Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has almost achieved his objective of burying his involvement in the suppression of Canadian freedom of expression at APEC. The Prime Minister has said that he does not have to go and testify at the commission because he can reply to questions in the House.
There are two important differences between the House and the APEC Inquiry. First, the inquiry witnesses are under oath. Second, witnesses may be cross-examined with direct challenges to their testimony.
Obviously the commissioner feels that testifying under oath, providing detailed answers and being cross-examined are what the Prime Minister needs to do in order to avoid a cloud of public suspicion over the APEC inquiry.
Understandably, complainants are withdrawing from the process in Vancouver today. The use of the Public Complaints Commission has been a smokescreen for the Prime Minister and his office all the way along. The Prime Minister will not testify with the excuse that he will set a precedent for future prime ministers. Well the Prime Minister has already set the precedent, one of arrogance.