Debates of March 16th, 1994

Supply

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for her comments.

She mentioned in her speech several measures that the government is taking to protect Canadian publishing and Canadian

culture. I would point out that the effects of protective-type measures like that are very punitive, particularly for the consumer of culture. They lead to higher taxes, higher costs and less choice. They uphold inefficient businesses and they really do imply that somehow our culture is inferior to the culture that comes from other countries.

I also point out that culture is very dynamic and it is always moving and really is subject to change. The borders cannot stop that influence any more. We see a lot of that coming in anyway. I would argue that it is also necessary to have that type of influence to keep a culture fresh. Without that we get an inbred culture and a very nationalistic, very petty and very mean culture. That is a problem that a sovereign Quebec would have to deal with.

I also believe that when governments interfere and make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes culture it is extremely inappropriate. Culture is a very personal matter and we must let the consumer be sovereign.

Why does the government not want to let the consumer drive the cultural industry in Canada? Why is it afraid to let consumers make those types of decisions? Why is it afraid to let consumers decide what constitutes art, what constitutes a good novel and what constitutes the type of culture they want to be a part of and enjoy?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member earlier applauding the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition when he mentioned that this government should not have proceeded with the sale of Ginn.

In purely financial terms which the Reform Party is always harping on, the Reform Party should be applauding the initiative taken by this government. In its own very narrow terms, the sale of Ginn gives the Canadian government $10 million for its coffers.

This is an interesting twist because the Reform Party is always preaching that the government should get out of the business world except when it becomes an issue in the media.

Let me reassure the hon. member that if any responsible government wants to tailor a sound cultural policy, and I hope the hon. member wants a sound Canadian cultural policy, if it chooses not to lose its shirt on one deal, it is sound judgment and sound cultural policy. This government will not be throwing Canadian taxpayers' money away.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to respond and to suggest some other possible approach for the government.

We are not advocating that we return to the Baie Comeau policy at all. We do not believe in that. What we are saying is that if there were a policy in place and there were some rules to be followed, then those rules should be followed. If we are going to set some guidelines, then let us make sure that everybody knows what they are and follow them.

Having said that, we support moving away from cultural protectionism and we would hope the government will realize that is no longer appropriate in the world. The type of protectionism we have in this country today simply is not working. It leads to some division in the country in that the government makes arbitrary decisions about what constitutes something as personal as culture.

I would argue that is an inappropriate role for the government. That is why we have an uproar when the National Art Gallery buys paintings with taxpayers' money that most people cannot see the value of.

My comments are to encourage the government to move away from that type of protectionism and to let the consumer decide what constitutes culture.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians had the good judgment to elect a Liberal government.

It is the intent of this government to present Canadians with sound cultural policy initiatives which I hope even the hon. member will come to appreciate.

I am still confused about the apparent contradiction in his statements. Is it the member's intent that we should buy back Ginn? Is that what he is suggesting by his earlier statements?

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from entering into the debate between the government and the Reform member about Canadian culture, consumer choice, other than to say that we can only have consumer choice if there is something to choose from.

If multinationals occupy all of our theatres, all of the bookstores, all of the magazine racks and Canadians do not have a choice, how in the hell can one have choice? That is my question, pardon the language, to the member of the Reform Party.

In the same vein, I would like to ask the member of the government about enhancing Canadian choice and at the same time allowing the sale of both Macmillan and Ginn to Paramount which will reduce choice.

Would the government be in agreement to have a full and open investigation on this since obviously it was the former Conservative government that entered into this bad deal? Obviously there were not written agreements but verbal agreements, some say by a cabinet minister making a phone call.

There are indications that when a publisher visits Ottawa enquiring about Ginn and gets a response from Paramount there is something very odious and very fishy going on here.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree that a full and open inquiry is needed to bring the body on the table to properly look into what happened so that we and the rest of Canadians would know what exactly the former government undertook to sell out Canadian cultural interests?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the publishing world must be looking at this debate to rank the abilities of the aspiring mystery writers in this Chamber.

There is no mystery surrounding Ginn. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry have both been rich in their explanation on the sale of Ginn. They have provided us with the richest details on the sale. The deal is transparent.

I must be suffering from a lapse of memory because I do not recall the hon. member's speaking up in defence of Canadian cultural industries when his party went to the U.S. to produce a campaign video. Perhaps he is gripped with the culture of convenience or the convenience of the cultural issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle will have the floor in a few moments, as I think he is aware.

Since time allotted for questions and comments has expired, I now give the floor to the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today is probably one of the most important that we have had to deal with in this House since the beginning of the session. It concerns Canadian identity and cultural sovereignty and its consequences, and the identity and cultural sovereignty of Quebec.

In effect, the motion refers directly to that important form of cultural expression represented by the book publishing industry.

Let us look at a few facts, Mr. Speaker. In 1985, Mr. Masse, who was commucations minister at the time, announced a new policy regarding investments in publishing companies in Canada and Quebec. This policy became known as the Baie Comeau policy and its goal was to ensure that the Canadian publishing industry can play its role fully in all regions of Canada.

To this end, Mr. Masse declared his department would view favourably transactions to create new companies as well as corporate acquisition initiatives, so long as the proposed investment were mostly Canadian. Direct or indirect acquisition of companies by foreign concerns would be authorized provided that the control of these companies was returned to Canadians or Quebecers within two years.

In 1986, the federal government authorized Paramount to take over Prentice-Hall on condition that Paramount divest itself of its shares in Ginn Publishing for the company to become Canadian-controlled.

In 1988, the government bought 51 per cent of Ginn's shares through Canada Development Investment Corporation to make sure Paramount would not hold the stock indefinitely, in accordance with the Baie Comeau policy. Observers did point out the high cost of the transaction at the time, CIDC having negotiated the acquisition price directly with Paramount instead of through an adjudicator as required in the Baie Comeau policy. Furthermore, at the time of purchase, CDIC stressed that it intended to sell the company back to Canadian interests.

In 1992, the Baie Comeau policy was reviewed by Perrin Beatty. The imperative was maintained, in that a non-Canadian was not authorized to acquire an existing company under Canadian control. However, foreign investors were allowed to acquire Canadian and Quebec publishing companies if they were able to prove that these companies were in dire financial straits and that Canadians and Quebecers had had a fair chance to bid on the companies.

In the U.S., on February 14, Viacom purchased Paramount. Investment Canada will soon be looking at the repercussions of this transaction in Canada.

Four days later, hardly five months after they came to power, the Liberals agreed to sell two publishing companies to Paramount: Ginn Publishing, whose shares were sold back to Paramount at the price paid in 1989, that is, $10.3 million, and Maxwell Macmillan, purchased by Prentice-Hall Canada, a Canadian subsidiary of Paramount.

Here are some of the issues raised by these transactions.

Let us start with Ginn Publishing. Since February 18, the government has said repeatedly that it had to sell back to Paramount the shares it had purchased in this company in 1989, at the price paid in 1989, on the basis of a verbal agreement made by someone in the previous government.

The question we have been asking since the beginning of this affair has remained unanswered so far. I will ask it again today: Who made a commitment, when, and where, to sell the Ginn Publishing shares back to Paramount? A ghost who haunts the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and leaves verbal traces? I am inclined to believe this when I read in Hansard what the minister said last Thursday in reply to one of my questions, and I quote: ``I said that I did not see the contract, since it was an oral one and naturally could not be seen''.

Why does the government continue to abide by verbal agreements supposedly made by the previous government? Why, in this case, is it making a decision that goes against the interests of the publishing industry and violates Canada's policy on foreign investment in this industry?

Why does the government not rescind that decision? After being sworn in, it courageously fulfilled one of its promises and cancelled the helicopter contract, even though it knew that there would be costs involved. And the government did not hesitate to cancel the privatization of Pearson Airport, even though it ran the risk of being prosecuted.

Why does the Liberal government so directly and openly violate Canadian policy on foreign investment in the field of publishing? This policy clearly states that the takeover of an existing company under Canadian control by a non-Canadian will not be authorized. This is as clear as can be.

Why does the Liberal government violate so wilfully this policy by rejecting all the offers and requests for information it has received regarding this issue? Why did it not follow up on the representations made by Reidmore Books in Edmonton, and by Canada Publishing Corporation, McClelland & Stewart and Fitzhenry & Whiteside, in Toronto, to name but a few?

These Canadian companies have publicly stated their interest in buying Ginn Publishing. Why did the Liberal government not call for tenders, in compliance with the intentions stated in 1989 by the Canada Development Investment Corporation?

Unfortunately, the list of questions is incomplete. But the real lesson to be drawn from this episode is that as soon as the government has the possibility to choose between Canadian interests and those of some mysterious entity influencing what goes on behind the closed doors of the Cabinet meeting room, it forgets Canadian interests. Tell me then: What weight do those cultural exemptions included in agreements signed with the United States carry? This political decision is a national disgrace.

In the end, one wonders if Ginn Publishing was ever really under Canadian control. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said in this House that, technically speaking, CDIC had indeed bought Ginn Publishing in 1989, but that a number of legal issues still had to be settled with Paramount before shares could be offered to Canadians. The parliamentary secretary added that, in fact, CDIC was not in a position to actively look for someone to buy its shares in Ginn, as long as some issues remained unsettled.

The situation appears to have been such that, according to Jamie Portamn, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen , Paramount retained veto power over the choice of the eventual buyer. And when Ron Besse sent his lobbyists to the Liberal Party, it was Paramount that phoned him to find out what he wanted.

Could it be that those legal issues still to be settled, mentioned by referred the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, are only excuses used by the government to have time to amend its nationalist policy on ownership of publishing companies?

Could it be that this delay between the coming and going of shares from Paramount to Paramount was only to allow CDIC to make an interest-free loan of $10.3 million to Paramount, with money paid by Canadian and Quebec taxpayers? In this episode, Canada lost, while Paramount won.

How can the government claim that federalism is the best way to protect Canadian and Quebec cultures when it is prepared to so openly violate its own policy and sell our publishing industry to Americans? Are there two policies regarding investments in the publishing industry: The one which Canadians know but which is not implemented, and the one which non-Canadians know and which is dictates government action?

As regards the takeover of Ginn Publishing, I agree with Mr. Karl Siegler, the President of the Association des éditeurs canadiens, when he says that what is at stake here are Canadian cultural sovereignty and identity.

Every country in the world protects its cultural industry. At the first opportunity that presented itself in Canada to the ministers of Canadian heritage, industry, finance, and finally to the cabinet as a whole, they preferred to abandon the defence of Canadian cultural interests. That does not bode well for the future. We must continue, therefore, to watch this bunch of Don Quixotes very carefully as they cannot count on the presence of essentials to bring them down to earth again.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying through you to the hon. member that in no way, shape or form are we defending the previous government's Baie Comeau book publishing policy. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage stated that quite clearly in her previous remarks.

The difficulty that we have in this particular transaction is the fact that in 1986 when Gulf and Western committed to sell 51 per cent of Ginn within two years, it could not find a Canadian buyer. At that time the government directed the CDIC to offer to buy the 51 per cent. We are talking now in 1986. This is not three weeks before an election date, like when you compare it to the helicopter transaction where we had taken a public policy

position during the campaign. It is not like Pearson International Airport where the deal was done two weeks before the final vote and we declared our position. This was a transaction that emanated in 1986.

We inherited this completed transaction. Does the member think that when a transaction went back that far that there is some responsibility on us or is the member suggesting that we just ignore all of these contracts, some of them going back three, four and five years?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

The problem with my hon. colleague's question, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes reference to several questions we have asked in this House, to which contradictory answers were given. We have never been able to get a clear answer from this government. They duck questions, claiming that it was the previous government that had entered into an agreement with Paramount. We ask to see this agreement, but it cannot be produced. We are told it was a verbal agreement. What is a verbal agreement worth? Who made it? We have asked that question over and over. Who spoke to whom, when, why? Basic stuff. We never got an answer.

The Baie Comeau policy was changed by Mr. Beatty, a member of the Conservative government, in June 1992 I believe. The government, which may or may not carry out a given transaction, can still keep an eye on things. It did not hesitate to expose itself to a $200 million lawsuit from Pearson International Airport. So do not try to delude me into believing that decisions in cultural matters are not as political as those regarding helicopters! I think that they are hiding behind something; I think that they are trying to protect someone. What is to gain? For whom? It is suspicious! That is why we are requesting a public inquiry into this matter.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly delighted that the Bloc is taking such an interest in Canada's identity and cultural situation. I find myself lacking considerable sympathy with the member for Medicine Hat who seems to think our cultural industries can survive entirely on their own. I wish I could ask him whether or not he has bought a Canadian book recently but I do not have that opportunity.

My question to the hon. member opposite is this. In the context of the powerful cultural invasion from the United States does she feel that we are better off, both anglophones and francophones, united against cultural aggression from the United States rather than separate?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that a degree of commonality will continue to exist between us as Canadians even if we become separate in Quebec.

Our goal in this debate is to protect Canadian culture. When we leave, we want Canada to be strong and have a strong cultural identity. We do not want it to be assimilated by the United States. We want it to be able to sell us and continue to trade with us elements of our cultures. Part of our heritage will not just disappear. We will not cut all trade relations with Canada just because we have gained sovereignty. On the contrary! We will want to continue to trade with Canada, but if we get a better price in the United States for books, Canada will starve culturally because we will buy directly from our neighbour to the south.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time allocated to questions and comments has now expired. My apologies, hon. colleagues.

I was following the exchange between the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle and the parliamentary secretary too closely and I misread my list. Before the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, it should have been the turn of the Reform Party, the member for Calgary Southeast. It seemed easier, rather than interrupt the member, to let her finish and then to go back to the Reform Party which should have had the floor. I will have the second round for the Bloc after the member for Calgary Southeast has spoken. With your permission I will call on the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak with deep concern on an issue that has been percolating in the news for weeks and has come to the floor of the House numerous times in question period. I am talking specifically about the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc., what I call the Ginngate affair.

The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion that appears to protect the Canadian cultural identity. It is appearing to champion Canadian culture. However, the BQ represents no cultural, political or economic interests outside of Quebec. It is hoping that Canadians will believe that the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, actually cares about the interests of the whole country.

The members of that party have stated unequivocally that they are in the House to look after the interests of Quebec and to set the stage for separation.

This motion is not about culture. This motion is about how business is conducted in this country. The motion of the Bloc calls for an investigation of the process that was followed in the sale of Ginn Publishing.

The Baie Comeau policy will not protect Canadian culture. What will protect Canadian culture is an open and competitive marketplace. However, I do agree with my Bloc colleagues that there is a need for a thorough investigation, a complete one, of the sale of Ginn Publishing, not to protect Canadian culture but to ensure that the marketplace is fair and open.

It is clear that the former Tory government violated its own policy. But this government has done worse. It has lacked the political will to halt the sale, claiming that some vague and tenuous legal obligation requires it to sell. This is in direct conflict with the stance these members took when they were in opposition.

Let us look at the history of the sale because this is where it becomes clear that there are many irregularities within the process of the sale as it unfolded. Let us look first at the players.

There is the past Tory government that began the cover-up. There is the current Liberal government that has continued the cover-up. There is the Canadian book publishing industry, the Canadian public and the members of this House, all of whom are the victims of this whole affair.

Here is a brief history of Ginngate. In 1985 the Tories implemented the Baie Comeau policy. In 1985 Paramount bought Ginn. In 1988 the CDIC bought Ginn from Paramount. In 1992 the Tories abandoned the Baie Comeau policy. In 1994 the CDIC sold Ginn back to Paramount. This is an innocuous history. But let us dig a little deeper.

During the 34th Parliament when some members of the present government were in opposition, Gulf and Western, an American company, bought Ginn Publishing Incorporated. When this sale occurred the Baie Comeau policy of the former government was in effect.

The Baie Comeau policy required that a foreign owned business which had acquired a Canadian magazine or book publishing company must sell controlling interest back to a Canadian firm within two years. If the foreign company was unable to do this the Canadian government would buy the controlling interest of the Canadian firm. The government would direct the Canadian Development and Investment Corporation, CDIC, to buy controlling interests and then it in turn would attempt to sell that interest to a Canadian firm.

In 1988 the federal government ordered the CDIC to buy Ginn. This sale appears to be in keeping with the Baie Comeau policy. However, there are two problems here. First, Investment Canada never investigated Paramount to determine if it had made a real and earnest attempt to sell Ginn to a Canadian buyer.

Second, the CDIC was supposed to pay only a fair market value for Ginn. However the government would not disclose how much was actually paid for Ginn. The amount of the original sale has never been officially reported to the House or to the Canadian taxpayer. It has been alleged that CDIC offered and paid a value much higher than what Ginn was worth, an estimated $10.3 million, the same amount that it is now reported to be getting from Paramount for Ginn.

Experts in the industry and competitive bidders suggest that the company was worth only about $3 million or $4 million in 1985. Why then did CDIC pay up to three times the fair market value for this company? The Canadian taxpayers have the right to know.

The former government would not tell the House the amount that was paid, and this government seems quite content to follow in those footsteps despite its commitment to open and honest government. Small wonder, is it not, that a poll released today shows that only 2 per cent of Canadians believe what their parliamentarians say?

If the government continues to show this kind of disdain for all the members of the House and the people of Canada, it will suffer the same fate as that of the previous government.

The facts raised thus far in and of themselves merit an investigation. However the fiasco continued. Once the CDIC controlled Ginn, it was required to find a Canadian buyer. Under the Tories the minister of regional industrial expansion guaranteed to the House that every effort would be made to respect the principle of Canadian ownership and primacy within our book publishing industry. However, between 1988 when CDIC bought Ginn and 1994 when Ginn was sold to Paramount, no Canadian buyer was able to acquire a controlling interest in the company.

I know of three Canadian companies that tried to buy Ginn Publishing. All of their attempts were thwarted. Gage Distribution Company, McClelland & Stewart and Edmonton's Reidmore Books all made efforts to buy Ginn. None of their efforts were taken seriously. In one instance when a bidder wished to discuss the sale he was directed to the board of Paramount, not to CDIC. Who was conducting the sale? CDIC or Paramount?

The Reform's position is clear. We do not oppose foreign ownership. We do oppose the former government violating its own policy. We oppose the process of a sale that treats Canadian firms unfairly and precludes them from bidding on a company. We oppose the government's willingness to weakly follow suit and to keep Canadian companies from competing fairly in the marketplace. Instead the government undertakes a weak decision and watches specific expertise in the book publishing industry become compromised and lost. Job redundancy in Ginn means job loss for Canadians.

The Liberal red ink book becomes gasping rhetoric. The government claims that it wishes to create jobs. We have heard it all before: "We have a plan: jobs, jobs, jobs". But the plan in this instance seems one that destroys job opportunities. We need to keep the jobs we have in Canada.

On another point, when the Liberal Party was in opposition it spoke vociferously against the sale of Ginn. Now that it is the government all that was said seems to have been forgotten. Let me take a few minutes to remind the House and members of the government when in opposition of the position they took on the sale of Ginn. I have some historical statements from the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. All these ministers when in opposition spoke at great length against the sale of Ginn.

In 1985 the member for Winnipeg South Centre pleaded with the minister of regional industrial expansion, and I quote from Hansard , ``to give a very clear signal to foreign investors that at least in this one area we are not going to accept foreign ownership; in this one area we are going to protect our Canadian culture''. He went on to ask:

Will the government establish a very clear statement in the publishing industry that the dominant element must be Canadian? Will he reject the application for Ginn and Co.? If he believes in Canadian culture, why did he not make a decision today and turn down the application?

That same member made another plea in 1985. He stated:

Surely if the legislation denotes a consideration for cultural industries, then sufficient time should be allocated to ensure that all the questions pertaining to the acquisition are properly examined, and, most important, that the minister has sufficient time to make arrangements for alternative buyers in the Canadian marketplace.

This sentiment could not mirror any better the intent of what we would like to see accomplished. We are not calling for the government to reject outright the sale of Ginn. We simply want to ensure that from 1985 until today all reasonable means have been followed to allow Canadian companies a fair opportunity to bid on Ginn Publishing. This is about business.

The minister's comments clearly demonstrate his support once upon a time for our position. We anticipate his support and that of his colleagues on our motion.

Further, the member for Mount Royal expressed a concern that bears investigation. She asked:

Is the government prepared to admit that it is betraying its own policy, that it is backing off under pressure from the Americans in the interests of free trade?

The member thought the question deserved an answer in 1988. Now that she is a minister surely she is able to provide for the House the answer to the question she asked.

The member for Mount Royal stated that the government paid too much for Ginn when she said that the equity was purchased at an incredibly inflated price. If the sale bothered her in 1989, does it not bother her today? When the member was in opposition she appeared concerned about how taxpayer dollars were spent. How can she now show such a lack of willingness to investigate the misuse of taxpayer dollars? The government is contemptuous in the extreme.

The next statements demonstrate perfectly why an investigation is needed. They demonstrate that the government does not know what has transpired regarding the sale of Ginn. The government should have access to all pertinent information needed to clarify the situation and to answer all the questions. Yet it still does not have its story straight, or so we are led to believe.

On February 22 of this year the Minister of Industry admitted to the House that Ginn was up for sale but that no acceptable offers were made. Just two days later the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stated that CDIC was at no time in a position to market its interest in Ginn.

The government first admitted that the company was up for sale but two days later it admitted that it had never been up for sale. This blatant contradiction staggers me. Which of these stories is true? These glaring inconsistencies cause great suspicion. The government claims there is a verbal commitment requiring the sale of Ginn to Paramount, but the government will not tell the public who made this alleged legal commitment and it will not tell the public what that legal commitment was.

What is this government hiding? If all these commitments are legitimately legal and binding as the government suggests, why will it not demonstrate this to the House and to the people of Canada?

Since it has come into office the government has broken at least two legal commitments. It is facing legal action for cancelling the Pearson International Airport contract. That has been mentioned before in the House today. The government also moved quickly to cancel the EH-101 deal. That decision cost millions of dollars in compensation and many Canadian jobs. This is precedent setting. Where is the consistency?

We need a public investigation of the government's contradictions and inconsistency to determine what has really happened with Ginngate.

It is clear that many questions need to be answered by the government. I sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking five questions. It has not yet been acknowledged. I conclude from this that either no one knows the answers to my questions or, if known, there is no desire for full disclosure. Whatever the case, the only way to get clear answers is for a public investigation. Such an investigation would answer the preceding questions and the five following ones that I put to the Prime Minister.

First, how can the government explain the contradictions evident in this sale with the red book policy on the protection of Canadian arts and culture?

Second, how does the government explain away the offers to purchase Ginn by several members of the Canadian business community during the period from 1989 to 1994?

Third, what happens to our Canadian publishing industry after February 15, 1999 when Paramount's investment agreements cease?

Fourth, why was a specific job loss figure not included in the press release of February 18, 1994? I understand that job losses could reach as high as 60 per cent.

Fifth, how can the government ignore the provisions of the Investment Canada Act and undertake a private agreement which precludes the sale of a Canadian firm to a foreign company except in extraordinary circumstances?

Again Reform supports the notion of an investigation to allow for freer competition in the Canadian cultural marketplace. This motion is not about protecting Canadian culture from within or from being co-opted by foreign cultural influences from without. It is about allowing the market to run its due course without needless and harmful protection or undue government regulation.

The Reform Party believes that a strong Canadian cultural community has a positive influence on Canada's national identity. We will not help to develop this community by implementing protectionist measures. Canadian magazine and book publishers should be allowed to flourish in an open competitive marketplace.

Erecting barriers to protect this industry implies that Canadians produce a mediocre or inferior product and cannot compete. This is simply not the case. Canada has a magazine and book publishing industry that is capable of competing with any market. I propose that we let it do so.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words "by renewing the Baie Comeau policy adopted in 1985 and"

[The Deputy Speaker]

The table officer indicates the amendment that has been moved is in order. It is an acceptable amendment.

Before returning to debate, there is still the period of questions and comments to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had five questions for the Prime Minister and now I have three for her.

First, the hon. member refers to the fact that three Canadian companies were willing to bid for Ginn. Does she have any idea whether each of them is willing to pay $10.3 million or not?

Second, if they were not willing to pay that sum but something closer to $3 million, where does she propose the $7 million difference might come from? Does she propose adding it to our national debt?

The third question is really a more philosophical one. I would like a little understanding of whether we or the previous government should have intervened or not intervened on the sale of Ginn.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the questions from the hon. member. I will take his questions in order.

The hon. member asked about the three Canadian companies that were prepared to purchase Ginn. In telephone conversations that we have had with those companies there was a willingness and a searching for an opportunity to become involved in the tendering process. There is some question about the inflated value at this point about Ginn and that answer will also suffice with respect to question number two.

I have a sense that when we look at that inflated price it comes back to the lack of revelation in terms of the actual purchase price of CDIC of Ginn Publishing in the first place. There is some real confusion with respect to how that was initiated and took place.

Because there are still so many questions surrounding the initial sale and the moneys that exchanged I have to say to the hon. member that he too is speculating on those numbers with respect to the many millions of dollars paid.

On the matter of philosophy, I do believe that entrepreneurship is a spirit in this country that needs to be generated and promoted. I am very much in favour of competition in the free marketplace. I do believe that governments should get out of business. That is my bottom line.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, allow me to congratulate the hon. member of the Reform Party on her speech which, in my opinion, was very sound. I want to thank her for recognizing the timeliness of the motion put forward by the Bloc and by my colleague from Rimouski. I would, however, like to make two brief comments.

First, I would just like to gently remind my hon. colleague that the official opposition is very concerned about Canadian culture. The proof of this is that we initiated and welcomed a debate on this subject.

As the official opposition, we are acting responsibly and with conviction. And if we are here in this House reaffirming our primary goal, which is to create a francophone country in the Americas to complement the Canadian, American or Spanish cultures and all countries of the Americas, it is only because we wish to put a new country on the map.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if there was really a question to answer there. However, I have to say to the hon. member that it is a very difficult issue when we are looking at cultural identity. I feel great concern when we have a challenge put forward to us almost daily on the floor of this House from a party that is bent on separation. Those opening remarks in my presentation were placed there because of the very different ideologies through which we came to this discussion.

I do acknowledge that the Bloc Quebecois has been adamant and unceasing in its search for an answer to this question. However, I acknowledge it on the basis of process. Like we are trying to do, it is trying to uncover process. That has very little to do, in my view, with the differing cultural ideologies that we bring to the floor.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on the hon. member's answer to the last question.

It was clear that there were no offers made to purchase Ginn from these three Canadian companies. What she told us was that they may have expressed an interest in that which is very well and good but it is a long way from actually making an offer. CDIC has told us clearly that there was no offers ever received for the purchase of these companies from anybody. There were opportunities on several occasions for offers to be made but there was never an offer made.

The hon. member has said she might be interested, that might be nice. It is nice after the fact when one never has to cough up the $10.3 million, but there was never really an offer made and the hon. member has just stated that.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really question the tone and tenor of the hon. member's question.

I question whether CDIC is telling the truth. There were three companies that were contacted by telephone by my office and they indicated that they had wanted to purchase Ginn Publishing Incorporated.

[An hon. member]

Did they make an offer?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer this question to the best of my ability and I would like to do that without interruption.

I do not recall saying that would be nice or this would be nice. I stated in my text that all of their attempts had been thwarted. The three companies again are Gage Distribution Company, McClelland & Stewart and Edmonton's Reidmore Books Inc. They all had made efforts to buy Ginn Incorporated. They are Canadian companies and should have had an opportunity to participate in the tendering process. They did not have that opportunity.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find the question from the government side either naive or misleading. Even the minister and CDIC have admitted that they could not accept any offers because there were so many technicalities that still had not been resolved.

For the government member to now stand up and say they never received any concrete offers is ludicrous to me. That is my statement.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the hon. member's comments and express my appreciation for his support on this last question.