Key developments:

  • Fellow suspended senator Patrick Brazeau showed up to watch the proceedings
  • More testimony about residency requirements and Senate qualifications
  • A glowing endorsement from the prime minister was entered into evidence

THE SCENE

There was buzz outside the courtroom Thursday morning when fellow suspended senator Patrick Brazeau arrived to observe the trial.

“I’m here to support my independent senator,” he said.

When asked about Brazeau’s surprise appearance, Duffy’s lawyer Donald Bayne said: "It's news to me and it isn't something we've arranged."

Brazeau, who also faces fraud and breach of trust charges in relation to his living and travel expenses, sat in the back of the courtroom and took notes.

TESTIMONY

Day 3 continued with testimony from Mark Audcent, a former Senate law clerk. There were more questions from Duffy’s lawyer about residency issues and travel policies for senators.

Audcent said that a senator has a duty to be a resident of the province which he or she represents, but that doesn’t mean simply owning and maintaining a home in the region.

Bayne also raised the issue of what it means for a senator to be on public versus private business.

THE PHOTO

Bayne entered into evidence a photo of Duffy and Prime Minister Stephen Harper from June 2009. The handwritten inscription from Harper read: “To Duff: A great journalist and a great senator. Thanks for being one of my best, hardest-working appointments ever!"

Harper's signed photo to Duffy

ANALYSIS

Ian Greene, a public policy professor at York University, told CTV’s Power Play Thursday that the Constitution “very clearly” explains that senators must be residents in the province for which they are appointed.

“So the Senate rules can’t define what ‘resident’ means in the Constitution,” he said.

“I find it absolutely fascinating that the Crown has suggested that perhaps Mike Duffy was not constitutionally appointed,” Greene added. “That leaves us with a huge mess.”

Because the Crown has brought that up as a key argument, Greene said he believes the judge will have to rule on what the Constitution means by “resident.”