Earl Dreeshen

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member's son on what he has decided to do, and I thank him for his service.

The chief of the defence staff indicated that troops are supposed to receive a six-month warning if their tax status is lost. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that and, though this does not seem to be the case, if perhaps that could be adding to some of the frustration.

[Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for bringing forward Bill C-211 for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to thank my good friend, the member for Yellowhead, for the work he has done and the passion he has for our military and our first responders, and the members of the NDP and the Liberal Party who have spoken about this. It is so important.

In the closing of this debate, as we get ready to again hear from the member for Cariboo—Prince George, I want to add a few comments about some of the things we see. So many of us, as we attend our Remembrance Day ceremonies, think about the importance of those who have gone before us to help protect us. I think of my wife's cousin, Everett Moore, who came back from the Second World War. He found it impossible to survive in the normal lifetime one would have expected. The war continued for him for 50 years, until he finally died. However, he did have good care. We had opportunities to visit. However, he was unable to come back and survive with that. At that time, people called it “shell shock”.

We have had so many opportunities to speak to people who are engaged in the military, so that brings it home for me. I really do understand what they go through and how difficult it is for families when such tragedies strike home. We have seen it. I think everyone in here has examples where that has happened, whether in the military, or with first responders.

The other experience I had was with the Pine Lake tornado in early 2000. As we were in it, we realized we had to be able to assist, and I was part of that. We saw the carnage that had taken place there. It was really difficult for individuals who were not trained to manage this. However, I think back to the great work done by our first responders in central Alberta. Every year, when we have the anniversary of that terrible natural disaster, we recognize the great work they did, as well as the seriousness of the loss of life.

We all recognize this. We see disasters happen, whether they are natural disasters or those that happen around the world where our men and women in our forces have to take charge or respond to terrible evils. We see it so often. What we have heard today is a great heartfelt response and support for those men and women who put their lives on the line daily and who bring it home to their families.

It is important that we recognize more can be done and that we have to go forward.

I would like to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George. I want to thank everyone in the House for recognizing how important this is. Hopefully, we can move forward with unanimous support of Bill C-211.

[Employment in Alberta, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last night I joined my Conservative colleagues for an emergency debate regarding the Alberta jobs crisis.

We had hoped that the Liberals would address this issue, but instead they spent their time congratulating themselves for things that were never delivered.

Let me bring the focus back on Albertans. More than 200,000 Albertans have lost their jobs, and it is crippling the entire Alberta economy.

Hundreds of businesses in my riding have permanently closed their doors, and many families have lost their livelihoods, their homes, and their savings.

Albertans want their jobs back. They want to work, and the Liberals need to stop working against them.

For the past year our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and from the way the Liberals acted last night, it looks as if nothing has changed. The Alberta jobs crisis is not an alternative fact; it is a harsh reality.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I was going to speak specifically about the job losses, which is what this take-note debate is about, but because it is the infrastructure minister, I thought perhaps we could talk a bit about some infrastructure programs that would be no cost to the government, such as energy east.

We heard earlier from the leader of the NDP how he had championed the oil refining business in Montreal. The question is where that oil came from that was being refined in Montreal. Instead of using Saudi oil coming into eastern Canada, we could be using western Canadian oil and putting western Canadians back to work.

I am curious as to when there is going to be a major push to help energy east.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately we cannot drive through Red Deer or central Alberta without seeing abandoned office buildings, commercial real estate signs, and many of those who are in business have cut their staff drastically.

We have situations where there are notable increases in suicide, substance abuse, domestic abuse. These are the people's stories that I think have to be brought out. As we have expanded and talked to all members in our community, these are the things we are hearing.

Could the member please expand upon some of the solutions that we think can be done to help those individuals, and other stories that he has heard in his travels?

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to have that type of information for community profiles, and there are ways of expanding it so one recognizes what takes place there.

The question is about getting input so we know we have the right questions. This is the point we have been making about the provinces and representation on the advisory committee that is going to be making decisions.

One of the comments earlier had to do with agriculture and how significant it is. This is a mandatory form. Maybe they should be paying attention, though, so they are not demanding that all of the information be entered while farmers are driving a tractor, or seeding, or harvesting, or out calving. These are the harassment sides of it. People look at that and the next time it comes up, they say they will get it done, but it will be done in five minutes' time, and they will be out the door.

If the government really wants accurate information, it has to make sure there is input from everyone, including the public, not just a group of statisticians that are trying to make that perfect model work.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the position that the member has put forward. I suppose when we look at it there may be particular reasons that people choose not to have their data presented. Some people will simply look at it and say they will do it because they are forced to do it, but will wonder who needs to know how many bathrooms are in their house or what their religion is. Those things are helpful for knowing the makeup of communities, but there has to be a place for people to say that what they say and do should be private.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, certainly people believe there is going to be privacy. I mentioned earlier that some people could actually still be alive when this occurs, as medical procedures advance, and so on, but it is critical to realize that all we are saying is there should be an option based on this. Some people may look at it and say it is fine, and they do not really care, but we do not know what the ramifications would be. There is a law that says if people provide inaccurate information, they could be fined. They would not go to jail, but they could be fined.

It opens up so many new avenues that are certainly not worth going into when all it takes is providing an option for people to say that they would just as soon not have the data made public.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on Bill C-36. As someone who was in a classroom for 34 years teaching statistics, I really do wish that I had 20 minutes to be able to speak on this particular topic. My former students would recognize that it would have been a very short lesson.

The definition of statistics is “The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data.” Therefore, when we consider this as the main focus for the Statistics Act, I think it becomes important that we look at how all of that data is collected and the rationale behind it.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa spoke earlier of many of the different procedures that are there, such as the sampling theory, and the 95% confidence intervals that we hear so often when people talk about a particular survey being accurate within plus or minus 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Well, that is where the 95% comes in. People have to understand how the standard deviation and variance are developed from all of that, the Gaussian curves or the bell curves that people are put on, and then how we start to analyze it. This is not simply for questions of politics, but business uses this as well. It is very important, which is one of the reasons why the statistics and numbers we look at are so important for everyone in all walks of life.

Some of the commentary we heard earlier was such that as long as we make sure it is mandatory, then obviously we are going to get the best answers and everything is going to work out just fine. However, having sat on committees where we have had opportunities to speak with people from Statistics Canada, yes, they would have preferred that nothing changed so that the process would have been there, but as they mentioned, there are many ways to look at statistical analysis and sample theory to get the same type of results that we had from before. Therefore, it was a political decision to change it, and it is also a political decision to go back. It does not necessarily mean that the data we are going to have in order to do the analysis is going to be any more accurate.

One of the questions I posed earlier to a member had to do with some of the results that we get from the mandatory form, such as the fact that there is a great growth in the Jedi religion, as the question of religion was on the form and people had to write down what their religion was. Some people suggested that result might not have been accurate. Again, it is a position that has been presented.

People will look at some of these questions and wonder what kind of mob approach they can use for them. As we have social media and everything that is going on now, people can pick a question and completely throw it out by putting extra pressure on it. Therefore, these are the kinds of things that have to be weeded out. The point is, Statistics Canada knows how to do that. It has different sampling processes that can manage some of those situations.

Of course, the other thing that has been mentioned is the concept of a 92-year span. If we look at that at this point in time, it would be 2109 before anybody here who has done a census when they were 18 would even have to worry about it. However, over the last 100 years, we have had life expectancies that have gone from the 60s up to the mid-80s. We saw statistical data just today that indicates it was a mistake for the government to take the OAS from 67 back down to 65. Many countries throughout the world are recognizing the fact that people are living longer and they are going to be supported by taxpayers for a longer length of time.

These are the kinds of things that statistics and mathematics certainly talk about, but we sometimes have political influence or a political expediency such that, “Well, that's what they said, and so if we say something different, then obviously we are going to be on the side of angels.” However, it does not necessarily work that way.

When we look at somebody who lives to be 110 years old, then 92 years after they did a survey at 18, they would be subject to the exposure of their data to the public. All we are saying is that there should be an opportunity for people to be able to opt out of that. We can say that 92 years sounds good, but maybe 120 years would be the number we would need.

However, we should be aware of the realities that exist and take a look at the consequences of some of the decisions that are included there.

The other question is, who should be making up these questions as we go and poll the public to find out what their thoughts are. I think back to MyDemocracy.ca and its questions. Of course, there was no political influence there because this was given to an outside group that would be able to come up with answers that Canadians would want to present to the government to make decisions on. That was fortunate. There is a possibility that maybe some of those were moving in the wrong direction. I still have people who have taken the Vote Compass surveys. I do not know if they are still in therapy, but they were told that they were Liberals and this has hurt them immensely. We recognize how some of these things happen and we realize that it is not always going to be a 100% accurate result.

My point goes back to the fact that the people at Statistics Canada know how to do this. I am extremely honoured that one of my former students had worked at Statistics Canada. I understand the process and everything that is tied into it, recognizing how important it is that it has different procedures to be able to take bias out of its information. It is really an amazing science and I have been proud to work with that for many years.

While the Conservative Party supports and respects the work that Stats Canada does, we do not agree with some of the provisions in Bill C-36. It is our position that any changes to the Statistics Act should reflect our commitment to accountability and the privacy and security of Canadian citizens.

To further illustrate the issues of the bill, let us look at the proposed amendments that would modify the Statistics Act. With the amendments proposed, the bill would enable the minister responsible for Statistics Canada the ability to appoint a chief statistician for a fixed renewable term of five years, removable only “for cause by the Governor in Council”. The chief statistician would have full authority over the content within statistical releases and publications issued by Statistics Canada and how and when this information is circulated, and furthermore, the CS would be responsible for all operations and staff at Statistics Canada.

The bill would also assign the CS with “powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada”. This means that while the minister would still be able to issue directives on statistical programs, the minister would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations. The power would now be delegated solely to the chief statistician.

Here is the first red flag. These new powers would enable the CS to issue directives without it being made public. Bill C-36 provisions state that the chief statistician may publicize directives before acting on them, but does not make that mandatory. This speaks to another provision of the bill. It would no longer require “consent of respondents to transfer their Census information to Library and Archives Canada”. This is also very troubling because this amendment to the Statistics Act could actually violate the consent rights of Canadians and is opposite to transparency. Additionally, with the chief statistician's ability to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations, the CS would also be authorized to choose where it is housed. This is the second red flag.

I had the opportunity a few months ago to go to Belgium for the Blue Sky Free Forum on Science and Innovation Indicators through the OECD. There was discussion on metadata, research, and analysis and we saw how important it is to be able to take information, the massive number of data points that are there and to be able to funnel them. We have to recognize the issues that are surrounding that, the cybersecurity side of that as well, and these become critical points that should be looked at as we talk about statistics and how the world is going to deal with them. There is an interaction between our country and other countries as we have universities that do research back and forth, so the whole concept of statistics and the analysis of statistics is extremely important.

I would like Bill C-36 to go to committee so that parliamentarians can propose some much-needed amendments to the bill. Based on that, I am sure that we can work to make sure that accountability to Canadians is not lost by making the chief statistician more independent. It is our duty to make sure the changes to the Statistics Act encourage Canadians to provide full, complete, and accurate data so that when the time comes, they in turn would have access to quality data that is relevant, reliable, and accurate.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for my good friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, one of the questions that has come up is about accuracy and the point that we get so much more accuracy if we have the long-form census.

I wonder if he could comment on the Jedi religion that seemed to really spike up when people were forced to put their religious affiliations on the mandatory long-form census.