One hundred and thirty-four economists, including 15 past presidents of the Canadian Economics Association, sign a clear letter of support for proper budgetary support and institutional independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The contrast with Michael Ignatieff’s stumblebum Liberal opposition, and with a government that wants credit for creating the PBO as an institution but doesn’t want any actual sass from Kevin Page, is striking.
NextTehran: again
Contrary to popular belief, the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic flame at the Opening Ceremonies is, in fact, a decidedly modern affair. The culmination of the torch relay in a grandiose display at the Opening Ceremonies is a relic of the 1936 Berlin Games—just one of many attempts by the Nazi regime to lend a mythical air to the Games. Still, despite its dubious history, the lighting of the cauldron has evolved into one of the most spectacular and ostentatious displays at the Games. And the secretiveness that surrounds the lead-up to the ceremony only lends to the hype.
When it comes to the 2010 Games, the speculation about who will be selected to light the cauldron has coalesced around whether VANOC will go the traditional route and opt for a former Olympian or take the road less-travelled and pick someone from outside the sports world. Facebook groups have popped up promoting everyone from Terry Fox’s mother, Betty, to former Vancouver Canucks captain Trevor Linden. So far, Vancouver’s Olympic organizers have kept a tight lid on who the potential candidates might be. We’ve assembled a list of the names making the rounds, but feel free to add your own in the poll or in the comments below.
A pathogen found in cattle may lead to a cure for Crohn’s disease
ANDREW COYNE: Obama’s banking reforms would make the U.S. and Canadian systems even less alike than they are at present
In all sorts of ways, it’s difficult to imagine him ever stopping
The ‘American Idol’ runner-up shares his views on gays on TV and the ‘closed-minded’
Colby Cosh on the current state of the Super Bowl halftime show—and how to fix it
In a wealthy suburb, a writer discovers people who take celebrating to a whole new level
Newsmakers of the week
Print
Comment
That Harper created this office has always puzzled me. Did he not foresee a day when unpoliticized financial projections and accounting might make his life uncomfortable?
Another example of "ready! fire! aim!" in action, I suppose.
Maybe Harper simply thought it was the right thing to do and would lead to better government (pause for laughter). But how much of a headache has the PBO really been to Harper? Sure, Page has given Harper grief over the budget's projections but he's also basically told people that the government will either have to raise taxes or cut spending to balance the budget once the recession is over. That's probably the debate Harper wants because he can take the cut spending side and either force the opposition to agree to the cuts or essentially campaign on raising taxes.
Or maybe Harper thought the PBO would follow the Act that created his position–and not try to carve out a position of his own creation. I will bet that not one of the letter signers read the testimony of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that studied the PBO; I'd also bet that none read the act. Maybe, however, they will read the letter in the G&M today by Senator Carstairs, one of the Liberals on the committee who joined in the unanimous report that, if Kevin Page had any sense, should have precipitated his resignation.
Fine and dandy if you have a problem with Page (and I agree he has a tendency to overstep his bounds), but let's not conflate the individual with the lack of funding and support for the office. Why muddy the issue of this particular blog topic?
Harper doesn't get a free pass for mishandling this because of Page.
agreed.
So, if the PBO can't achieve its full potential under the current Act, maybe the Act needs to be changed. Myself, I'm not as interested in whether Mr. Page is doing a good job complying with the current Act. I'm more interested in thinking about what an effective PBO would look like. And I'm pretty sure that requiring the PBO to stop publicizing its reports is not part of what an effective PBO would look like.
"maybe the Act needs to be changed"
Maybe. But could we explore properly funding it, ask the opposition to quit screwing around with violating the terms they request, and examine if Page is adhering to that same act, before we start tearing things down?
Sometimes the car isn't broken, it's just out of gas.
The problem is that once the office becomes independent, that leaves the door wide open for someone like Page to abuse his office without fear of consequences, and there is no use for that. "Independent" offices are over-rated. The whole point of voting is to remove the "independence" from the people that lead us.
I suspect that Mr. Harper believed that he would never run a deficit. As long as there wasn't a deficit, he had nothing to fear from the PBO.
Geez I'm tired of reading about the PBO. I vote for pressing the reset button and starting over. Toss Kevin Page (who seems to spend too much time lobbying to be completely free of any accountability whatsoever but says things like "I serve the opposition" ???), set up the office with some real thought to what is needed, hire someone who is less concerned with their own profile, give them some very clear direction and get on with making this worth my contribution to the $2 million – perhaps focus on the economy instead of the ego.
He has never said anything remotely like "I serve the opposition." But thanks for making stuff up, Louise.
This is the best political blog on the scene, so why is it continuously commented on by people who clearly do not read, understand or rely on facts? Argue a point people, but don't make stuff up.
Why? Because, partisans try to deflect criticism away from issues that are difficult or impossible to defend. Because, a lie if repeated often enough eventually gains traction with the general population who aren't paying attention.
I remember reading something too, where Page said he served the Opposition…maybe in those letters he sent to the opp parties??
Well, this is the mess I get myself into.
I did write that Page sent a letter only to opposition leaders. Page told me a few days later that he had sent a separate letter to government. I should have updated that blog posting. As a practical matter, the number of people who will look at a blog posting several days after it goes up is numbered in the low dozens. Still, if that's what Louise is referring to, it doesn't match the situation.
Maybe Page should be the new leader of the liberal party as he has the same policies as them. Tax and slash.
You mean balance the frigging budget? Yes, how positively partisan of him to think about my children's and grandchildren's future. Maybe if we all pretend hard enough, the deficit will just take care of itself, without any extra taxes, and no reduction in spending. (And nobody's put forward a convincing case that normal economic growth will do the trick.)
Click your heels together, works for me.
Read what you just wrote SaskBoy Old sunshine…brings up quite an image for me – and it isn't Wizard of Oz..
Curse him and his Liberal "facts"
I particularly like the "Public reporting of all analysis" part. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
One hundred and thirty-four economists agreed on something, anything ? Like, all at the same time, all on the same thing ? That should raise alarm bells in and of itself …
There's another 134 that refused to sign that they are not telling us about.
Don't think so small. The real number was likely a gazillion!
Hey , if Lars Osberg is for it, I'm in.
As much as I have enjoyed Kevin Page shedding some daylight on various lies, mistruths and coverups by the Conservatives, and as much as the media LOVE the dude, I have to express some discomfort with the power accumulating in the hands of Parliamentary Officers such as Page or Auditor General Sheila Fraser. It often feels these days like those guys are the real opposition. Their proper role is supporting the efforts of parliamentarians in holding the executive accountable for how it spends tax dollars. I'm not convinced all the grandstanding is necessary.
In particular, I am thinking of Fraser's overheated rhetoric during the sponsorship scandal, which, I would argue, is the single most overblown scandal in Canadian political history. Yes there were some kickbacks to the LPC (about 2.6 million as far as I can tell from the Kroll Lindquist Avey Report released during the Gomery Inquiry http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/pub... and yes there was the kind of overinflated billing and questionable value-for-money typical of the consulting/PR/advertisng industries, but the friggin' Gomery Inquiry and related legal expenses themselves ended up costing app. 70-80 million dollars! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/20/gomery-...
As much as I have enjoyed Kevin Page shedding some daylight on various lies, mistruths and coverups by the Conservatives, and as much as the media LOVE the dude, I have to express some discomfort with the power accumulating in the hands of people such as Page or Auditor General Sheila Fraser. It often feels these days like those guys are the real opposition. Their proper role is supporting the efforts of parliamentarians in holding the executive accountable for how it spends tax dollars. I'm not convinced all the grandstanding is necessary. And I often wonder who are THESE guys (page, Fraser, etc.) responsible to? After all, they're not elected.
In particular, I am thinking of Fraser's overheated rhetoric during the sponsorship scandal, which, I would argue, is the single most overblown scandal in Canadian political history. Yes there were some kickbacks to the LPC (about 2.6 million as far as I can tell from the Kroll Lindquist Avey Report released during the Gomery Inquiry http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/pub... and yes there was the kind of overinflated billing and questionable value-for-money typical of the consulting/PR/advertisng industries, but the friggin' Gomery Inquiry and related legal expenses themselves ended up costing app. 70-80 million dollars! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/02/20/gomery-...
Hmmm, reading some of the comments about Page from the resident Conbots, you get the impression he's not nearly as popular with them as say…Sheila Fraser. I guess what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander!
Try to stay on script guys. You're the ""accountability party, and the Liberals are the liars and crooks, remember?
Hmmm, reading some of the comments about Page from the resident Conbots, you get the impression he's not nearly as popular with them as say…Sheila Fraser. I guess what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander!
Try to stay on script guys. You're the "accountability" party, and the Liberals are the liars and crooks, remember?
One hundred and thirty-four economists
Yes, but does that include the Greatest Economist Ever who is equal to a billion economists put together?
I never got around to signing, sorry. :)
I thought he meant Paul Krugman.
Louise – pray tell – would you be happy with an office (forget who is the incumbent for the moment) – which is more clearly established as an independent body – much like the Office of Management and Budget in the US – as Harper tries to drag us into a world where the PM becomes the President?
Source – Wikipedia – "The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is a Cabinet-level office, and is the largest office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP). It is an important conduit by which the White House oversees the activities of federal agencies. OMB is tasked with giving expert advice to senior White House officials on a range of topics relating to federal policy, management, legislative, regulatory, and budgetary issues.
Supporting the OPBO is easy, supporting Kevin Page less so. Three examples:
1) wrt the impact of the stimulus during the crazy times that followed the madness, his predictions were based solely on some ad hoc average of other economists predictions. Certainly I expect the OPBO office would consider carefully the data considered, arguments presented and conclusions of the banks, government etc., but if we really need the OPBO because those other guesses are likely crap, then I would point out the average of crap is crap.
2) wrt the war. He rightly pointed out that the government was vastly understating the financial cost of the war. Determining that cost is certainly nontrivial, but he clearly overestimated the cost including expenses that would have been incurred even if the soldiers were home. While I actually do not believe it was his intent to make a political statement, he lowered the value of his office by not delivering the right numbers. (which would still have been huge)
3) wrt reporting of deficits. Flaherty has taken a position that he can avoid/reduce the coming deficits by selling off fixed assets. This is his greatest "short"coming as a finance minister, he is way too creative with how he reports. There would be huge value to the country if the reporting of deficits was standardized by the OPBO. (My own opinion is that the government of Canada holds it funds in a wide range of forms, Canadian currency, foreign currency, (shares in Car companies) real estate etc. No-one would argue that by selling foreign currency that the Canadian government can reduce its deficit in a given year, why treat real estate differently. If the government has too many or the wrong kind of assets then certainly sell them as part of a long term strategy, but don't do it as part of short-term fiscal trick. ) I believe Page is much more about headlines than process and it is our reporting process that needs repair.
Exactly. The real question is why did the Act stipulate that the PBO be under the thumb of the Library of Parliament? The Cons, at least if you believe their 2006 campaign rhetoric wanted an "create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy".
Just not TOO independent I guess. After all, there's no reason that the PBO couldn't have been designated as a an Officer of Parliament like the Attorney General or the Official Languages Commissioner, insteda of an officer of the Library of Parliament.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/word_secret_directory/doc...
Exactly. The real question is why did the Act stipulate that the PBO be under the thumb of the Library of Parliament? The Cons, at least if you believe their 2006 campaign rhetoric wanted an "create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy". http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/...
Just not TOO independent I guess. After all, there's no reason that the PBO couldn't have been designated as a an Officer of Parliament like the Attorney General or the Official Languages Commissioner, insteda of an officer of the Library of Parliament.
Exactly. The real question is why did the Act stipulate that the PBO be under the thumb of the Library of Parliament? The Cons, at least if you believe their 2006 campaign rhetoric wanted an "create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy". http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/...
Just not TOO independent I guess. After all, there's no reason that the PBO couldn't have been designated as a an Officer of Parliament like the Attorney General or the Official Languages Commissioner, instead of an officer of the Library of Parliament.
The problem is, what politicians tell us during an election that they intend to do, and what they actually end up doing are quite often very different things. Heck, with this government, what they say they've actually DONE doesn't always match up with what they've actually done (think for example about the legislation around veiled voting and fixed election dates, both cases in which government members would tell anyone who'd listen that they'd just passed legislation that does X, while anyone actually reading the legislation they actually passed could see clearly that the legislation as passed did no such thing).
I'm not at all shocked that the legislation they said was meant to establish an independent officer of Parliament to give Parliament objective budget and financial analysis doesn't actually create an independent officer of Parliament to give Parliament objective budget and financial analysis. After all, the legislation they said would prevent women from voting while veiled doesn't actually prevent women from voting while veiled, and the legislation they said would fix election dates doesn't actually fix election dates. The problem isn't just the legislation that our Parliamentarians pass, the problem, imho, is that apparently a large majority of our Parliamentarians either can't read, or just don't bother to read, the legislation that they vote on.
But why didn't Page read the legislation that created his job?
Personally, I'm more concerned about the Government abusing their power than an over-zealous civil servant. At the end of the day I still get to vote and I can choose to listen to Kevin Page or ignore him.
yeah i really don't see this as that big a problem. if you look at the those that have held independent appointments, their 'abuses' of the power vested in them has generally amounted to not-insignificant skirmishes over their mandates and at time their own politicization of their work (e.g., Shelia Fraser as AG). More egregious cases have had little with the substance of their job and have led to early termination.