DB now going through the “Human Resources Management” document – dated April 28, 2008 [Exhibit #11]
DB starting off with definitions in that document… “principals/restrictions” on staffing… (i.e. give consideration for minorities, bilinguals; hire aged 18+; don’t hire family members).
DB: If you meet those, then it’s at your discretion? SM: Yes.
DB reading document: “Senators may use their Senators’ Research and Office Expense Budget to obtain their services of contractors, including individuals, agencies and organizations. This option is ideal for short-term purposes such as speech writing or researching a project undertaken by senators in their parliamentary capacity.”
DB reading document: “For very short and specific job assignments, a formal contract may not be necessary and an invoice with a certification document may be accepted for payment.”
DB: If a Senator has an outstanding research need that’s specific -- like a speech written that isn’t going to take a couple of months, or website expertise short term -- he can do this without a contract.
SM: Yes. You’re right, Senator can submit invoices without contract to be paid, and it’s accepted with a certification document. However, I don’t recall exactly if this was after 2008, Senator were advised that best practices is whenever they need a service, to send a request to prior to services starting.
DB: Where? Where is this written?
SM: I think I saw this in an internal economy document yesterday.
SM: If an invoice is submitted after the work is done, Senate has the legal obligation to pay it so we pay it
DB now looking at “Senate Procurement Policy” from 2011
SM: We have the right to ask for more information if the amount was huge, or if it wasn't valid compared to the services
DB: As you said before, neither HR or Senate Finance, once the invoice is submitted for payment, there’s no inquiry for what services were rendered.
DB suggesting there’s more control over contract amounts since 2011 (if contract gets amended, the amount can only go downwards). SM agrees.
And we'll be back at 10 a.m.
Crown lawyer Jason Neubauer begins re-examination: Good morning Ms. Makhlouf. Almost done. (Makhlouf chuckles).
JN Points to services contract description: Editorial services/writing services (including speeches), and a lengthier description in 2010/11
JN who does the senate rely on to make sure the work is complete?
SM The senator
JN How does Senator assure that work is complete?
SM By signing invoice saying that services rendered
JN Does senate go behind the signature and question the truth of the Senator's assertion that work on contract is rendered?
JN If they want to change the services contractor is doing, how do they do that?
JN on subcontractors.
Showing document titled "Gerald Donohue Duties" (Exhibit 3, Tab 5, Page 10)
JN: What impression do you have on who specifically would be performing the work?
SM: Gerald Donohue. Here it says Gerald Donohue
JN What impression did it leave you, who would be doing the work?
SM: Gerald Donohue
JN shows Chapter 5 and 6 of Senator Resource Guide.
JN pointing to section: "All purchases must be on the list of eligible expenses, conform to Senate policies, and be of reasonable cost and quality. In addition, senators are to pay for purchases from his or her personal funds and submit a request to the Finance Directorate for payment. The American Express corporate credit card may now be used in these circumstances, nor should the supplier be requested to send the invoice to the Finance Directorate for payment." ...
(Bayne objects that Neubauer shouldn't be going through a document related to Finance with Makhlouf.
Judge sides with Crown because Bayne went through finance documents about petty cash under $2,500 "extensively" in its cross examination. Judge: "I recognize that this witness is being dragged into an area she isn't familiar with." ... "I want to make it clear that the lens I'm looking through is a very limited one."]
$500 for seven months. it was very modest, wasn't a lot of money?
Bayne: Duffy's popular. Mail is important to parliamentarians, important service to EA, opening and sorting mail, responding?
Bayne: Not different than what you're doing with the PM now?
Bayne: So during the months as volunteer, your work was clearly parliamentary work
Bayne: Are you aware of stories in news of young interns being advantage of?
Bayne: No suggestion the $500 was personal benefit to Duffy? He didn't ask you to cash it and give him half back?
Cain says discussion about payment via email with Duffy and his assistant.
Bayne: Real work, valid work, solely related to running his senate office, right? Cain: Right
Bayne: There is no personal aspect to your relationship with Duffy. Entirely professional? Cain: Right
Bayne asks Cain why she works at Duffy's office: "I really enjoyed going and I had a good professional relationship with Melanie"
Bayne pointing out if Cain asked if there was opening for full time work. Cain says yes.
Crown re-exam: On Bayne's Q of young interns being advantage of
Would you have felt taken advantage of if Duffy didn't pay you? No
Make up artist Jacqueline Lambert is next crown witness.
Since 1982, self employed make up artist
Knew Duffy before he was in the Senate, did make up for TV appearances for years
Known Duffy since the late 80s, providing make up services since that time
Aware that Duffy was appointed in Senate
"Yes" - provided make up services after appointment in Senate - "Twice"