Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Well, someone seems to have wildly misunderstood the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

by kadyomalley on Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:08pm - 25 Comments

But I’m not sure that someone is Parliamentary Librarian William Young.

From his appearance before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (September 19, 2006)

Senator Day: [...] How much is this person [the Parliamentary Budget Officer] under your control and your budget, and how much is this person with you, in your physical area, but not really part of you?

Mr. Young: That was an initial concern when the bill was tabled in the House of Commons. For an accountability act to create an officer who is not accountable, which was the initial interpretation I had of the bill, was a bit of a contradiction. I pointed this out and there was an amendment introduced in the House to ensure that this officer is accountable through me to the Speakers so that the Library of Parliament cannot function as a two-headed monster.

There must be one person responsible for its estimates and spending. There must be one person accountable for its work to you people. Within that framework, however, I see this person as being akin to an associate parliamentary librarian with a special designated function. Because there will be a special designated function, obviously that person will need the ability to make decisions with regard to that function, to carry out the responsibilities associated with that function and to have the support required to do his or her job in an appropriate manner. The position would include an independent mandate to some extent within the library, but it would definitely, for the purposes of accountability to Parliament and to the Speakers, who are my bosses, flow through me.

Senator Day: When you say “accountability,” accountability in terms of how many people he or she hires; what the overall section budget will be; what the estimate is for the next year?

Mr. Young: Yes, that is correct.

Senator Day: That will all flow through you and through you to the Speakers?

Mr. Young: That is correct.

Senator Day: Are you satisfied now with the changes that have been made in that regard? Are you satisfied that the flow of authority and responsibility will be there?

Mr. Young: It could be slightly clearer in some ways but by virtue of the for greater certainty, section 74 and subsection 75(2) apply in respect of the exercise of the powers described in subsections 1 to 3. The bill says in subsection 74 and 75, 75(2) that the Parliamentary Librarian has the rank of a deputy head of a department of the Government of Canada, and subject to section 74, which refers to the Speakers and the joint committee, has the control and management of the library. I am satisfied with that amendment introduced in the House that the lines of authority are clear enough. [emphasis added]

Senator Hugh Segal, as quoted in the Ottawa Citizen (November 6, 2008):

“Any dispute that may exist between the librarian and parliamentary budget officer as to the appropriate authority and freedom for the latter should not be determined by a fiat from any source … but by discussion by parliamentarians in the appropriate committee,” said Mr. Segal in a letter to the two Speakers. [...]Mr. Segal said the Speakers’ view “defies understanding” of why the job was created. He said the library wouldn’t need legislation to create the office to simply hire another librarian or budget researcher.

“Mr. Page was not hired as a servant of the librarian of Parliament,” said Mr. Segal. “He was hired as the servant of Parliament.

“To reduce (Mr. Page) to that of just another researcher in the Library of Parliament is a travesty of the idea behind the office and the government’s intent.”[emphasis added]

Tags: , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Just visiting

    So it looks like the decision to have the PBO report through the Chief Librarian to the Speakers was quite deliberate, and that this is clear in the statute. Is that a correct reading of the above?

    If so, then why is Kevin Page complaining now? Surely this reporting relationship was clear in his job description.

    This is a separate question from whether the statute, if it is as suggested, is a good law. Seems to me it isn’t; the PBO ought to be reporting directly to Parliament.

    - JV

  • madeyoulook

    Well, after PW’s rant exposing the unfairness of muzzling an independent officer who should be able to speak directly to Canadians (“Telling truth to power, and to all of us, too”), I went renegade and actually googled his job description. It is the royally assented Bill C-2. The PBO is NOT legally authorized to speak directly to Canadians; he is a creature within the Parliamentary Library. I will not paste the PBO legal summary from Bill C-2 again, it is in one of my comments to the aforementioned PW opinion piece.

    Young broke the law. The Speakers called him on it. The commentariat goes wild with conspiracy theories. Doesn’t anyone read the law anymore, least of all the people we pay to make ‘em (aka MPs and Senators)?

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    I think you meant that Page broke the the law; if so, you’re right. The problem here isn’t Page, or Young, or the Speakers – it is the law, which was badly written, and then explicitly amended to make it worse, from the retroactive perspective of avoiding this showdown.
    Read what Young says above: He got the government to bring in changes to the bill to establish that the PBO would report to Parliament through the Library. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that at the time, except the Bloc Quebecois, which was the only party that consistently raised concerns about his independence. The solution is to amend the law, not yell at Young for following it.

  • madeyoulook

    Sorry, Kady, you’re right, I mixed up the names. Page broke the law. Which makes it difficult to accept that Page is not the problem. If Parliament wants to fix the law, fine. But Page broke the law. And if there is a single Canadian who I would expect to have an understanding of that law, it would be Page. The lawbreaker. That has to mean something.

    And the next batch of people I would expect to have an understanding of that law would be, drumroll please, the people who made the law. So either Segal is lying or stupid. And I have never thought of him as stupid.

  • Just visiting

    Kady — Or instead of changing the law, the Speakers could tell the Librarian to tell Page that the law is what it is, and that he should therefore follow it.

    If, when and how the law might be changed is a separate matter from how Page needs to conduct himself under the law passed by Parliament.

    Seems to me…

  • madeyoulook

    Or instead of changing the law, the Speakers could tell the Librarian to tell Page that the law is what it is, and that he should therefore follow it.

    JV, I might be missing your irony here, but just in case your suggestion of what the Speakers “could” do is sincere, may I announce that this is precisely what the Speakers DID do.

  • Brian

    I know Kevin Page, and he would never knowingly break the law.

  • madeyoulook

    Wait a minute, Brian.

    When the topic (of releasing Afghan-mission cost info in the middle of an election campaign) came up, a lot of people who did not know the answer were saying “Can he do that?” There is a healthy debate on that subject in this very webzone somewhere. It turns out the answer is “No, he cannot do that.” It boggles the fair mind to believe that the principle person involved did not (a) already know the answer to that question, or (b) conceive of the question and seek to find the answer before acting, or (c) conceive of the question and consult his boss before acting, and therefore (d) release a statement saying “I regret that this office is not authorized to release this information; please consult Section X of the law that created this office for further information” rather than release the report itself.

    I need more than your knowing him, Brian, to place eyebrows in fully raised position over Page’s conduct.

  • Brian

    You raise good questions, MYL, but I suspect its far more nuanced than you’ve set out. I don’t necessarily buy the allegation that this is a power struggle and would suggest its not much more than opposing interpretations and viewpoints from legal counsel.

    I know Kevin’s personality and its nothing close to a megalomaniac, which is being inferred in some corners. The idea that he would knowingly “break the law” is ludicrous. There is more at play here, and we aren’t privy to the details.

  • Brian

    In other words, I’m suggesting its possible that he (b) conceived of the question and sought to find the answer before acting, which turned out to be (e) the wrong answer or advice.

  • madeyoulook

    Well, I am relieved that I am innocent of charging him with megalomania, but my charge of lawbreaker stands, based on available evidence. I personally remain agnostic as to his motives. But you may find relief that many corners around here seem to be cheering his maverickness (maverickicity? maverickhood?) as “the people’s informant” or perhaps the whistle-blower-in-chief.

    Your putting my (b) and your (e) together is not a very flattering picture of your friend, Brian. An officer of the Library of Parliamen can’t read a law? The law that gave him a job? The law that gave him a job description?

    Eyebrows still locked in upward position.

  • Lee

    Kady: there are multiple legal opinion. I am sure librarian has one and so does the PBO.

    I think Young broke the law and acted in a way that is against accountability and transparency.

  • Lee

    Kady Kady….can you please quote me the chapter and verse of the act where it says Kevin reports to Young? You seem to be quoting hearsay…ludicrous. what happened to your journalistic independence and objectivity?

  • madeyoulook

    79.1 (1) There is hereby established the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, the holder of which is an officer of the Library of Parliament.

  • madeyoulook

    Legislative Summary in the Act:
    Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act establish within the Library of Parliament a position to be known as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose mandate is to provide objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy, to undertake research into those things when requested to do so by certain Parliamentary committees, and to provide estimates of the costs of proposals contained in Bills introduced by members of Parliament other than in their capacity as ministers of the Crown. The amendments also provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with a right of access to data that are necessary for the performance of his or her mandate.

  • madeyoulook

    Them’s the chapters. Sorry, no verse.

  • madeyoulook

    Um, Lee, this is where you apologize to Kady for accusing her of quoting hearsay, being ludicrous, and lacking journalistic independence and objectivity.

  • madeyoulook

    (In MYL’s best nagging mother tone):
    Now, Lee, you say you’re sorry right now. And mean it!

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Lee: I believe MYL has quoted the relevant sections of the FAA.

    I’d just like to point out that I have no objection to – in fact, I would go so far as to say I support the idea of – the PBO reporting directly to Parliament, but that would, in fact, require changes to the legislation. I’m fairly sure that all parties would agree, so it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to do, although if the intention is to allow him to report even when Parliament is in recess or dissolved, that would probably have to be spelled out explicitly in the Act. It would be unprecedented — as at least one commenter has pointed out, not even the Auditor General has that power – but as far as I can tell, it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. I just find the revisionist history to be frustrating; this was an entirely predictable conflict, and the committees involved should have flagged the issue during their respective studies so that this entire debacle could have been avoided.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Brian – I don’t doubt that Page believes that he is in compliance with the law, but I would have to disagree with his interpretation of it *as written*. I think he is trying to do what he believes parliamentarians *intended* the office to do; the trouble is that the law as written does not give him the independence necessary. That’s not his fault, but it is also not Young’s fault — it is the fault of the parliamentarians who failed to notice the contradiction.

  • Dr Riff

    it’s not a contradiction it’s a catch-22

  • Jenn

    Kady, is there any training on how to read a law given to MPs? I guess I’m just trying to understand how they can pass laws such as this one, which by plain reading of the thing doesn’t do what they purport to believe it does.

    Or, shorter version, how can MPs be so stupid?

    I agree that Page was probably conforming to what parliamentarians insisted their intent was, rather than the law as written. Of course, one doesn’t really get to choose to change laws to how they should read rather than how they do read.

    But I still want to know why the Speakers brought this up (or brought it up more publicly than a whisper in Page’s ear). I guess I wonder, do the Liberals have some reason to accept the law as it is written, but would object to changing it to how Page and others have interpreted it?

  • Kay

    I am still baffled as to why the legislation stipulated that the PBO should be under the umbrella of the LOP. The Library is, fundamentally, an institution that goes to great lengths to ensure a non-partisan stance on all issues relating to the functions of Parliament. Economic analysis that can potentially be embarassing to the government is not the specialty of the Library, in fact, while they do provide excellent analysis of many parliamentary issues, political criticism of any sort, even if it is relevant, is not permitted. Kevin Page is an intelligent, well-intentioned man, and I agree with his stance on this issue. He deserves the latitude to do his job correctly, and unfortunately, the Library is not the place for this kind of mandate. If the goal is more transparency and accountability, then the PBO needs to separate from the Library asap.

    And, FYI so we all get our facts straight about who works there, the Parliamentary Information and Research Service is the branch of the Library that serves MPs, Senators and Parliamentary Committees. It is staffed by lawyers, economists, sociologists, political scientists, and highly-skilled research staff. These staffers have a minimum requirement of an MA, and many have PhD’s, or are members of the bar. So, they are not just your run of the mill Librarians (even the Librarians who specialize in information sciences are incredibly well qualified).

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    John: As I’ve mentioned upthread (or possibly in another PBO-related thread entirely), the passage of the Federal Accountability Act was not exactly a shining example of parliamentary due diligence: the Conservatives were in victorious gloating steamroller mode and refused to heed even the most well-reasoned, objective criticism of the party’s signature legislation; the Liberals were so cowed by the saga of the sponsorship program that they didn’t dare raise concerns during committee; the NDP was delirious with schadenfraudalicious glee over the fate of the once invincible Liberals, and the Bloc Quebecois was the only party left to make sense, and nobody listened to them. Oh, and the Senate attempted to fix the most egregious flaws, but in doing so, provoked a prime ministerial hissy fit of epic proportions, and eventually backed down out of a sense of institutional self preservation.

  • Two Hats

    I am starting to realise that the party that most consistently has members that do their job of legislating properly is the Bloc Quebecois. I find that somewhat disturbing (although less so now that they’ve become a permanent Parliamentary institution…).

    Can anyone suggest why this may be? I’ve long ago noticed that provincial politics in Quebec seems more substantive and respectful that that in Ontario (and at the federal level). Can this have something to do with it? Are the Quebec caucuses of the other parties similarly skewed towards competence?

Previous

Next

From Macleans