Live Chat

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, going ‎on about crown saying "common sense" should apply

B: Income tax act - says own residence. Duffy owns home in PEI. Income tax act - says ordinarily inhabited. Income tax act - list types of houses. So what is "ordinarily inhabited"? Income tax act says seasonal house is acceptable.

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?

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.

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

B: Budget alloted, if not used will lapse. use it or lose it. So Duffy using it, with full discretion under the broad rules. Research itself is almost open ended. Included: writing speeches, gathering info, or whatever Sen. determines necessary.

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.

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.

B: Nigel Wright said "in this small group" -- called Duffy expenses story "our public agony," "Chinese water torture," "our public bleeding," "it wasn't a bribe at all."

Bayne: Says Wright conspired with key senators : LeBreton, Tkachuk, CSO

Bayne reading Wright email: "We're basically forcing someone to repay money they probably didn't owe. I wanted the Prime Minister to know that."‎

Bayne: "Duffy grateful for this opportunity" for it heard in court ‎... "grateful a judge" is hearing his case. "The matters of Senator Duffy are in your hands"