Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on May 1, 2007.
The hon. member accused Merlin Preuss, a government official with Transport Canada, of intimidating witnesses who were to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a very serious allegation, because intimidating witnesses is clearly unacceptable.
However, I maintain that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member is invalid for two reasons. First, there is no proof that the situation described by the hon. member constitutes a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This is a question of the interpretation of facts.
Second, this matter concerns the standing committee's work. Since the committee has not presented its report on the matter, it cannot be examined by the House as a valid question of privilege.
I would first like to present the facts of the situation. Mr. Holbrook, chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, appeared before the committee on February 21.
The hon. member referred to an affidavit by an assistant to Mr. Holbrook. In this affidavit, she indicated that Mr. Preuss had mentioned to her before the meeting of the committee that, if Mr. Holbrook planned to have any Transport Canada inspectors with him, he would “have an issue with it”, the insinuation being that this shows that Mr. Preuss' intention was to intimidate a witness. This allegation was examined by the standing committee at its March 28 meeting. At that time, Mr. Preuss stated that it never was his intention to intimidate or influence potential witnesses. He said, and I quote:
My sole purpose in making the call was to find out whether Mr. Holbrook intended to have civil aviation inspectors appearing with him, so that I might ensure that everyone involved knew of their roles, rights, and responsibilities.
At no time during this brief phone conversation with Mr. Holbrook's assistant did I make any threats regarding the appearance of inspectors before this committee.
There is therefore no evidence to suggest that witnesses have been intimidated. I understand that, during the April 23 meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the chair actually made remarks to that effect, saying that there was no evidence to support these allegations.
At best, we are dealing with diverging interpretations of the facts with respect to the conversation Mr. Preuss had with Mr. Holbrook's assistant. I submit that there are no grounds to conclude that a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege had occurred.
From a procedural point of view, I also submit that there can be no prima facie case of privilege at this time, given that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not submitted a report to the House on this matter.
As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit indicates on page 128:
Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.
Since the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not tabled a report on the matter, I submit that this is not a valid question of privilege at this time.