On misinformation

You probably don't need me to tell you that the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense. But just in case there was any doubt, the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense.

Here's the latest excuse from a John Baird spokesflack:

Mr. Baird said that the amount of pages is large because there are 7,600 projects underway. Mr. Day said that the reason why these files were hard copies was because of the nature of the documents, information gathered as part of the application process, some of which can be confidential commercial information that could not be released without the consent of third parties.

"We would have to go through and get consent and permission from every single one of our proponents and we're bound by privacy laws," said Mr. Day. "We provided [the Parliamentary Budget Officer] with the data, some of it is sensitive information, it may include some financial statements, budgets, board information and all that stuff. We've got thousands of pages worth of documents to him and his staff can go through it and do their due diligence, do the financial analysis."

Now, one might read that response and ask, is the PBO's office really set up so that its efforts to shed light on Canada's public finances can be stymied by third parties who refuse to consent to the disclosure of relevant information? Fortunately, the answer is "not by a long shot":

79.3 (1) Except as provided by any other Act of Parliament that expressly refers to this subsection, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the deputy head of a department within the meaning of any of paragraphs (a), (a.1) and (d) of the definition “department” in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or to any other person designated by that deputy head for the purpose of this section, to free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any financial or economic data

(a) that are information the disclosure of which is restricted under section 19 of the Access to Information Act or any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act; or

(b) that are contained in a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada described in subsection 69(1) of that Act, unless the data are also contained in any other record, within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, and are not information referred to in paragraph (a).

For those wondering, the exemptions referred to in section 79.3(b) include personal information under section 19 of the Access to Information Act, information subject to a statutory prohibition on disclosure under Schedule II of the Access to Information Act (none of which would appear to apply to infrastructure spending), and information which the Privy Council Office chooses to make confidential. And I doubt the public would have reason for sympathy if the records surrounding the use of stimulus money are of "personal" use or are being suppressed by the Cons' own choice.

What's more, the PBO has been set up to scrupulously avoid the disclosure of any information whose release might affect third parties:

79.4 The Parliamentary Budget Officer, and every person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, shall not disclose any financial or economic data that come to their knowledge under section 79.3, unless the disclosure is essential for the performance of his or her mandate and the financial or economic data to which the disclosure relates are not information described in subsection 13(1), section 14, any of paragraphs 18(a) to (d), section 18.1, any of paragraphs 20(1)(b) to (d) or section 20.1 of the Access to Information Act.

So to sum up, then: the federal government isn't entitled to refuse to disclose information to the PBO merely because it's "commercial information"; there's no reason why any third party would have to consent to the disclosure of information to the PBO; and even if one wanted to ignore the PBO's entitlement to the information requested, there's no plausible reason to suggest that sensitive information which does get disclosed would be at risk.

Now, I'm sure the Cons will simply give the Wheel of Excuses another spin even if it does get pointed out that their supposed concern for protecting information has no basis in reality. But it's still worth pointing out just how implausible their explanations actually are to make sure that the next round receives the skepticism it deserves.