Article content continued

But Wernick’s answer, to summarize, was yes there was certainly pressure and lots of it and no, it was neither inappropriate nor unlawful.

“I’m quite sure the minister felt pressure,” Wernick said, meaning pressure “to get it right.” He exerted some of his own, in fact.

He said he called Wilson-Raybould last Dec. 19 to check on a number of issues, among them the SNC file.

He told her some of her colleagues and the PM were quite concerned with what they were reading in the business press (SNC was loudly fretting about the effects of the prosecution upon shareholders, workers and indeed the company’s very future, and lobbying anything with a pulse) and wondered whether a DPA was still an option.

“If she (Wilson-Raybould) felt (the pressure was untoward or improper) in September, October, November, December,” Wernick said, “she had recourse.

Wernick’s answer, to summarize, was yes there was certainly pressure and lots of it and no, it was neither inappropriate nor unlawful

“She could have called the ethics commissioner any time, any day.

“She could have called the Prime Minister (He is apparently reachable to ministers pretty much 24-7).

“There were several cabinet meetings (in that period); she could have asked for a pull-aside. There were multiple occasions where she could have (done something).”

Wernick didn’t explicitly say this, but a reasonable reading of the whole of his testimony is that to his knowledge, and he has a firm grasp of most files, Wilson-Raybould didn’t suffer any undue influence or intimidation – nothing that, as a capable minister, she shouldn’t have been able to handle.