UBC law professor Benjamin Perrin creates another stir at Mike Duffy trial

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Today at Sen. Mike Duffy's trial, Benjamin Perrin offered more revelations that could cause political problems for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

      Perrin testified that he believed Harper had approved of his former chief of staff repaying $90,000 in expenses charged by Duffy.

      He made the comment in connection with Nigel Wright's email saying "we are good to go from the PM". 

      Perrin is former legal counsel in the prime minister's office. He's a professor at UBC's Peter A. Allard School of Law and senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy.

      Wright had previously testified that the "good to go" comment was in connection with a communications plan and not Wright's payment to Duffy.

      Harper has maintained all along that he never knew that Wright had repaid Duffy's expenses. Harper has also claimed that when this became known to him, Wright ceased being his chief of staff.

      Yesterday, Perrin testified that Harper's current chief of staff, Ray Novak, was informed about Wright's plan to repay Duffy's expenses. Conservatives have denied that Novak had any knowledge of this.

      The UBC law professor's testimony led Ottawa Citizen reporter Mark Kennedy to draw a comparison between Perrin and former White House counsel John Dean.

      When Kennedy made the comment on CTV's Power Play, he emphasized that Conservatives wouldn't like the analogy.

      Perrin has not been accused of doing anything illegal.

      Dean, on the other hand, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with the infamous break-in at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.

      Dean's plea was in return for testifying for the prosecution against senior officials in the Richard Nixon administration.

      Comments

      1 Comments

      BC-4-ME

      Aug 22, 2015 at 3:15pm

      The CPC was "good to go" when the total was $32,000, which was tax deducted money. Certainly not ethical but, they thought it was legal.
      When the tally was over $90,000, the CPC balked.
      Reminds me of the tale of the man, the woman, the offer.
      We know how it ends, the woman "what do you think I am"?
      The man,"we know what you are, we are just negotiating.
      We know what the CPC is, they were just negotiating.
      Obviously $32,000 was ok, was $44,000 also ok, $55,000, $66,000, $77,000, $89,999.99 also ok, but $90,000 was the straw.