Explaining the Petitions to Stay and Leave by way of a Timeline

Jared Wesley: Decoding the Separatist Playbook

Albertans should learn to recognize these tropes in the coming months

Are reports of foreign influence in separatism vote true? Research suggests they are.

In an August 17, 2026 article in the Globe and Mail (Russian, U.S. interests are targeting Alberta’s separatist debate Canadian research shows) journalist Grant Robertson reports that Canadian researchers are tracking foreign influence in Alberta's separatism debate using an AI tool called Cipher. This AI tool was developed by Brian McQuinn at the University of Regina's Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Data, and Conflict, in partnership with the University of Alberta.

Robertson reports that Cipher was originally built to monitor Russian disinformation about the invasion of Ukraine. Early this year, researchers noticed the same Russian networks shifting focus to Alberta. They recalibrated the tool to track this new target ahead of October's referendum.

Cipher tracks online accounts and platforms that publish, distribute or amplify content from foreign sources related to Alberta. Robertson notes that according to Dr. Quinn, Alberta separatism is a predictable target for outside forces who want to undermine Canada, stoke anger, or influence the October referendum results.

Cipher reports covering the month mid-July to mid-August have found roughly 300 pieces of foreign-linked disinformation. About 80% traced back to Russian sources, and 20% to American ones. 

The research found two distinct patterns of foreign involvement.

Russian activity is mostly covert. It's driven largely by the Pravda Network, a content farm that produces material that looks like real news but is designed to inflame divisions. This content spreads through Canadian social media when people share it knowingly or unknowingly. Much of it frames economic grievances, like tariffs and affordability, as proof Alberta is being punished by the rest of Canada.

American involvement is more open. Right-wing podcasters, websites, and MAGA-aligned influencers have publicly argued that Canada is a "failed state" that Alberta should leave, while separatist leaders openly meet with Trump administration officials.

Albertans need to wake up to reality

That’s the message from Lawrence Herman, an international lawyer and a senior fellow at the C. D. Howe Institute.

In an August 15, 2026 article in the Globe and Mail (“An independent Alberta would need to negotiate its trade and treaty relationships”) Herman notes that, under international law, newly formed countries don’t simply inherit pre-existing arrangements. “They have to negotiate their way in.” 

That means all deals are off. Alberta would need to renegotiate all its existing trade and treaty relationships. 

Yes, we have oil. And that gives us some leverage but perhaps not as much leverage as the separatist rhetoric would suggest, especially when it comes to confronting a huge, economically powerful, and currently unpredictable country like the U.S.

As Herman notes, “This brings us to the challenges Alberta would face in securing stable, beneficial access to the American market, something that, whatever other issues may be in play, would be the most critical factor for its future as an independent country. It’s in this respect that the people of Alberta need to wake up to reality.”

The outcomes of current trade negotiations with the U.S. are uncertain at best and whatever trade deal emerges, it will be a deal among the U.S., Canada and perhaps Mexico. Admitting a separate Alberta to that deal would require an agreement from all three countries. Alberta would not automatically be included.

In addition to the U.S., an independent Alberta would also not automatically get the rights and benefits it enjoys under Canada’s existing trade agreements with other countries and regions around the world. That includes current agreements with the European Union, the Asia-Pacific region, and the new Canada-South Korea free trade agreement.

And then there’s tariffs. Herman notes that no foreign country would automatically grant the same tariff concessions to Alberta exporters as the rest of Canada has. That means Alberta would face the prospect of lengthy negotiations with other countries just to get the same market access Alberta’s companies and industries currently have.

Herman concludes with this chilling observation: “No one denies that Alberta has leverage with its huge oil and gas reserves. This gives us some serious cards to play. But once out of Canada and playing those cards internationally will involve a long, convoluted and highly uncertain game. While all this is happening, who would buy Alberta bonds?”

Jared Wesley: Don't look away

“The racism on display at some separatist town halls is an important part of our provincial discussion.”

What are the referendum questions?

On October 19, Albertans will be asked to vote on ten referendum questions.

Immigration: 

Albertans will mark yes or no to the following questions related to immigration.

Question 1
Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?

Question 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?

Question 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?

Question 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?

Question 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?

Constitutional changes:

Albertans will mark yes or no to the following questions. 

Question 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?

Question 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?

Question 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?

Question 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?

Separation:

Albertans will have the choice of two options and will mark an X beside the choice they prefer.

Question 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.

The Isolation Risk of a Separate Alberta

If Alberta separates from Canada, it risks becoming isolated — not isolated from the world in some literal sense but cut off from the political and economic systems that currently give it influence and reach far beyond its size.

This is, for now, a hypothetical scenario as Canada's constitution does not give a province a unilateral path to independence, and any actual separation would require negotiation involving the federal government, the other provinces, and First Nations, whose treaty and constitutional rights are directly implicated by any change to Alberta's status. But it's a hypothetical worth examining carefully, because it clarifies what is at stake in the broader debate.

To avoid the isolation that separation would risk, an independent Alberta would need to replace the diplomatic and economic architecture it is part of today: trade access, financial integration, institutional credibility, and a seat at the table in international affairs. The central risk is whether Alberta could replace what it would lose.

None of this is a judgment about Alberta's capability. Alberta has real strengths: abundant natural resources, a highly educated workforce, strong institutions, and a dynamic entrepreneurial culture. Alberta also has something few regions in the world possess: extensive control over its own affairs in a federal system, while operating inside a G7 country with a large integrated market, internationally respected institutions, established trade agreements, global diplomatic influence, secure borders, and transportation networks built over more than 150 years. Separation would mean stepping outside all of it and trying to rebuild as much of it as possible all at once.

Economic Isolation

One of Canada's greatest advantages is that its economic systems are so smooth they're almost invisible.

An Edmonton company can sell to customers in Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax without customs declarations, currency exchange, immigration restrictions, or separate regulatory systems. A worker from Calgary can move to Vancouver or Ottawa without a visa. A business can raise capital through Canadian financial markets under familiar rules and institutions. Migration from other provinces to Alberta has been critical to the growth of Alberta’s economy.

While regulatory differences between provinces sometimes create internal barriers, the federal government and the provinces have committed to bring down those barriers.

These advantages of economic integration are more than minor conveniences. They lower costs, encourage investment, and let businesses operate at a scale that smaller, fragmented markets cannot support. Economists have long recognized that market size matters: larger integrated markets create more room for specialization, innovation, and productivity growth, and businesses invest more readily when they can count on a predictable environment with millions of potential customers and established rules.

Brexit provides the clearest recent illustration and warning. The UK remains a wealthy advanced economy that continues to trade internationally, but reduced EU integration has brought new administrative costs, disrupted supply chains, and narrowed market access while Britain had decades of independent institutions to fall back on while renegotiating. Alberta would face the harder task of building that infrastructure for the first time while replacing what it had lost. Even under cooperative negotiations, the likely result is a less effective version of today's advantages, and not a full replacement.

Diplomatic Isolation

Independence offers a clear benefit: more control over domestic decisions. But sovereignty and influence aren't the same thing and gaining one doesn't automatically deliver the other.

International influence comes from economic scale, diplomatic networks, and institutional credibility, not legal status alone. Canada's weight comes partly from being a stable G7 country of forty million people with decades of established relationships. An independent Alberta would enter that world with roughly five million people. This is not a fatal weakness, since many smaller states prosper, but smaller countries typically compensate with careful diplomacy and alliances built over time, not overnight.

Trade negotiations between an independent Alberta and other countries would similarly reflect Alberta’s size and lack of institutional credibility, relationships, and history. Canada negotiates with a global network of embassies, decades of experience, and institutions other governments already trust. Alberta would need to build diplomatic representation, negotiating teams, and regulatory agencies largely from scratch. These could eventually become effective, but in the meantime, Alberta would start as an unfamiliar and inexperienced negotiating partner without the trust and respect Canada has earned over generations.

Geography can't be replaced

Some losses could theoretically be rebuilt, given time and money, but geography is different. It can only be managed, never replaced. Alberta is landlocked. Exporting oil, gas, agricultural products, and manufactured goods depends on transportation corridors to external markets. Railways, pipelines, and port access would all require agreements with neighbours. Switzerland and Austria show that landlocked countries can prosper, but only through extensive, permanent cooperation and an ongoing interdependency.

Today, Alberta benefits from a country that manages national transportation systems, protects access through other provinces and territories, and negotiates access with other countries as a matter of course. An independent Alberta would need to build its own version of those arrangements while depending indefinitely on its neighbours' goodwill and self-interest. While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides an avenue for a landlocked country to negotiate access through another country, such access is expressly subject to the “legitimate interests” of that other country. There is no assurance that an independent Alberta would have pipeline access across British Columbia to the ports on the west coast. This is not a one-time cost of separation; it is a permanent condition of it, one that Alberta could manage well or manage poorly, but never simply resolve.

Why replacement is uncertain

Setting aside the constitutional and political hurdles to separation itself, Alberta could succeed as an independent country if given enough time.

The harder question is whether an independent Alberta could replace what it would leave behind.

On the available evidence, that's genuinely uncertain. Trade access built over decades doesn't automatically transfer to a new partner just because the underlying resources are the same. Diplomatic influence doesn't appear because a new country wants it. And geography, by definition, cannot be replaced at all, but only managed from a position of interdependence rather than integration.

Many of the political and economic systems and agreements could eventually be recreated through negotiation. But rebuilding would take years, cost significant public resources, and depend on the cooperation of other governments who have no obligation to make it easy. And existing advantages, such as Canada's international reputation, bargaining power, institutional credibility, and economic size, cannot simply be reconstructed on demand, because they are products of history, size, and relationships built over generations. Alberta would be trying to replace, in a few years, what took Canada more than a century to build.

Question 10: What do the new referendum separation questions really mean and what happens if Albertans vote for option 1 or option 2?

Summary

• The referendum question on separation sets out two options – one for Alberta to remain a province of Canada and one for the Alberta government to start the legal process required to hold a further, binding referendum on separation.

• The option to remain a province of Canada is clear.

• The option to commence a process required to hold a further referendum likely refers to the requirement that the Alberta government must undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before holding a referendum on separation.

• If Alberta is successful in its appeal currently before the Alberta Court of Appeal, this second option will be meaningless because the government argues there is no legal requirement to undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before holding a referendum on separation. Further, if the Alberta government is successful in its appeal, it will be required to hold a second referendum proposing separation, even if the vote on the first referendum this October rejects separation.

• The Alberta government is not bound to respect the decision of the voters on the first referendum. If a second referendum is held on the separation petition, the government will not be required to respect the decision of the voters on that referendum either, because the court has found that separation contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Analysis

Typically, a referendum question is structured to require either a “yes” or a “no” answer. That is true of the first 9 questions that the Alberta government has set for the vote on October 19. However, the 10th question – the one relating to separation – has been structured not as a “yes” or “no” question, but rather as a choice between two options. Elections Alberta has set out the choice as follows:

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.

This unusual structure reflects a choice made by the Alberta government in the face of competing petitions under the Citizen Initiative Act about whether Alberta should stay in Canada or leave Canada.

The Stay Petition

The first petition was proposed by Thomas Lukaszuk in June 2025, asking the question:

Do you agree Alberta should remain in Canada?

On December 1, 2025, the Chief Electoral Officer certified that this petition had been successful, having secured in excess of 400,000 signatures. (See our article What Happened to the Forever Canadian Petition? for more about the process.) Ultimately, a committee of the legislature recommended to the full legislature that this question be put to the people of Alberta by way of a referendum. Rather than waiting for the legislature to consider this recommendation, the government decided to act on its own and introduce a referendum question with an option for Albertans to vote to remain a province of Canada. The wording of this option is slightly different from that of the Lukaszuk question but to the same end.

The meaning of this option is clear.

The Leave Petitions

The second petition was proposed by Mitch Sylvestre in July 2025, asking the question:

Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?

On December 5, 2025, Justice Feasby of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ruled that this petition contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. Three days later, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected this petition, based on the existing language of the Citizen Initiative Act and this decision of the court.

Later that month, the Citizen Initiative Act was amended to remove the requirement that a petition must not contravene the Constitution. Mitch Sylvestre then proposed a further petition, asking the question:

Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?

The Chief Electoral Officer approved this second petition. On May 4, 2026, Sylvestre delivered the signature sheets to the Chief Electoral Officer, claiming that he had secured over 300,000 signatures in favour of this petition. However, nine days later, Justice Leonard of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench quashed the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to approve this petition, finding that:

• as Sylvestre’s first petition had been rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer, it could not be resubmitted as a second petition;

• the Alberta government had a duty to consult with Indigenous persons before the Chief Electoral Officer could approve this petition; and

• the proposal in this petition would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights, as earlier found by Justice Feasby.

This decision put an end to the second Sylvestre petition, at least for the time being.

Both Sylvestre and the government of Alberta have appealed this decision. The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the Chief Electoral Officer could undertake the verification process on the signature sheets that had been delivered, pending the results of the appeal. On July 24, 2026, the Chief Electoral Officer advised that it had verified 222,597 signatures, in excess than the 177,732 signatures required for a successful petition. However, the decision of Justice Leonard striking this petition remains in place unless and until it is ultimately overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Rather than waiting for the decision of the Court of Appeal on the merits of the appeal, the Alberta government decided to act on its own and include on the October 19 ballot an option to commence the process for a referendum leading to separation. As Justice Leonard determined that the government is required to undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before setting a referendum question proposing separation and as the Alberta government has not undertaken those consultations, it posed the option that:

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.

Unlike Option 1, the meaning of Option 2 is not clear.

What does Option 2 mean?

There are at least two questions here.

First, what is the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on separation?

The Canadian Constitution does not expressly set out a legal process required for a province to hold a binding referendum on separation. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in the case of Reference re Secession of Quebec on the trigger for constitutional negotiations in the event a referendum on a clear question achieves a clear majority in favour of separation. Following that decision, the federal government passed the Clarity Act, setting out the process for the federal government to determine whether a referendum question is clear. However, other than the decision of Justice Leonard respecting the Sylvestre petition, there is little or no case law on the legal process required by the Canadian Constitution to be undertaken by a province before a referendum is held on separation. And while the decision of Justice Leonard specifies a requirement to undertake consultation with Indigenous persons, it does not specify the nature or extent of consultations required or the result if those consultations are unsuccessful.

Here is where things get tricky.

In its argument before Justice Leonard, the Alberta government argued that the duty to consult is not triggered until after the referendum. The government is repeating that argument in its appeal of Justice Leonard’s decision. If the government is right, then there is no “legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on separation”. In other words, the government has posed a referendum option to undertake a required legal process that the same government argues does not exist.

Further, the Chief Electoral Officer has determined that the second Sylvestre petition received the required number of signatures to trigger a referendum. If the Alberta government successfully appeals the decision of Justice Leonard, it will be required to hold a referendum on the separation question set out in the second Sylvestre petition, as provided in Section 16(1) of the Citizen Initiative Act. The Minister of Justice will have some limited discretion to recommend changes to that question to ensure that it will result in a clear expression of the will of electors and is “otherwise suitable to be put to the electors”. However, if the Alberta government succeeds in its appeal in setting aside the decision of Justice Leonard, Albertans will be faced with another referendum on separation. And this further referendum will be required, even if Albertans on October 19 the majority of Albertans select Option 1 to remain in Canada.

Second, Option 2 refers to a “binding” provincial referendum. What does that mean?

It is important to understand that when the Alberta government added these options to the October 19 referendum, it specified it will not be bound by the decision of the voters. If more votes are cast for Option 2 (commence the process leading to binding referendum on separation) than Option 1 (stay in Canada), the government could still decide not to commence the process of consultation with Indigenous persons required to hold a referendum. If more votes are cast for Option 1 than Option 2, the government could still take steps towards separation.

Under the rules established by the Alberta government when it set the referendum question, it will be bound only if:

• Option 2 prevails over Option 1

• the government then chooses to commence the process of consultation and completes that process

• the government then chooses to hold a referendum on separation, and

• that referendum is successful.

Even then, the Alberta government may not be bound to do anything.

Section 4(2) of the Referendum Act says that if the results of a referendum are binding, the government must take any steps within its competence that it considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the referendum. However, that is qualified by Section 4(3) of the Referendum Act which states that the government is not required to implement the results of the referendum if doing so would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. That is further qualified by Section 8.11(3) of the Referendum Act which states that nothing in a referendum is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. And Justice Feasby has already determined that separation would contravene both the Charter and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. That means that in this case, the Alberta government would not be bound by a binding referendum.

Further, even if the Alberta government were to take steps to implement a successful referendum vote in favour of separation, Alberta does not have the right on its own to separate from Canada. Separation can only occur following negotiations with the governments of Canada and the other provinces. Engaging in a process of negotiation around separation does not necessarily mean that separation will occur or, if it occurs, that it will occur under any specific terms.

So where does this leave us?

In setting these options for the October 19 referendum, the Alberta government has jumped the gun.

With respect to Option 1 (stay in Canada), the Alberta government didn’t wait for the legislature to determine how to deal with the successful petition brought by Thomas Lukaszuk, as the Citizen Initiative Act contemplates. Rather, it decided on its own to bring forward a referendum question proposing that Alberta stay within Canada. That question, at least, is clear.

With respect to Option 2 (commence the process for a referendum to leave Canada), the Alberta government didn’t wait for the results of the appeal of the decision of Justice Leonard. Option 2 proposes that the government undertake a required legal process while arguing before the Alberta Court of Appeal that there is no such required legal process. If the Alberta government prevails on its appeal of Justice Leonard’s decision, Option 2 will be meaningless. Further, if it prevails on its appeal, the government will be required to hold a second referendum on separation, even if the Alberta electors were to choose Option 1 over Option 2. And after all of that, even if that second referendum were to be successful, the Alberta government is not bound to pursue separation because separation has been held to contravene both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Confused? So are we.

Our View

We are voting for the clear option to remain in Canada.

What message are you sending?

On October 19, Albertans will be asked to vote on ten referendum questions, all of them important to Alberta’s future but none more important than whether to start the process for separating from Canada.

In conversations with Albertans, we hear some people say, “I don’t want to separate from Canada but I want to send a message to the federal government.” They talk about longstanding grievances with Ottawa and the illusive Laurentian elite who are thought to hold power in eastern Canada, ignore Alberta’s needs and fail to respect the contributions Alberta – and especially Alberta’s resources – provide to the rest of Canada. These grievances date back decades but have escalated during the Trudeau era.

Ask these same people about the specifics of the grievances and they provide varying answers or no answers at all – they’re just angry. Some talk about the unfairness of equalization. Others complain about unfair taxes stifling growth of resource development or environmental laws preventing shipping on the west coast, the “no more pipelines” law. Often, they ignore the fact that the federal government, did, in fact, pay for a pipeline to the west coast. For still others, it’s just the mention of the word “Trudeau” that spurs their anger.

In the face of the pending referendum on whether Alberta pursues the next steps towards separation, there are other groups of Albertans saying things have changed. That it’s time for Alberta to “lead not leave”. With a new Prime Minister – a Prime Minister from Alberta for the first time since Stephen Harper – there are clear signs that the attitude to Alberta, and especially developing Alberta’s resources, has changed significantly. Alberta now is pursuing not only one pipeline to the west coast but potentially another going east to Sarnia, Ontario. Instead of being an obstacle, the federal government is a willing partner and signs point to potentially getting the greenlight on a new pipeline to the west coast before Alberta votes on October 19.

Those developments, and a general sense of growing optimism about Canada and Canada’s future not only at home but around the world, beg the question: When people vote on October 19, what message are they sending? What specifically would they like to see change to convince them that Ottawa is listening?

The vote on October 19 is more than simply sending a message. It’s an unprecedented signal to the rest of Canada that we’re either proud Canadians, willing to step up and lead the country in making Canada and our province a better place. Or we’re prepared to launch the next step in a long process that would let Albertans vote on separating from Canada.

Make no mistake, this vote has direct and serious consequences. If the majority of Albertans choose Option B, it directs Alberta’s government to commence the process to hold a binding referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada. Choosing Option B doesn’t just send a message. It’s not some idle bluff. We don’t get to walk away after, pat ourselves on our backs and say, now they’ll listen to us.

As Jared Wesley and Patricia Paradis outline in their recent article, The many hazards of Alberta’s Option B:

“Option B is not a harmless way to ‘keep the door open’ to independence, or to ‘send Ottawa a message’. Rather, it is a vote to put the province into constitutional limbo: years of Crown-Indigenous conflict, consultations, court cases, campaigns, and internal party warfare over a departure whose terms cannot be known in advance. Worse yet, Alberta would spend years trying to renegotiate the benefits it already enjoys – access to a national market, shared public programs, national defense, mobility rights, and international reputation – with no guarantee of retaining them and every possibility of paying more for less.”

Voting for Option B sends a signal to the rest of Canada and the world that Alberta is serious about separation and will move forward, even though the process to hold a vote on a binding referendum will do untold damage to our province. It will involve not months but years of distracting debates. It will cripple the province’s ability to move forward on important issues that will actually make a difference for Albertans’ day to day lives and marginalize Alberta at a time when we have genuine opportunities to lead, to strengthen our province and our country.

For supporters of new pipelines, does anyone honestly believe the federal government would move ahead with a major commitment to a pipeline in the face of a potential vote to leave Canada? Are any private sector proponents likely to come forward in the face of that uncertainty? Does anyone think the threat of separation hanging over our heads for years will make things better? And what damage will the ongoing uncertainty cause for Alberta’s economy? We already have signals from Alberta’s business community that the referendum on October 19 is putting a damper on investment and many businesses are openly saying they will leave the province if we pursue separation.

We’ve seen the damage referendums in Quebec have caused and the lessons from Brexit are obvious today. While Albertans engage in a costly and non-productive debate over separation, business opportunities will dry up, investment will flee, entrepreneurs and professionals will leave. We’ve seen those warnings from Quebec and Britain and in spite of the fanciful and unrealistic claims from the true separatists, there’s no reason to believe it would be different in Alberta.

While many are focussed on sending a message to Ottawa, how people vote on October 19 also sends a message to the provincial government. It says to the province, we want you to set aside the issues that matter most to us – affordability, access to health care, improving education for our kids – and continue debating separation, pitting Albertans against each other and putting other important issues on hold while this becomes the single issue consuming the provincial government’s attention. It may appease some members of the UCP government and its supporters, but is this really what the majority of Albertans want their government to be focused on over the next few years? Especially at a time when the rest of Canada is talking about working together to grow our economy. A time when there’s real optimism that Canada, finally, is stepping up and reducing our reliance on a single trading partner. A time when Alberta has real opportunities to lead and build an economy with jobs and opportunities for future generations of young Albertans.

Finally, voting for Option B also sends a message to President Trump, who continues his threats of Canada becoming the 51st state. While our Prime Minister and Premiers across the country are actively countering the 51st state threats, a vote by for Option B by Albertans opens the door. It sends a message not only to Ottawa but to the U.S. and the message to them is “maybe.” Maybe there’s a route to Alberta becoming the 51st state after all, and with our rich natural resources and clear route to the Arctic, maybe that’s all the U.S would really want.

Make no mistake, October 19 is a critically important day for Alberta. How Albertans vote on separation will send a message to the rest of Canada, to businesses and potential investors in Alberta, to our federal government, to our own provincial government, and to countries watching around the world. Albertans should think seriously about the message they are sending and the repercussions it will have for Alberta’s future.

Our View

We are voting for option A, the clear option to remain in Canada.

What did Justice Leonard Decide?

Summary

• In an application brought by a group of First Nations, Justice Leonard quashed the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer which had approved a petition for separation of Alberta from Canada.

• The primary ground for her decision related to timing: the application had already been rejected under the existing legislation and could not be revived under the amended legislation, which was designed to remove obstacles in the way of the separatist petition.

• Justice Leonard also found that the government failed to exercise its duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before approving this petition and that the proposal in the petition was unconstitutional.

• These latter findings blocked the government from placing a direct question favouring separation on the October 19 referendum ballot and resulted in the double-barreled question eventually adopted by the government.

Background

On December 5, 2025, Justice Feasby ruled that the separatist proposal in the first Mitch Sylvestre petition contravened rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. (See our post: What did Justice Feasby Decide?)

In light of that decision, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected the petition. Several days later, Bill 14 came into force, removing the prohibition in the Citizen Initiative Act against petitions that contravene constitutional rights. The following day, Mitch Sylvestre applied again for approval for a petition, this time with the question: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?”

On December 22, 2025, the Chief Electoral Officer approved this petition. That decision was challenged in court by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation and Blood Tribe. The matter was heard by Justice Leonard of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.

On April 10, 2026, Justice Leonard granted a stay of the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer, pending her decision on the merits. The signature gathering process continued, but validation and counting of signatures was put on hold. On May 13, 2026, Justice Leonard issued her decision on the merits and quashed the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer, effectively setting aside the petition.

This decision has received a lot of publicity relating to the duty of the government to consult with Indigenous peoples before embarking on conduct that may impact their treaty rights. (See our post: What does “Duty to Consult” Indigenous peoples mean for the separatist campaign?) However, that was not the primary basis on which the case was decided. The primary basis related to timing.

The Chief Electoral Officer rejected Sylvestre’s initial petition on December 8, 2025. Bill 14 came into force on December 11, 2025. It included certain provisions relating to the transition from the legislation as it had been and the legislation as amended. They provided that:

An application for the issuance of an initiative petition made before [December 11, 2025] for which an initiative petition has not been issued under section 3(3)(a) as of [December 11, 2025] is deemed never to have been made.

Section 3(3)(a) requires the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a petition when the statutory requirements for that petition have been met.

The transitional provisions went on to say:

If an application is deemed never to have been made under subsection (1), the applicant may submit a notice of intent with the same subject-matter as the application deemed never to have been made, and if the applicant does so within 30 days of the coming into force of this section, the application fee required under section 2(2)(h) is waived in respect of the new application submitted in respect of the notice of intent.

The waiver of the fee was important. On December 17, 2025, the government increased the fee from $500 to $25,000, raising a financial barrier against later petition applications.

The transitional provisions were advantageous to the separatist petitioners and Sylvestre followed the route set out in those provisions. The day after Bill 14 came into force, he applied for a new petition, with slightly different wording from his initial petition. The application fee was waived, the Chief Electoral Officer approved the petition on December 22, 2025, and the petition was issued on January 2, 2026.

The Province of Alberta, opposing the application of the First Nations to quash the approval of the petition, argued that the initial Sylvestre application had been made before December 11, 2025, and a petition had not been issued before December 11, 2025, therefore it was deemed never to have been made. Under the transitional provisions, Sylvestre was at liberty to submit a new application without being required to pay a new fee.

To be sure, the first Sylvestre application was made before December 11, 2025, but was it an application for which a petition had not been issued by that date? Justice Leonard found that it was not. She read this provision to apply to applications for petitions that were pending as of December 11, 2025, not applications that had already been rejected by that date. “Simply put, the First Proposal was not pending when the amendments came into force. It had been rejected and had come to an end.” She went on to find “it follows that because the First Proposal was rejected, it cannot be resubmitted.”

Justice Leonard found there was a further ground for overturning the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to approve the second application. She held that the Crown (in this case the Alberta government) had a duty to consult with Indigenous persons before approving an application for a petition for Alberta to leave Canada and form an independent country because such a petition would set in place a process that could impair treaty rights, protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act.

Justice Leonard also found a third ground for overturning the decision on the basis that the Chief Electoral Officer is required to act in accordance with the Constitution. At the time the second petition was approved, the Chief Electoral Officer was aware of the finding by Justice Feasby that the proposal in the petition would contravene both Charter and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. His decision to approve the second petition was therefore unreasonable.

While the government of Alberta has an independent power to call a referendum on constitutional issues, these additional grounds in the decision of Justice Leonard presumably apply not only to the Chief Electoral Officer but also to the government, which is bound to comply with the Constitution. These findings effectively blocked the government from adding a question directly proposing separation on the October 19 referendum ballot. This led to the double-barreled question that has been placed on the ballot, which includes the commencement of consultation with Indigenous persons as a prequel to a later referendum on separation.

What did Justice Feasby decide?

Summary

• The case of Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v. Mitch Sylvestre and Minister of Justice of Alberta involved a reference to the court on whether Mitch Sylvestre’s application for a petition on Alberta separation contravened rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

• Justice Feasby determined that the proposed petition would contravene both. Three days after that ruling, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected this petition application.

• However, this was only the first stage of litigation respecting the separatists’ petitions. The litigation continued in the case of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Chief Electoral Officer and His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta.

Background

On July 4, 2025, immediately after new provincial rules came into effect to make it easier to have a successful citizens’ petition, Mitch Sylvestre applied to Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer under the Citizen Initiative Act for approval of a petition asking: Do you agree that Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?

At that time, the Citizen Initiative Act provided that:

An initiative petition proposal must not contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Sections 1 to 34 of the Constitution Act, 1982 comprise the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 34 and 34.1 provide that existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are recognized and affirmed. (The Constitution uses the term “aboriginal” rather than “Indigenous”.)

The question therefore arose whether the proposal for Alberta to separate and become a sovereign country contravened Charter rights or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. The new rules under the Citizen Initiative Act provided a mechanism for answering this question. They stated that the Chief Electoral Officer was empowered to refer to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta the issue of whether the proposal in a petition application contravened constitutionally protected rights. On July 28, 2025, the Chief Electoral Officer exercised this power and referred this question to the court. Justice Feasby was appointed to hear the case.

As a first step in this process, the proponent sought an order to strike the reference, calling it an abuse of process and an affront to democracy. Justice Feasby dismissed this application.

As the Alberta government supported the proponent’s argument that the petition was not unconstitutional and as the Chief Electoral Officer took no position on the issue, Justice Feasby appointed independent counsel, known as amici curiae, to present the opposing argument and to present their own independent conclusion on the question.

He also established a process for people to apply as intervenors in the case, which would give them status to present arguments. Pursuant to that process, he later granted intervenor status to the Confederation of Treaty 6 First Nations, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Samson First Nation, Sturgeon Lake Cree First Nation, and Mikisew Cree First Nation.

The case continued with submissions being made over the fall of 2025.

On December 4, 2025, the Alberta government introduced Bill 14. Among other things, the bill provided for the repeal of the requirement that petition proposals must not contravene constitutionally protected rights. It also provided for the repeal of the right of the Chief Electoral Officer to refer this question to the court and said any referral of the question of constitutionality already before the court was to be discontinued.

The next day, Justice Feasby issued his decision. He noted that although Bill 14 proposed the discontinuance of these proceedings, it had not yet been passed or proclaimed into law and therefore the case remained alive. He found that “changing legislation to circumvent a valid legal process commenced by the independent officer of the Legislative Assembly responsible for administering democratic processes is the antithesis of the stable, predictable, and ordered society that the rule of law contemplates, and democracy demands.” He concluded that attempting to end this litigation was contrary to the rule of law and disrespected the administration of justice.

On the merits of the case, Justice Feasby found that the proposal in the petition contravened the Charter because separation would require the replacement of the Canadian constitution without any guarantee that existing Charter rights would be replaced in an Alberta constitution. He found that Alberta independence would contravene the Charter-guaranteed right to vote, mobility rights, and minority language rights.

Justice Feasby also found that the petition’s proposal contravened constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights in two ways. Firstly, because independence would involve removing Canada and substituting an independent Alberta as the entity responsible for fulfilling treaty rights. And secondly because independence would transform provincial and territorial boundaries into international borders, impairing treaty rights to move freely through the lands for the purpose of hunting and fishing.

Following receipt of this judgment, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected the Sylvestre petition on December 8, 2025.

On December 11, 2025, Bill 14 came into force. The following day, Mitch Sylvestre applied for approval of a petition on a substantially similar question, purportedly under the new rules established by Bill 14. The Chief Electoral Officer approved that petition which then became subject to another court challenge heard by Justice Leonard. (See our post: What did Justice Leonard decide?)

The Petition for Separation and Indigenous Rights

Summary

• The Crown is a party to a series of treaties with Indigenous peoples signed before Alberta was created as a province. The boundaries of individual treaties extend beyond what were later to become provincial and territorial boundaries.

• Treaty rights are affirmed in s. 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

• The Crown has a duty to consult with Indigenous peoples when it is aware of Indigenous rights and contemplates acting in a way that might adversely affect those rights. At a minimum, the consultation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of Indigenous peoples whose lands are at issue.

• The legislation in place when the application was made for the first separatist petition required that a petition proposal must not contravene Charter or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

• On December 5, 2025, Justice Feasby ruled that the separatist proposal contravened both Charter rights and constitutionally protected treaty rights.

• The legislation was amended to delete the requirement that a petition proposal must not contravene Charter or constitutionally protected treaty rights. A second application for a separatist proposal was approved by the Chief Electoral Officer.

• On May 14, 2026, Justice Leonard ruled that the Crown had a duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before the Chief Electoral Officer approved an application for a petition. She quashed the approval of the separatist petition. That decision is now under appeal.

Background

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Crown as represented by the Government of Canada entered into a series of treaties with Indigenous peoples in Western Canada covering all the land in what later was to become Alberta and Saskatchewan, land that later became part of Manitoba, and land forming parts of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The boundaries of the lands covered by individual treaties extended across what were later to become provincial and territorial boundaries.

A map of Historic Indigenous Treaties in Canada.

Under each treaty, Indigenous peoples surrendered to Canada all of their rights, titles, and privileges to the land covered by the treaty. In exchange, the Crown made a number of promises, including the creation of reserves for the benefit of Indigenous peoples, the obligation to maintain schools on those reserves, and the recognition of the right of Indigenous peoples to pursue hunting and fishing throughout the lands they had surrendered.

In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was amended to create the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples under these treaties. Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

This process was described by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2004 decision in Haida Nation v. British Columbia in the following terms:

Put simply, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered. Many bands reconciled their claims with the sovereignty of the Crown through negotiated treaties. … The potential rights embedded in these claims are protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The honour of the Crown requires that these rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in the processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests.

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Indigenous right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. The nature and scope of the duty of consultation varies with the circumstances but at a minimum the consultation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of Indigenous peoples whose lands are at issue.

Analysis

When Mitch Sylvestre applied for a petition for separation of Alberta from Canada in July 2025, the Citizen Initiative Act prohibited a petition if the effect of the proposal would contravene either the Charter or rights protected under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Under amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act that came into effect days before Mitch Sylvestre applied for his petition, the Chief Electoral Officer was empowered to ask the opinion of the Court of King’s Bench on whether a policy proposal contravened either the Charter or s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Within days after the Sylvestre application was filed, the Chief Electoral Officer applied to the Court for an opinion on whether the proposal in that application contravened the Charter or s. 35. Submissions were made on this issue to the Court by Sylvestre, the Province of Alberta, and several First Nations.

On December 4, 2025, the Alberta government introduced Bill 14. Included within the provisions of that Bill, the prohibition on petitions that contravened rights under the Charter or s. 35 was to be eliminated, as was the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to ask the opinion of the Court of King’s Bench about compliance. Existing litigation on this issue was to be discontinued. Instead, the Alberta government was to be relieved of its obligation to implement a proposal for separation following a successful petition and a successful referendum if the proposal would contravene the Charter or s. 35. Instead of having the Chief Electoral Officer and the court deal with the issue upfront, the government would wait out the time, expense, and political and economic consequences of a successful petition and a successful referendum on separation before deciding whether or not to pursue separation because it conflicts with constitutional rights.

The following day, before Bill 14 was passed into law, Justice Feasby issued his opinion. (See our post: What did Justice Feasby decide?) He found that:

• Alberta independence would contravene the treaties covering Alberta both as a matter of law and as a practical matter by removing Canada and substituting an independent Alberta as the entity responsible for fulfilling treaty obligations.

• Alberta independence would transform provincial and territorial boundaries falling within the lands of specific treaties into international borders. That would contravene the treaties by significantly impairing the exercise of treaty rights by First Nations, such as the right to move freely within treaty lands for the purpose of hunting and fishing.

Justice Feasby also found that Alberta independence would contravene Charter rights because independence would require the replacement of the Canadian constitution without an assurance that Charter rights would be guaranteed in a new Alberta constitution. He also found that Alberta independence would contravene the Charter-guaranteed right to vote, mobility rights, and minority language rights.

As the proposal set forth in the petition contravened both Charter rights and constitutionally protected treaty rights, the petition was prohibited by the terms of the Citizen Initiative Act then in place.

Justice Feasby also found that the attempt by the Alberta government to prevent him from rendering his decision by discontinuing the case before him, contravened the rule of law and disrespected the administration of justice.

This decision was issued on December 5, 2025. Three days later, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected the first Sylvestre application for a petition on the basis that it was prohibited by the terms of the Citizen Initiative Act then in place because it contravened Charter rights and treaty rights recognized under s. 35 of the Constitution. Another three days later, Bill 14 came into force. The following day, Mitch Sylvestre applied again for a petition on separation under the amended legislation that no longer expressly prohibited petitions that would breach Charter rights or constitutionally protected treaty rights. Eleven days later, the Chief Electoral Officer approved this application and on January 2, 2026, he issued the petition.

An application was then brought by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Piikani First Nation, Siksika Nation, and Blood Tribe to quash the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to issue this petition. On April 10, 2026, Justice Leonard granted a stay of the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision to issue the petition, pending release of her ruling on the merits. On May 13, 2026, she issued that ruling, quashing the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to issue the petition.

The primary ground for Justice Leonard’s decision wasn’t related to treaty rights. Rather, it was based on an interpretation of the transitional provisions of Bill 14 and her finding that as Mitch Sylvestre’s first application for a petition had already been rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer, he couldn’t apply again for a petition on substantially the same terms.

Justice Leonard found as an additional ground that the Crown (in this case the government of Alberta) had a duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before putting in place a process that could lead to Alberta’s independence.

Justice Leonard applied the test in the Haida Nation case of the Crown’s real or constructive knowledge of an Indigenous or treaty right, contemplated Crown conduct, and potential adverse effects on the right arising from the Crown conduct. She found that Alberta was aware of the treaty rights and the potential impact a petition on separation, approved by an officer of the legislature, on those treaty rights, as determined by Justice Feasby. In these circumstances, she found that the action of the Chief Electoral Officer in approving the petition constituted Crown conduct for the purpose of triggering the duty to consult. Because no consultation occurred, the government of Alberta breached its duty to consult.

Justice Leonard also explained why the harm was not too remote: although the Referendum Act says that a successful result need not be implemented if it would breach s. 35, that safeguard comes too late, because once a referendum on separation succeeds, the matter passes into the political realm and beyond the court’s supervision.

Justice Leonard found as a further additional ground that the decision by the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a petition calling for Alberta independence was unreasonable in the face of the finding by Justice Feasby that such a petition would contravene s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, because the Chief Electoral Officer is bound to exercise authority in a manner that complies with the constitution.

In the result, the route to success of a petition for a referendum on separation of Alberta from Canada was blocked. While both the government of Alberta and the petitioner stated that they intended to appeal Justice Leonard’s decision, there was no realistic chance that this decision could be successfully appealed in time to allow a campaign on separatism in advance of October 19.

The route to a referendum on separation through the Referendum Act was blocked as well. This legislation gives the government broad authority to put questions to a referendum (as it had already done with the other 9 questions scheduled for the October 19 vote.) But if prior consultation by the government with Indigenous peoples was required before the Chief Electoral Officer could approve a petition on separation that might lead to a referendum proposing separation, prior consultation by the government was also required before it could act directly to call a referendum proposing separation under the Referendum Act.

For a description of how the government came to call a double-barrelled referendum question to either stay in Canada or start the process of consultation:

See our post: What happened to the Forever Canadian petition?

If Alberta separates, will Albertans get to keep their Canadian passport?

The answer:

Maybe. Maybe not.

Despite what you hear from separatists, keeping a Canadian passport is not guaranteed after separation. Yes, Canadians currently can have dual citizenship and therefore, have more than one passport. But Canada has never faced a situation where a province’s citizens decided to separate from Canada.

As Gerard Kennedy, an associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, recently wrote:

“… Albertan residents and citizens in a new theoretical Republic of Alberta would have no entitlement to Canadian citizenship in the absence of Canada’s consent.”

Canada’s Clarity Act 2000 sets out the conditions under which a province could negotiate the terms of separation, including citizenship. While the legislation doesn’t explicitly say whether people could keep or lose their citizenship, the preamble to the legislation states that separation “could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada.”

The Act leaves the ultimate decision to the federal government and would require the consent of other provinces.

How do you think other Canadians would feel about allowing people who voted to leave Canada to continue to hold Canadian citizenship and keep their passports?

(And why would separatists want a Canadian passport if they dislike the country so much?)

Even if current Alberta citizens were grandfathered and allowed to keep their citizenship and passports, there’s no guarantee their future children and grandchildren would also get citizenship. They would be born in a separate country – the Republic of Alberta – and therefore not eligible for birthright citizenship.

And finally, if Alberta citizens were allowed to keep their Canadian citizenship, they might also be subject to paying taxes in both Alberta and Canada. That’s what happens in the US. So much for being tax-free in Alberta.

Equalization matters – just not in the way separatists argue

Summary

• Equalization is a federal government program enshrined in Canada’s constitution and paid for by personal and corporate taxes paid by all Canadians.

• Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that Canadians across the country have access to reasonably comparable public services, and they should pay for those services with reasonably comparable tax levels.

• It’s based on a fundamental principle of fairness and addresses the key question: Should Canadians have comparable levels of provincial health and education programs regardless of where they live? The answer is yes.

• Albertans collectively (not the Alberta government) contribute more to the federal government’s Equalization program than people in other provinces. That’s because, on average, Albertans earn more and therefore pay more federal taxes than people in other provinces.

• It’s also true that Alberta hasn’t received Equalization payments since way back in the 1960s. That’s because Alberta’s economy has continued to be strong.

• There are flaws with the current Equalization formula that can and should be fixed. (The last time the formula was amended was under Stephen Harper in 2009.)

• To suggest that just because Alberta’s government doesn’t receive cash through Equalization (even though it does through a host of other federal programs), Alberta is better off separating is a false premise and it ignores other benefits Alberta, and Albertans, receive from being part of Canada.

What’s the purpose of Canada’s Equalization program and how does it work?

Canada’s Equalization program has a long history, dating back to when Louis St. Laurent was Prime Minister in 1957. It was supported by his Conservative successor, John Diefenbaker, and every government since then.

Over the subsequent decades, that principle has endured. Premier Peter Lougheed described Equalization as “a crucial aspect of Canadian Confederation” and “a principle of Confederation that should be placed in the Constitution of Canada.”

Proclaimed in 1982, section 36(2) of the Constitution Act states that: Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that the provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

As described in the May 2006 review of Canada’s Equalization program (chaired by Al O’Brien, former Alberta deputy treasurer), it was described as reflecting “a distinctly Canadian commitment to fairness”. (Achieving a National Purpose: Putting Equalization Back on Track, May 2006).

It’s important to note that while the principle of equalization is enshrined in the Constitution, the way the program operates is determined by a complex formula that has changed over the decades since the program was introduced. “Complex” may be an understatement. As the May 2006 report mentions, “the program may be simple in theory and principle, but that’s where the simplicity ends.” In fact, it is “understood by only a select few academics, experts, and finance officials across the country.”

Regardless of the fact the details are widely misunderstood, that hasn’t stopped critics and separatists from saying, “scrap the whole program” because Alberta doesn’t get cash and other provinces do.

Aside from the money, do Albertans still support the principle of fairness underlying equalization?

It’s hard to know because invariably the focus has been on a single argument: we give but we don’t get. That ignores the fact that equalization is fundamentally about fairness and the value of being part of a Canadian Confederation – the promise that regardless of where you live, you’re entitled to comparable public services at comparable levels of taxation. That means a child in PEI or Saskatchewan or Manitoba should have access to a relatively similar quality of education without their parents having to pay much higher taxes than what they would pay in other provinces.

How much does Alberta contribute to Canada’s equalization program?

For 2025-26, the total pool of funds for Equalization is $26.2 billion. Alberta taxpayers account for about $4.2 billion of that $26.2 billion pool.

Again, “Alberta” doesn’t contribute a penny to that pool. Individual Albertans contribute through their federal taxes. And it’s important to remember that federal tax rates are the same across the country. If Albertans are paying more, it’s because, on average, they earn more than other Canadians.

Accounting for all federal taxes paid versus what gets contributed back to the province directly to support programs in health, social services and other federal government services, Alberta is a net contributor, sending an estimated $20 billion more annually to the federal government than what the province and individual Albertans get back directly in return.

Separatists suggest that if Alberta separates, we’d keep the $20 billion (and all the money we pay in the Federal taxes) and provide all the services we need ourselves, plus we’d be able to eliminate provincial income taxes.

This ignores the fact that Alberta gets much more from the federal government than just direct transfers. Indirect benefits such as defence, parks, passports, currency, border control etc. amount to billions of dollars in services to Albertans. Alberta’s Premier suggested it could cost as much as $400 billion (and some estimates suggest even more than that) to deliver all the programs and benefits Albertans enjoy in Canada today. The savings from Equalization would be a drop in the bucket.

Has Alberta ever received Equalization payments?

Yes, back in the 1960s when Ernest Manning was the Premier. Even then, it could be argued that we didn’t really need it. Premier Manning gave nearly all of the equalization revenue as cash transfers to Albertans. Sound familiar?

Since then, Alberta’s economy has never been weak enough for long enough for us to warrant receiving Equalization payments.

Are Separatists really just mad at Quebec?

Much of the separatist rancor about Equalization is expressed as anger about sending money to Quebec. There doesn’t seem to be the same concerns about helping our Canadian neighbours in Manitoba or PEI, but Quebec gets singled out for cutting special deals with the federal government – deals that are not available to Alberta. These arguments are not about the principle of equalization; they’re about the details of the formula.

Alberta can, and should, make its case to fix the formula where that’s warranted. Important, though, to remember that even with changes in the formula, with Alberta’s strong economy and high incomes, it is highly unlikely that Alberta would benefit financially.

If Albertans pay more than they get back in return, why should we continue to support Equalization?

As Trevor Tombe puts it, “Raising concerns around the program’s design and operation is one thing. Rejecting the very principle that underpins it – and therefore rejecting the very existence of the program or anything like it – is quite another.” (Rejecting Equalization spurns a crucial feature of Confederation, Trevor Tombe, June 2021).

Do we care about being part of a Confederation that values supporting our neighbours so they and their children can receive a good education, good health care programs, and other social supports? None of the arguments put forth by the separatists address this – it’s only about the money.

Economists will point out there are other benefits of Equalization. A prime one is there are no strings attached. The federal government simply transfers money and provinces can use that funding at their discretion to deliver the public services their citizens need. Scrap Equalization and the federal government would have to step in with dedicated programs with specific objectives and accountability – something many Albertans would see as over-stepping their responsibilities.

Plus, Alberta has benefited significantly from people coming from other provinces to work and fuel Alberta’s economy. These people come with their education and skills – education we haven’t paid for but benefit from directly.

Finally, Equalization contributes to the tremendous reputation Canada holds on many measures of quality of life compared with other countries around the world.

Our View

Yes, Equalization matters, and Albertans are right to talk about it. If there are problems with the formula, let’s work to fix them. But a quarrel over the details of one federal program, is hardly a reason for Alberta to separate.

We are voting for the option to stay in Canada.

What Happened to the Forever Canadian Petition?

Summary

• The Forever Canadian petition was classified as a policy petition.

• As a policy petition, it was up to the full Legislative Assembly to determine whether it should be referred to a referendum or should be dealt with in some other way. This determination was to be made following receipt of a recommendation from a committee of the Legislative Assembly.

• After the Chief Electoral Officer certified the success of the Forever Canadian petition, the Alberta government slow-walked the creation of the committee, and the committee slow-walked the start of its proceedings while Mitch Sylvestre continued to collect signatures on his opposing petition for Alberta to separate from Canada.

• After Justice Leonard quashed the Sylvestre petition, the committee recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the Forever Canadian proposal be included in the October 19 referendum, with the NDP members of the committee in dissent primarily as they wanted the legislature to vote on it directly.

• However, by then, the Legislative Assembly was no longer sitting and the government decided to act on its own to create a double-barreled question for the October 19 ballot, including both the Forever Canadian question and a question about commencing the legal process for a referendum on separation.

Analysis

The Forever Canadian petition, sponsored by Thomas Lukaszuk, asked the question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?

The Forever Canadian team canvassed the province collecting signatures from the end of July to the end of October 2025. Following a process of verification and counting, the Chief Electoral Officer certified on December 1 that the petition had been successful, collecting over 400,000 signatures.

The process that followed might best be described as a long and winding road filled with potholes and speedbumps that ultimately went nowhere.

Forever Canadian was classified as a policy petition, not a constitutional petition, because the proposal did not contemplate any constitutional change. Different rules apply to these different categories of petitions. A successful constitutional petition must be referred to a referendum. A successful policy petition follows a more complicated route.

The first step requires the Chief Electoral Officer to deliver the proposal to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. That happened on December 1, the same day that the success of the petition was certified.

The second step requires the Speaker to lay the proposal before the Legislative Assembly. That happened the next day, on December 2.

The third step requires the government to bring forward a motion to have the proposal referred to a committee of the Legislative Assembly within 10 sitting days after the proposal is tabled. Although the Legislative Assembly was still sitting, the government did not bring forward the motion before the fall sitting ended on December 10. Rather, it waited until the spring sitting and the last date allowed under the legislation, which was March 10, 2026 – 10 sitting days but 98 calendar days after the proposal was tabled in the Legislative Assembly. (In the meantime, Mitch Sylvestre continued to collect signatures on his petition for Alberta to separate from Canada.)

The committee was named the Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee. The Chair was a UCP Member of the Legislature, as was the Deputy Chair. The remaining members comprised two UCP MLAs and two NDP MLAs. Under the Citizen Initiative Act, the committee was required to table a report before the Legislative Assembly recommending either that the proposal be put to a referendum or that the proposal be dealt with in some other way. That could include, for example, a vote in the Legislative Assembly on the question.

The fourth step requires that the committee’s report must be tabled before the Legislative Assembly within 90 days after the day the committee is tasked with this responsibility or, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, within 15 days after the commencement of the next sitting. In this case, this timing was particularly important. The spring sitting of the Legislative Assembly was set to end on May 14, 2026. The fall sitting was not set to commence until October 27, 2026. If the report was not completed by May 14, it could not be tabled before the Legislative Assembly until the end of October, after the October 19 referendum had already been held.

While the committee was constituted on March 10, the Chair did not call the first meeting of the committee until 42 days later, on April 21. This was140 days after the Forever Canadian petition was presented to the Legislative Assembly. Again, throughout this time, Mitch Sylvestre continued to collect signatures on his separatist petition.

The next meeting of the committee was not held until May 11, another 20 days later. At that meeting, the committee received an expert briefing from Russ Brown, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, confirming that the committee was not required to recommend a referendum and could recommend that the petition proposal be dealt with in some other way.

On May 13, Justice Leonard issued a decision in the Court of King’s Bench quashing the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to approve the Mitch Sylvestre petition proposing separation of Alberta from Canada. While both the petitioner and the government indicated an intention to appeal this decision, from a practical perspective the appeal could not be heard, and a decision could not be rendered, in time to allow the separatist petition to move forward to a referendum on the October 19 referendum ballot, even if the appeal were to be successful. As Justice Leonard ruled that the government of Alberta had a constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before calling a referendum proposing Alberta independence, the government of Alberta could not move directly to put a question proposing separation on the October 19 ballot. That left the Forever Canadian petition.

The spring sitting of the Legislative Assembly ended the next day.

The committee met again on May 20. While the committee was debating the issue and before any decision had been made, the UCP caucus issued a press release announcing that the committee had recommended that the petition go to a fall referendum. The NDP members called a point of privilege against the Chair of the Committee; the UCP members voted against referring the point of privilege to the Speaker. The proceedings that day ended before any resolution was passed.

The committee met again the next day and the UCP members of the committee proposed a recommendation to the Legislative Assembly as follows:

• That the Alberta Forever Canada citizen initiative proposal and the Committee’s report be referred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purpose of a referendum in accordance with the Referendum Act;

• That the Alberta Forever Canada citizen initiative policy proposal be appended to the Committee’s report;

• That the question to be put to the electors in the referendum include an option for Albertans to vote for Alberta to remain in Canada;

• That the referendum be held in conjunction with the referendum ordered to be held on October 19, 2026.

The NDP members of the committee argued that the Albertans who had signed the Forever Canadian petition did so to oppose a referendum on separation. They argued that Thomas Lukaszuk, the petitioner, had confirmed to the committee that the purpose of the petition was to prevent a referendum in favour of separation. The NDP members also proposed an amendment requiring consultation with First Nations before any referendum was held. The UCP members of the committee voted against this amendment and it was defeated.

The proposed recommendation was passed, with members of the committee voting along party lines. A majority report and a minority report, again splitting along party lines, were referred to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

While the report recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should put this question on the October 19 ballot, the problem remained that the Legislative Assembly was not scheduled to reconvene until October 27. The body designated to decide whether to accept the recommendation to refer the question to a referendum could not do so until after the date proposed for that referendum, unless the Legislative Assembly were to be recalled at an earlier date. By delaying the creation of the committee and delaying the commencement of the hearings of the committee, the government had run out of time.

In the result, no decision has been made by the Legislative Assembly on the steps to be taken arising from the successful Forever Canadian petition.

As the process under the Citizen Initiative Act was no longer available to the government to get a question on separation on the October 19 ballot, the only remaining process available was for the government, on its own initiative, to pose a question under the Referendum Act. As the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta had ruled that a question proposing separation could not be put to a referendum before the Alberta government had consulted with First Nations, the options available to the government were limited. They chose to combine the question whether Alberta should stay within Canada with the question whether the government should commence the process of consultations required before a referendum proposing separation could be called.

On the evening of May 21, within hours after the committee made its recommendation to the Legislative Assembly, the Premier announced that a double-barrelled question on separation would be placed on the October 19 ballot. On May 28, the cabinet issued an order-in-council establishing a referendum to be held on October 19 on the following 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?

The Forever Canadian question ended up on the ballot for the October 19 referendum, not through the petition process, but by direct action of the Alberta government.

Brexit: A Cautionary Tale for Alberta

Brexit Basics

In June 2016, UK voters participated in an historic referendum, with 52 percent choosing to leave the European Union. This vote sent shockwaves through the world and is viewed as one of the most momentous economic and political events of the 21st century.

Supporters of the “Vote Leave” campaign made numerous promises and predictions about the enormous benefits that would result from the UK leaving the EU. Along with claims that Brexit would allow the UK to control its own immigration and regain control over its laws, borders, money and trade policy, there were promises of huge financial benefits.

One of the most famous claims was that the UK sent 350 million pounds a week to the EU, and that this money itself could fund the National Health Service. This turned out to be false: The 350 million pounds was the UK’s gross contribution to the EU, not the net cost, and there was no “Brexit dividend” to healthcare.

It was said that Brexit would bring the UK economic prosperity, allowing it to thrive outside the EU with less regulation and greater flexibility.

In fact, all economic indicators and studies show the UK is poorer after Brexit; the economy is weaker and growth has slowed.

How Does Brexit Relate to Alberta Separatism?

Although there are obviously many differences, there are also many similarities, in economic terms, between the UK separating from the EU and the idea of Alberta separating from Canada and creating an independent economy.

According to University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, “Brexit was significantly easier than what Alberta leaving Canada would entail.”

“Any of the costs around what the United Kingdom has experienced should be viewed as a substantial underestimate of the potential costs and challenges that Alberta would face leaving Confederation.”

Brexit 10 years later – how attitudes about it have changed

There have been significant shifts in opinions about Brexit since 2016.

A June 26, 2026, poll conducted by Ipsos, indicated that 58 percent of likely voters in a hypothetical future referendum would vote to rejoin the EU, while only 37 percent would vote to stay out. Among decided voters, the split was 61 to 39 percent in favour of rejoining. Almost half of the respondents supported having a new referendum on the issue.

Another comprehensive poll conducted by Ipsos in May 2026 highlighted a significant increase in British dissatisfaction with Brexit a decade after the 2016 vote. 48 percent of Britons surveyed said that Brexit was going worse than they expected. This is a sharp increase from 28 percent in March 2021. Only 9 percent of Britons think Brexit is going better than expected.

Brexit 10 years later – the economics of leaving

In an Associated Press article dated June 22, 2026 reporter Danica Kirka summarized some of the current research in her article entitled: “Britain’s economic woes fuel discontent with Brexit a decade after historic vote to leave EU:”

“By most measures, the British economy today is weaker than it would have been without Brexit, according to a recent report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The report, compiled by researchers in Britain, Germany and the U.S., compares the performance of the U.K. economy to 33 other countries, including its European neighbors, the U.S., Canada and Japan.

“According to this study, Brexit has reduced Britain’s gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, by 6% to 8%, investment by 12% to 13% and productivity by 3% to 4%, the researchers concluded.”

A November 2025 study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research came to the same conclusions, stating that “(T)hese large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainly, reduced demand, diverted management time and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.”

According to the UK Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2025 analysis, both exports and imports will be approximately 15 per cent lower in the long run, than if the UK had remained in the EU.

The process of negotiating the terms of Brexit itself from 2016 to 2020, as well as the new rules governing trade with the EU, made it more expensive and time-consuming to do business with European partners.

Creon Butler, who leads the global economy and finance program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, said “Whatever was promised, whatever one hoped for, (you have) to accept that it has been a major loss of wealth and prosperity for us though the choice we made to leave.”

Learning from the Brexit experience

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce commissioned a report released on June 23, 2026, which highlighted a deeply concerning outlook for Alberta’s economy should separation occur.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe was tasked by the Chamber to conduct an analysis tied to separation. The Chamber has, for months leading up to this study, expressed a concern that Alberta leaving Canada would cause “profound economic uncertainty and damage” to the province.

Tombe has used the measured impact of Brexit on the UK economy to estimate that an 8% increase in trade costs could see Alberta lose 175,000 job and see its economy shrink, potentially by as much as $62 billion a year.

The economic analysis estimates that Alberta could forego between $10 billion and $15 billion in investment in 2026 alone, if investment levels decline similarly to those experienced following Brexit.

Businesses already being hurt in Alberta

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce also hired Probe Research to conduct a survey of its members. That survey, released June 23, 2026, showed nearly half of Chamber member businesses said they were prepared to leave Alberta and relocate their businesses to another province if Albertans vote to begin the formal process towards separation. Only 39 percent said they were unlikely to move.

Eighty percent of the survey respondents said the current separation discussion is having a negative impact on the Alberta economy, and 74 percent saw no tangible benefits of separating from Canada.

There is consensus amongst business leaders that uncertainty itself is having a negative impact on the bottom line of most businesses.

According to the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, in a report June 25, 2026, more than 4 in 10 businesses report that political uncertainty is directly impacting their operations. That figure is double the share reported a year earlier.

The Chamber also reported that 60 percent of businesses are positive about Canada’s future, a notable shift over the previous year.

Our View

It would be folly to ignore the economic reality of what Brexit has meant for the UK and the regrets that many UK voters now express about choosing the “leave” option.

Research by respected business organizations and economists in Alberta point to the possibility of very similar negative outcomes here, with businesses prepared to leave even if the province just begins the process of to hold a binding referendum on separation.

We are voting for the option to stay in Canada.

How have the rules changed to facilitate the petition for a LEAVE referendum?

The rules have changed significantly:

• Reducing the required number of signatures from 587,952 to 177,731.

• increasing the length of time to collect signatures from 90 days to 120 days,

• increasing the number of days to fundraise from 90 days to 150 days.

• Removing the prohibition against bringing a petition that contravenes constitutionally protected rights.

• Removing the prohibition against bringing a petition that is substantially similar to another petition.

Background

The rules respecting petitions are set by the Citizen Initiative Act and the regulations under that Act.

The Starting Position (2021)

This legislation first came into effect in 2021, when the United Conservative Party was in power, led by Jason Kenney. At that time, the rules respecting a constitutional petition (like the petition brought by Mitch Sylvestre for a LEAVE referendum) were quite rigorous.

• The threshold number of signatures was equal to 20% of the total number of electors entitled to sign the petition. For a constitutional petition brought after the last provincial election in 2023, that meant the petitioner needed to collect 587,952 signatures province-wide.

• In addition to this province-wide requirement, the petitioner had to reach the 20% level in at least 2/3 of all electoral divisions. Effectively, that required significant support for the petition in both urban and rural ridings.

• The time-period for collecting signatures and for collecting financial contributions was 90 days from the date the petition was approved by the Chief Electoral Officer.

• Only individuals could contribute to the petition campaign.

• A petition was prohibited if the effect of the proposal would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

• A petition was also prohibited under certain circumstances if the Chief Electoral Officer determined that the proposal was the same as or substantially similar to another petition proposal. This became important given the similar subject matter (but opposing positions) of the petitions brought first by Thomas Lukaszuk (STAY) and later by Mitch Sylvestre (LEAVE).

---

Bill 54 (2025)

The goal posts shifted significantly with Bill 54, which was introduced by the United Conservative Party, led by Danielle Smith and came into force on July 4, 2025.

• The province-wide threshold was reduced from 20% of all electors to 10% of the number of electors who cast ballots in the last election. As only 60.5% of electors cast ballots in the 2023 election, the province-wide threshold was reduced dramatically from 587,952 signatures to 177,732 signatures.

• The requirement to meet the threshold in at least 2/3 of all electoral districts was eliminated, leaving only the province-wide threshold.

• The time-period for collecting signatures and collecting financial contributions was increased from 90 days to 120 days.

• Contributions were permitted by trade unions, employee organizations, and corporations, in addition to individuals.

• The prohibition against the same or substantially similar petitions was revised.

• The Chief Electoral Officer was granted the power to ask the opinion of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta on whether a policy proposal contravened the Charter or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. The first LEAVE petition application was brought under these revised rules. Shortly after receipt of this application, the Chief Electoral Officer referred to the Court the question whether that petition proposal would contravene the Charter or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. This matter was heard by Justice Feasby.

---

Bill 14 (2025)

The rules shifted significantly again with Bill 14, introduced on December 4, 2025, in response to concerns that the Court would rule that the LEAVE proposal was unconstitutional and would therefore be barred under the existing legislation.

Bill 14 called for the repeal of the prohibition on unconstitutional petition proposals, allowing them to proceed even if they contravened the Charter or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. It also called for the discontinuance of the litigation that was before the Court, effectively preventing the Court from making a ruling on the constitutionality of the proposal. It called for an amendment to the Referendum Act to provide that after a referendum had been held, the government would not be required to implement the proposal set out in the referendum if doing so would contravene constitutionally protected rights. In other words, the issue of contravening constitutionally protected rights would not be dealt with at the beginning of the process, but at the end, after the time and expense involved in both the petition and the referendum process.

The day after Bill 14 was introduced into the legislature and before it had been passed into law, Justice Feasby rendered his decision. He found that the LEAVE proposal contravened the Charter and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. He also found that the attempt by the government to pre-emptively end the court proceedings was contrary to the rule of law and disrespected the administration of justice. On this basis, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected the LEAVE petition on December 8, 2025.

Bill 14 was passed the following week and came into force on December 11, 2025. In addition to allowing petition proposals to proceed even though they contravened constitutionally protected rights, Bill 14 introduced several other important changes.

• It introduced a 30-day “notice of intent” period before the submission of a petition proposal, effectively extending the 120-day period for fundraising to as much as 150 days.

• It introduced a requirement to provide identification before signing a petition.

• It eliminated the prohibition against substantially similar petitions, like the Forever Canadian petition that had already been successful.

• It nullified outstanding petitions and permitted applications to be recommenced under these new rules, without the requirement to pay a new fee. The LEAVE petition was recommenced on December 12, 2026, and was approved by the Chief Electoral Officer on December 22, 2026. The new LEAVE petition was issued on January 2, 2026. The waiver of the fee to commence a new application was particularly important. On December 17, 2025, that fee was increased from $500 to $25,000.

---

Bill 23 (2026)

The goal posts shifted again with the introduction of Bill 23, which came into force on May 1, 2026 with respect to amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act.

• It prohibited submission of a notice of intent to apply for a petition within 12 months before or 12 months after the next fixed election date. It terminated applications in process and petition signing periods falling within that window.

• It made provision for scrutineers in the process of validating and counting petition signatures.

• It repealed the outside date by which a referendum must be held following a successful policy petition (such as the Forever Canadian petition) and by which a referendum must be held following a successful constitutional petition (such as the LEAVE petition).

---

Analysis:

It’s extremely doubtful a LEAVE petition could have succeeded under the rules initially in place.

It’s unlikely the petitioner could have gathered the 587,952 signatures required for a constitutional referendum or the required number of signatures in 2/3 of all constituencies in the province. The timeframe for his petition would have been shorter, and the sources of contributions would have been more limited. In fact, the second LEAVE petition attracted only 222,597 verified signatures within the extended timeframe and under the revised fundraising rules, far less than the required number under the initial rules.

These barriers were removed by Bill 54, which came into effect on July 4, 2025. The application for the LEAVE petition was filed that same day.

However, further barriers remained. The proposal in the petition contravened both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. The proposal was also substantially similar to the proposal brought by Thomas Lukaszuk, which was certified as successful by the Chief Electoral Officer on December 1, 2025.

The government sought to remove these remaining barriers and to end the existing litigation on constitutional compliance by introducing Bill 14, on December 4, 2025. However, the decision of the court on the LEAVE petition was rendered and the LEAVE petition was rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer before Bill 14 came into effect. (See our post: What did Justice Feasby decide?)

The petitioner attempted to commence a new petition under these new rules, which also allowed them to avoid paying the significantly enhanced fee of $25,000. However, the court found in May 2026 that the LEAVE petition had already been rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer and therefore it could not be reinstated under the new rules. The court also found that the Chief Electoral Officer erred in approving this petition application because the Crown had failed to meet its duty of consultation with Indigenous peoples impacted by this application and because it was unreasonable to approve a petition to do something that was unconstitutional.

So despite the numerous legislative changes which were advantageous to the separatist petitioners, their first petition was rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer on receipt of an opinion by the court and their second petition was quashed by the court. That decision is now under appeal.

Question 1: A Poor Question offering Vague Choices

Question 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?

• A referendum question should test one clear proposition. There are three different propositions referred to in this question. You might be in favour of one and entirely opposed to another.

• It is unclear what some of these choices mean. What is a “sustainable level” of immigration? What does prioritizing economic migration mean in practice? How would the government ensure Albertans get “first priority” on new employment opportunities? (Would they start telling employers who to hire?)

• Alberta already has significant influence over immigration. What would “increased control” mean?

Alberta already has significant influence over economic immigration

Under an agreement with the federal government, originally signed in 2007, Alberta and the federal government agreed to cooperate on the level and composition of immigrants to Alberta. The agreement recognizes Alberta’s economic development and labour market priorities, and authorizes Alberta to develop a Provincial Nominee Program to meet Alberta’s immigration needs.

Alberta’s Provincial Nominee Program is now called the Alberta Advantage Immigration program. It allows the province to directly select and nominate skilled workers, entrepreneurs and international graduates who meet specific labour market needs. By doing so, Alberta can fast-track permanent residency for individuals who fill critical shortages in key sectors.

This program already provides the province with several targeted mechanisms:

• Strategic Sector Prioritization: Alberta can focus on in-demand industries—such as healthcare, technology, agriculture, and construction—by issuing targeted invitations to candidates with experience in these fields.

• Express Entry Boost: Through the Alberta Express Entry Stream, the province can select candidates from the federal pool and grant them a provincial nomination. This awards the candidate an additional 600 points, virtually guaranteeing their permanent residence.

• Rural Revitalization: The program features dedicated streams, like the Rural Renewal Stream, that allow local communities and employers to sponsor and retain newcomers in smaller, underserved regions of the province.

• Economic Growth & Retention: By evaluating candidates based on established job offers or business ownership plans, Alberta ensures that immigrants can economically establish themselves and support the province's ongoing growth.

Labour shortages may occur if immigration falls significantly

Many Alberta industries rely on immigrants and temporary residents, including health care, construction, agriculture, hospitality, and technology. If the goal is economic prosperity, reducing immigration may make it difficult for Alberta to build the workforce it needs.

For example, in the key Alberta oil and gas industry, it is forecast that the sector will need about 72,000 workers by 2035, primarily to replace retiring employees, according to a new report (June 2026) by Careers in Energy, a division of Energy Safety Canada. According to this report, the number could climb well above 100,000 positions needed if proposed major energy projects like pipelines move forward in the coming years. It is unclear whether those jobs can be filled internally.

What does “giving Albertans first priority” mean?

It may seem like a simple concept, giving Albertans priority in hiring. But It’s not clear exactly what it means or how the province could enforce this idea in practice. Would the government start dictating to employers who they could and could not hire for every job opening? And by “Albertan,” does it mean only people living here who are citizens or could it include immigrants who are already living here but not yet citizens?

Would it mean current Alberta residents would get priority in employment over other Canadians? If so, how would this impact mobility and equality rights in the Canadian constitution?

What is a “sustainable level”?

The question implies that current levels of immigration are too high and therefore should be decreased to a “more sustainable” level. The problem is that "sustainable" is more of a value judgment than a measurable target.

In late 2025, the federal government made a commitment to return Canada’s immigration to sustainable levels. This means stabilizing permanent resident admissions to less than 1% of the total population beyond 2027 and reducing temporary residents to less than 5% of the total population by the end of 2027.

This referendum question is asking Albertans to vote on “more sustainable” immigration levels, but it is not clear what sustainability means to the Government of Alberta. Is it more or less than the federal plans for sustainable immigration?

The Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration met recently to discuss the 2027-2029 Immigration Levels Plan and the federal commitment to return immigration to sustainable levels. Ministers also discussed the importance of economic immigration and Provincial Nominee Programs, which provinces (including Alberta) use to address labour shortages. However, the Alberta Minister responsible for immigration did not attend. If economic immigration, provincial control of immigration, and sustainability of immigration levels is so important to the Government of Alberta, why did the Minister not bother to attend this meeting?

Immigration is not the only cause of pressure on services

Implicit in this question is the notion that reducing immigration is a key solution to relieving pressures on housing, schools, health care and infrastructure. But the government has not provided evidence that new immigrants are the cause of problems in these areas, and in fact, there are other policy choices being made by the province that contribute to these challenges.

Our view

The Alberta government already has the tools it needs to influence economic migration. This question is unnecessary, confusing and misleading.

We are voting NO on Question 1.

Question 2: What is this question actually asking?

Question 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?

• This question appears to be directed at temporary residents such as foreign students, temporary foreign workers, and asylum seekers, but it’s not clear.

• According to the government’s website established to explain the referendum questions, the government claims that temporary residents cost the province over $1 billion annually in health care, education and social services. However, it is not clear how the government calculated these costs, and whether the number is credible.

• Albertans deserve and expect their government and political leaders to lead thoughtful discussions about which public services are available to temporary residents. This question will not further that cause.

What’s the problem with the question?

This question focuses on the costs of temporary residents without considering their economic contributions and benefits. It’s like a business looking at one expense and ignoring the revenue it generates. In this case, it ignores the economic and community contributions made by newcomers in the province:

• Temporary foreign workers have jobs and pay taxes that pay for health, education and social programs.

• Alberta employers rely on temporary foreign workers to fill labour shortages.

• Foreign students pay high foreign student fees, which helps post-secondary institutions offer a broad range of educational programs to Albertans.

This question is unclear and doesn’t reflect the complexity of the issue.

• As written, this question could refer to: temporary foreign workers, international students, refugee claimants, individuals awaiting immigration decisions and people on various federal visas or permits. A voter might support restricting benefits for some temporary residents while supporting certain services for others. But this yes-or-no question does not allow for that kind of distinction or for a thoughtful examination of the issue.

• Bundling health care, education and social services into a single yes-or-no question makes it difficult to analyze what savings might be expected and whether there would be negative economic, social or humanitarian consequences. Each one deserves careful analysis. Only by examining each program can Albertans decide what makes sense to offer temporary residents.

• Under an agreement with the federal government, Alberta can nominate immigrants for permanent residence in Alberta to fill job shortages or start or buy a business. Is this what is meant by “Alberta-approved immigration status?” Perhaps, but it’s not clear.

• The question assumes that temporary residents currently have access to health care, education and social services, when in fact, eligibility requirements are different for different programs and services in the province.

For example:

• Alberta's health insurance plan generally requires lawful residence and meeting residency requirements. Uninsured temporary residents and visitors who don’t have AHC coverage will receive emergency treatment but will be billed for hospital and physician services.

• Some health care costs for refugee claimants and refugees are covered by the federal Interim Federal Health Program.

• K–12 education is already governed by provincial rules regarding who may attend publicly-funded schools. Currently, children of temporary residents on valid work or student visas have free access to that education, just as all the other children throughout the province do. Children of parents who are in Canada as visitors must pay international student fees, as do children arriving on their own to go to school in Canada.

• Temporary residents are not eligible for many social programs, including income support, AISH, student loans and rental assistance.

• The Canada Child Benefit and Alberta Child and Family Benefit restrict eligibility to temporary residents who have lived in Canada for at least 18 months.

What would be the economic impact if Albertans vote yes to this question?

Alberta relies on temporary foreign workers and other newcomers in many sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, energy, construction, health care and hospitality. Reducing access to basic services will make Alberta less attractive to workers that employers depend on. It may even create worker shortages in critical areas of the economy.

In the past, the provincial government under Danielle Smith ran high-profile, aggressive campaigns, such as “Alberta is Calling,” to woo immigrants and temporary foreign workers to come to Alberta. This, and other referendum questions, suggest a dramatic “pivot” in approach, implying that newcomers are to blame for lack of services, and increasing costs.

What other consequences might there be?

Health care: Restricting preventive care can increase long-term costs when conditions worsen. Vaccinations, infectious disease control, and maternal health programs often benefit society broadly, not just the individual recipient.

Education: An uneducated population creates long-term economic and social costs. Public education is a touchstone of a free and democratic society and is one of our great strengths as a society.

Social Services: Denying access to some services could create larger downstream costs.

What about humanitarian and constitutional considerations?

Beyond pure economic considerations, there are basic concerns about how we treat people in Alberta, and whether we view things like basic health care and education for children as rights that serve the collective good. Do we want pregnant women, for example, to have no access to maternal health care because they don’t qualify for coverage?

Canada has international commitments regarding refugees and asylum seekers. A change to services we provide in Alberta could contravene those agreements. And restrictions on services could face legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other legislation, depending on how future laws are drafted.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 2.

Question 3: Why would we impose a waiting period on social services for newcomers?

Question 3

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to quality 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?

• This referendum question asks Albertans to approve a blanket 12-month waiting period for all temporary residents (temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugee claimants) to access social support programs.

• However, the government has not provided evidence that this is a problem that needs addressing. In fact, temporary residents are already not eligible for many support programs, and many other programs already have waiting periods in place.

How much are temporary residents using provincial social support programs?

On the website set up by the Government of Alberta to provide background on the referendum questions, it is estimated that non-permanent residents (temporary foreign workers, international students and refugee claimants) cost social services more than $100 million annually. It is not clear where the $100 million cost estimate comes from, nor how much any costs to social services are offset by the economic contributions and taxes paid by temporary residents.

While the website acknowledges that non-permanent residents are not eligible for programs like AISH and income support, it lists programs like the childcare subsidy, Alberta Child and Family Benefit and student aid as targets of this new initiative.

However, those programs already have conditions which limit their availability to temporary residents.

• The Alberta Child and Family Benefit restricts eligibility to temporary residents who qualify for the federal Canada Child Benefit, which in turn restricts eligibility to temporary residents who have lived in Canada for at least 18 months and have a valid work or study permit beyond 18 months. As a result, there would be no savings if the Government of Alberta limited eligibility to temporary residents in Alberta for at least 12 months.

• To be eligible for the Alberta childcare subsidy, temporary residents need to show that they meet the income requirements by showing their CRA Notice of Assessment, something that is only possible if they have lived in Canada for several months.

• Only citizens and permanent residents are eligible for student aid for full-time or part-time studies.

What would be the impact of imposing the 12-month waiting period for all non-permanent residents?

The question lumps together very different categories of people: temporary foreign workers filling labour shortages, international students, spouses and children accompanying workers or students, and refugee claimants. The impact of withholding services for a year would vary with each group.

Alberta's economy relies on temporary foreign workers and international students in sectors such as health care, agriculture, hospitality, construction, and post-secondary education. A one-size-fits-all waiting period ignores the fact that most temporary residents are working, studying, and paying taxes while helping Alberta address labour shortages.

If Alberta wants temporary foreign workers and international students to come here, contribute to the economy, and eventually become permanent residents, policies that treat them differently for accessing services may discourage them from coming to Alberta.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 3.