A disappointing decision by a legislature committee

Island taxpayers are not well- served by the public accounts committee’s decision to deny this opposition request

The public accounts committee’s decision last week not to subpoena a former deputy minister of tourism to appear to answer questions about tourism contracts was both surprising and disappointing.

It was surprising because the committee earlier had agreed to support calling the former deputy to testify. It was disappointing because it will frustrate attempts to further enlighten Islanders about an issue that has been raised by the auditor general.

During meetings of the legislature’s public accounts committee, Opposition Leader Olive Crane has asked repeatedly that Tourism Minister Robert Henderson, his current deputy and former deputy be called to answer questions raised by the auditor general. In his 2012 annual report, Auditor General Colin Younker investigated Tourism P. E. I. and found a lack of controls and oversight in the awarding of $ 8 million in contracts between 2009 and 2011. He also noted instances where Treasury Board policy had not been applied. Crane has been asking that Henderson and his current deputy, as well as his former deputy during whose time the contracts were awarded, appear before the committee. While Henderson said last week that he would appear with his deputy, he pointed out that he did not have the authority to ask his former deputy to appear.

If that’s the case, then issuing a subpoena is justified, and that appeared to be the sentiment expressed at a committee meeting in late September. At that time, Crane — upset with the seeming reluctance of the tourism minister to respond to requests to appear before the committee — suggested a letter demanding that the minister, his deputy and his former deputy make time to show up. Failing this, she said at the time, she would seek support for a subpoena. The committee agreed.

If the committee earlier accepted the rationale of having the former deputy testify, why then, did it not back Crane’s request last week for a subpoena?

The issue here is government accountability. In his report, the auditor general found there was a lack of oversight in the awarding of $ 8 million in tourism contracts. This demands further explanation. The opposition’s insistence that the former deputy appear before the committee along with the minister and current deputy is reasonable. If collectively these officials could help provide a full explanation about the awarding of these contracts, then taxpayers would be better informed about how their money was spent and why. Lest we forget, they’re entitled to this information. In the interests of transparency and accountability, the committee should have supported Crane’s request last week for a subpoena. That they didn’t is a disservice to taxpayers.