Denis Blanchette

[Quebec Bridge, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Bridge has been added to the list of the top 10 endangered places in Canada. How appalling. The Conservatives have been in power for 10 years and are leaving Quebec City with a heritage bridge that is in critical condition.

The NDP came up with a real solution to get CN moving. Will the government finally listen to reason and support my bill?

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In my speech I praised the transfer of knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge. I do not have direct experience in the specific area that the member mentioned. However, it is important to establish and retain a philosophy concerning science and its use, both within and outside the public service.

Today, as we know, the use of knowledge and innovation are fundamental elements of change. However, these statements are based on certain elements. We must develop new knowledge, and that is why basic and applied research in universities, for example, is important for future development efforts in Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Had he listened carefully to my speech, he would have understood that I am most definitely not opposed to the use of knowledge. Once again, what I said was that government policies have resulted in a significant shift in funding. Right now the government is making massive investments in innovation. That is an official government policy, and I believe that my colleague would agree with that.

In my riding, people doing basic and applied research say that there is a lot less money for their work and that they have to reconsider the purpose of their research. That is unfortunate and dangerous for our society.

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by quoting Albert Einstein: “Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.” Although he said many things, we do not often hear that quotation.

I found that quotation very appropriate, because today is one of those rare times when we talk about science in this House. I want to congratulate the member for Kingston and the Islands for moving this motion because it is something we rarely talk about, but something that is so important in today's society, that it would be a serious mistake to ignore it.

The current government policy on science focuses strictly on innovation. This approach reduces the importance of science as a tool for development in a broader sense, because if it cannot be immediately useful, the Conservatives take no real interest in it.

Furthermore, the motion addresses the muzzling of scientists. As many people have pointed out today, we need to differentiate between the sharing of knowledge and public policy. Everyone knows that public policy is the realm of politicians and that sharing knowledge falls to scientists. It is therefore crucial that we trust the ethics of scientists to make that distinction.

If what scientists say ever becomes embarrassing, a responsible government should take that opportunity to improve whatever needs to be improved for the common good. We can use those instances to improve our society.

In my riding we have a university and a high tech park. The scientific research continuum is very important to Louis-Hébert. Aside from the education sector, obviously, the continuum starts with basic research. That is where it all starts. Then, there is applied research, commercialization—meaning publicizing it—knowledge transfer and innovation.

That is why there is a high tech park associated with Laval University. A number of good ideas made it through all of these steps, and as a result we have some value-added industries with a strong focus on science in the Quebec City high tech park.

Innovation is the end of a process. It is not a beginning or an end in itself. Innovation must go through all of the steps I mentioned. If we make innovation an end in itself, I worry that we are making Canada less competitive over the long term. It shows a lack of foresight of the development of our society and of our ability, as a country, to compete with other high-tech countries.

In 2012, Yves Gingras, a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, wrote an article entitled “From Science Policies to Innovation Strategies”. In this very short but informative article, Mr. Gingras illustrated how governments' science policies have changed over time.

For example, from the 1960s to the 1980s, the government had science policies, but in the 1980s and 1990s, during economic crises, for example, the government's policies gradually moved towards technology and, now, innovation.

The objective of the article was to illustrate how we went from a desire to produce knowledge, in the broad sense, that the various spheres of society could use, to more specific applications of existing knowledge.

By all accounts, this has a fundamental impact on our perception of government operations, programs and what gets subsidized. Université Laval is in my riding. I am told that although the government is increasing funding, money that goes to basic and applied research is drying up. In fact, certain areas involving innovation are being heavily subsidized instead. No effort is being spared. Abandoning basic and applied research will allow for short-term gain, but will be costly in the long run.

Limiting scientific research and innovation is tremendously short-sighted. There are two opposing ideas in the debate we are having today. We have not really put a name to it. On one hand, the government is proposing a knowledge-based economy. The policies on innovation attest to that. On the other hand, we would like to go back to a knowledge-based society, a society where knowledge and expertise are disseminated and shared in every part of society, including the economic sector. It is more encompassing. It is important to see how these two concepts compete when it comes to economic policies and proposals.

We cannot envision a society without being able to make the distinction between the two. I much prefer a society based on knowledge, where every aspect of society has access to knowledge and where this knowledge is shared as broadly as possible. Obviously, that does not mean we must not invest in a knowledge-based economy. However, we must not make it an end in itself.

What is important in our society today is to have the ability to generate, disseminate, share and use knowledge. We need to look beyond the almighty economy. Of course, we need money to live on. We need all that and that is what is most important, but if we still want to be on the cutting edge in 5, 10 or 20 years, it is important and fundamental to be able to consider science, scientific research, communication and the dissemination of information as key elements. In 2001, Quebec had a science policy that took all of those factors into account. That made it possible to develop a consistent set of policies that encompassed every aspect of knowledge development. Finally, we need to trust in science and the ethics of scientists. We will be better off for it.

In closing, I would like to quote a 19th century Algerian, Abd el-Kader, who said:

Good and sound knowledge means understanding in such a way that one can see the difference between telling the truth and telling lies in speech, between truth and falsehood in beliefs, between beauty and ugliness in actions.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question, which comes up every time the government introduces a massive bill.

One of our main duties here in the House is to legislate. This means that we must be capable of thoughtfully evaluating the different aspects of the laws we want to put in place.

Unfortunately, when the government introduces an omnibus bill to fix all of the problems at the same time, it is an attempt to trick us. Sometimes, it is only after one or two years that we realize that one part of the bill should have been studied more carefully.

My colleague is absolutely right when she says that everything that affects society is worthy of careful consideration, especially when the government is not only imposing a massive bill, but also a limit on debate.

This undermines our ability to produce sound legislation.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is a fundamental one in a state governed by the rule of law.

We cannot retroactively endorse acts that were previously illegal. That is fundamental. We cannot play with people's lives and what they do.

Who is to say that this will not create a precedent and that a lawful act committed freely and knowingly one day could not be made unlawful the next?

We cannot play with such fundamental aspects of life in society simply because it suits us. These are dangerous precedents and I completely agree with my colleague on that.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to another massive bill. Yet again we are under time allocation, even though there are still so many things to say about this budget.

Today I will focus on one aspect that is important to me, which is that this budget undermines our public finances. I will explain why, but first let me set the stage. The budget announces a surplus of $1.4 billion. This, after seven consecutive years of deficits. Those years were responsible for 25% of the Government of Canada's debt.

There are some measures in the budget that are not bad. In fact, the Conservatives took the NDP's idea to reduce the tax rate for small businesses, and we can only applaud them for borrowing our strategy, since small businesses are job creators.

However, we also have to consider the current financial circumstances. The price of oil has dropped quite a bit. This represents a loss of $5 billion for the federal government. In spite of this, the Conservatives still managed to give gifts to specific groups, for example, by nearly doubling the TFSA limit and bringing in income splitting. The government loves to give us examples of the people who could benefit from these measures, people who are not necessarily well-off. However, we all know that the vast majority of those who will benefit are wealthy.

There are some real consequences associated with TFSAs and income splitting. At a time when public finances are far from healthy, the government is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue that could have helped it get our fiscal house in order. However, we have to wonder whether this government even wants to get our fiscal house in order. I am not sure.

Let us look at how they managed to achieve a surplus. People need to remember a few things. For instance, 20,000 federal public servants have been laid off in the last few years. Let us not forget that. The result of that, of course, is a reduction in the quality of service. The contingency fund has been slashed from $3 billion to $1 billion. Let us not forget the appropriation of the employment insurance surplus and the sale of the GM shares, on which the government lost $600 million. Obviously, that does not factor into a budget. The Conservatives also want to save $900 million on the sick leave system used by their public servants. I think the current surplus is extremely fragile. It is fragile because, out of everything I just listed, the government used $7 billion in non-recurrent revenues to achieve a surplus of $1.4 billion. This is problematic.

The Conservative government's objective is quite clear. The credit cards are maxed out. It decided to cut its revenues, to offer gifts, not to pay its debts and to leave the problems to the next government or the next generation, depending on how you look at it.

Now I want to talk specifically about one area where the government is counting on saving money. I am talking about the cuts to sick leave. Earning a salary and being compensated is not just about a paycheque. Of course there is the salary, but there is also overtime, group insurance, pension plans and working conditions. However, above all, in addition to vacation time, there is sick leave. When we talk about compensating employees, we are not just talking about salary. It is important to keep that in mind.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary earlier. His speech was based on an assumption that I do not care for, and that is that unused sick leave will be used for things other than illness. Let us think about that for a moment. I do not wish this on anyone in the House, or on myself, but accidents can happen.

People can be hospitalized. In life, anything can happen to make people temporarily unable to work, and that can last longer than three, four or five days. That is life. Suggesting that people will use banked sick days for purposes other than those for which they were created is an appalling assumption for the government to make. That is a problem.

In most departments, when someone gets sick for a short time with the flu or something else, that position is not backfilled. There are no additional costs to the government in those cases.

There is also something missing from the budget: the cost of the government's proposed new system. That system has not yet been costed, but there will be a cost associated with it. How much will it cost? We do not know. How big a dent will that make in the $900 million? We do not know. I think that when the minister says it will be $900 million, he is getting ahead of himself and making negative assumptions. I would rather see good-faith negotiations between public servants and the government to determine what is fair for both sides.

Once again, this $900 million represents another one-time measure that can be added to the list of other one-time measures. Suppose this happens. I hope it does not because, in my opinion, it constitutes a breach of contract to take back what was already given under a collective agreement. However, if it does, where does that take us?

By the way, public service employees are also taxpayers. Too often people forget that. People believe that public servants are living in a bubble and that they do not pay taxes. Public servants pay taxes like everyone else. They are taxpayers like everyone else and, what is more, they provide services to Canadians. It is because of them that policies become programs, which then become public services. We must not forget that and we need to treat these people with the respect they deserve.

The government is making another cut. This time, it is going after employee compensation directly. Because of the Conservatives, public servants are becoming more discouraged. Do we really need that? Their working conditions are obviously deteriorating, but the members on the other side of the House do not seem to be too bothered by that. They are demoralizing the public service to such an extent that people are going to have to leave, because all of a sudden, their overall working conditions—or what I call their overall compensation—will no longer be competitive compared to other sectors.

What will happen then? Skilled employees will leave and the government will begin to lose its ability to operate effectively. We cannot allow this loss of competitiveness, effectiveness and professionalism to happen. In fact, what I am trying to say is that this measure might only save money on paper.

This surplus is really fragile. The government used a lot of gimmicks to get there. One of those gimmicks is going to have long-term effects on federal public servants. The government is picking on them to try to win votes, and I find that disgraceful. Based on that assumption, I do not believe that we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion as announced by the Minister of Finance.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the parliamentary secretary's speech. I must admit, he is rather consistent. However, we obviously do not agree, especially when it comes to sick leave. I think it is despicable that this government is attacking its own employees for political reasons, to achieve a budget surplus.

I would like to him to clarify what he is thinking. On one hand, he is threatening employees with cuts through this bill, on the other hand, he is talking about negotiating when the employees have a gun to their heads.

In his speech, is the parliamentary secretary saying that he is prepared to suspend the sick leave measures in the bill in order to leave room for negotiations?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The hon. member clearly did not have enough time to say all he wanted to about this budget. There is one important point for me, and it is the whole issue of how federal employees are treated. It bothers me that the government has decided to claw back money without any negotiation. Salary, pension and sick leave are all part of the concept of a total compensation package, wherein union members accept lower salaries in exchange for valuable benefits.

I would like my colleague to say more about the unilateral cuts in total compensation for federal public service employees.

[Public Works and Government Services, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, enough with these inaction plans.

Tomorrow, 200 workers at the Davie Canada shipyard will lose their jobs, all because the Conservative government refuses to make up its mind about the short-term renewal of our fleet of supply ships.

The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal minister to get off his butt. We are talking about 200 families without well-paying jobs.

When will the government make a decision about Canada's navy? When will it make a decision for the Canadian economy? When will it make a decision for the people of Lévis?