“No, I think that this is an important institution of Parliament and what it deserves is someone who is credible. The next candidate should be credible and non-partisan. That’s what we would hope will come out of this process,” said Mr. Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.).
Mr. Page’s term as PBO ends March 24. As his tenure winds down, “many in the government and the CPC caucus are breathing a sigh of relief,” Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.) wrote in a blog post on his website Feb. 6.
Mr. Rathgeber added that he could not understand the animosity of other Conservative backbenchers—who like him lack the resources to fully scrutinize government spending—towards the PBO. Mr. Rathgeber sits on the House and Senate’s Joint Library of Parliament Committee, which indirectly oversees the PBO.
“It is understandable why the executive branch might be insulted when the PBO challenged its numbers; but it remains a mystery why some Members of Parliament were similarly dismissive. After all, the office was created to provide independent analysis to Parliament not advice or criticism to, or cheer leading for, the government,” he wrote.
“I understand that Members of Parliament, who are not members of the executive, sometimes think of themselves as part of the government; we are not,” he wrote.
The opposition parties say they are concerned about the government’s stance on the budget office but they can only do so much to pressure the Conservatives into preserving its mandate and ensuring the work of the office continues after Mr. Page’s departure.
“We’re deeply frustrated by the situation,” said Liberal interim leader Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.) in a scrum last week on the Hill.
“We’re not going to stage a sit in, but we are here as Parliamentarians. The place that we sit in is the House of Commons. We’ll continue to ask questions,” he said.
“It’s a matter of what’s acceptable to public opinion,” he added.
Last week NDP Finance critic Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park, Ont.) introduced a motion in the House of Commons to extend Mr. Page’s mandate past its March 24 expiry so that MPs would have access to budget and estimates analysis until a permanent successor is named. The motion also called on the House to reaffirm the PBO’s role in providing Parliament with financial analysis and to make the office independent of government.
Ms. Nash introduced the motion in the House Feb. 6. The day before, Ms. Nash asked the Commons Finance Committee to consider such a motion, but it was deemed inadmissible by the chair, Conservative James Rajotte (Edmonton-Leduc, Alta.) because it was beyond the scope of the committee’s mandate, something Ms. Nash disputes.
The House will continue to debate and potentially vote on the motion on Feb. 12, after six hours of debate that began on Feb. 7.
Opposition MPs say they are worried that when Mr. Page’s term ends, there will be no one in place at the office to release reports and analysis on government spending. Both the Liberals and the NDP have called for Mr. Page’s term to be extended through budget season to ensure that his office’s analysis is available to Parliament and the public.
Asked by The Hill Times what the government would do if the PBO’s position is vacant when the budget and the spending estimates are released this spring, Mr. Clement said he didn’t think the government should intervene in the selection process or to extend Mr. Page’s term.
“I don’t think that we should change the process in the middle of the process. We have a process. I’m not here to second guess or shortchange that process. They will find the appropriate candidate or candidates in due course,” he said.
“Transparency and accountability are fundamental issues for Canadian democracy. It is a priority for New Democrats and we’re not going to let up,” said Ms. Nash.
Mr. Page has indicated that while he does not want a second term as PBO, he would be willing to stay on until a permanent successor is found.
“I actually don’t think there’s much we can do,” said NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.).
Mr. Martin outlined his frustrations in a post on Facebook Feb. 2.
“Kevin Page is a modern day hero … We owe him a debt of gratitude for exposing how seriously flawed the system is and now that we know, I predict the call for reform can’t be stopped,” wrote Mr. Martin.
“As it stands, billions of dollars of government spending is ratified and approved with virtually no analysis (sometimes no analysis at all as the estimates are “deemed” to have been approved by the committee after a certain number of days even if the committee never got around to looking at them!!!) WTF?” he wrote.
“It was a hard-won victory for the people that the Crown has to ask permission of Parliament before they can spend money. Kevin Page has turned on the lights that we are taking scant advantage of that precious right when we let the government of the day spend the public purse without even a cursory overview where elected representatives of the people can ask the government why they are proposing to spend this money, what they hope to achieve by it, and is there another less expensive way to achieve these objectives,” he stated online. “I think they should erect a statue to Kevin Page. He’s about the best friend the Canadian taxpayer has.
“Kevin Page has done us a great service even if he leaves frustrated because he’s once and forever reminded Canadians that they deserve better in terms of transparency,” he said in an interview with The Hill Times.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has issued more than 150 reports in the five years it has existed, noted Peter DeVries, a former fiscal policy director at the Finance Department, on his blog, 3D Policy.
The reports are on a number of topics, including the F-35 fighter jet program, the cost of government programs, including tough on crime legislation and the Afghan war and the government’s economic and fiscal projections.
“Most have been subject to peer review and validated by third parties. Instead of engaging in professional debate about these studies, the government has largely dismissed them without justification,” stated Mr. DeVries.
In the course of his more than 30-year career in the public service, Mr. DeVries was responsible for the overall preparation of the governments budgets. He testified last year at the House Government Operations Committee that the PBO should be a full officer of Parliament.
Currently the budget officer serves at pleasure of the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the government.
“This is an important distinction compromising the independence of the PBO,” wrote Mr. Rathgeber.
“The future of the Parliamentary Budget Office will be determined, in part, by its past success and, in part, by the desire of the Government to ‘de-claw’ the office,” stated Mr. DeVries.
Neither Mr. DeVries, Mr. Martin, nor Liberal Treasury Board critic John McCallum (Markham-Unionville, Ont.) are hopeful that the government will extend Mr. Page’s term.
“I think the government has had enough of Kevin Page. I think the last thing they’ll want to do is continue [his term],” said Mr. McCallum.
“They’ve vilified him to such an extent that I just can’t see them allowing him to extend his term at all,” said Mr. Martin.
Mr. McCallum said that while the opposition parties can continue to put pressure on the government, ultimately the Conservatives have all the power in determining the PBO’s fate.
“Yes, we can make a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the majority government can do what it wants,” he said.
The problem is there’s a fundamental clash between the way the government operates and the PBO’s mandate, said Mr. DeVries.
“The current impasse between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the government is the result of a clash between the government’s business model, based on a lack of transparency, and accountability; non-evidenced based decision-making; and hostility to public debate and discussion; and, a Parliamentary Budget Officer business model with the exact opposite principles,” he stated.
When the government created the PBO in the accountability act, it was “theoretically a dream for fiscal conservatives,” noted Mr. Rathgeber.
“Then something strange happened; the PBO issued reports critical of the government that created it. With the genie out of the bottle, the resultant dilemma pitted partisans versus puritans. How dare the PBO challenge a Conservative government on its budgets or its forecasts??
“This conflict had to have been or at least ought to have been foreseen following the creation of the PBO. It is simply impracticable that a $260-billion operation be infallible,” he stated.
“This is the nature of watchdogism,” he added.
Mr. Rathgeber has said that Mr. Page’s high media profile, and the public disclosure of his office’s reports has caused some Conservative MPs to shy away from the office, leaving it at the disposal of the opposition.
But the government has had a hand in making Mr. Page a media star, noted Mr. DeVries.
“If the government had adopted a business model based on transparency, accountability, evidenced based policy, public discussion and debate, then Kevin Page would not likely be in the spotlight that he is today,” he explained.
The Library of Parliament, led by Librarian Sonia L’Heureux, is responsible for searching out candidates to replace Mr. Page. Two weeks ago it contracted search firm Renaud Foster to organize the process.
After the firm collects candidates, a selection committee made up of former high-level bureaucrats and others will review the possibilities and submit a shortlist of three candidates to the government, who will make the final selection.
When Mr. Page was appointed, it took eight months from the hiring of a search firm to the announcement of his appointment. Under a similar timeline, the new PBO would not be in place until September 2013.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre North, Alta.) noted that the government and the Library are following the official selection process.
“There is so much discussion about due diligence and process in all of the different areas in the House. Then when we follow a process [that] is set out by the Library of Parliament to attract and retain a new Parliamentary budget officer…somehow it’s got a nefarious purpose,” said Ms. Rempel on CTV’s Power Play Feb. 7.
The Library is working with Renaud Foster “to ensure that highly-qualified candidates are considered for the position in a timely manner,” said Library spokesperson Cynthia Cusinato.
“Obviously, specific timing will ultimately depend on variables such as the efforts that are required to form a pool of highly-qualified candidates for consideration,” she explained.
She added that Ms. L’Heureux has started working on the high-level selection committee.
Mr. Martin said that despite the issues surrounding the budget office, he is optimistic that the next PBO will be a legitimate replacement for Mr. Page.
“If they try to just appoint a place-keeper, the hue and cry will be hard to ignore, and I don’t think they could politically sustain the public criticism,” he said.
The office is an important one that should be improved, not scrapped, said Mr. Rathgeber.
He wrote: “Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us tweak and improve the operation of the Parliamentary Budget Office so that Parliament might fulfill its oversight obligation as good stewards over the public purse.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: JESSICA BRUNO
No comments:
Post a Comment