The headline question plus nine policy questions on the October 19 ballot, and five more a provincial constitution could answer. Plain answers grounded in current Canadian and provincial law. Voting requires a free signup.
The headline question
"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?"
Order in Council 110/2026 (March 31, 2026)
What this means: A 'remain' vote keeps Alberta a province of Canada. A 'commence' vote directs the Government of Alberta to begin the legal process for a future binding referendum on separation. The October 19 vote does not itself decide separation; it decides whether to begin the process that could lead to a future binding separation referendum. Read the full walkthrough →
Premier Smith's nine policy questions. The official result will be determined by Elections Alberta; this page is for informed discussion ahead of the vote.
Ballot question 1
Provincial control over immigration levels
Multi-province
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?
What this means: Immigration is a shared jurisdiction under Constitution Act, 1867 s.95, where federal law prevails if provincial and federal laws conflict. A province can expand its role through a negotiated immigration agreement with the Government of Canada; it cannot set binding levels unilaterally.
Restricting provincially funded programs to citizens and permanent residents
Alberta alone
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?
What this means: Provinces administer their own social programs under Constitution Act, 1867 s.92. Eligibility rules of this kind are within provincial authority, though they may face Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms scrutiny under s.15.
Residency requirements for non-permanent residents
Alberta alone
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?
What this means: Provinces may set residency-based rules for provincial programs and services under s.92. Rules touching mobility may engage Charter s.6.
Fees for healthcare and education for non-permanent residents
Alberta alone
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?
What this means: Health and education are provincial under s.92(7) and s.93. Fee structures are within provincial authority, subject to the conditions attached to federal health transfers under the Canada Health Act.
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?
What this means: The conduct of provincial elections is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, so Alberta can legislate this. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen the right to vote; a proof-of-citizenship requirement, like any voting rule, would be assessed against that guarantee if it were challenged in court.
Provincial selection of superior court justices
Multi-province
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?
What this means: Constitution Act, 1867 s.96 gives the federal government the power to appoint superior court judges. Shifting that power to the provinces would require amending the Constitution of Canada.
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?
What this means: The Senate is a federal institution. The Supreme Court of Canada's 2014 Reference re Senate Reform held that abolishing the Senate requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures under Constitution Act, 1982 s.41. Alberta cannot do this alone.
Provincial opt-out of federal programs with retained funding
Multi-province
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?
What this means: Opting out of a cost-shared federal program while keeping the funding depends on the terms of federal-provincial transfer arrangements and requires a negotiated agreement with the Government of Canada. The federal government is not constitutionally obligated to maintain funding for a province that opts out.
Priority of provincial law over federal law
Requires a strong constitution
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?
What this means: Under the doctrine of federal paramountcy, valid federal law prevails over conflicting provincial law in areas of overlap. Reversing that order would require amending the Constitution of Canada.