Debates of March 16th, 1994

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, this is quite complicated now. We are going back, with your permission, to the time allotted to the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition allotted part of its 20 minute slot to the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle. Accordingly, I call on the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely thank the members of the Bloc for giving me an opportunity of participating in the debate.

It is an issue that I have been following. I had the privilege of raising it the first time in the House. I think it is an important issue that affects the cultural well-being and cultural future of this country and one that deserves a full debate.

I do not quite understand how government members are putting down the Bloc for showing its interest and concern about Canadian culture. I ask the government how can it argue that federalism is the preferred system under which to protect and enhance the unique cultural make-up of Canada and Quebec's distinct culture and society in Canada as a unique whole when it is willing to sell off the country's cultural markets to the Americans?

I am more concerned about what these people are doing across the way in terms of the viability and future of Canadian culture than I am right now about the Bloc.

These are the folks who are selling them off to the United States. They are the ones who should be hanging their heads in shame. It is quite amazing that they are still in the House and willing to protect and defend a decision that the former Tories made.

We have asked about this over and over again in this House, particularly the Bloc members because they have had the opportunity of revealing some of the specific details, including who made this verbal agreement. The government keeps stonewalling. We have been pressing and asking for a full public inquiry. There are things that have occurred here that demand a full and public inquiry. Let us bring it all out in the open. Let us see what the former Tories entered into in this wicked, wicked affair.

Surely anybody who is interested in Canadian culture can smell a rat here. Why not bring it out in the open? Why not expose the rat for what it is? My basic question to the Liberals is who are they trying to protect in this? Why are they so adamant about not bringing this out into the open?

To tell the truth, I was deeply shocked-and I do not say this in a rhetorical manner but in full sincerity-when I heard what the government had approved. I really expected something much different. I had worked with the Liberals in opposition, particularly on the communications and culture committees, trying to defend Canadian culture against those Tory years of rape and plunder and total unconcern for Canadian cultural identity. We worked shoulder to shoulder when the sale of Prentice-Hall and the whole episode with Ginn occurred. We stood shoulder to shoulder in opposition to this.

Now I must say there is no difference. The same show goes on. What is going on here? Initially I was concerned that the bureaucrats had misinformed the ministers. I could understand that with a new government coming in. Although, I expected a little more of the Liberals, the natural ruling party, since they after all had some experience in government and knew how to take control over the public service to make sure that the political agenda and not the bureaucratic agenda was the one in control.

I had been assured by the parliamentary secretary and everybody not to blame the bureaucrats, the ministers knew what they were doing. Let the ministers, then, be responsible.

Again I ask why not bring it out in the open? Why not have a parliamentary inquiry? Why not get to the bottom of it? There are numerous questions that remain unanswered and that deserve answers.

As well, this may be a case study of how a large American multinational like Paramount is able to exercise its will over an area that is so important to us as a nation, our cultural identity.

We fought the free trade agreement and we fought NAFTA and we tried to ensure that there were provisions in there through which we would protect our Canadian cultural identity, unlike the Reform position of letting the market take care of everything. When the market takes care of everything it takes care of Canadian culture all right because we do not have a chance at all of being heard. The mass marketing of music, film, video and books and magazines will swamp Canadian culture and Canadian musicians and writers and publishers' ability to get in and be heard by other Canadians will totally diminish.

I hope this will be an education for the Reform Party in the years it is in Parliament where this begins to sink in, where it begins to realize that there are limits as well to where the market can flourish. The national interest precedes the notion of the free market when it comes to cultural institutions. Because once a nation loses its sense of identity, when Canadians cannot hear and see other Canadians, we have lost ourselves as a nation. That is why book publishing policy, particularly textbooks, is so essential, so important. That is why I plead with the government to please allow this to go forward as a proper inquiry.

Let us make certain if, and I underline the word if, the Ginn decision is not reversible that this will never, ever happen again. The only way of ensuring that is to put the body on the table and dissect it. Let us see who and what created the situation we find ourselves in where foreign owners of our book publishing industry now are producing most of our textbooks that we use in our schools in this country.

I understand that around a quarter per cent of all the textbooks in Canadian schools are published by Canadian publishers.

There is so much to get into. I am just filled with notes here on all the different questions to be asked. I could go on for several hours on this. We have been talking about Ginn. There are all sorts of questions about the other approval that the government made when it also approved the acquisition by Paramount of Maxwell Macmillan.

There are contradictions here. CDIC approved this. If CDIC approved this, that means it has to be treated as a direct acquisition and not as an indirect acquisition. If it is a direct acquisition, then we should be able to ask CDIC "Did you find or did you attempt to find a Canadian purchaser?" The law now states that if there is a direct acquisition, and I believe the parliamentary secretary read it: "If a non-Canadian wishes to sell an existing Canadian business independent of any other transaction, the vendor will be expected to ensure that potential Canadian investors have full and fair opportunity to purchase".

The good question is: Did the government go out and look for a potential Canadian to purchase Maxwell Macmillan before the government approved Paramount's takeover of Maxwell Macmillan?

That is one of the many questions that have to be asked and answered. Only in a full, open and public inquiry will we be able to ask these questions and try to get the answers that are needed.

Other questions have to be asked. For example, all of Paramount's operations in Canada, including its film distribution, will have to-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me. I am sorry to interrupt the member but it is now 5.33 o'clock. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 81(16).

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

I know from time to time during votes that some of us have to absent ourselves for personal reasons. I would ask that if it is at all possible when hon. members come in to vote they stay in their seats until the votes are completed. That way there is no question whether someone is here or not.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Canadian Foreign Policy

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on government business No. 9 regarding the appointment of a special joint committee to consider Canada's foreign policy.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to apply the result of the last vote to the main motion, but in reverse.