This government had the decision to make. We all know we have a new government and the decision was in the hands of this government.
Why did the government say no? The excuse was a previous verbal commitment by someone existed that might go back as far as 1989. We do not know exactly. There are many questions to ask.
The first question would be: Where is the legal advice that the government is invoking? The government is basing its decision on the fact it has been provided with a legal opinion from the justice department supporting the decision to let the transaction go, the sellout. We never saw this legal opinion. I think we should have it. It should be tabled.
Second, where is the contract confirming the deal between CDIC and Paramount dated 1989? We have never seen it. If it exists we feel it would be very important for us to see it.
Third, who has made this commitment? This is quite a mystery. Is it possible for a national government policy decision to have been taken because someone we do not know said something to someone else in a meeting on a date we do not know? Is it possible that everything has swerved because of that? The question has been asked and I think the government should answer it.
We must ask ourselves whether there effectively was a sale of Ginn to Paramount in 1989. Where is the contract to establish that?
There was an interesting sequel to the letter sent to CDIC by Canada Publishing Corporation. It is very interesting because the letter was sent on May 7, 1993 and on August 13 of the same year the corporate counsel of Canada Publishing, Mr. John Evans, met with Mrs. Benita Warmbold of CDIC to express Canada Publishing's interest in acquiring the 51 per cent equity in Ginn in accordance with what the letter said before. There was a meeting, a letter, and another meeting.
Then what happened? On August 19 the chairman of Canada Publishing Corporation who signed the letter, Mr. Ronald Besse, received an answer from Paramount. The answer came from Paramount through a phone call inquiring: "Why are you doing that? What are you trying to do? We are not interested in selling our equity in this company. We would like to control the whole company". That was the answer from the American company.
Those are the facts. The government used its ministerial discretion to get out of the obligations under the guidelines. The only motive was that he had a verbal agreement, a verbal commitment. We should know the name of the person. Is it a minister? Is it a public servant? Who is it? We should know it.
I do not think the minister is right when he says in answer to a question in the House that we should protect the name of the person. I do not think this man, this person, has a right to anonymity. Surely the public has the right to know who killed the Baie Comeau policy and who was instrumental in depriving Canada of one of its publishing companies.
I see that my time is coming to an end. We are asking the government to table the legal opinion. We are asking the government to table the contract between CDIC and Paramount. The government should not be afraid to confront anyone in court with the facts, with the public policy and the fact that only one man or one woman would have reached an anonymous, hidden, secret verbal agreement on behalf of Canadians, throwing aside the policy of government discussed in Parliament.
As far as legal opinions are concerned, I am a lawyer and I have seen many legal opinions in my life. There is always one legal opinion against another legal opinion. I respect the people in Department of Justice but we would like to see the legal opinion. I know lawyers; there must have been some nuances in the legal opinion. They should describe the full circumstances wherein such a commitment would have been made.
We have the right to ask for it. We have the right to ask the government to change its policy and go back to the Baie Comeau policy. We would like the House of Commons to vote on the question of knowing if there should be, as we think there should be, a public inquiry into those obscure circumstances.