Mike Duffy trial: Crown dogs suspended senator over Peterborough trip

The Crown in the Mike Duffy trial went to the dogs on Tuesday, but the suspended senator's lawyer suggested that the prosecution was barking up the wrong tree.

The prosecutor contends that Duffy billed $698 in expenses for a trip he took with his wifeto a dog show in Peterborough, Ont., in July 2010to buy a Kerry blue terrier.

• Mike Duffy trial: Senate expense report has 'inherent reliability,' senator's lawyer argues
• Auditor general's Senate review finds 'a few people with big issues': sources
• Mike Duffy trial: What's in the Senate report the Crown doesn't want as evidence?
• Mike Duffy trial: Following the trail of cheques

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 staff,NigelWright.

According to Duffy'sexpense claims, he and his wife travelled toPeterboroughin July 2010on "public business," for what he said were meetings with local officials to discuss "broadcasting issues." His personal diary said that he andhis wife drove toPeterboroughon July 2and spent the night at a Super 8 motel; the next morning, they had coffee with then Tory MP Dean DelMastroand his wife.

LouiseLang,secretary of theKerryBlue Terrier Club of Canada, testified on Tuesday by phonethat she was involved inorganizing the show thatyear. Although she was busy attending to her duties, she saidher husband introduced her to Duffy, who was therewith his wife.Langsaid hermeeting with Duffywas brief, lasting about a minute.

She also testified that aKerry blue terrier breeder from New Brunswickwasat the show the same time as Duffy.

But Duffy's lawyerDonaldBaynequestionedLang's memory of the events of that day.Langadmitted that when she was interviewed about the issue by theRCMPin 2013, she couldn't recall the exact year she had met Duffy. She also said she told the RCMP that she couldn't remember if Duffy's wife was there with him.

"I asked my husband and he saidshe was there," Lang said.

"Has it not been explained to you that youshould giveus theevidence of what you know and not what othershave told you?" Bayne asked.

Bayne later asked Lang if she had told police that Duffy had picked up a dog at the show.

"I was under the impression that he wasthereto pick up a dog," she said, adding that she told theRCMPthat he picked up a dog from the New Brunswickbreeder.

ButBaynesaid that Duffy never purchased a dog at the show, but instead purchased a dog from the New Brunswickbreeder in that province in January 2011.

Earlier Tuesday, on the 19th day of the trial, the Crown had argued that areport looking into senators' office and travel expenditures is merely the opinions of an outside auditorand shouldn't be considered a public document or exempt from hearsay rules.

Witness testimony at the trial, which began April 7,hadbeentemporarily put on holdasthe Crown and the defence argue about theannual report on internal audits 2009-10, issued bythe Senate internal economy committee.

The reportincluded the findings of three audits carried out over the previous year by independent auditing firmErnst&Young including one that dealt specifically with senators' office expenditures.

The Crown believes the reportshouldn't be considered as evidence, claiming its conclusions are hearsay.

"The problem is we don't know whoseopinion this is," Crown prosecutor Mark Holmes argued in the Ottawa provincial courtroom. "We don't know about [theauditors'] ability or their experience. We don't know ifthere were any dissenting views expressed.

"We don't know with whom they spoke or what was said, compounding problems, because now we have other layers of hearsay," Holmes said.

On Monday and part of Tuesday morning, Duffy's lawyer Donald Bayne argued that the report should be considered as evidence. While he agreed that the reportis hearsay, he argued it'san exception to the hearsay rule.

Baynesaidthe report should be admissible because it'sa public document it was made by public officials, intended to be a permanent record and accessible to the public meaning it is has"inherent reliability."

But Holmes rejected that claim, saying that the hearsayexception for public documents involves documents not containing opinions. That means data such as birth/death records, passenger manifests andnautical charts facts that are unambiguous and can be easily corrected.

Holmes said the documents were not made by public officials but auditors who were "clearly outsiders."While the auditorswere retained by the Senate, their work was "not a public duty or function."

As well, Holmes argued, the report was more of a work product andnot made with the intent of making it apermanent record.

In its report to the committee, the auditors noted the Senate "should provide clearer guidance and criteria on which activities constitute a parliamentary function." During the trial,Baynehas arguedthat the rules guiding senators were ambiguous and unclear.

OntarioCourt of Justice JudgeCharlesVaillancourtsaid it could take him until sometime in June to reach a decision on the issue.

• Can't see the live blog? Follow it here