Ten questions. Four of them count.

Can it happen

Immigration is concurrent jurisdiction under section 95 of the Constitution Act 1867, meaning Ottawa and the provinces share it, but provincial law cannot contradict federal law. In practice Ottawa decides who enters the country. Alberta can nominate through the Provincial Nominee Program and, since the Immigration Oversight Act took effect in May 2026, can require employers to register provincially before using federal temporary-worker streams. Neither of those sets an intake level. A Yes vote cannot lower immigration by itself; only Ottawa can, and it has been doing so since October 2024. The 2026-2028 Levels Plan holds permanent residents at 380,000 a year and takes the non-permanent-resident share below 5% of the population by the end of 2027.

Can it happen

Provinces do control access to their own programs, but three things stand in the way. Charter section 15 equality challenges would follow immediately. Charter section 23 and section 93 of the Constitution Act require provinces to educate children whatever their parents' status. And the Canada Health Act ties federal transfers to providing care for anyone normally resident in the province. A Yes result would spend years in court before it changed anything.

Can it happen

Much the same story as Question 2. Provinces can set residency requirements, but equality challenges under Charter section 15 and liberty challenges under section 7 are likely. Mobility rights under section 6 do not protect non-citizens. Canadian courts have, however, found provincial laws singling out temporary residents to be discriminatory before.

Can it happen

The Canada Health Act requires universal access for insured persons, and provincial fees that amount to extra billing are prohibited under it. Charging them can cut federal transfer payments. Fees for public-school access would draw their own challenges, under Charter section 23 on minority-language education rights and section 93 of the Constitution Act.

Can it happen

Elections administration is provincial, so Alberta could pass this with an ordinary statute. No federal cooperation or constitutional amendment is needed. It is also the one question where Alberta has the power to act and the order in council says the result will not bind it. Non-citizens already cannot vote in provincial elections, and Elections Alberta checks the voter list. The documented problem is very small: three administrative penalties for voting-eligibility offences since 2013, being one non-citizen who voted in 2019 and two people who induced or aided an ineligible voter in 2023. The other 200-odd entries on the public register concern campaign finance and reporting, not fraud at the ballot box. The practical gap between Yes and No is narrowing anyway. The three-in-one licence began rolling out in July 2026, and from late 2026 licences and ID cards will carry a "CAN" marker for citizens, so most people will already be holding proof. What remains is a turnout question, for Albertans who do not drive, have not renewed under the new scheme, or hold no passport. That group includes disproportionate numbers of Indigenous voters, newcomers and low-income residents.

Can it happen

Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982 sets the general amending formula: seven provinces holding at least half the population of Canada, plus both houses of Parliament. A Yes in Alberta opens a negotiation. On its own it changes nothing.

Can it 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 on the ballot.

Can it happen

The Constitution allows opting out with compensation today, but only for particular amendments, never as a standing rule. Making it general needs the same seven-province formula under section 38, and the politics are harder than the law. The provinces that lean most heavily on federal transfers, Quebec and the Atlantic four, would be signing away the leverage those transfers buy them. Alberta does not get to seven without some of them.

Can it happen

This would require a constitutional amendment under section 38, and it would invert a founding principle of Canadian federalism. Federal paramountcy has been settled Supreme Court doctrine since Confederation. Ottawa would fight it, and so would most of the provinces. Constitutional scholars otherwise sympathetic to provincial autonomy call this one a non-starter.

Can it happen

This question arrived late. It was announced on May 21, 2026 and ordered a week later, four months after the other nine. O.C. 160/2026 was made under section 5.1 of the Referendum Act and says plainly that the result is not to be binding, so even Option 2 obliges the government to nothing. What Option 2 describes is also a process Alberta cannot complete alone. In Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998) the Supreme Court held that a clear majority on a clear question creates a duty on the rest of Canada to negotiate. That is not the same as a right to leave, and secession would still require a constitutional amendment. Two further constraints are live. The federal Clarity Act sets its own tests for what counts as a clear question and a clear majority. And on May 13, 2026 the Court of King's Bench quashed the Chief Electoral Officer's approval of the separate Stay Free Alberta petition, finding he had not accounted for the treaty rights and duty-to-consult obligations that separation would engage. Those are the same section 35 obligations that Referendum Act section 5.2(3) says the government need not override in order to implement a result.