Canada’s federal budget watchdog is under the microscope, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is widely respected, leading economists argue it’s time to shift focus—less talk, more numbers. This year, two pivotal events will shape the PBO’s future: the decision to either replace or permanently appoint Interim PBO Jason Jacques, and the release of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s review of the office. So, what’s the big deal? Let’s dive in.
The OECD’s preliminary feedback has been positive, with Jon Blondal, head of its public management and budgeting division, praising the PBO’s reputation among stakeholders. Yet, economists in Canada aren’t satisfied with the status quo. They believe the PBO can—and should—do better. Their proposal? More data-driven analysis and less commentary from the office’s leadership. And this is the part most people miss: they’re also pushing for increased peer review of PBO reports to enhance objectivity and reduce the risk of errors in a politically charged environment.
Why does this matter? Well, consider the fallout from Jacques’ September 2025 appearance before a parliamentary committee, where he labeled Canada’s federal finances as “stupefying,” “shocking,” and “unsustainable.” Former PBO Kevin Page called these comments “just wrong,” arguing they weren’t grounded in the numbers. This sparked a debate: should the PBO stick to the facts or offer policy commentary? Don Drummond, former chief economist at TD Bank, weighed in, acknowledging that analyzing complex economic models is tough and mistakes happen—but it’s how you respond that counts.
The call for fewer adjectives isn’t just about tone; it’s about credibility. Economists argue that sticking to the data helps the PBO maintain its neutrality, especially when political tensions run high. But here’s the kicker: even if the PBO adopts a more numbers-focused approach, controversy won’t disappear. As Jacques himself noted, “If it’s being debated and voted on in Parliament, it’s going to be controversial.”
Take the PBO’s analysis of Canada’s carbon tax, for example. A 2022 report, updated in 2023, examined whether households received more from the carbon rebate than they paid in carbon pricing. While most Canadians came out ahead, the report also found that the carbon tax had broader economic costs, leaving many households worse off. Critics, including Drummond and Page, argued the analysis was incomplete, omitting the benefits of mitigating climate change and failing to compare the carbon tax to alternative policies.
And this is the part most people miss: the methodology for these reports wasn’t peer-reviewed until 2024, raising questions about the PBO’s commitment to external evaluation. Jacques defended the office, noting they consult experts regularly, but economists say more formal peer review is needed, especially for politically sensitive topics.
So, where do we go from here? Jacques has expressed interest in modeling the PBO after the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), where the focus is on the institution and its numbers, not the individual leading it. But will this be enough to satisfy critics? The OECD’s upcoming review will shed light on the PBO’s use of peer review and other key principles, but the real question remains: Can the PBO strike the right balance between impartiality and relevance in Canada’s heated political landscape?
Here’s the thought-provoking question for you: Should the PBO prioritize absolute neutrality and stick solely to the numbers, or is there value in offering commentary to help policymakers and the public understand complex issues? Let us know in the comments—this debate is far from over.
