Alberta premier Danielle Smith is at it again, by inventing a grievance regarding the appointment of judges, and is threatening the federal government to withhold funding for the justice system in the province if she doesn’t get her own way when it comes to having a say in who gets appointed, both with Superior Court and Court of Appeal appointments, but also with the upcoming appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the vacancy opening up is a “western” seat on the bench. This is insane, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s possibly the dumbest thing to threaten. Her claim that she needs input because of the “distinct legal traditions” of Alberta is a load of absolute horseshit—Alberta has no distinct legal traditions. Quebec has a civil code which is separate from the common law that the rest of Canada employs, so yes, they have a distinct legal tradition. Alberta does not. It’s beyond risible that she is threatening to implode the province’s justice system over something that does not exist.
1) This is blatantly unconstitutional2) Withholding funding from which judicial appointments? Provincial? Because federally-appointed judges get paid from the federal budget. That's why new judicial spots end up in federal budget bills3) Withholding any funding will make the justice system worse
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.042Z
Provinces are already underfunding their judicial systems (provincial judges, court houses, clerks, bailiffs, Crown attorneys, remand facilities, etc). If she wants to withhold more funding, and then claim the federal Liberals caused crime, well, that'll be a real choice on her part.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.043Z
Also, this is just an other invented grievance, which conservatives in Alberta love to do, and then claim that they are being oppressed because they're not getting something that nobody gets in the first place. Call it out, as just that.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:04:53.329Z
It’s almost certain that this is supposed to be some kind of a stunt to demand judges that are tougher on crime, and that she can somehow “direct” as she has been quoted as wanting to do, which is an affront to judicial independence and the very nature of the rule of law. And frankly, we don’t have a judicial culture in this country of ultra-conservative judges who throw the book at everyone like they do in the US, because those judges tend to be elected, so they go extra hard to win votes. That’s not how this works here. And frankly, the appointment of judges is for lawyers to self-nominate to a judicial advisory committee, who then vets them and then either recommends them to the minister or not. Smith trying to insert herself into this process is simply asking to undermine the process and to personally reduce confidence in the justice system. Just absolute lunacy.
She is her inventing a grievance to be mad about. There are no distinct legal traditions in the province. They are a common law jurisdiction like eight other provinces in the country. Quebec has a civil code, which is a distinct legal tradition, and Alberta does not.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:06:57.965Z
Let’s call this out for what it is—Smith is quite literally inventing things to get mad about, and then throwing a tantrum about an imaginary problem that doesn’t exist, so that she can be performative in her “Western alienation” pantomime. None of this is real, but she has determined that constantly having everyone mad at Ottawa is her ticket to staying in power perpetually, but it’s a really stupid plan. That kind of anger is exhausting, and will lead to unintended consequences, but most of all, this is just more fodder for the separatists that she claims not to represent (even though we all know that she doth protest too much over that one). Now the question becomes whether anyone in the federal government will call this out, and point-blank say that this is just an invented grievance, or will they back down, and try and placate her in some manner? Because if it’s the latter, that’s a very big mistake.
Ukraine Dispatch
The attack on Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday killed two people and injured at least nine others, while a power plant in Kyiv was badly damaged. President Zelenskyy says that Russia used the US-backed “energy ceasefire” to simply stockpile more ammunition and drones, and launch another attack.
Good reads:
- David McGuinty says that Canada has “absolutely no intention” of acquiring nuclear weapons, in case you were worried about it.
- Steven MacKinnon says he’s not involved in airplane certification, so he is not getting into the Gulfstream issue that Trump is threatening us over.
- Outgoing national security advisor Nathalie Drouin says that Russia is growing more successful with disinformation campaigns in Canada, along with digital asbestos.
- Bank of Canada research shows that the biggest driver of food price inflation last year was import costs, in large part because of our depreciated dollar.
- A Canadian who fought for ISIS and is now in a Syrian prison camp is looking to the Federal Court to try and force his return to Canada, claiming he’s been tortured.
- At the Arctic Frontiers conference in Norway, Governor General Mary Simon expressed support for Greenland’s sovereignty (on behalf of the government).
- The Liberals appointed former provincial NDP deputy leader Doly Begum to run in Bill Blair’s old riding, and Nate Erskine-Smith will run for that seat provincially.
- Poilievre is expected to meet with Carney today about shared priorities and the trade relationship with the US.
- Stephen Harper’s official portrait was unveiled, and he made remarks about sovereignty and national unity in his speech.
- Susan Delacourt draws lessons from Harper’s fireside chat with Jean Chrétien that Mark Carney could learn from.
- Paul Wells reflects on the Harper portrait unveiling, and the work of time and distance when it comes to judging Harper’s legacy.
- My column takes exception with Anita Anand’s assertion that it’s “not appropriate” to compare the current human rights and international law approach.
Odds and ends:
For National Magazine, it’s my second part of my deep dive into Bill C-16 and why the proposals around Jordan stays and mandatory minimums are a problem.
New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I talk about why open nominations are an important part of democracy in this country. #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-04T01:42:27.324Z
On this day in Canadian parliamentary history – February 3, 1916: The great fire breaks out, gutting parliament. Hansard record of the moment below. Additional image: Library and Archives Canada / C-010170
— Charlie Feldman (@parlcharlie.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T09:45:44.480Z
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.