93

Benjamin Perrin: ‘I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision’

PM’s former legal advisor responds to CTV report


 

A statement from Benjamin Perrin, former legal advisor to the Prime Minister, in regards to last night’s story from CTV.

Last night’s CTV story in relation to me, which is based on unattributed sources, is false.

I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s expenses.

I have never communicated with the Prime Minister on this matter.

In all my work, I have been committed to making our country a better place and I hope my record of service speaks for itself.


 

Benjamin Perrin: ‘I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision’

  1. How sad that news outlets such as CTV must resort to taking rumours to facts! Could CTV not have asked Perrin about his involvement or not before they reported the rumours as facts?

    Talk about trying to do drive-by-smears!

    The public will grow tired of this sort of reporting and drive-by-smears. No wonder the PM decided to take a break from this rubbish of reporting!

    • This is nothing knew particularly from the guy who called Conservatives knuckle draggers. This is the problem with unnamed sources. Anybody can say anything and attribute it to anonymous sources. I have learned not to trust the media in Canada and this is clear evidence of why there is a distrust among the public about politics and the media.

      • Why do you think I keep showing up here if it were not for trying to keep the press honest. At least I’m trying! :))

        What a pathetic behaviour by the Canadian media!

        • Stop carping. Neither you nor your soulmate, Mervin, has yet bothered to instruct the misguided wretches toiling for the media how to do their jobs better.

          • I will stop posting when I feel the need to stop posting, not because you tell me to stop.

            In several of my posts I have written about what to do differently in order to report more objectively. One thing is for the press to wait until more information comes out before acting on rumours and gossip.

          • I didn’t tell you to stop posting. I told you to stop carping.

            In your mission to achieve more objectivity in public discourse, perhaps you could set an example yourself, by being more charitable, fair-minded, and less insinuatory (I’m pleased to introduce a new word to the English language here) in your comments about your own boy-fetish, JT.

    • If you read the CTV article you would see that they made several efforts to contact him last week and yesterday. Surprisingly, he decided he’d rather send out a mealy-mouthed press release that, for some reason, you seem to consider an exoneration.

      • Why did CTV feel the need to go with a rumour?

        Why tarnish people’s reputations?

        Why would Rob Fife (the breaker of the Duffy story, as we have heard many times now!! oh, how proud CTV is of Robert Fife!) not go after facts?

        Why would Robert Fife not go after combing through Justin Trudeau’s public expense account to see how that lines up with Trudeau’s private speaking engagements?

        Rob Fife could find the mother load right there!

        • Francien, how do you know whether it is a “rumour” or not? You blindly accept someone’s denial of the situation as fact?

          • So you are ok with CTV doing some quick drive-by-smears?

            I am not ok with that!

          • Please explain how the CTV story is wrong. Please explain where EXACTLY Perrin has denied that he helped draft the letter of understanding that stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

            I’ll wait.

          • And I will wait until people are proven guilty.

            And I will not tolerate drive-by-smears just to get a story out.

            And I will expect better from the press.

            And I will not fall into your trap of trying to speak on CTV’s or Perrin’s behalf. CTV has said what they felt was necessary to say and Perrin has said what he felt was necessary to say.

            I believe in considering people innocent until proven guilty. Because that is what I really believe. It may take time, more time then you are willing to give it, but I will have the patience to let guilt be proven before I render a verdict.

          • You claim the CTV story is wrong. I’m just trying to find out how you come to that conclusion. No trap.

            Perrin says he hid not participate in Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque. I agree. I’m sure he’s being completely honest about that.

            Explain pleae how CTV is wrong when it said that Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy. This has nothing to do with what Perrin claimed above. Nobody claimed he participated in Wright’s decision.

          • CTV is wrong and was wrong in mentioning names when going on a fishing expedition. Just because CTV journalists (and many, many others) find it unbelievable that Wright could have acted on his own, does not mean Wright could not have acted on his own!

            Baird has said today that two independent officials are looking into the dealings between Wright and Duffy. Such an approach seems entirely fair to me. Let the investigation begin. I have no problem with that.

            And in the meantime, reporters at CTV could start investigating Justin’s public expense account in relation to Justin’s private speaking engagements for which he got paid handsomely!

            There are lots of politician worthy of investigating. And when the two officials come back with their report on the Wright/Duffy case, we will have a chance to discuss that investigation further.

            I understand that we live in minute by minute news cycle. Not easy for the press and not easy for the politician. But patience, as I have been trying to point out to you, is a virtue. Try it!

          • I’ll try one more time. Please reply directly to the following, without bringing Justin Trudeau, or other politicians, or explanations of the news cycle into it:

            Perrin says he hid not participate in Nigel Wright’s decision to
            write a personal cheque. I agree. I’m sure he’s being completely
            honest about that.

            Explain please how CTV is wrong when it said that Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that stipulated that a Senate
            investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

          • Warning: repeat minus the Justin problem:

            “CTV is wrong and was wrong in mentioning names when going on a
            fishing expedition. Just because CTV journalists (and many, many others) find it unbelievable that Wright could have acted on his own, does not mean Wright could not have acted on his own!

            Baird has said today that two independent officials are looking into
            the dealings between Wright and Duffy. Such an approach seems entirely fair to me. Let the investigation begin. I have no problem with that.

            And when the two officials come back with their report on the
            Wright/Duffy case, we will have a chance to discuss that investigation
            further.”

          • So you seem to be saying that CTV was wrong, because the investigation has just begun so we don’t know that facts yet.

            That about right? Then how do you know they are wrong? If we don’t have all the facts yet?

            But both Perrin’s and CTV’s statements can both be correct simultaneously. Can you understand the nuance of the wording in Perrin’s statement?

          • CTV is wrong because they mention names without knowing the facts!

            That’s considered a drive-by-smear while being on a fishing expedition!

            I don;t like that kind of unethical reporting. But hey, if you like it, go tell people all about it how ethical CTV is while doing their job! Quite the standard you set for the press!

          • FACT: CTV’s source says Benjamin Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that called for
            Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money. In return,
            sources say, Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy to cover the
            $90,000.

            FACT: Perrin says ‘I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s expenses.’

            He did not participate IN NIGEL WRIGHT’S DECISION. However, he did HELP DRAFT THE LETTER. These two things are not mutually exclusive. They are both correct. Pretending otherwise, or saying that we should wait for a 2 year investigation to be over is missing the point. Badly.

          • Two independent officials, such as the Senate ethics committee and the Senate committee that deals with Senators’ expenses. Oh joy, we will have Conservatives investigating Conservatives. I wonder how that will play out!!

          • Hey Francien, you state that you “wait until people are proven guilty”. You have already rendered your verdict by stating:

            “How sad that news outlets such as CTV must resort to taking rumours to facts! Could CTV not have asked Perrin about his involvement or not before they reported the rumours as facts?”
            Your verdict: the CTV story is a “rumour”, and that Perrin’s denial is “fact”. That makes your intial comment dishonest.

          • Up to now, all CTV has in regards to the Duffy/Wright deal is guesses and rumours. Nothing of substance to deliver by CTV. If they has something of substance to offer, they would have done so already!

          • The Duffy/Wright deal happened months ago. Wright wrote Duffy a cheque, even though Duffy tried to deny this by claiming that he got a bank loan. OOOpppps!! That didn’t work out too well. Why would Wright step down if he didn’t write the cheque? The embers are hot and it appears that there is plenty of fresh firewood. Harper should have called for an independent inquiry, and the fact that he didn’t, suggests that there are more skeletons in the closet.

          • I believe in considering people innocent until proven guilty.

            You mean, unless they work for CTV News.

            ‘Cause in that case you seem to be more than wiling to convict them of engaging in “drive by smears” without waiting for any proof that their reporting was inaccurate.

          • You assume that this is a “drive-by-smear”, which demonstrates your total commital to the denial made by Benjamin Perrin. Your blind faith does not make your claim true.

          • How wrong you are. CTV has nothing but heresay, rumour and guesses to go on but still feels the need to throw out names like Perrin. CTV has a lot to answer for!

          • I think you are delusional Francien. You say I am wrong but you can’t prove that. You say that CTV is engaging in “hearsay, rumour and guesses”, and you can’t prove that either. If anything, you are smearing CTV with your words. I certainly cannot claim what is true and what isn’t true with these new allegations, but one thing has been consistent, the fire has spread and the flames are licking at the door of 24 Sussex.

            I hope they keep searching for the truth, and I hope they find it.

          • Actually I am certain I am not delusional. I know for certain that CTV is guessing at what went on exactly, because if they has solid proof of anything that went on, they would have stuck to one particular story, and CTV has been all over the map on this one.

            I also hope they keep searching for the truth. And I, for one, will accept the truth when it comes out. Will you accept the truth when it stands before you, eventually?

          • Actually I am certain I am not delusional.

            That’s exactly what a delusional person would say.

          • Unless you were in the room seeing her type that post, then it’s all hearsay.

          • If anyone is “guessing” here Francien, it is you. You claim that you “know for certain that CTV is guessing”, based on your opinion, not on fact. That is delusional thinking. I am afraid that when the truth is presented, you won’t recognize it as “truth”. So far, this scandal has exposed 3 Conservative Senators and Harper’s Chief of Staff. I truly believe that there is much more to this than meets the eye.

          • Drive by smears on CTV? Got Duffy appointed to the Senate.

          • And such a cleverly worded denial as well!

          • I’m still not convinced that Perrin has technically denied helping to draft the written agreement.

      • I agree Ollie. Denial does not mean that it did not happen.

    • “Attempts to reach Perrin via email and telephone last week and on Monday were unsuccessful.”

      • It was the long weekend! Not surprising that Perrin could not be reached.

        Why could CTV not have waited for a confirmation before running with the rumour?

        Why do you feel the need to defend the ethical standards of CTV?????

    • Francien, does it bug you that you can’t make use of a travel expense claim form when so many other people involved in government propaganda can? I mean, you’re pretty much stuck in one place, and air travel is so expensive.

    • check out the latest news about what nigel’s statements to rcmp say. specifically this: Wright further advised the RCMP that he told Gerstein and three people in the Prime Minister’s Office of his intention to personally make the payment: Wright’s executive assistant, David van Hemmen; the prime minister’s counsel, Benjamin Perrin; and PMO issues management director Chris Woodcock.

  2. I wonder how long it will take for people here and elsewhere in the press to start apologizing.

    • Probably a long time, because personally, I don’t think you have the class to apologize ever.

  3. it’s called “rope a dope”,
    once again our msm is proven to be a dope.
    Oh, and that apology for smearing the reputations of citizens, yah as if the media is ever sorry for smearing a Conservative.

  4. Stay tuned. This story has swung back and forth more than a grandfather clock.

    • But it will be the press paying the price, not Harper!

      The press was so surprised when Christy Clark won the BC election of late. But it was Christy Clark who went after Dix in a manner of how the press had gone after Clark.

      Good for Christy Clark to have seen in time that the press is the unethical part in all of this! Shame on them!

  5. Not over by a longshot. This mess has been turned over to the very people who are now part of the story. Epic Fail!

  6. The initial CTV story said:

    “Benjamin Perrin HELPED DRAFT the letter of understanding that called for
    Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money.”

    Perrin Said “I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s DECISION TO WRITE a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s
    expenses.

    I’m sure he did not participate in Wright’s DECISION to write the cheque. I’m also sure he did HELP DRAFT the letter of understanding.

    His words are very carefully chosen, don’t you think?

    • Oh, my god! You still take CTV’s unethical behaviour over that of Perrin.

      I had no idea your taste in journalism was that off putting.

      • You don’t know me. And attacking me personally does not address the point at hand.

        • I am not attacking you personally. I am merely commenting on your point of view!

          A point of view which you laid bare yourself!

  7. It is interesting that this lawyer does not simply deny any and all involvement of any kind in any matter involving Duffy and Wright (and maybe the PMO).

    It would be shorter and, if true, more precise.

    All he says is that he did not participate in the “decision” and he did not communicate with “the Prime Minister”.

    There are dozens of additional elements that make up this sequence of events and he choses to ignore them?

    How dumb does he think people are?

    • He thinks that just enough people are dumb. All the Reform/Conservatives need is 24% of the eligible voters to get a majority. (61% turnout, 39% of those votes)

      • Yes, all people who vote Conservative are dumb. All people who vote for any of the other federal parties are smart. It’s that simple.

        • I dunno exactly how dumb the rest of them are… but you seem to think that saying the same stupid thing 412 times somehow makes it a smart thing.

          Try another way.

          • I never said I thought it was a smart thing. I’m merely reacting to idiotic, bigoted posts. If you don’t want me reacting to idiotic, bigoted posts, perhaps you should take that up with the persons making said idiotic, bigoted posts in the first place. Just a suggestion.

          • If you don’t like my political cronies, you’re bigoted.

            Really, you should look up the meaning of the words you use.

          • Dave, the Conservatives are not my political cronies. Nice try, but you fail. I’ve made many, many posts on these boards in which I’ve expressed my opposition to all kinds of things the Conservatives have done, from the GST cut to the long form census decision, and so on. So if anyone is showing stupidity here, it’s you.

            I do maintain that painting the multimillions of Canadians who happened to vote Conservative in the last election as stupid people, down to every single last man and woman, is a patently bigoted statement.

          • “I do maintain that painting the multimillions of Canadians who happened to vote Conservative in the last election as stupid people, down to every single last man and woman, is a patently bigoted statement.”

            But you’re quite happy to stay quiet when other posters paint the millions of Canadians who voted Liberal or NDP as stupid people. Which seems to suggest your beef is not borne of principle, but of partisanship.

          • Woah! Mike is fighting with Mike. My brain just exploded.

          • In case you haven’t noticed, Wherry’s comment board is a veritable Liberal/Dipper partisan hack circle-jerk. And I say that as someone who voted Liberal last election BTW. Any conservative commenter who comes on here is instantly swarmed by Liberal and Dipper partisans. Do you really think there’s a dearth of commenters attacking Conbots on here, such that my services are urgently required, as you suggest? You think that more pro-Liberal/Dipper and anti-Conservative posts are urgenty required from me in order to restore balance to this comment board?

          • So if your concern is balance among left/right opinions on these boards, can I ask, are you posting away like crazy on the Sun comment boards with sarcastic comments about the right – surely those boards need balance too! Otherwise, why is your concern about balance limited to just Macleans?

            Would appreciate your response.

          • Quite honestly, these happen to be the first political comment boards I ever visited. I have no desire to frequent any other comment boards, as I waste too much time on these ones as it is. I have occasionally visited other boards, and I immediately see how toxic the tone usually is. I’m quite happy that I haven’t waded in there. The tone on these boards is toxic enough, it’s not like I need more toxicity in my life.

        • I think JS Mill had it right.

          “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

          Not all Harper’s voters are stupid, but stupid people are invariably Harper voters.

          • Thanks for demonstrating your bigotry. You’re very progressive that way.

          • Bigotry
            You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it does.
            If a renowned philanthropist and philosopher thought it was “obvious” and “universally admitted” back in the 19th Century and a lot of people are still agreeing in the 21st century, do you not think it might have some legs?

          • It’s really pathetic to see you rationalizing hatred, intolerance and bigotry this way. Besides which, the accepted definitions of “conservatism” and “conservative” has changed a tad since the 19th century, as has the accepted definition of “liberal” (go look up the Manchester School of Liberalism and see how closely it resembles today’s definition of liberalism). Dickens’ Scrooge — selfish, moneygrubbing, contemptuous of the poor — was meant in part as a vicious satire of the Manchester Liberals. So for you to suggest that Mill’s statements from 19th Century Britain regarding the “conservatives” of his day have any currency or validity with respect to people in Canada who happened to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada during the last federal election is beyond ludicrous.

            And tell me, have you or somebody else done a poll or some scientific survey of all “stupid people” in Canada which has demonstrated that they all, invariably, voted Conservative? If so, please provide a link or quote. Otherwise, I’ll reasonably conclude that you’re completely full of sh*t.

          • There is no hatred, intolerance or even bigotry in laughing at the anti intellectual, anti science and anti-evidence stance so prevalent amongst the modern right wing. They are free to hold views regarding all sorts of nonsense like the tail ponds will soon be pure drinkable water, there were WMDs in Iraq, Tax cuts will trickle down wealth, claiming to make decisions based on data while cutting all government data gathering etc and those who know otherwise can point out their stupidity and laugh at them.

            That isn’t bigotry that is making fun of people for holding some very silly views. What is pathetic is that although you are sharper than the average Con you can’t understand what bigotry is and play the whiny titty baby.

            As for your last statement it reminds me of the creationists who demand an answer to the question “How do you know were you there?” to every statement about prehistoric times. Here we go then, If the current Government can keep around 25% of the electorate on board and supporting it after the last two years of fraud, theft, swindle and lies; then that is an indicator that the Conservative base is pretty stupid.

            Even the Liberal hierarchy under Martin knew something was amiss over the Adscam and started the inquiry, but what do we get with the Cons…. plow on regardless and throw as much dirt out as possible hoping it sticks to anyone else.

        • Drink-ety drink a drink-drink-a-roo!

  8. This may just be sloppy statement preparation by Perrin (that seems odd for an experienced lawyer, however) but here’s a pro-tip: If you’re going to deny a story that says that you helped draft a letter of understanding between Party X and Party Y, you should actually DENY THE FACT THAT YOU HELPED DRAFT A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PARTY X AND PARTY Y!

    Denying X when accused of Y doesn’t actually strengthen the case that you didn’t do Y.

    The CTV story accused Perrin of doing something pretty specific, and his statement today denies doing something ELSE, while remaining oddly silent as to whether or not he did the very specific thing that the CTV story said that he did.

    Again, it could be just a terribly crafted statement, but it seems to me that the only worse “non-denial denial” this week was Doug Ford defending his brother by simply stating that he has never personally witnessed the mayor smoking crack.

    • It’s not terribly crafted. It is very well worded to give him just enough deniabillity without being an outright lie. It is what law school specifically teaches. The precise meanings of every single word is critical.

      • Exactly that’s just like saying the Harper did not know about the means of the payment..like a cheque or stack of money. It hopes that we will generalize it to the whole affair…but we are not that gullible…

      • Dave, actually law school doesn’t really teach you that or anything else that you will remember and apply after law school. It’s really just a series of brain training exercises loosely built around legal problems that people have taken to court. If a law student is really attentive they will also learn how other people think, the level of complexity that others brain allows them to handle and so forth.
        That is what is so puzzling here. How did someone like Nigel Wright get into the centre of this mess? People like Wright normally have a polite smile for the likes of Duffy but nothing more. Even Harper is smart enough to know he should have let Duffy flounder. So why did Wright and Harper stick their necks out so far here? The easy answer is to say that Duffy knows something (and has the video!) Has Duffy said to Harper;”If I’m going down, you are going with me.”
        Or are Harper and Wright so wrapped up in themselves they have forgotten how other people think? Do they believe they are Emporers with New Clothing?
        Or…………?

  9. So he wasn’t part of the decision he left it up to nigel but once the decision was made he could of still drawn up the paper work. His denial was of the decision and of talking with the pm only.

  10. OK.

    1) Fife’s “source” reported that Duffy intervened with the CRTC – Sun News decision. Which both Sun and CRTC have denied.

    2) Fife’s “source” reported that Harper was going to prorogue Parliament to shut this down. That has also been denied.

    3) Now this.

    3 strikes. Mr. Fife, it’s time to out your source. Your reporting on this topic is losing credibility with each error you make.

    • Fife’s “source”reported that Harper was going to prorogue Parliament to shut this down.

      This is the first I’ve heard of this – where was this reported? Please link to the CTV story. All I can find is a twitter feed.

    • 1) Fife reported that Duffy intervened. He did not report that Duffy intervened at Sun News’ request. Sun News’ denied that they requested Duffy intervene.

      2) Dave covers this below. My reading of it is Fife intimated this is rumour, not necessarily fact.

      3) LKO eloquently covers this above – Perrin’s been accused of X, and he denied Y. He’s a lawyer, I HIGHLY doubt this was an oversight. If it was, I’m sure he’ll clarify if questioned further.

      • 1) The CRTC also denied that Duffy intervened at all, asked or otherwise. Fife reported something that appears to have absolutely zero basis in fact.

        2) So your position is that Fife just heard an inflammatory rumour that Harper might prorogue, and he just rushed it onto the news without verifying? And this is good journalism in your books? You’re not helping yourself here.

        3) This is hair splitting. He said the CTV report was false.

        I’m sorry. This is not an acceptable standard of journalism for a national correspondent when reporting on a scandal of this nature. Fife needs to get this shit right, and to out his source if he’s got a source that’s feeding him a bunch of lies to smear the Conservatives even more than they’ve already brought on themselves.

        • Your reading of the story is wrong. Whether Duffy’s attempt reached the CRTC or not is irrelevant to whether he made the attempt.

        • 1. Duffy tried to intervene through an insider (who probably told him to get stuffed). His try failed. Nobody said that Sun news asked him to, so when they deny he’s a lobbyist for them, they are defending against something that nobody said.

          2. As I say below, I’m sure that there has been talk ofproroguing parliament as a solution to the ongoing leaks. Does not mean its going to happen though. Still, it’s interesting.

          3. Well, he followed that up with “I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s DECISION to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s
          expenses. While I”m sure he did not participate in the DECISION, that’s not what CTV news reported.

          They reported that “Benjamin Perrin HELPED DRAFT the letter of understanding that called forDuffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money.”

          Jeez, which part if this are you guys not getting? He says he did not participate in the DECISION. I agree.
          He did HELP DRAFT the letter. I also agree with that.

          Careful wording, yes?

        • The CRTC also denied that Duffy intervened at all, asked or otherwise. Fife reported something that appears to have absolutely zero basis in fact.

          Did Fife report that Duffy intervened with the CRTC?

          I thought that Fife reported that Duffy talked to a Conservative with connections to the CRTC about the importance of the Sun decision, and the importance of the CRTC “play[ing] with the team and support[ing] Sun Media’s request.”

          It seems to me that Fife reported X, and you’re accusing him of being wrong because the CRTC and Sun Media have both denied Y.

    • Actually, the source reported that Duffy approached a Conservative insider with connections to the CRTC

      “You know people at the CRTC,” the insider quoted Duffy as saying. “This is an important decision on Sun Media. They have to play with the team and support Sun Media’s request.”

      http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-tried-to-influence-crtc-decision-on-sun-media-source-1.1285555#ixzz2TzU0BJYo

      If I try to bribe a police officer and he doesn’t take the bribe, I still tried to bribe him.

  11. Is it casuistry or delusion, all you who defend the Prime Minister?

  12. Benjamin Perrin is an on-again off-again Conservative Hillite from the Preston Manning days. When Bedford vs. Canada won at Superior Court, and the judge exposed the “research” the government brought forth in court as faulty and amatuerish advocacy nonsense, Harper knew that the case would never make it at any level on its own merits. Perrin then wrote “Invisible Chains” which erroneously drew connections between prostitution and human trafficking which was basically the government nonsense which the courts rejected rehashed for the public. Then Harper invited him into the PMO. Somehow womens groups received federal funding and could not only afford to intervene in Bedford vs. Canada but could afford to travel all over the country with Perrin, again throwing out the same “research” the courts rejected and misleading the public about the nature of constitutional challenges and the crux of Bedford vs. Canada. Did Harper fund, using taxpayer money, Perrin and abolitionist groups to travel Canada throw out misinformation and ridicule judges about a very well researched and examined case? Because 6 judges have examined the matter for a year each, examining the evidence and all disagree with what Perrin is saying. It would serve Harper well to keep ignoring the issue of prostitution in Parliament. But not Canadians.

  13. Benjamin Perrin is very good at speaking to one issue with the evidence of another. Not surprised at his “reply” about the Wright/Duffy contract.

  14. correction: Harper knew the federal governments materials would never convince a judge because the quality of evidence is faulty. So instead of making a better case, or (OMG) actually getting ready to deal with the issue in Parliament as previous Commissions have recommended, perhaps the Conservative way is to bully and maneuver and misinform. Bedford vs. Canada has won at two levels on its own merits. Interestingly, the newest SCC appointee, Justice Wagner, is reported as having thrown out Canadian sex worker intervener affadavits for consideration by the SCC. And allowed in non-Canadian interveners. How far will Harper go to stop listening to Canadians or letting them have a voice in court, a citizens legal recourse when Parliament plugs its ears? http://maggiestoronto.ca/press-releases?news_id=101

  15. Last night’s CTV story in relation to me, which is based on unattributed sources, is false. If so why doesn’t he sue?

    I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel
    Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator
    Duffy’s expenses. Carefully phrased the subject being *nigel Wright’s decision*. He did not say he did not help draft the letter of agreement between Duffy and Wright.

    I have never communicated with the Prime Minister on this matter. Again this says little about what he actually did.

    I am hoping that the ethics commissioner releases the letter of agreement as well as who was involved in drafting it.

  16. The dominos begin to fall.
    Wright’s lawyers tell RCMP Wright recalls telling three other members of the PMO of his
    intention to give Duffy the money to reimburse the Senate.

    One of the men Wright’s lawyers claim was told is Benjamin Perrin Harper’s former
    legal advisor.
    Perrin denied he was consulted or participated in any arrangement between Duffy and Wright.
    Wright or Perrin is wrong.

    If Wright believes his former colleagues may now be developing selective memories I wonder how much longer he’ll remain the loyal soldier who takes one for the team.

  17. “The lawyers told the RCMP that Wright recalls telling his assistant, David van Hemmen, Harper’s legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, and Chris Woodcock, director of issues management in the Prime Minister’s Office, about his intention to give Duffy the money to reimburse the Senate for dubious housing expenses.”

    Looks like Perrin is a liar, he knew all about it.

  18. And this guy is teaching your children.

  19. Why would anyone in their right mind think Perrin was telling the truth just because he is refuting CTV? He helped write the Wright-Duffy deal. No one believes Harper was left in the dark?

Sign in to comment.