Senate rules on partisan travel ‘undefined’: Bayne

The Senate’s rules against using its free travel for political fundraising amounted to an “undefined intention floating in the background,” suspended Sen. Mike Duffy’s defence lawyer alleged Tuesday, in a savage crossexamination of the Senate’s top administrator.

There was no way for Duffy to have known about it, was Donald Bayne’s implication, especially because the Senate had a long tradition of incuriosity.

The trial, now halfway through its fourth week, has already heard that, for a long time, senators didn’t have to explain the purpose of their travel at all. If an “honourable senator” took a trip and billed it to the Senate, it was assumed to be OK. Then they had to fill in a form giving the reason, but if they wrote that it was “Senate business,” the finance department usually took their word for it.

“The system you’ve set up deliberately creates a system where you don’t ask questions,” Donald Bayne all but yelled at the Senate’s Nicole Proulx. She was in her fifth day on the witness stand, having spent most of her time under an increasingly harsh cross-examination by the lawyer defending Duffy against 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery, mostly related to how he used tens of thousands of dollars of the Senate’s money to cover partisan work for the Conservative party and assorted personal expenses.

On Tuesday, Bayne was impatient, belittling and disbelieving. Twice, having cowed Proulx into one-word answers, he scolded her to speak up.

His handling of Proulx prompted repeated objections from Crown prosecutors Jason Neubauer and Mark Holmes, most of which Judge Charles Vaillancourt shot down.

“The questions become unfair and abusive at a certain point,” Holmes complained after one especially prolonged exchange on the role of partisan activities in senators’ duties. “How many times must she maintain (the same position) before Mr. Bayne must move on to other areas?”

“If at any time it comes abusive, I will interject,” Vaillancourt told him. The judge has sometimes chastised Bayne for interrupting witnesses, including Proulx, but has generally let him ask questions on the subjects he pleases.

What led to Bayne’s outburst was an exchange over just what sort of travel expenses the Senate will cover. Proulx said senators can’t claim for travel to fundraisers, whether they’re for charity or political reasons.

“Where is that written?” Bayne demanded. “Show us.”

Proulx, sitting in the witness box, said she’d have to look it up, but it’s mentioned in guidelines on senators’ claims for “miscellaneous expenses.” They forbid spending Senate money on direct donations to charities or political parties, or on things such as prizes for raffles that raise money indirectly.

That’s not about travel, Bayne told her.

Right, said Proulx, but at some point the Senate’s finance department got a travel claim from a senator that cited fundraising as the reason for taking a trip. The bureaucrats headed off to the Senate’s powerful committee on internal economy, which is in charge of the Senate’s administration, for a clarification.

“When we received a claim where it indicated ‘fundraising,’ by extension we asked, ‘If the intent was not to provide funds for charity through that budget, was the intent of the committee not to provide Senate resources for other similar types of event?’” Proulx said.

“We were told yes, and that’s how we applied it.”

That happens regularly, she said. The Senate’s rules specifically say that they’re supplemented and expanded-upon by policies, guidelines and other documents, including decisions by the internal economy committee. When enough such decisions have accreted, somebody writes them up into a new policy, as happened with travel in 2012.

Before then, Bayne asked, how was someone supposed to know what the policy was on travel to fundraisers?

Word goes out to leading senators, who pass the information on in meetings. Sometimes there are clarifications. And, as multiple documents that senators get about how to do their jobs say, if something’s not clear, they should ask, Proulx said.

How did Proulx know about this when she started as finance director in 2008?

It was already the practice, she said, and was explained to her by finance manager Benoît Tremblay.

How did he know about it? When was he told? Who exactly told him? Proulx said she didn’t know. Bayne pounced.

“Where is the written record of the hearsay information you may have been given by Benoît Tremblay, who was told something by somebody undetermined, at some uncertain point in time?” he demanded.

It’s now in the 2012 travel policy, she told him. But no, there was no written account of the practice before then.

This is the nut of the case, really: If there was no specific rule against it, how was Mike Duffy supposed to know it was wrong?