What Are They Actually Asking?

The 9 questions on Alberta's October 19, 2026 ballot — decoded into plain language, with an honest read on which ones can even legally happen.

← Back to HomepageJump to QuestionsHow the rules got here →

The basics

What Albertans are actually being asked to decide on October 19.

Election day

October 19, 2026

A Monday — province-wide vote

Questions on the ballot

9

5 immigration · 4 constitutional

Turnout threshold

10%

Minimum participation for a Yes result to bind government

Legally binding?

Yes*

*Only where Alberta has the power to act. Federal or constitutional questions stay symbolic.

How few votes can legally bind the government

About 88,867 Yes votes — 3.0% of eligible Albertans — is the minimum for a binding result.

Eligible Albertan voters
~2.99M
2023 general election ballots cast
1,777,321
Turnout bar (10% of 2023)
~177,733
Yes votes needed to bind government
~88,867

And “binding” only applies on matters Alberta controls. Of the 9 questions, only Q5 is fully within provincial power — the other 8 stay symbolic or partial even with a Yes majority. A No result creates no obligation either way; the province keeps its existing authority regardless.

Sources: Referendum Act · Elections Alberta 2023 results

Every question below carries one of three enforceability badges

Provincial

Alberta can pass this into law on its own.

Partial

Alberta can try, but expect Charter challenges or federal pushback.

Symbolic

Requires Ottawa or a constitutional amendment. Alberta cannot deliver this alone.

Before you vote — context

How Alberta rewrote its referendum rules

The province passed 12 changes to Alberta's referendum and citizen-initiative rules between 2023 and 2026 — most of them shifting power to cabinet, the Minister of Justice, or the party of government.

9
2
1
9 consolidate power2 constrain1 mixed
See the full timeline with citations
Question 1ImmigrationSymbolic

Immigration Cap

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should Alberta try to take over more of the immigration decisions that Ottawa currently makes, with a goal of fewer newcomers?

A YES vote means:

You're telling the province to demand Ottawa transfer more immigration authority to Alberta so the province can cut intake levels.

A NO vote means:

You're saying immigration should continue to be set primarily by federal policy (which Ottawa already reduced in October 2024).

Can it actually happen?

Under s.95 of the Constitution Act 1867, immigration is concurrent jurisdiction — shared between Ottawa and the provinces — but provincial laws cannot contradict federal laws. In practice, Ottawa controls who enters Canada; Alberta can only nominate via the Provincial Nominee Program. A YES vote cannot actually reduce immigration levels — only a federal policy change can. Federal policy, incidentally, already reversed in October 2024: PR targets were cut from 500K to 395K and NPR share was capped at 5% of population.

See: Claims 1 and 5 in our point-by-point rebuttal

Sources:

Question 2ImmigrationPartial

Program Eligibility

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should the province cut off health care, schooling, and social services for people living in Alberta on temporary permits (like students, TFWs, asylum seekers) unless the province separately approves their status?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would pass a law restricting who can access public services — essentially creating a provincial immigration-status filter on top of the federal one.

A NO vote means:

Existing eligibility rules stay in place. Non-permanent residents who pay provincial taxes continue to access services their tax dollars fund.

Can it actually happen?

Provinces do control access to provincial programs — but three things would likely block this. First, Charter s.15 (equality) challenges are near-certain. Second, Charter s.23 plus Constitution Act s.93 require provinces to educate children regardless of parental immigration status. Third, the Canada Health Act conditions federal transfers on providing health care to anyone normally resident in the province. A YES result would face years of litigation before any meaningful effect.

See: Claim 2 (the $600M education figure) in our rebuttal

Sources:

Question 3ImmigrationPartial

12-Month Waiting Period

The ballot wording:

“Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should the province make people on temporary permits wait a full year in Alberta before they can access any provincial social support program?

A YES vote means:

Temporary residents who move to Alberta would be ineligible for provincial social supports for a year — even if they pay provincial income, fuel, and consumption taxes from day one.

A NO vote means:

No waiting period. People who live and pay taxes in Alberta can access provincial supports under existing rules.

Can it actually happen?

Similar to Question 2. Provinces can set residency requirements, but Charter s.15 (equality) and s.7 (liberty/security) challenges are likely. The federal mobility rights in Charter s.6 do not protect non-citizens, but provincial laws that single out temporary residents have been found discriminatory in prior Canadian case law.

Sources:

Question 4ImmigrationPartial

NPR Fees & Premiums

The ballot wording:

“Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family's use of the healthcare and education systems?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should the province charge fees or premiums for health care and schooling to non-permanent residents, even though they pay provincial income tax, GST, fuel tax and other taxes?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would add fees or monthly premiums for non-permanent residents and their families who use public health care or public schools — on top of the taxes they already pay.

A NO vote means:

No added fees. Non-permanent residents continue to access services they co-fund through provincial taxes.

Can it actually happen?

The Canada Health Act specifically requires universal access for insured persons — provincial fees that create "extra billing" are prohibited under the Act and can trigger reductions in federal transfer payments. Charging fees for public-school access would also trigger Charter s.23 challenges (minority-language education rights) and s.93 Constitution Act challenges.

Sources:

Question 5ImmigrationProvincial

Citizenship Voter ID

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should Alberta voters be required to show proof of citizenship (passport, birth certificate, citizenship card) to cast a ballot?

A YES vote means:

Voters would need to present a citizenship document at the polls — a passport, birth certificate, citizenship card, or (from late 2026) an Alberta driver's licence or ID card carrying the new "CAN" citizenship marker.

A NO vote means:

Current ID rules remain. Alberta already requires ID to vote, but accepts a broad list including driver's licences, utility bills, bank statements, and health cards.

Can it actually happen?

Elections administration is provincial. Alberta can pass this law with a simple statute — no federal cooperation or constitutional amendment required. Non-citizens already cannot vote in provincial elections, and Elections Alberta verifies this via the voter list. The documented problem is tiny: since 2013, Elections Alberta has issued only three administrative penalties for voting-eligibility offences — one non-citizen who voted in 2019, and two people who induced or aided an ineligible voter in 2023. Every other enforcement action on the public register (200+) has been for campaign-finance or reporting issues, not voting fraud. The practical gap between YES and NO has also narrowed: starting in late 2026, Alberta driver's licences and ID cards will display a "CAN" marker for Canadian citizens, so most citizens will already carry a citizenship-bearing ID. The remaining turnout concern is for Albertans who don't drive, haven't renewed under the new scheme, or lack a passport — a group that disproportionately includes Indigenous voters, newcomers, and some low-income residents.

Sources:

Question 6ConstitutionalSymbolic

Provincial Judges

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King's Bench and Appeal courts?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should the provinces (instead of Ottawa) pick the judges who sit on provincial superior courts — the King's Bench and Appeal courts?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would push for a constitutional amendment letting provinces appoint their own superior-court judges. This requires agreement from 7 provinces representing 50%+ of the population, plus Parliament.

A NO vote means:

The federal government continues to appoint superior-court judges under s.96 of the Constitution, as has been the case since 1867.

Can it actually happen?

Under s.38 of the Constitution Act 1982 (the 7/50 general amending formula), this requires at least seven provinces totalling 50%+ of the Canadian population, plus both houses of Parliament. A YES in Alberta starts a negotiation; it does not change anything on its own.

Sources:

Question 7ConstitutionalSymbolic

Abolish the Senate

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should the provinces push to amend the Constitution to eliminate the federal Senate entirely?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would advocate for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate. This requires unanimous consent.

A NO vote means:

The Senate continues as a chamber of the federal Parliament.

Can it actually happen?

The Supreme Court of Canada's 2014 Reference re Senate Reform confirmed that abolishing the Senate requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and all 10 provinces under s.41 of the Constitution Act 1982. A single province (Quebec most plausibly) can veto. This is the hardest constitutional change of the 9 questions.

Sources:

Question 8ConstitutionalSymbolic

Opt-Out With Funding

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

Should provinces be able to leave federal programs (like federal pharmacare, dental care, or child care transfers) while still collecting the full cash that would have come with them?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would push for a constitutional amendment creating a new, stronger opt-out-with-compensation rule. (The Constitution currently permits opt-out with compensation only for specific amendments, not as a general rule.)

A NO vote means:

Existing federal-provincial funding arrangements continue under the Canada Health Act and other conditional-transfer laws.

Can it actually happen?

Requires the 7/50 amending formula per s.38. Also politically difficult: provinces that rely more on federal transfers (notably the Atlantic provinces and Quebec) have different incentives than Alberta here. A YES vote only starts a conversation Alberta cannot finish alone.

Sources:

Question 9ConstitutionalSymbolic

Provincial Paramountcy

The ballot wording:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province's laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province's laws and federal laws conflict?”

— as announced by the Government of Alberta, February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith)

In plain language:

When a provincial law conflicts with a federal law in a shared area (like immigration, health, or environment), should the provincial law win?

A YES vote means:

Alberta would push to flip the current federal-paramountcy rule so provincial laws would override conflicting federal laws in shared-jurisdiction areas.

A NO vote means:

The current rule of federal paramountcy stays. In shared-jurisdiction conflicts, federal laws prevail.

Can it actually happen?

This would require a constitutional amendment under s.38 (7/50). It would also invert one of the foundational principles of Canadian federalism — federal paramountcy has been Supreme Court doctrine since Confederation. Expect unanimous federal and near-unanimous provincial-governmental resistance. Even among constitutional scholars sympathetic to more provincial autonomy, this is viewed as a non-starter.

Sources:

Primary sources

Questions as published by the Government of Alberta on February 19, 2026 (as announced by Premier Smith). April 23, 2026 — Premier Smith announced the launch of the government's public-information site (albertareferendum2026.ca) but did not revise question wording. If the province revises wording closer to the October vote, this page will be updated to match.