Government Operations Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Shirley Jen]

No.

Monsieur Roy, unfortunately I'm not aware of the particular transactions of which you speak, but I can certainly say that since the federal contaminated sites action plan was put in place a number of years ago there has been an extensive effort by all departments, including Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and National Defence, to put in place an inventory of all their contaminated sites. There's been a commitment by the government to invest billions of dollars into the assessment of these sites. We have in fact an online inventory of all these sites. There's been a fair amount of progress made on some of the smaller ones in terms of complete cleanup of the contaminants.

I would say that we have a fair amount of confidence that departments are doing their due diligence. It is a policy requirement. It's an expected requirement for the Government of Canada, when it's disposing of property, to provide information, full disclosure to whoever the vendor would be. As Mr. Hirst said, through the federal contaminated sites action plan, which is an ongoing plan and will continue certainly over the next number of years, you will in fact find that most departments have a very good handle on what sites are contaminated. In some cases, because the assessments of the degree of contamination and what kinds of contaminants have to be determined, they're not always 100% sure of what is on the site, but they suspect the site is contaminated. So then they follow up and do testing to determine exactly what is the nature of the contamination and what is required in order to do a cleanup.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Anders, for five minutes.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Oftentimes I'll sit quietly in this committee but then sometimes the people on the opposition side say things that spark me, Mr. Chair. I would like to read a few quotes into the record, because I think it's important for opposition members to remember the past and the history of their own parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Am I going to get a fire extinguisher here?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Sir, that's for you to determine.

Here's a quote:

The government is committed to privatizing and commercializing government operations wherever that is feasible and appropriate. This is a matter of common sense. .... If government doesn't need to run something, it shouldn't. And in the future, it won't.

That was said by somebody in Hansard on February 27, 1995. I wonder if members, particularly on the other side, can guess who said that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Paul Martin.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

That's very good, Mr. Chair. Excellent. That's a point for you. That's right, it was Paul Martin.

I'm going to read a second quote, and “It” is referring to the government's share in Hibernia:

It's potentially something we could do in the future. ...the Petro-Canada sale was motivated by the desire to find some cash to fund programs.... The same thinking will govern any eventual sale of Hibernia.

Now, in the National Post on March 26, 2004, who on the opposition side do you think said that they should eventually sell Hibernia for cash?

Mr. Chair, any guesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I don't want to answer that.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Ralph Goodale, MP for Wascana.

Another quote:

“There's no compelling public policy reason to retain the [Hibernia] stake. It's a matter of making the appropriate commercial decision,”.... The [at the time Liberal] government has looked on Petro-Canada as a sort of rainy day fund, and sees Hibernia the same way.

How do you like that? The National Post, March 26, 2004. I bet you can guess this one.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Please.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

That's right, Ralph Goodale, MP for Wascana.

And my last quote:

...being a landlord is not a core business of government, nor should it be. Studies show we spend more to operate our properties.... We're simply not as efficient.

This was said on October 27, 2004, at the Public Policy Forum seminar. Who do we think said that? Any guesses?

Scott Brison, member of Parliament for Kings—Hants.

I just wanted to read that into the record, Mr. Chair, on the subject of Hibernia. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Do I take it you're reading these things because you agree with them all?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I'm going to leave it open for people to comment. If our departmental officials wish to comment on that, I leave it up to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I don't think they want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. But it has been an interesting three minutes.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

In the absence of a sharing protocol over there, we'll go to Ms. Hall Findlay for five minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I will thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to say that I personally have tremendous respect for Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale and Scott Brison and that I too support efforts by the government to achieve efficiencies and to focus on what it does best. I compliment the people who are here, because that is clearly the effort they are undertaking, and I support it entirely.

So thank you, Mr. Anders, for allowing me that opportunity.

I do want to continue on my earlier questioning about the asset sales as opposed to the departmental review. I don't know who best to ask—maybe Mr. Hirst—so I'll leave it open. But there are several departments that have been pegged. Is there a reason why? Have they been chosen because there have already been some prior reviews that suggest they have assets that are more likely or more appropriate to be sold?

[Richard Botham]

There are probably a few reasons for the selection of the departments that were included in budget 2009. One, for the Minister of Finance, it is just simply that he is leading the review and decided that this department, our department, should be included, since he is taking the lead.

Second, there is a focus on economic departments. There are a number of enterprise crown corporations within Transport Canada. It is a fairly large department. It gives us an opportunity to take on a department that has pretty wide-ranging activities, since we're really initiating this review that hasn't been done—or something like it hasn't been done—for more than a decade. So it enables us to test out the process quite efficiently.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Is it safe to assume, then, that it is in fact crown corporations, as opposed to real estate, that is the target for these proposed asset sales?

[Richard Botham]

I think the target for the asset review is both enterprise crown corporations, because they are crowns that undertake commercial or quasi-commercial operations, and real estate as well, because it is an asseted value for the Government of Canada. So it is both components that are subject to the review.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I recognize it's both, but the answer to my question as to the choice of departments seemed to be that they were the economic departments that had more crown corporate activity. That led me to believe maybe that's why those departments were chosen, that there was a focus on corporate assets, corporate activity, as opposed to real estate.

[Richard Botham]

I think the answer is no. It is both elements that are subject to the review, but it is just a matter of fact that the Department of Transport has a significant number of enterprise crowns, so it made sense to include that in the first year of the review.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Are any particular ones being looked at?

[Richard Botham]

As I said, we're in the preliminary stages of developing a comprehensive list of assets and asking the department to identify real estate, as well, that they think is of interest. It will be only after we go through that process and then the subsequent short list that we'll have an idea of where the focus of the review will be. It is meant to be focused. It is going to take place within a year, and it will be comprehensive in the first instance, but more focused in terms of detailed analysis.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

But not one year. It will be focused over the course of five, to meet the targets.