Mr. Chairman, in addition to Groupaction and Groupe Everest there is the problem with Canada Lands. The minister's predecessor who is now Ambassador to Denmark seemed to be embroiled in something there.
I will give some background as to how Canada Lands operates. The fundamental concept is that when the government wants to dispose of property it transfers it to Canada Lands and takes back a promissory note for the approximate value. When the land is sold the promissory note is repaid with cash from the sale of the property. It is a fairly simple transaction. It is not that complicated.
However with Downsview Park Inc. some property was sold there for $19 million. Rather than repaying the promissory note it was used as a cash flow to start running a business of property development. This was outside the confines of the rules of parliament which say the money should have gone to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Why did it not come back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund? That is question number one.
The other point is that there were two loans of $50 million each, totalling $100 million interest free for 49 years. The government does not expect to see it again because it is now treating it on financial statements as equity rather than a debt to the Government of Canada.
Why is the minister permitting that situation when Canada Lands and Downsview Park are not subject to the Access to Information Act?