Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Allow me to reread the motion put forward by my colleague that we are here to discuss today:That, following the public statement of March 6 by Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould offering to provide more information to Canadians should it be requested, the committee request that she appear no later than Thursday, March 14.
It's a straightforward motion and it echoes what the people we've talked to have called for repeatedly in recent days and weeks, not to mention the commentators.
Why was Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould prevented from giving her full account of the events that have brought us to this point?
The government would have us believe that nothing untoward happened, that it was simply cabinet business as usual, that things were discussed and that those discussions were interpreted differently by different people. The government claims that, from time to time, situations like that occur. That's not what occurred, though. What occurred was that people resigned. A minister was demoted. Another minister quit. The Prime Minister's top adviser quit. This whole affair has gotten so bad that even the Prime Minister's confidence has been shaken.
Why do we need to hear from Ms. Wilson-Raybould again? The answer is simple: she, herself, said that she wasn't able to tell the full story. She was restricted in what she could say when she appeared before the committee on February 27; she was allowed to discuss only some of what happened in relation to the matter before us.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to refer to the letter she sent you on February 26, in which she talked about her upcoming appearance, on February 27. With respect to the order from the Prime Minister allowing her to speak about some of the elements in question, she said this:…does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as Minister of Veterans Affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to Cabinet after I had resigned. Further, the letter indicates this:…the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of Attorney General.
If Minister Wilson-Raybould indicated that she couldn't discuss matters that occurred after she left the post of Attorney General, it means that something happened. There's more to the story. It just so happened that we heard from other individuals on those very matters. Mr. Butts and Mr. Trudeau referred to the matters that occurred after January 14. Unfortunately, Ms. Wilson-Raybould advised you, in her February 26 letter, that she wasn't able to discuss those matters because she wasn't authorized to do so under the order in council.
I'd like to revisit what Ms. Wilson-Raybould said, on February 27, in response to questions from my fellow member Lisa Raitt. I'll be citing parts of that exchange.
Hon. Lisa Raitt: For clarity, can you tell us what you discussed with the Prime Minister at your meetings in Vancouver on February 11? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: I cannot. Hon. Lisa Raitt: Can you tell us why you've resigned from cabinet? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: I cannot. Hon. Lisa Raitt: Can you tell us what was discussed with the cabinet on February 19? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: I cannot.
This next exchange demonstrates that Ms. Wilson-Raybould is willing to speak:
Hon. Lisa Raitt: If the issues surrounding your ability to communicate these conversations to this committee were resolved and you were able to be released from cabinet confidence or from privilege, would you be willing to return to this committee and give us testimony again? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: I would be.
Clearly, Ms. Wilson-Raybould has more to say. Clearly, there are people right now who would prefer that she not speak. Clearly, there are people here with the ability to make sure Ms. Wilson-Raybould has the opportunity to give Canadians the full story, her full truth, in terms of how she perceived the situation and what she experienced.
It's very easy for the Prime Minister to tell the government members to allow the committee to hear from Ms. Wilson-Raybould again and to lift the restrictions on what she can say, so that Canadians can finally know Ms. Wilson-Raybould's full side of the story. It makes no sense to allow individuals to speak to the events in question when the person at the centre of the matter isn't allowed to appear before the committee and speak to those same events.
Mr. Chair, some key details elude us. They are relevant to this matter and are currently being covered up. A lot of people are going to great lengths to ensure that information doesn't come out. I've been all over this past week and spoken to many a Canadian, both in my riding and in other regions. They all want to hear Ms. Wilson-Raybould's truth.
Why would the committee, which has agreed to allow certain facts to be laid bare, not allow Ms. Wilson-Raybould to appear again? The Prime Minister should send a clear signal to the members of the committee that he will authorize Ms. Wilson-Raybould to give her full side of the story so Canadians can have the whole truth. That is crucial. For that reason, I will be voting for the motion. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, he shouldn't be worried about what Ms. Wilson-Raybould will say.