Two views of the budget office: a sounding board
They spar regularly on many issues, including the role of the office and value of its work, but the Conservative government and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page seem to agree on one thing: change is needed in the PBO.
The government says Page has wandered away from his mandate, arguing his role and duties should be better defined and that the budget officer was meant to be a “sounding board,” not necessarily a watchdog, for government spending.
Page argues his office needs more independence, and stable funding.
Yet as the 55-year-old economist prepares to step down March 25 when his term ends, even some Conservative backbenchers say the PBO is an effective check on the executive powers of the cabinet.
Even so, Canada already has an independent, federal auditor general. Is the PBO (and its $2.8-million annual budget) actually necessary. And if it is, does it need an overhaul? The debate over those questions flared up in Parliament again this week.
Page has issued a series of reports over the past few years that have irked the government, which questions the accuracy and credibility of the work. The reports have included costs estimates on the Afghanistan military mission, F-35 fighter jets and crime legislation, along with analysis on the fiscal impacts of changes to Old Age Security and health transfers to the provinces.
None of the reports was flattering to the government.
The PBO’s critics believe Page has sometimes been partisan, and too public, and that he has overreached his mandate. Administratively, the PBO reports to the Library of Parliament, which is largely controlled by the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate. Frustrated by this hierarchy, Page insists the PBO should report directly to Parliament, but that’s difficult due to the bureaucratic and funding obstacles that go along with reporting through the library. Page believes the PBO should be made an independent officer of Parliament, like the auditor general or the ethics commissioner.