Can you be forthright and a fraud?
Duffy offered too much detail on claims to be scamming: lawyer
OTTAWA — Mike Duffy was being zanily forthright on some of his disputed travel expense claims, his lawyer suggests.
Don Bayne, who represents the suspended P.E.I. senator on trial here for fraud, breach of trust and bribery, was cross-examining Maggie Bourgeau, a Senate finance clerk, Friday.
If he were intent on perpetrating a fraud, Bayne asked her, Duffy would hardly have openly provided the detail he sometimes did, would he?
He was referring to a July 2012 claim Duffy submitted for him and his wife Heather to fly from Charlottetown to Ottawa where he wrote, under the “purpose” section of the form, “Medical appointment with specialist in Ottawa.”
“He could have just said, ‘Senate business’?” Bayne asked. “Correct,” said Bourgeau. “And had he said that, he would have attracted no special scrutiny?” the lawyer went on. “Correct,” said Bourgeau. She is a 17-year veteran of the Senate. She and another clerk were each responsible for reviewing half of the 105 senators’ expense accounts. It appears to be tedious, sometimes frenetic, work, and the two clerks switched up, with for instance, Bourgeau doing those senators surnamed A-M back in Duffy’s day, and now doing those named N-Z.
On another occasion, in September of 2012, Duffy filed for a trip to Ottawa from P.E.I. for “speaking engagement — Senate business.”
Again, Bayne said, “Had he stuck to the boilerplate, he could reasonably expect there would be no scrutiny of the ‘purpose’?” “Correct,” said Bourgeau. She testified that she was taught that “‘Senate business’ was sufficient” for the purpose section. Her job, as the first reviewer, was merely to ensure that senators signed the forms, that the necessary supporting receipts were attached and that the math was correct.
Only if something was a red flag, she said, would she call in a supervisor, as she did with Duffy’s “medical appointment” trip.
Though Bourgeau wasn’t told this, Ontario Court Judge Charles Vaillancourt has heard evidence — from Duffy’s former executive assistants — that he often signed blank expense claims in bulk, well in advance of when the assistants would fill them out and submit them.
Bourgeau believed a senator’s signature actually meant something, she said. “A senator needs to attest to (the accuracy on the forms) because he’s saying (with his signature) that this is legitimate Senate business.”
Once, when she thought Duffy’s signature looked different, she sent the claim back to his EA for what she called an “original signature.”
When she saw the medical appointment on Duffy’s July 2012 form, she said, that told her it would be a “personal matter” and she took the claim to a supervisor.
More senior finance officials discussed whether it should be paid and Bourgeau sent it back to Duffy’s EA.
Within minutes of receiving Bourgeau’s email rejecting the claim, Duffy’s EA miraculously remembered the trip “tied in with a community event” in the Ottawa area, and thus the trip was legitimized, and indeed, was paid.
As Bourgeau told prosecutor Mark Holmes in examination-in-chief once, the course of first resort with expense claims and all else was that “We took it on the senator’s word.”
For instance, while she applied the common-sense test to residency declarations — telling Holmes that the additional living expenses allowed for out-of-town senators “are for senators that live 100 kilometres from the Hill” — it wasn’t her job to test the declarations in any way.
She often wrote “P.E.I.” or “PE” on Duffy’s expense claims, for instance, because that “signifies the province the senator lives in and what he represents.”
In fact, of course, the former veteran broadcaster had lived in the Ottawa area for at least four decades at the time of his appointment to the red chamber. And though constitutionally required to designate his P.E.I. cottage as his “primary residence”, there was no matching requirement, constitutional or otherwise, to file for the extra $20,000-worth of expenses a year. But he did.
Perhaps the best exchange Friday came between Bourgeau and Holmes.
The prosecutor was taking her through a blank travel expense form, having her explain what she looked for in her review, and noted that under the transportation section, there were columns for flights, taxis, mileage and the like — but also a section for bus travel.
“Out of curiosity,” Holmes asked with a grin, “have you seen a lot of senators taking the bus?”
“Not often,” Bourgeau replied.
Vaillancourt has reserved his decision on whether a Senate internal audit, which Duffy’s lawyers want made public at trial, will be released.
The t r ial resumes Monday.