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.

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.

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.

Response in defence of Library of Parliament Committee

In Monday's Hill Times, there was a response to last week's piece by Jean-Marc Tremblay. The article is here, but it is subscription only. The response is from B. Thomas Hall, who is identified as a past clerk to the Library of Parliament Committee.

Mr. Hall disputes many of Mr. Tremblay's claims about the Committee and the OPBO.

It is clear that Mr. Tremblay used some sharp--perhaps overly so--language in his piece last week. This generates the content of much of Mr. Hall's response.

However, the general thrust of Mr. Hall's argument is about the interpretation of the current law and how the PBO should act in order to be in compliance with the current law. I don't have any particular insight about the interpretation of the law, but I do observe that interpretations do seem to differ.

The question that interests Mr. Hall is how the PBO should behave in order to be in compliance with the law. That is an important issue--people should follow laws. No question there.

What interests me, however, is a different question: what should the OPBO look like? My observation having been a consumer of data from budget offices from other countries is that a greater degree of independence seems to be a good thing. I like that they can have a website and a blog and communicate things directly to citizens without the direct oversight of a Parliamentary Committee or the Librarian of Parliament. If that is not possible under the current law, then the current law should be changed.

Does the OPBO have the right to make its research public?

The signatories of the open letter in support of the OPBO demanded that the Officer be allowed to report his research directly to the public.

Senator Carstairs of the Library of Parliament Committee has accused the Parliamentary Budget Officer of breaking the law. A recent piece in the Hill Times by retired public servant Jean-Marc Tremblay argues, on the other hand, that the Officer does have the right to make the research public under the existing law. Here is a partial link to the article--it's subscriber only. But here is a taste of the argument.

In [a previous Hill Times] article, Sen. Carstairs claims that Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page does not have the right to make his reports public and that he "should respect the law and the job description under which he was hired."

It is unfortunate and ironic that the Library of Parliament Committee members and the co-chair (Sen. Carstairs) have unanimously arrived at such ridiculous conclusions, for even a cursory read of the Federal Accountability Act does not reveal any such requirement on the Parliamentary budget officer to not make reports public. Maybe Sen. Carstairs could have spent a bit more time analysing the irony of her statements—that the Parliamentary budget officer, mandated to ensure accountability and transparency, should be less transparent and less accountable, and not release reports publicly.

--

Sen. Carstairs' statement that the Parliamentary budget officer should respect the law is also curious; because it is a direct accusation that he violated the law. How ironic that a kangaroo court be set up against the PBO, without any fair trial comes to this conclusion, without citing any legal opinion from any legal counsel; when one of the country's top legal firms, McCarthy Tetrault has opined that the PBO is in no violation of the Parliament of Canada Act or the Federal Accountability Act, and that nobody can use administrative controls, such as those imposed by the committee in its reports to triumph the spirit of the legislation. If Sen. Carstairs really means what she is saying, then it would be more appropriate for her to seek legal recourse.

Mr. Tremblay argues that the mandate to stop making things public is an administrative decision made by the Committee; a choice they have made rather than one mandated by law. He argues, in rather salty language, that this was a questionable choice. I am a layman in the matter of law, but my reading of the Federal Accountability Act Section 119 does not find anything that requires the Officer to refrain from making reports public.

Why independence matters

Here is a quote from a story in the Hill Times from May 25, 2009 (sorry no link; it's a pay site).

But even with such a formalized process, the PBO would still have to deal with an innovation that the rest of the world has taken for granted for the better part of two decades: a website.

"You know," says Page, "we fought hard to get that website. They didn't want us to have a website. They thought it was breaking with tradition."

This is precisely why the OPBO needs to be independent. If the OPBO has to devote resources and time for internal fights with the Library of Parliament over the existence of a website--without which it cannot effectively communicate to the public--then it needs to be independent of the Library.

Here is what UWO Professor Emeritus Michael Parkin said about the CBO in the United States in an email to me:

One of the strengths of the CBO is its email service. I receive a daily (almost) email with links to the latest CBO web postings. This service is extremely valuable and leads me to data and analysis that I would otherwise miss. Perhaps OPBO already provides such a service. If it does, it should be better advertised. If it doesn't, it should start such a service. Researchers, teachers, and journalists -- not to mention MPs -- would all benefit from it.

The OPBO is pretty new and small-scale, so it doesn't generate enough output right now to justify a daily email. But Prof. Parkin's point that communication directly with the public is of great service and enhances the value of a budget office is one that I endorse.

Leaks about PBO report

A story in The Hill Times on Monday discusses who leaked last week's OPBO Economic and Fiscal Statement (pdf). I don't really follow the subtleties of the politics involved here, but you can read more about it here by Paul Wells and here by the National Post.

What does seem clear to me is that the idea of passing everything through the MPs and committee members rather than directly to the public is not a trouble-free way to proceed. This episode seems like a good advertisement for OPBO independence.