Bayne: On the 2010/2011/2012 invoices, and you agreed on the $3,000 – and the “it” was the consulting?
Bayne: Even though there wasn’t an end product, but the goal was that?
Bayne: You discussed with Duffy on health statistics; health risks; the potential contents of a book (if it ended up in book form); publications/distribution issues?
MC says yes to all.
Bayne: For all the conversations, he was relying on you for the advice?
Bayne: And those conversations were important to him?
Bayne: While consulting sessions were going on – and there was fitness going on. The consultations wasn’t impeded because of Mike Duffy fitness going on?
Bayne: Clearly from 2010, 2011, and 2012 – the prime focus was consulting. There was fitness going on, on the side, but the prime focus was consulting?
Bayne: The payments were for consulting, and fair payment was for consulting, and not overpayment for consulting?
Bayne: If there was not fitness on the side, the bill would have been the same.
Bayne: So the sessions and invoices were for the consulting that was going on
Bayne shows a charge that he was on average charging about $71 or so per hour for consulting. Much lower than the going rate of $200 per hour for other consultants, so he wasn’t over-billing. MC agreed (“clearly I know that now” on the higher $200 rate.)
MC says agreed with Bayne that he has no family or personal relationship, aside from fitness and consulting.
JN asking what type of statistics MC would be talking about
MC gives as an example: What type of population does what kind of exercise
On discussions on whether it was book form or digital form, and if the demographic was comfortable with that form. MC says “it wasn’t a huge time” or a “long conversation about that.”
Defence suggested that the going rate was $200 for consulting. JN the rate you charged, was it the same as fitness rate? “It was the same rate. It was just time.”
JN asked if he had entire sessions just for fitness, how much would you have charged?
SM: “It’s the same. It’s just time” – same hourly rate.
JN on timesheet – there were couple of times that it says “Bike” – it’s a note for me that “he was just on the bike for that day”.
Mark Bourrie walked into court. He's expected to appear, too, today. Exhibits already filed in court shows that Bourrie was issued a $500 cheque in 2010 by Donohue's company for what appeared to be "web site analysis."
Bourrie (a crown witness) walked up the stairs towards the courtroom, saw Duffy, and shook each others hands and then gave a huuuuuge bear hug. And then shook hands of the two defence lawyers.
This morning’s first witness is Elizabeth Brouse. Testifying via telephone.
She's from MQO research. Employed from July 2011 to June 2013
VP of marketing/business development/research
Company owned by Group M5
MQO involved in public opinion research and focus group
MQO published “Atlantic Matters” – monthly online publication, poll of Atlantic Canadians, of political parties and federal gov’t. Every month there will be “hot topics”. Subscriptions of $5,000 for 12 month subscription. Given 5 usernames/passwords for use of organization.
It was a Senate of Canada subscription
First and only time agreed to offer a “group subscription”. Divide the $5,000 fee amongst a group of senators. Done this so fee can be split between Senators’ Senate budget. Subscription started in March 2012. Invoices were sent out by head office in St. John’s, NL. Invoices were sent from head office directly to him at Senate of Canada.
Crown shows MQO Research invoice – Exhibit 3 of Tab 20
Page 3 – first invoice, dated February 20, 2012. Invoice addressed to Senator Mike Duffy, The Senate of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A4
Brouse says didn’t receive payment for this invoice
Brouse: When I sent to my welcome letter, Duffy e-mailed what this was for.
His inquiry was “what the heck is this” – early March 2012
I replied to his email and offered to speak with him, and we spoke on the phone. … I told him what this was. I told him what it was, and he asked the invoice be sent before the end of the fiscal year.
Brouse: Attempts would be made by our accounting department, after unsuccessful attempts, brought attention to me. In late June or July, it was still unpaid. “I received from Senator Duffy angry in tone that we have been harassing him for money.”
I can access my records, and I can see Senator Duffy had never accessed the site. I asked internally whether we should keep harassing him if he hasn’t accessed the site. I told him via phone that we talked on the phone about this subscription in the past. But since Duffy never accessed the site, I told him I felt he didn’t feel “compelled to pay” … phone call in mid-to-late July.
But then he emailed and agreed to pay after all, and that’s when she put our billing people in touch with Duffy’s assistant.
Then second invoice issued, after Duffy asked Brouse to change date on outstanding invoice to get it to different fiscal year. [Email page 7. New invoice Page 2]
Invoice dated July 30, 2012 – addressed to the Senate of Canada
MQO received payment for that invoice via Ottawa ICF (Donohue’s company) – cheque on Page 4.
Now x-examination from Bayne
Bayne: Tell us more about how this group subscription was arranged?
Brouse: Arranged through Percy Mockler
Bayne: How did he arrange this subscription?
Brouse: He provided me with a list of names of senators of who to send welcome letters to
Brouse says she met Mockler in MQO’s office in Moncton in 2012. Meeting with managing partner of MQO’s parent company. Brouse says managing partner thought Mockler would be interested in the content provided by the company.
Bayne: Clearly parliamentary type information?
Brouse: “I would think so.”
Brouse met with Mockler in person to demo the product. They weren’t with other Senators in person. Mockler later e-mailed – about a week or two – that Brouse that he wanted a group subscription.