Transport Committee on March 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise, go ahead.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Preuss, you seem to favour an interventionist approach when it comes to witnesses appearing before various government bodies. This is not the first time that you have contacted potential witnesses. You did so in July 2006 when you forwarded a letter to Ms. Sachs from CUPE. In the letter, you asked to discuss certain matters with her prior to her appearance before the Standing Committee on Transport.

This morning's newspapers report that you sent a note to various public servants who might be questioned by the Auditor General. You asked that you be sent the requests to confirm their validity, information and so forth.

You seem to find nothing unusual in the fact that when committees or the Auditor General ask to hear from public servant, you meet with them in advance to find out what they are going to say.

Is this the normal way of doing things, Mr. Preuss?

[Merlin Preuss]

The particular question vis-à-vis CUPE would apply to ALPA and to ACPA. It was an offer on my part to provide a service to them if they had any questions. Of course, I'd be more than happy if they shared with me what their concerns were and what they might present before this committee, but it was in no way an attempt to, as you say, intervene in some sort of controlling fashion.

I see my job very much as providing as much information as I can to anybody who chooses to avail themselves of the information I can provide in terms of background, context, and what our intentions are when the department writes things like amendments to acts. To me, it's simply a manifestation of my desire to create partnerships and work with the industry in general and, of course, with our own bargaining agents and unions.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Except for the fact that Ms. Marquis, in a sworn affidavit submitted to us--I believe you've received a copy of it-- , said she was convinced that in light of the words and tone used, you were attempting to discourage representatives of federal pilots from testifying before the committee. You don't deny the fact that you either spoke to, or called...

Therefore, the words used might suggest to some people that you wanted to pressure them in some way. You don't deny that you contacted these people to let them know that that they were being called to testify before the committee. You did just that in the case of the federal pilots. Therefore, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that these individuals might think you're trying to discourage them from testifying before the committee. Quite possibly they might think that.

[Merlin Preuss]

Mr. Chairman, could I have a minute to read this letter? I'm not aware that this letter actually says that the woman in question perceived that I was threatening. Could I take a moment to see, or perhaps Mr. Laframboise can read to me exactly what--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask you to take a minute and read it. We'll stop the clock and take a two-minute recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're back.

[Merlin Preuss]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now know what phrase Monsieur Laframboise was referring to.

All I can say then in response to what Madame Marquis has stated is that it wasn't my intention to discourage; it was my intention to anticipate any problems that might arise through the invitation for inspectors to appear before this committee. If I left that impression with Madame Marquis, that was certainly not my intention.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

But it's not impossible, since you do make these phone calls or send letters, that these individuals might think you're trying to discourage them from testifying. It's not impossible.

Do you agree with me?

[Merlin Preuss]

I suggest that if people had that impression or inferred something pejorative from something I've written or said, then perhaps a phone call back to me, or an e-mail back to me, to clarify would have solved the problem right there. In this particular case, also in the case of Pamela Sachs, I heard nothing negative back from anybody on my requests or my offers of assistance, so I'm a little puzzled as to how someone could leave such negative impressions sitting idly.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Except that you're in a position of authority. Do you acknowledge that that's the case?

[Merlin Preuss]

Monsieur Laframboise, I have no authority over the bargaining agent. I have no authority over Madame Marquis or Mademoiselle Marquis. I have no authority over Mr. Holbrook.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

However, at Transport Canada, you hold a position of authority in the organization. You do represent Transport Canada. Correct?

[Merlin Preuss]

I have a responsibility to manage the resources entrusted to me. I have a responsibility to follow the Government of Canada policies. I guess I have authority there. No, I know I have authority in those areas to act on behalf of the Government of Canada, but in terms of dealing with Pamela Sachs and CUPE, and dealing with the bargaining agent, I have no authority.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Preuss, given your position as a senior official, do you realize that pressuring witnesses to not testify or asking to speak with them prior to testifying could be viewed as contempt of Parliament? Are you mindful of this fact when you intervene?

[Merlin Preuss]

I'm not a legal expert in terms of what position people might take about things that I do on behalf of the Government of Canada in exercising my duties and responsibilities. I'm not an expert on that. But if you're implying somehow that I had any intentions of being in contempt of this committee or Parliament, that couldn't be further from the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite disturbed by some of these answers, but I'll come back for a moment, Mr. Preuss, to the issue that's arisen through our Bill C-6 hearings, which is the cancellation of the national audit program in March 2006. Did you, Transport Canada, conduct a risk assessment prior to the cancellation of the national audit program?

[Merlin Preuss]

Mr. Julian, I think that's a very important question, and to it, and to the many other questions and concerns that have been raised at this committee, I will be more than happy to provide you a complete answer in context. But I'm frankly not prepared today to discuss issues surrounding BillC-6. My understanding is that I was here to respond to the allegations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, it's a very simple question. Did you conduct a risk assessment?

[Merlin Preuss]

I understand what your question is, Mr. Julian, but I'm not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think that we do have to stay to the context of the motion, and the motion deals with--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's very simple. Did you conduct a risk assessment, yes or no? I'm not asking him for the details on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Unfortunately that question will be answered when Mr. Preuss returns to this committee as part of the Transport Canada...this is dealing directly with the motion of Mr. Laframboise. I'm sorry, Mr. Julian. You will have to stay on topic.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, the witness said his job is to provide information. He stated that in his remarks. I am not asking any details, I'm simply asking yes or no. He's aware of that. It's part of his job.

Is there a risk assessment--