Suzanne Tremblay

[Publishing Industry, March 22nd, 1994]

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously continue to claim that the CDIC was determined to sell Ginn to Canadian interests, but received no serious offer, when the evidence he has points to the contrary? Will he not agree that he is losing all personal credibility as far as this matter is concerned?

[Publishing Industry, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising, nonetheless, that no purchase offer has been made. The CDIC had promised to issue a monthly prospectus and it has not done so. Therefore, the minister must admit today that while no offer has been made, some interest has been expressed nevertheless. An offer can be made if there is a prospectus. But this government never issued one.

[Publishing Industry, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Yesterday the minister encouraged us to continue reading the Toronto Star . Well, this morning I took him at his word. I learned that at least five Canadian publishing houses had already expressed an interest in acquiring control of Ginn Publishing.

How does the minister explain the fact that the CDIC has not responded to Canadian publishers interested in purchasing Ginn Publishing? Furthermore, will the minister recognize the need to conduct an inquiry into the actions of the CDIC, which has systematically rejected all efforts made by Canadian publishers to buy Ginn Publishing?

[Publishing Industry, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the president of Canada Publishing has informed me today that his publishing company is willing to acquire control of Ginn Publishing for the same price offered by Paramount. In these circumstances, is the Minister of Canadian Heritage

prepared to stop the deal between CIDC and Paramount with regard to Ginn Publishing?

[Publishing Industry, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

According to information received from the publishing industry Mr. Ward Pitfield, who was in charge of the Ginn Publishing file at CIDC, admitted last January to an attorney for Canada Publishing that CIDC did not intend to sell Ginn Publishing. Then a week later CIDC sold Ginn to Paramount. Furthermore Mr. Pitfield confirmed recently that he had never seen a written contract between CIDC and Paramount.

Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage aware of the fact that Mr. Pitfield, the representative of CIDC on the board of directors of Ginn Publishing, has never seen a contract of sale between CIDC and Paramount, and can the minister tell us whether or not the deal has effectively been completed?

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

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.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

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.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

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.

[Publishing Industry, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, they applaud to be called so. That is their problem. They are showing their true colours.

Could the Prime Minister not find the courage to act as he did in the case of Pearson International Airport in order to ensure that our cultural industries remain Canadian owned? Simply cancel the deal.

[Publishing Industry, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals, the so-called great defenders of the Canadian identity-