Michael Ignatieff has been talking recently about the importance of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office, and Kevin Milligan at Support the OPBO is paying attention:
Go read them; Kevin's doing a great job of commenting on the various issues surrounding the idea of making the PBO more independent. This post on the 'contrary to our system' argument is especially good.
After a disastrous start with the EI file, Michael Ignatieff is starting to make sense on economic issues. In a recent Question Period, he asked about the federal government's structural deficit (hopefully this means that he's backing away from the no-tax-increases-and-no-spending-cuts line), and he followed up with the PBO proposal.
Michael Ignatieff has been criticised for not making much in the way of substantive points about how a Liberal government would run things differently than Stephen Harper's Conservatives. This looks to be as good a place as any to start.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
While I think the PBO is a very positive development and find the “contrary to our system” argument bogus, I also think Page needed to have his wrists slapped. He was clearly exceeding his legislative mandate. Maybe the legislation should change, but we certainly can’t have rogue bureaucrats thinking they can do whatever they want.
I also doubt Ignatieff is going to get much traction on this issue with the public.
One of the problems with the PBO is that the public was sold a bill of goods. The legislation does not create the office that was described in the government’s rhetoric. It’s a little unfair to say Page exceeded his legislative mandate without a nod to why he thought that might be justified.
“I also doubt Ignatieff is going to get much traction on this issue with the public. ”
I don’t know. There is something compelling about having someone other than a politician talk about our country’s fiscal future. The PBO should be the forward-looking equivalent of the Auditor-General, and the idea of the AG certainly has a lot of traction with the public.
That’s what I’d like to think as well. There simply isn’t anyone who has both the resources and the mandate to provide analyses that could credibly challenge the numbers produced by the government of the day. It shouldn’t be that hard to use terms such as ‘honesty’, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ to construct a convincing narrative.
It doesnt matter what Page thought. Parliament decides what Page’s role is, not Page.
It’s a matter of the government lying about the legislation it passes. I’m thinking about the fixed election date law, which does no such thing.