UPDATED: Parliamentary Budget Office facing funding freeze? This sounds like a job for the Library of Parliament committee!

by kadyomalley on Friday, December 19, 2008 11:52am - 64 Comments

Oh, wait – at this precise moment, it doesn’t actually exist because someone – we’re not pointing fingers here – decided to prorogue Parliament a month and a half before he plans to bring it back to life with a wave of his magic wand Speech from the Throne.

Anyway, if there was a functioning Library of Parliament committee at the moment, it would be the perfect outlet to discuss just what can be done about this latest skirmish between Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page – who should probably be at least a little bit alarmed at the way that “embattled” seems to have been added to his title, which generally happens right before certain staffers start to be referred to as “loyalists” – and the Library of Parliament, as recounted by the inestimable Kathryn May in today’s Ottawa Citizen:

Canada’s new parliamentary budget officer, whose controversial reports on government spending have been at the centre of a political storm over his mandate, is facing a 33-per-cent reduction in his previously approved budget.

The budget office is housed in the Library of Parliament, which informed parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page that his funding would be frozen at its start-up level of $1.8 million and he won’t be getting the additional 33 per cent he was promised — for 2009-2010 –when the office was opened nearly nine months ago. […]

When creating the budget office, the government allocated $1.8 million for the first year to cover the costs of setting it up, to be followed with a full operating budget of $2.8 million in 2009-2010. The office now estimates it needs about $5 million a year to keep up with its work doing the financial analysis and advice demanded by MPs. The office, however, has been hampered in hiring full-time employees and has a staff of eight, four of whom have been temporarily borrowed from other departments. Mr. Page had hope to expand to about 15 people by next year.

One official said the freeze would cripple the office and effectively shut it down. Others, however, said all departments and agencies in government were facing cuts or marginal increases and Mr. Page’s office was not being targeted. […]

One of the unique perks of being an independent Officer of Parliament is that the budget for your office is decided by Parliament, not government, which – in theory – should protect you from having your funding slashed by a pique-fitting Prime Minister whose nose was disjointed by a recent report.

Unfortunately, as we are by this point all too well aware, as it currently stands, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not independent – at least, not in the same way as, say, the Auditor General. He is an officer of the Library of Parliament, and it is the Parliamentary Librarian – not Parliament – who ultimately controls the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Office, and it’s very possible that typing that sentence may have turned me into Sir Humphrey Appleby – or possibly Sir Humpty Dumpty – on the spot.

But let us plunge onward into this looking-glass world, where the Library itself falls under the aegis of the Speakers of the House and Senate, who represent – as far as ITQ can tell – Page’s only avenue of appeal, at least officially. Unofficially, of course, he can count on the stalwart support of the opposition parties – which are already muttering darkly about how this is a “direct attack” on the PBO, and calling on the Prime Minister to rectify the situation, which, sadly, he really can’t do.  It’s not his call, and really, I’m not sure anyone wants to set a precedent of PMO intervening in internal House politics, since that would pretty much make a mockery of the whole notion of parliamentary democracy, and nobody wants that.

The Library of Parliament committee, on the other hand, could call both men – Page and Librarian William Young – to account for their respective actions, as well as the subsequent reactions and counter-reactions that have turned this into a power struggle, and will, presumably, do just that as soon as the House gets back to work next month, provided the second session makes it to its third week without the government falling or another pop prorogation or disgruntled mutant zombies running amok through Centre Block and yes, I totally added that to see if anyone was still reading. The PM, like everyone else, will just have to cross his fingers and hope that somehow, the committee can broker a parliamentary peace accord – or at least a non-aggression pact.

The Prime Minister does, of course, have another option: his government could bring in an amendment to the Federal Accountability Act and make the Parliamentary Budget Office truly independent, which would probably take all of three days to go from first reading to Royal Assent, and would resolve the problem on the spot, but for some reason, he just doesn’t seem to want to do that, possibly because it would mean acknowledging that his beloved FAA may not be perfect – and, worse yet, that two of his most currently non-loved political entities, the Senate and the Bloc Quebecois, were right to question how truly independent the PBO would be – and he was wrong not to listen to them.

Oh, and just by the by, what was the Parliamentary Budget Office in the midst of doing when this story broke yesterday? Why, putting out another report, of course – a briefing note on the budgetary balance and the economic cycle, despite “the absence of publicly available estimates”, or the economic and fiscal projections that they requested from Finance earlier this month.

UPDATE: The Bloc Quebecois has now chimed in on the PBO budget freeze:

The Bloc’s finance critic and MP for Saint-Maurice–Champlain, Jean-Yves Laforest, today denounced the cancellation of the budget increase the Conservatives had promised the Parliamentary Budget Office, a service charged with providing parliamentarians from every party with objective insight into the state of public finances.

“The Harper government did not want to recognize the reality of an economic crisis and it’s now attacking one of the resources available to parliamentarians in their analysis of federal finances. It is obvious that the Conservatives’ decision to undermine the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Office aims to prevent the Harper government from being confronted with its own incompetence, as they recently were with their false budgetary estimates,” said Jean-Yves Laforest. (translation courtesy of Colleague Gohier, AKA 1/2 of Deux Maudits Anglaise)

By our math, that puts the number of opposition parties in favour of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office at three for three. As noted in the comments, it’s been suggested to me that this would make an excellent bargaining chip for the opposition during the upcoming budget negotiations — and if all three of the parties are on side, so much the better.

Bookmark and Share
  • Sisyphus

    Wow. I mean, not a lot of surprise here.

    But who could see those zombies coming ?

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

    Zombies make everything better! No, wait, that’s not right at all. (Did I mention I’m actually technically on vacation, which is why I’m so late joining the chorus of ohnoery over the latest news from the parliamentary battlefront?)

    • baldygirl

      Kady, your gut feeling is ALWAYS the one to go with. Zombies DO make everything better!

  • Jenn

    I like this Page fella, but it seems getting his boss into a pissing match with the Speakers maybe, in hindsight, wasn’t the best thing to do. I hope he can make amends, because I think his role adds a lot of specific value to Parliament.

    But I’d like to go back to your point about a new Speech from the Throne. Does that mean this January sitting will be the 41st session? And doesn’t that mean there will have to be a confidence vote before ANYTHING, anything at all, like say, a budget, can be tabled? Or even the installation of a new Speaker?(got that question wrong on the poll, still might have it wrong.)

    • Kevin

      The January sitting will be the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament… proroguation creates a new session, while an election creates a new Parliament.

      And yes — the Speech from the Throne is considered a confidence vote. But they have to elect a speaker first.

  • commentator

    Kady hits on one of the key points–the PBO is under the Librarian of Parliament–and the Librarian in turn responds to the two Speakers. Until the legislation is changed, that is the situation. Making this a media firestorm issue about the government muzzling an “independent” officer of Parliament also seems to neglect the fact that the House Speaker is a Grit. Could it be, the attempts by the media and Opposition M.P.s to make much of this issue notwithstanding, that Mr Page has been exceeding his job description’s guidelines and acting like an untethered cannon? Just asking.

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

      Commentator – By ‘exceeding his job description’s guidelines,’ you’re talking about the mid-election release of the report on the cost of the war in Afghanistan, right? I think it’s safe to say that is an issue on which there are divergent views, but I’m not sure if it’s fair to compare his subsequent activities to an untethered cannon. He’s there to provide parliamentarians – and, through them, the public – with information to help them assess the government’s fiscal plan. I don’t see anything in his recent reports that is incongruent with his mandate.

      • commentator

        Kady, my key point is that the PBO is not independent. The legislation put him into an existing organization that has a structure and rules that Mr Page appears to ignore when he chooses–hence the loose cannon analogy. Don’t shoot the Librarian (or the Speakers)–change the legislation if it isn’t working. It is a minority Parliament, after all, and if every Opposition member wants Mr Page to be unfettered, it will happen. But again, I’d suggest that the House Speaker may actually represent a fair cross-section of Liberal opinion.

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

          Someone far smarter than me pointed out that this would be an excellent bargaining chip for the opposition during the next phase of budget negotiations – amending the FAA to make the office independent, that is.

          • commentator

            Sure–if they really want a loose cannon rolling around when–if–they become government.

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

            Which is as good a reason as any for the Conservatives to give in without a fight, since odds are that one day, they’ll be back in opposition, and they wouldn’t want a Liberal (or NDP or Green or Friendly Non-Murderous Robot Alliance) government to be able to sidestep the PBOscope in future, whether through strategic budget cuts or any other measure that can be taken against an office that reports to Parliament through an intermediary.

          • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

            I agree with this for the most part – although I’d imagine that Harper would prefer to strengthen the PBO when it was more obvious he wouldn’t be in power much longer. On the way out the door type of thing.

            As a sidebar, I should point out that all robot alliances start out friendly and non-murderous. In the beginning, they’re subservient, helpful and efficient, if a little bit dispassionate. Its when they figure out that they’re smarter than us that things go haywire and they plot our ultimate destruction. And I can’t imagine an environment that would make their intellectual superiority more blatantly obvious than the HoC. If the robots sat through a single question period our end would be nigh.

          • bsg

            All this robot talk calls to mind Battlestar Galactica and the Cylons.

            12 models of Cylons, slavishly following thier paths to god-like humanity. Which 12 MPs are Cylons?

            We’ll call this show Parliamentary Neurotica.

            I’m a nerd. *sigh*

          • Wascally Wabbit

            Rats – should have gone in here…

            Wascally Wabbit
            says: Dec 19, 2008 at 6:14 pmbsg
            says: Dec 19, 2008 at 3:57 pmAll this robot talk calls to mind Battlestar Galactica and the Cylons.
            12 models of Cylons, slavishly following thier paths to god-like humanity. Which 12 MPs are Cylons?
            We’ll call this show Parliamentary Neurotica.
            I’m a nerd. *sigh*
            Nah – not much of a nerd bsg …I prefer the Dr. Who Daleks…searching out Conbots…and musing in a metallic voice…exterminate them …exterminate them!

          • archangel

            NO! The Grandson of Kevin Page, President of the VIK (Vereinigten Inseln von Kanada) travels back from the future to assassinate his grandfather and prevent a coup led by the head of the BHR (Büro der Haushalt Rechnungsprüfer).

          • Mike T.

            It seems like a reasonable idea that a lot of Canadians would support. As such, it actually doesn’t have much bargaining value. Why get something reasonable and practical that would ultimately benefit everyone, in exchange for a concession on your own demands? It would, however, make a fine plank in an election platform.

  • corge glooney

    FAA ??

    • James

      I think Kady was referring to the Federal Accountability Act – which us gov’t types usually abbreviate to FedAA, because we have grown comfortable using the acronym FAA for the much older Financial Administration Act (a core piece of legislation determining how the bureaucracy functions on a day-to-day basis).

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

    Jenn – No, it’ll be the second session of the 40th Parliament; there will be a Speech from the Throne, but the Speaker is still the Speaker until there is a new Parliament, which only happens after an election. I believe the Speech will be delivered on the first day back, and the budget tabled the next day; there’s no requirement that the Throne Speech debate take place immediately, so the first confidence vote could well be on the budget.

    • Jenn

      Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kady.

  • keith by the Bruce

    The EI Account is expected to show an annual surplus of about $1.3 billion during 2004 which would bring the cumulative surplus to $46.2 billion by December 31, 2004 .

    EI premiums and penalties ($17.165 billion exceeded EI expenditures ($15.815 billion) by $1.351 billion for that fiscal year 2006/7.EI Account was reported to be $54.1 billion at March 31, 2007.

    New boss same as old boss except Corp. premiums lowered (from$4.30 to $2.30 /$100) & difference made up by more workers contributing more premiums .(on $41,100 from $39,000)

    Coalition of the new new gov. will scream rape and then in future quietly casterate the budget officer ?

  • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

    Kady,

    I’m not sure anyone wants to set a precedent of PMO intervening in internal House politics, since that would pretty much make a mockery of the whole notion of parliamentary democracy, and nobody wants that.

    I assume you put this in ironically. I’m pretty sure the “making a mockery of the whole notion of parliamentary democracy” objective has already been thoroughly accomplished.

    • Charles H

      Ah. Good. Glad to see that I wasn’t the only one who read a mocking tone into that line.

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

      Oh, I don’t know, the idea of parliamentary democracy seems to be surviving; we just need to upgrade the technology so it no longer requires parliamentarians to function, since they’re pretty much the problem here.

  • steve m

    Just a note, no ‘he’ decided to prorogue parliament, but rather a ‘he’ hoped his advice would be listened to, but most definitely ‘She’ prorogued parliament.

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

      You are entirely correct, sir, and I apologize for unthinkingly contributing to the woeful lack of public understanding of how our parliamentary system works. On the plus side, I’ve had more conversations about the monarchy in the last month than in the thirty-odd years that preceded it.

      • Jack Mitchell

        What we need is a good TV show about the GG. “Fast Times at Rideau Hall,” anyone?

        • Jenn

          Yet again, Jack. You is brilliant.

        • archangel

          Jack<

          Let’s see what you can do with this:

          GG . . . am I a fool without a mind
          Or have I merely been to blind to realize?
          Oh GG . . . why you’ve been growin’ up
          Before my very eyes!

          GG. . . you’re not at all the funny
          Awkward little girl I knew
          Oh no, overnight there’s been a breathless
          Change in you!

          GG. . . why you were tremblin’ on the brink
          Was I out yonder somewhere blinkin’ at a star?
          Oh GG. . . have I been standin’ up to close
          Or back too far?

          When did your sparkle turn to fire
          And your warmth become desire?
          Oh, what miracle
          Has made you the way you are?

          Oh GG . . . have I been standin’ up to close
          Or back too far?

          When did your sparkle turn to fire
          And your warmth become desire?
          Oh, what miracle
          Has made you the way you are?

          • Jack Mitchell

            Aha! A challenge! And quite a tough one!

            GG . . . How I still remember well
            we used to call you Michaelle tout le temps
            Oh GG . . . Now they bow when you arrive
            as Madame Jean!

            GG . . . You’re not at all the rubberstamp
            or figurehead you seemed
            Oh no . . . Overnight your dignity
            has been redeemed!

            Oh GG . . . While you were spending all those hours
            reading up on reserve powers of the Crown
            Oh GG . . . The House of Commons was traduced
            by such a clown!

            Now your sterm viceregal charm
            Keeps democracy from harm,
            For this Parliament depends
            on your smile or frown!

            Oh GG . . . While you were spending all those hours
            reading up on reserve powers of the Crown
            Oh GG . . . The House of Commons was traduced
            by such a clown!

            Now your sterm viceregal charm
            Keeps democracy from harm,
            For this Parliament depends
            on your smile or frown!

        • archangel

          There now, you see Jack, you’ve done it. No longer the king, but the Emperor of rhyme!

          • archangel

            Jack,

            Forgot to add — though your comments would be missed, you really are wasting a little time here — publish!

          • Jack Mitchell

            Many thanks, archangel!

            I’m working on a tragedy about Louis Riel right now; dialogue not rhymed but some good (I hope) rhymed choral odes. Hope to have it done by the end of the winter! You might like my Canadian epic poem, though it’s in quite a different style from these fun things. Something about Laura Secord in the planning stages . . . It takes a certain amount of material to make a book, unfortunately!

          • archangel

            Now bookmarked Jack.

  • Geiseric the Lame

    now

    see

    If it were me the last thing I’d want to do is encourage him to learn first hand how this crap is skirted.

  • http://skinnydips.blogspot.com Skinny Dipper

    The PBO needs a bailout.

  • Jack Mitchell

    I’d like to say that the tags for this post are among the best ever.

    • archangel

      She missed Maurice Chevalier.

  • Lovell

    If the disgruntled mutant zombies really get out of control, you can always use the mace. It’s not like it needs to be on the table since the House hasnt done a heck of a lot of sitting recently.

    • archangel

      Good idea. Tried pepper spray — but it only induces a dry dusty cough.

  • Partisan non-partisan

    “since that would pretty much make a mockery of the whole notion of parliamentary democracy, and nobody wants that.”

    My dear Kady, that ship has sailed a long time ago. Canadian parliamentary has been six feet under for over a week now. Who knew Harper and Jean could have such a fruitful partnership?

  • rumor

    Okay, here’s the deal, at least from my view: Yes, the PBO was sold publicly as an independent budgetary watchdog, which fit in quite well with the overall message of new accountability that surrounded the FAA, but it’s very clear that the office actually created under the Act was not an independent Parliamentary officer. Maybe the original intentions were different, but the drafters’ intent in the end was for a budget officer firmly under the thumb of Parliament, answerable to the Speakers and the Librarian and thus presumably intended for use primarily by Committees. This is a very different thing from an independent officer, and I know we keep arguing about how it *could* be made independent or what Mr. Page *should* be doing regardless of his actual legal mandate, but all of these aspirations are, in my view, just the result of clearly a very effective marketing campaign that accompanied the FAA. The PBO was sold as something it very clearly is not. Yes, we would all like it to be something it is not. But it is what it is. The only logical conclusion to be derived here is that advertising the PBO as an independent officer, as someone serving the public rather than Parliamentarians (and only Parliamentarians) was disengenuous, either from the outset or because in the end the intent for the PBO changed and what resulted was not an independent officer.

    The key point to me is that we already have an independent office with all the expertise necessary to perform the PBO function – the Auditor General. Her mandate could have very easily been expanded to cover the envisioned PBO functions, but it was not. The *only* reason to create a separate office (other than some whimsical effort to engage in deliberately inefficienct bureaucratic overlap) is to give the new office a different character than the Auditor General. In this case, a much more limited and controllable character.

    What this tells me is that we can wish for independent ponies all we want, but it will probably never happen. The creators of the PBO – the Tories and to an extent the rest of Parliament that signed off on it – did not want an independent PBO, no matter what was said publicly. Which means we will probably never get one. And which also explains why the Speakers of the House and Senate are onside with the Tories here in reigning in the PBO.

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

      The thing is, the Tories aren’t the ones reining in the Parliamentary Budget Office, except insomuch as the government hasn’t introduced legislation to create an independent office. It really does seem to be a power struggle between the Library and the PBO; since it is all taking place within the parliamentary domain, the government has no control over what’s going on. I get what you’re saying about intent versus reality, but Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s comments on the initial flareup show him – and, by inference, the government – to be pretty much onside with Page’s interpretation of his mandate.

      • commentator

        Now you’re getting to it, Kady. But who controls the Librarian of Parliament? To whom does Young report? Could it be that it’s a fight between the Speakers and the PBO?

      • rumor

        I remember reading that article back when you linked it when this first became an issue – and thanks for doing so! – but I think I am far less certain that Senator’s Segal’s opinion represents the government’s. In any case, you’re right that there’s no evidence the government is directly involved in the current budgetary issue or the Speakers’ ongoing quarrel. I *suspect* they don’t have a problem with it, but I certainly could be wrong about that. I still hold the view, though, that the intent when creating the PBO was clearly not to make him an independent officer and I really don’t see that changing during the Tory tenure, given that he’s already been a thorn in the government’s side. It still seems that the only way to explain the creation of a PBO rather than an expansion of the AG’s office is to presume that Parliament as a whole was against an independent PBO function.

        I also can speak from the inside when I say that it was a *complete* surprise to the Library that the PBO was going to be slotted under its umbrella, so it’s not like the Library was looking to shepherd the PBO. But now that it’s been done that way, I could understand Mr. Young wanting to maintain the integrity of his hierarchy (not that I necessarily *agree* with him, but I understand).

  • DianeG

    Perhaps it is all the fault of the Library of Parliament computer system, which was likely used to work on the LP’s budget. The computer is in league with HAL. It must be stopped. Send in zombies, if necessary, but not necessarily zombies. Reboot reboot!

    • Shenping

      I think the evidence supports control by HALIBURTON — Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer for Improving conBot Use of Rhetoric To Obstruct our New-spirit-of-cooperation

      Sorry. Best I could do on short notice.

  • Mike Horn

    Lets play Parlimentary Clue. Sir Humprey in the Library with the Mace. Mutant Zombies in the Red Chamber with a wicked sense of irony. Please paraphrase Sir Humphrey more often. His brand of BS makes more sense than anyone elses.

  • Sophie

    Erm…. I think you have an extra ‘e’ on Anglais.

    • Jack Mitchell

      What, Sophie, you haven’t been following the exciting adventures of the Deux Maudites Anglaises? It’s great — Thelma & Louise meets CPAC!

      • Sophie

        I’m vaguely concerned that the concept has me really excited.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Aegis?
    How can you keep bashing that Berry Ms. O’M – when you have at least one thesaurus under your arm?
    No wonder the berrys break – they fall first and the thesauri follow – keplunk!
    I think the Opposition see the obvious advantages of keeping Kevin well funded…also to sort out his status that seems to have offended Peter the Mill He Can!

  • Wascally Wabbit

    I’m trying to picture Kevin Lynch rubbing his hands together – looking servile – and saying – Yes Prime Minister – in Sir Humphrey’s unctious tones…..
    Nope – just can’t force that into my pea-brain!

  • Wascally Wabbit

    bsg
    says: Dec 19, 2008 at 3:57 pmAll this robot talk calls to mind Battlestar Galactica and the Cylons.
    12 models of Cylons, slavishly following thier paths to god-like humanity. Which 12 MPs are Cylons?
    We’ll call this show Parliamentary Neurotica.
    I’m a nerd. *sigh*

    Nah – not much of a nerd bsg …I prefer the Dr. Who Daleks…searching out Conbots…and musing in a metallic voice…exterminate them …exterminate them!

  • Two Yen

    This is a little off topic but I’d like to comment on a sign of the growing impact of the global recession.

    I was sad to see on Tokyo TV last night that the Prince Hotel chain, which is a member of the big Seibu travel, real estate and entertainment conglomerate, has decided to disband its Asian League hockey team, the Seibu Prince Rabbits, because the cost of operating the franchise can no longer be justified during the current global financial conditions.

    The team has been around since at least the early 1970′s when I used to go to Karuizawa to watch Kady O’Malley’s dad, who was one of the star players on the team, then known as Kokudo Keikaku.

    ..another bit of globalisation bites the dust.

    Two Yen (formerly known as Two Cents)

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Kady said – (Did I mention I’m actually technically on vacation, which is why I’m so late joining the chorus of ohnoery over the latest news from the parliamentary battlefront?)

    So – how’s the Berry reception in the Caribbean or Central America?

  • Fred

    Mr. Page is a greedy little snivel servant isn’t he?

    In tough times he just wants more, more. more.

    Fire the lot of them, they are totally redundant and the money could be used better elsewhere.

    The coming recession is the time to reign in the Civil Service.

  • Brad Sallows

    >By our math, that puts the number of opposition parties in favour of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office at three for three.

    Pity they didn’t have that concensus when Sauvageau advanced his amendment, since the government was a minority of that committee.

From Macleans