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.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
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?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
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.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
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.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
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?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except that you're in a position of authority. Do you acknowledge that that's the case?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
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?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
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?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
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?
March 28th, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
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.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, it's a very simple question. Did you conduct a risk assessment?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I understand what your question is, Mr. Julian, but I'm not--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think that we do have to stay to the context of the motion, and the motion deals with--
3:50 p.m.
NDP
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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
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.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
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--