OECD review of the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office

4. Impact of the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer

This section examines evidence of the PBO’s impact on Canada’s fiscal governance, focusing on three key dimensions: parliamentary debate, public debate, and gains in fiscal transparency. The analysis draws primarily on the Office’s communications practices and stakeholder feedback.

Stakeholders consistently describe the PBO as a trusted and independent source of fiscal analysis. Its leaders are generally regarded as skilled communicators who have enriched Canada’s fiscal policy discourse. By introducing impartial, data-driven analysis, the PBO has strengthened accountability and improved the quality of debate. Canada’s performance in the OECD Fiscal Advocacy Index reflects this influence, ranking first among peers (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Canadian PBO ranks first on the OECD Fiscal Advocacy Index

Note: The index scores IFIs across four dimensions: independence, reflected in freedom from political interference and stable multi-year funding; analysis, covering major fiscal issues, long-term risks, and election platform costings; communications, using modern platforms to share and track work; and impact, measured by influence on public debate through media and search data.

Source: (OECD, 2025[6])

4.1. Parliamentary debate

In Parliament, the PBO’s role is particularly significant given Canada’s Westminster tradition of relatively weak ex-ante budget scrutiny. While this limits the scope for parliamentary influence compared to some OECD counterparts, the PBO’s regular committee appearances and widely referenced reports have elevated the standard of fiscal debate. MPs and Senators increasingly rely on PBO baselines, shifting discussions from disputes over data to substantive policy choices.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate requires that all reports be laid before Parliament, ensuring formal access to its analysis. In practice, most parliamentarians learn of new publications through email notifications sent by the Office, which remain the primary channel for alerting relevant parties. Reports and cost estimates are made publicly available on the PBO website one business day after being provided to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, reinforcing transparency.

Historically, the PBO offered in-person briefings for major reports, but attendance was low. Today, engagement is more demand-driven: individual parliamentarians can request briefings or pose questions directly to analysts, and the PBO regularly accepts invitations to testify before committees. This responsiveness is notable: the Office frequently appears as a witness, sometimes up to 20 times per year (see Figure 5). Testimony is generally valued for its clarity and impartiality, establishing the PBO as a key contributor to data-driven oversight.

Figure 5. Annual PBO appearances in parliamentary committees have risen over time

Committee appearances by fiscal year

Note: Data for the 2025-2026 fiscal year only covers up to 2 December 2025.

Source: PBO Year-End Reports & PBO correspondence

Senators and MPs rely heavily on PBO reports for questioning and scrutiny in committees. Mentions of the PBO and its work in committee proceedings consistently exceed 1,000 mentions per year, while references on the House and Senate floors average more than 500 annually. Stakeholders note that the PBO has significantly improved the quality of fiscal debate in Parliament. Prior to its establishment, they indicated that parties often disputed government figures, diverting attention from substantive policy issues. Today, however, stakeholders report that PBO baselines are widely accepted across political lines, enabling discussions to focus on policy choices rather than data credibility.

4.2. Public debate

Media engagement has positioned the PBO as a trusted voice in fiscal discussions, improving public confidence in official numbers and strengthening accountability. While specialist stakeholders may engage directly with PBO reports, the broader public typically accesses PBO analysis through media summaries and commentary. Media attention also reinforces parliamentary engagement by signalling the relevance of fiscal issues. By translating complex fiscal analysis into accessible messages, the Office enables informed debate beyond Parliament and supports legislators seeking to hold government to account. This visibility also reinforces the PBO’s credibility as an independent institution, ensuring its work resonates with both specialist and general audiences.

The PBO stands out among its peers in terms of media visibility. In 2023, it recorded the highest total coverage among OECD IFIs, appearing in over 400 articles across the country’s top three news outlets. Its media share was strong, with a large proportion of budget-related articles referencing its work. As well the PBO had the third highest search share, attracting about one-third as many searches as “national debt”. Search regularity, the percentage of weeks with non‑zero search activity, for the PBO was also high at 89 per cent, meaning the PBO draws sustained attention rather than episodic spikes (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. The PBO has high visibility and reach

Source: OECD Fiscal Advocacy Index 2024, and own workings. 

This prominence has been achieved through deliberate openness. For example, the most recent Parliamentary Budget Officer generally embraced media engagement, appearing in interviews on television, radio, and in print. Press conferences accompany the release of core publications, and press releases summarise key findings for journalists. The PBO grants interviews and backgrounding briefings on request and maintains strong accessibility: report authors are named, and contact details are published on the website. Analysts regularly provide background explanations to journalists, complementing public statements and ensuring accurate interpretation of technical material.

Although generally positive, the incoming Parliamentary Budget Officer should reflect on the Office’s public communication role in contrast to parliamentarians’ role in public debate when developing its communication strategy. The approach should not, however, limit the access and visibility that the PBO provides to the public, which is seen by many stakeholders as a strength.

4.3. Protecting the PBO’s reputation

With a high public and political profile, the PBO faces risks to its credibility from compressed timelines, rapid policy shifts, and growing political polarisation. Safeguarding its reputation requires proactive measures. Misssteps are inevitable, but provide valuable lessons for every organisation (see Box 7). Establishing a clear corrections protocol is essential: timely and transparent updates can reinforce accountability, reduce misunderstandings, and maintain confidence in outputs. Building a resilient communications culture, anchored in clear, consistent engagement, will help parliamentarians use PBO analysis effectively while minimising confusion and politicisation.

Box 7. Communication lessons from recent PBO experiences

While the PBO’s early years as a small office did not require formal communication processes, its evolution into a more established organisation has made clearer communication protocols increasingly important. Two recent events illustrate this.

In early 2024, the PBO announced that earlier reports on the federal carbon tax’s impact on consumers had unintentionally incorporated industrial carbon pricing, and that updated analysis would follow later in the year. The manner in which this clarification was communicated drew criticism and calls for a more visible correction, as the original estimates had been widely referenced in Parliament and public debate. At a June 2024 committee meeting, the PBO apologised and committed to providing more prominent notifications should similar issues arise. Although the core conclusions of the analysis remained largely unchanged, the episode highlighted gaps in the Office’s initial communication practices.

A second episode in 2025 underscored the need for guidance on how to present analytical findings using language that cannot be misconstrued. In describing a revised fiscal outlook to a parliamentary committee, the Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer used terminology that some perceived as “inflammatory”, prompting significant media attention and public challenge. At subsequent committee appearances, the Interim PBO elaborated on the analytical basis for his assessment and adopted more neutral phrasing to minimise the risk of misinterpretation.

Taken together, these episodes point to the potential value of clearer internal guidance on communication as the PBO continues to mature. Strengthening protocols on how to present neutral messaging that accurately reflects analytical findings, and how to address missteps transparently and proportionately, would help ensure that the PBO’s communications remain clear and resilient in a fast‑moving parliamentary and media environment.

4.4. Examples of PBO’s impact

The PBO’s visibility can also be measured in how it has strengthened the quality of debate. Three areas stand out: catalysing long-term fiscal reporting, clarifying how financial information is presented to parliamentarians, and providing neutral analysis during periods of economic stress and large industrial policy commitments.

In 2012, the Office highlighted the long-term implications of announced changes to the Canada Health Transfer growth path and Old Age Security eligibility, and recommended the government to publish its own projections to support informed debate. The subsequent release of Finance Canada’s first federal long-term sustainability analysis strengthened the evidentiary base for long horizon decisions.

The PBO’s influence is also visible in how financial information is presented to MPs and Senators. In Budget 2016, Finance Canada adopted the PBO’s approach to reporting administrative expenses in the Employment Insurance Operating Account, clarifying an area that parliamentarians had found confusing.

The PBO has also played a vital role in enhancing fiscal transparency by bridging gaps in official reporting. During the pandemic, the PBO provided rapid scenario analyses and iterative fiscal updates, supporting data-driven decisions in the absence of timely reporting provided by the government. Most recently, the Office quantified EV battery subsidy costs and breakeven timelines, informed battery manufacture assessments, and tallied national EV supply chain support to close a key information gap.

Taken together, these interventions demonstrate a consistent impact pathway: the PBO raises standards for disclosure, improves the usability of fiscal information for decision makers, and supplies neutral analysis at speed when it is most needed. This combination enhances the quality of parliamentary debate and supports better calibrated, more transparent public finances.

4.5. Expanding reach and monitoring impact

At present, visibility of the PBO is driven by its leadership and dissemination of its reports is heavily dependent on email notifications (consistent with the preferences of parliamentary clients), while other channels (such as the website and social media) are underutilised. Impact monitoring focuses on basic visibility metrics, such as media mentions and committee appearances, without leveraging these data to inform resource allocation or audience targeting. While the PBO has taken steps to refine its messaging approach, expanding resources here would greatly aid in building capacity to enhance dissemination.

How the PBO tracks its influence and the effectiveness of its existing dissemination methods reveal opportunities for improvement that will be essential as the Office seeks to institutionalise its communications culture and sustain its role as a trusted voice in Canada’s fiscal debate.

4.5.1. Tracking influence

Assessing the reach and impact of an IFI is essential for understanding whether its work is achieving its intended objectives. The PBO currently monitors visibility through basic metrics such as media mentions, committee appearances, and references in parliamentary debates. It has also conducted two stakeholder perception surveys, most recently in 2021, to gauge satisfaction with its products and services. These efforts reflect an interest in understanding external perceptions, but they remain limited in scope and application.

Beyond tracking mentions, the PBO does not leverage these data strategically to inform decision-making or resource allocation, constraining its ability to identify which audiences it reaches and how content is received. Understanding engagement patterns, such as how parliamentarians use analysis or which journalists amplify its work, would enable more targeted outreach (see Box 8). Regular use of media analytics and audience insights would help the PBO measure influence, refine messaging, and direct resources where they have the greatest impact. Without this, the Office risks missing opportunities to strengthen outreach and further heighten its already significant impact.

Box 8. Tracking influence: The Irish Fiscal Council’s approach

To assess visibility and refine its communications strategy, the Irish Fiscal Council uses media share metrics, specifically the proportion of articles on public finance topics that reference its work. This measure is constructed through a two-step process:

• Defining the market: The Council identifies all articles in leading national online news sources that discuss public finance topics, using search terms related to fiscal policy and government finances.

• Calculating share: Within this set, the Council determines the percentage of articles that specifically mention the Fiscal Council by adding its name as an additional search requirement.

This approach provides a clear measure of the Council’s presence in fiscal discourse and tracks trends over time. After key report releases, the Council reviews data, reflects on communications strategies, and highlights recurring headlines and key articles related to its work. These practices show how even modest resources can be used strategically to enhance impact and refine messaging.

4.5.2. Impact of existing dissemination methods

The effectiveness of the PBO’s dissemination systems is critical to sustaining reach and impact, particularly in delivering key messages to the broader public. The PBO has focused some of its efforts in improving dissemination and accessibility, including shortening reports and adding highlights sections, developing thematic hubs on its website, and hiring additional web design staff to improve usability. Notwithstanding, uptake of its digital platforms, particularly its website and social media, remains limited, suggesting that these tools are not yet optimised to support broader engagement.

Website

The PBO’s website serves as a central platform for public engagement, hosting publications, supporting documents such as databases, press releases, and records of committee appearances. However, most stakeholders report that they rely on email notifications to stay informed, with parliamentarians in particular preferring this channel over monitoring the website.

The main way to access publications on the PBO website is through a landing page that lists reports in chronological order displaying 15 publications at time. Although chronological ordering is intuitive, it can make it difficult for users to track developments during periods of high output. As well, usability issues persist, including broken links, inconsistent search functionality, and challenges in locating content hubs. These shortcomings hinder accessibility and limit the visibility of the Office’s full range of offerings. The PBO is aware of some of the website’s shortcomings and is strengthening website performance through continuous fixes and optimisations, with a major overhaul planned for 2028. While these actions are well targeted, the upgrade pace should be aligned with the evolving communications model to avoid a gap between stakeholder expectations and platform capability.

Social media

Social media engagement is similarly modest. The PBO relies on LinkedIn, where it has approximately 1,250 followers and low interaction rates. Posts typically consist of report titles and cover images, offering little to capture attention or convey key messages. Comparative examples from other IFIs illustrate the potential for improvement. The Netherlands CPB, for instance, pairs posts with infographics or short videos and has achieved significantly higher engagement with a similar posting frequency. The United Kingdom OBR, while less active on LinkedIn, leverages X (formerly Twitter) effectively, using concise summaries and visual content to highlight key findings (see Box 9). The CBO in the United States also demonstrates good practice by including short explanatory sentences alongside report links. These approaches underscore the value of a structured social media strategy that prioritises clarity around key messages, visual appeal, and audience engagement.

Box 9. The United Kingdom OBR’s tiered communication approach

In order to shape analysis into content, the OBR presents the same information in multiple formats, ranging from highly detailed (full reports and technical papers) to highly accessible (tweets, infographics, animations). This tiered system ensures that audiences with different levels of time, expertise, and interest can engage with the material. By repurposing analysis into layered formats, the OBR is able to ensure the message is consistent while tailoring depth and presentation to audience needs.

OBR’s tiered communications system

 

Comparison of typical OBR and PBO social media post

 

The PBO has incorporated some layering of content by ensuring its reports have key takeaways and executive summaries, however, it stops short of this when it comes to its social media. Adopting this approach would be a simple method of engaging the public with its reports directly, allowing it to move away from relying on traditional media presence.

4.6. Looking forwards: The PBO’s role in empowering political and public understanding

Canada’s fiscal context is quickly evolving, reshaping the requirements of “effective scrutiny”. Budget 2025 projects a CAD 78.3 billion deficit and introduces new fiscal anchors, alongside a CAD 60 billion spending review and the implementation of a new reporting system in capital versus operating expenditures. These shifts demand that the PBO take a stronger role in building fiscal literacy and explaining trade-offs.

International practice offers useful models for how IFIs can build understanding while staying within their mandates. For example, the Netherlands CPB has adopted a light, time‑bound public understanding strategy that sits beneath its analytical work and focuses on a small number of priority themes supported by tailored communication products for key audiences.

The PBO could explore similar approaches to enhance understanding without diluting its core analytical functions. One option would be to concentrate on a limited number of priority themes of greatest interest to parliamentarians. The Office’s response during the COVID‑19 pandemic demonstrates its capacity to do this effectively: the PBO developed a COVID‑19 Monitoring Framework and consolidated all pandemic‑related fiscal products into a single online platform, increasing transparency and accessibility.

Stakeholders identified several areas where strengthening political and public understanding would be particularly valuable in the near term, including:

• Continuing to clarify the new system of reporting capital and operating expenditures separately and its interaction with fiscal anchors.

• Supporting scrutiny of the spending review by monitoring progress against annual and multi-year savings targets, and explaining what those savings imply for the operating balance and the broader fiscal outlook.

• Strengthening accessible communication on complex, fast-growing domains such as defence spending, presenting long-term obligations and procurement timelines in ways that keep debate policy-focused.

To further support understanding, the PBO could develop a communication strategy guiding how products and formats across the themes are tailored to the needs of diverse stakeholders within its core audiences, including parliamentarians, their staff and committees. Together, these measures would help Parliament and the public build the skills needed to scrutinise fiscal decisions more effectively.

4.7. Summary

The PBO has had a strong impact on fiscal governance, widely regarded as a trusted and independent source that improves parliamentary debate and public understanding. Its impartial work has shifted discussions toward substantive policy issues, contributing to accountability and placing it first among OECD peers on the Fiscal Advocacy Index.

The review identifies scope to strengthen impact. Visibility remains leadership‑driven, with limited digital outreach, and influence monitoring is basic. A formal communications strategy is needed to help overcome this, alongside a policy for timely corrections to safeguard credibility. These steps would reinforce the PBO’s reputation and support a shift toward a more consistent institutional communications culture.

As Canada’s fiscal landscape evolves, effective scrutiny will increasingly depend on the PBO’s capacity to empower political and public understanding of emerging budget practices, fiscal anchors and the trade‑offs inherent in major fiscal decisions.