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.

The OPBO and EI reforms

The Hill Times has an editorial that touches on the PBO. It's subscription only, but the PBO part of the editorial is in the 'free' paragraph.

The Liberal Party has asked Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page to analyze the Conservative government's cost projections on the Liberals' proposal for employment insurance and they want the results by the end of this month. Thankfully, they want the PBO to make it public, as it should be, but let's not kid ourselves here—this is yet another act of partisanship, something that's definitely not needed and especially on this topic.

In my view, this is exactly the kind of thing that a well-funded OPBO could and should do. That's exactly what the CBO did in the United States on health care proposals. It contributed a lot to the discussion there. Having a timely, credible assessment of a Conservative and Liberal EI proposal would help voters sort through the issues.

Now, I share the skepticism of the editorial in two respects. First, the timeline is a little tight--especially with the meagre resources given to the OPBO. Second, it is ironic that the Liberals want this made public, yet Liberal committee members (along with the members of other parties) voted to muzzle the PBO.

But, just because there are political points gained by the Liberals by having their proposal priced by the PBO does not mean there are not gains for the public. In fact, that's the point here: we align what's in the political interest of the party with the interest of the public. Both the party and the public benefit by having a neutral, non-partisan price tag attached to policy proposals.

The private sector chimes in

I've been on vacation, so I'm just now catching up with some of the stories about the OPBO.

An interesting one in today's Hill Times. Douglas Porter of BMO says that the OPBO is important because of the lack of credibility of numbers that come through the political filter.

The government's economic reports and forecasts have become too politicized and there should be a source of impartial numbers on the economy and country's finances, says Douglas Porter, Deputy Chief Economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Mr. Porter said the economic numbers put out by the Congressional Budget Office in the United States are more detailed and trustworthy than what is typically available in Canada. The CBO, which was founded 35 years ago, is well established in the U.S. political landscape and has a solid reputation for "high-quality, low-profile work." Its numbers provide a solid basis for debate on economic matters.

"The whole process in Canada has just become so political," Mr. Porter said. "Every budget number, even when we had a surplus, is used as a target by the opposition or a bragging point for the government. And unfortunately that just made the whole process a little less useful to analysts in general, because we don't know for a fact that the latest estimate is a true estimate, and how much of it is a political message."

Mr. Porter is not entirely uncritical of the OPBO, though:

Mr. Porter said that although the Parliamentary Budget Officer—a new, smaller entity which was created to serve a similar purpose to the CBO—is doing a "solid job" as far of the analysis it has provided, it hasn't had a long enough track record to tell whether it is truly reliable. He said he would prefer the PBO, which since its inception last year has been a constant source of headlines because of its provocative reports and ongoing disputes with the government over its mandate, "turned down the volume a bit" and maintained a lower profile like its American counterpart.

That's fine. I didn't sign the open letter to defend every operational decision that has been made at the OPBO. I signed it because I think the changes proposed by the committee would leave the OPBO unable to fulfill its potential.

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.

Parsing Language

Kady O'Malley parses the language in the open letter and my opening post.

. . . 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.

My intention is not to be subtle. I simply wanted the broadest group of signatories possible. There is certainly a group of economists who like the Office and think the current Officer is doing a great job. However, perhaps there is also a group who like the Office but have some questions about the current Officer. I have no idea which group is bigger, and if there are even any people in the second group. But, I wanted both sets of economists to feel comfortable signing the letter.

Some have also questioned the use of the word 'Office' because it does not appear in the enabling legislation. I don't think it is unprecedented to have a different 'trade name' than legal name for a public institution--legal names can be cumbersome or lack descriptive character. In this case, I am quite sure that the PBO sits in an O, so why not call that shop the OPBO. Moreover, the official website--presumably vetted by the Library of Parliament--calls it the OPBO. I simply borrowed what was on the official website.

National Post Opinion Piece

Here is a link to an opinion piece I wrote in Saturday's National Post to introduce the open letter and to respond to Bill Watson's piece. The open letter also appears on their website--so we can guess that it will appear in the print version too.