CBA Alberta Referendum Analysis

Immigration Questions

Questions 1–5

Questions 1 through 5 deal with matters of immigration to Alberta. While the term “immigrants” is generally understood to mean foreign nationals who have moved to Canada temporarily or permanently, there is some doubt in one of the questions about whether inter-provincial migrants could also be included.

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?

Three immigration law matters are combined into one ballot question, making for challenging analysis.

Immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction in the Canadian constitution, although federal legislation has paramountcy in the event of conflicting federal and provincial legislation. In practice, federal and provincial immigration roles are allocated by the federal Immigration and Refugees Protection Act. An agreement between Canada and Alberta from 2007 allows Alberta to set criteria for immigrant selection and to nominate candidates according to its labour market priorities. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada grants permanent resident status.

The ballot question combines three legally distinct ideas: reducing immigration levels, prioritizing economic immigration, and giving employment priority to “Albertans.”

The question does not specify the legal mechanism for “taking increasing control,” although this could be accomplished through a Quebec-style agreement or other options. A unilateral provincial cap on immigration, however, could face serious federal paramountcy issues.

While the phrase “economic migration” is undefined, Alberta can directly influence some immigration pathways under the existing federal-provincial agreement.

Giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities is legally problematic. All individuals (not only citizens) have equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prevent discrimination in hiring. Also, the Charter grants Canadian citizens and permanent residents mobility rights to move and pursue a living in any part of the country.

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?

The undefined terms within this question mean that the practical implications of a ‘yes’ vote are unclear.

This question is difficult to analyze legally. The term “Alberta-approved immigration status” is undefined, creating uncertainty around the impact of the proposed law. Many provincial programs already use immigration status or Alberta residence as eligibility criteria.

The questions appear to lump together different classes of temporary residents (workers, students, visitors), refugees and refugee claimants, protected persons, and persons without status. A central issue is whether “Alberta-approved immigration status” would create a new provincial category.

For medically necessary insured health care services, Alberta must account for the Canada Health Act, including its residence-based definition of insured persons.

For children, federal immigration law authorizes many minors to go to school, although K-12 education is governed by provincial legislation. The law described in the ballot question could exclude or delay children who currently attend as resident students unless “Alberta-approved” includes their family status.

When it comes to income supports, temporary residents and people without recognized status are generally already excluded from provincial programs.

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?

The change proposed in this question could invite Charter of Rights and Freedoms scrutiny, or have Canada Health Act implications.

From an immigration law perspective, the primary question is which temporary or refugee-related status groups would be subject to the one-year Alberta residence requirement, and which “social service programs” are included.

At a high level, such a policy may invite Charter scrutiny under equality provisions, as well as Alberta human rights review.

The Canada Health Act may also come into play, which specifies that provincial waiting periods for insured services must not exceed three months.

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 health care and education systems?

Combining different immigration status categories together makes the practical implications of this question unclear.

While question 3 refers to people with “non-permanent legal immigration status,” question 4 omits the word “legal.” This discrepancy creates an ambiguity about whether the proposal is aimed only at people with federally recognized temporary or refugee-related status, or whether Alberta would define the affected groups differently.

A fee or premium for health care could raise Canada Health Act concerns if it applies to medically necessary insured services for people who qualify as insured residents. A fee for education depends on whether the child is a resident student or an international-fee student under current law and school authority policy. Again, while federal immigration law grants study authorization for many minor children, public school policy is provincial jurisdiction.

A fee imposed on a person who is otherwise eligible for provincial health coverage or funded resident-student education is legally different from a fee that applies to someone already outside those programs.

Again, there is a concern in this question with lumping different immigration status categories together. Different classes of temporary residents, refugee claimants, protected persons and persons without status raise different legal and practical issues.

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?

Providing proof of citizenship in order to vote raises some practical considerations when balanced against protecting the right to vote.

This question addresses not citizenship requirements, but proof of citizenship. Only Canadian citizens of at least 18 years old and resident in Alberta may vote in Alberta elections. Adding a new proof requirement becomes an issue of documentary verification.

The documents listed in the question do not all serve the same function. A passport proves citizenship and identity but not current Alberta address; a birth certificate proves Canadian birth but not current name or address; and a citizenship certificate or card proves citizenship but not residence. Any new rule would need to specify whether citizenship proof is required at registration, at the polling place, or both, and how voters would also satisfy identity and address requirements.

Because the right to vote is protected in the Charter, the legal significance depends on whether eligible citizens can still vote through practical alternatives.

Alberta’s July 2026 driver’s licence and identification card redesign adds a citizenship marker where a person has provided acceptable proof of citizenship, which may reduce but not eliminate access concerns. Groups that are challenged to obtain documents could raise Charter concerns under the equality provisions.

View full constitutional analysis

Constitutional questions

Questions 6–9

Questions 6 through 9 raise questions about the Canadian constitution and provincial powers and authority. For these questions, the constitutional amending process is relevant.

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?

Changing the current judicial appointment system would require a constitutional amendment under the general amending formula.

The province of Alberta currently has no jurisdiction to appoint judges to the “superior” courts in Alberta – namely, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal. According to the Constitution, the federal government appoints these judges and pays their salaries.

However, the province does appoint and pay the salary of judges of “the Alberta Court of Justice.

Provinces do have jurisdiction over the makeup of all courts, including superior provincial courts. The effect is that Alberta has the power to determine the number of judges appointed to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal, though only the federal government can make those appointments.

Amending the Constitution to allow provinces to appoint superior court judges would require a constitutional amendment under the general formula, requiring resolutions to be passed by the Senate, the House of Commons, and at least seven provincial legislatures representing at least half of the national population.

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?

Abolishing the Senate would be difficult to do, requiring resolutions to be passed by the Senate itself, the House of Commons, and all 10 provinces.

The Senate of Canada is established as part of the legislative branch of the federal government. Parliament consists of both the House of Commons and the Senate, under the Constitution Act, 1867. Senators are appointed by the Governor General.

Amending the Constitution of Canada to abolish the Senate would require the unanimous consent of Parliament (both the House of Commons and the Senate itself) as well as all 10 provinces, according to the Constitution Act, 1982.

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?

Changes to the federal spending power are far more easily accomplished by political agreement than they are by constitutional amendment.

This question is about federal government authority known as the “spending power.” Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1967 enumerates areas of federal jurisdiction, and the federal spending power has been inferred by the courts from these areas of jurisdiction.

This spending power allows the federal government to attach conditions to provincial grants and withhold the money if the province fails to meet the conditions. An example is the Canada Health Act, which requires that a province’s health care insurance plan meet certain criteria to qualify for continued federal cash contributions.

There is precedent for intergovernmental agreements that allow provinces to opt out of particular programs with compensation. However, those arrangements have not been entrenched constitutional rights.

The question suggests amending the Constitution to make a permanent opt out right for provinces. Such an amendment would likely fall under the general amending formula, requiring resolutions to be passed by the Senate, the House of Commons, and at least seven provincial legislatures representing at least half of the national population.

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?

The doctrine of federal paramountcy is well established in law. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment under the general amending formula.

In instances where a provincial law and a federal law conflict, the federal law currently prevails. This rule is set out explicitly in the Constitution Act, 1867 with respect to certain matters of concurrent jurisdiction, and is reinforced by the judicially created doctrine of “federal paramountcy.”

Federal paramountcy renders a provincial law to be of no force to the extent it is in conflict with a federal law. A court will find a conflict in two instances: 1) it is impossible to comply with both the provincial law and the federal law simultaneously; or 2) compliance with the provincial law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law.

Amending the Constitution of Canada to give provincial laws priority over federal laws in cases of conflict would require using the general amending formula that requires resolutions to be passed by the Senate, the House of Commons, and at least seven provincial legislatures representing at least half of the national population.

Alberta separation question

Question 10

The final question on the referendum ballot asks whether Alberta should move toward holding a binding referendum on separating from Canada.

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?

The final question on the ballot asks whether or not the Government of Alberta should move forward with a binding separation referendum.

Ballot Question 10 is not a clear-cut separation question that would trigger an obligation for the federal government to negotiate terms of Alberta secession. Rather it asks whether the provincial government should launch a process toward holding a future binding separation referendum.

Alberta became a province of Canada in 1905 when the federal government passed the Alberta Act. A province cannot unilaterally secede from Canada. However, secession of a province is legally possible by constitutional amendment under the Constitution Act, 1982.

If a majority of Albertans vote on a clear future question in favour of leaving Canada, this would impose obligations on the federal government to engage in discussions with Alberta about the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms.

View full referendum law analysis

Referendum law status and recent changes in Alberta

With seven statutory and regulatory amendments enacted between December 2023 and April 2026, it is not surprising that Alberta’s legal community is seeking clarity around provincial referendum rules.

Rules for a referendum initiated by government

As well as requiring a referendum before a general sales tax or an income tax increase, or before Alberta leaves the Canada Pension Plan, the Alberta Cabinet may also order a referendum on any matter of public interest, whether or not that matter has constitutional implications.

The Referendum Act of 2000, with regulations passed in 2020, is the oldest referendum pathway in Alberta law, allowing Cabinet to order a referendum on any question relating to the Canadian constitution. Questions 6 through 10 on the October referendum ballot were ordered under this authority.

Legislation passed in July 2025 expanded Cabinet’s authority to order a referendum on any matter deemed to be of public interest, thereby establishing an additional pathway beyond constitutional referenda. This appears to be the statutory basis for the non-constitutional questions in the October referendum.

A referendum can be held on its own or held in conjunction with either a provincial election or a municipal election.

Under two pieces of legislation passed in December 2023, the Government of Alberta cannot raise personal or corporate income tax or withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan without first holding a referendum. These new constraints add to existing legislation that prohibits introducing a sales tax without a referendum.

Rules for a citizen-initiated referendum

Citizen initiatives became easier to launch on the signature rules in mid-2025, then harder on cost and timing: a steep filing fee by year-end, and by 2026 a near two-year blackout window around elections that can also terminate a petition already underway.

Under legislation that came into force in July 2025, the threshold of signatures required to trigger a citizen-initiated referendum was lowered to 10 per cent of votes cast in the last election, and the time period to collect those signatures was extended to 120 days. Other changes included reducing the period for the Chief Electoral Officer’s determination on the question, making a court referral for constitutionality mandatory, and reducing the third-party advertiser contribution limit to $5,000 per year, along with other administrative changes.

In December 2025, however, the citizen-initiated referendum law was again amended. These changes removed the requirement for a constitutional check and removed the Chief Electoral Officer’s advisory role.

In a separate change that same month, the application fee for a citizen-initiated referendum was increased from $500 to $25,000.

Finally, further changes to the citizen-initiated referendum rules came into effect in April 2026.

Most significantly, a new blackout period was established, so that no citizen-initiative notice may be filed one year before or one year after a fixed-date general election. Any citizen initiative that is already underway when a blackout period begins is terminated.

Other changes include adding a scrutineer regime. The ballot proponent and the Minister of Justice may each appoint one or more active Alberta lawyers as scrutineers to attend and observe the Chief Electoral Officer’s verification process.

Finally, the elections financing and contributions rules that would apply to registered parties, constituency associations and sitting MLAs during an election were disallowed for referendum purposes.

Rules affecting any referendum

The changes in recent years have made referendum administration more structured and closely supervised, adding successive layers of procedure and oversight.

While the details of referendum administration are extensive, there are a few important principles that apply to any referendum.

First, a referendum result should not be assumed to bind government. Binding status must be specified in the calling instrument, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a referendum result cannot, by itself, amend the Constitution or effect secession.

The scrutineer rules are detailed and extensive and should be reviewed by anyone contemplating a citizen-initiated ballot initiative. Similarly, the third-party financing rules have been made stricter, and a new prohibition was added on “deepfakes” that depict public officials, with substantial fines for violation.

Automatic tabulators have been outlawed, so referendum ballots will be counted by hand. Vouching for identity at polling stations is eliminated.

Indigenous consultation requirements have been added to determine polling locations, and non-derogation provisions are now included to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples under the Constitution of Canada.

Finally, a provision has been added allowing the Chief Electoral Officer or the Cabinet to discontinue a referendum in the event of emergency, disaster, or unusual or unforeseen circumstances.

View full referendum rules analysis

Referendum implications for Aboriginal and Treaty rights

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has ruled that Alberta independence would contravene the Charter and Treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Alberta. This ruling was cited by the Government of Alberta when they announced a non-binding referendum question. Some of the legal questions around Alberta’s referendum laws remain outstanding.

Consideration of Alberta’s possible secession from Canada remains highly contentious and legally uncertain in the context of its impact on the Aboriginal rights that are protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Several Alberta court cases, some initiated by Mitch Sylvestre and others by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Blackfoot Nations of Alberta, have attempted to clarify these important questions.

The Citizen Initiative Act (CIA) of 2021 is Alberta’s main statutory framework that allows citizens to propose initiatives. As it stood previously, section 2(4) of the CIA prohibited initiative petitions that contravened sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Mitch Sylvestre brought forward a citizen initiative petition called “A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence” under the CIA with enough signatures to meet the threshold to move forward. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) referred the question to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench to check the constitutionality, as required by the statute at the time.

In the Sylvestre I court case, the Court rejected Sylvestre’s argument that the CEO’s referral of the question to the courts was premature, an abuse of process or an affront to democracy.

In Sylvestre II, the Court emphasized that Aboriginal and Treaty rights issues cannot be adjudicated without First Nations’ participation.

In Sylvestre III, Justice Feasby of the Court of King’s Bench ruled on December 5, 2025, that Alberta independence would contravene both Charter and Treaty rights. The Court found that international borders would impair section 35 Treaty rights by dividing traditional territories of First Nations whose lands extend beyond Alberta. The Court accepted that under both common law and Cree law principles, First Nations are not required to accept Alberta as a replacement to Canada as a treaty party.

Following these decisions, the Government of Alberta amended the CIA to remove the provision that prohibited proposals contravening the Constitution. It also removed the ability to refer questions about citizen’s initiative proposals to the court.

Following this change, Mitch Sylvestre filed a second citizen initiative in January 2026 which was accepted by the CEO.

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Blackfoot Nations of Alberta then applied for a judicial review of the CEO’s decisions. Justice Leonard of the Court of King’s Bench quashed the CEO’s decision, finding that the CEO erred by approving the second citizen’s proposal, since they were substantially the same question. The Court said that the CEO still had to consider the constitutional principles of the question in spite of the legislative changes to the CIA. Determining whether a proposal engaged the Constitution is a legal question, which provides the implied jurisdiction to the CEO to decide questions of law.

Furthermore, the Court found that the CEO had jurisdiction to consider if a referendum proposal engages the duty to consult – a legal principle that is well entrenched through past Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The Court found that the duty to consult was indeed triggered in this instance.

In light of the court decision that the Sylvestre independence question violated Treaty rights, the Government of Alberta announced on May 28, 2026, that a non-binding referendum would be held on October 19, 2026.

Meanwhile, Mitch Sylvestre submitted the signature papers from his citizen’s initiative to the CEO. But because of the Court’s recent decision, the CEO did not immediately proceed to verify the signatures that had been collected. Sylvestre asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to stay the decision in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation case and to permit the CEO to complete the signature validation process.

The Court of Appeal granted a partial stay, concluding that there are serious questions to be determined on appeal. Most importantly:

The prior court’s conclusion is contrary to the language of the Referendum Act and the CIA.

The finding that the CEO has the ability to consider the duty to consult is incorrect.

The Court of Appeal found that the referendum on October 19 will address and resolve any harm suffered by Mr. Sylvestre because his proposed question was not advanced to a referendum. Elections Alberta did verify the signatures on the citizen initiative and announced the results on July 24, 2026.

The Court of Appeal has not yet made a decision on the merits of appeal, including the “serious questions” yet to be determined.

Mr. Sylvestre’s citizen initiative remains on hold with Elections Alberta. Next steps will depend on the outcome of the appeal.

How to vote

CBA Alberta strongly encourages its members to make the time to vote in the Fall 2026 referendum to make their voices heard.

The referendum will be on October 19 and run by Elections Alberta. It will operate similarly to provincial elections with polling stations and written ballots provided to citizens who are Alberta residents.

Voting information is available at Elections Alberta website.

Members should:

Make sure they are registered to vote if eligible. It is possible to verify your voting status in advance, which simplifies the process at the polls.

Choose a voting option. All options are available to all eligible voters.

Vote by Mail

Albertans can Vote by Mail by requesting a special ballot by September 25. Once the special ballot is received, it must be completed and mailed to Elections Alberta and received before 5 pm on October 16 . This option requires planning to ensure that your ballot can be received and returned on time.

Advance Voting

In-person Advance Voting takes place on October 13-17 from 9 am to 8 pm at designated advance voting locations.

Election Day Voting

In person Election Day Voting takes place on October 19 .

Consult the Elections Alberta website for more information about the referendum and voting process.