On May 1, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, which exploded in mid-air on June 23, 1985.

Only one person was ever convicted in the plot (Inderjit Singh Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received a five-year sentence) and the RCMP's two main surviving suspects were both acquitted in March 2005, after a 19-month trial. Many relatives of the 329 victims, who included 280 Canadians, had long called for a public inquiry into the police investigation.

The demand gained force after it was backed by former Ontario premier Bob Rae, who led a federal review that concluded in late 2005 that there should be an administrative inquiry, not a public one, which would not have the power of subpoena. The Liberal government accepted that recommendation in November 2005. After the Conservatives took power, however, Harper called a full, public judicial inquiry.

When Harper called the inquiry, he said: "This inquiry is not a matter of reprisal, nor is it intended to go back over the criminal trial. It is about finding answers to several key questions about the worst mass murder in Canadian history."

Who's running the inquiry?

John Major, who retired as a Supreme Court of Canada justice in 2005, is heading the current inquiry, which will consider evidence that surfaced in the police investigation. Before the inquiry began, he held meetings with victims' families across the country.

The lead counsel in the inquiry is Mark Freiman, a Toronto attorney and former deputy attorney general of Ontario. Michel Dorval, a former Crown prosecutor for the attorney general of Quebec, will be co-counsel.

When and where is the inquiry taking place?

The inquiry officially opened in Ottawa on June 21, 2006, and was attended by about 80 relatives of the victims. The first three hearing dates were on July 18, 19 and 20. The inquiry began hearing evidence on Sept. 25, 2006.

Major has said he plans to end inquiry hearings in June 2007, with a final report in September.

A mandate for the inquiry is to look into the jurisdictional problems that arose between the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, problems which hampered the initial investigation of the bombing.

In the first phase, in September and October 2006, the inquiry heard testimony from the victims' family members and the emergency workers who recovered bodies.

A second phase examining how authorities responded to the threat of Sikh terrorism and how to protect witnesses in anti-terrorist investigations cases was to have begun in November 2006. This phase will also be examining issues of airport security and the financial operations of extremist groups.

CBC reporter Terry Milewski holds a document with areas blacked out before it was released to the Air India Inquiry. (CBC)

But the second phase has been delayed by disputes between the inquiry and the government over the redaction of documents from the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In some cases, entire pages were blacked out.

"I have reached the conclusion that if the documents remain in a manner of speaking blacked out, there is no way I can carry out my mandate," said Major in February 2007.

Major halted the inquiry's proceedings until early March. The inquiry will also start to hear testimony on how to better protect witnesses in anti-terrorist investigations.

Who is appearing before the inquiry?

During the first three hearing dates, the judge heard from people who wanted standing at the inquiry — in other words, to be deemed clearly affected and allowed to participate — and funding for legal representation.

At the first hearing on July 18, Major agreed that the federal government, Air India and representatives of the victims' families in Canada and India would be able to participate.

At the second hearing, Ripudaman Singh Malik, one of the two men acquitted when the criminal trial ended in early 2005, applied for standing at the inquiry.

Malik won the right to limited participation in the inquiry and Major granted him intervener status after Malik's lawyers argued that he needed to be able to "confront any evidence that may impugn his character" during the inquiry.

Ajaib Singh Bagri, the other man acquitted in the criminal trial, did not apply.

On October 3, 2006, Bob Rae, who carried out the fact-finding investigation for the federal government that led to the inquiry, testified.

While baggage and passenger screening levels have "improved significantly" in Canadian airports, Rae said the lack of consistency in security at airports around the world is still a grave concern.

Although Major said it's "hard not to share" an impression held by some of the families of the victims that race played a factor in how the investigation was handled, Rae said he found no evidence of racism among government officials, police and intelligence officers during his preliminary investigation. But he noted "culturally driven" issues, such as delays of several weeks in translating wiretap surveillance tapes of the bombing suspects from Punjabi into English.

What does the inquiry hope to accomplish?

The inquiry's terms of reference say it will seek to address the following questions:

• Whether any systemic issues relating to the assessment of the potential threat posed by Sikh terrorism prior to 1985, and the response to that threat by Canadian government officials, have been resolved and, if not, the further changes in practice or legislation that are required to resolve them.
• Whether any systemic problems in the effective co-operation between government departments and agencies … in the investigation of the bombing of Air India Flight 182 … have been resolved and, if not, the further changes in practice or legislation that are required to resolve them.
• The manner in which the Canadian government should address the challenge, as revealed by the investigation and prosecutions in the Air India matter, of establishing a reliable and workable relationship between security intelligence and evidence that can be used in a criminal trial.
• Whether Canada's existing legal framework provides adequate constraints on terrorist financing in, from or through Canada.
• Whether existing practices or legislation provide adequate protection for witnesses against intimidation in the course of the investigation or prosecution of terrorism cases.
• Whether the unique challenges presented by the prosecution of terrorism cases are adequately addressed by existing practices or legislation and, if not, the changes in practice or legislation that are required to address these challenges….
• Whether further changes in practice or legislation are required to address the specific aviation security breaches associated with the Air India Flight 182 bombing.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]