The IMF report—Case Studies of Fiscal Councils: Functions and Impact—examines six such bodies, all of which drew on the experience of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office and all of which were designed to improve fiscal performance and transparency. Our own PBO seems to have had some of the greatest difficulties in getting its work done. But nonetheless, the IMF study says, its work has been impressive.
However, it also warns that our PBO faces great challenges in its first transition period, as a new Parliamentary Budget Officer is sought to replace the outspoken Kevin Page, whose first five-year term expired in March. He was not appointed to a second term despite stellar performance.
Even though Page stepped down in March, no successor has yet been named (though the search is underway), and there are legitimate fears that the government wants to ensure that his successor will be less inclined to question government accounting. Page, for example, earned the Tories’ ire for challenging government estimates of the costs of the Canadian military participation in Afghanistan or the full life-cycle costs of the F-35 aircraft. To make matters worse, Page’s estimates were more accurate than the government’s which caused the Conservatives considerable embarrassment. Likewise, some of Page’s calculations on economic growth turned out to be closer to the mark than those the Department of Finance used for budget planning. As the IMF study shows, Finance projections on the economy and on federal spending and revenue have become more accurate since the PBO was created.
The PBO was part of a package of reforms the Tories introduced after they came to power in 2006 and all political parties supported it. The Liberals, the Tories charged, had failed as managers of the public purse and they pledged to improve fiscal management and transparency. The PBO had two key roles: to provide MPs with expertise and independent information to understand fiscal matters and hold the government to account; and to provide an objective assessment of the economic and fiscal forecasts of the Department of Finance and improve their accuracy.
But once Parliament approved it, there was no rush to appoint a Parliamentary Budget Officer and Page was not appointed until March 2008. In an unusual move, and one that limits the role of the PBO, the office was made part of the Library of Parliament rather than given full independence, as is the case with the auditor general. A private member’s bill NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair introduced earlier this year would have made the PBO a full officer of Parliament with much greater independence. But the Conservative majority defeated the bill.
“From the outset, there have been issues surrounding the basic legal and operational design of the PBO, especially concerning its location, budget and mandate,” the IMF report notes. This lack of clarity, the report argues, “has resulted in tensions which the PBO argued threatened his office’s operational independence.” The government reacted to early PBO reports, which highlighted inaccuracies in government accounting, with “an early attempt to reduce the budget and operational independence of the office,” it said. For example, the PBO had been promised a 2009 budget of $2.8-million for its second year of operation, but was informed it would only get $1.9-million, its start-up allocation. After much outcry, the allocation of $2.8-million was restored but the PBO was kept waiting until 2010.
Even today, the PBO’s mandate continues to be contested by government departments. The PBO, seeking information on details of departmental spending cutbacks, including positions to be eliminated, has run into a stonewall in many departments, which simply refuse to turn over the information. This is shocking enough and reflects a contempt for Parliament by Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats. But what is even more shocking is that the PBO has had to seek recourse to the courts to get information. The Federal Court has ruled that the PBO mandate allows it to seek such information but the issue remains unresolved.
While the government has attacked the PBO for being “partisan,” this is a common tactic it uses to attack almost anyone who challenges it. But as the IMF points out, “to support its credibility and to gain legitimacy and expert knowledge” the PBO has “its reports peer reviewed by independent external experts.”
The IMF report says that the PBO “has earned a reputation for good quality, independent analysis for its research, costings, and forecasting work.” Maybe this not what the government or senior bureaucrats want.
But, if it is to have the teeth to act as an independent entity working for Parliament and the people, then, like the Office of the Auditor General, it should become an independent officer of Parliament. That would best serve the interests of transparency and the effectiveness of Parliament in holding the government to account and hence democracy itself.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: DAVID CRANE
No comments:
Post a Comment