Mr. Speaker, what is troubling is not the situation itself, but all of the different versions we have been hearing since this whole thing began.
In two weeks, we have heard no fewer than five versions, including the fact that if the member for Central Nova had not stepped down, the former justice minister would still be on the job. This makes no sense.
At the end of the day, if the Prime Minister did nothing wrong, if there was not any undue influence, he could have said so. I think that he could trust in the good faith of the former justice minister to confirm this, since the two versions must be fairly similar.
A meeting in which a minister of justice asks for advice from her office is warranted. Having directives and pressure from the Prime Minister or his office is what makes the difference.
If there was indeed no undue influence, if there was simply a discussion between the two parties, then the versions should be consistent. However, we will never know, if the former justice minister does not have the permission to speak. This will require waiving the solicitor-client privilege.