First of all, Madam Chair, I'd like to correct the record. Mr. Moore quoted me earlier, and I'd like to read the entire quote so that the record is clear.
My comment to Minister Fortier was:
I guess the concern is that we don't have the study that was used to justify the sale in terms of it being a good deal for Canadians. That's still an open question. Because it is such a long-term lease, I guess it's a fair question: is it in the interest of Canadians? We don't have disclosure of the contract with the banks. We don't know what their gain will be. We don't know who chose these two banks to handle this deal. And while you're talking about a fairness assessment, we don't yet have that. Which of these documents are we going to be able to get? Will we get the fairness assessment [...] ?
And it goes on. It's more questions.
So I want to correct the record. I do not believe this is a good deal for Canadians. No one who has only the limited information that this committee has been allowed to receive can make that assessment on this committee. I think that's the nub of the question. We don't know if it's a good deal for Canadians.
Not only do we not have the specifics of this particular transaction, as my quote says, we don't have the assessment done by the two banks that would even justify why the proposal for sale has gone forward. We don't even have an overall analysis of why, in principle, a sale and 25-year leaseback, with similar kinds of conditions, is a good proposal. We've not seen examples of other situations where—