Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

DEVON KRUGGEL – Here is what the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) must not be


Stephen Harper created the office for the Parliamentary Budget Officer as part of the Library of Parliament with the intent of creating an office to do independent reports on the nation's finances and government policies.

The intent was to mimic the American Congressional Budget Office, but as usual, a Canadian government just couldn't get the job right. Now, by that I mean they refused to create a truly independent office.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

In the United States the President of the Senate, that's the Vice President and the Speaker of the House pick, as required, will pick a new Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

That's it. They pick a person and that person takes on the job.

Their mandate is to hire and maintain staff that are to be nonpartisan. Just to illustrate that last part, CBO staff cannot be a registered member of a political party. If they join a party or engage in any partisan activities, they get fired.

Finally, they are given a budget, and they have their own offices, and they carry out their mandate.

What is their mandate? Simply, they evaluate the spending of the American Federal Government and conduct studies on the effect of government policy and proposals on the budget and economy.

The CBO is considered so sacrosanct that no party has tried to tamper with it.

What Canada needs:

That is what Canada needs for its Parliamentary Budget Office. What we need, in addition to what we have now, is an All-Party Committee to pick a single director from a list of people that have the required expertise and have never been a member of a political party, never donated to a party, or engaged in any kind of partisan activities. That director can serve a fixed term or until they retire. There are options to consider.

Then we just need to give them a budget that is mandated in law to rise every year with inflation, that includes annual funding for any capital expenses.

Here is what the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) must not be:

It must not be an office to hold the government or Parliament accountable. That is the job of everyone else.

When the PBO starts holding people accountable it is taking sides and that is the enticement for political parties and governments to consider the option of undermining the office's neutrality.

This is why the Congressional Budget Office in the US works so well. It doesn't take sides. It produces reports and projections and then makes them all public. It doesn't take sides.

It doesn't say this plan would be bad and it doesn't say this policy is good. It leaves that to the reader to come to their own determination if plans, proposals, spending, etc is good or bad.

Often the same report will be interpreted as good and bad by whoever looks at it and that is because rarely do proposals in government produce overwhelmingly bad outcomes.

Look, I'm not going to talk about the disastrous Big Beautiful Bill because that was universally panned and was purely partisan garbage.

Don't look to the Parliamentary Budget Office as a watchdog

We need researchers producing non-partisan reports on the finances of the nation. We need that kind of information because that is the kind of information we can trust.

If we have good information we can trust, then hopefully the electorate and its political leaders will make better decisions.

I don't want another watchdog. I want good data.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more