Thread by @mspratt

As I sit down to write a piece on yesterdays stunning testimony of Michael Wernick on the Joy Wilson-Raybold / #SNCLavalin affair here are some not so hot takes: ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/…

There does not need to be much daylight between what Warnick said & what JWR will say for there to be a big problems.

Starting point: Warnick is not a neutral witness. He may not have been partisan but he is clearly very loyal to the government. And HIS conduct and reputation is very in question too.

Warnick did say that there was "no inappropriate pressure on the minister at any time." But he was not present for all the meetings. And this is simply his opinion about the ultimate issue - not a fact. So lets look at the facts as we know them:

Warnick did provide more details about the timeline and this is where the problem starts. September 4th the decision was made by the director of public prosecutions to not proceed with deferred prosecution agreement.

Sept 17 - the PM called a meeting with JWR. She did not seek advice the PM raised the SNC issue - after the DPA decision had been made. There was a "vigorous debate" according to Liberal sources. The PM clearly did not agree with JWR decision. JWR asked if there was a direction.

Spet 18 - the next day Warnick met with SNC to fill them in of the details of that meeting. He said there would be no overturning and SNC's only route was through the courts. I am no expert on cabinet confidence - but is that normal? It does seem to be quite the personal touch.

Then there was a Dec 5 meeting between Butts and JWR where SNC was discussed. Again JWR had made a decision. There has already been a discussion. Why did Butts meet with JWR. What did Butts say (he did after all resign). But Wernick was not there and Butts is not a witness.

Then there was ANOTHER meeting on Dec 18 between the PMO & JWR's chief of staff about SNC. Warnick was not there and does not know what was said. But why all these meetings if the decision was the JWR alone & had already been made and there was no pressure to change the decision?

Then on Dec 19 - the next day - Wernick initiates a meeting with JWR about SNC. He tells her that "her colleagues and the Prime Minister were quite anxious” and “a lot of people worried about what would happen"and raised the consequences for workers/suppliers/communities

Perhaps the discussion with the PM was a perfectly appropriate vigorous debate. Maybe the second and third time the PMO goes to JWR was pressure but not "inappropriate pressure". But at some point, say by the time Wernick goes to JWR there is a good argument the line was crossed

And lets not forget in essence, during that last meeting Wernick was asking JWR to consider the national economic interest - a factor that explicitly CANNOT be taken into account. So not only the context but the content of that conversation seems inappropriate.

And Wernick's evidence compresses the time line of this whole debacle. His meeting with JWR was on Dec 19. Maybe this was the straw that broken the camels back - because days latter JWR was shuffled. More likely the two things are related given the proximity?

So Wernick may say there was no wrong doing and no line was crossed - but the facts that he testified too don't seem to lead to that conclusion at all. A conclusion that would be damning to the government and him.

In essence JWR could basically adopt Wernick's evidence and there is still a very bad not good problem here. But I guess we need to wait to Tuesday to see if it is just bad for the government or ver very very bad.

*Jody Wilson-Raybould*