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.
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?
Three immigration law matters are combined into one ballot question, making for challenging analysis.
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.
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?
The undefined terms within this question mean that the practical implications of a ‘yes’ vote are unclear.
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.
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?
The change proposed in this question could invite Charter of Rights and Freedoms scrutiny, or have Canada Health Act implications.
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.
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 health care and education systems?
Combining different immigration status categories together makes the practical implications of this question unclear.
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.
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?
Providing proof of citizenship in order to vote raises some practical considerations when balanced against protecting the right to vote.
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.
