Canada’s budget watchdog finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having “confidential” details about federal spending plans that it can’t share with Parliament – a position that undermines its central role and goes against Liberal promises to increase transparency.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette flagged the predicament this week in a report on the budget that will ratchet up pressure for the government – or perhaps PBO itself — to release information the office was given in confidence about an extra $16-billion on the government’s bottom line.

The PBO is mandated to provide independent, objective analysis to Parliament on the budget and the country’s finances.

“It puts us in an awkward position and we are not happy about it,” said Mostafa Askari, the assistant budget officer. “This does not help us. It may help us understand a bit more behind the numbers but it doesn’t help us inform our clients.”

Askari said the information isn’t a cabinet confidence and he sees no reason why it was confidential.

The PBO was created more than a decade ago by the Harper Conservatives to “ensure truth in budgeting” after Parliament lost all faith in the Finance department’s out-of-whack deficit and surplus projections in the 1990s. If the PBO can’t get or use information to help Parliament scrutinize the books, questions are raised about why the office even exists, said one federal official.

This isn’t the first time the Liberal government has given the PBO budget information it can’t share. In 2016, Finance officials handed over the figures behind the five-year cost estimates in the Liberals’ first budget as long as they were kept confidential and PBO didn’t use them in its report on the budget.

Why they were confidential was a mystery because five-year cost estimates had been disclosed in every budget over the previous 12 years and never considered confidential. Finance eventually gave PBO the data it wanted with a warning that the numbers were not firm and could be revised.

Askari said the PBO has had a much easier time getting information from departments over the past five years, but he worries the practice of giving confidential data will continue or other departments may follow suit and respond to PBO requests for information with the same caveat.

That seems to be legitimate concern.

This week, National Defence finally gave the PBO some of the project information and updated spending plans for the military’s 20-year expenditure plan that PBO has long been asking for but on the condition that the data remain confidential.

The latest information Finance is keeping confidential relates to the budget’s projections for a $2.7 billion yearly decrease in direct program spending between 2017-18 and 2022-23, which gave the government more than $16 billion to spend on new programs.

In its report, PBO said the budget presented a very different forecast from the fall economic update. The $2.7 billion a year decrease translated into a two-per-cent a year decline in the direct program expenses compared to the forecast in the fall economic update.

The government offered some broad reasons in the budget for the decline, such as lower expenses for Crown corporations; year-to-date results and updated departmental outlooks.

The PBO followed up after the budget with a formal request to Finance Minister Bill Morneau for more information, most of which the department provided but on the condition that detailed dollar amounts from specific departments remain confidential.

Askari said the PBO has been able to use the information in its analysis but was told it couldn’t reveal to Parliament the specific details about departments. That poses a big problem if PBO officials are asked to explain, defend or unpack information in their report.

With an extra $16 billion in fiscal room over the next six years, MPs would want to know how that happened; which departments adjusted their forecasts since the fall update – up or down – and why.

“We are not questioning the direct program spending,” said Askari “The issue is, that relative to the fall statement, they found $16 billion in extra fiscal room and we should understand where it is coming from. If departments are spending less than planned, why not inform Parliament?

“We are in the business of unpacking these things for Parliament and, in this case, we cannot.”

In the report, the PBO says the changes in forecasts are significant enough that MPs and senators should ask Finance for more details so they can follow up with the relevant departments.

“Given the materiality of the status quo forecast revision to direct program expenses, parliamentarians may wish to request that Finance Canada begin to publish greater detail on the factors contributing to forecast changes than were provided,” said the report.

In an email, the Finance department said the budget gave a “clear explanation” of the changes and forecasts for direct program spending and “unprecedented detail” on departmental spending.

It said the confidential information shared with PBO about Crown corporations or departments had either not yet been approved by Treasury Board or vetted for release.

“That said, the government remains committed to fiscal transparency and intends to continue efforts to ensure alignment of budget and Estimates. Efforts to improve transparency are ongoing and future budgets will include the provision of detailed useful information on departmental expenses.”

The PBO can inform the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate, as well as parliamentary committees if it is unable to get information key to its work. In this case, Askari said the office doesn’t have grounds for a complaint because the government complied and provided the information.

The concern about confidential information is at odds with the Trudeau government’s stated desire to be more transparent by opening up information and revamping the estimates process so Parliament can better scrutinize the books.

In fact, PBO praises the government for the steps it has taken. That raises the question whether the reluctance to share information comes from the politicians or the bureaucrats.

The PBO has been in a battle for government information from the day it was created and has long had an uneasy relationship with the public service, which likes to hang onto information.

The first PBO, Kevin Page, publicly crossed swords with senior bureaucracy when departments refused to turn over details about 2012 budget and job cuts. Page ended up taking the government to court to get the numbers.

Many expected the relations with the public service would improve with the Liberals and its promised push to make government more transparent.

Under the Liberals, the PBO is now an officer of Parliament. With new legislation, the PBO must now send its information request to ministers rather than to deputy ministers like it previously did.

Finance bureaucrats replied to the written request PBO sent to Morneau, but it’s unclear who decided the information was confidential. Ministers can delegate the requests to their deputy ministers to handle but ministers are accountable.

In fact, the question of the public service’s reluctance to hand over information came up earlier this month during a meeting of Commons government operations committee. Here is an exchange between PBO official Jason Jacques and Conservative MP Kelly McCauley who asked if departments are giving the PBO the information needed to do its job.

McCauley:

Are you still having these troubles getting information under access to information or other items from DND or other departments that are hindering your ability to work on behalf of Parliament and taxpayers?

I will read your quote: “The PBO remains concerned that departments continue to refuse access to information for reasons not grounded in the Parliament of Canada Act”, which, to me, is quite frightening and shocking that bureaucrats are interfering with the work of Parliament and an officer of Parliament.

Jacques:

I think the safe thing to say is since we’ve published that report, there has really been no material change with respect to the rapprochement we have with the public service around information access.

McCauley:

Would you share with us who is the worst?

Jacques

Well….

McCauley:

Or where is the most difficulty? Where is the most important that we need to get through on? It’s frightening as hell that we’re spending $65 billion on Irving, and you have to go the U.S. to get cost comparisons to work out the cost for our ships for building. It’s disgraceful.

Jacques:

For us, there remain the perennial challenges of working with National Defence. As well, there are ongoing challenges working with other central agencies around various types of budgetary requests as well.

As Jean-Denis (Frechette) has mentioned, it’s a recurring theme in our office that we are trying to negotiate memorandums of understanding with various government departments and agencies. That said, we’ve been trying to do it for the past four and a half years with flowers and chocolates, and it’s not really making a significant difference overall in the operations of the office.

McCauley:

I think it’s perhaps time to move to baseball bats and other items away from flowers and chocolates. These are bureaucrats interfering with the work of Parliament.