News

Former senior diplomat Richard Colvin alleges that he warned the government that prisoners turned over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops were being tortured. The government agency responsible for investigating had been stonewalled and got nowhere. Senior officials and military personnel deny any knowledge. The Minister of Defence trashes the messenger. The opposition and media demand a public inquiry.

Sound familiar? Consider these comparable situations.

A Polish visitor to Canada dies at the Vancouver airport after being restrained and “tasered” by the police. A former prime minister receives secret cash payments from a government lobbyist. Canadian officials are implicated in the detention of a citizen in New York, who is then sent to Syria, imprisoned and tortured. People suddenly become sick and die because of the contamination of a community's public water supply. A teenager is tortured and killed by Canadian troops deployed in Somalia. Air India, sponsorship, wrongful convictions ...

Common to all of these examples is that the Canadian public did not trust ordinary government institutions or processes to tell them how such extraordinary events could happen. What went wrong? Who was responsible? How can this be avoided in future? In each case, a commission of inquiry was established.

But what exactly is a public inquiry? Where does it “fit” in law and government? What do commissions offer that other public institutions can't deliver? Why does the public trust them? Why do governments expose themselves to investigation and criticism?

The commission of inquiry is a “residual institution” in the machinery of government. It is authorized by a statute created by the legislative branch and invoked sporadically by the executive branch, but it operates independently of both. It is a response to public expectations or demands. In the words of former Supreme Court of Canada judge Peter Cory: “One of the primary functions of public inquiries is fact-finding. They are often convened in the wake of public shock, horror, disillusionment and skepticism, in order to find the truth.”

They simply find facts and make recommendations, but they have five features that inspire public confidence. Other institutions have some but not all of these features.

A fundamental feature is the independence of the commissioner, who has no vested interest in the outcome and will simply let the chips fall where they may. It is not an internal investigation that could be perceived as trying to protect the people or institutions that are under scrutiny. Nor does a public inquiry have the partisan nature of legislative committee hearings. Often a judge is appointed to enhance the perception of independence, and it is then informally described as a “judicial inquiry.”

A second feature is the effectiveness of the commissioner to get to the bottom of the problem. All other professional obligations are set aside and all available energy and time are devoted to the inquiry. Resources and staff are provided to create a team that gives intense and undivided attention to the mission. This is a luxury that other officials and institutions seldom can afford.

The public also will draw confidence from the terms of reference or mandate, which is designed to address the specific issues and questions that cause public concern. This mandate itself will be the subject of media and public scrutiny.

A fourth feature is the broad investigative powers to compel the production of documents and the testimony of witnesses. A trial judge is a passive observer who is bound by the issues between the parties, pleadings or charge. A commissioner can go where the mandate and evidence lead.

The final feature that inspires public confidence is transparency. Hearings are conducted in public, often televised, and now often are available online. They receive extensive media coverage and public comment. In contrast, a criminal investigation is usually conducted in private until a charge is laid.

The decision to establish a public inquiry is inherently political. It may take the heat off a government that is under strong attack, especially when critics demand a full inquiry. Once that demand is met, those critics are bound to wait for the inquiry's report before expecting a further government response. But during the hearings and in the final report, the government loses control of the information made public and how it is expressed. Both the proceedings and findings may reflect badly on the government.

The government must first assess its exposure and alternatives. A resignation may suffice. Does the problem have “legs,” or can the government simply repeat its response until the media and public grow tired of the issue? Does it risk being hammered with criticism only to have to succumb anyway? There are many ramifications.

Commissions of inquiry are sometimes criticized for their delay and cost, but that is usually a problem with how they are conducted rather than with the institution itself. They have made an invaluable contribution to Canada since Lord Durham and, inevitably, they will continue to do so in future.

Ed Ratushny is a law professor at the University of Ottawa and author of The Conduct Of Public Inquiries.