Thank you, Chair.
I apologize for my voice. I've been the recipient of the head cold that's going around town.
Thank you to our guests for their presentations.
I will start with the finance department, Mr. Botham. Going back to what Ms. Hall Findlay was trying to establish here, I think part of the confusion lies in the way the numbers were presented, going back to the fiscal update and then of course the budget.
In the fiscal update, the finance minister himself did admit that his numbers were a bit rosy in terms of savings. He declared that at one point he was going to do the $4.3 billion in savings; he combined the two. The problem we're having, though, is that when it came to the budget and the way that was laid out, the charts were different. In the fiscal update, we had one set of numbers established one way and laid out one way, but in the budget it was a different way. I think that's probably part of our concern. It's how the numbers are laid out and therefore what exactly the targets are.
As well, there is still an outstanding question for the government as to what happens if they don't meet these savings and reviews and the sale of assets. It's not a question for you, but for the government.
But here's my question: if you're being asked--and I'll ask the same on reviews--to find a certain amount of money for assets, how are you being told to do this? Are you being told it's something that has to be done? Is it according to the criteria that it will be “a considered approach to the sale of any asset, including taking into account the condition of markets, to ensure that fair value can be realized by taxpayers and the transaction will generate additional economic activity”? As well, states the budget, “Assets will not be sold if such sales do not meet these tests”. That rolls off the tongue nicely.
Are you being told explicitly that if you don't meet this test, you don't sell the asset?