Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to our witnesses. I think everyone shares our passion of purpose on this. There obviously are some differences of opinion, but it's just that. If you were to talk to Canadians in general, you'd probably have 30 million different opinions. Our duty as a committee is to report not on what we want, wish, feel, see, not just what tears at the heart, but the factual information that is presented to this committee. That's the one point that sort of does concern me with your position right now, although certainly no offence is meant from this.
Obviously, as stated by Mr. Moore, we've had the minister directly, five times, before this committee on the issue. We have heard from many, many expert witnesses, whether in the private field, the public field, or the educational field. We've heard from professors, ministers, deputy ministers, financial experts. We've heard a pile of pros and cons on this entire topic.
The committee came to its deliberations based on the testimony that was given, the specific testimony on specific topics, on specific rental leases--understanding, of course, that the devil can be in the details in many leaseback arrangements and/or whatever else notwithstanding.
As an example, the CBC building in Toronto has been deemed by many in the professional field to be one of the most idealistic lease arrangements that they have seen. It really covered both ends of the spectrum, with built-in protection for both owner and lessee. The decision to learn from of all of these things and the information that came to this committee really established the best practices for us to go forward.
That's why I really think it's incumbent on you to fully evaluate the testimony that has been given here and perhaps come back to this committee, after having fully evaluated all of the detailed testimony from previous governments, in addition to our government's--and all of the other independent parties'--on this issue.
I'm not suggesting your assessment might not be correct--it might not change, or it might--but I really have difficulty with, “Well, in the opinion of The Globe and Mail....” With all due respect to our national media, they obviously didn't sit through the hours and hours of testimony from the witnesses that this committee did before it passed its opinion. Unfortunately, a number of our new committee members here as well, although well-intentioned, did not listen either to the countless hours of testimony on this issue that this committee did before passing judgment.
We have not come up with our final conclusions, obviously, and your testimony is important. Might I ask you once again, what particular comment, what particular statement, what particular testimony are you in direct contradiction with or do not agree with?
I think it's an unfair question to ask you right now....