Blaine Calkins

[Aviation Industry, February 3rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, what I heard the parliamentary secretary say is that accidents are going down, so we need to increase the regulatory burden. If we are going to put lives at risk or force hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of structural changes to community airports, it must result in safer outcomes. There has to be a real-world problem we are fixing.

According to the ICAO, people over 65 or with type 1 diabetes should not be pilots for airlines, for example. However, in Canada, with our high quality of life and preventive care, we could allow people in both of these groups to fly without fear, so we filed differences with the ICAO to bring the regulations into line with the Canadian context. Therefore, why will the Liberal government not take this route and prioritize saving the lives of Canadians requiring emergency medical assistance?

I hope the government will stop and consider the devastating medical and socio-economic impact that this change will have in hundreds of communities across the country and commit to the proper consultations and the impact and risk assessments it has so far failed to do. I also hope it will maintain the status quo if there is no overwhelming reason not to.

[Aviation Industry, February 3rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise this evening to discuss the troubling changes that the Liberal government has been trying to make to the non-certified aerodromes of this country. These facilities are community airports like the one in Ponoka in my riding.

The changes that are proposed regarding the instrument-approach procedures would make these vital facilities much less accessible, unless the facilities spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that they simply do not have. In fact, an analysis done in central Alberta suggests that it would double the number of days that airports and facilities are not able to be used.

These airports are vital, especially for rural communities. Stopping airports like the one in Ponoka from being able to receive planes for 14 or more days a year is not just a problem for pilots who fly for recreation. These are vital facilities for medical evacuation and patient transportation. The impact of this change could literally mean life or death for Canadians if they cannot get the emergency services that they need.

The Minister of Transport would never accept a policy that prevented ambulances from operating 14 days a year in his home riding in Mississauga. I am sure his parliamentary secretary would likewise speak out against this type of cut in service in Laval or Montreal. Therefore, why do they think it is acceptable for people in my riding or across many parts of rural Canada?

These airports are also important economic drivers that communities count on to get goods and people in and out of rural and remote regions. On top of the increased uncertainty for businesses and lost profits, productivity and time from these sorts of delays, it will also incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased costs as flights have to be rerouted to other airports farther away, increasing costs for overtime, fuel, accommodation and meals that these small businesses cannot afford during the difficult economic times they are already facing.

This whole situation appears to have been little more than a bureaucratic make-work project. I have no doubt that when the parliamentary secretary has her turn to reply she will go on at length about safety, undoubtedly a top priority for all of us. This is especially true for those in the aviation industry who make their livelihoods flying. They, more than anyone else, want to ensure that the regulations that we adhere to are at a high standard, so that every day they can get up, go to work and be confident that they will be able to come back home and kiss their families good night.

Representatives of every stakeholder group that I have spoken to on the issue have told me that this is a solution in search of a problem that we simply do not have in Canada. I have been told by representatives of organizations that help with the instrument-approach procedures for over 100 of these aerodromes, that they are aware of exactly zero accidents that have been caused because of the current standards.

It appears that Transport Canada is trying to harmonize our standards with the International Civil Aviation Organization, despite the rationale for those standards not being at all reflective of the actual experience or needs of Canadian aviators.

Of equal concern is that repeated requests for information about the risk assessment and impact analysis by stakeholders has been ignored for over two years. This has led to the belief that there simply was no proper risk assessment or impact analysis completed. Even during what can only be described as a check-box consultation that did not include those with expertise in the actual advisory circular they were seeking to amend, they did not provide an impact analysis. It is my understanding that a series of privately conducted impact analyses of over 100 of these impacted airports showed that nearly all would be negatively impacted, with no meaningful upside.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm if a risk assessment and impact analysis were actually completed?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2022]

With regard to federal contracts awarded to former public servants as defined in the Financial Administration Act, since January 1, 2020, and broken down by department or agency: (a) how many such contracts were awarded; (b) what is the total value of such contracts; and (c) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the date, (ii) the description of the goods or services, (iii) the amount, (iv) the vendor, (v) whether or not ministerial authorization was required for the contract to be awarded?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2022]

With regard to the costs associated with the Phoenix Pay System between February 2016 and October 2021, broken down by month: (a) what were the total costs incurred; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of expense and by Treasury Board Object Code?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2022]

With regard to the October 6, 2021, announcement by the Prime Minister mandating vaccination for the federal work force and the federally-regulated transportation sectors: (a) what is the policy objective of the vaccine mandate; (b) did the government seek advice as to whether any of these policies infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) which individuals, groups, or organizations provided the advice, (ii) who was the advice provided to, (iii) on what dates was the advice received, (iv) what are the titles and internal tracking numbers for any documents containing the advice; (c) did any of the advice find that sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were being infringed upon, and, if so, what are the details of such advice; (d) were the infringements in (c) (i) found to be justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) was the principal of minimal impairment adhered to?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2022]

With regard to the changes outlined in Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular No. 301-001 issue no. 3 respecting the rules regarding Instrument Approach Procedures at non-certified aerodromes: (a) what is the policy objective for this change; (b) how many additional days a year on average, broken down by province, will non-certified aerodromes be inaccessible due to the new instrument approach procedures; (c) what exceptions are being made to ensure that medical evacuation flights will not be impacted by this change; and (d) when is the change expected to come into force?

[Vaccine Requirements for Service Workers, December 16th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of everyday essentials is rising, and, thanks to the Liberal government, we can expect it to get worse. The government has driven up demand by pumping extra money into the economy, and now it is preparing to slash supply by bringing in vaccine mandates for truckers.

There is already a shortage of truckers. The Canadian Trucking Alliance expects to be short 18,000 jobs by March, increasing to 55,000 by 2023, but the government has a plan only to reduce the workforce with a new federal vaccine mandate. This will kill jobs and drive up prices in all sectors, from agriculture to energy and everything in between, solely for the sake of being punitive to people we used to call heroes only a few months ago.

The fact that reasonable accommodation is not being offered makes it clear that this is about coercion and not public health. The Liberals are about to create a catastrophic supply chain disruption. Instead of making life miserable for people who cannot or will not get vaccinated, they should provide reasonable accommodations to get our economy back on track, get inflation under control, and make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Criminal Code, December 15th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague missed the opportunity to not get into a coalition with the government of the day, but that is fine.

The diversion measures that are in the legislation are certainly something that can be considered. As a former law enforcement officer, I had the ability to decide to pursue something or not. A Crown prosecutor has the ability to decide to pursue something or not. That is where the judgment needs to be made.

We do not need to legislate that judgment. We need to trust the men and women on the ground, not only in our law enforcement but in our prosecutorial services. They are the ones who can actually decide and are best positioned to weed out who is doing what on the ground, whether it is somebody caught up with addictions and simple possession or it is actual criminal activity. Let us let them do their work. They are—

[Criminal Code, December 15th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is asking about whether people should be going to jail for simple possession. I would ask her if she shares my interpretation of the legislation.

Here is what the minimum penalties with respect to drugs are in Bill C-5: with respect to drug dealers, trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, which does not sound like simple possession to me; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting, which to me sounds like drug smuggling across the border; production of a substance in schedule I, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth, which sounds like illegal drug manufacturing.

This bill is not addressing the simple possession issues my colleague is talking about. We can have a discussion about those kinds of things for simple possession and addictions all day long, and I would be happy to have the conversation with her.

This is about criminality and organized crime. Why would we be conflating that with simple possession? These are criminal organizations that are smuggling and manufacturing and distributing drugs. They should go to jail.

[Criminal Code, December 15th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that question. My colleague is missing the point altogether. If my colleague would actually read polling information that Canadians are responding to when they are asked the question about confidence in police and their justice system, he would see that the numbers have not looked good for the last six years. Crime is on the rise. Dangerous crime and violent crime are on the rise. Confidence in our police and our justice system is going down. That is because of the tone and the agenda set by the current government in going after the wrong people. The member has it wrong.

When it comes to rehabilitation, my colleague should know that the only way offenders are going to be able to access any of the programs and services offered by Correctional Service Canada is if they spend at least two years in jail. That is the threshold. When they go to a provincial prison they do not get any of that. When they go to a federal prison for two years, they get access to programs and services so that they avoid recidivism.

Why would the Liberal members of this House deny these people an opportunity to get the programs and services they need? They just want the votes of the hug-a-thug crowd in this country, and it is doing nothing for safety.