Why Canadians should mourn the lost art of budget secrecy

Once upon a time, the federal budget contents were a carefully guarded secret until the Finance Minister rose in the House of Commons to announce the budget. Secrecy is not a statutory requirement but, as pointed out by former
house speaker John Fraser in 1987
,

“Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information.”

So, again, budget secrecy is intended to
prevent insiders from gaining an unfair advantage from advance knowledge of tax/spending measures, or from using market sensitive information.
 

Historically, budget secrecy has been taken very seriously. In the U.K., where much of our Parliamentary Convention is taken from, any breach of budget secrecy could lead to the resignation of the chancellor of the exchequer, the U.K. equivalent of the finance minister. In Canada, our Parliamentary Convention has been less strict. For example, in 1983, finance minister Marc Lalonde
inadvertently leaked budget documents
by letting a television crew film him in his office, where copies of the budget were sitting on his desk before their release. This generated quite the stir, but Lalonde did not resign. 
 

In 1989, finance minister Michael Wilson was the
subject of a leak
when
television reporter
Doug Small
revealed the government’s budget on-air after receiving the document from a person who worked at a recycling plant where copies of the budget had been disposed. Small revealed various spending cuts and tax increases laid out in the budget. Wilson reacted by introducing the budget early in a quickly arranged press conference. He did not resign, but criminal charges were filed against Small and others who were involved in obtaining the documents. The charges were later dropped.

For the past 20 years or so, there has been a deliberate erosion of budget secrecy. Prior to budget day, many of the spending announcements — especially the larger ones — have been purposely “leaked” or announced by the government of the day. Many new tax measures are also “strategically” leaked to friendly journalists.
In recent years, budget day has become a theatrical formality — with most of the substance already leaked or announced in advance.
 

In my opinion, the “leak/advance announcement” culture has enabled governments to frame the public narrative and secure buy-in from media ahead of the formal release.

Some are not troubled by this shift, positing that budget secrecy
undermines democratic accountability by limiting public and parliamentary debate before key decisions are made. They claim that announcements in advance allow stakeholders to prepare, prevents political spin and improves policy outcomes through broader consultation. In an age of open data and rapid information flow, they say, strict budget secrecy is outdated, unrealistic and counterproductive.
 

Well, I disagree. More on this in a bit. But first, let’s review the leaks and pre-announcements affecting the current budget:
 

1. It has been leaked and reported that the so-called “tax evasion” loophole in the trucking industry will be shut down by giving more money to the Canada Revenue Agency to perform audits. While the reporting is sensational (there is no “tax evasion” going on here), more money for the CRA is a dubious solution at best. They have much bigger systemic issues to deal with than throwing money at their latest pet project.
2. The National Post — quoting “government sources”—  wrote on Oct. 29 that the upcoming budget will include measures to allow companies to write off their new machinery and other capital costs more aggressively;
3. Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Oct. 10 that automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians will be part of the upcoming budget. We’ll see if there is any meat and progress to this announcement given the fact that recent budgets have also promised this; 
4. On Oct. 27, the Department of Finance stated that, “Budget 2025 will introduce a temporary five-year Personal Support Workers Tax Credit. Eligible workers will be able to claim a refundable tax credit equal to five per cent of their eligible earnings, providing support of up to $1,100 per year.” This was part of a one-line promise in the Liberal Party’s recent election policy platform and it’s now confirmed that the budget will carry through with this.  

We’ll see if there are any further “tax surprises” on Nov. 4 but my suspicions are that there won’t be much given the current culture of
leaks and advance announcements in which we currently live.

As mentioned above, some argue that budget secrecy undermines democratic accountability and that advance transparency gives stakeholders time to react and improves public debate. Nonsense. What we have is simple narrative control. 
 

Strategic leaks to friendly journalists or announcements made well in advance of the budget manufacture consent and curate media buy-in.
If anything, it reduces the chance for honest analysis by replacing real-time scrutiny with pre-packaged scripts and rehearsed political narratives (such as the nauseous and vacuous “

spend less to invest more

” slogan, which is just another way to say our deficits and spending are going to be massive!).
 

Budget secrecy — properly enforced — ensures that everyone, from markets to media to Parliament, gets the full picture at the same time. That’s not an outdated concept nor undemocratic; that’s fair and productive. 
 

While the genie may be out of the bottle, we don’t need to cheer on its escape. 
If we want real transparency, then let’s have it — not curated drips of information designed to score headlines before accountability ever enters the room.
 

As former U.K. chancellor Hugh Dalton once discovered — when he casually leaked budget content to a journalist in 1947 and was forced to resign hours later — budget secrecy isn’t just about timing. It’s about trust. Canadians deserve a process where financial decisions are revealed with the dignity and seriousness they warrant — not dribbled out in managed, politicized soundbites.
 

If we still believe in the integrity of a federal budget, we should stop treating it like a press kit — and restore the discipline it once demanded.