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.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I have a couple of things.
First of all, I appreciate that you ruled on the issue of the CUPE letter. But Mr. Chair, I would also point out that in the answer Mr. Preuss gave, he is the one who entered that into the issue...or into the question—
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
No, no, the issue in this case being his objection. I just wanted to make that as a reference. It wasn't raised from outside; it was raised within his testimony.
The question I have is this. Flowing from this letter we're referring to from the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, of which we all have copies, if the impression Ms. Marquis has is that you were attempting to discourage Transport Canada inspectors from testifying, let me ask in that vein, so that I can get clarification...and I have heard your answer to the other members. Normally if you were aware that this committee had asked Transport employees to appear before it, would you brief them ahead of time as to what was acceptable to be said? Do you do pre-briefings, in other words?
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, but it wouldn't be me in this context, necessarily. I'm not an expert on the Government of Canada policies vis-à-vis public servants appearing before committees. I do know that a document exists, and had I any indication that employees were going to be invited to this committee, then I would have gone directly.... And before I made the phone call, I did discuss with the experts in our human resources and labour relations organization what the context could be here and what my responsibilities were. But had this gone to the next step, either through an invitation from the committee or through an acknowledgment from Mr. Holbrook that he intended to bring serving inspectors with him, then my next step would have been to go to the experts, seek their advice and their counsel, and probably their aid in making everybody--the managers who could be involved, because the people reporting to them would be here instead of at work, and the employees themselves--have a clear understanding of their roles, their responsibilities, and of course their rights.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
When you're dealing with issues that potentially deal with safety, and a committee such as this is seeking answers from people, there's the extra caution needed to try to avoid the perception that somehow the answers are being filtered or tainted, or whatever you want to call it, or directed, as opposed to a committee such as this having the ability to get information from individuals. We would have the ability, obviously, to ask you to appear, or we could ask a staff member to appear, lower staff members, because we wanted an answer or we wanted information from those staff people.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I'm well aware of the prerogatives of this committee, and it would not be my intention to curtail its work in any way, but in fact, just the opposite; I would seek to smooth the way for the appearance of people you would invite from inside our organization.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
When I started with my hand and I had the extra question, the reason I raised it was really in response to the point of order in your ruling, because my understanding from procedure is that if an answer comes back in response that raises something new--such as what occurred in the answer in the reference to the CUPE letter--that then in effect brings it into the discussion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I would suspect it might in a court of law, and if I missed it earlier, I should have corrected it at the time, but we are dealing specifically.... And I thank you for the advice.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I just want to point out that I'm what they call a Philadelphia lawyer. I'm not either a country or city lawyer on this one.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Quite frankly, I'm disappointed with the direction this particular meeting has taken. I did notice that my Liberal colleagues were careful not to accuse Mr. Preuss of contempt of Parliament. Even Mr. Julian didn't do that.
But Mr. Laframboise, it really concerns me that you have made the allegation that Mr. Preuss is in contempt of Parliament. It's a very serious allegation to make of someone who has served many years for this government, who is one of the most senior officials--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe this is a question period. If Mr. Fast would like to ask a question of the witness, that would be appropriate. This is not a “berate other members of the committee” moment.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
There is a question. I do have a good question, but my concern is that we've made allegations here and I simply wanted to encourage Mr. Laframboise to reconsider his remarks.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If he wants to discuss the matter with me, I'm ready to do so any time, any place. That's not a problem. Only I would suggest he pay attention to what he says.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm just putting that on the record. This meeting and the comments of this committee have the appearance of a drive-by smear of someone who's spent many years working for this government.
Mr. Preuss, what I'd like to ask you is this. Is it not the role of government, and your role in particular, to make sure that the people who are employed for your department are fully informed of all aspects of the job they're expected to do?
