Appointing Federal Judges
Motion 36
Current Process for Appointing Judges to Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench
The Court of King’s Bench (Alberta’s superior trial court) handles serious criminal, family, civil, and constitutional cases. Appointments are made exclusively by the federal government under Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Candidates apply through a public process run by the federal Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. Independent, non-partisan Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs)—composed of seven members, including one provincial nominee from Alberta’s Minister of Justice, plus representatives from the Canadian Bar Association, Alberta, the Chief Justice, the Law Society of Alberta, and federal appointees. They screen applicants for merit, professional experience (minimum 10 years at the bar), and suitability. The federal Minister of Justice makes the final appointment, often consulting the provincial Attorney General informally. The goal is to preserve judicial independence from day-to-day politics while ensuring qualified judges. The majority of the panel recommending Judges are from Alberta.
Danielle Smith and the UCP’s Proposal: More Provincial Control
In January 2026, Premier Danielle Smith wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney demanding a “formal and meaningful role” for Alberta in selecting judges for the Court of King’s Bench, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and even Supreme Court of Canada vacancies affecting the province. She proposed a new four-person advisory committee (two Alberta picks, two federal) whose recommendations would require joint federal-provincial ministerial approval before appointments proceed. Smith argued the current system is biased toward “Liberal donors” and fails to reflect “Alberta’s distinct legal traditions” and values. She threatened to withhold provincial funding for new judicial positions (there were three vacancies on the King’s Bench at the time) until Ottawa agreed. (Given how the Electoral Boundaries Commission of five members, a former judge, two NDP picks, and two UCP picks have come up with two totally different maps - the impartial judge sided with the NDP on the Majority map, while the UCP picks have a map that has hybrids of rural and urban constituencies. The demands by Danielle Smith would not necessarily be those of team players.)
By March 30, 2026, the UCP government escalated: it passed a motion in the Alberta Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment to Section 96. (Appointment of Judges Section 96 The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.)
This would shift power so that only candidates “recommended and approved by the province” could be appointed to Alberta’s superior courts. Smith, joined by premiers from Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, framed it as giving provinces a real voice in justice delivery. She also tied it to a planned fall 2026 referendum question on the issue.
How This Would Affect Albertans
Potential benefits (per Smith/UCP): Judges more aligned with Alberta’s priorities—stronger emphasis on resource development, property rights, parental rights, and skepticism of certain federal policies (e.g., carbon tax, firearms rules, or social programs). Supporters argue this would boost public confidence by making courts “reflect Albertans” rather than Ottawa.
Risks and criticisms (from the legal community, judges, and opposition):
Erosion of judicial independence: A more politicized process could lead to “court-stacking” with ideologically aligned judges, undermining impartial rulings on Charter rights, environmental challenges, family law, or government actions. Alberta’s three chief justices publicly urged “respect” for the judiciary after Smith said she wished she could “direct” judges.
Court backlogs and access to justice: Withholding funding for new judges would leave vacancies unfilled, worsening delays in criminal trials (risking Charter s. 11(b) stays of charges), family disputes, civil lawsuits, and bail hearings. This directly harms victims, families, businesses, and accused persons.
Loss of public trust: Critics (including the Canadian Bar Association) say it implicitly questions the integrity of sitting judges and politicizes the bench, similar to U.S.-style partisan appointments.
Broader constitutional friction: Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult (requires federal and multiple provincial consents). The move is widely seen as part of the UCP’s sovereignty agenda, escalating federal-provincial tensions.
To further her attempt to have more say in Judicial appointments on April 2, 2026, the United Conservative Party (UCP) government under Premier Danielle Smith introduced and passed a non-binding motion in the Alberta Legislature. This motion calls on the federal government to support a constitutional amendment to Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which would give Alberta (and other provinces) a formal and meaningful role in appointing judges to the Court of King’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Key Details of the Motion
It demands that judges for these federally appointed superior courts be selected only from candidates recommended and approved by the province.
The government proposes a joint advisory committee (with equal provincial and federal representation) whose shortlist would require provincial sign-off before federal appointment.
The motion mirrors a similar one passed earlier by Quebec.
It also urges the federal Parliament to pass a corresponding motion to open the door to a bilateral constitutional amendment (requiring approval from both Alberta’s legislature and the federal Parliament).
Alberta plans to include a related referendum question in the fall 2026 provincial referendum, asking voters whether they support the province gaining this power.
In summary, the current system prioritizes judicial independence through federal oversight and merit-based screening. Smith’s push would hand Alberta’s government direct influence over who sits on the King’s Bench—potentially making rulings more predictable on provincial priorities, but at the cost of perceived impartiality and possible court delays. Legal experts warn this could fundamentally weaken the separation of powers that protects all Albertans from political interference in the justice system. The federal government has so far rejected the demands, and the issue remains a flashpoint heading into Alberta’s fall 2026 referendum.
References:
Smith says Alberta will withhold funding for judges without more input on selection - iPolitics
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-chief-justices-statement-danielle-smith-9.7064049
Some Excerpts from Hansard April 1
Judicial Appointments (continued)
April 1st - pages 18 - 35 (Hansard 1364 - 1381) introduction of Motion 36 by the premier to have more say in the selection of federal judges and responses to the motion. It passed 46-14 in favour of the motion - All of the UCP voted in favour.
Ms Pancholi: In today’s version of UCP-manufactured outrage, the Premier has decided she wants to amend the Canadian Constitution so that she decides who gets appointed as a judge in Alberta. The Premier and Justice minister are openly calling into question the credibility and objectivity of the judges who hear the most serious criminal and civil cases in our province simply because the UCP didn’t select them. This is dangerous and undermines the rule of law. Since she’s been Premier, over 30 judges have been appointed to Alberta’s superior courts, so Albertans deserve to know: which of these 30 judges does the UCP specifically object to?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Mr. Amery: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. All of the judges in this province do a remarkable job in leading our courts, doing wonderful work, protecting Albertans, and making important decisions day to day. Asking for additional input is exactly what the Premier is looking for. That’s exactly what this government is looking for. Other provinces have been doing it for a very long time. Quebec has made great inroads in their processes. We’re looking for greater collaboration and greater co-operation in the selection of superior court judges. That’s a good thing for Alberta.
Ms Pancholi: The Justice minister knows full well that the current appointment process involves a committee made up of representatives from the Chief Justice of Alberta, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of Alberta, the federal government, and the Minister of Justice, but the UCP think cabinet members like the minister of service Alberta, who was just found to have breached election laws, are more qualified to decide who should be on the bench. Can the minister explain why in the world Albertans should trust his UCP cabinet more than a group of highly qualified individuals to appoint judges in Alberta?
Mr. Amery: Well, Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to that member, but we do it all the time. In the Alberta Court of Justice we have appointed hundreds of judges in this province, and we have a remarkably independent and nonpartisan committee that does exactly that. In the superior courts we don’t have the same type of input. We don’t have the same type of say. The Premier is asking for more collaboration, more input, and more engagement. Once again, the people of Alberta will be better for that.
Ms Pancholi: The only problem that needs fixing is that Albertans need a government who cares about them even half as much as the UCP cares about inventing fights with the feds. No. What’s really going on here is that the courts in Alberta have repeatedly applied the law fairly and consistently said no to the UCP’s most unconstitutional and dangerous actions like allowing referendum questions that breach treaty rights, like the interference of the Premier into prosecutions, like violating the Charter rights of 1356 Alberta Hansard April 1, 2026 parents and vulnerable youth. Will the Premier admit that nothing in our democracy is safe from her ideological and dangerous overreach?
The Speaker: The minister.
Mr. Amery: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Look, the NDP opposition can’t have it both ways. They can’t in one breath say that the entire judicial advisory committee for superior court judges is made up of Albertans, and then oppose the government’s move to have greater input and collaboration in the selection of superior court judges to Alberta. It makes no sense. You can’t speak out of both sides of your mouth. On this side of the House we’re looking to represent Albertans. We’re going to defend Albertans, and we’re going to do what’s right for Albertans every single time.
The Speaker: Okay. No preambles from here on in the supplementaries.
*************
There is a distinct difference in the arguments put forth by the NDP and those by the UCP. Here are two instances in this discussion for you to observe and think about.
Some excerpts from Hansard
Ms Ganley: (This is part way through her speech)The members opposite also referenced the perception that judges are imposed. There was no perception that judges were imposed until the members opposite started creating that. Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve run fairly thoroughly through the arguments, and what is incredibly clear is that this motion isn’t designed to solve any problem. It’s not designed to solve any problem. It is designed to give the members opposite greater control over the judiciary because they don’t want to be held to the same laws as everyone else. They want to be able to take their golden cats and their gifted flights and do whatever they want. They don’t want to be beholden to Albertans, to ethics, to accountability. They just want to be able to govern however they want. I think, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of instances in which that is made clear, but none so much so as this.
Mr. Getson: Meow. Meow.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We have a member that’s been identified to speak. If there are others that wish to speak, they can go and have their time after the member has completed her time. I would encourage everyone to be here to listen, as well as when it’s your opportunity to speak, speak at that time. Go ahead.
Ms Ganley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. I think perhaps the meowing was a little over the line from the members opposite, although it does bring us back to “settle down kitty cat” that was once heckled at one of our members. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad motion. It undercuts the judiciary and the rule of law. I urge members to vote . . . Pg 1371
*************
Shane Getson: There’s kind of this old adage out there. The old commercial folks will remember it, where if they want your kids to move out of your house, then stop feeding them cheese. It’s a goofy thing to think of, but you’ve got to grow up sometime. You’ve got to assert yourselves more. You have to take more control of your future.
Mr. Wiebe: Who Moved My Cheese?
Mr. Getson: When we’re looking at this, you have to think about that. My member to the left here, Grande Prairie-Wapiti, said, “Who Moved My Cheese?” which is another great thing, which talks all about change management. You’ve got Hem and Haw and itch and scratch, and they run around the little cheese maze at cheese station 9. They’re all concerned about just getting fed the same thing over and over and over again. The members opposite are laughing, and I’m glad we can make a little fun here and have that, but maybe that’s what they’re most concerned about, change. Change of having to do something different and be more assertive for yourself. Pg 1376
Agreed Bob, but she is going to try to get her way.
The last thing we need is political interference from the UCP in the justice system.