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.