The Parliamentary Budget Office told media on Oct. 21 that it will be filing and serving legal notice on all non-compliant deputy heads [of departments] early this week.
After more than half a year of delays and a final extension that ended Oct. 19 only one department, the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, responded to a renewed call for information, according to the PBO. This brings the total number of organizations who have responded to the office’s request to 20.
Two weeks ago, after PBO talks with the Privy Council, 43 departments had committed to providing the office with the information it was looking for. The PBO gave departments who committed to handing over the information until midnight last Friday.
Public Works, Canada Border Services Agency, CIDA, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Industry Canada and National Defence were among the organizations set to send in information that ultimately did not comply.
Twenty organizations did not commit at all to sending the PBO information.
They include the Privy Council, Treasury Board Secretariat, Canada School of Public Service, the Economic Development Agency of Quebec, International Trade, Justice and Canada Revenue Agency.
“That’s a big chunk of the government,” said Liberal government operations critic John McCallum (Markham-Unionville, Ont.).
“I would think that if those departments continue not to provide the information then perhaps he has no choice but to take them to court,” he added.
It is “unprecedented” and “highly significant” that Mr.Page has had to threatenthe governmentwithcourt action at all, say opposition MPs.
“It’s unprecedented that an officer of Parliament would have to do that. It speaks to the level of secrecy around this government,” said NDP Finance critic Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.).
Ms. Nash said the threat of legal action was the reason the government, after repeatedly stating it would not provide the PBO with the information, initially reversed its decision.
“I think it was only at the prospect of having to go to court, which is probably not very appealing,” she said, adding it speaks to the solidity of the PBO’s case.
In June, the PBO released a legal opinion from University of Ottawa constitutional scholar Joseph Magnet that stated the government was infringing on the PBO’s right to financial information in a timely manner.
In total, the PBO requested information from 82 departments on how they would meet their savings commitments. Of those, 19 smaller or more independent organizations responded when the initial request was made last April. In May, Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters wrote to the PBO, responding on behalf of all outstanding departments that the information would not be released.
Privy Council officials and the PBO spoke in private on the issue in late September. PCO officials signaled it would now be up to individual deputy heads to decide whether their organizations would comply with the request—a change from Mr. Wouters’s umbrella denial.
Mr. McCallum said the change was “highly significant.”
“The government has a long history of being secretive and refusing to give information to Parliamentarians and Canadians,” he said.
In the past the budget office has requested information on $2.4-billion budget cuts dating back to 2011, to little success.
Last week the Treasury Board Secretariat held two conference calls with departments on the subject of the information request, including one on the day of the PBO’s deadline, Oct. 19.
Analysts at the Parliamentary Budget Office were planning to work over the weekend to catalogue and begin analysing the responses.
In a recent interview, Mr. Page said that he was expecting reports to vary in quality between organizations.
“It’s pretty clear to me that we’re going to get some departments that will do just a terrific job. We’re going to be able to say to Parliament, not only did they provide it, but we see evidence of a very strong plan. … Other departments it may look weaker,” he said, adding that is office is experienced in handling large volumes of paper.
Along with Mr. Wouters, Treasury Board President Tony Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) was the government’s most vocal critic of Mr. Page’s information request, stating on a number of occasions that the request was outside of his mandate.
The government committed to cutting $5.2-billion out of departments’ operating budgets over the next three years in the 2012 budget.
In an interview with Civil Circles last week, Mr. Clement said that the government had not changed its position, despite the fact he had earlier said Mr. Page’s request was outside his mandate.
“Our position actually hasn’t changed. We are quite willing and able and should cooperate with the budget officer on items that are within his mandate and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” he said. “We continue to report to Parliament with quarterly reports and reports on plans and priorities and estimates on our spending and we’ll continue to do so.”
Asked what he thought of Mr. Page’s statement that Parliament is a winner here in this fight for information, Mr. Clement said: “Well, look, I don’t want to comment on specific cases except to say that we continue to cooperate when he’s within his mandate and we continue to deliver information directly to Parliamentarians and directly to Canadians. That’s part of our obligation and we fulfill that obligation.”
The fact that some departments committed to sending the PBO information doesn’t mean the government now believes he is entitled to it, said Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, N.S.).
“It’s not a matter of a change of heart, it’s a matter of changing of tactics. The government realizes that it’s on the wrong side of this issue politically and so it’s scurrying to find a new position. It has nothing to do with heart, it is purely a tactical decision,” he said.
Conservative MP Mike Wallace (Burlington, Ont.) said that little changed when the PBO was promised the information it requested.
“I don’t think it’s a significant change, I think it’s an additional piece of work for departments to do,” he said.
Milt Isaacs, president of the Association of Canadian Financial Officers, said that the reason the government has delayed providing the information likely has to do with the quick turnaround time of the strategic and operating review. In the fall of 2011, deputy ministers were asked to submit scenarios to Cabinet outlining five and 10 per cent cuts to their departments. From there, Cabinet ministers decided which plans would be adopted. Cuts were announced in the budget March 29. Mr. Isaacs said he doesn’t think the departments have the numbers yet.
“What happened here is that there was a rush to judgment in terms of assumptions made. Some of those assumptions were erroneous when ministers went in to pick the scenario, and then they had to go back in and say, ‘No we can’t do that one, we have to scrub this and adjust it.’ I think that’s what happened, and some departments are still catching up in regards to some of those scenarios and assumptions that they made,” said Mr. Isaacs.
Still, Mr. Isaacs said it is “unusual” that the PBO would have to threaten to go to court to get financial information out of the government.
“Going to court is just clearly a level of frustration. He’s a very committed individual,” he said of Mr. Page
The government should define the budget office’s mandate, which would have the benefit of de-politicizing the organization, Mr. Isaacs added.
“From there you can begin to develop this office where it can provide service to all parties, and no one takes offence, he just does his job. No one takes offence to when the auditor general comes out with a report, they respect that report, and I think that you need to move this position in the same vein,” he said.
“In doing so, I think all governments, no matter what colour stripes they are, are served, and Canadians are therefore served as well,” he added.
He cautioned that defining the mandate does not mean weakening it.
“You can have clarity by removing authorities,” he noted.
Mr. Page’s term as Parliamentary budget officer ends in the spring of 2013, and its enabling legislation will also be up for review.
Ms. Nash said that the changing of the guard would be an opportunity to ensure the position is “finally independent as the auditor general is independent so that the next Parliamentary budget officer can do the kind of job that they are mandated to do.”
In December 2011 she introduced a private member’s bill to grant the PBO independence. It has not progressed past first reading.
“Private member’s bills are a way of advancing a proposal, but we don’t have to wait for my private member’s bill. The government can take this idea, this good idea, and bring it in tomorrow,” said Ms. Nash.
The Liberal Party also supports independence for the PBO.
“When the time approaches we will continue to push for that, and also that the person be strong and independent-minded,” said Mr. McCallum.
As to whether that would happen, Mr. McCallum wasn’t convinced.
“This government doesn’t always respond positively to pressure, does it? I think they will try to hire someone more malleable, less independent, than Kevin Page,” he added.
Mr. Wallace is vice-chair of the House Government Operations Committee, which recently tabled a report recommending a re-examination of the budget office’s mandate, among other suggestions.
“The current Parliamentary Budget Officer will be leaving, I think it’s an ideal time for the government and all parties to review what is the actual role of the PBO, what worked for the first five years, what needs to change, if anything, going forward. That includes reporting: do they report directly through the Library or do they report directly to the House. All that should be on the table for discussion and review of what will be most effective for Members of Parliament. That’s what the office is really for,” he said.
The government responded to the report Oct. 18. It noted that the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament has already studied the PBO’s mandate and concluded that the office was at home as an “natural extension” of the Library of Parliament.
Mr. Clement declined to comment on whether the office’s mandate should be examined.
The next Parliamentary Budget Officer should follow in the footsteps of Mr. Page, said Mr. Isaacs.
“He’s served Canadians well, and I think that’s the personality that they need on a go-forward basis. Hopefully they don’t pick someone who is just going to follow routines, you need an innovator like Kevin to keep office moving forward,” he said.
He added that while he is hopeful the Conservatives would make the PBO independent, “there is a pause.”
“Actions speak louder than words. I hear a tremendous amount about dialogue from this government about accountability; I see a lot of acts the get passed but they’re not given the resources to really support those acts. So it remains to be seen,” he said.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: JESSICA BRUNO
No comments:
Post a Comment