Evidence of meeting #42 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was preuss.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
What I've been saying for a while now is that because of the words you used it's possible that this individual thought you wanted to influence her testimony to the committee. You said you're sorry for giving people that impression and that it was not your intention to influence people's testimony.
You may have been well-intentioned, Mr. Preuss, but the problem is this: you are in a position of authority and prospective witnesses got the impression that you wanted to influence their testimony to the committee. That's what I'm having trouble accepting. If my Conservative colleagues are alright with this, then it's their problem. I cannot accept the fact that as a senior official holding a responsible, influential position, you may have exerted the slightest bit...
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Sorry to interrupt, Monsieur Laframboise. I just want to set the record straight here.
The translation could be off, but from what I understand, Mr. Holbrook was never contacted by Mr. Preuss. When Mr. Holbrook was here at the committee he suggested that perhaps his secretary felt that somebody could have been trying to influence. So it wasn't somebody directly talking to a potential witness. I just wanted to set the record straight on that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's what worries me about your attitude. Let me repeat that you're not denying having called Ms. Marquis and spoken to her.
You're not denying that fact, are you?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, of course not.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Precisely. As I said, it's possible that Ms. Marquis interpreted your actions and comments to mean that. Is that possible?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
You'd have to ask her. I have no idea how she perceives me. She has to make that decision herself. All I can tell you is that it certainly wasn't my intention to--
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Fine then. Since we have Ms. Marquis' sworn affidavit, there is no need for me to ask her any new questions. She has stated under oath that this was her take on the situation and that, I cannot accept, Mr. Preuss.
Earlier, you told me that you were not a law clerk and that you were not familiar with all aspects of the law. However, influencing the testimony of a witness slated to appear before a committee constitutes contempt of Parliament, sir. I would think that you would have given that some thought and considered apologizing to us for your actions, for what I see as contempt of Parliament.
My colleagues can decide for themselves how they wish to interpret this situation, but as committee members, we believe that witnesses who agree to testify mustn't be pressured by anyone, especially not by a senior government official such as yourself.
I trust you understand clearly that you cannot do something that could be interpreted by someone as an attempt to influence his testimony to the committee.
You do understand that?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is also my pleasure to be here today.
Mr. Preuss, thanks for coming.
The motion that was read by the chairman indicated that you are here really to reflect on what was an impression of a telephone conversation. I have a couple of questions, but one question I have for you is this.
You've read the affidavit. It says in paragraph 7, “Hello, Greg”, and this is you speaking, so I'm assuming that, based on the phone call you got, the number came up as his number. I'm sure Greg is a “he”. So you thought it was him calling, is that correct? Would you say that was—
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, it would show up on my call display, because I have his number in my system.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay. And the woman who is swearing the affidavit indicates that she is the assistant and that she is getting back to you on the information you had requested. Would that be a good analysis of what is said here?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Let's assume—she did say there's some family tragedy here, so it took her a while to get back to here—that this is accurate.
For somebody who sends you a threatening phone call, if you think of it as threatening or anything, do you not think...? It strikes me that if it were perceived as being some sort of difficult phone call, maybe the boss would call you back, or that they might not even call you back to deal with it. I find it strange and wonder why, if it was intimidating, they would just call you back with the answer and you didn't pursue it any further.
Do you wish to make a comment to that end? If it was such a threatening phone call, why was the answer so colloquial, to put it that way?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I guess I can refer back to my opening remarks and also the statement I made earlier, that I was quite surprised that there was any negativity associated with my call. Certainly, as I said in my initial remarks, if there was an issue, I still remain puzzled as to why, given that I have a good working relationship with Holbrook, he didn't come back to me and ask me to explain myself. None of that ever happened.
So at that point in time, where the affidavit says “OK. Thanks”, that was now washed from my memory banks as anything to be concerned about in the future.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I don't find your responses too intimidating here today, but just in your last response you used the word “issue”. You probably didn't even realize that you used the word “issue”, but you did: if there was an issue, you were surprised that he didn't call you back.
Would you say that you use the word “issue” not always in a negative context, but just in a regular course of conversation that you have with people?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I think in the lexicon of Transport Canada civil aviation we tend to talk about issues. It's rather a neutral term. It doesn't become pejorative at the outset. So yes, it's a common term, both in French and English, that I use to talk about things that need to be discussed.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay.
Her interpretation is that in your communication you wished to discourage Transport Canada inspectors from testifying. Do you agree with that comment or not?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Again, as I said before, I can't speak to how she heard the words I said. I can only refer to what she says the words were and what my intention was in making the phone call.
