It in testament to the federal Conservative government’s lack of transparency that Page, whose job as Parliamentary budget officer ended Monday, had to go to court in search of clarification on his mandate.
The squabble over requests by Page's office for departmental spending detail landed in Federal Court for a two-day hearing that ended Friday. It could be months before a ruling is received.
Government lawyers argued Page has overstepped his authority and infringed on the powers of Parliament in seeking more information from various departments in an effort to confirm how federal budget cuts promised for 2012-13 will implemented.
Page, meanwhile, has warned the Harper Conservatives are derailing the role of the parliamentary budget officer.
The non-partisan, independent position was first recommended by the Gomery Inquiry report into the federal sponsorship scandal, which occurred under the Chretien Liberals. The Harper Conservatives promised the office as part of its Accountability Act passed in 2006.
Page, a longtime bureaucrat, was promoted into the position, which reports to the parliamentary librarian, in 2008.
The Parliament of Canada Act says the parliamentary budget officer shall be entitled to "free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate."
But as the gaps have grown between projections contained in annual budgets and the subsequent public accounts reports provided to Parliament as much as a year after the fact, Page has requested additional information from departments to back up promised spending reductions.
It’s hardly a surprise that his appointment has not been renewed.
Page is the latest departure in a string of high-profile government positions appointment by Ottawa who have ended up on back steps of Parliament after they challenged the policies of the Harper Conservatives.
Perhaps best known has been Pat Strogan, Canada’s first military ombudsman, who was not reappointed in 2010 after a tumultuous three-year term.
But Page, who is making quite a ruckus on his way out the door, is surely running a close second.
The timing to replace the outgoing budget officer has been delayed, with the government just this month getting around to the business of seeking a replacement.
The Prime Minister’s Office will play an enhanced role in the selection, which suggests an intention to water down the role of the office, Page told The Chronicle Herald last week.
“Parliament should have a role to play in the appointment of the next parliamentary budget officer, not just the prime minister,” said Page.
“People talk about the (parliamentary budget officer) being a watchdog, and you’re effectively appointed by the person you’re supposed to watch.
“And under the legislation you work at the pleasure of the prime minister, which means he can get rid of you any time.
“I think the person should be appointed by all of Parliament. They should have to be dismissed by cause, not work at the pleasure (of the government).”
Meanwhile, the parliamentary librarian Sonia L’heureux has been appointed to Page’s position on an interim basis. Given that the budget office reports directly to the librarian, L’Heureux is, in effect, reporting to herself.
When it comes to budgets, the details should come down to a matter of numbers, moreso than a political debate over the policies chosen by a sitting government. The Harper majority gives the government the power to make whatever legislative changes it wishes, then be accountable at the ballot box. But in the meantime, budgets waved before voters should be followed by implementation in departments of government.
Indeed, in asking the Federal Court to throw out Page’s request for mandate clarification, federal lawyers argued the matter belongs in the hands of Parliament.
The same may be said for the numbers linked to how the federal government decides to spend taxpayers’ money. If the spending decisions that are being touted in the budget documents are being followed up at the departmental level, then there should be no hesitation in providing the details of that spending to the budget officer for confirmation.
It’s called accountability. It made for a good campaign sound bite in 2006, but has become a thorn in the side the Harper Conservatives as they continue to steamroll their critics into submission.
Original Article
Source: thechronicleherald.ca
Author: MARILLA STEPHENSON
No comments:
Post a Comment