Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Kevin Page of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at University of Ottawa are former officials in the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Change is difficult. It is particularly challenging in the deeply ingrained institution of Canada’s parliamentary system. In 2008, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) was small, not well known and was threatened with budget cuts and shutdowns on multiple occasions. Not only did it survive, it now thrives. It’s no small testament to the need for fiscal transparency and the office’s success that its mandate was clarified and expanded in new legislation in 2017.

An important new addition was the costing of political parties’ platforms during the election period. The objective was to have independent cost estimates of policy proposals with an aim of informing voters. Campaign debates could then focus on the benefits and efficacy of policy proposals rather than the credibility of the cost estimates. Offices in Australia and the Netherlands undertake similar work with positive results.

Story continues below advertisement

The PBO’s new role has restrictions. It only costs individual measures and does not assess the overall credibility of the platforms’ fiscal plans (i.e. transparency, fiscal sustainability). Furthermore, the PBO cannot release a costing until the party announces the measure publicly and informs the office in writing that it can be released.

While we do not believe it is necessary to compel political parties to have their policy proposals costed by the PBO, we do believe this campaign period is an opportunity to assess the impact of the new mandate. So far, since the PBO’s estimates are considered unbiased and well-researched, there is positive pressure on all parties to have their proposals costed.

While political parties may feel some anxiety about this new mandate, PBO as an institution also carries risk. Election-platform costing is undertaken in a very compressed time frame and in a highly partisan electoral environment. PBO might find itself constrained in making comments to defend its work and reputation for fear of affecting the election process.

So far in this campaign, we have seen a number of proposals by different parties, and most of them have been costed by PBO. More will certainly be released in the coming weeks. While observers have raised concerns about the magnitude of the fiscal cost of some of the proposals, no one has questioned the objectivity of the estimates. In our view, this represents major progress in Canada’s election campaign process.

We believe there are a number of advantages to having all party proposals costed by one independent and non-partisan organization. Costing complex policy proposals is difficult and resource-intensive. Parties do not have sufficient in-house resources and expertise to carry out such costings. Even if they did, voters might not trust the numbers coming out of party war rooms as much as the work of a reliable third party.

In past elections, political parties hired private consultants with different levels of expertise to prepare or validate platform costings. (Disclosure: IFSD has done this, at no cost, for Ontario Progressive Conservative and NDP platforms.) As a result, there may not be full confidence that the estimates were reliable and unbiased. Costing by PBO, which has extensive expertise and experience in costing complex proposals, eliminates concerns about the reliability or bias in the cost estimates.

We also need to consider how voters and media will handle a platform that has measures costed by a mix of PBO and other third parties (i.e. parties shopping for costings). From the perspectives of quality and objectivity, should citizens and the media prefer PBO costings over party-generated estimates? Does it follow that platforms with a greater percentage of PBO costings (relative to party-generated) are preferable? Accordingly, we believe that PBO’s legislation and protocols should be reviewed after the election to consider if changes, in consultation with PBO, may be necessary to improve the process.

Story continues below advertisement

In this context, consideration should also be given after the election to have PBO release details of all costings used by parties including methodologies and numbers. This will promote transparency and policy development.

We believe that Canadians will benefit from a closing of the gap between the political narrative put out by political parties and the means to achieve those objectives. While some may consider this a constraint on traditional campaign strategy, it can only serve to enhance the legitimacy of a new government and the trust of Canadians in their state institutions. Canadians can be proud that they have an institution in the PBO that is considered reliable to do so – by all political parties.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies