Full allocation for PBO in federal budget

Here is the word from this week's Hill Times:

After a dramatic year of struggling with the House and Senate Speakers and the Parliamentary Librarian, Canada's Parliamentary budget officer will receive the full planned $2.8-million budget he was promised, according to the 2010-2011 main estimates.

"We are very pleased that our budget is back to the original planned level," budget officer Kevin Page told The Hill Times in an email. "This will allow us to do a better job at carrying out our legislative mandate."

It's not a complete victory, though:

Mr. Young's [the Parliamentary Librarian] office said the PBO's $2.8-million funding would be maintained throughout the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Mr. Page said that "given recent history ... there should be a separate line for the PBO" under the Library of Parliament's funding.

Moreover, if you look back to the original three demands of the 'open letter', you'll note that adequate funding only satisfies one of the three demands. The other two outstanding complaints--public reporting and independence--seem to have settled down for the moment, but are not completely resolved.

But, let's call this a victory. Thank you to all of the economists and other interested citizens who supported this initiative. Collectively, I think we helped to do some good here.

I'll keep this blog up, both as an archive of the initiative and also as insurance against any future political pressure on the PBO.

So, go now in peace. We may have dispersed, but we will be watching.

Can the private sector do it?

There was some interesting back and forth through the fall about whether the private sector could fulfill the role of the PBO. I argued no.

But, in the UK, it strikes me that many aspects of what the PBO does in Canada are currently covered very well by something called the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The IFS doesn't do macro forecasting, but they do look at the budget balance on a monthly basis. They also do extensive evaluations of the annual budget, and of particular policies. The IFS is a registered charity, with very diverse funding sources.

We have lots of thinktanks in Canada, and some really interesting and well-done work comes out of them now and again. But, I think even people from our leading thinktanks would agree that none in Canada reaches the combination of academic and policy credibility that has been accumulated by the IFS. Some might come close on particular items, but not with the scale or depth of the IFS.

So, why don't we have an IFS in Canada?

In my view, an important aspect is geography. In London, you have the business, academic, and political centres of the country all accessible by a short tube ride. (Even Oxford and Cambridge are only an hour by express train.) Someone could hold office hours with students in the morning, attend a workshop over lunch at the IFS, then give a presentation to government or business officials in the afternoon--and then be home for dinner. Hard to do in Canada.

By the way, when I visited the IFS for a couple of days in the Fall I heard that the Canadian PBOfficer had been in London the previous week. The Conservatives have proposed a similar institution for the UK should they win the next election expected this year, and people in the UK are interested to hear the Canadian experience. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the UK.

(Speaking of elections in the UK, wouldn't it be cool to announce results with all candidates together in person like they do in the UK? Love those big party ribbons they wear. It would be so fun to watch the daggers emanating from the eyes of the losing candidates.)

So, to sum up, the IFS experience suggests that it might be possible for the private sector to perform many of the roles now allocated to the PBO. However, we might have to geographically shmoosh Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal together in order to get the required convergence of factors. Moreover, the PBO is clearly doing things now that were not being provided by the private sector pre-PBO, so I don't know why we would expect the Canadian private sector to suddenly change what they do in the absence of the PBO.

An upside to not being independent?

This week, we learned that the Parliamentary Budget Officer will continue to report even though Parliament has been prorogued. In the Globe, it was reported that this is possible for the PBO because it lacks independence.

The fact that Mr. Page is able to release such reports is due to the unique structure of his office. The Parliamentary Budget Office operates as a division of the Library of Parliament. Mr. Page has expressed concern about this arrangement, arguing that he should be an independent Officer of Parliament. There are currently eight such officers – including the Auditor-General, the Privacy Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

This is a cute quirk, but it doesn't change my mind that on balance there is more to be gained from independence than being a vassal of the Library of Parliament.

Is the cheque in the mail?

In this week's Hill Times, we learn that the funding for 2010-11 hasn't been completely locked down yet. Things looked promising last week. Is no news good news?

Two weeks ago, Mr. Young [the Parliamentary Librarian] told the committee that he will recommend the Speakers ask for the $2.8-million budget for the PBO. The committee agreed. There was no talk about staffing and Mr. Young refused to answer The Hill Times' questions on that.

"It is essential that the PBO be allowed to hire within our planned budget," Mr. Page wrote to The Hill Times in an email.

"We have many projects underway for Parliamentarians that are being driven by the efforts of staff under secondment—infrastructure, budget implementation impacts, costing of sentencing reform, estimating potential output and structural budget balances, long-term economic and fiscal projections. All these projects for Parliamentarians and more are under risk if staffing is not secured," stated Mr. Page.

If I had to guess (from a position entirely out of the loop and three time zones away), I'd say that all is well. The last we heard the 2.8 million is going through and I don't see anything here that tells me differently. This article seems like more of a 'we haven't forgot about this' story from the Hill Times--which I think is useful. We haven't forgotten about it here, either.

Does the PBO offend Canada's system of responsible government?

The other day I had lunch with UBC Historian Michel Ducharme. I asked him about the argument (previously discussed here and here) that the PBO is contrary to our system of parliamentary government, or that it undermines responsible government.

I have not found those arguments persuasive, but I wanted to talk to someone who can speak from expertise. He kindly gave me a quick remedial course in parliamentary government. The thoughts below are mine--so don't blame Michel if you disagree.

The Canadian system of responsible government has at its core a close connection between the executive power (exercised by ministers through the crown) and the legislative branch (parliament). This connection comes from ministers being members of parliament, either in the House of Commons or the Senate. Ministers must command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. If they do not, they must resign. In this way, ministers (and the executive power they hold) are responsible to the people through the House of Commons. Because of this connection, there cannot be conflict between the executive and legislative branches.

Contrast this with the United States. The Treasury Secretary wants to get a budget passed. The Treasury Secretary is part of the executive, but has no role in the legislature. If the budget isn't passed by the legislature, then there is conflict. For example, the government shuts down like it did in 1995. In Canada's system, this is impossible because the same people control both the executive and legislative branches. In Canada, if a minister cannot be supported by Parliament, s/he is no longer the minister.

This is the essence of responsible government--the minister is responsible to parliament, not to a president or sovereign.

Now, on to the PBO. Does the PBO interfere with this connection of responsibility between minister and parliament?

No. The PBO provides information to all parliamentarians. This information is used by parliamentarians to help decide if they should continue to support the minister. In this way, the PBO is a tool. The PBO no more disrupts the responsibility of the minister to parliament than does a computer or a pencil. Computers and pencils help parliamentarians do a better job in deciding whether to support the minister. So does the PBO.

If, as a counterfactual, the PBO were required to sign off on the budget, then there would be a problem. In this situation, either the minister would now be responsible to the PBO (which usurps the responsibility of ministers to parliament) or the PBO would become a de facto member of the executive (which cannot be, since responsible government requires the executive to be members of parliament). Either way, this would violate important features of responsible government.

However, so long as the role of the PBO is merely informational (as it is now), then all the PBO does is to allow Parliamentarians to do a better job in their role of holding the executive to account.

So, let's review. The PBO is indeed a change to how our democracy works. But we have always evolved, so that's ok. Moreover, not only does the PBO not offend parliamentary responsibility of ministers, but by providing better information to parliament it actually enhances the notion of parliamentary responsibility that lies at the core of the Canadian system.

Budget for 2010 looking good

Good news to report from Ottawa. According to the Hill Times (subscription), it looks like the PBO will get the requested $2.8 million to run the office. (Not the Office, the office!)

A year after a nasty public fight erupted over Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's budget, Parliamentary Librarian William Young will ask the House for the PBO's requested $2.8-million annual budget in the 2010 main estimates, say MPs.

During a closed-door meeting last Thursday at the Joint Library of Parliament Committee, Mr. Young told MPs and Senators that he would recommend to the House and Senate Speakers that the Parliamentary Budget Office get the $1-million budget increase he wants in the next fiscal year, Parliamentarians told Civil Circles.

"We had a little push and pull, give and take, but at the end of the day, the meeting was constructive," said NDP MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, Ont.). "We had a meeting of the minds. We had agreement on what will go forward and hopefully, at the very least, the fiscal concern around the PBO's ability to do the job as it needs to be done has been addressed and anything that surfaces between now and next year's go around remains to be seen."

So, that sounds good. How does that measure up against the demands of the 130+ economists who signed the open letter in the summer?

We call on Parliamentarians of every party to pursue the following actions in support of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer:

• Ensure adequate funding to carry out its mandate
• Independence by making the PBO a full Officer of Parliament
• Public reporting of all analysis.

I'd call that one out of three. The first demand seems to be satisfied. The second, not yet. For the third, the communications of the PBO seem to be constrained by the Parliamentary Librarian, as far as I can see. But I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

Big decision on the PBO this week

This week, the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament will meet on Thursday. It will be in camera, which, in a fun linguistic twist means nearly the opposite of on camera.

The Committee will discuss the Estimates for 2010-2011. Will the PBO get the $2.8 million? The Hill Times tells us it will be 'rocky'.

Kevin Page has told us he'd rather shut down the shop than run it on a shoestring.

The Government side does not have a majority on the Committee. We have seen statements of late by all Opposition parties in support of the PBO. Who will carry the day?

What's so good about the CBO?

Anyone watching the US healthcare debates over the last 6 months should have developed a strong appreciation for the Congressional Budget Office. At different points in the summer, the two sides were each on the defensive as the CBO's costing of different initiatives either helped or hurt the case for reform.

What was interesting to me is that I read very little in the way of attacks on the credibility of the CBO during these debates. This NPR article on the credibility of the CBO suggests a lot of "screaming" on both side of the aisle, but in my view it is more whinging than strong criticism--attacking the CBO was not a central part of either party's strategy. Both sides more or less took their lumps when it came to the CBO. And remember here, this is not a polity that is averse to character assassinations and attempted credibility-destruction.

This credibility was born of legislated independence and nurtured by a history of solid research and good leadership. Clearly, the PBO isn't there yet. But I think the CBO is indeed a nice target for what an effective PBO might offer.

But don't take my word for it. Just check out what they do here. There is even a blog. (Can you imagine the reaction of the Library of Parliament and certain Parliamentarians if Kevin Page had a blog? The legislation does not mention a blog! The legislation! Sedition!)

Is the Canadian Parliamentary System blissfully perfect?

Over at Worthwhile, there is an interesting comment thread on the PBO following the Fraser Institute piece published last week. The Fraser Institute authors posted a comment here.

Even assuming the PBO is a more reliable source of policy analysis than other organizations, its efforts are of little practical value in the Canadian political context given the institutional environment. Unlike the US where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is more influential, Canada’s government operates in a parliamentary system. As in many parliamentary systems, the Canadian legislature has limited powers to change the submitted budget (see IMF study). Generally, parliamentarians can only approve or reject the incumbent government’s spending proposal, while the legislatures in the US government are free to change every aspect of the budget proposal. Policy analysis performed by the CBO is more likely to be used effectively by individual members of congress to adjust proposals accordingly.

This is the old 'accountability is foreign to Westminster Parliamentary Democracy' argument that I discussed previously here.

Let me extract two points of their argument:

1. The PBO would not be exactly like the CBO therefore no parallels to the CBO may be drawn.

2. Canada's Parliamentary system has the advantage that the executive is directly accountable in Parliament--The Finance Minister has to stand up and defend his/her policies.

Point #1 is an all or nothing argument. If not exactly like the CBO, then the PBO is not worthwhile. I see the PBO as adding tremendous value by pricing both government and opposition policies. The use of this information is different in Canada than the US, it is true. In the US this information might be directly incorporated in the bill through the legislative process. This wouldn't likely happen in Canada, since policies are more or less presented as done deals.
However, would pricing information influence debate in the Commons or in the public about a policy initiative? Would it improve the value of that debate? I argue yes. Parliamentary democracy does not mean that there must be no debate once the Finance Minister speaks. Having a well-informed debate in Parliament and in public is, in my view MORE important in Canada's parliamentary system since bad policy proposals can ONLY be influenced by debate rather than legislative horse-trading.

Point #2 is a non-sequitur. Yes, it is a good thing that we have direct accountability of the executive. But we're not canceling Question Period here. We can have executive accountability as well as other channels of accountability. Yes, under the current system we can vote against a government that offers bad policies, once every five years (less for minorities of course). But I like a system that has a little more democratic responsiveness than that; where there are more channels for accountability than quinquennial elections.

But introducing another channel of accountability must surely diminish the power of the direct channel through Parliament, right? Perhaps. So what? I'm willing to make that trade if it makes our democracy function better. As I said previously:

Is the point that our system is currently in a state of perfection? Really? Or that our system is so fragile that a small itsy-bitsy movement toward transparency would cause it to wither? Which is it--we're perfect as is, or fragile as glass?

My argument is that we can add some extra channels of accountability to our system without wrecking it. Our system has evolved substantially since 1867. Let's evolve some more with an effective PBO.

Defending the PBO, again

There is an anti-PBO op-ed in the National Post today. I don't agree much with it, but I will outsource the commentary to Stephen Gordon. I endorse Stephen's words.

Let me pick up on one point. The Fraser Institute authors claim the following.

In addition to the multitude of private organizations supplying economic forecasts and fiscal projections, others still go to great lengths to scrutinize the accuracy of government budget numbers and assess its fiscal policies and programs. These include think tank institutions (including our own), lobbyist groups, and professional and academic economists. In a sense, the government already has multiple “watchdogs” keeping it honest and disciplined.

Where are these watchdogs? Have you seen them? Where are the detailed, credible, timely, and transparent costings of government and opposition tax policy initiatives? I don't see them. Not at the Fraser Institute, not elsewhere. I don't mean opinion pieces. I mean solid, objective, transparent policy work.

Speaking for myself, I am one of those academics who has a great interest in matters of public finance. But, with the other demands on my time (teaching, publishing, committee work, and once in a long while some leisure) I seem barely capable of writing one blog post a week, let alone doing fully costed pricing analysis of policy initiatives. The incentives are simply not there for me to spend my time on being a fulltime watchdog.

I am not convinced that the PBO guys are going to be better macro forecasters than anyone else. On that point, I have some sympathy for the Fraser Institute argument. But that's not what we're paying the PBO to do. We're paying them to a) translate those macro forecasts into fiscal projections and b) price policy initiatives coming out of Parliament.

I just don't see anywhere else in Canada that you have 5 or 6 economists devoted full time to these tasks, with access to the data necessary to do it. Yes, banks and thinktanks do produce the occasional report. But this is far short of what can be done by even a small fulltime staff dedicated to this task.

The three million dollars that the PBO costs is a rounding error on a budget of $260 billion. In fact, let me do the math. It's 0.00154% of 260 billion. In terms of time, the federal government spends 3 million every 6 minutes. I think it is worth spending 0.00154% of our federal budget to monitor and study how the other 99.99846% is spent.

Let me leave with one more quote from the National Post piece:

Indeed, this switch has minimized the government’s ability to fudge budget numbers for political advantage.

Were these Fraser Institute guys even around in the Fall of 2008?

Upping the Ante

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has apparently said that if he doesn't get the budget increase he requested, he will recommend shutting down the office. (Note that I wrote office with a lower-case 'o', lest I transgress the legislation and enrage those who are worried about me calling the office an Office.)

Here's what's on the CBC website.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says he will recommend the government shut down his operation of monitoring Ottawa's financial performance if he does not get more resources to do the job.

Page told the House of Commons finance committee he still has not been told whether his annual budget will increase to $2.8 million, which he says he needs to do his work. His office had a budget of $1.8 million in the past fiscal year.

He said several of his staff members are on loan from other departments, and if he doesn't receive a critical mass of qualified personnel he will recommend closing the office.

Drama.

Complying with legislation

Well, my layman's reading of the PBO legislation tells me that they have a right to get the information--it doesn't specify the technology.

79.3 (1) Except as provided by any other Act of Parliament that expressly refers to this subsection, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the deputy head of a department within the meaning of any of paragraphs (a), (a.1) and (d) of the definition "department" in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or to any other person designated by that deputy head for the purpose of this section, to access at all convenient times to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate.

But, in practical reality, I have to think this is a bit contemptuous in spirit.

The Harper government has dumped three box-loads of information about its efforts to stimulate Canada's sputtering economy on Parliament's independent budget watchdog.

Kevin Page had asked for more information, complaining that the sketchy data provided up to now made it impossible to tell whether $12-billion in stimulus spending is having any impact on the economy.

But rather than provide an easy-to-analyze spreadsheet listing infrastructure projects and how much money has been spent on each of them to date, the government flooded Page Thursday with 4,476 pages of documents.

If Parliament wants the PBO to be effective, we need better behaviour than this.

UPDATE: The Halifax Chronicle-Herald has some good quotes:

"We were expecting to get a spreadsheet," Kevin Page, Canada’s parliamentary budget officer, said in an interview Thursday.

"The deputy minister was using a ‘spreadsheet.’ Now it is a spreadsheet. We’re just getting a hard copy. So we’ve asked to get the data electronically. We were turned down. We’re now in the process of figuring how we can turn this hard copy information into an electronic spreadsheet so we can make sense of it."

Keeping Secrets Hurts Democracy

. . . says the Globe and Mail in an editorial today.

Accountability in politics is possible only when the governed obtain fair, unbiased information about the government's track record and future plans. The federal government preaches accountability, but is being only selectively transparent about its own spending activities. In addition to being bad public policy, this opacity does a disservice to democracy.

The Office

Back in July, there was some debate about proper descriptive of the O/office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As I mentioned at the time, I wasn't trying to be subtle--I had just taken the 'Office' from the website, which at the time referred to the OPBO. Now, I see the leading O has been scrubbed from the website.

Over the Summer, I received several communications accusing me more or less of sedition for having the audacity to refer to the office in which the PBO sat as an Office. I thought this was a bit of an over-reaction, given that many governmental institutions are commonly referred to by names that don't necessarily have official recognition in legislation. (I don't see the phrase 'Mounties' anywhere in this Act, for example.)

Nevertheless, seeing that the website now refers only to the PBO, and conceding the point that the legislation does not recognize the office as an Office, I have begun to refer more to the PBO than the OPBO. When referring to the office in which the PBO operates, perhaps I'll use the acronym oPBO.

But, I'll leave the name of this blog as is because:

• I (and lots of other economists) think the office should be an Office; i.e. independent and reporting to Parliament not the Library of Parliament.
• I would like the focus to be on the role of the institution itself; the office rather than the officer.
• We have an established web presence here--too hard to 'rebrand' the blog at this point.

So, anyone castigating the 'O' users as some kind of Canadian Guy Fawkes for the sin of capitalizing an 'o' can now stand down.

The Conservatives and the PBO

Rounding out my survey of the positions of Canada's political parties on the PBO, let me now turn to the governing Conservatives. In their 2006 platform (I got it here) there is a section on page 11 that reads:

Ensure truth in budgeting with a Parliamentary Budget Authority

In the spring of 2004, the Liberal government told Canadians that the 2003-04 surplus would only be $1.9 billion. In fact, it was $9.1 billion. In 2004-05, the Liberals spent about $9 billion at the end of the year to reduce their surplus to only $1.6 billion. Just this year, the 2005 Budget estimated the 2005-06 surplus at $4 billion, a number no reputable economic forecaster accepted.

In the economic update only nine months later, this estimate had ballooned to $13.4 billion. Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament does not know the accurate state of public finances.

The plan
A Conservative government will:
• 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.
• Require government departments and agencies to provide accurate, timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Authority to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament.
• Ensure that government fiscal forecasts are updated quarterly and that they provide complete data for both revenue and spending forecasts.

Two comments from me on this:

1. I think the Conservatives deserve a lot of credit for their innovative thinking on this persistent problem in Canadian public policy and governance. Credit where it is due.
2. I score them 2.5/3 on the three elements of their plan. They did require information to be provided by government departments. They did ensure that the PBO has enough information for quarterly reports on revenue and spending. However, on the first bullet they only get part marks. They did create the Authority, but they didn't make it independent.

My hope is simply that the Conservatives go the distance and fulfill this campaign promise for an independent authority. This promise is quite consistent with the traditionally conservative principle of keeping a very careful and prudent eye on public finances, lest government taxation and spending run amok.

Canadians have a variety of opinions on the legacy of the Reform Party from the 1990s. But I suspect that the 'democratic accountability' element of the Reform legacy is one that resonates with almost all Canadians as a positive contribution to Canadian politics.

It seems to me that there is no strong reason--other than short-term political expediency--for conservatives or Conservatives to want to 'shackle' the PBO. I'm not so naive as to believe that short-term political expediency is not given weight in decision-making by any government. But, in my view, it is important to point out when good short-run politics is chosen over good long-run policy.

I'm quite sure there are differences of opinion on the PBO within the Conservative caucus. I hope those who support independence will find their voice.

Paul Dewar's Private Member's Motion

Re-reading the Hill Times article, the positions of the Bloc and NDP are actually quite clear.

The Bloc supports the independence of the PBO.

His party has been asking for an independent office since the PBO was created, but Mr. Duceppe said they weren't able to push for that in the committee because, with only two members on the 17-member committee they don't have enough of a voice.

The NDP's Paul Dewar wrote a private member's motion to make the PBO independent.

I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of how Parliament works, but according to this list, a notice was filed on June 17th, but the motion has not yet been debated. According to this document, there is some kind of draw for MPs with motions to be placed in the Order of Precedence. If I understand this correctly, I see that Mr. Dewar is #88 on the list as of October 9th. From January to now, they have gotten through 46 of the names on the list. So, depending on how long this session of Parliament lasts, the motion might make it to debate.

In any case, the text is on Mr. Dewar's website here:

That in recognition of the Standing Joint Committee on Library of Parliament‘s recommendation for the review of the effectiveness of the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the House recognizes the importance of the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in ensuring accountability and to that end calls on the government to enact legislation that ensures the office of Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent of the Library of Parliament, the executive or any other branch, is answerable to Parliament only and receives adequate and sustained resources to continue its important work.

Given Mr. Duceppe's stated position, I suspect this wording will be acceptable to the Bloc. We can also likely guess that Mr. Dewar has the support of his colleagues in the NDP. With sufficient Liberal support, this could pass.

Of course, this motion doesn't literally change anything. It is a just a call for Parliament to enact new legislation. But it would be a meaningful expression of the will of Parliament.

What's happening next?

The Hill Times story by Cynthia Münster (who has been on top of this story like no one else in the media) also contains several hints about where this issue may go next. This is a lot of inside Ottawa procedural stuff on which I'm no expert. But I relay it here for those who are interested in following the PBO storyline and want to know what's next.

• Two weeks ago, the PBO provided a formal response to the Committee report from June. The Hill Times story mentions that the PBO has not been able to post this response on the PBO website because the Committee doesn't want him to. (How's that for transparency?)
  
• The Speaker of the House (Peter Milliken) informed the Committee that he would like to have the Committee's recommendations from June approved by the House before he took any action.
• Vice Chair of the Committee (Mauril Bélanger) argues that the House does not need to approve the recommendations before the Speaker acts, and will be discussing this further with the Speaker.
  
• The Speaker of the Senate (Noël Kinsella) wants to know if the Committee is satisfied with the PBO's response to their June report before he recommends the increase in funding.
• Co-Chair of the Commitee (Senator Carstairs) reminds everyone that the fiscal clock is ticking--we're talking about the PBO's budget for 2009-10 here and the deadlines are looming very shortly.
• The Committee is scheduled to meet again with the two speakers on October 20th.
• The Committee may meet with the PBO on October 22nd.

The Opposition and the PBO

This week's Hill Times has an in-depth and detailed article about the latest political positions on the PBO. (Complete, no-subscription required link here.)

I don't really care for games of 'gotcha' and comparing who said what 6 months ago. (It often seems like the point of such exercises is little more than this.) If people have changed their minds toward a better position, that's great. Welcome aboard.

But something that does stick in my craw a bit is having the Leader of the Opposition demand that the Prime Minister 'unshackle' the PBO. It is not the Prime Minister who is shackling the PBO. It is the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. Look at the membership of the Committee. The Committee is co-chaired by Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs. There are 8 Conservative members of the Committee, 6 Liberal members, 2 Bloc members, and 1 NDP member.

That makes for 9 opposition members and 8 government-side members. If it is indeed true that the Prime Minister desires to shackle the PBO, my math tells me that even if he did exert control over all government-side members of the Committee, the Prime Minister would still be one vote short. Moreover, the Liberal Co-Chair of the Committee has been a lead voice in the debate.

If the Official Opposition is indeed interested in 'unshackling', then I hope to see this position manifest itself in the Committee. I'm also curious about what position Committee members from other parties will take. I'll be watching.

The Swedish Fiscal Policy Council

I was just opening up a forgotten pile of mail on my desk and found the 2009 report of the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council. What's that? Glad you asked.

See here:

The council assesses the extent to which the Government's fiscal-policy objectives are being achieved. These objectives include long-run sustainability, the budget surplus target, the ceiling on central government expenditure and that fiscal policy is consistent with the cyclical situation of the economy. The council also evaluates whether the development of the economy is in line with healthy long-run growth and sustainable high employment. Additional tasks are to examine the clarity of the Government's budget proposals and to review its economic forecasts and the economic models used to generate them. Finally, the Council should try to stimulate public debate on economic policy.

The site also says they do this with an 8 member council, assisted by a secretariat with only 2 employees. That's pretty thin for such an ambitious agenda. But from what I can tell they are doing a great job with what they have.

The Swedes started their Council about the same time as the PBO started up. It's like they're twins! As the Economist said, independent budget offices are a great way to build fiscal credibility for a country's government.

Editorial in the Star

Today in Canada's largest circulation daily paper there is a big editorial in support of the PBO. Read it in the Star here.

One interesting nugget--the Committee is meeting today, apparently. (At 1pm-3pm EDT--so it is happening right now! They are 'in camera' though, so no webcast.)

I wonder whether the committee unanimity will continue? As the Star notes, the opposition members are actually a majority on the committee. If Mr. Ignatieff really wants to 'unshackle the watchdog', he should simply chat with the Liberal committee members, for it is this committee that is doing the shackling, not the Prime Minister directly.

I like the Star's line of reasoning here:

Unfortunately, however, funding of the PBO could be derailed by an arcane dispute. Page has been lobbying to make all his reports public – not only those he undertakes on his own but also those done at the request of individual legislators. Senators and MPs believe they are entitled to ask that research be done on a confidential basis. While that's true, they shouldn't hold the PBO hostage over it. Surely protocols can be negotiated to let Page do his sums and release the findings with minimal delay, if not instantly. It's all public money.

Even better is the point that--no matter who is right about what the current legislation allows the PBO to do--we ought to stay focused on what the legislation should say:

At root, PBO independence and transparency is in the public interest. Prime Minister Stephen Harper should have given the PBO more authority from the start. Unless this mess is resolved, Parliament should revisit the law establishing the office.

The goal here is to have a transparent, adequately funded, and free-to-have-its-own-unmolested-website PBO. Let's get that done.