LOL. That pretty well sums it all up, doesn't it?

The problem to me is not that Kevin Page just thinks he's supposed to be independent because he's delusional, but that he thinks he's supposed to be independent because an independent officer is A) exactly what the government promised voters they were going to get, and B) exactly what the government kept telling us we got (including the PM and various cabinet ministers INSISTING that this was a promise both made and kept). That the law as written doesn't really do what our politicians keep trying to tell us it does is the problem (in this and other examples) and so either the politicians have to change the law to match their rhetoric, or stop using disingenuous rhetoric that's designed to make the public think they've done something that they clearly haven't.

Our politicians can't complain that the PBO is acting independently in contravention of the statute while simultaneously telling the public that the statute is the fulfilment of their promise to create an independent office which can act independently. Well, I mean, clearly they CAN do that, but we shouldn't let them get away with it.

Its not really what you hired your bookkeeper for.

If your income is $100, and your expenses are $120, then either you should increase your income to $120, or cut your expenses to $100, otherwise this situation is unsustainable after a certain amount of time. I think they teach you this when you are like 5 or 6 years old? Sorry don't remember I'm getting too old.

What the PBO has said seems exactly similar to me – that if you have a mismatch in your tax revenue (income) or program epxenditure (expenses), then you either increase one or cut the other.

Does't look like Kevin Page is advocating a policy point to me – it seems more that he is encouraging the use of common sense or what we all learn at age 5 or 6.

Comments?

However, Harper should have had the courage of his convictions and refused. You have to wonder if they really, really are going to spend it all.

- and the danger that they begin reporting to spite them.

You've got to be kidding. Anyway, you ignore Stewart's two points, public officials shouldn't have entrenched political positions, and, well. public officials shouldn't advocate political positions.

Short answer: if the goal is to empower parliamentarians, then it does matter whether an official reports to them or despite them.

Slightly longer (mischievous, eminently debatable) answer: What is there about this Parliament that suggests it deserves to be empowered?

The problem with having independent officers propose policy is that just like politicans they end up married to it. Now that Page has come out in favour of raising the GST, any assessment of negative impact from raising the GST from his office becomes seen as less objective.

My second objection is that Page really followed the bank economists on his tax policy suggestion. So a more complete statement of his advice would be " a rise in the GST would have less impact on markets and investment income than increasing other taxs". Tax policy should certainly consider the stock market, but it should also be developed considering the entire socio-economic impact on the country.

The operative word here is 'consider'. He's never told them what to do. They could cut spending, if they so choose. But from an objective budgetary perspective, all Page has essentially said is: "Wish into one hand, sh*t into the other, and tell me which one fills up first." That's not really advocating policy so much as identifying nonsensical plans (or non-plans) and projections.

The operative word here is 'consider'. He's never told them what to do. They could cut spending, if they so choose. But from an objective budgetary perspective, all Page has essentially said is: "Wish into one hand, sh*t into the other, and tell me which one fills up first." That's not really choosing policy so much as identifying nonsensical plans (or non-plans) and projections.

"Passed in 1983, the Act is outdated and inadequate. While we await a wholesale overhaul, we have proposed 10 'quick fixes' to address some of the most urgent shortcomings.

"For reasons of time, I’ll mention just four:

"'Quick fix 1' would see the law include a 'necessity test,' which would oblige institutions to demonstrate the need for the personal information they collect.

"Another recommendation would expand the grounds for judicial review, including possible damage awards, for people whose privacy has been breached by the state.

"We’d also like to see a toughening of the rules for privacy impact assessments, or PIAs. Departments proposing to develop or substantially change a program or service should be obliged by law to report publicly on the impact of the initiative on the privacy of Canadians – before the initiative is implemented.

"And one last 'quick fix' I want to mention would strengthen the provisions governing the disclosure of personal information by the Canadian government to foreign states. The justification for that recommendation is underscored by the cases of the four Canadian men who were tortured in the Middle East."

(On the Olympics) "It is still possible to ensure that the Games reflect linguistic duality before, during and after the athletes’ arrival. However, there is little time left to solve the most pressing problems, namely those pertaining to translation, interpretation and signage. Federal institutions that have a specific role to play must realize that the arrival of thousands of additional visitors will lead to an increased demand for bilingual services. This is especially important in terms of services provided at the Games venues and services provided to the travelling public, mainly in the Vancouver and Toronto airports…. "

(On the judiciary) "This does not mean that all Supreme Court judges should be educated in both common law and the Civil Code. But they should be able to hear arguments from counsel who have been trained in either tradition, in English or in French, without requiring interpretation. As you know, Canadian laws are not translated, they are written in both English and French. The judges in the highest court of the land should therefore be able to understand nuances found within them when there is a difference between the two versions. If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary…. "

(On official languages in Nunavut) "Given the importance of these elements, I urge the Committee to ratify the legislation before it, so that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can become a reality."

(On the Olympics) "It is still possible to ensure that the Games reflect linguistic duality before, during and after the athletes’ arrival. However, there is little time left to solve the most pressing problems, namely those pertaining to translation, interpretation and signage. Federal institutions that have a specific role to play must realize that the arrival of thousands of additional visitors will lead to an increased demand for bilingual services. This is especially important in terms of services provided at the Games venues and services provided to the travelling public, mainly in the Vancouver and Toronto airports….

(On the judiciary) This does not mean that all Supreme Court judges should be educated in both common law and the Civil Code. But they should be able to hear arguments from counsel who have been trained in either tradition, in English or in French, without requiring interpretation. As you know, Canadian laws are not translated, they are written in both English and French. The judges in the highest court of the land should therefore be able to understand nuances found within them when there is a difference between the two versions. If Parliament were to pass this bill, it would send a powerful message to Canada's law schools that mastering both official languages is a prerequisite for full mastery of the law, and for qualification for the most important and prestigious positions in the Canadian judiciary….

(On official languages in Nunavut) "Given the importance of these elements, I urge the Committee to ratify the legislation before it, so that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can become a reality."

[youtube BDTZcj8Xink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTZcj8Xink youtube]