Judges:
Why does Danielle Smith want more control over them?
Judges:
Danielle Smith, Alberta’s Premier (United Conservative Party), has repeatedly criticized federal judicial appointments and the role of courts in checking provincial legislation, sparking accusations of “attacks” on judicial independence.
Over the last few years, there have been some incidents of the UCP attacking Judges in Alberta.
The UCP has leveled criticism of “unelected” judges: In December 2025 radio comments, Smith stated: “The will of Albertans is not expressed by a single judge appointed by Justin Trudeau... An unelected judge is not synonymous with democracy.” She argued that courts override elected governments’ will, especially with federally appointed judges. In Canada, there is a committee that appoints judges. “ Alberta already has a strong voice in this process, with representatives on the seven-member committee appointed by CBA-Alberta, the Chief Justice of Alberta, the Law Society of Alberta, and the province’s Minister of Justice. All committee members are required to abide by a strict Code of Ethics that prohibits consideration of a candidate’s political viewpoints. This composition ensures meaningful provincial input while preserving the judicial independence that is essential to the rule of law.”
“I wish I could direct the judges”: In January 2026, on her radio show, she expressed frustration over bail decisions and said she wished she could direct judges, while criticizing them for being “prickly” about criticism. This prompted a rare joint statement from Alberta’s three chief justices emphasizing judicial independence and the separation of powers.
The UCP has pushed for provincial input in appointments: Smith has demanded a greater Alberta role in selecting federally appointed judges (for superior courts like the Court of King’s Bench and Supreme Court of Canada). In a January 2026 letter to PM Mark Carney, she proposed a joint committee (equal federal/provincial reps, with ministerial approval) to better reflect “Alberta values” and “distinct legal traditions.” She cited data claiming ~80% of judges with donations gave to Liberals.
Here is how federal judges are currently selected and appointed:
https://abresistance.substack.com/p/appointing-federal-judges
Funding threat: She threatened to withhold provincial funding for new judicial positions until Ottawa agrees to reforms, framing it as leverage for “engagement and collaboration.” Legal groups and experts called this unconstitutional and a threat to judicial independence.
These actions tie into broader Alberta-federal tensions, including the Sovereignty Act and separation-related petitions.
Counterpoints and Criticisms
Partisanship on both sides: A CBC analysis noted Smith’s claim of Liberal skew but found UCP-appointed (provincial) judges also have political ties at similar rates. Some Alberta provincial court judges faced investigation over UCP donations post-appointment.
Rejection by the federal side: The Carney government rejected her demands. Critics (across media and legal outlets) see this as an attempt to erode independence rather than reform, potentially leading to judges being beholden to provincial politics.
Broader context: Smith frames it as balancing federal overreach and ensuring judges align with provincial democracy. Opponents say it attacks the constitutional norm of independent, merit-based federal appointments for superior courts (per the Constitution Act, 1867, s.96), where judges serve as a check on government, not extensions of it.
Federally appointed superior court judges are designed for independence—security of tenure, financial security, and administrative independence—to insulate them from political pressure (elected or otherwise). Provincial governments appoint lower-court judges, but higher ones are appointed by the federal government to avoid local political capture.
What Smith criticizes the Federal government for is appointing judges rather than having judges elected, and this means they are not speaking for the people. A reminder - Judges are to decide cases based on the laws, not on partisanship.
Elected judges (U.S.-style in some states) often face criticism for campaign funding and populist pressures, which can compromise impartiality.
Appointed systems aim for merit via advisory committees, but critics (including Smith) argue that federal Liberal governments produce ideologically skewed benches.
Partisan appointments (perceived or actual) from any party erode trust. Data on donations suggests donations occur across lines, though most judges donate little/none. True impartiality relies on ethical rules, recusal standards, and public confidence—not perfect neutrality, but freedom from direct political control.
Smith’s push highlights legitimate frustrations with perceived federal bias in a federation. Based on the way judges are chosen, this does not seem like a realistic complaint. The province’s choosing methods, like funding threats and “direct the judges” rhetoric, have drawn widespread condemnation as crossing into interference.
Alberta has tools like appeals and the notwithstanding clause for policy disagreements. A reminder here that Danielle Smith has used the notwithstanding clause four times in 2025.
Federal judges should be impartial and uphold the law rather than the Premier’s interpretation. That is what democratic societies rely upon. Rules and regulations - they keep us safe and ensures a level playing field for everyone! Thank you Justices for standing up for Alberta!
That song fascists in our midst describes Alberta so well.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2WgEOr-jaI
Even the judges in Aberta, themselves, are against the idea. What reason would they have except that they can foresee the corruption of future judges in favor of the current provincial government.