(Version française disponible ici)

One of the nine questions that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants to put to a referendum later this year is about the province working with other willing provinces to have “provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeals courts.” 

This demand was generally relegated in the news coverage that focused more on the questions related to immigration, but it was the second time in a few weeks that Smith brought up the issue. Earlier in February, she published an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney demanding a “formal and meaningful role in the judicial appointment process” for Alberta. Smith’s approach has been widely criticized as an attempt to politicize the judiciary. 

Provincial frustration with federal judicial appointments goes back decades. Formal consultation with provinces on judicial appointments was even part of the failed Meech Lake accord. 

Quebec governments of all stripes have long advanced similar requests, arguing that Ottawa’s exclusive control over superior court appointments undermines provincial autonomy and institutional legitimacy. 

At a glance, Alberta and Quebec appear to be making the same case. In reality, they are pursuing different visions of federalism and using widely different strategies to advance them.  

Both provinces are responding to the same structural reality. Superior courts routinely adjudicate disputes between Ottawa and the provinces, yet provincial governments exercise no formal input over who becomes a judge. 

It is worth noting the current appointment process has long had critics. The Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity concluded in 1979 that it represented a “questionable remnant of federal centralization.” It recommended that higher court judges be appointed by the provinces after consultation with the federal government — not the other way around. 

One critique of provincial input on nominations is that it would inevitably become partisan and polarized. But there are numerous examples of the current process being perceived — rightly or wrongly — as partisan. The recent nomination of Robert Leckey to the Superior Court of Quebec is just one such example.  

While there appear to be grounds for convergence between Alberta and Quebec, they are not acting together on this front. At least not so far. As has largely been the case on most issues since the end of the era of multilateral constitutional negotiations, provincial demands on judicial appointments have been pursued independently, not collectively. 

Part of the reason for this is that the provinces are pursuing redress for different reasons and through widely different strategies. 

At a basic level, both Alberta and Quebec are asking for a formal role in the nomination or selection of judges to superior courts. Both argue that greater provincial involvement would strengthen the legitimacy of the courts. The similarities largely end there. 

Alberta: Values and representation 

Smith has framed Alberta’s demands primarily with a goal to ensure the appointment of “judges in Alberta that reflect the values of how we want them to operate here.” This framing suggests a concern that judicial decisions — and perhaps judicial philosophy — are insufficiently aligned with Alberta’s political culture or democratic preferences. 

While regional legal cultures certainly exist across Canada, the premier’s allusion to Alberta’s “distinct legal traditions” is not equivalent to Quebec’s constitutionally entrenched civil law tradition. Alberta’s case is not rooted in a fundamentally distinct legal system, but rather in concerns about ideological distance and democratic accountability, which helps explain why reaction to Smith’s demands has been so negative.  

Alberta’s critique of judicial appointments fits squarely within broader narratives of Western alienation where courts are portrayed as part of a Central Canadian institutional ecosystem that does not sufficiently reflect Western perspectives. 

Quebec: Legitimacy and constitutional balance 

Quebec’s demands rest on a different foundation. They are not framed in terms of ideology, left–right politics or judicial values. Instead, they are rooted in questions of constitutional legitimacy and institutional balance.  

For Quebec governments, the core issue is this: When superior courts are called upon to adjudicate constitutional disputes between the federal and provincial governments, the legitimacy of those decisions is weakened if all the judges are appointed by only one of the parties to the dispute. Greater provincial input is therefore not about shaping outcomes or ideology but about reinforcing the credibility of judicial arbitration within a federal system.  

This reasoning is closely linked to Quebec’s broader conception of federalism as a partnership between two orders of government. In this view, judicial appointments should reflect that partnership. Quebec’s argument does not challenge judicial independence. Rather, it seeks to anchor that independence more firmly in the logic of federalism itself. 

The contrast becomes even clearer when we look at how Alberta and Quebec have chosen to advance their latest demands. 

Alberta’s strategy: Confrontation and threats 

Smith’s approach is highly visible. Her demands were articulated through a public letter to the prime minister, framed as an urgent political issue and embedded within a broader critique of what she said was federal overreach. She also threatened to stop funding new judicial positions if her request was not granted. 

This strategy has advantages. It mobilizes public attention, signals resolve to provincial voters and places immediate pressure on Ottawa. But it also comes with costs. 

By framing judicial appointments in overtly political and ideological terms, Alberta risks reinforcing Ottawa’s long-standing reluctance to open the file. Any reform that appears to politicize the judiciary — even indirectly — is likely to be met with strong resistance from the federal government, legal elites and much of the public, as has been the case so far.  

Quebec’s strategy: Institutional patience 

The starting point for the most recent demands of François Legault’s government was the work of the Comité sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne, (a six-member committee on Quebec-federal constitutional issues). Its recommendations — most notably numbers 23 and 24 on page 104 of the report — explicitly addressed judicial appointments.  

Following this work, Quebec’s justice minister received unanimous support from the National Assembly to engage in discussions with the federal government. This was a strategic step. The federal government admitted that the motion could be seen as a formal demand from a province to amend the Constitution and that based on the Reference re Secession of Quebec, it was required to negotiate in good faith. 

Quebec’s objective, as outlined in the committee’s report, is to modify the Constitution but to do so in a way that requires the agreement of only the federal government. 

Mark Carney preaches co-operative federalism but doesn’t practise it

Alberta is testing the administration of justice in the provinces

There was no ultimatum, no open letter. On the contrary, Quebec has been explicit in acknowledging that formally including provinces in the judicial appointment process would likely require constitutional negotiations or at minimum a carefully structured intergovernmental agreement. 

This divergence helps explain why provincial demands for greater input in judicial appointments have failed to coalesce into a sustained, pan-provincial movement. 

It also helps explain Ottawa’s response. Federal governments have shown a willingness to accommodate Quebec symbolically and procedurally, while largely dismissing Western critiques as political dissatisfaction rather than structural flaws in Canada’s federal architecture.  

Some might say that Ottawa is reacting to the potential threat of Quebec sovereignty, but it is also true that Quebec has been diligent in working through existing institutions to achieve its aims.  

While Smith often laments that Alberta is not receiving the same treatment as Quebec, part of the explanation — and perhaps part of the solution — lies in the different strategies the two provinces have pursued, referenda aside. 

Expanding provincial input into judicial appointments can be framed as a move toward greater provincial autonomy and a more decentralized federation. At their core, however, these demands are profoundly federalist, even if the actors making the demands don’t want to admit it. By trying to force the federation’s institutional architecture to adapt, they are making it more robust, ensuring that it endures.