Some points to consider:
- The PBO has a budget of $1.8m and 15 employees. (source)
- The US Congressional Budget Office has a budget of $45.2m and 250 employees. (source)
- Policy analysis does not scale well; the cost of putting together a model for evaluating a given policy is pretty much the same in both countries.
The PBO simply doesn't have the resources to be effective.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Could not a PBO with 15 full-time employees still do a “good job” as long as it narrowly focuses on a limited number of issues?
Of course, if the PBO research agenda is truly at the beck and call of Parliament, the PBO will inevitably have to disappoint many members of parliament.
An example of another federal department where the effects of a resource issue are affecting performance is the Department of Finance. They have to deal with a wide range of issues in the context of complex and changing business and economic conditions. I expect the resources of the Department of Finance are a fraction of those of the US Treasury, and other US government departments fulfilling similar objectives. In the Auditor General’s report, which was released in the past couple of weeks, there were a number of observations made about the challenges Finance is having in addressing necessary income tax amendments on a timely basis. This is just one example to demonstrate that adequate resources are necessary for government departments to be able to meet their objectives in a meaningful way.
If we believe that the PBO has a meaningful role (I certainly think that it does), we should let our MPs know that sufficient resources should be provided to the PBO. Anyone who works in an accounting, consulting or law firm knows how many people are deployed on large projects for large organizations in order to produce results on a timely basis. In the professional services context, a team of 15 people would be viewed as completely inadequate staffing for the PBO.
This isn’t about funding. It’s about Harper having absolute control over everything in government. He can’t control what the PBO researches, or rewrite its reports. The PCO can’t order him to not put anything in writing, and instead just deliver his reports by telephone (not a rarity in this government, unlike what the Globe editorialists would believe), if PBO insists on doing its job.
CBO is a watchdog over the President’s budget.
For the PBO to fullfil the same role, it would need financing from a seperate source. No one can honestly expect the governing party to fund an institution like this.
Ideally, I’d like to see the Senate fund the PBO. The extra benefit is that 1) they would actually do something or 2) it might give Harper the impetus to finally close it down. Either 1 or 2 is a net gain IMO.
It’s not a watchdog, that politicizes it. It just takes policy and determines cost.
The government could still say “We’re going to start dropping nuclear bombs based on a lottery system,” and the PBO wouldn’t say “That’s nuts,” they’d say “Here’s your cost.”
Just like the CBO.
And of course you can expect the governing party to fund an institution like this. The right laws just need to be in place for terms, appointments, and funding.
(Just like the CBO.)
Also, I’m pretty sure the Senate can’t just fund things on its own.