(LifeSiteNews) — To discern where the primary source of progressive power in Canada lies, one only needs to look at the outrage incurred by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s recent comments about judicial appointments. 

As part of his tough-on-crime platform, Poilievre’s campaign released a statement affirming that a Conservative government would seek to appoint judges who “put the victims of crime first and put dangerous violent criminals where they belong—behind bars.”  

This shouldn’t be news—but in Canada, where the judiciary is dominated by progressives who have essentially re-written Canadian law on a long laundry list of issues, it is. In fact, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper saw much of his own agenda stymied by justices that, in many instances, had been appointed by his own government. 

If the Conservatives win on April 28, they already face an uphill battle to get their agenda accomplished. Canada’s unelected Senate, for example, has been stacked to the rafters with Liberal appointees. One of Justin Trudeau’s last acts as prime minister was to fill all remaining Senate vacancies, including five appointments on March 7. A Conservative government would thus face a Senate in which 100 of the 105 sitting senators were appointed by Trudeau—a whopping 95%. 

Indeed, Trudeau also took great care to ensure that the judiciary was similarly aligned with Liberal progressive values. According to an investigation by the National Post and the Investigative Journalism Foundation, 76.3% of judicial and tribunal appointees since 2016 who made political donations had given to the Liberal Party, based on an analysis of 1,308 appointments matched against Elections Canada’s political donations database. 

A 2017 incident highlighted how fastidious Trudeau was about selecting judges that aligned with his views. During what became a much-reported on dispute between Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Raybould—who later resigned over the SNC-Lavalin scandal—Trudeau vehemently disagreed with Wilson-Raybould over her recommendation of Glenn Joyal for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court due to Joyal’s conservative views. 

According to the Globe and Mail, reporting on the incident in 2019, the recommendation caused Trudeau to question Wilson-Raybould’s judgment: “The Prime Minister was worried that Judge Joyal’s views on the Charter – including comments critical of how the court struck down abortion laws – did not align with the government’s commitment to robust Charter rights.” Or, as the CBC put it: 

Wilson-Raybould’s pick puzzled Trudeau but he became disturbed after doing some research into [Glenn] Joyal’s views on the charter, the sources said. Joyal had criticized the judiciary for broadly interpreting charter rights and expanding them to apply to things not explicitly mentioned in the Charter or, in his view, intended by provincial premiers when they agreed to enshrine a charter in the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation has led to things like legalization of same-sex marriage, the right of women to choose to have an abortion and the legalization of medical assistance in dying, among other things – developments Trudeau has celebrated. 

In short, Trudeau was concerned that Joyal’s interpretation of the Charter might differ from his. “Judicial independence,” to Justin Trudeau and his Liberals, means marching in lockstep with progressive values. And yet there was no uproar whatsoever at this revelation. Why? Because everyone knew that already. Canada’s elites believe that progressive values are normative, and thus when they boast about having “non-partisan” courts—unlike, they are always sure to mention, the Americans—they simply mean that the judiciary largely agrees with them on most major issues. 

If Pierre Poilievre is elected, I hope he does seek to appoint judges with conservative views. If he does not, the Liberals can vacate power secure in the knowledge that their values will continue to dominate in almost every significant way.