(O)PBOWatch – Thirty Helens 134 (and counting) economists agree: Fix that darned statute already, you guys.

by kadyomalley on Friday, July 17, 2009 9:27am - 59 Comments

So while ITQ was busily burrowing through bankruptcy documents — oh, don’t worry, she lives for that stuff — the ever vigilant Colleague Wells was on PBOWatch. Or OPBOWatch, as the case may be.

That was, in fact, what struck ITQ most about this latest campaign, which calls on supporters to sign on to an open letter that urges parliamentarians to ensure the budget officer’s independence by making him a full Officer of Parliament. Instead of employing the more familiar short form —  ”PBO”, which can refer to either the office or the officer —  the site’s creator, UBC economist Kevin Milligan, consistently uses “OPBO”, which stands for “Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer” .

Now, this could be just a semantic quirk, but it may reflect a subtle attempt to move the debate away from the individual who currently holds the job — the embattled but unbowing Kevin Page — to the office itself, focusing on policy, rather than the personalities involved. Which suggests that at least some (O)PBObackers may be preparing themselves for the possibility that  Page himself may eventually no longer be a factor – and, if Colleague Wells is right, that “eventually” may turn out to be sooner rather than later.

Bookmark and Share
  • james

    Wasn't it 30 Helens that agreed? Though I suppose inflating the numbers is appropriate, given the subject matter…

    • Wayne

      who was Helen anyways? questioning minds want to know and are too lazy to google it!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

        Kids in the Hall sketch.

        • Wayne

          ROFL – sorry I couldn't get the lettuce off my head – and the chicken lady was creepy!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

        You'll google, and you'll like it, mister.

      • http://www.xtra.ca/blog/ottawa/ Dale Smith

        [youtube BDTZcj8Xink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTZcj8Xink youtube]

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    Oh my gosh, you're right. I will correct that! (Teach me to go by my old and foggy memory rather than Googling to be sure.)

  • Centrist

    Holy cow, are there ever a bunch of misconceptions out there about the PBO – Wells, O`Malley and this Milligen character aren`t helping. Sorry, this is kinda long, but it needs to be said.

    First of all, there is no such thing as the "OPBO". The statute law that created the Parliamentary Budget Officer creates no such office. It does not exist. It is only a fake construct that Kevin Page has dreamed up to build his empire. Read the law. It created a Parliamentary Budget Officer and allowed him to hire staff to help him do his job. That`s it.

    Page also keeps referring to “the spirit” of the Accountability Act. Sorry, that doesn`t cut it. What counts is the statute law, and in virtually all cases, he is breaking the statute law that sets out what he can or cant do.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Actually, if you'll read back through pretty much every post I've made on the PBO, you'll see that I have steadfastly maintained that the law has to be changed in order for Page to function independently, since at the moment, he is not a full, independent Officer of Parliament. The open letter says the same thing, and really, wasn't the headline of this post a hint? You can disagree on whether or not the Act should be changed, of course, but that's not the case here. But actually, you may have hit on the real reason for adding an initial O to PBO: If the statute was to be changed to make him a full OoP, the office would then be styled as Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, like Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Auditor General, etc. So maybe it's more a more subversive change than I thought.

      • Pageboy

        OoPs?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

          In so many ways.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

        Even the core theme of this article is that enabling legislation has to change. Given the limited checks and balances in the Canadian system, its necessary.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

        Even the core theme of this article is that the enabling legislation has to change. Given the limited checks and balances in the Canadian system, its necessary.

      • commentator

        Right. He's not independent. He operates under the Library of Parliament and under the control of the two Speakers. The problem–which Kady never acknowledges–is that the PBO keeps pretending he's independent and continues refusing to acknowledge that he must report to the Librarian of Parliament. Sure, change the law and give the PBO the independence and cash to operate. That's almost certainly a good thing. But until that happens Mr Page must live within the law as it exists. If he doesn't, he ought to be fired.

        • Bruce

          Kevin Page reminds of David "I'm entitled to my entitlements" Dingwall in that he thinks he should have a bigger budget and not have to answer to anybody, he should quit his job and join the Liberals officially.

  • Stewart Smith

    I hope you are right Kady. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer would be an invaluable resource to Canadians and actually improve our governance by making governmental fiscal tricks more dangerous politically. Kevin Page is the wrong person, he loves the limelight and shuns the tough sledin.
    Fortunately, through considerable effort, I have identified the prototype personality that we need for this important position. Unfortunately I do not believe that this particular individual is available so the search is on for someone else with the same endearing characteristics who realizes that the job of PBO should be " an endless, glamorless, thankless job that needs to be done" and be damn glad to do it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyvqFN6bCU&fe…

  • Centrist

    Secondly, unfortunately Kady keeps saying that there must have been some sort of error in the reporting structure when the PBO was created by keeping him in the Library and having to report to the Parliamentary Librarian. That`s not right at all. That was the whole point of creating the PBO – to empower Parliamentarians, not to create an Agent of Parliament wholly independent so he can report whenever he feels like it. And if you read the testimony of TBS officials at the committee you will see that.

  • Centrist

    By having him in the Library and having to follow the same reporting structure as the rest of the Library, it would empower an MP to hold the government to account with info provided by the PBO – ie it`s NOT KEVIN PAGE`s job to do it but elected officials. That`s why ALL political parties supported the report of the Library of Parliament to rein in Page – because they fully intended to create a position that provided them with information and reported to them directly so they could hold the Government to account. We already have plenty of independent officers, agents and the like – when you keep creating more of them, you indirectly remove power from elected officials.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

  • Centrist

    That’s why Liberals like Carolyn Bennett and Mauril Belanger have been so vocal against Page – their the ones who have had to sit through the hearings and know whats really going on in the Library and PBO – McCallum hasn’t – Wells take note – that’s why the Libs are all over the map – unfortunately it appears that Bennett and Belanger and McCallum haven`t spoken to one another on this.

    Third, it`s important to note than when the Auditor General testified, she kicked the crap out of Page for not respecting Parliament, and for basically going off on his own. If she did the things he was doing, Parliament would freak at her too.

  • Centrist

    Fourth, Page is waaaay overstepping his bounds when he says the Government should consider raising taxes. That`s a comment on policy, and is absolutely not his job. The Auditor General NEVER comments on government policy, and she is a full agent of Parliament with independent reporting powers!!! Just who the hell does Page think he is? If he wants to comment on what policies are good or bad, then he should quit and go join the CD Howe institute or run for political office.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

      Commenting on policy is *exactly* what he should be doing. Someone has to have the resources and the incentive to perform reality checks on policy. Right now, no-one does.

      • Maureen

        The only people who should be commenting on policy are MPs and the voters. There is no need for a bureaucrat to assume this role.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      (a) Page isn't advocating tax increases except insofar as he's identifying tax increases as one of two necessary means (along with spending cuts) to reach stated budgetary goals. I'm quite sure he doesn't give a rat's ass whether taxes rise or fall; he is simply saying that, absent tax increases or spending cuts, the stated budget targets are fictitious.
      (b) Officers of Parliament don't comment on policy? Really. Better tell Graham Fraser:

      (On the Olympics) "It is still possible to ensure that the Games reflect linguistic duality before, during and after the athletes’ arrival. However, there is little time left to solve the most pressing problems, namely those pertaining to translation, interpretation and signage. Federal institutions that have a specific role to play must realize that the arrival of thousands of additional visitors will lead to an increased demand for bilingual services. This is especially important in terms of services provided at the Games venues and services provided to the travelling public, mainly in the Vancouver and Toronto airports….

      (On the judiciary) This does not mean that all Supreme Court judges should be educated in both common law and the Civil Code. But they should be able to hear arguments from counsel who have been trained in either tradition, in English or in French, without requiring interpretation. As you know, Canadian laws are not translated, they are written in both English and French. The judges in the highest court of the land should therefore be able to understand nuances found within them when there is a difference between the two versions. If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary….

      (On official languages in Nunavut) "Given the importance of these elements, I urge the Committee to ratify the legislation before it, so that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can become a reality."

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

        Oh no! Jennifer Stoddart's bolted from the barn too!

        "Passed in 1983, the Act is outdated and inadequate. While we await a wholesale overhaul, we have proposed 10 'quick fixes' to address some of the most urgent shortcomings.

        "For reasons of time, I’ll mention just four:

        "'Quick fix 1' would see the law include a 'necessity test,' which would oblige institutions to demonstrate the need for the personal information they collect.

        "Another recommendation would expand the grounds for judicial review, including possible damage awards, for people whose privacy has been breached by the state.

        "We’d also like to see a toughening of the rules for privacy impact assessments, or PIAs. Departments proposing to develop or substantially change a program or service should be obliged by law to report publicly on the impact of the initiative on the privacy of Canadians – before the initiative is implemented.

        "And one last 'quick fix' I want to mention would strengthen the provisions governing the disclosure of personal information by the Canadian government to foreign states. The justification for that recommendation is underscored by the cases of the four Canadian men who were tortured in the Middle East."

        • Anon

          Stoddard's a hero.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

          But your examples regard commenting on the execution of existing policy, not the setting of new policy, or a change in policy direction. Arguing for a raise in GST enters the setting policy realm rather than then reviewing policy realm.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

            Uh, no. My examples regard (in Fraser's cases) legislation before Parliament, and which therefore hasn't passed and could be subject to amendment or opposition. So setting new policy and advocating for a change of direction is precisely what Fraser is doing. That's actually clearer in Stoddart's case. She hears, vaguely, that legislation is up for review, and comes out with a detailed and specific list of changes she wants implemented.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            I think that is still within the realm of advocating on the execution of policy rather than political policy direction. Do you feel that parliamentary officials should be arguing matters of political direction? Of course, that is always going to be a hazy line, but it should watched as closely as the enabling provisions are. You don't see a number of issues with officials becoming entrenched with particular political positions?

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            I think that is still within the realm of advocating on the execution of policy rather than political policy direction. Do you feel that parliamentary officials should be arguing matters of political direction? Of course, that is always going to be a hazy line, but it should watched as closely as the enabling provisions are. You don't see a number of issues with officials becoming entrenched in particular political positions?

      • Stewart Smith

        comment on a)
        Of course, you are absolutely correct that he states that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts are required to reach the stated budgetary goals. However, Page did not stop there, he indicated that the preferred route was raising the GST. In doing so he goes well beyond commenting on policy, he is advocating it.

        The problem with having independent officers propose policy is that just like politicans they end up married to it. Now that Page has come out in favour of raising the GST, any assessment of negative impact from raising the GST from his office becomes seen as less objective.

        My second objection is that Page really followed the bank economists on his tax policy suggestion. So a more complete statement of his advice would be " a rise in the GST would have less impact on markets and investment income than increasing other taxs". Tax policy should certainly consider the stock market, but it should also be developed considering the entire socio-economic impact on the country.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

          ALL economists think that cutting the GST was stupid, for many reasons. If Kevin Page is to provide professional advice, it's his duty to point out its merits as a revenue-generating tool.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            "ALL economists think …" ?

            You've got to be kidding. Anyway, you ignore Stewart's two points, public officials shouldn't have entrenched political positions, and, well. public officials shouldn't advocate political positions.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

            It's a point of analysis, not a political position. At various points, all three parties have campaigned on cutting the GST, and it was a stupid idea each time. If the PBO had been in place 20 years ago, this point would be better-understood.

          • Maureen

            Says you – I'm very happy not paying an additional two percent on most things that I buy. And don't give me the excuse that overall taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. Raising taxes is a last resort without a clear analysis of what needs to be cut from the over bloated federal budget (which is that way because of the demands by the Coalition to spend, spend, spend)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            yeah, what she said.

            However, Harper should have had the courage of his convictions and refused. You have to wonder if they really, really are going to spend it all.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            How is it a point of analysis and not political? Arguing that revenues should be raised by increasing a particular tax has huge political implications.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

            Are you thinking about Schiller again?

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      (a) Page isn't advocating tax increases except insofar as he's identifying tax increases as one of two necessary means (along with spending cuts) to reach stated budgetary goals. I'm quite sure he doesn't give a rat's ass whether taxes rise or fall; he is simply saying that, absent tax increases or spending cuts, the stated budget targets are fictitious.
      (b) Officers of Parliament don't comment on policy? Really. Better tell Graham Fraser:

      (On the Olympics) "It is still possible to ensure that the Games reflect linguistic duality before, during and after the athletes’ arrival. However, there is little time left to solve the most pressing problems, namely those pertaining to translation, interpretation and signage. Federal institutions that have a specific role to play must realize that the arrival of thousands of additional visitors will lead to an increased demand for bilingual services. This is especially important in terms of services provided at the Games venues and services provided to the travelling public, mainly in the Vancouver and Toronto airports…. "

      (On the judiciary) "This does not mean that all Supreme Court judges should be educated in both common law and the Civil Code. But they should be able to hear arguments from counsel who have been trained in either tradition, in English or in French, without requiring interpretation. As you know, Canadian laws are not translated, they are written in both English and French. The judges in the highest court of the land should therefore be able to understand nuances found within them when there is a difference between the two versions. If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary…. "

      (On official languages in Nunavut) "Given the importance of these elements, I urge the Committee to ratify the legislation before it, so that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can become a reality."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      "Page is waaaay overstepping his bounds when he says the Government should consider raising taxes"

      The operative word here is 'consider'. He's never told them what to do. They could cut spending, if they so choose. But from an objective budgetary perspective, all Page has essentially said is: "Wish into one hand, sh*t into the other, and tell me which one fills up first." That's not really choosing policy so much as identifying nonsensical plans (or non-plans) and projections.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      "Page is waaaay overstepping his bounds when he says the Government should consider raising taxes"

      The operative word here is 'consider'. He's never told them what to do. They could cut spending, if they so choose. But from an objective budgetary perspective, all Page has essentially said is: "Wish into one hand, sh*t into the other, and tell me which one fills up first." That's not really advocating policy so much as identifying nonsensical plans (or non-plans) and projections.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

        If Page thinks that the government's economic forecasts are too optimistic, he should raise that flag and wave it, furiously if he so chooses. Then everybody is on record and can be judged as the future economy unfolds. I agree that advocating a political position on taxation is overstepping his bounds.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    Hey Kady,

    Did you do something to make all the comments on your homepage, mine, and I assume others, with the strikethrough effect? (I ask because it happened just when you changed your title to 30 Helens with the same effect). Seems like an odd coincidence.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      That's an Intense Debate quirk, I think.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

        "IntenseDebate quirk" is one of the world's great redundancies.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

    30 Helens.

    [youtube BDTZcj8Xink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTZcj8Xink youtube]

  • knick

    Pardon a naive question…if the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate is to report on budget matters to parliamentarians, and those parliamentarians work for us/taxpayers, then why shouldn't the PBO (whoever he/she is) be free to report directly to us/taxpayers and to include his/her notes/comments?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      Not only is it not a naive question, it's a matter for a whole nother blog post, which I hope to get to soon.

      Short answer: if the goal is to empower parliamentarians, then it does matter whether an official reports to them or despite them.

      Slightly longer (mischievous, eminently debatable) answer: What is there about this Parliament that suggests it deserves to be empowered?

      • Sigh

        Short answer: nothing

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

        "then it does matter whether an official reports to them or despite them".

        - and the danger that they begin reporting to spite them.

      • knick

        I look forward to that blog post because, as one of those 'ordinary Canadians', it seems to me that public servants should be every bit as accountable to us as are those parliamentarians we elect to serve our interests for a given period of time, a view which doesn't seem to be held by many parliamentarians.

        • an online reader

          Conservatives and some Liberals on the Libary Committee are good union shop stewards . Looking at spending before the fact (PBO) and after the fact (AG) is in an M.P.s job description . Even if their Party or they choose not to do it NOBODY else should . How would you like to face a grievance , work slowdown or strike of something as important to life as political party stooges ?

  • Rock Gordon

    Ok, correct me if I'm wrong.

    If your income is $100, and your expenses are $120, then either you should increase your income to $120, or cut your expenses to $100, otherwise this situation is unsustainable after a certain amount of time. I think they teach you this when you are like 5 or 6 years old? Sorry don't remember I'm getting too old.

    What the PBO has said seems exactly similar to me – that if you have a mismatch in your tax revenue (income) or program epxenditure (expenses), then you either increase one or cut the other.

    Does't look like Kevin Page is advocating a policy point to me – it seems more that he is encouraging the use of common sense or what we all learn at age 5 or 6.

    Comments?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      I think the analogy goes more along the lines of: you think your income will be $110, your expenses are $100, and you're willing to borrow the $10, but your bookkeeper (not your accountant) thinks you will make $90 and tells you to get another job moonlighting.

      Its not really what you hired your bookkeeper for.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        Perhaps, but the problem is that you keep telling your spouse (the public) that this is EXACTLY why you hired your bookkeeper, that this was the whole reason a bookkeeper was needed, and furthermore, hiring your bookkeeper to do just this was one of the promises you made to keep your spouse (us) from divorcing you (not reelecting you).

        The problem to me is not that Kevin Page just thinks he's supposed to be independent because he's delusional, but that he thinks he's supposed to be independent because an independent officer is A) exactly what the government promised voters they were going to get, and B) exactly what the government kept telling us we got (including the PM and various cabinet ministers INSISTING that this was a promise both made and kept). That the law as written doesn't really do what our politicians keep trying to tell us it does is the problem (in this and other examples) and so either the politicians have to change the law to match their rhetoric, or stop using disingenuous rhetoric that's designed to make the public think they've done something that they clearly haven't.

        Our politicians can't complain that the PBO is acting independently in contravention of the statute while simultaneously telling the public that the statute is the fulfilment of their promise to create an independent office which can act independently. Well, I mean, clearly they CAN do that, but we shouldn't let them get away with it.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

          I am not sure that independence means that you get to write your own terms of reference.

          • Lord Kitchener's Own

            I'm not sure that's remotely what he's doing.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            You're probably right, He's likely doing it in Ottawa.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

          "Well, I mean, clearly they CAN do that, but we shouldn't let them get away with it."

          LOL. That pretty well sums it all up, doesn't it?

From Macleans