PBOWatch: "He wants more information on infrastructure spending? Hasn't he seen the ads for the website?"

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 4:57 PM - 49 Comments

As noted by Colleague Wherry earlier today, midway through the Toronto Star’s coverage of the all-but-buried-by-the-Coderre-Affair-and-don’t-think-for-a-second-that-was-a-coincidence plank walk by now former Conservative candidate Gordon Landon comes the not entirely astonishing news that the parliamentary budget officer is having some difficulty prying loose the numbers behind the government’s claim that some impressively large percentage of projects to be funded under the Canada Action! Plan are already underway:

Page said his office filed a request for specific infrastructure spending at the end of August but was stonewalled.

“We got a letter back from the deputy minister of transport and infrastructure just last week saying this is a significant data request … and they weren’t prepared to give us this data (at this time),” said Page, who has been a thorn in the Harper government’s side.

Page has embarrassed the federal government by casting doubt on Ottawa’s price tag for the Afghan mission and accurately predicting the deficit would be far greater than forecast by the Conservatives.

“We are looking at where the bar has been set in other countries on openness and transparency on stimulus money and … we will keep asking for the information so we can do our own analysis on money going out the door,” he told the Toronto Star.

For the record, here is the letter that Page sent to Transport in August:

Response_013

… and here’s the reply — which, according to the datestamp, Page’s office received on September 23, 2009:

Info_Request_013

The good news? The department has assured the PBO that they are ‘working diligently” to provide his office with the requested information “within a reasonable time frame such that it respects the intent of the Act.” The bad news? They don’t seem to be willing to say exactly — or even approximately — how long that will take. What ITQ wants to know, however, is why it seems to be such an arduous demand to make, considering that all that information seems to be readily available to provide examples of shovel-festooned projects to ministers and Conservative spokesthingies faced with scepticism over the speed by which the money is flowing out the door. Why would it be so hard to collect all those talking points together and send off the whole package to Kevin Page?

PBOWatch: There's a lesson here, I'm sure.

By kadyomalley - Monday, July 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM - 18 Comments

So, remember that unanimous committee report on the Parliamentary Budget Office? Turns out that the in camera negotiations played out pretty much exactly as ITQ suspected, right down to the part where it was, indeed, the Liberals — or, at least, the Liberals on that particular committee  – that ultimately came down on the same side as the government on the question of whether the PBO should be liberated from the Library of Parliament.

.From today’s Hill Times:

The NDP and Bloc Québécois agreed to set aside the independence issue of Canada’s first-ever Parliamentary Budget Office for another two years when the office is reviewed again in exchange for the PBO’s $1-million budget increase, says Bloc Québécois MP Louis Plamondon.

Mr. Plamondon (Bas Richelieu-Nicolet-Bécancour, Que), a member of the Joint Library of Parliament Committee that reined in Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page last month in a report on the office, said he spoke with Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Ont.) and told him he was ready to put the issue of the independence of the PBO aside to get the much-needed boost.

Mr. Bélanger discussed it with his Liberal and Conservative colleagues and Mr. Plamondon discussed it with NDP MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, Ont.).

Mr. Plamondon said he was pleased the parties agreed to seek consensus because a unanimous report is more likely to be implemented. Mr. Plamondon said the extra $1-million is necessary for Mr. Page to do his job properly, and a dissident report could have compromised its strength.

“I have a deal and I believe it’s the best deal, the unanimous [report] will have more power for having the money and I’m sure with the money in two years we’ll be able to do another fit if it’s necessary,” said Mr. Plamondon.

The committee was divided on the PBO’s independence issue. It fell into two groups. The Liberal and Conservative Members of Parliament wanted the PBO to remain under the Library of Parliament’s jurisdiction while the Bloc and NDP wanted the office to be removed from the Library of Parliament and made independent.

[...]

The controversial report released by the Joint Library of Parliament Committee had observers wondering why members of the four parties, in the House and the Senate, had decided to “shackle” the outspoken budget officer.

Academics, media and Parliamentarians criticized the report because it tied the increase in PBO’s budget to all its recommendations.

The committee said it’s up to the Parliamentarian or committee to decide if reports produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office will be publicly released and said the PBO can’t release reports during election campaigns.

Mr. Page told The Hill Times he was “very disappointed” by the report and admitted his message to strengthen the office’s transparency and accountability didn’t get across to Parliamentarians. Mr. Page also said his office would not be able to produce confidential costing reports. [...]

With the opposition parties divided, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois really didn’t have much choice; getting the rest of the committee to sign on to a recommendation to restore the PBO’s budget was likely the best deal they could get, under the circumstances.

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

By kadyomalley - Friday, July 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM - 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.

You gotta fight for your right to leak

By Paul Wells - Monday, July 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM - 54 Comments

I know you’ll be as surprised as I was — i.e., not in the slightest — to discover it was the Liberals who leaked the latest report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, that being the first report he provided to MPs before releasing it to the general public.

Page has argued since he took up this job, barely a year ago, that he must not release his reports to MPs exclusively because that would make it easier for them to use his work as partisan fodder. Page knew from the outset that any independent and empowered observer of the fiscal picture will, eventually, be seen as antagonistic to any government, at least to the most thin-skinned members of that government. He really didn’t want to speed that process along by volunteering to be MPs’ partisan shill. Since it’s part of his mandate to answer questions put by opposition MPs, it would be all too easy for one to ask him a question and then stand up in the House one Question Period and say, “Mr. Speaker, the government is doing so-and-so — and I have here in my hand a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer proving it!!!” And the rest of us wouldn’t be able to judge whether the PBO report actually said such a thing.

Now, it’s possible to argue that that’s too bad, and Page can just lump it. It’s also possible to argue that Page’s institution is valuable and new, and he needs support as he defines his role in a way that will benefit public good instead of Parliament Hill jousting and assorted other baloney. But you really need to be the Michael Ignatieff Liberals to argue both sides, at length, for months on end. Continue…

Coming this fall to Parliament Hill, a new reality series: "Who Wants To Be The Next Embattled Officer of Parliament?"

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM - 12 Comments

Because really, who wouldn’t want to fill the Robert Marleau-shaped hole over at the Information Commissioner’s office? I mean, if you somehow end up in the government’s bad books with your stubborn insistence on applying the ATI laws as written, you know the opposition has your back, right? Just ask Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.

Speaking of which, not that anyone has asked ITQ — well, actually, a few of you have, and she apologizes, cartoon Ringo Starr-style,  for the lateness of her reply — but she is utterly baffled by the recommendations of the long-awaited report from the Library of Parliament committee on the even-longer-running battle between Page and Parliamentary Librarian William Young for control of the PBOverse. It isn’t that she disagrees with main conclusion — that the reporting relationship between the two officers has to be straightened out — but the complete absence of any acknowledgment whatsoever of the fact that it’s not Page or Young who is ultimately to blame for the bad blood between their respective microbureaucracies, but a badly drafted law.

Continue…

PBOWatch: All roads lead to the Library Committee? Find a shortcut.

By kadyomalley - Friday, March 27, 2009 at 2:04 PM - 15 Comments

… if you’re Kevin Page, that is, and still hold out hope that your office might be able to get that budget boost you insist you were promised by the government.

From yesterday’s post-QP scrum with Liberal finance critic John McCallum:

Question:       Mr. McCallum, what do you make of the fact that they’re saying that they’re not cutting (off microphone) they are?

John McCallum:  Well I don’t think this is the first time we hear things that aren’t quite, quite true.  It’s clear that he had been promised a budget of $2.7 million and he was, found out he had $1.8 million.  My understanding is that when he accepted the job, that that was the deal worked out as something reasonable with which he could do the job.  And maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I would it’s a little suspicious that he makes the government forecast look so ridiculous, that they can be thrown into the garbage and simultaneously, the government cuts his budget by 50%, by one third.

So I think he’s being penalized by telling Canadians the truth, he is being penalized for telling Canadians the truth because he’s not out on a limb all by himself.  Just today we heard Don Drummond from TD Bank who was significantly more pessimistic than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so it’s the government that is the odd one out with its unrealistically rosy forecast.  It’s not the Parliamentary Budget Officer and he has a fine record.  If you look at his forecasts and compare them with what turned out to be the case, he’s got a very good record. [...]

In the total scheme of things for the federal government, an extra $900,000 is not going to break the bank one way or another.  We think that it has nothing to do with money.  When you’re running a, what Don Drummond now says is a deficit of more than $80 billion to increase this man’s budget by $900,000 back to where it was supposed to be is not really the issue of money.  It’s an issue of whether they want him or whether he’s a (inaudible) and I think they’re persecuting him on two fronts.

One, they’re persecuting him by cutting his budget.  He’s going to have to lay people off that he hired on the understanding that he would get what had been promised to him.  And second, they’re depriving him of information.  And those are the two things that economic analysts need.  They need a reasonable budget to hire good people and he has good people, but he can’t keep those good people without the money.  And he needs the oxygen of information with which to do his analysis.

And I believe that the government wants to be the single purveyor of Conservative manipulated numbers through their website and not have any chatter from anywhere else and we believe that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must get the raw data from Treasury Board and other departments so that he can do the analysis and inform parliamentarians about money out the door.  So I think he’s being punished by the government by having his budget cut, and I think he’s being further punished by the government by not getting that information because they want to have a monopoly of the information on the numbers that they give to Canadians.

So I believe that after Stephen Harper used to dress up as God’s gift to accountability, he has an awful nerve to be doing just the opposite these days.

Question:       Now, the Prime Minister said today though that he’s not going to revise, he didn’t pull these budget numbers out of the air and the Finance Minister says he wants (off microphone) his budget numbers.

John McCallum:  Well I think we cannot force him.  I think what we will do, work with other opposition parties.  Mr. Poilievre was talking about the Library Committee.  It’s our intention to get a motion we hope through the Library Committee requesting the government to increase their Estimates to accommodate the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  We also want the government to give him the information.  But I don’t think there’s a mechanism in the short run whereby we can force the government to do this.  But I think if we, if we bring pressure to bear of the majority in Parliament on this matter, then we hope it may have an effect. [...]  I’m not saying I’m terribly hopeful at this point.

Well, first off, ITQ can’t really fault him for not being “terribly hopeful” — as far as I can tell, even if the committee successfully passed the motion described above, the request would be non-binding, and even if the government acquiesced and boosted the Library’s budget by an additional $900,000, there is still no mechanism — nothing statutory, that is  — that would compel the Library to pass the money along to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

A better approach might be to use one of the upcoming opposition days to call on the government to amend the Federal Accountability Act to make Page a  fully independent Officer of Parliament. Which would, of course, be similarly non-binding – unless in the form of a confidence motion, of course -  but it would at least force the Conservatives to either give in and vote in favour of the motion, or defend the (at this point all but indefensible) status quo while simultaneously attempting to maintain some sort of moral high ground on the accountability front. At the very least, it would get it out of the Library committee and onto the main House agenda.

Let's put that the "no yelling" rule to the test: Liveblogging the Library of Parliament committee

By kadyomalley - Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM - 15 Comments

Full disclosure: the last time ITQ covered the Library committee, it was pretty much just to see if it could be done without the liveblogger lapsing into a coma, but this time, it might actually get interesting. Why? Three words: Parliamentary Budget Officer. Who won’t be there – not this time, anyway, although at least one opposition party – the Bloc Quebecois, to be specific – has a motion to launch a full investigation of the relationship between the Library and the PBO. Somehow, though, I suspect that Parliamentary Librarian William Young will be fielding a few questions on the subject during his appearance today.

11:54:47 AM
Welcome to the Library of Parliament committee, ITQ readers! Actually, to be strictly accurate, welcome to the West Block hallway outside the room where Library of Parliament committee will eventually be meeting, which is currently occupied by a shadowy subcommittee of the environmental variety, and will hopefully be vacating the premises soon, what with all of us stuck out here sweltering in our winter coats and all.

There we go! We’re in!

12:01:02 PM
So the rumour – and I stress that this is just a rumour – is that the Librarian is angling to turn this meeting, which is supposed to be focused on the main estimates, into a general roundtable/disciplinary hearing on Kevin Page, rogue parliamentary budget officer.

The chair – Senator Sharon Carstairs – attempted to get that underway, but was thwarted in mid-sentence by the Bloc’s Louis Plamandon, who point-of-orders out that actually, his motion should take precedence.

And – it’s on.

Continue…

PBOWatch: Okay, maybe the Liberals are putting some thought into the coming budget report card.

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 10:17 AM - 8 Comments

Enough, at least, to realize that it’s worth paying attention to the recommendations that the Parliamentary Budget Office released last week. Looks like that spreadsheet y’all worked so hard on may end up being useful after all, guys! From yesterday’s post-QP scrum with John McCallum:

Question:                       On the issue of accountability, what do you want to see in the March 11th report by the Finance Minister to Parliament?  What should it contain?

John McCallum:          Well, we want to see a clear statement of not money out the door because money will not have gone out the door before April 1st but plans and something that will reassure Canadians that money is indeed imminently likely to go out the door.  We would want to see as much evidence as they can muster, that for example, the infrastructure money will flow quickly after April the 1st, will not sit under a mattress in Ottawa and we will also be guided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s accountability framework which will also be a part of the probation process.

It’s worth noting, of course, that we still haven’t heard a peep from the government on how it plans to meet the still somewhat ephemeral reporting requirements, although in fairness, since this wasn’t their idea, perhaps the finance minister is waiting for the Liberals to fill them in on exactly what they’re expecting to see.

PBOWatch: Okay, the Parliamentary Budget Office has now officially put more thought into those quarterly budget reports …

By kadyomalley - Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM - 12 Comments

… than the party that came up with the idea to have the government provide them in the first place. Or so it seems from the latest briefing note, released earlier today:

• The PBO recommends that Parliament establish an appropriate provisional reporting framework prior to the release of the Government’s reports to ensure the appropriate information is being collected up-front — on the understanding that these reports can be improved over time as information accumulates and the situation evolves.

• This note provides the PBO’s view on some key information requirements for the content of these reports — the central goal of which should be to provide Parliament with accurate, timely, and easily understood information that details: recent economic and fiscal developments and prospects; the implementation and effectiveness of budget measures; and the budget results in light of its guiding principles.

• The specific contents of future progress reports to Parliament may include:

o An evaluation of economic developments relative to Budget 2009 assumptions, and an assessment of economic risks that uses an updated survey of private sector forecasters and, if applicable, the Government’s own forecast.

o A summary of recent fiscal results and analysis of fiscal risks, as well as an estimate of the Government’s structural budget balance and statement of its fiscal targets.

o A clear implementation and oversight framework that describes for each budget measure: the spending authority and delivery mechanism; implementation indicators and progress benchmarks; and expected output and/or outcome indicators. This note provides specific examples to illustrate these concepts.

o A discussion of progress relative to the three guiding principles that Budget 2009 be: timely; targeted; and temporary.

And that’s just from the summary — the full report runs fifteen pages, and includes a very helpful backgrounder on parliamentary oversight, and extensive analysis – with tables, even -  of the sort of information that will be useful in determining exactly whether the money is being spent in accordance with the stated goals of the budget. They’ve even provided a sample spreadsheet!

Now, it’s possible – although somewhat unlikely – that the Liberals have released a similarly detailed outline and ITQ missed it – or, alternately, that they specifically requested that the PBO put together this report, in which case I will cheerfully update this post. But at the moment, it looks like the parliamentary budget officer is putting more effort into making sure that these reports – the first of which, incidentally, is theoretically due by the end of March – hold the government accountable than the Official Opposition.

PBOWatch: Is that a Cabinet Confidence in your budget forecast …

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM - 7 Comments

Or do you just not want to give away all your secrets?

Everyone’s favourite fiscal futurist Kevin Page appears to have hit a brick wall in his efforts to persuade the FInance department to hand over the economic and fiscal projections underlying last fall’s Economic and Fiscal Statement (which, ITQ readers may dimly recall, very nearly brought down the government).

As it turned out, the folks at Finance were happy to send along the results of the private economic survey that were used to come up with their projections, but balked at releasing any “additional details” without first getting the green light from PCO, according to Deputy Minister Rob Wright, whose response is dated December 24, 2008:

Continue…

Just when you think you're out …

By kadyomalley - Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM - 5 Comments

4:09:38 PM
I know, I know – this is so unITQ-like in its non-live-bloggingness, but I’ll be honest with y’all – I wasn’t actually going to cover this afternoon’s Public Accounts meeting until I noticed that David Christopherson had a motion on the table to invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to committee to “discuss his roles and issues related to his independence,” at which point I *obviously* couldn’t not show up, what with being a PBOWatcher and all.

Anyway, right now, the committee is preoccupied with last May’s Auditor General report on First Nations child and family services, and since I came in late, I’m mostly just half (or maybe a quarter) paying attention to the discussion at the moment. Sometimes the teensiest tiny bit distracted, but when it comes to accountability, ever vigilant, that’s the ITQ motto.

4:20:07 PM
Okay, still not *really* listening, but I have to say that Christopherson really is one of the most underappreciated MPs on the Hill: He has such a blunt, no-nonsense way about him. Right now, he’s raking various Indian and Northern Affairs officials, and somehow, he does it without coming across as a self-important blowhard.

Meanwhile, the government members keep wanting to go back to The Residential Schools Apology, and how it made everything better, which, when you think about it, would be a question better posed to a First Nations person than bureaucrat. And there I go again, paying attention. Confound you, Public Accounts committee, with your sneaky way of making me care about stuff before I can activate my trusty apathy shield.

Continue…

On why it's a good idea to read your party's proposed opposition day motions …

By kadyomalley - Monday, February 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM - 17 Comments

Or ITQ, for that matter: It makes it less likely that you’ll inadvertantly – or perhaps deliberately – publicly contradict your party’s position on, for instance, the need to support the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Office:

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who last week warned that Ottawa’s projections for climbing out of deficit within half a decade may be too optimistic and said the government’s $40-billion stimulus package may have a smaller and less effective impact than billed, is garnering too much media attention and shouldn’t be allowed to release his sensational reports unilaterally, says Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett.
Continue…

A parliamentary budget officer's work is never done

By kadyomalley - Friday, February 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM - 12 Comments

We don’t yet know when the Liberals will get another opposition day, or what they’ll end up doing with it when they’ve got one. But after observing the barely concealed scepticism that government members displayed towards the Parliamentary Budget Officer during his appearance at Finance earlier this week, if ITQ had a vote, she’d go with one of the following two motions already on the Order Paper:

Continue…

From the Office of the PBO: Deficits for Dummies

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM - 12 Comments

As promised, the Parliamentary Budget Office – which now has its very own RSS feed — the very first parliamentary site to do so –  has released its latest pre-budget briefing note for parliamentarians. 

It’s worth reading the whole thing, especially if, like ITQ, you’re still a little bit fuzzy on the difference between a structural and cyclical deficit, but here are a few highlights from the introduction: 

·       Governments across the world are being called on to provide economic stimulus measures to counteract the on-going global recession.  However, it is important to keep in mind that:

·       Relative to many other countries, Canada is expected to experience a milder recession.  As a result of its healthier fiscal position going into the recession, Canada’s status quo budget deficits, relative to the size of its economy, are projected to be much smaller than those in many other industrialized countries.

·       Further, rough estimates indicate that the Government has a structural surplus of about $6 billion — though more work needs to be undertaken in this area.  Thus, any permanent fiscal actions (e.g., permanent tax cuts or permanent spending increases) exceeding $6 billion annually would likely result in structural deficits, limiting the Government’s ability to manage future cost pressures due to, for example, population ageing.

According to the PBO, when we finally get a peek at next week’s numbers, parliamentarians – and, presumably, the rest of us too – should keep the following questions in mind: 

Is there a single, or set of over-arching fiscal policy objectives that the stimulus package will aim to achieve?

As the PBO’s November 2008 EFA report highlighted, and a concern that is even more acute now, the weakened global and Canadian economic outlook poses a significant challenge for the Government to achieve its stated short-term and medium-term fiscal targets. Which of these targets will be re-stated, will some be re-affirmed, or replaced with new policy targets?

Will the Government provide a transparent medium-term fiscal plan that addresses the projected weakness in the economy and supports a meaningful recovery towards the economy’s potential level of activity without limiting the Government’s fiscal capacity to respond to future spending pressures arising from population ageing?

PBOWatch: A little light weekend reading for parliamentarians

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM - 3 Comments

Not quite as efficient as an RSS feed, but it keeps ITQ from having to remember to check the website every few days to make sure she doesn’t miss out on any shiny newly released analysis:

From: LOP Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer/Bureau du directeur parlementaire du budget BDP
Subject: PBO to Release Pre-budget Briefing Note Wednesday, January 21 / Le DPB publiera une fiche de breffage prébudgétaire le mercredi 21 janvier
Sent: Jan 20, 2009 3:44 PM

For your information, before noon tomorrow the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), Kevin Page,  will be posting a pre-budget briefing note prepared by his office for parliamentarians and Canadians.  You will receive an email once the document has been posted.

Thank you,

Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

PBOWatch – Kevin Page to opposition parties: Little help, guys?

By kadyomalley - Sunday, January 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM - 52 Comments

… posted on behalf of Colleague Wells, who received a copy of the following missive in his morning email. What does it all mean? That Parliament can’t get back to work soon enough, that’s what it means.

From: Page, Kevin
To: Ignatieff, Michael – M.P.; Duceppe, Gilles – député; Layton, Jack – M.P.
Cc: McCallum, John – M.P.; Brison, Scott – M.P.; Mulcair, Thomas – Député; Laforest, Jean-Yves – Député
Sent: Sat Jan 17 15:43:48 2009
Subject: Parliamentary Budget Officer / Directeur parlementaire du budget

(La version française suit)

Dear Leaders:

Issue:

There are significant challenges to the independence, resources and operations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) with a resulting adverse impact on the capacity of parliamentarians to hold the government to account.

Background

As you may be aware, there have been multiple views on the mandate, operations and accountabilities of the PBO.  Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Librarian (PL) made three fundamental points in his interview with the Ottawa Citizen (published January 15, 2009) and his Opinion – Editorial in the Hill Times (published January 13, 2009) – his first public remarks on the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer since the spring of 2008:

• 1. The PBO is accountable to the PL (not parliamentarians);
  2. The PBO is not independent (notwithstanding the statements of the Prime Minister both inside and outside the House of Commons) (Annex A); and
  3. The PL refuted the earlier written statement of the Speakers, when he indicated in the interview with the Ottawa Citizen, that the PBO has not in-fact overstepped its mandate.

The January 16 Ottawa Citizen Editorial (Annex B) provided a strongly worded response to the former article.

Continue…

PBOWatch: The Librarian's Tale

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 11:43 PM - 6 Comments

In his first interview on the subject, parliamentary librarian William Young tells the Ottawa Citizen why Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page had to be “reined in”, and points out  – once again  — that according to the legislation that created the office, Page is not an independent officer of Parliament:

For Mr. Young the law is clear. Mr. Page and his office offer “independent analysis” to Parliament and that independence means from the government, but not from the library. Where he and Mr. Page don’t see eye-to-eye is over the office’s autonomy. He said the office was never intended to be a full-fledged and ‘autonomous’ officer of Parliament, but rather an employee of the library who reports to the librarian.

“As far as I concerned, I have no absolutely no interest or concern with the independence related to the analysis or the process related to the analysis that Kevin has undertaken. I don’t spend my time vetting any of the publications . The analysis that comes out of this place is independent…based on evidence, is reviewed and goes out.”

“The issue of autonomy, on the other hand, is something defined in the legislation. I go back to the legislation and assume what parliament passed is what parliament intended the law to say and as far as autonomy is concerned the law is quite clear. – the PBO reports to me and I report to the speakers.”

I don’t really have to say it again, do I? Good.

(In fairness to Young, it’s worth noting that the current confusion over the PBO’s ostensible independence is not his fault – he didn’t draft the bill, he didn’t pass the Federal Accountability Act, and he can’t change the law as written.)