P.E.I. taxpayers pay the price as parties feud

Well, that escalated quickly.

It was a kinder, gentler Official Opposition when the fall sitting of the P.E.I. Legislature began on Nov. 12.

But that unraveled just one week later when government's $78-million capital budget passed with almost no scrutiny from any of the MLAs whose job it is to scrutinize public spending.

Opposition House Leader James Aylward speaks as if his party had offered its hand as a gesture of goodwill, and government had kicked it in the shins.

• Despite confusion over passing of capital budget, debate resumes

• P.E.I.'s $78M capital budget passes with little debate

• P.E.I. capital budget unveiled at $78M

"This government has talked about working collaboratively, working with both opposition parties. We came into this session with the intent to do just that," Aylward said Thursday evening, after the capital budget passed with just four minutes of debate and a whopping zero questions from the Official Opposition.

"We even changed the tone of our motions coming forward to make them a little more appealing, perhaps, to government, not as harsh ... But yet we continually see tactics from the government where they do not want to work collaboratively with us."

While Aylward and his party might feel they were wronged, Island taxpayers are the ones who really suffered.

Gov't reneged on backroom deal, Opposition alleges

What had PC MLAs up in arms was the kind of backroom deal that takes place all the time between parties, negotiated betweentheir House leaders. But in this case, the Opposition alleges government reneged on its commitment.

The Opposition agreed to give up some of its time Thursday afternoon so Liberal backbench MLA Tina Mundy could bring forward a motion calling on government to review supports for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.

In exchange, government (according to the Tories) was to allow an Opposition motion on government cuts to potato disinfection services to come to a vote.

But time on the motionran out while Agriculture Minister Alan McIsaac had the floor. The Opposition called for time to be extended but government did not provide the unanimous consent required. ("Unbelievable," you can hear one of the Opposition MLAs chant as the Speaker dismisses the House.)

Procedural misfire

When the sitting resumed in the evening, it was government's turn to control the agenda. McIsaac, who is also the Government House Leader, asked the Speaker to bring the capital budget to the floor.

There was some attempted procedural wrangling by Opposition MLA Brad Trivers, apparently intended to sideline the government agenda. But it failed even before Trivers had finished speaking.

At that point, three key members of the Opposition left the chamber: Trivers, Aylward and Opposition Leader Jamie Fox. A few minutes later, government called for a vote and passed its capital budget.

In 2014, debate over the capital budget was spread over two days. In 2013, three days.

In 2015, the debate lasted four minutes enough time to answer the only two questions on government's $78 million capital spending plan, both from Green Party Leader Peter Bevan-Baker.

2 important questions

Island taxpayers would be justified in asking two important questions: Why didn't the Official Opposition ask any questions on the capital budget? And why was government trying to pass the budget after just four minutes of debate?

Neither of these questions has been adequately answered in response to questions from the media.

Bevan-Baker has cited his own "greenness" as a rookie MLA. Aylward, too, acknowledged his caucus has five new members still learning how things work.

It may seem like a moot point now.

The morning after the budget passed, the three parties met to come up with a plan so MLAs could provide some scrutiny of the budget.

On Friday, there was no end of questions when government brought forward not the budget itself because it couldn't be re-introduced but the bill that authorizes the spending outlined in the capital budget. The clock ran out after 90 minutes, before the bill came up for a vote. MLAs will get the opportunity to question it further.

"We're committed to openness and transparency and to a collaborative approach in the House," Premier Wade MacLauchlan said afterwards. "And it's with that spirit that in effect the questions are being asked in consideration of the Appropriations Act."

Much has been said of MacLauchlan's promise to improve the tone of discourse in the legislature.

Before the fall sitting began, MacLauchlan suggested he'd achieved that objective, providing credit (as he should) to both opposition parties.

Political squabbles may yet undermine that spirit of collaboration. Taxpayers will be served best if all parties can find a way to work together while attending first and foremost to the business of the House.