On public inquiries, the independence thereof

November 21, 2006:

MR. T. MARSHALL: Public inquiries are semi-independent. While the government dictates the mandate and the purpose of the inquiry, as well as its makeup and budget, the inquiry then, and the commissioners who make up the inquiry, are free to manage their own day-to-day activities and to form its own conclusions and recommendations within the mandate that the government has given to it.

Public inquiries are also very open. They are in a public nature and the public is not only allowed but the public is, indeed, encouraged to provide evidence or testimony before the inquiry. The reports, of course, of the public inquiry are generally made available to the public and, indeed, in this legislation that we are bringing forward, it is mandatory for any public inquiry, for any commission of inquiry, for any inquiry to make its report public.

...

It might be helpful for people watching, it might even be helpful for some members of this House, that different inquiries have different names. We notice that some are called Royal Commissions, others are called commissions of inquiry, others are simply called task forces. This gives you the impression that they are all different, they are different sources of inquiries. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the case. The only real difference is that a Royal Commission bears the Royal seal while the others do not. Whether a public inquiry bears the royal seal or whether it does not has no bearing on the power of a commission. A Royal Commission can be either a policy review or a factual inquiry. The same is true for a commission of inquiry and for task forces. All three are invested with exactly the same powers. So, in the end, the title that an inquiry is given is not important. What is important depends solely on the predilections of the government that has created it and the powers that they give to it.