I do not believe the minister provided enough information to this committee for us to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it's in the best interests of taxpayers. The motion before us right now reflects the fact that committee members on this side of the table feel they do not have enough information to arrive at a conclusion. That's simply all it says.
Yes, the government side entered into a confidentiality agreement with the two banks. That was the government's decision. Yes, the minister feels he cannot breach the confidentiality agreement with those parties. That's the minister's decision. It was the government's decision to take those actions and enter into those particular agreements. It is our responsibility and our duty to represent the people who sent us here, and who actually, as taxpayers, own these buildings for all Canadians. You can't suck and blow at the same time. We have to get the information to understand whether the sale price is reasonable, the leaseback is reasonable, and this is the most prudent financing arrangement possible.
I asked the bank representatives when they were here if they'd examined the alternative of using bank capital to loan to the government, to be financed with the money we use for repairs every year, so we'd retain ownership of the buildings and perhaps hire a property management firm. Is that a reasonable option? Did they look at it? The answer from the witnesses was “Yes, we looked at it.” To the question “Can we see the numbers to see what your work-up was?” the answer was “No, that's confidential.”
Without that kind of information, we're relying upon the expertise of another party when it is still our responsibility as representatives of the people to reach a conclusion so we can go back to our constituents who may ask, “Was that a good deal that you guys sold those nine buildings for a billion and a half dollars and leased them back for 25 years? Tell me about that.” Well, I'm sorry. I don't have any information. I'm sorry, the minister couldn't tell me anything. I'm sorry, the expert witnesses couldn't provide us any facts. You as a taxpayer were deemed by the minister and the officials not important enough to have the information. I, as your representative, was deemed not significant enough to have the information for us to arrive at a conclusion as to whether this is in the interest of taxpayers.
That's the only point of this motion. That's why we're here. It's not to screw you guys over. It's not to hold the government up. It's not intended for that.
We've tried six ways by Sunday to get to this information and have been denied it. If we're going to continue to be denied it, you're asking us for a leap of faith, and I, for one, am not going to make it.