Mike Duffy trial: Defence questions travel expense policy for fundraising

Mike Duffy's lawyer demanded proof today from the former chief of Senate finance that Senate administration had apolicy thatprohibitedsenators from charging travel expenses for all fundraising activities.

DonaldBaynegrilled NicoleProulxon that point after she testified that expensing travel in relation tofundraising activities, while notexplicitly coveredin the Senate administrative rules, was "something that's not allowed either for political purposes or charity."

"Where does it say this? Show us," Bayne askedProulx."I want you to show us someevidencewhere this iswritten."

• The grand taboo: Do senators meet constitutionality requirements?
• Mike Duffy trial: Senate moves to keep internal report on residency secret
• Mike Duffy diary: Conservatives won't discuss his Enbridge conversations

"Where does it sayfundraising activities are prohibited partisan activity? Where does it say that?"

The trial, inits16thday, began April 7 in an Ottawa provincial courtroom.Duffy has pleaded not guilty to 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery related to expenses he claimed as a senatorand later repaid with money provided by the prime minister's former chief of staffNigelWright.

Among the charges,Duffy is accused of expensing travel for partisan political events.

Proulx said that partof the fundraising travel expense policycould be found in the miscellaneous expenses guidelines. But she said the policy was laterclarifiedby a Senate steering committee.

Proulx said this policy was in place before she was at Senate finance. She added thatshewastold about the policyby a manager in the department who had consulted with a member of the Senate committee.

But Bayne argued that the miscellaneous expense guidelines had nothing to do with travel and that the Senate committee opinion was all hearsay.

"You are able to show no evidence of anywrittennotice to senators of thesehearsayconversations that [the manager] had thatyou subsequently had, right?"

Proulx said that with the information she hadin front of her, she couldn't answer.

"I would have to look, but as it stands now Icannot offer anything," Proulx said.

Earlier, Baynegrilled Proulxon the issue ofexpensingsenators' travel claims for partisan business, arguing that there arevirtually no rules governing such activities and that the whole administrative systemlacks oversight.

"The system you've set up deliberately creates a system where you don't ask questions," Baynesaid, on his third day cross-examiningProulx.

Bayneargued that theSenate administrative rulesexplicitlystatethat partisan activities are an essential part of a senator's duties. And nowhere in those rules does it define the term "partisan," he said.

In terms of limitations onexpensing partisan activities, the rules only state that senators can't expense costs related to the election of a member of the House of Commons, Bayne argued.

ButProulxrefused to concede that only theadministrativerules govern the actions of the senators.

"I just need to say that the [administrative rules]are supplemented by policies, guidelines,opinion,directives, forms andpracticesadopted orimplementedby [the Senate]," she said.

"So these policies, oncethey are adopted, complement,supplement, so we have to apply those as well."

• Analysis:Mike Duffy, GeraldDonohueand the $64K question
• Mike Duffy trial: Senate finance knew Duffy had lived in Ottawa home for years

Proulxhasspent threedays under cross-examination,defending Senate administration rules and regulationswhiledenying she has any bias relating to the case of the suspended senator.

On Monday, court learned the existence of an unpublished 2013internal audit on Senate residencythatBaynemight want to put into evidence. Details of thisaudit havenot been madepublic, and the Senate has served notice it will assert privilege,meaning its findings will remain secret.

Meanwhile,Bayne spent a significant portion of time reviewing the rules of primary and secondary residency.

Residency central issue

Residencyis one of thecentral issues in the case against Duffy. He designated his home in P.E.I. as his primary residence, and he maintains that's the case, making him eligible to claim meals and living expenses for his time in Ottawa.

The Crown disputes that Duffy's primary residence is in P.E.I. The suspended senatorhas lived in Ottawa since the 1970s.

Baynehas argued that the various rules and regulations guiding senators provideno clear definition on the term"primary residency." On Monday, Bayneargued thatSenate finance officials signed off on Duffy's expenses to live in Ottawa, even though they had been informed he had been living in his Kanata home for seven years.

Proulxsaid shedidn'trecall having that information brought to her at the time but agreed that there wereno definitions or criteria clearly laid out for establishing "primary" or "secondary"residence.

Can't see the live blog? Follow it here