“We are good to go”. How can the Canadian public be expected to believe that a lawyer as important as Mr. Perrin, with all the professional and legal obligations he has, would have b
een involved in the negotiations on his own, would ha
ve misrepresented those negotiations to the Prime M
inister, would have argued with some fictitious person in the Prime Minister's chair about the stipulation on point num
ber three ...[+++] that they were going to cover off, through the Conservative Party, Mike Duffy's expenses, and wou
ld have then turned around and said that he did not know a thing about this and further that he never bothered to tell the Prime Minister?
Comment peut-on s'attendre à ce que la population canadienne croie qu'un avocat de l'importance de M. Perrin, étant donné toutes les obligations professionnelles et juridiques auxquelles il est tenu, a participé aux négociations de sa propre initiative, a mal informé le premier ministre au sujet de celles-ci et a argumenté avec un premier ministre fictif quant à la troisième modalité de l'entente, à savoir que le Parti conservateur rembourserait les dépenses de Mike Duffy?