‘Backdoor’ contracts common in the House
During Duffy fraud trial, former aide says creativity is needed to ‘get bills paid’
OTTAWA— It is “common practice” for senators, cabinet ministers and MPs to use “backdoor” contracts to cover costs, and to mix public and private business “because they’re so busy,” the Mike Duffy fraud trial has heard.
As a damning Senate audit targeted dubious Senate spending and calls for independent oversight, the testimony of longtime Parliament Hill aide Diane Scharf bluntly put forward the proposition that workarounds are necessary and widespread.
“This is a very common practice in the House of Commons. I’m quite accustomed to this,” she said. “You have to be creative a bit sometimes to get bills paid.”
Scharf, an administrative assistant, joined Duffy’s Senate office in 2011to cover a six-month maternity leave — her first job in the Senate.
She testified she sent, at Duffy’s instruction, invoices to and got four cheques totalling $584 from the company of Duffy’s friend, Gerry Donohue, to cover the cost of her cellphone data plan after Senate administration had declined to pay for it. Earlier evidence at trial earlier suggests the Senate pays for only four cellphones per Senate office.
The Crown alleges Duffy funnelled payments for services that Senate administration would not otherwise cover — like makeup or fitness training — through Donohue’s company, via large contracts to escape financial scrutiny.
Aprim and often prickly witness for the Crown, Scharf was more forthcoming for defence lawyer Don Bayne, admitting she told an RCMP interviewer of examples “when I worked for a member (of Parliament) and also a cabinet minister,” saying it was common to mail out autographed photographs of participants at an event with a minister in a Christmas card from the minister.
“The House of Commons doesn’t cover that photography, so then you’d be given a little contract through the House of Commons for that photography work,” she said. “That’s how things like that happen and they have up there for a hundred years. It’s sort of a backdoor way of getting things done.”
Scharf initially said that’s how she viewed her Donohue cheques but promptly contradicted herself, saying she had no idea if it was taxpayers’ money.
“Maybe the money for my cellphone came from him for selling tomatoes at end of his laneway. I had no idea and I didn’t care. I had a job to do, I needed that cellphone, and he was there ready to reimburse me. It was just a simple matter for a small amount of money.”
Over the objection of the Crown, Scharf also offered her opinion that — based on “direct knowledge and experience” of more than 40 years on Parliament Hill, “combining public purpose travel with some aspect of personal is appropriate” in the words of Duffy’s lawyer.