This week marked a significant moment for the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, bringing the situation full circle.
In February 2013, as the tenure of the inaugural parliamentary budget officer was coming to a close, the Official Opposition introduced a motion in the House of Commons aimed at strengthening the office’s independence and extending Kevin Page’s term until the government could appoint a successor.
At the time, NDP’s Peggy Nash expressed concerns, stating, “We have witnessed the Conservatives’ ongoing efforts to undermine Kevin Page’s credibility. The Official Opposition strongly fears that the government will try to install a new PBO who is more compliant than independent. Canadians require a robust, autonomous parliamentary budget officer, not someone who merely echoes government rhetoric.”
Despite the fact that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was responsible for the legislation establishing the PBO, they had criticized Page’s efforts and questioned his methodology, while also clashing with the office over its requests for information. As Page’s term was set to end and the Harper government was slow to find a successor, there were increasing worries about the office’s future.
-
Liberals’ fiscal watchdog nominee vows to hold government’s ‘feet to the fire’
-
After a bumpy ride, federal budget watchdog steps down with some praise
-
Leading economists want less talk, more numbers from federal budget watchdog
However, the parliamentary budget officer has demonstrated resilience. Now, it is the Conservative Party, now in Opposition, expressing significant concern regarding the Liberal government’s choice for a new PBO.
This week, the Conservative Party alerted its supporters via email, stating, “Now, they are FIRING the budget watchdog for revealing the TRUTH. We’re sounding the ALARM. The Liberals MUST reinstate the rightful budget watchdog.”
For the Conservatives, the “rightful” PBO — a term that adds a royal connotation to the position — is Jason Jacques, who acted as the interim budget officer. Last fall, Jacques garnered attention for his bold statements regarding the government’s financial condition.
He has not actually been dismissed — in fact, he continues to be employed by the PBO office. However, the government has proposed another candidate, Annette Ryan, for the full seven-year position.
The Conservatives do not appear to have specific objections against Ryan, other than the fact that she is not Jacques.
Conservative MP Sandra Cobena told reporters this week, “This is not about the current nominee.”
It’s quite possible the Conservatives will overlook their concerns once Ryan — who possesses a notable and extensive background — produces a report that is critical of the government. They may simply view the transition at the PBO as a chance to fuel suspicion regarding the Carney government.
Ideally, the selection of an independent parliamentary officer — a role essential for both holding the government accountable and fostering public discourse — should not become a target for political strife and partisan email campaigns.
Is there a better way to select a PBO?
If there is any positive aspect to the ongoing dispute, it’s that all political parties have, at various times, shown support for a robust and proactive PBO. Thirteen years ago, Conservatives appeared to consider Page too assertive. Now, they seem to regard assertiveness as a virtue.
However, preserving the institution’s credibility is crucial, and any political disputes have the potential to inflict long-term harm. Thus, the current situation may warrant a reevaluation of the process used to appoint the parliamentary budget officer.
During a discussion on the House’s standing orders last month, Conservative MP Michael Chong contended that the government should not hold the authority to make significant parliamentary appointments. While the government does not directly appoint the PBO — as both the House and Senate must ratify Ryan’s appointment — it is the government that conducts interviews and proposes a nominee to Parliament.
With MPs set to cast their vote on the Liberal budget next week, the interim parliamentary budget officer is suggesting there’s a less than 10 per cent chance it will stay within its deficit targets. Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre has criticized the government’s ‘phoney accounting.’
Last November, Conservative and Bloc Québécois members of the House committee on government operations approved a motion requesting the government to provide a list of potential PBO candidates for the committee’s review. The motion was not mandatory for the government, and it seems the committee received no response.
By that time, the Conservatives had already established their stance on the PBO — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had publicly urged the prime minister in September to appoint Jacques for a full term. Delegating the matter to the committee in November may not have alleviated the political tension.
Nevertheless, there might be merit in transferring full responsibility to Parliament. In Ontario, the financial accountability officer is appointed by a committee that includes all parties and is chaired by the Speaker, requiring a unanimous decision.
Implementing a similar structure for the PBO might not entirely eliminate potential conflicts but would at least ensure that Parliament governs what is fundamentally a parliamentary role.
Making such adjustments could complicate future instances of urgent emails alleging that the government is attempting to conceal matters by “firing” the “rightful” PBO. Nonetheless, it may still be a change worth considering.