Jim Eglinski

[Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 177, which instructs the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to study issues faced by flight training schools in Canada. As the chair of the all-party aviation caucus and a pilot myself, I am quite familiar with the industry, the flight training and the lack of pilots.

I hate to date myself, but back in 1968 when I applied for pilot training, it was not very expensive. It cost about $500 to get a private pilot's licence. Later on, in the late 1970s, I went on to get a commercial pilot's licence. It gave me a chance to expand my experience and to do different things.

Motion No. 177 calls for the committee to study the challenges faced by flight schools in providing trained pilots and to determine if the infrastructure is adequate in our flight schools. However, I am concerned, because even if we have state-of-the-art infrastructure, we cannot use it if there is no one to train. I think the study would have a much larger impact if it were amended to focus on pilot shortages and the factors that deter students from enrolling in the first place.

The 1950s and 1960s are often referred to as a golden age of air travel. Pilots and flight attendants were seen as an elite class, and recruitment was high. Fast forward to the last 10 or 15 years, and all those recruits have retired. At the same time, it has become increasingly expensive and difficult to become a pilot. Members will remember that I said it cost $500 back in the day when I started to fly. Today, an average private pilot's licence in Canada would cost upwards of $14,000.

As safety standards have increased, which is by no means a bad thing, more requirements have been placed on young pilots learning to fly. When I learned to fly, I could get a pilot's licence after 35 or 40 hours of flight time. Today, in Canada, the average is 60 hours. Therefore, one has to train more hours and maintain a certain number of flight hours each year to maintain a licence. All of this extra time means that one has to spend extra money for certification.

For a commercial licence, a minimum of 200 hours of flight training must be obtained. I mentioned that a private pilot's licence costs about $14,000. If one is really good, fast and does everything correctly, to get a basic commercial pilot's licence would cost about $18,500 over and above the cost of the private licence. This is for such things as 5 hours flying at night, two of which must be cross-country. You also need to accumulate five hours more cross-country time than for your private licence. You also require at least 20 hours of instrument time, 30 hours of solo time after obtaining your private pilot's licence, and 100 hours of pilot command before you can go on to obtain a commercial pilot's licence. By the end of all of this, with the cost of living and everything else included, you would have spent $50,000 or more to get a commercial pilot's licence.

The Canadian aviation regulations tell us that in addition to having a valid licence or permit and a valid medical certificate, there are some other things pilots need to do every five years, every two years and every six months to maintain their licences, and this scares a lot of people. Every five years, a pilot must fly as pilot in command or as a co-pilot at least once. Every two years, pilots must complete a recurrent training. Every six months, pilots who wish to carry one or more flights with passengers must complete five takeoffs and five landings. Also, there are the medicals, and as one gets older, at age 40, one has to have medicals every six months. Therefore, I do not think the problem is as much the quality of the flight schools in Canada but the inability to attract recruits due to the cost and time required to gain a pilot's licence.

Even the Canadian Air Force is experiencing a shortage. The shortfall of pilots and mechanics was referenced in an internal report recently published by the Department of National Defence. The air force is authorized to have 1,580 pilots, but it is short by around 275 pilots, or 17%. In the civilian world, Boeing has projected that worldwide aviation will require 790,000 new pilots by 2037 to meet the growing demand, with 96,000 pilots needed to support the business aviation sector.

At the Farnborough air show in the United Kingdom, Airbus recently estimated the demand at 450,000 pilots needed by 2035. Even with Airbus's more conservative number, the gap between demand and supply is vast. It is why I believe this motion is very important. We need to study the availability of pilots, including how we can increase recruitment levels.

There are a lot of ways this can be done. For example, the government could create incentives for experienced pilots to stay in the industry or set up financial assistance for flight schools. Back in the 1960s when I went for my private pilot's licence, the cost was $500. If I continued on for my commercial licence, I would receive a fifth of that money back, a whole $100. Then when I received my commercial licence, I believe I received one-third of that back and there was a tax deduction as well. These are just some of the examples that we need to study more in-depth.

An increase in pilots could also help in consumer choices down the road. When I flew to Ottawa from my riding yesterday, I only had two options of airlines. It is hard to expect an industry to diversify and compete when it does not have enough talent to draw on. I have read of many cases in the news where flights were cancelled because the crew members needed to rest and there was not another crew to replace them. From a pilot and safety standpoint, I completely understand the need for rest, but as a consumer, this can be incredibly frustrating. If there were more pilots, perhaps a lot of these cancellations could be avoided because there would be someone to replace those who need to rest. Increasing the number of pilots and retaining them could help increase airline choices for Canadians and benefit the consumer experience when flying.

Not only do we need pilots for the large airline companies, but there are also a lot of other industries in Canada which rely on pilots. They courier our mail, help control forest fires, help rescue stranded hikers, and monitor our forests and pipelines. They belong to CASARA, the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association. In my own riding, oil companies have pilots who fly over pipeline routes to make sure there are no leaks or other issues. We also have pilots who fly over the forests in Jasper National Park to document the spread of forest pests like the mountain pine beetle.

Pilots are needed in many industries across the country, and we need to explore ways to increase the number of recruits to flight schools.

As a pilot and a member of the all party aviation caucus, I want to see this study go to committee. I hope the sponsor will consider our amendment to ensure this study has the most impact possible.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody here in this House who can deny that Bill C-78 is well overdue and is needed.

I listened in depth to the conversation about separation, families relocating, the court sitting down and evaluating a mechanism to look at both sides, and that body deciding if it is appropriate for the parties to move from one location to another.

I was reading through the bill and I am wondering if there is a mechanism of repeal if the court were to say that one party could not move. Is there an appeal mechanism built into this bill that would allow people to appeal that decision?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be able to clarify something under clause 54, the increased term of services binding by Her Majesty for five years to 12 years. Could he explain to me why it was raised?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in one of his answers just a few minutes ago, the member mentioned Bill C-75. I am still concerned about Bill C-75. It would reduce sentences for very serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of criminal organizations, forced marriages, marriages under the age of 16 and concealing the body of a child. These policies are very alarming to me. Would he like to comment on them?

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the government has also allotted, under this bill, approximately $77.2 million to be utilized in a program to help in situations like this. Often I get people calling my office, either one spouse or the other, who are in financial hardship, especially over these last three years of things happening in Alberta, and they do not have the funds to sit down and negotiate with a lawyer because of the cost.

I wonder if my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton could comment again on this alternate resolution process that might be started as a result of this program and whether it would be of benefit to couples and save them a lot of money. We used to have an old saying in Alberta that if people end up going through divorce, they take their estate and half goes to the legal firms, and they might end up with a quarter each if they end up going through a dispute.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with all the new and enhanced benefits indicated in the member's speech, I wonder if he believes a 30-year-old murderer of an off-duty police officer should receive treatment programs designated to address post-traumatic stress in our military, programs that were set up for veterans, even though he was entitled to treatment for mental health issues through Canada's corrections services.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the speeches today and the questions and replies, we constantly hear Liberal members and NDP members say, “Well, the Conservatives did this.”

However, the motion is about a lack of action being taken by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister failed. His minister has failed Canadians and failed veterans in that he did not act. Any good, strong leader or minister, when hearing something as outrageous—those are his own words—as this happening, would have called and cancelled it, investigated it and made a decision on it. Then he could have come back to this House and we may have debated that decision but we would have respected him for that decision.

I am outraged. I have lost respect for the minister because he failed us. He did not make a decision. He is passing it down the line.

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when we built this particular pipeline that was proposed in 1951, constructed in 1952, and running in 1953, there was consultation with the aboriginal groups, the Treaty Six group from Alberta. I know there was consultation throughout Alberta. Maybe there was not as much as we do today, because we know a lot more today than we did in 1951.

However, in 1951, Canada had a national energy board or regulatory board. The Province of Alberta also had one. It went through the standards that were applicable for those days and met those standards. Today we have different standards. Maybe 20 years from today we will have different standards than what we have today.

The company building the pipeline in those days met the guidelines of the government of the day, provincially and federally, and they met with aboriginal people, because I have spoken to elders on numerous occasions and they remember the discussions.

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. friend, my neighbour to the east, I would like to deal with the first part of his question, regarding railways.

The CN and CP rails go through my riding of Yellowhead and through his riding of Sturgeon River—Parkland. Both of these rails come from the west coast and go all the way through to eastern Canada. They are our major railroad hubs in Canada. They haul coal from the coal mines to our west. They haul grain from our region. They haul gravel from the sides of the mountains. They haul timber products from the forest companies. They haul newsprint.

I am constantly getting calls from different companies throughout our area that they are not getting trains from the railroad companies because the railroad companies are tied up moving crude oil in railcars. We cannot get vital products to the west coast of Canada and to eastern Canada, products going from west to east, because the tracks are tied up by oil cars. Coming through, it is a single-lane track and it doubles in my area. Constantly, we are seeing railroad crossings blocked anywhere from 15 minutes to two to three hours with trains waiting for other trains to go by just because of the heavy traffic use.

I cannot quite remember what the second part of the question was but I have run out of time anyway.

[Committees of the House, September 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

I rise in the House to speak to the natural resources committee's report on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector.

Oil and gas is very important to my riding of Yellowhead, a large region west of Edmonton that goes into the Rocky Mountains. Within my riding, there have been many discussions and comments regarding the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, because it is of great importance to us. Most people do not realize that over one-third of the Trans Mountain pipeline, more than 300 kilometres of pipe, runs through the heart of Yellowhead. It plays a significant role in the economy of our region.

The constituents in my riding and Alberta rarely complain. We are hard-working people, and we have a diversified economy throughout the province. Beside oil and gas, Yellowhead has coal mining, agriculture, forestry and tourism. As I said, people do not complain much, and we are hard-working people, but we saw a lot of large protests dealing with the carbon tax, and I have heard from many constituents who have concerns about recent things that are happening with the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Just on the outskirts of my town of Edson, we have a massive area covered with pipe that is waiting to go into the ground. I know that I cannot use props here, but I would like my colleagues to imagine taking all of the property from the green lawn in front of the Supreme Court and justice department buildings to the Confederation building, the West Block, the building we are in, and the East Block all the way over to the Chateau Laurier, and imagine all of that land stacked with 24-inch pipe, four high. That is what we have on the outskirts of Edson. There are thousands of kilometres of pipe just waiting to be put into the ground. Then imagine on the side a line of picker trucks just sitting there waiting to load the pipe to take it to its destination. All of this has been sitting for quite a while corroding, wasting money, space and jobs.

Members can also imagine that when an announcement was made this summer when 290 kilometres of preliminary work was beginning, with the ground being flagged and cleared in preparation to lay pipeline, that people in my community celebrated. They had tailgate parties and barbeques. They were so happy to see themselves going back to work. People were excited to move into the area, buy new homes or vehicles and finally get back to a good, solid work base. Then we were absolutely devastated to learn that the Federal Court of Appeal had overturned the federal government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, including because the Liberals had failed to engage in meaningful consultations with first nations. After all the rule changes the Liberals had made and everything else, they had failed.

I heard from realtors who lost house sales and an automobile dealership who lost vehicle sales. Investment in the region immediately halted. Oil and gas development in Yellowhead is important, and I cannot stress enough the significant impact that the Liberal government's failure has had on our region.

Why have the Liberals failed? I think this report defines a pretty good outline as to why.

In February 2016, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources undertook a study on the future of Canada's oil and gas, mining and nuclear sectors. Since the Liberal government dominates committees, the resulting report failed to adequately represent the testimony presented by the witnesses unless it favoured the government's strategies or ideas. In other words, the government cherry-picked the information that would back up its own agenda instead of representing the full testimony of witnesses.

The Liberals refused to realize the reality of the situation we are facing. For example, the report as presented included testimony in favour of the carbon tax, but failed to provide the testimony that spoke about the adverse effects a carbon tax would have on industry and consumers across Canada.

One witness stated:

...unless it's aligned with trading partners, the price of carbon can cause a lack of competitiveness. This should be of concern to people concerned about the climate as well as people concerned about the economy, because if you're simply moving business to other jurisdictions, you're not actually reducing overall carbon emissions.

The ideal would be carbon pricing that's North American or even worldwide, which would prevent those kinds of....

We need everybody to buy into the scheme if we are doing it or not encourage anybody because people will just buy the oil and gas in third world countries, which are clearly a lot worse than we are here in Alberta or Canada.

Recommendation 5 of the report completely disregards this reality and encourages the carbon tax program in Canada, which will make us uncompetitive and continue to chase investment out of Canada.

By the way, under the Liberal government, foreign investment has plunged to the lowest it has been in eight years. Other witnesses' testimony conveniently left out of the report stated, “Canada contributes less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.” If we refer to China, it is about 28% and the United States is about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberal government's narrative against Canada's natural resource development has been predicated on the assumption that the current regulatory framework is broken and it needs to be changed to restore public confidence and the trust of Canadians, yet the government refuses to recognize that we contribute less than 2% of global emissions and that Canada's standards are the best in the world. That is not just a talking point. That is backed up by reports from many of the witnesses that gave testimony which was left out of the report.

As one witness stated, “Canada also has world-leading environmental regulations. Of the top oil reserve holders, only Canada is covered by world-class, stringent environmental regulations and oversight.”

Companies have worked under our environment framework for years with success. As stated by another witness:

...over the past 10 years, under NEB auspices, several pipelines have been built. Certainly the Line 9 pipeline was approved under the NEB process. The Access pipeline and the initial Keystone pipeline were built. There is a list of pipelines that went through the regulatory process under the NEB, that went through consultation, that went through environmental review, and that were built.

My point is that we had a strong process in place that was reliable, effective, and held the trust of Canadians, so why is investment declining? It is declining because the Liberal government has created regulatory uncertainty in its new assessment process for natural resources infrastructure projects.

For comparison, the original Trans Mountain pipeline was proposed in March 1951. Construction began in February 1952 and it was flowing oil in 1953. That is less than a year to move through that process. In 2004, Kinder Morgan began the process to add a second pipeline running parallel to the first. In 2008, the project was approved and completed. That is only four years to move through the process. Then in 2013, Kinder Morgan began the application process for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and now, five years later, we are back to the consultation phase, thanks to the Liberals' mismanagement of the energy file.

Why would other companies want to invest in a country where it takes five-plus years to go through the process, and even then there is no guarantee that the pipeline will be built?

It is unfortunate that the Liberals have cancelled and held up Canadian pipelines. Stopping pipelines in Canada does not speed up the development of alternatives to oil and it does not slow down the growing oil demand in emerging economies.

As stated by another witness in the study, “Transportation infrastructure is required to meet these growing energy needs, and pipelines remain the safest and most efficient and the lowest greenhouse gas-intensive way of moving energy over long distances.”