about where their ultimate loyalties reside. Loyalty to one's comrades is a high virtue. But in the larger scheme of things it must find its place among loyalty to the unit, regiment, the forces as a whole, and loyalty to one's country. Soldierly life in Canada's military is dedicated to preserving and safeguarding the national interest and civil society under the rule of law. Accountability requires submission to law and legal authority. Soldiers who are called to account may wish to protect others or lash out in anger at those to whom they must account, but military decorum and duty require the stifling of these less worthy impulses. A higher standard of conduct than this is demanded. It was for this reason that we found so disturbing the spectacle put on before us by the Canadian military's highest serving officer, the acting Chief of the Defence Staff. His display of near-contemptuous behaviour, before an inquiry established by his government to examine problems in the very institution he serves and represents, was a shocking departure from appropriate standards. As we explained to him at the time of his testimony,* this kind of behaviour represents an affront to the rule of law which, after all, is the bulwark of democracy and democratic values. It strays far from the path of military ideals that are of concern to us in this report. Our concern is not with the mere fact of contradictions in testimony. Even where all who testify speak the truth as they know it, contradictions can occur. Contradictions often relate to recollections of conversations that took place between or among people without the presence of other witnesses and without the benefit of notes. At the time, a particular conversation may have seemed unimportant. The passage of time may have driven its details from memory. We are not concerned with differences in recollection that simply reflect the frailty of human memory. We are concerned, however, with something darker than imprecision and contradiction, something closer to a pattern of evasion and deception. This appearance, which in our view surrounded many of the senior officers who testified before us, reveals much about the poor state of leadership in our armed forces and the careerist mentality that prevails among many at the Department of National Defence. These senior people are part of an elite group in which soldiers and the general public place their trust and confidence. In responding as they have, many of these senior people have failed their subordinates and betrayed the public trust. Some of them will have retired by the time this report is made public. Those who remain in senior positions in the military should have their status reviewed. We are well aware of recent private reports to the Minister of National Defence addressing issues of leadership and management in the Canadian Forces. Certainly, such studies and reports enhance the discussion. But no single study, especially one conducted behind closed doors, can detect the problems that pervade an organization such as the military and understand the organizational culture and myriad interpersonal and professional relationships within it. Only a full public examination of these issues, with an opportunity for members of the military to provide information and respond to criticism, could provide an in-depth assessment of the scope and magnitude of problems. Only a thorough analysis of the people, events and documentation involved could lead to a blueprint for meaningful change. This Commission of Inquiry was established for that exact purpose. Its truncation leaves the Canadian public and the Canadian military with many questions still unanswered. In fact, the decision itself raises all kinds of new questions about responsibility and accountability. Although we have raised concerns about the credibility of witnesses and leadership in the armed forces, it would be unfair to leave an overall impression that the mission to Somalia was a total failure. While we point out flaws in the system and shortfalls in leadership, we must acknowledge that many soldiers and commanders performed their duties with honour and integrity, even without direction from the helm. It is to the credit of these individuals and of the Canadian Forces that they were able to do so under such difficult circumstances. The good work carried out by these members of the Canadian Forces is described in this report, and we believe that public recognition of their accomplishments is warranted. Accordingly, we support strongly the issuance of appropriate medals to Canadians who served so well during this troubled mission. It is important to acknowledge the invaluable contribution that the Canadian Forces has made and continue to make on Canada's behalf. Thousands of soldiers have performed difficult and often dangerous tasks in pursuit of the nation's goals. Most often their dedication, selflessness and professionalism have been taken for granted, because these qualities were always assumed to be the norm. This is in part what made the events that are the subject of our mandate so unpalatable. It is the sharp contrast between those events and the accustomed performance of our military that elicited reactions of alarm, outrage and deep sadness among many Canadians. In the end, we are hopeful that our Inquiry will yield corrective measures to help restore the Canadian Forces to the position of honour it has held for so long. As documented in this report, the disclosure of relevant documents by the Department of National Defence to this Inquiry was often a seriously flawed and deficient process. During our mandate, we attempted to make available as many documents as possible for public reference. It is our hope that concerned Canadians will continue to study those documents and will use our report to guide them in their search for the truth about the actions and events associated with the deployment of Canadian military personnel to Somalia. ----- * See testimony of VAdm Murray, Transcripts of Evidentiary Hearings, volume 153, pp. 31281-31283. INTRODUCTION In the spring, summer, and fall of 1992, the United Nations, concerned about the breakdown of national government in Somalia and the spectre of famine there, sought international help to restore some semblance of law and order in Somalia and feed its starving citizens. Canada, among other nations, was asked to help. After months of planning and training, and after a change in the nature of the United Nations mission from a peacekeeping mission to a peace enforcement mission, Canadian Forces personnel, as part of a coalition of forces led by the United States, were deployed for service to Somalia, mainly in December 1992. Many of the Canadian personnel involved in the deployment belonged to the Canadian Airborne Regiment Battle Group, itself made up largely of soldiers from the Canadian Airborne Regiment (a paratroop battalion), with other army personnel added to it, including A Squadron, an armoured car squadron from the Royal Canadian Dragoons, a mortar platoon from 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, and an engineer squadron from 2 Combat Engineer Regiment. On the night of March 16-17, 1993, near the city of Belet Huen, Somalia, soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment beat to death a bound 16-year-old Somali youth, Shidane Arone. Canadians were shocked, and they began to ask hard questions. How could Canadian soldiers beat to death a young man held in their custody? Was the Canadian Airborne Regiment suitable or operationally ready to go to Somalia? Was racism a factor in improper conduct within the Regiment? Before long, Canadian media began to publicize accounts of other incidents involving questionable conduct by Canadian soldiers in Somalia. Major Barry Armstrong, surgeon to the Canadian Airborne Regiment, acting in fulfilment of his military duties, alleged that an earlier incident on March 4, 1993, where an intruder was shot dead and another was wounded by Canadian Airborne soldiers, appeared to have been an execution-style killing. And so, other questions arose: Were incidents in Somalia covered up and, if so, how far up the chain of command did the cover-up extend? Did the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence respond appropriately to the allegations of cover-up? And perhaps most problematic of all, were the mistreatment of Shidane Arone and other incidents of misconduct caused by a few "bad apples", or were they symptomatic of deeper institutional problems in the Canadian military at the time -- problems relating to command and control, accountability, leadership, or training? If so, did these problems still exist? The Canadian Forces responded in many ways to the death of Shidane Arone and other incidents that occurred in Somalia. Several courts martial, arising mostly though not exclusively from misconduct relating to the death of Shidane Arone, were launched and concluded. A court martial trial began against Master Corporal Clayton Matchee, the person who allegedly beat Shidane Arone to death. The trial did not proceed, however, because injuries resulting from an apparent suicide attempt rendered MCpl Matchee unfit to stand trial. The most prominent court martial was arguably that of Private Kyle Brown, who was convicted of manslaughter and torture in the death of Mr. Arone. In some cases, appeals of the courts martial arising from the Somalia operation were launched. Other individuals involved suffered sanctions less severe than imprisonment upon conviction. But perhaps more important, the Canadian Forces recognized the need for additional measures to respond to public concern about what happened in Somalia. Accordingly, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces appointed an internal board of inquiry under section 45 of the National Defence Act to look into issues arising from the Somalia operation. The board conducted the first phase of its work from April to July 1993. The board's final report made several recommendations for change. However, its terms of reference were restricted in two ways. First, to avoid challenges to its jurisdiction under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was essentially precluded from looking into incidents that could give rise to court martial proceedings. As its terms of reference said, "[n]o inquiry shall be made into any allegation of conduct that would be a service offence under the National Defence Act, and in particular any Criminal Code offence, that has resulted in the laying of a charge, the arrest of a person or the ordering of a military police investigation."1 Second, its focus was on issues such as leadership and discipline relating to the CARBG, which included the antecedents of the CARBG in Canada and higher headquarters in Somalia before and during its deployment there.2 Thus, it had no authority to look into the actions or omissions of persons at the highest levels of the chain of command within the Canadian Forces. As well, the hearings were not open to the public. It was intended that there would be a second phase of the inquiry to address issues not addressed in its first phase.3 Critics argued that an open inquiry was needed to get to the truth of what happened and why. Representatives of the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition at the time the board of inquiry was established, argued for an open public inquiry under the National Defence Act.4 When the Liberals gained power after the 1993 federal election, they continued to express this view.5 However, as more revelations suggesting possible cover-up and other disclosures were made, the Government eventually decided to establish a public inquiry independent of the military that would have the power to subpoena witnesses not belonging to the military. As a result, on March 20, 1995, this Commission of Inquiry, governed by the federal Inquiries Act, was created.6 The act sets out the statutory powers and responsibilities of inquiries, generally giving us broad powers to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of documents.7 APPROACH OF THE INQUIRY Our Inquiry carried out its work under three closely interrelated components, each assigned a specific task. The three prongs were investigation, research, and hearings. The work was allocated among these three areas to ensure that the results of their efforts, when combined, would address in full each and every aspect of the terms of reference. Our Investigative Team methodically sought factual evidence by studying over 150,000 documents and interviewing hundreds of potential witnesses in a relentless search for the truth. In parallel, our Research Team carried out an exhaustive comparative assessment of rules and policies affecting military operations and decision making. The third component of our approach, the part that was most visible to the public, was our hearings. The hearings were divided into two parts: policy hearings and evidentiary hearings. Following procedural hearings on May 24, 1995, we held policy hearings during the week of June 19, 1995, at which the parties and the Department of National Defence (DND) presented policy submissions on a number of issues. Those hearings were limited strictly to receiving evidence on policy issues necessary to enable the Commission of Inquiry to clarify its mandate. The purpose of the evidentiary hearings was to elicit and probe litigious facts or those that could be established only through testimonial evidence. They commenced on October 2, 1995, beginning with hearings on the pre-deployment phase of the Somalia mission. Extensive hearings on the in- theatre phase of the deployment commenced on April 1, 1996. An unanticipated phase of the hearings, commenced on April 15, 1996, related to difficulties we had experienced in obtaining documents from DND and its Directorate General of Public Affairs (DGPA). This phase lasted more than five months, with many witnesses testifying on matters related to the handling of documents within DND, the CF and the DGPA. As a result of the Government s decision to order the early termination of the Commission of Inquiry,8 it was not possible to complete our hearings on some of the events and actions in theatre and on some of the issues arising in the post-deployment phase. Nevertheless, we are confident that during our mandate we heard and reviewed sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence on a comparative basis to enable us to address the institutional and systemic problems we were asked to investigate in our terms of reference. INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE The scope of a public inquiry is determined by its terms of reference, and ours were detailed and complex.9 Essentially, they required us to examine several major matters, such as the chain of command as it applied to the Somalia operation, and the leadership shown before, during and after the Somalia operation. The terms of reference were divided into two parts. The first part contained a broad opening paragraph, generally requiring us to inquire into and report on the chain of command system, leadership within the chain of command, discipline, operations, actions and decisions of the Canadian Forces, and actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence in respect of the Somalia operation. The terms of reference stated clearly that our investigation need not be limited to the details and issues set out in subsequent paragraphs. The second part required us to look at specific matters relating to the pre-deployment, in-theatre, and post- theatre phases of the Somalia operation. Specific pre-deployment issues (before January 10, 1993) included the suitability of the Canadian Airborne Regiment for service in Somalia; the operational readiness of the