The marble steps of the Alberta legislature will echo this week with something more pointed than typical provincial business. Danielle Smith’s government plans to table a motion calling for constitutional reform—one that would hand provinces direct approval power over which judges hear their cases. It’s a bold step in what’s become a drawn-out tug-of-war between Edmonton and Ottawa over who gets the final say in selecting the legal voices that shape everyday life.
This isn’t new friction. Smith, along with premiers from Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney just days ago. Their ask was simple: only judges recommended and approved by their governments should be appointed to provincial benches. Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser didn’t take long to respond, and his reply was blunt—no. That shut door is what’s driving Alberta to escalate.
“Thus far we’ve not had the progress that we were hoping for, especially through the sort of diplomatic routes,” Justice Minister Mickey Amery said Monday. Now the province wants something more concrete. The motion Alberta will introduce mirrors one Quebec passed nearly a year ago. It’s not grandstanding for the sake of headlines. It’s an appeal for formal constitutional amendment, something that requires buy-in from Parliament, the Senate, and at least seven provinces representing half the country’s population.
Right now, Ottawa holds sole authority to appoint judges to provincial superior and appeal courts. That structure is embedded in the Constitution. Changing it isn’t a small lift. There are procedural routes: one involves broad national consensus, another allows amendments that affect only certain provinces. Either way, this is not a quick fix, and Smith knows it.
But she also believes the status quo leaves provinces like Alberta on the sidelines of their own justice systems. “It’s time for Alberta to have a real voice in selecting the judges who serve Albertans,” she said Monday. Her argument leans on international comparisons. In the U.S. and Australia, state or provincial governments appoint their own judges. Canada, she says, is an outlier.
That comparison doesn’t sit well with everyone. Bianca Kratt, president of the Canadian Bar Association, wrote to Carney last week pointing out a key difference. In Canada, provincial judges can strike down federal law. In the U.S., state judges deal mostly with state matters. The constitutional frameworks aren’t parallel, and borrowing models from abroad ignores that reality.
Critics at home are just as skeptical. Irfan Sabir, the NDP’s justice critic, said Smith has “no credibility” on judicial matters. He pointed to her past remarks calling judges “activists” or dismissing them as “unelected judges.” Trusting this government to strengthen the judiciary, he argued, is a stretch. “They just find every opportunity that they can pick some needless fight with the federal government,” Sabir said Monday.
Smith has been pushing this agenda for months. Earlier this year, she sent another letter to Carney asking for judicial reform and even threatened to withhold court funding if Ottawa didn’t respond. Amery said Monday that threat isn’t off the table, though normal funding has continued into the new fiscal year.
The first proposal Smith floated involved reshaping the existing committee that reviews judicial candidates. Right now, that seven-person panel includes one provincial government representative and three from the federal side. The rest come from Alberta’s chief justice, the provincial law society, and the Canadian Bar Association’s Alberta chapter. Smith wanted a new structure with equal provincial and federal membership. Fraser dismissed that too.
Similar committees operate in every province and territory. They assess applications from lawyers wanting to be appointed to provincial courts and send recommendations to Ottawa. The system has been in place for decades. Changing it would mean rethinking not just Alberta’s process, but the entire national framework.
That’s why this week’s motion matters. It’s not just about appointments. It’s about how much control provinces have over institutions that shape daily life—criminal trials, family law disputes, civil cases. These are the courtrooms where Albertans settle disagreements, seek justice, and hold power accountable.
Smith argues that provincial input would strengthen public confidence. If provinces help choose judges, the reasoning goes, those judges will better reflect local values and priorities. But others worry that politicizes the bench. Judicial independence relies on appointments free from partisan interference. Once governments start handpicking judges, that independence risks erosion.
There’s also a practical question: would this actually improve the justice system? Alberta’s courts face backlogs, staffing shortages, and resource constraints. Constitutional reform won’t fix those problems overnight. And if multiple provinces start demanding veto power over appointments, the process could slow even further.
Still, Smith isn’t backing down. She believes this is about fairness and federalism. Alberta pays for court infrastructure, employs court staff, and manages the system day-to-day. Why shouldn’t it have a say in who presides over those courtrooms?
Quebec’s motion last year didn’t lead to immediate change, but it put the issue on the table. If Alberta follows through this week, it adds pressure. Should other provinces join in, Ottawa may find it harder to ignore.
For now, the federal government shows no sign of budging. Fraser has made clear that judicial appointments remain a federal responsibility. Carney hasn’t signaled any openness to rethinking that stance. Constitutional amendments are rare and politically fraught. Getting enough provinces and federal lawmakers to agree on something this contentious would take years, if it happens at all.
But Smith seems willing to play the long game. This motion is a marker, a formal demand that other provinces and Parliament will have to address. Whether it leads anywhere depends on how much political will exists beyond Alberta’s borders. And whether Canadians believe their courts are better served by provincial input or federal consistency.
