Live Chat
Live: Mike Duffy Trial
Follow along with our live blog for updates of court proceedings:
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Bayne: I expect you to read Senate rules/criteria, which never included min number of dates, percentage of year, season of year, or relavant time spent in prov vs ncr vs elsewhere. Sen Duffy as everybody knows he had a unique senatorial role. What he meant for the Conservative party and what it meant. He travelled extensively as bequest of PM and Con Caucus
-
B: In the time frame from 2009-12 was never a requirement to have driver licence. The gov't after media scandal raced to have in fiscal year 2013 created indicators -- that's where drivers licence, health card, where pay taxes suddenly appear. You know well in law that "if it was included after it wasn't included before"
-
-
-
Bayne: Crown said 'common sense, not withstanding the policy' -- common sense might mean where you live longest. But in fact, income tax act, has designation system. Just like senator. "A senator simply designates a primary residence."
Designates means you assign and give a designation to. -
-
-
Bayne continues: I'm using this as an example that ITA have their own in-built criteria. None talk about common sense. That's not the criteria. You'll year Sen. Duffy spent $98k with Heather to make residence as habitable for primary residence. He incured far more expense than $80k he was eligible for.
-
-
On the Nigel Wright cheque: You'll see from emails that duffy was in an innocent state of mind. It's senate, BOIE, it's them they should have rules. Is it your role to create/fill in gap of lack of rules? or whether the judge presiding is tasked with what administration failed to do, is that a role of a criminal court judge?
-
Bayne on Part 2, travel claims: They define parliamentary functions "entitle" duties of senator wherever -- public business, official business, or partisan business. You'll see public business includes "all business". All activities not including marital, social business = public business
-
B: You can combine business and family reunion travel. It's actually encouraged (reads a part of the rules). Very few, only 2, have to deal with public/parl business with family. It's up to you to determine whether it's criminal -- or not. Examples by Crown: Sannach Fair he never went. Went to Ptbo and bought a dog. BC lunch at yacht club. I'm surprised to hear my friend to mis-state the evidence in that way. You'll hear through the trial the evidence.
-
B: The lunch at yacht club = normal pre-budget consultation. Met with key business leader. When PM rolled out budget, it was Duffy -- not finance minister. So Duffy was in Vancouver to meet key business leaders to discuss the proposed budget. Of course he would see daughter. Luncheon was the son of business leader, dad is the business leader.
-
Sannach - the meeting requested by MP was at last-min cancelled. Not by Duffy. Senate rules say cancelled events can be fully billed, if out of control. He was already in Van, of course he billed it. He was on senate business. Rule says it's a legitimate claim. You will have the actual evidence on these issues. You'll hear from Sen. Duffy, his assigned role, giving speeches, public appearance. graphic evidence on how PM evaluated his appearances for his travel roles. You'll hear whether he breached the rules, let alone a crime.
-
-
-
-
-
-
B: You'll hear about risks identified by Senate (goes on about sen admin rules) -- lack of clear guidelines, eligibility of claims, too broad criteria, etc This evidence will allow you to determine, in judging in a criminal trial, not administrative or op-ed article
-
On research/office budget: Senate has explicitly broad rules. given full control of what work was done, and sole discretion who does that work. It will be open to you to find this is extremely broad discretion, who does that work, what is done. He's not unique in having discretion and seeking to exercise it.
-
-
-
B: Maple Ridge/Ottawa ICF, Duffy didn't enter into contract with every individual. But valid research was done by researchers. (list a dozen names). Croskery: (talks about his background) he invoiced for consulting work done, and never overcharged. He didn't charge any more if fitness was thrown in.
-
-
-
-
-
Bayne continues, on office/research budget: All the research work done would have been approved, if they were individual contracts. rRe $300 for make up and hair (jokes: look at his hair) It was for a G8 televised conference appearance with PM Harper at the PMO's request. What crown didn't say -- Lambert made up the PM of Canada. There's no way it's not related to the parl/senate of Canada.
-
B: All these 0.2 or 0.3% of contracts -- were valid. It wasn't personal, like Lavigne when he had trees cut. ... all related to parl duties, all within Duffy's budget. Not about reserve pool. Not kick-back money. Though police searched explicitly/questions related to kick back. There was none.
-
-
B: Senate says: policies were poorly communicated to. Senate policies should be updated. BOIE ID'ed inconsistencies of 12+ different policies. Is it your role to rewrite clearer rules? Senate says: greater need to have written contracts in place... 1 in 10 not written. So if Duffy made administration errors, he's far from alone. So is it your role to rewrite rules that BOIE itself says is lacking or absent? Whether you lay down criminal law decision to clean up admin problem?
-
-
Bayne on the cheque: says it's interesting that Crown's section on this was brief. Only said Duffy was involved himself. Unique advantage. You will have email narrative that tells a compelling story of what happened behind the scene, behind the scripted statement crown witness will paint for you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
by Graham Richardson via twitter 4/7/2015 8:21:20 PM