SoVote

Blaine Calkins

Member of Parliament
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
Conservative

Red Deer—Lacombe
Alberta
Voting Attendance: 67%
Expenses Last Quarter: $146,499.79

Government Page

Feb/3/22 6:51:10 p.m.
Watch

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.

211 words

Context: House Hansard - 23 - Feb/3/22

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Feb/3/22 6:41:10 p.m.
Watch

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.

47 words

Context: House Hansard - 23 - Feb/3/22

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Feb/3/22 6:41:10 p.m.
Watch

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?

632 words

Context: House Hansard - 9 - Dec/2/21

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Dec/2/21 3:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are changing the instrument approach procedures for many small aerodromes across the country, including the Ponoka airport in my riding. This change is purely bureaucratic to align with international standards that do not reflect the reality of how these facilities are used in Canada, but the impacts are very real. In Central Alberta, it would double the number of days medical evacuation and transport aircraft cannot use these airfields. This is a disaster waiting to happen during a pandemic. Why is the government risking the lives of Canadians with this make-work bureaucratic project?

98 words

SoVote

Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees

Blaine Calkins