Audcent says it takes a long time for the SARs to be integrated into Senate policies and guidelines. Says it's like laws vs. regulations: It takes time after laws come into effect to flow into new regulations
Bayne now reading "Annual Report into Internal Audit 2009-2010" -- report says admin policies were inadequate and poorly communicated, and IDed some policies/procedures that needed improvement.
Bayne now reading Audcent's welcome letter to Duffy
Letter reads: "Your duty to reside at all times in Prince Edward Island"
Key point by Audcent: To maintain a residence isn't the same as to be a resident. The *duty* is to be a resident, not to own a residence
B: You don't mean live at all times because you have to be in Ottawa during sittings? A: That's correct
B: So duty to reside means maintaining a residence? The duty is for the person to reside. You mean maintaining a residence as in 'be a resident' then yes. If you mean simply maintain a home, then no.
A: Almost always when is a residence, you would need a house... the house doesn't satisfy the duty. Duty is to be resident. It is not to own a residence.
B: But in your letter is there any definition of residence?
A: No, but there's duty to consult.
Bayne now going through Exhibit 9 -- these are other acts and statutes Defence compiled together.
Bayne going on to read each definition of what it means/includes "resident" for more than a dozen act/statute... Immigration Act, the P.E.I. Traffic Act, Real Property Tax Act, Securities Act, Health Service Act, B.C. adoption regulations, B.C. medical services, Manitoba insurance acts...
Audcent agrees that there are specific definitions of "resident" for each of those acts -- and applying to those acts.
And Audcent agrees there aren't comparable definitions for "primary residence" or "principle residence" in Senate rules or policies or forms
B: Each of those acts define what deems/includes/means to be a resident?
A: That is correct.
B: That's in stark contrast for the Senate that doesn't provide any definition of primary or secondary residence?
A: "That is correct
Cross examination continues now about Duffy's travel claims.
Cross examination continues now about Duffy's travel claims
On form, above signature line reads: "I certify that the foregoing expenditures have been incurred by me on parliamentary functions, as defined in the Senate Administrative Rules"
B: When Duffy signs, he certifies he's on "parliamentary functions" as defined by SARs
A: Yes
B: So we'll have to go back to SARs to see what definition is, the same SARs that you wrote? // A: yes
Bayne asking about SARs on that definition of "principles of parliamentary life". Calls attn to "partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the parliamentary functions of a Senators." Bayne says partisan activities aren't 'sideshow' but inherent part of Senators' activities. Audcent: Yes.
B: What is a partisan activity? // A: Include attending caucus meeting on parl hill, there's conservative caucus, senate caucus, etc.
B: But there's no definitions for partisan activities? // A: As far as I know, no
B: Would it include party conventions?
A: "Partisan activities would apply to going to party conventions." but parl won't pay registration fees.
Audcent says there are "limitations" -- goes on to say it includes during election, and other limits as defined by law, Senate, internal economy committee.
B Asks what those limitations are and can't say.
B: "You're the law clerk. If you don't know if there are any limitations to partisan activities, who would?"
A: "When it comes to financial resources it would be the director of finance."
B: Wouldn't that include kissing babies, shaking hands, getting out and meeting people?
A: Yes
12 people in overflow room that sits 100+. All journos.
While waiting for judge to arrive, Audcent chatting with court reporter who sits in front of him. Asks her a bunch of questions -- do you type every word? (answer: no) you use short forms? (answer: yes) -- appears intrigued by her work
Bayne starts afternoon session... still on the definition of "partisan"
Travel policies that every Senator entitled to 64 travel points a year for parliamentary business - which includes partisan activities
But Senate wouldn't pay Senators for $ paid to political parties -- ie convention registration fees. But Audcent can't point to rule that says that.
Bayne asking Audcent to define "parliamentary business/functions" in the SAR. And "public business".
Bayne shows A photo June 11, 2009 - duffy and harper - in Cambridge Tells A there's handwriting on it. Can he read it out?
A: "To Duff, a great journalist and a great Senator. Thanks for being one of my best, hardest working appointments ever. Stephen Harper"
Audcent agrees with Bayne that the event appears to be public business, which is a parliamentary function
A:But harper there was as a member of gov't of Canada.
A: "It's public business for a Senator yes"
B: For the G8, is it official business? A: The PM would have had to request it in writing. "It's undoubtedly official."
Bayne shows photo of Duffy and Harper at G8 youth event on P-Hill, with photo caption
Again, Audcent agrees with Bayne - judging by photo - that it appears to be public business, which is a parliamentary function
A: If you look at the definiton, since parl function includes public business... public business is not private business (ie with his wife) one can easily see it's public business, and it incorporates it with parliamentary functions
it seems that Bayne is IDing events that Duffy has claimed expenses and getting Audcent to agree it fits with the definition of Parliamentary business.
Crown suggested on Tuesday that Duffy submitted expense claims for makeup services for that G8 event
Back from break and now using the "Orientation Guide for New Senators" document... still continuing defining what is "Parliamentary Business".
Now on Tab 15, letter from Nicole Proulx. And what is Parliamentary Business....
by Robert Fife via twitter 4/9/2015 6:37:40 PM
