Canada (Transport) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2017-08-04 Neutral citation 2017 FCA 164 File numbers A-74-16 Date: 20170804 Docket: A-74-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 164

Canada (Transport) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2017-08-04
Neutral citation 2017 FCA 164
File numbers A-74-16
Date: 20170804


Docket: A-74-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 164

CORAM:
NEAR J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:

CANADA (MINISTER OF TRANSPORT)
Appellant

and

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES and SUNWING AIRLINES INC.
Respondents

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 30, 2017.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 4, 2017.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:

GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
NEAR J.A.
RENNIE J.A.


Date: 20170804


Docket: A-74-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 164

CORAM:
NEAR J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:

CANADA (MINISTER OF TRANSPORT)
Appellant

and

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES and SUNWING AIRLINES INC.
Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GLEASON J.A.

[1]               The Minister of Transport appeals from the judgment of the Federal Court (per Brown, J.) in Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Transport), 2016 FC 120 [Reasons] in which the Federal Court granted, in part, the judicial review application brought by the respondent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).
[2]               In its application, CUPE sought to set aside what it characterizes as two decisions, one verbal and the other in writing, granting ministerial approval to the respondent, Sunwing Airlines Inc., for a change to its flight attendant manual (FAM). The change in question made certain steps to be taken by flight attendants in carrying-out emergency evacuation procedures optional as opposed to mandatory. The Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector who granted the approval advised Sunwing to undertake a risk assessment before making the change to the FAM, but did not review that assessment before he approved the FAM amendment and provided no reasons for his decision authorizing the change.
[3]               The Federal Court set aside the Canada Cabin Safety Inspector’s written decision, finding it to be unreasonable but dismissed the application in respect of the Inspector’s earlier verbal decision. While I do not agree with all of the Federal Court’s reasoning as I believe that the Inspector made only one decision in this case, I concur that the decision in question is unreasonable as there is no way to determine if or why the Inspector was satisfied that the change in procedure would not compromise the safety of passengers and crew members in the event of an emergency evacuation. I would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs payable by the Minister in favour of CUPE in the amount agreed to by the parties.
I.                   Background

[4]               It is useful to begin by reviewing the relevant factual background.
[5]               Prior to the circumstances giving rise to this appeal, Sunwing staffed its fleet of 737-800 aircraft with one flight attendant for every 40 passengers. At the time, this was the applicable minimum staffing threshold required for these aircraft under section 705.104 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433 (CARs) in the absence of a ministerial exemption, authorizing fewer flight attendants. (The CARs were subsequently amended to set a 1:50 threshold as the minimum ratio of flight attendants to passengers on aircraft with a capacity of 50 passengers or more.)
[6]               In June 2013, Sunwing applied for an exemption from the minimum staffing requirements, seeking authorization to have only one flight attendant for every 50 passengers. On October 18, 2013, the Minister granted Sunwing a conditional exemption from section 705.104 of the CARs. One of the conditions for the exemption required that Sunwing demonstrate it was able to complete a partial evacuation simulation within 15 seconds.
[7]               Sunwing conducted partial evacuation simulations on November 22 and 27, 2013, which Transport Canada observed. The first three demonstrations were conducted in accordance with the procedures contained in Sunwing’s FAM. One of these procedures called for the mandatory issuance by the flight attendants of a “blocking command” to get passengers to assist in crowd control during evacuation procedures. The command involved shouting to passengers something like, “You there in the yellow shirt, block the aisle” or something similar to direct passengers to not block exit doors and thereby allow the flight attendants to open the doors and deploy the evacuation slides as quickly as possible.
[8]               The Sunwing flight attendants assigned to perform the partial evacuation simulation initially participated in two simulation attempts on November 22, 2013 and in a third attempt on November 27, 2013. In all three, they failed to carry-out the required procedures within 15 seconds. At a debriefing meeting held after the third failed attempt, the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector suggested making the blocking command discretionary as a strategy for shaving seconds off of Sunwing’s testing time. He noted that the issuance of the command might be slowing things down and that when he was a flight attendant he had been able to get to the doors to open them before any passenger blocked his passage.
[9]               Sunwing conducted a final test later that same day, during which the flight attendants did not issue a blocking command. This time, without the command, they were able to complete all requirements for a partial evacuation within the 15 second time limit. Following this successful test, the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector advised Sunwing management that Sunwing should make a formal application for approval of the change to its FAM and that it should conduct an internal risk assessment as part of that process.
[10]           In response, Sunwing did two things. First, on November 29, 2013, it completed a risk assessment using a standard template form. In it, Sunwing concluded that any risk to safety from making the blocking command non-mandatory would be mitigated by the fact that it would be unlikely for passengers to be blocking the doors that an attendant needed to access during an evacuation. The assessment is cursory and provides no indication of how this conclusion was reached. Moreover, it appears from the cross-examination of Sunwing representatives that no reliable testing was conducted to verify the accuracy of the conclusions drawn in the risk assessment.
[11]           Second, also on November 29, 2013, Sunwing sent the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector a written request for approval of the amendment to the FAM regarding the change to the blocking command protocol. This request took the form of a “Cabin Safety Bulletin” outlining the change for which Sunwing sought approval from Transport Canada. Although this bulletin mentions that a risk assessment had been conducted in relation to the change, the assessment was not attached to the bulletin, described in the bulletin or detailed in the letter to Transport Canada.
[12]           On the same day (November 29, 2013), Transport Canada approved Sunwing’s Cabin Safety Bulletin and the amendment to Sunwing’s FAM. The decision, authored by the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector, simply states:
Sunwing Airlines Inc.’s Cabin Crew Safety Bulletin No. 2013-10 meets the requirements of the Flight Attendant Manual Standard (TP12295) and therefore, in accordance with Subsection 705.139(3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations is hereby approved.

[13]           Another Transport Canada inspector determined that Sunwing met the outstanding condition for approval of the staffing exemption and granted it an exemption to allow for a 1:50 flight attendant to passenger staffing ratio. That decision was judicially reviewed by CUPE, the flight attendants’ bargaining agent, but that application was dismissed for mootness after the CARs were amended to provide for a 1:50 threshold as the minimum ratio of flight attendants to passengers on aircraft with a capacity of 50 passengers or more: Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Transport), 2015 FC 1421.
[14]           CUPE also applied for judicial review of both the verbal approval of the FAM amendment on November 27, 2013 and of the follow-up written approval dated November 29, 2013. This application is the subject of the present appeal.
II.                The Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Framework

[15]           Prior to reviewing the Federal Court’s reasons, it is necessary to briefly detail the relevant statutory and regulatory backdrop to the Cabin Safety Inspector’s decision.
[16]           The CARs were enacted in 1996 pursuant to a number of provisions in the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2 (the Act). One of these enabling provisions was section 4.7(2) of the Act, which at the time stated:
4.7(2) For the purposes of protecting passengers, crew members, aircraft and aerodromes and other aviation facilities, preventing unlawful interference with civil aviation and ensuring that appropriate action is taken where that interference occurs or is likely to occur, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting aviation security.

4.7(2) Pour la protection des aéronefs, de leurs passagers et équipages, des aérodromes et autres installations aéronautiques, ainsi que pour la prévention des atteintes illicites à l’aviation civile et la prise de mesures efficaces lorsque de telles atteintes surviennent ou risquent de survenir, le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, régir la sûreté aérienne.

The current iteration of this provision is paragraph 4.71(2)(a):
Aviation security regulations

Règlements sur la sûreté aérienne

4.71 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting aviation security.

4.71 (1) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, régir la sûreté aérienne.

Contents of regulations

Teneur des règlements

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), regulations may be made under that subsection

(2) Les règlements visés au paragraphe (1) peuvent notamment :

(a) respecting the safety of the public, passengers, crew members, aircraft and aerodromes and other aviation facilities.

a) régir la sécurité du public, des aéronefs et de leurs passagers et équipages ainsi que des aérodromes et autres installations aéronautiques.

[17]           The impugned decision in this matter was made pursuant to section 705.139 of the CARs. It provides:
Flight Attendant Manual

Manuel de l’agent de bord

705.139 (1) Every air operator, other than an air operator that is authorized solely for the transport of cargo in its air operator certificate, shall establish and maintain, as part of its company operations manual, a flight attendant manual for the use and guidance of flight attendants in the operation of its aircraft.

705.139 (1) L’exploitant aérien, autre que l’exploitant aérien qui est autorisé aux termes de son certificat d’exploitation aérienne à transporter uniquement du fret, doit établir et tenir à jour un manuel de l’agent de bord, qui fait partie du manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie, pour aider les agents de bord dans l’utilisation de ses aéronefs.

(2) A flight attendant manual shall contain the instructions and information necessary to enable flight attendants to perform their duties safely and shall contain the information required by the Flight Attendant Manual Standard.

(2) Le manuel de l’agent de bord doit contenir les instructions et les renseignements permettant aux agents de bord d’exercer leurs fonctions en toute sécurité, ainsi que les renseignements qu’exige la Norme relative au manuel des agents de bord.

(3) The Minister shall, where the Flight Attendant Manual Standard is met, approve those parts of a flight attendant manual, and any amendments to those parts, that relate to the safety and emergency information contained in Part A of the Flight Attendant Manual Standard.

(3) Lorsque la Norme relative au manuel des agents de bord est satisfaite, le ministre approuve les parties du manuel de l’agent de bord portant sur les renseignements visant les procédures de sécurité et les procédures d’urgence contenues dans la partie A de cette norme et toutes les modifications qui sont apportées au manuel.

(4) An air operator shall provide a copy of its flight attendant manual, including any amendments to that manual, to each of its flight attendants.

(4) L’exploitant aérien doit fournir à chacun de ses agents de bord un exemplaire du manuel de l’agent de bord et toutes les modifications qui y sont apportées.

(5) Every flight attendant who has been provided with a copy of a flight attendant manual pursuant to subsection (4) shall keep it up to date with the amendments provided and shall ensure that the appropriate parts are accessible when the flight attendant is performing assigned duties on board an aircraft.

(5) L’agent de bord qui a reçu un exemplaire du manuel de l’agent de bord en application du paragraphe (4) doit le tenir à jour en y insérant les modifications qui lui sont fournies et s’assurer que les parties applicables sont à portée de la main durant l’exercice des fonctions qui lui sont assignées à bord d’un aéronef.

[18]           The Flight Attendant Manual Standard is published by Transport Canada. It is a standardized template that forms the basis for a commercial airline’s FAM. Part A of the Flight Attendant Manual Standard outlines topics pertaining to safety measures and emergency information that must be included in an airline’s FAM. Part A must be accessible to flight attendants while they are working. Part B allows space for an airline to include other non-mandatory information. Part A is divided into six sections, and each section includes a number of headings and sub-headings that must be included by an airline in its FAM.
[19]           Section 2 of Part A deals with “Emergency Procedures” and includes 27 headings. There are a number of headings covering topics related to evacuations and emergency landings, including headings 2A.18 and 2A.19, which cover “Emergency Evacuation Commands” and “Emergency Evacuation Commands – Application” respectively. However, the Flight Attendant Manual Standard is only prescriptive insofar as topics to be covered in a FAM are concerned. With some exceptions (none of which are pertinent here), the Flight Attendant Manual Standard only identifies what issues must be addressed in a FAM (e.g. “blocked/jammed exit commands” under subsection 2A.19) without providing any sort of compliance standards.
[20]           As noted in subsection 705.139(1), an airline’s FAM forms part of the airline’s company operations manual, which is described in sections 705.134 and 705.135 of the CARs:
Requirements relating to Company Operations Manual

Exigences relatives au manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie

705.134 (1) Every air operator shall establish and maintain a company operations manual that meets the requirements of section 705.135.

705.134 (1) L’exploitant aérien doit établir et tenir à jour un manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie conforme aux exigences de l’article 705.135.

(2) An air operator shall submit its company operations manual, and any amendments to that manual, to the Minister.

(2) L’exploitant aérien doit soumettre au ministre le manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie et toutes les modifications qui y sont apportées.

(3) Where there is a change in any aspect of an air operator’s operation or where the company operations manual no longer meets the Commercial Air Service Standards, the air operator shall amend its company operations manual.

(3) L’exploitant aérien doit modifier le manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie lorsque des changements sont apportés à tout élément de son exploitation ou que le manuel n’est plus conforme aux Normes de service aérien commercial.

(4) The Minister shall, where the Commercial Air Service Standards are met, approve those parts of a company operations manual, and any amendments to those parts, that relate to the information required by section 705.135.

(3) L’exploitant aérien doit modifier le manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie lorsque des changements sont apportés à tout élément de son exploitation ou que le manuel n’est plus conforme aux Normes de service aérien commercial.

Contents of Company Operations Manual

Contenu du manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie

705.135 (1) A company operations manual, which may be issued in separate parts corresponding to specific aspects of an operation, shall include the instructions and information necessary to enable the personnel concerned to perform their duties safely and shall contain the information required by the Commercial Air Service Standards.

705.135 (1) Le manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie, qui peut être publié en parties distinctes portant sur des éléments particuliers de l’exploitation, doit comprendre les instructions et les renseignements permettant au personnel concerné d’exercer ses fonctions en toute sécurité et doit contenir les renseignements qu’exigent les Normes de service aérien commercial.

(2) A company operations manual shall be such that

(2) Le manuel d’exploitation de la compagnie doit :

(a) all parts of the manual are consistent and compatible in form and content;

a) d’une partie à l’autre, être uniforme et compatible sur les plans de la forme et du contenu;

(b) the manual can be readily amended;

b) être facile à modifier;

(c) the manual contains an amendment control page and a list of the pages that are in effect; and

c) contenir une liste des modifications et une liste des pages en vigueur;

(d) the manual has the date of the last amendment to each page specified on that page.

d) porter, sur chaque page modifiée, la date de la dernière modification apportée à la page.

[21]           The Commercial Air Service Standards that must inform an operator’s company operations manual provide various standards that track the specific regulatory requirements described in the CARs. Similar to the Flight Attendant Manual Standard, this document does not provide specific compliance standards for each mandatory topic.
[22]           Transport Canada has developed a Cabin Safety Inspector Manual (CSIM) that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the department’s Cabin Safety Inspectors. These inspectors are responsible for ensuring airlines’ compliance with various requirements as well as the CARs. Many of the Minister’s functions under the CARs are delegated to Cabin Safety Inspectors.
[23]           Under section 4.7 of the CSIM, Cabin Safety Inspectors are specifically identified as being responsible for assessing whether FAMs (or amendments to FAMs) will be approved under subsection 705.139(3) of the CARs. A Cabin Safety Inspector’s general role with respect to such verifications is described under section 4.12 “Documentation Review”, which states:
When reviewing […] the Flight Attendant Manual and […] Company Operations Manual […], the Cabin Safety Inspector should be familiar with the aircraft type(s) in the air operator’s fleet.

A preliminary review should be performed prior to a comprehensive review of any Cabin Safety documents and should be conducted promptly after receipt of the operator’s submission. If after preliminary review, the submission appears to be complete and of acceptable quality, or if the deficiencies are minor and can be quickly resolved, then a comprehensive review of the submission may begin.

If the submission is incomplete, unacceptable or obviously cannot be approved, the process is terminated and the Cabin Safety Inspector should return the submission with an explanation of the deficiencies. This should be completed promptly to alleviate any misconceptions the air operator may have on the progress of the submission.

[24]           The overall purpose of the CSIM is provided in section 1.1:
The Cabin Safety Inspector Manual (CSIM) has been prepared for use by Cabin Safety Inspectors.

The content of the manual directs the activities of Cabin Safety Inspectors and provides procedural guidance regarding routine cabin safety tasks.

Each Cabin Safety Inspector must have a thorough knowledge of the contents of this manual and adhere to the policies and procedures contained herein.

Consistent application of the procedures and guidelines will enable cabin safety matters to be conducted in a uniform manner on a national basis.

Cabin Safety Inspectors may encounter new or unique issues and situations for which no specific guidance has been provided. Consultation with Cabin Safety Standards is recommended in such circumstances. This process will increase awareness by all Cabin Safety Inspectors and achieve consistency nationally.

III.             The Federal Court’s Decision

[25]           The Federal Court accepted CUPE’s contention that, in the instant case, the Cabin Safety Inspector made two decisions: a verbal one on November 27, 2013 and a subsequent written decision on November 29, 2013. The Court determined that the reasonableness standard applied to the review of both decisions. Noting that subsection 705.139(3) of the CARs and its application had not been discussed in the jurisprudence, the Federal Court held that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness because “the Minister of Transport and his delegates at Transport Canadas are engaged in a discrete and special administrative regime [where the] decision-makers […] have special expertise” (Reasons at para. 54). Given the factual nature of the decisions being challenged in this matter, the Federal Court noted that Cabin Safety Inspectors’ decisions should be “afforded a wide range of appreciation” (Reasons at para. 55). Although rejecting the notion that the presence of safety concerns narrows the range of what would be considered reasonable as a matter of law, the Federal Court nevertheless recognized that safety was an important contextual factor.
[26]           With this in mind, the Federal Court determined that the verbal approval was reasonable while the written approval was not. In terms of the former, the Federal Court’s determination turned in part on the fact that the verbal approval was preliminary in nature.
[27]           In concluding that the written approval was unreasonable, the Federal Court came to four sequential determinations. The Court first held that the CSIM, a Transport Canada guideline aimed at ensuring safety, provides a benchmark for the process that should be undertaken by Cabin Safety Inspectors when they are asked to make approvals under the CARs. Second, the Federal Court concluded that ministerial approvals under the CARs (at least where safety is implicated) require a substantive review of the safety implications of a request. The Federal Court noted that the comprehensive review process identified in the CSIM would provide the necessary substantive administrative review required to make a decision under subsection 705.139(3) presumptively reasonable. Third, the Court determined that no comprehensive review took place in this case. Fourth, the Court concluded that the decision approving the change to Sunwing’s FAM was unreasonable as no comprehensive review had taken place. The Court concluded at paragraph 75 of the Reasons that:
[…] The failure to conduct the required “comprehensive review” casts doubt on the integrity of the ultimate decision and has the potential to undermine confidence in the application of Transport Canada’s air passenger safety mandate. Specifically, this failure could jeopardize passenger and crew safety in an emergency evacuation, as outlined below. Therefore in my view the failure to conduct a “comprehensive review” was in this case unreasonable, in particular because the Risk Assessment Transport Canada requested was neither reviewed nor considered by Transport Canada itself.

IV.             Analysis

[28]           As this is an appeal from a judicial review decision of the Federal Court, this Court is required to determine if the Federal Court selected the appropriate standard of review and, if so, whether the Federal Court applied that standard correctly: Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at paras. 45-47, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559. Thus, this Court is required to step into the shoes of the Federal Court and re-conduct the requisite analysis.
[29]           In terms of that analysis, as noted, I believe that only a single reviewable decision was made in this case, namely, the Cabin Safety Inspector’s November 29th approval of Sunwing’s proposed change to its FAM. The approval given on that date was the one that was required by subsection 705.139(3) of the CARs. All that transpired two days earlier in the debriefing session is that the Cabin Safety Inspector indicated that he would approve an amendment to make the blocking command optional. However, the actual application for approval of that change was not made until November 29th and the decision in respect of it was made later that same day.
[30]           I concur with the Federal Court that the reasonableness standard applies to the review of this decision as the matters at issue involve the application of the CARs, the specialized regulations governing aeronautics promulgated under the Act. In addition, the matters at issue are largely, if not entirely, factual in nature and engage the expertise of the Cabin Safety Inspector in assessing the safety implications of the proposed changes to Sunwing’s FAM. These factors all point to the selection of reasonableness as being the applicable standard of review: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paras. 53-56, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 [Dunsmuir]; Edmonton (City) v. Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47 at paras. 22-24, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 293 [City of Edmonton].
[31]           As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir at paragraph 47, the hallmarks of a reasonable decision are that the decision is transparent, intelligible and justifiable as a possible outcome that is defensible in light of the relevant law and the facts in issue before the administrative decision-maker.
[32]           In assessing whether a decision meets the tripartite requirements of transparency, intelligibility and justification, a reviewing court must have regard to both the reasons given by the decision-maker (where it gives reasons) and the record before the decision-maker. Where necessary, the reviewing court may use the record to supplement the reasons if it finds in the record support for the decision under review: City of Edmonton, at paras. 36-38; Dunsmuir at para. 48; Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61 at para. 56, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654 [Alberta Teachers]. Indeed, for a decision to be upheld as being reasonable, it may not even be necessary for the decision-maker to have provided any reasons at all if the record allows the reviewing court to discern how and why the decision was reached and the decision-maker’s conclusion is defensible in light of the facts and applicable law: City of Edmonton at paras. 36-38; Alberta Teachers at para. 55.
[33]           Here, I agree with CUPE that in making the decision at issue, the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector was required to be satisfied that the proposed change to Sunwing’s FAM would not compromise the safety of passengers or crew on a Sunwing flight in the event of an emergency evacuation. Although the Minister of Transport contended otherwise in its memorandum of fact and law, during the hearing counsel for the Minister conceded that, for the decision to be reasonable, it was necessary for the Inspector to have concluded that the proposed FAM amendment did not compromise safety.
[34]           This concession was appropriate as it seems to me that it is incontrovertible that the role of an inspector under subsection 705.139(3) of the CARs is to assess the safety of the proposed amendments to an operator’s FAM as opposed to engaging in a sterile exercise of merely ensuring that a proposed FAM amendment meets the requirements of the Flight Attendant Manual Standard by simply saying something about one of the topics that must be covered in a FAM. Were it otherwise, the role of the inspector would be superfluous.
[35]           Moreover, one of the enabling provisions under which the CARs were promulgated provides that the purpose of these regulations is aviation safety. In addition, fostering flight safety is specifically recognized as being a key requirement for the contents of an operator’s operations manual, of which a FAM is a part, as subsection 705.135(1) of the CARs provides that the manual, in addition to covering the mandatory topics, “shall include the instructions and information necessary to enable the personnel concerned to perform their duties safely […]”.
[36]           In several cases, in examining other provisions in the CARs or in the Act, several courts (including this one) have noted that at least one of the purposes of the Act and the CARs and one of the roles of the Minister or his delegates in making decisions under them, is fostering aviation safety: see, for example, R. v. 264544 Alberta Ltd., [1986] 1 W.W.R. 365 at para. 11, 65 A.R. 217 (A.B.C.A.); Aztec Aviation Consulting Ltd. v. Canada, [1990] B.C.W.L.D. 1707 at paras. 5 and 20, 33 F.T.R. 210 (F.C.T.D.); Swanson Estate v. Canada, [1992] 1 F.C. 408 at para. 27, 80 D.L.R. (4th) 741; Bahlsen v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1997] 1 F.C. 800 at para. 75, 141 D.L.R. (4th) 712 (F.C.A.); R. v. Biller, [1999] 8 W.W.R. 629 at para. 41, 174 D.L.R. (4th) 721 (S.K.C.A.); Gill v. Canada (Minister of Transport), 2015 BCCA 344 at paras. 26-31, 388 D.L.R. (4th) 593; Sierra Fox Inc. v. Canada (Federal Minister of Transport), 2007 FC 129 at para. 6, 308 F.T.R. 219.
[37]           In the instant case, the need for the Transport Canada Cabin Safety Inspector to have been satisfied that the proposed amendment to the FAM did not compromise safety is underscored by the requirements of Transport Canada’s CSIM, providing for a substantive review of proposed FAM amendments. This contemplates that an inspector will undertake a review of the contents and implications of proposed amendments.
[38]           Thus, to approve Sunwing’s proposed change to its FAM to make the blocking command optional as opposed to mandatory, the Cabin Safety Inspector was required to be satisfied that the amendment did not compromise the safety of passengers or crew on board Sunwing’s flights. And, for the Inspector’s decision to be upheld under the reasonableness standard of review, this Court must be able to ascertain whether the Inspector made such a determination, and, if so, whether there was a reasonable basis for it. In the present case, in the absence of reasons for the decision, the Court must have regard to the record to assess the reasonableness of the Inspector’s decision.
[39]           In light of the record, I cannot conclude that the requisite analysis was undertaken by the Inspector or discern how he could have concluded that the proposed FAM amendment did not compromise safety. In detailing the steps to be undertaken by Sunwing in making the change to its FAM, the Inspector reminded Sunwing that it was required to undertake a risk assessment, yet that assessment was never reviewed by the Inspector. Moreover, the assessment was cursory and there appears to have been little or no evidence to support the conclusions reached in the assessment.
[40]           In light of these facts and of the importance of ensuring that changes to aircraft emergency evacuation procedures are safe, I do not believe that the Inspector’s decision can be upheld as being reasonable. The decision cannot be said to be transparent, intelligible or justifiable as we simply do not know if, how or why the Inspector could have concluded that the proposed change did not compromise safety. Not only did the inspector fail to review Sunwing’s risk assessment, there is in addition no evidentiary basis to substantiate the assumption that passengers would not likely block a Sunwing flight attendant who needs to open an emergency exit to evacuate the aircraft. Thus, it is impossible to see how the Inspector could have been satisfied that the proposed amendment to the FAM did not compromise safety. In short, the record reveals that a mandatory safety requirement was abrogated without there being evidence to support the assumption that it was not required. The Inspector’s decision therefore cannot stand.
[41]           Thus, I concur with the Federal Court that the Cabin Safety Inspector’s November 29, 2013 decision should be set aside and would accordingly dismiss this appeal, with costs. The parties jointly submitted that costs should be payable only by the Minister in the event that CUPE were successful and that they should be fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $3,000.00. I concur that this is appropriate and would therefore order the Minister to pay costs to CUPE in the amount of $3,000.00, all-inclusive.
“Mary J.L. Gleason”
J.A.
“I agree.
D. G. Near J.A.”
“I agree.
Donald J. Rennie J.A.”

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:
A-74-16


STYLE OF CAUSE:
CANADA (MINISTER OF TRANSPORT) v. CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES and SUNWING AIRLINES INC.


PLACE OF HEARING:

TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:

MARCH 30, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
GLEASON J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:
NEAR J.A.
RENNIE J.A.

DATED:

AUGUST 4, 2017

APPEARANCES:

Joseph Cheng

FOR THE APPELLANT

Stephen J. Moreau

FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

Paul Michell
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SUNWING ARILINES INC.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE APPELLANT

Cavalluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SUNWING AIRLINES INC.

Andrew Scheer Leader of the Conservative Party

Andrew Scheer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Andrew Scheer
MP
Andrew Scheer.jpg
Leader of the Official Opposition
Incumbent
Assumed office
May 27, 2017
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Preceded by Rona Ambrose
Leader of the Conservative Party
Incumbent
Assumed office
May 27, 2017
Deputy Denis Lebel
Preceded by Rona Ambrose (interim)
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons
In office
November 18, 2015 – September 13, 2016
Leader Rona Ambrose
Preceded by Peter Julian
Succeeded by Candice Bergen
Speaker of the House of Commons
In office
June 2, 2011 – December 3, 2015
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Preceded by Peter Milliken
Succeeded by Geoff Regan
Member of the Canadian Parliament
for Regina-Qu'Appelle
Incumbent
Assumed office
June 28, 2004
Preceded by Lorne Nystrom
Personal details
Born Andrew James Scheer
May 20, 1979 (age 38)
Ottawa, Canada
Political party Canadian Alliance (Before 2003)
Conservative (2003–present)
Spouse(s) Jill Ryan
Relations Jon Ryan (brother-in-law)
Children 5
Residence Stornoway
Education University of Ottawa
University of Regina (BA)
Website Party website
Campaign website
Andrew James Scheer, MP (born May 20, 1979) is a Canadian politican who is leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Leader of the Opposition. He has been the Member of Parliament for the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle since 2004 and served as Speaker of the House of Commons from 2011 to 2015.[1][2] At age 32, he was the youngest Speaker in Canadian parliamentary history.[3] On September 28, 2016, Scheer announced his bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party.[4] On May 27, 2017, he became the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada on the 13th and final ballot of the leadership election,[5] with 50.95% of the vote.[6]


1 Early life and career
2 Political career
2.1 First years in the House of Commons
2.2 Speaker of the House of Commons
2.3 Opposition (second time)
2.4 2017 leadership election
3 Political positions
3.1 Abortion
3.2 Family support
3.3 Freedom of speech
3.4 Marijuana legalization
3.5 Medically assisted suicide
3.6 Refugees
3.7 Same-sex marriage
4 Family
5 References
6 External links
Early life and career
Scheer was born in Ottawa, Ontario, the son of Mary Gerarda Therese (Enright), a nurse, and James Scheer, a librarian and proofreader, who is a deacon of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa.[7][8][9] He has two sisters. Scheer graduated from Immaculata High School, and then studied history and politics at the University of Ottawa. While attending university, Scheer worked in the correspondence department of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition (OLO). He moved to Regina after meeting his future wife Jill Ryan at university and finished his BA at the University of Regina. Instead of returning to Ottawa, Scheer worked at Shenher Insurance before joining the constituency office of a Canadian Alliance MP, Larry Spencer in Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

Political career
First years in the House of Commons
Scheer was elected as a Conservative candidate in the federal election of 2004 in the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle, beating New Democratic Party MP Lorne Nystrom by 861 votes.[10] At the time Nystrom had been the longest-serving member of the House of Commons. Scheer was re-elected in the federal election of 2006, once again defeating Nystrom, this time by a margin of 2,740 votes.[11]

In April 2006, Scheer was named Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, one of three deputy speakers and one of the youngest Members of Parliament to serve in that role in Commonwealth history. On November 21, 2008, he was named Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and Chairman of Committees of the Whole,[12] succeeding New Democrat MP Bill Blaikie.

Speaker of the House of Commons
When the Conservative Party won a majority at the federal election in 2011, Scheer's experience as Deputy Speaker led many to consider him the front-runner to be elected Speaker of the House of Commons.[13][14] On June 2, 2011, Scheer defeated Denise Savoie in the sixth round of balloting; he was the last of five Conservative candidates, with Savoie the lone opposition candidate and the only woman. Scheer became the youngest House Speaker in Canadian history[3] and the first speaker to represent a Saskatchewan riding.

Scheer was one of thirteen Canadians banned from travelling to Russia under retaliatory sanctions imposed by President Vladimir Putin in March 2014.[15]

Opposition (second time)
Scheer was re-elected in the 2015 federal election that defeated the Conservative government.[16] He was appointed Opposition House Leader by Leader of the Opposition Rona Ambrose. On September 13, 2016, he announced his resignation outside a party caucus meeting in Halifax in order to explore a bid for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party.[17]

2017 leadership election
See also: Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017
On September 28, 2016, Scheer announced his bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party,[4] and that he has the support of 32 members of the Conservative caucus.[18] On May 27, 2017, Scheer was elected as the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, beating runner up Maxime Bernier and more than 12 others with 50.95% of the vote through 13 rounds.[5]

Political positions
Scheer's campaign for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership was run under the slogan: "Real conservative. Real leader." He avoided advocating the social conservative issues that some of the candidates championed, saying that he wanted to "reach a broader audience of Canadians." Positions he did take a strong stance on included scrapping the carbon tax and being "tough-on-crime".[19] Scheer's views have led him to be described as a Blue Tory.[20]

Abortion
Scheer is considered pro-life by the Campaign Life Coalition and has a "perfect" pro-life voting record in the House of Commons.[21][22] After Henry Morgentaler, a pioneering pro-choice doctor was named to the Order of Canada, Scheer stated that the appointment had "debased the Order of Canada."[23][24] Scheer has said[25] that despite his personal view, he will respect the Conservative Party's official policy on abortion, which currently states, "A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion"[26] although the party allows free votes on the matter.[26]

Family support
Andrew Scheer says he wants to make maternity and parental leave less expensive for families. He has promised to make employment insurance for parental and maternity benefits tax-free. He wants to introduce tax credit to families who send their children to private schools. Scheer also proposes raising the limit on how much employment income a parent can earn each week while on leave.[27]

Freedom of speech
Scheer has promised that universities or colleges “that do not foster a culture of free speech and inquiry on campus” will not receive federal funding under his government.[28]

Marijuana legalization
When asked about his stance on Canada's potential legalization of marijuana, he said though he is not in favour of the motion, "I am very realistic, and once it's legal in a short period of time there's going to be a lot of people that work for companies that distribute it... so we have to be very realistic as a party."[29]

Medically assisted suicide
Scheer voted against Bill C-14, which allows practitioners to assist in the suicide of mentally competent adults with "enduring and intolerable suffering" in cases where death is "reasonably foreseeable."[30][21]

Refugees
Scheer wants to prioritize helping those he considers the most vulnerable refugees, namely religious minorities like Christians in the Middle East who face death for conversion away from Islam.[31] He prefers to help refugees integrate through private sponsorship instead of government sponsorship. He contends that the refugees who are are currently struggling to find housing, jobs and language training is because of the Liberal Party "using a devastating tragedy for political purposes".[32]

Same-sex marriage
During his 2004 election campaign Scheer opposed expanding marriage to same-sex couples, and stated that the Civil Marriage Act “is abhorrent to me … and to every member of every faith community”.[33][24] Scheer voted in favour of a 2006 motion to re-open debate on the definition of marriage, after same-sex marriage had been legalized across Canada.[21] Scheer has stated that, despite his personal beliefs, he will not try to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage.[25]

Family
Scheer and his wife Jill have five children: Thomas, Grace, Madeline, Henry and Mary.[34][35] Jill Scheer's younger brother is professional football player Jon Ryan.[36] Another of Jill Scheer's brothers, Steve Ryan, ran for the Saskatchewan NDP in the 2007 and 2011 provincial elections.[37] He and his family attend Sunday Mass at Canadian Martyrs or Good Samaritan parishes.[24]

References
Jump up ^ "Profile". Parliament of Canada. July 17, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Speaker of the House of Commons". Parliament of Canada. July 17, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Fitzpatrick, Meagan (June 2, 2011). "MPs elect youngest Speaker". CBC News. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Ex-Commons Speaker Scheer declares candidacy for Conservative leadership". Retrieved September 28, 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b Harris, Kathleen (May 27, 2017). "Andrew Scheer elected new Conservative leader". CBC News. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Results - CPC Leadership". Intvoting.com. Dominion Voting. May 27, 2017. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ Brent Mattson. "The B.C. Catholic Paper - New Speaker of the House has never hidden his faith". rcav.org.
Jump up ^ Raj, Althia (May 25, 2017). "Andrew Scheer, 'Consensus Candidate,' Hopes The Nice Guy Finishes First In Tory Leadership". The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Mary Scheer Obituary". legacy.com. Ottawa Citizen. March 11, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ Elections Canada, Official Voting Results, June 28, 2004.
Jump up ^ Elections Canada, Official Voting Results, January 23, 2006.
Jump up ^ Journal of the House of Commons of Canada, November 21, 2008.
Jump up ^ "Health Care Talks with Provinces Should Top Harper’s List, Poll Finds". The Globe and Mail. June 2, 2011. Others on that list [of candidates for Speaker] – Saskatchewan Tory MP and perceived frontrunner Andrew Scheer [...]
Jump up ^ "NDP MP Aims to Be Second Female Speaker in History". National Post. May 21, 2011. It's widely speculated, however, that a Conservative is going to get the position, and Andrew Scheer, who has served as Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Speaker for more than five years, is considered the frontrunner.
Jump up ^ Mas, Susana (March 24, 2013). "Russian Sanctions Against Canadians a 'Badge of Honour'". CBC News. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
Jump up ^ Elections Canada, Official Voting Results, October 19, 2015.
Jump up ^ "With MacKay out, Scheer steps down as House leader to explore Tory leadership run". Retrieved September 22, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Andrew Scheer announces support of 20 members of Conservative caucus as he makes leadership bid official". Retrieved September 28, 2016.
Jump up ^ Payton, Laura (January 10, 2017). "Andrew Scheer's Conservative leadership plans: moving beyond 'debate club'". CTV News. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ Krayden, David (May 21, 2017). "As Conservative leadership race wraps, the party's in good hands". Ottawa Sun. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c Dehaas, Josh (February 1, 2017). "Where 14 Conservative leadership candidates stand on social issues". CTV News. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ Campaign Life Coalition. "MP Andrew Scheer". Archived from the original on May 2, 2017. Scheer has an impeccable voting record on life & family issues during his long career as a federal MP.
Jump up ^ "Henry Morgentaler named to Order of Canada". CTV News. July 1, 2008. Archived from the original on May 28, 2017. I can't believe that this was done on Canada Day, a day we should be coming together," Regina MP Andrew Scheer told CTV.ca on Tuesday afternoon. "I think this actually debased the Order of Canada." Scheer, a Tory who describes himself as "pro-life," said he's planning to call members of the advisory panel that suggested the appointment and ask, "Why did you do this?
^ Jump up to: a b c Tuns, Paul (October 23, 2009). "Saskatchewan Tory MP Andrew Scheer values family". The Interim. Archived from the original on May 28, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Andrew Scheer's path to leadership of the Conservative Party - Macleans.ca". 27 May 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b "Andrew Scheer's path to leadership of the Conservative Party - Macleans.ca". 27 May 2017.
Jump up ^ McGregor, Janyce (February 7, 2017). "'Andrew Scheer proposes tax-free maternity and parental benefits". CBC News. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ "'Who is Andrew Scheer?". Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ Scotti, Monique (April 16, 2017). "'I think I have the best chance of winning' says Tory leadership hopeful Andrew Scheer". Global News. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Doctor-assisted dying bill restricted to adults facing 'foreseeable' death". CBC News. Archived from the original on May 30, 2017.
Jump up ^ Scotti, Monique (May 27, 2017). "Who is Andrew Scheer?". Global News. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ Ibbitson, John (January 6, 2017). "Conservative Party's fortunes hinge on immigration policy". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ Gyapong, Deborah (June 7, 2011). "New Speaker of the House has never hidden his faith". Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver. Retrieved May 28, 2017. About the bill to change the definition of marriage, he told the House, “(The bill) is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community.”
Jump up ^ MacCharles, Tonda (September 28, 2016). "Ex-speaker Andrew Scheer announces bid for Conservative leadership". thestar.com. Toronto Star. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
Jump up ^ Stone, Laura (January 13, 2017). "Why Andrew Scheer could be the next Conservative Party leader". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
Jump up ^ Vieira, Paul (January 31, 2014). "Canada’s Speaker Has Stake in Seahawks Super Bowl Victory". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Regina Qu'Appelle Valley - Steve Ryan Seeking NDP Nomination".
External links
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Andrew Scheer
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Andrew Scheer.
Andrew Scheer – Parliament of Canada biography
Official website

Patrick Brown (politician) 2017 03 31

Patrick Walter Brown, (politician)



Political views




Brown characterizes himself as a 'pragmatic conservative' and has noted his limited support from labour unions.[citation needed]

During his Ontario PC Party leadership campaign, Brown was noted for his social conservatism,[3][4] and his criticism of Ontario's sex education in schools.[5] However, since his victory, he has been successful in pushing the Ontario PC Party towards the "political centre." [6] Patrick Brown would go on to become the first Ontario PC Leader to march in the Toronto Pride Parade.[7] At his first Ontario PC Convention as Leader, Brown confirmed his belief in anthropogenic climate change and announced his support for a revenue-neutral price on carbon.[8]

His new progressivism stands in contrast to his voting record from a decade ago. In December 2006, as an MP, Brown voted to repeal same-sex marriage in Canada.[3][9] Brown also voted against several bills between 2011 and 2013, which were aimed at amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender expression and identity, and the Criminal Code, to prevent discrimination.[10] On September 26, 2012, Brown voted in favour of Stephen Woodworth's private member's bill to create a special committee to examine the legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being,[11] which many argued would reopen the abortion debate in Canada. Brown did so, even though then Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted against the bill and said that Canadians did not want to reopen the abortion debate.[12][13] Since becoming Ontario's Progressive Conservative party leader, Brown has stated that it's not a provincial issue, and doesn't intend to revisit it in the Ontario Legislature.[14]

Patrick Brown's first Private Member's Bill in the Ontario Legislature, Bill 151 the Estate Administration Tax Abolition Act, was an attempt to eliminate the death tax.[15] His bill was voted down at Second Reading by the Liberal Government's majority.

His critics have called him 'policy-lite' since he made no policy statements during the Progressive Conservative leadership campaign.[16] Since winning the leadership race, he has focused his plan on four main issues which he suggests will lead to a more "prosperous province": less red tape, improved transportation corridors, affordable energy, and addressing Ontario's growing skills gap.[17]




Federal politics




In the 2004 federal election, Brown ran as the Conservative Party candidate in the riding of Barrie. He lost to incumbent Aileen Carroll by 1,295 votes.[19] Brown ran again in 2006 this time defeating Carroll by 1,523 votes.[20] He was re-elected in the 2008 election by 15,295 votes over Liberal candidate Rick Jones.[21]

In November 2010, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressed concern about how Patrick Brown used his Canadian House of Commons account. He sent flyers to his riding which included a letter of support and a flyer from Barrie City Councillor Michael Prowse. Brown used his House of Commons account to pay for the mailing because Michael Prowse could not afford to send the flyer out himself.[22]

In the 2011 election, Brown was elected to his third term in office.[23]

On September 28, 2014, he announced his intention to run in the 2015 Ontario party leadership election. He registered as a leadership candidate on November 20, 2014. He said that, unlike the other candidates, he was not involved in the four consecutive losses that have kept the Ontario PCs out of power since 2003.[24] At the time of his jump to provincial politics, he chaired the Conservative Party of Canada's Greater Toronto Area caucus and the Canada-India Parliamentary Association.[2]







Provincial politics



In September 2014, Brown announced his intention to run in the contest to replace PC Party Leader, Tim Hudak. From the outset of his campaign, Brown positioned himself as an outsider, challenging the leadership of the PC Party, which had been defeated in the last four provincial elections. In the most recent election campaign, in 2014, the party election platform included a commitment to "cut 100,000 government jobs". As the only one of the original five leadership candidates who was not a member of the Ontario legislature, Brown claimed not to have been involved in the promise, which he considered "ill-advised",[24][25] despite attending the announcement in his home riding.[26] Brown's rivals attempted to use this same lack of previous involvement in provincial politics as an argument against his leadership bid.[27][28]

In March, Brown emerged as the front-runner in the leadership election, having sold over 40,000 of the 70,000 memberships in the party.[29][30][31][32] During the campaign, Brown was successful in bringing many new members to the party. The past four leadership contests had been won by those who sold the most memberships.[33]

Brown was endorsed by the Campaign Life Coalition and the Ontario Landowners Association.[34][35] During Brown's leadership bid both special interest groups actively supported him by selling Ontario PC Party memberships amongst their members.[36][37]

Brown was criticized by his rivals and in the media for not resigning his federal seat during the leadership campaign.[38] Brown was frequently absent from the House of Commons for votes during the leadership campaign and had one of the worst voting attendance records in the Conservative Party caucus and of any MP between September to December 2014.[39] A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed that members aren't expected to step down but are expected to "continue to fulfill their parliamentary responsibilities, including membership on committees and attendance at votes."[40]

The campaign started with five candidates including Vic Fedeli, Lisa MacLeod, and Monte McNaughton. All three withdrew in early 2015 citing membership recruitment or financial reasons. On May 9, 2015, Brown was elected leader, defeating his only remaining opponent, Christine Elliott, winning with 61.8% of the membership vote.[41][42]

Brown, who resigned his seat in the House of Commons on May 13, 2015, days after winning the provincial leadership, led the Progressive Conservative party from outside the legislature during most of the summer.[43] On July 22, 2015, Garfield Dunlop agreed to step down as MPP for Simcoe North on August 1 in order to open up a seat for Brown. A provincial by-election, called for September 3, 2015, was won by Brown.[44][45][46]

Khristinn Kellie Leitch, PC Ont MP controversy!

Canadian values controversy
As part of her leadership race campaign, Leitch sent out an email survey to subscribers making the suggestion of anti-Canadian value screening in order to gauge response from voters. In response, many Conservative Members of Parliament and strategists are criticizing Leitch for her position.[28] Michael Chong, a Conservative MP for Wellington-Halton Hills and an opponent of Leitch in the leadership race, spoke out against Leitch’s proposal, saying that it, “does not represent our Conservative Party or our Canada”.[28] Despite the censure, Leitch has stood by her proposal. In a September interview with the Canadian Press, Leitch made the following statement in response to the backlash she had been receiving: “I don’t think it’s intolerant to believe in a set of values that we expect everyone to share here and include those people who are coming to visit or immigrate to Canada”[29] Former staffers of Leitch have criticized the approach she has taken throughout the leadership campaign. Andrew McGrath, a former press secretary to Leitch when she was in cabinet, responded to her overnight pitch with disappointment on social media. "You were status of women minister,” McGrath posted to Leitch on Twitter. “Shame on you.”[30]

Leitch proposed screening visitors, refugees and immigrants for "Canadian values" initially not specifying what that would entail, but later detailed out what it would mean. This process would include face to face interviews by trained immigration officers with 100% of immigrants, rather than the 10% or so that happens now, with questions pertaining to their views on whether Canadian law should be only set of laws that applies to all Canadians, hate speech, violence, and equality between genders, sexual orientation, religious & political views.[31]

Leitch’s policy stances also faced similar controversy and criticism back in October 2015 during the federal election, where she and fellow Conservative MP and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander pledged support and funding to establish a tip-line for Canadians to call in regards to what they called “barbaric cultural practices".[32] Leitch has since made an effort to apologize for her role in the proposed legislation, saying that she regrets her decisions.[33] For many, including Conservative strategist Chad Rogers, Leitch’s proposed immigrant screening seemingly follows the same rhetoric, and Rogers goes as far as calling on Leitch to withdraw from the Conservative leadership race.[28]

In a November 9, 2016 interview with Toronto Life magazine, Leitch would not confirm nor deny that her proposed Canadian values test would apply to Catholic immigrants who opposed Canada's acceptance of same-sex marriage, and stated that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was "for Canadian citizens." In the same interview, she cited the belief that gays should not be sentenced to death as an example of one such Canadian value.

have a feeling the following clip will give us some idea what a President Trump White House press conference will be like. This clip is from The West Wing.

I have a feeling the following clip will give us some idea what a President Trump White House press conference will be like. This clip is from The West Wing. The issues are a bit dated however the techniques shown and the lack of finesse makes my point. If the Trump communications team had bothered to watch the clip, they would never have let him give that press conference last week. This is why you don't mess with the media.