I don't have a personal opinion or even a professional opinion on that at this stage of the game. But on whether it makes sense, I think it always makes sense for any organization, whether it's the government PW or a private sector organization, to constantly look at the range of options they traditionally analyze in trying to determine best value or best way forward, and to ensure they haven't become wed to a single set of options.
So the degree to which the sale and leaseback initiative introduces another option into the analysis is helpful. Whether it ultimately makes sense or not will depend on a myriad of details, as you would know--the number of bidders, the timing, not just the bidding price but the lease values, the terms and conditions around those leases, etc.
The other thing about the initiative that is worth noting--and you alluded to it at the very beginning--is the perspective you need to keep in mind as you consider this sort of exploratory or innovative analysis PW are doing. They are looking at nine buildings at this stage. They own about 380 buildings. I presume the nine they're talking about will give them a sense of whether this initiative has merit or not. From that point of view it can be a useful learning tool.
I would assure the committee that the initiative is part of a multi-pronged strategy that PW have always used. They have always leased buildings. What is different about this is the sale and leaseback feature. My understanding is that in this initiative they are trying to take advantage of the current market conditions and negotiate a sale and a leaseback arrangement that takes advantage of the government's reputation as a very credible tenant. So they're trying to leverage those two things and at the same time off-load some of the risk exposure they feel the government is unnecessarily carrying right now in terms of real property.