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"
