On October 19, 2026, Albertans will vote on ten referendum questions covering immigration, provincial programs, voting requirements, constitutional reform and Alberta’s relationship with Canada.
Below, we explain what voters will be asked and what a favourable result could mean. The questions are presented in the same order in which they will appear on the ballot. Our goal is to ensure Calgary businesses, our members and the public have access to clear, accurate information to help them make informed decisions.
The Questions
Question 10
O.C. 160/2026 sets out the following question and specifies that the results of the referendum question are not to be binding. Electors will mark an “x” next to the options of their choice on their ballots.
10. Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
Plain language:
Should Alberta start the official process toward holding a second, binding referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada?
Additional context:
This question does not ask Albertans to decide whether Alberta should separate from Canada. It asks whether the Alberta government should begin the legal process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation.
The question was created after a Court of King’s Bench decision quashed a citizen-led petition seeking a referendum on Alberta separation. The Alberta government has appealed against that decision. The government has said the wording of Question 10 allows Albertans to provide direction on whether the legal process toward a future separation referendum should begin while the court proceedings continue.
A “yes” vote would not mean Alberta has voted to separate from Canada. It would direct the Alberta government to commence the legal process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation.
Any future referendum on separation would be a separate vote. A decision to separate would also have to comply with the Canadian Constitution and the legal requirements governing constitutional change.
For information on separation, please read the following policy releases: Lessons from Quebec: How separatism impacted the economy and business community, Following the Money: Equalization and Alberta Separatism, Lessons from Brexit: The economic risks of using referendums to send a message, Alberta Separatism: Economic and business perspectives.
Questions one through five
O.C. 110/2026 sets out the following questions on immigration and specifies that the results on these referendum questions are not to be binding. Electors will mark either “yes” or “no” for each question on their ballots.
1. 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?
Plain language:
Do you want Alberta to have more say over who immigrates to Alberta, in order to reduce the overall number of newcomers, prioritize people moving here to work, and give Albertans priority on new jobs?
Additional context:
There are three ideas wrapped up in this question:
- Keeping immigration at a sustainable level: The question does not define what would constitute a “sustainable” level of immigration. If the proposal were implemented, the government would need to determine what level and what measures would be used to achieve this.
- Prioritizing economic migration: This would mean placing greater emphasis on immigrants selected based on factors such as skills, occupations, employment or economic contribution. Alberta already has a role in selecting economic immigrants through the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program (AAIP).
- Prioritizing Albertans for employment: The question proposes giving Albertans first priority for new employment opportunities. It does not specify how this would work in practice or establish a specific hiring requirement. Any such measures would need to be developed through legislation, regulation or policy.
It is important to know that immigration is shared federal-provincial jurisdiction, and changes cannot be implemented unilateral – regardless of the outcome.
2. 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?
Plain language:
Should Alberta make immigration or residency status a requirement for accessing provincially-funded programs and services?
Additional context:
The question gives examples of health care, education and social services, but the question doesn’t say which specific programs would be affected or what would happen to people who are excluded. The question also doesn’t define “Alberta-approved immigration status”. The details would have to be established through the legislation and its regulations.
3. 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?
Plain language:
Should Alberta create a 12-month waiting period for people with temporary immigration status before they can access provincially-funded social support programs?
Additional context:
The question could apply to people with non-permanent immigration status, such as:
- temporary foreign workers
- international students
- people with temporary resident permits
- potentially other temporary residents, depending on how the law defines the term
The exact groups affected would depend on how “non-permanent legal immigration status” is defined in any resulting legislation. The exact social programs impacted would need to be defined in legislation as well.
4. 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?
Plain language:
Should Alberta require a fee or premium for temporary residents and their families to participate in our health care and education system?
Additional context:
The question does not specify the amount of the fee or premium, how it would be calculated, who would be responsible for paying it or how the fees would be administered.
The question also does not establish whether different fees would apply to different groups or services. Those details would need to be determined through legislation, regulation or government policy.
It is worth noting that emergency care cannot legally be denied to anyone regardless of coverage.
5. 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?
Plain language:
Should the Government of Alberta require all voters to provide proof of citizenship?
Additional context:
Voters already must show ID. It is asking whether Alberta should require voters to provide proof of citizenship specifically, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card.
A Canadian passport is currently accepted as one of the forms of identification that can be used when providing two pieces of ID. It cannot be used as the sole piece of identification because it does not establish the voter’s current physical address.
Questions six through nine
O.C. 109/2026 sets out the following questions regarding provincial amendments to the Canadian Constitution. Electors will mark either “yes” or “no” for each question on their ballots.
Questions six through nine are binding because in Alberta, any questions regarding the Canadian Constitution are automatically binding. This means, if a majority votes “yes” regarding a constitutional question, the result is binding on the Alberta Legislature.
A “yes” vote would not amend the Constitution itself. The Legislature would still have to pursue the actual constitutional amendment process required under Canada’s Constitution and the federal government would also have to follow the applicable constitutional requirements before an amendment could take effect.
These amendments require approval from the Senate and House of Commons and at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of Canada’s provincial population (7/50 formula). In some cases, unanimous consent from all provinces is required. In the case of this referendum’s constitutional questions, the 7/50 formula would apply.
6. 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?
Plain language:
Do you support the Government of Alberta working to amend the Canadian Constitution to give provinces the authority to appoint judges to their superior courts?
Additional context:
Currently the provinces have a formal role in the selection process. Judicial advisory committees include members nominated by the provincial Attorney General, the provincial judiciary, the provincial law society and the provincial branch of the Canadian Bar Association. The federal Justice Minister also typically consults the provincial Attorney General and chief justice before making an appointment. The final appointment remains a federal responsibility. It is important to note that judges are expected to make decisions based on the law and evidence, without political influence from the government or other parties involved in a case. Provincial judges often hear cases involving Alberta government decisions, Indigenous rights, disputes between an individual or business and the Alberta government amongst other issues involving the provincial government.
7. 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?
Plain language:
Should Alberta work with other provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the Senate altogether?
Additional context:
A “yes” vote would not itself abolish the Senate. Abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment and requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and all provincial legislatures. Previous attempts at major constitutional reform, including the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord, demonstrate
8. 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?
Plain language:
Should the Constitution be amended so provinces can opt out of federal programs, while still receiving the same allocated federal funding to spend on their own programs?
Additional context:
The question is whether Alberta should pursue a constitutional change that would:
- allow provinces to opt out of certain federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction;
- allow the province to retain the associated federal funding; and
- change the constitutional rules governing the relationship between federal and provincial governments in these areas.
9. 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?
Plain language:
Should Alberta’s laws take priority over conflicting federal laws in areas of provincial or shared constitutional jurisdiction?
Additional context:
The Alberta government has pointed to federal measures including the Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69), the proposed oil and gas emissions cap, federal electricity regulations, plastics regulation, agricultural emissions and fertilizer requirements, firearms legislation and federal conditions attached to health and social programs as examples of what it considers federal interference in provincial jurisdiction.
A “yes” vote would not itself change the Constitution. The Alberta government would first have to pursue the proposed constitutional amendment through the required process and obtain the necessary agreement from other governments and legislatures.
The question proposes changing the Constitution so in specified areas of provincial or shared constitutional jurisdiction, a provincial law would take priority where it conflicts with federal law.
This would represent a significant change to the current constitutional framework governing conflicts between federal and provincial laws. The precise legal effect would depend on how the constitutional amendment was drafted and interpreted by the courts.
Conclusion
On October 19, Albertans will be asked to vote on ten questions covering a range of issues. The questions vary in scope and in several cases, a “yes” vote would not result in an immediate change. As described, some proposals would require new legislation, while others would require negotiations with other governments and constitutional amendments.
Whatever the results may be, the referendum will provide an important opportunity for Albertans to express their views on issues that could have significant implications for the province and Canada.
For more information on please visit our webpage dedicated to Alberta’s October 19 referendum.
ABOUT THE CALGARY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Calgary Chamber exists to empower our business community to advance a prosperous Calgary and Canada. As the convenor and catalyst for a vibrant, inclusive and prosperous business community, the Chamber works to build strength and resilience among its members and position Calgary as a magnet for talent, diversification and opportunity. As an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 1891, we build on our history to serve and advocate for businesses of all sizes, in all sectors across the city.
