Ottawa — Bureaucrats willing to tell what they know about the sponsorship scandal will be given full protection of proposed whistleblower legislation even before the bill is passed, the government says.
But that doesn't include protection from criminal charges.
Reg Alcock, the cabinet minister responsible for the civil service, said Tuesday that public servants who yield information on how $100-million was squandered on Public Works ad contracts won't face repercussions.
“I will protect them,” said the Treasury Board president.
“People who come forward legitimately with grievances or information on these issues that they want heard, I will undertake to ensure that they will have the full protections that they would have as if the whistleblowing legislation was in place.”
The protection will extend to all federal bureaucrats and will extend to all issues, not just the sponsorship scandal, he said — but it will not shield anyone from criminal charges.
The whistleblower legislation is expected to be introduced in the Commons this month. It's part of Prime Minister Paul Martin's response to last week's auditor general's report which uncovered widespread abuse of public funds in the now-defunct sponsorship program.
But John Williams, chair of the public accounts committee now setting the parameters of its probe into the sponsorship scandal, said Mr. Alcock's promise contradicts his earlier vow that any wrongdoers will suffer the consequences of their actions.
“(Mr. Alcock) said that any civil servant who wants to come forward will not suffer any administrative retribution,” he said.
“But at the same time and in the same breath, he said that anybody who has broken the law, presumably including the financial administration act, will suffer the penalties appropriately.”
That means a group of 14 civil servants referred to last week by Mr. Martin as the perpetrators of the scandal could lose their jobs if they come forward to speak at the committee hearings, Williams said.
“I've heard rumours that they were coerced into participating in this scandal and received absolutely no benefit from this scandal,” Mr. Williams said. “They felt that if they didn't do what the boss wanted their careers were on the line.”
His committee has struck a subcommittee to speak with Treasury Board about whether it would cut any deals in exchange for testimony from public servants who had willingly broken rules.
Mr. Alcock said the question of sanctions is up to the public service, adding he would be speaking to their unions.
The committee continued to hear testimony to help stake out its turf in the face of two parallel probes: an RCMP investigation and a public inquiry into the ad agency scam which is now dragging down Liberal popularity.
Committee members will have to “tiptoe through the tulips” to avoid interfering with issues including potential criminal charges, said Commons law clerk Rob Walsh.
Auditor-General Sheila Fraser and others noted last week that hearing such testimony before committee, which is protected by parliamentary privilege, could prevent some witnesses from being criminally charged.
The committee should limit itself to whether it has lost confidence in the government — something the public inquiry can't explore, Mr. Walsh told the committee.
Such a probe would hinge on the question of whether ministers, such as former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano and his deputy, interfered with the public service.
Mr. Walsh suggested former ministers and prime ministers such as Jean Chrétien should be asked to appear. Mr. Martin has already said he would testify.
Mr. Williams said he's not worried about tarnishing any evidence that could be used in a future criminal trial.
“The chair has a gavel and when he brings it down, privileges cease at that point in time,” he said.
He also said the committee wouldn't — and can't — set out to find confidence or non-confidence in the government.
“The public accounts committee would be uncomfortable making a recommendation to the House of Commons that it had no confidence in the ministry — i.e. the Prime Minister and the government.
“But the priority of the committee is to table the facts and the House could draw that conclusion (of non-confidence in government) and take it forward if they so desired.”
Mr. Alcock said he expects a report back as early as this week from Crown corporations on their response to the Auditor-General's report, which found that some Crowns helped Liberal-connected firms skim money from ad contracts.
That report will form the basis of Mr. Alcock's own report to Mr. Martin on how to clean house at the publicly owned companies. Martin's response could include firing top officials.
The Prime Minister, in an interview published Tuesday by Le Soleil of Quebec City, noted that — in certain cases at least — he won't need any more information than Mr. Alcock's report to make his decision.
He warned, however, that in other cases he may have to await a separate investigation by a public inquiry.
Mr. Martin wouldn't name names and refused to speculate on the extent to which senior executives may have been involved.
“In the Crown corporations that did these things, there were people who know about it,” he said. “I don't know whether the presidents knew about it, the inquiry will tell us.”
Ms. Fraser is expected to provide the committee with a full list of names of public servants and those at Crown corporations who authorized the transactions between 1997 and 2002 at its next meeting Thursday. The committee will hear from Public Works officials.
Public Works Minister Stephen Owen said discussions are on-going with Quebec judge heading the public inquiry, and said he expects to table the terms of reference Wednesday.
