H: Press release was on dec 22, meeting was 0800 on Dec 23.A: Believe his 'declaration for qualification' signed on Jan 5
Bayne:These are the Senate rules given to Duffy following the orientation of what is valid and not
Holmes: The book is generously titled Senate instruments.... none of this have anything to do with Mr. Audcent. We had the Senate admin rules bound up if Bayne is agreeable to that. I'm disappointed Bayne plops a 20 tab material that's irrelevant. Perhaps Bayne would want to file Senate Administration Rules?
Bayne: I'm not asking for consent. I'm not filing this as evidence. I'm using it in my cross examination. Friend is looking to hamstring my x-exam. Goes on and list what he has in the binder.
Holmes interrupts Bayne. Judge: "I really hate two people talking at the same time" Holmes: "I'm sorry."
Bayne: if witness says he didn't know anything about that, that is alright and might be relevant to your assessment. He's the law clerk to the senate. [lists continue what Bayne wants to use]
Bayne: I'm not asking for the crown's consent. It's cross examination. Not needing consent for that.
Holmes: this is the first witness. Just because he bound them, doesn't mean it should be admitted.
Holmes hints that Duffy will appear as a witness in June #DuffyTrial
Judge: I disagree with Crown ... we are dealing with a very knowledgeable witness re Senate and if he is not aware of something we'll be moving on to another matter and we will not be wasting time. It will be entered at this time as exhibit A.
(A lettered Exhibit is not an exhibit yet and it may never be. )
B: You said attendance is of concern? A: Of constitutional concern. B: He must be in Ottawa to appear. A: Yes.
A: There's a natural tension of constitutional requirement of attendance, and constitutional requirement of residence. Yes there's a natural tension
B: Has constitutional concept of residency ever been defined? A:No it hasn't been defined because Senate has never had to hear a case, and the body defining it would be the Senate.
A: Primary residence isn't part of the constitution... they are administration and finance rules, which may or may not jive with constitution.
B: As far as I can remember primary and secondary residence aren't defined // B: So not defined in the senate admin rules? A: Not as far as I can remember ***
A: As Senators get more experience get more obligation, their demands in Ottawa is greater and greater, and difficult to spend time in home province
B: In guide or orientation, define min number of days in home province? A: "Absolutely not"
B: So issue of primary/principle residence depends on the statute, reflects the context of that statute? A: Absolutely.
Now for some cross-examinations on definitions, apparently using the Oxford dictionary.
A agrees with B that 'constitutionally' upon his appt as Senator, Duffy's residence in PEI is the most important residence.
Bayne now uses Oxford dictionary for definition of "primary" - "of chief and main importance" / A: Yes.
B: so when his status changed from broadcaster to Senator, his chief residence is PEI / A: Yes one that he has to maintain
B: So same thing as the word "principle" residence, it would be PEI / A: Yes, that's the residence
B Defining "secondary", so for constitutional purposes, Ottawa would be secondary because home is of lesser importance / A: Yes
B: I'm doing this (reference dictionary) because the senate rules are completely vacant of some of what these terms mean when we look at them
Ok, court is back in session. Waiting for updates from a producer in the courtroom.
They're continuing on about the LeBreton's policy advisor's memo to Duffy.
Memo: 'My interpretation of this is that there has been a longstanding convention that so long as a Senator owns property in his or her province of appointment then they are allowed to sit as a Senator from that province, even if they live in Ottawa 99% of the time'