Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the copy of the letter, but I have seen copies of letters done by the department with regard to leased buildings. I understand that, when there are negotiations for these buildings, there are certain buildings that the department is reluctant to lease. They would rather spend a large amount of money just so they have the control over certain types of buildings. One of them is fire halls. The other ones are nursing stations and schools. I cannot reason why the department would choose not to make the same kind of arrangements as they do for an office complex or a recreation facility.

In times when we all have to tighten up our belts and try to spend as wisely as possible, I would think that the best direction for this government to go is with lease arrangements. This way, it doesn't cost them $500,000 or $1 million for projects in one year. Perhaps, they might even divert it to other communities that might be in need and allow the communities to construct those through the banks. They, in turn, build those capital projects and lease them to the government for an extended period of time.

The whole question is with regard to ownership. As long as the government is leasing from those corporations in the community, the ownership is still with the government, since they are paying for the facility. I don't know what their hang-up is, but I believe in the response I've been getting from the department that they feel those are areas best handled by the hamlet. The hamlets don't negotiate. All they do is get the money, it goes out to tender and the hamlets have a say in the design of the buildings. I can't reason why they would have two standards, or two policies, that govern leases of capital projects.