Bayne says the Crown would like you as to put your hand in the sand and ignore (the Deloitte audit)
the evidence will show after Deloitte reporting to the senate, the senate through BOIE ...
this committee which runs admin of senate, in its public report 22 in direct response to Deloitte report -- it's a public report, the crown doesn't want you to consider this
He adds: Senate admits that rules are lacking in criteria in determining primary residence, as such Deloitte was unable to conclude Duffy expense claims inappropriate even under the rules
KPMG mandated again by senate, not defence... these were wholly Senate-mandated reports. Done in 2013. Date matters, the info circumscribes--- covers 2009-2013. Senate made some attempts to clean up admin mess, that even after time period, independent audit firms are reporting on Senate's primary designations and whether they even *yet* have criteria.
Bayne: "Sen Duffy is not to blame if they (the evidence) are to have been found lacking"
Regarding Part 4, the Nigel Wright cheque, Bayne says 'we have detailed email evidence (grabs binder, thump on desk) for part 4 when we examine, they were actually co-conspirators... ask you to consider -- self-interested witnesses, They refer the matter to the RCMP. Commence 16-mth investigation
Bayne continues, on topic of residency: Crown said test was whether he would have to travel btwn PEI or not. But he became on appointment a Senator from PEI. It changed on appointment
B: Senate said "on travel status when you're in ottawa", but doesn't mean you don't have to get up - you don't have to travel. Senate itself in 1998 said provincial residence means your primary residence, so you're on travel when you're in Ottawa. Forms says you have to designate your provincial designation is primary residence. He followed forms.
Bayne: Don't know why Crown made comment that he isn't qualified to be senator. Not necessary comment. It's about the criteria the rules set: it must be prov of appt, can only be prov of appt, it can't be NCR and it must be residence. Sen Duffy PEI residence -- owned longer than Ottawa bungalow -- that clearly qualifies
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"
B: None of those criteria apply to duffy, but 100+ other senators. Like Sen Stuart-Olsen. Others, they aren't charged. Duffy is alone here -- as if he's asked to answer for all the sins of senate administration
Bayne, going on about crown saying "common sense" should apply
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.
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.
Holmes: I didn't mention Income Tax Act. If he wants to engage me, don't talk about Income Tax Act. // Judge: allow to continue, it's opening statements.
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.
Bayne says: There was no criminal intent, made the NCR claims openly with senate finance, who said he was in full compliance. They reviewed them, see them they were in full compliance.
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: 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: Sen Duffy didn't write these rules, if to the eyes of the court it's extremely broad and fuzzy
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 jokes: Some might wonder looking at Duffy - it's consulting work, not training. He isn't the "picture of overwhelming fitness"
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: You may argue there's admin discretion error. But in Lavagine shows those errors don't constitute crime.
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?
Court sketch just came in. Here's what things look like:
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: I have taken 1000s of emails -- difficult to read, sleep inducing -- to a logical narrative. Numbered 1 to 561. It's now in a readable form, but the narrative form.
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."