DB: That means, in real terms – the contracts for all 105 senators, you don’t know what actual work was done?
SM: No, it’s up to the discretion of the senator.
DB: So it’s up to the Senator?
DB: So you don’t ask who did it, esp for a company? Which people did this part of the research? There’s no inquiry of who did the work, correct?
DB: To your knowledge, neither HR or Finance, they didn’t ask – and there’s no oversight of whether the work was done, what was done, who did it, whether there’s “value for money” for taxpayer, any of that, correct?
DB: Administratively it was left up to the senator and his discretion, correct?
DB asking the same question before break again – how can Senate Administration satisfy the statutory obligation with no oversight?
SM: I’m not able to answer that
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."]
JN simply asks Makhlouf read out the policy on "out of pocket expenses"
JN asks SM read out the new 2011 Procurement policy (though, as a reminder, this is the policy enacted *after* the Duffy-Donohue contracts)
"Ensuring that all material are adequately defined or specified in terms capable of verification"
"Requesting goods or services in a manner that will give evidence of their judicious use of public funds"
Also getting SM to read 4.1 "Initiation of Request" and 4.4 "Receipt of Services"
JN: "I'd like to ask you about, of all things, Human Resources" (some laughs in the courtroom)
JN points to HR guide about hiring staff for under 6 months: "In order to hire an individual in this category, a Senator must send a duly completed 'Human resources planner' form to Human Resources Directorate"
SM says Senator must fill out that "planner" form
SM says Senator must fill out that "planner" form
SM says Senate pay and benefits pays the staffer, and benefits and taxes are taken off, and T4 issued.
Crown done with the witness SM
SM says she wants to add something. Judge: "This is the first trial that that witness wants to add one thing in the end." (First witness did the same thing.) He doesn't allow her, saying that testimony should stick to questions by the lawyers. She's excused.