Roundup: Questions for the new SCC justice

Posted on by

The parliamentary hearings around Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin’s appointment took place yesterday, which were the usual awkward affair that these things tend to be, as they’re mostly a get-to-know-you exercise where you can’t really ask too many substantive questions, and as is so often the case with our parliament these days, it was full of self-congratulation of MPs and senators who were so proud to be there for this historic moment. A lot of media outlets picked up on O’Bonsawin saying that she’s a judge first and Indigenous/a mother/a Franco-Ontarian afterward, which is probably the kind of answer you want in a Supreme Court of Canada justice, but it was interesting how many outlets made that their headline.

More interesting to me were some of the responses from justice minister David Lametti, and former PEI Premier Wade MacLauchlan, who ran the selection committee, given that their testimony is actually more relevant because Lametti in particular is the political actor who is responsible for this appointment (along with the prime minister). Regarding O’Bonsawin replacing the Court’s criminal law specialists, even though she is not one herself, Lametti said that it shouldn’t fall to one person on the Court as they all need to be aware of the issue, and I think that’s fair. But when it comes to the answers about encouraging more diverse candidates, I find it utterly mystifying that this government continues to insist on people applying for these positions rather than having their committees canvas the legal community for names, and then approaching them directly rather than waiting for applications. It’s been a problem that this government has had since day one, and it doesn’t encourage diversity because a lot of people from marginalised communities don’t apply because they are either discouraged already because of institutionalised racism and discrimination, or because they feel they have no chance because they don’t fit the established mould. This government knows this, and yet they persist with this inadequate model, for reasons unknown. It boggles the mind.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 182:

It was both the 31st Independence Day and six-months since Russia began its illegal invasion of the country. Russia marked the day by hitting a train full of civilians near the town of Chaplyne in Eastern Ukraine, killing 22 people. Here are some six-month retrospectives from the Star, CBC, and Associated Press.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau is hosting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, with a focus on security against Russia, and climate change as it affects Arctic security.
  • An intelligence memo sent to Justin Trudeau last summer said it would take months for Kabul to fall when the Taliban took over, but oops, that was wrong.
  • Chrystia Freeland says that Saskatchewan’s potash has become “geopolitically essential” in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • Mélanie Joly says that Canada will return the remaining Nord Stream 1 turbines to Germany, so as not to give Russia an excuse for cutting off gas to Europe.
  • Sean Fraser says the move to solve the immigration backlog has been hampered by the need to process the arrivals of Ukrainians fleeing the war.
  • The Chief of Defence Staff got legal advice about the role of the military during the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which is just him being properly briefed, guys.
  • The military is trying to find all former members who are eligible for compensation for drinking contaminated water on a base between 1995 and 2006.
  • The union representing airport screeners says that the bonus offered for filling every shift meant people went to work sick. (Because of course it did).
  • Jagmeet Singh warned against healthcare privatization, and demanded more federal handwaving and actions in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.