Let Albertans decide. Vote YES for Option 1.
On October 19, Albertans will be asked to vote on a crucial question – whether to remain in Canada or start the process for another vote to separate. Driving around St. Albert, I’ve spotted several big signs saying, “Let Albertans decide. Vote option 2.”
Sounds so easy doesn’t it? Let Albertans decide. Of course. That’s what referendums are for. But voting for option 2? That’s not deciding. That’s just kicking the can down the road so we go through months if not years with the spectre of separatism hanging over our heads. And it keeps our government focused on separatism rather than things that really matter to Albertans – making life more affordable, having a health system that delivers the timely care Albertans need, giving our kids the best possible education.
Then there are those who say, I don’t really want to separate. I just want to send a message to Ottawa. That’s a dangerous game to play. Because it’s not Ottawa that will decide whether Alberta has a binding referendum on separation. It’s our own provincial government, along with many of its own party members who actively or quietly support separatism.
The October 19 referendum is not a bluff. I’ve played poker in the past and I’m lousy at bluffing because it means convincing the other players that you really do have a winning hand. Separation is not a winning hand. As Dr. Jared Wesley puts it, “You don’t push all your chips into the middle of the table while whispering, ‘don’t worry, I’ve got nothing’.”
That’s exactly the game separatists are playing. Trying to convince you there’s nothing to lose by voting for option 2, that it will give us leverage in negotiating a better deal with Ottawa. But that is masking their real agenda. The separatists aren’t looking for a better deal with Canada. They want out. And they’re misleading us by suggesting voting for option 2 isn’t really a vote for separation.
As part of a group called Before You Vote (beforevoting.ca), I’ve read, analyzed and listened to countless studies, articles and stories about what the impact of separation would be. Nothing has convinced me there is any advantage or any reason for Alberta to separate. In fact, the costs would be enormous, not only the costs of setting up a new country and the damaging impact separation would have on our economy but in countless other ways. Polls show thousands of people would choose to leave Alberta. We’d lose investment, start-up businesses would find more secure places to get established, many existing businesses say they would move to other provinces, and established national and international trade agreements would get thrown out the window. And the worst possible outcome? We become a sitting duck waiting for a US President who might be joking about the 51st state but would love Alberta’s oil and gas.
A friend of mine reminded me of Joni Mitchell’s famous line, “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.” Don’t let that happen on October 19. Vote option 1 and let’s get on with making this province and this country an even better place for your children and for granddaughers like mine.
New report from Calgary Chamber unveils high stakes of Alberta separation
A new report by University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, commissioned by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, examines the potential economic implications of Alberta separating from Canada.
Timothy Caulfield: Alberta’s Separatists Are Chasing a Total Cowboy Fantasy
The province they describe—rural, homogeneous, under siege—bears little resemblance to reality.
Joel Dryden: With time running out, new poll suggests Alberta separatism support is slipping
A new poll suggests support for separation is dropping. But don’t take that for granted. Every vote counts. People still need to get out to vote to ensure Alberta remains in Canada.
Jared Wesley: Pandering to Pandora
Why the UCP’s four constitutional questions are threats to provincial autonomy
Jared Wesley: How to lose a referendum in 30 days
“This fall’s referendums in Alberta will be decided by turnout. There are vanishingly few undecided voters when it comes to the lead question on separation. This leaves both sides with nothing to do but pull the vote.”
Confused by the questions? You’re not alone.
A recent Angus Reid poll shows that many of the referendum questions are not only confusing, but people agree with parts of some questions but not others.
And check out the articles on our site for information and answers to your questions about each of the ten referendum questions.
You don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone.
Over the past few months, we have heard some concerns expressed about the treatment of Alberta in Canada. However, in the midst of this conversation, we haven’t heard enough about the benefits of living in Canada.
We are tied with Switzerland as the most admired country in the world. We are ranked in the upper echelon of the happiest countries in the world, ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. We are among the wealthiest countries of our size.
We are a true democracy, with an independent judiciary, and governed by the rule of law. We are a world leader in the protection and advancement of human rights. We have universal health care. We are among the best educated countries in the world.
We have a remarkably diverse population with a mixture of Indigenous peoples and people who have immigrated from around the world, and we have found a way to work and live together in reasonable harmony.
We fought bravely in two World Wars and in conflicts around the world, but we have been spared from armed conflict on our soil for over two hundred years.
We are the home of Joni Mitchell, Margaret Atwood, the Group of Seven, Ryan Reynolds, Connor McDavid, and the Canadian Football League. We have Tim Horton’s, pizza with pineapple, maple syrup, ice wine, and poutine.
We have the world’s longest coastline and over 2,000,000 lakes.
Insulin was discovered in Canada. The telephone was invented here, as were the egg carton and basketball.
As Barack Obama said on his visit in 2016, “the world needs more Canada”.
We have built this country together and we have much to be proud of. In financial terms, Albertans may have contributed above their weight in recent years. But Alberta’s prosperity has come in large part because we are part of Canada. Alberta has prospered and grown with the support of workers from Newfoundland and Labrador, engineers from Saskatchewan, labourers and professionals from across Canada, and doctors from countries around the world. Our place within Canada has been critical to our success.
When we think about the concerns that we may have about our relationship with the rest of the country, we should also think about all the benefits we enjoy, and that we continue to enjoy, because we are part of Canada.
On October 19, we are voting for Option 1 to remain in Canada. As Joni Mitchell famously sang, “You don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
David Coletto: Alberta Isn’t Leaving Canada. That Doesn’t Mean the Federation Is Fine.
Five reports and 1,000 interviews reveal a province that is deeply frustrated, still strongly Canadian, and heading toward a referendum result that almost nobody expects will end the argument.
Jared Wesley: Ten Questions, One Real Decision
“It is easy to dismiss the whole exercise as political theatre. The votes are “non-binding,” after all. And the pretext for the referendums is clear: the government is struggling to handle the policy files most important to Albertans and is looking for scapegoats and distractions.”
Parkland Institute: Scapegoating and Separatists
The report shows how Premier Danielle Smith is using the five immigration questions in the referendum to redirect public anger over affordability and strained public services toward immigrants. It also traces parallels between the language used in the ballot questions and anti-immigrant rhetoric advanced by Alberta’s far-right and separatist movement.
The Costly Implications of a Separate Alberta
The University of Calgary's School of Public Policy has published "The Economic and Fiscal Implications of Alberta Separation," a report commissioned by the Alberta government to give voters a fact-based look at what leaving Canada would mean for the province's economy and finances. Prepared by a group of economists, trade experts, and public policy professionals, the report models two scenarios — a "smooth" separation in which negotiations with Ottawa and other trading partners go quickly and favourably for Alberta, and a "difficult" one marked by prolonged, possibly hostile talks with Canada and other countries.
In both cases, the report estimates that establishing a new country would cost $50 billion to $170 billion over the first five years, including the cost of new infrastructure, an expanded public service, and Alberta's share of the federal debt.
The $1.5-million report, commissioned by the Smith government in June, is not a single document but an overview report backed by separate technical papers examining different facets of separation — from how the transition would actually work logistically to the detailed fiscal modelling behind the cost estimates — giving outside experts and Albertans a basis to check the underlying assumptions and methodology.
The two scenarios diverge sharply over the longer term. Under the "difficult" path, restricted trade and market access could leave lasting damage: after 20 years, employment could be nearly 5% lower and Alberta's economy more than 16% smaller than if it had stayed in Canada, with the government facing a persistent annual deficit exceeding $30 billion despite higher taxes.
Under the "smooth" scenario, Alberta could retain access to major trade markets, expand resource development and potentially deliver some government services more efficiently — but the report cautions that any recovery would take years and would hinge on conditions, like sustained high oil prices, that Alberta has no control over.
An independent advisory panel chaired by economist Jack Mintz reviewed the report's methodology and findings, agreeing that separation would bring short-term economic costs and highly uncertain long-run benefits.
How credible is this report and which scenario is more likely?
If you’re going to read anything before you vote on the separation question, this is it:
The overview report has been written in non-technical language and is a manageable 24 pages long.
The report has been prepared by recognized experts who have been transparent in how they arrived at their numbers and conclusions.
An advisory panel that includes conservative economist Jack Mintz and former Alberta cabinet minister Ted Morton — both strong advocates for Alberta autonomy and a more decentralized federation — have agreed with the main conclusions of the report.
Which scenario is more likely — the “smooth” transition or “difficult” one?
The smooth scenario assumes that trade with Canada and the rest of the world is uninterrupted, that interest rates go up but come down again, that there is no more federal environmental regulation, that there is a favourable US government, and the energy sector expands with oil prices in line with current expectations. How likely are all of these things to occur?
It’s more likely that the rest of Canada and other trading partners do what’s best for them and negotiate tough deals with Alberta for access to markets and access to tidewater, taking advantage of Alberta’s relatively small size and dependence on foreign markets for oil. It’s also more likely that Alberta’s economy will continue to be dependent on oil prices that go up and down, and that our boom-and-bust economy will not have the cushion of the rest of Canada to fall back on. And this is before the impacts of AI and climate change have been fully felt.
Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta and member of the independent advisory committee, has told the Globe and Mail that the benefits outlined in the “smooth” scenario are highly unlikely and underline the limited upside of separation. Legge is quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying that “the highest probability is that we would be landing somewhere in negative economic territory.”
Under the unlikely “smooth” scenario, average wages fall $1,241 in the first five years and rise a modest $1,851 after 20 years. Are Albertans prepared to bet on that risky scenario, when the more likely scenario says average wages fall $5,496 in the first five years and decline $11,957 after 20 years?
We’re voting to remain in Canada and hope that the vote is decisive to remain so that we end this costly and divisive conversation that is undermining confidence in Alberta’s economy and diverting attention away from more critical issues such as competitiveness, affordability, health care, education, and government accountability.
Voting to remain in Canada is clearly the best economic option for Alberta. We need to end this costly and divisive conversation that is undermining confidence in Alberta’s economy and diverting attention away from more critical issues such as competitiveness, affordability, health care, education, and government accountability.
See media coverage of the report below:
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-separation-cost-report-debt
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-separation-secession-cost-170-billion-report/
Jared Wesley: When ‘leverage’ isn’t leverage
Imagine sending a ransom note that says: “Give us what we want. But just so you know, most of us have no intention of actually harming the hostage.”
Not Just an Independent Country but a Political Ideology
In August of this year, one of the leading organizations behind Alberta’s separatist movement issued a draft constitution for an independent Alberta entitled “The Foundation of Freedom.” In it, the Alberta Prosperity Project proposes an independent Alberta designed to entrench a particular political ideology.
Ordinarily, one would expect the constitution of a democratic country to establish the structure of the government, for example: the creation of an elected parliament or congress of elected representatives, the creation of an executive branch to carry out law, and the creation of an independent judiciary to interpret and apply the law. Within that structure, the people would be free to elect their representatives, who would be free to govern in accordance with the will of the people, subject to the protection of certain fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals within the society.
The “Foundation of Freedom” document goes well beyond this, entrenching a political philosophy and rigid rules which would forever limit the ability of government to respond to future needs and changing circumstances.
This draft constitution sets out certain limited categories in which the government is allowed to legislate. It then sets out a series of “absolute prohibitions” including “regulation or funding of the media”, “any area not clearly tied to defence, trade, or peace and order”, and “creation of new rights, obligations, or social programs” outside the categories specifically enumerated in the document.
This reflects a political ideology that the role of government should be strictly limited. That is an ideology that members of the Alberta Prosperity Project are entitled to hold, but this draft proposes entrenching that ideology into the constitution, to be binding on everyone, regardless of the will of the people at any point in time and regardless of the circumstances that may arise at any point in time.
Foundation of Freedom goes further, prescribing that annual income taxes shall not exceed 10% of net income, that consumption taxes shall not exceed 10% of the net purchase price of goods or services, and that government may not operate a deficit for more than two consecutive years within a given term. It prohibits a government from incurring debt for operational or recurring expenditures and permits debt for capital infrastructure projects (like roads or schools or hospitals) only if approved by referendum. It further prescribes a spending cap tied to the gross domestic product of the country, which may be exceeded only in the event of a formally declared emergency or armed conflict.
These strict financial limitations would severely constrain the role of government. It is difficult to conceive, for example, how the government could create a publicly funded health care system or establish any form of social safety net with these limitations in place. By constitutional dictate, regardless of the will of the people at any point in time, the wealthy would pay less tax; the poor, the elderly and the disabled would receive fewer supports.
Foundation of Freedom then prescribes that these parts of the constitution, among others, can never be amended, again regardless of the will of the people at any point in time, and regardless of the circumstances that may arise at any point in time.
This draft constitution includes protections of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, but it does so in a way that is quite different from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For example, it recognizes certain rights of every citizen (excluding permanent residents, temporary foreign workers, and refugees) to bear arms and to liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and peaceful assembly, among others. Unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these rights are not subject to such reasonable limitations as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That would bar anti-hate speech laws. That might even bar laws prohibiting child pornography because they conflict with freedom of expression and no exceptions are allowed.
The document also includes a constitutional right to protection against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religious belief, and a category called “Lawful Sexual Orientation”. However, unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it does not provide protection against discrimination on the basis of age or disability, and it prohibits the courts from implying any such grounds. Again, the elderly and persons with disabilities get the short end of the stick.
The document goes on to prescribe how courts must interpret and apply the constitution. In particular, it requires that the constitution must be interpreted solely by its text, read in its immediate structural context. Presumably, that means the broader societal context may not be taken into account. It also requires that the courts must interpret the constitution and all other laws according to its original meaning. This is called the “originalist” doctrine, which has been advocated by the most conservative judges on the United States Supreme Court, and which has upended rights, like abortion rights, in recent years.
This is in direct opposition to the “living tree” doctrine that has been the law of Canada for almost 100 years, allowing courts to interpret the constitution to adapt with the changing times. This doctrine was articulated in a 1929 case in which the court interpreted the reference to “persons” in the constitution to apply to both men and women, even though that might not have been contemplated in 1867 when the constitution came into force.
With the publication of Foundation of Freedom, the organization leading the separatist movement has shown it is looking not only for an independent Alberta, but an Alberta mandated by the constitution to forever reflect their own political ideology.
Introducing Forward Weekly
Forward Thinking, Forward Weekly
Alberta is at a turning point, and staying informed shouldn't feel like a full-time job. Forward Weekly is your antidote to the political chaos. Every Sunday, Forward Weekly delivers the essential roundup you actually need: original progressive commentary, what just happened, what's coming next and exactly how you can fight back.
‘Underneath the careful wording of Alberta’s referendum question on separation is a much larger question: to be, or not to be, Canadian. That is the question.’
With those words, the Canada West Foundation introduces its special report on a range of topics related to Alberta’s October 19 referendum on separation. Titled Alberta in Confederation – The Economic, Trade and Constitutional Realities of Separation, the report includes papers and analysis by nine authors covering a range of topics from Alberta’s place in confederation, constitutional implications of separation, Indigenous rights and treaty relationships, Alberta’s economic and fiscal position, trade policies and interprovincial and international transportation, and the impact of uncertainty on investors’ decisions.
Drawing on comparisons with Brexit in the UK and Quebec’s experience with its own separation vote, the report highlights the lesson we should take from both of those experiences. In their words, “The lesson is not that Alberta should reach the same conclusion as voters elsewhere. It is that voters deserve to understand the risks and consequences before making a decision that may be difficult, costly or impossible to reverse.” At Before You Vote, we heartily agree.
The significance of Alberta’s vote on October 19 is highlighted in the introduction to the report by Gary Mar, President and CEO of the Canada West Foundation.
“Albertans deserve to understand the grievances that have brought us to this point. They also deserve to understand the opportunities, responsibilities, risks and uncertainties that would follow from any change in Alberta’s constitutional status.
Most of all, they deserve to make their decision with their eyes open, knowing what we know, recognizing what can reasonably be estimated, acknowledging what remains uncertain and understanding what would still have to be negotiated.
The question before Albertans is consequential for more than one generation. It concerns the country their parents and grandparents helped build, the province they have inherited and the future they leave to their children.”
You can find the full special report from the Canada West Foundation here, and we encourage you to read it.
Opinion: Immigration questions in fall referendum a measure of who we are as Albertans
Originally published at CalgaryHerald.com on September 5, 2026.
On October 19th Albertans will be invited to express their opinions through a referendum that, in a convoluted manner, asks us whether Alberta should begin a process to separate from Canada.
We are also being asked a series of disturbing immigration related questions. These questions are likely unconstitutional and designed to satisfy the extremist element of the United Conservative Party (UCP).
One might ask why, as a province, we are spending an estimated $150 million dollars and requiring 60,000 employees to ask us these referendum questions when this money could be put to much better use responding to the growing pressures in our education and health care systems? But here we are. Referendums are a waste of time and energy, voter turnout is poor and their results do not reflect public opinion.
Very little discussion and exposure centers around the ambiguous and unconstitutional questions surrounding immigration. In fact, many Albertans are not even aware there are questions other than the separation question. It is time for Albertans to focus on the negative implications that are contained in the immigration enquiries.
As we think about who we are as Canadians and as Albertans, the message we send with our responses to the racist immigration questions may say more about us than anything else. We need to pay close attention to the implications of the immigration questions being put forward. We need to reject all of them and vote NO.
The referendum proposes increased provincial control over immigration, restrictions on access to services for non-permanent residents, a “head tax” discriminatory fee system for non-permanent residents, a 12-month waiting period for social supports, fees for healthcare and education, and citizenship verification for voting. These changes will significantly impact non-permanent residents (some 65,000 people) which includes temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugee claimants.
The implication seems to be that these newcomers fill our hospitals and schools and take jobs away from Albertans. To scapegoat our newcomers as the source of funding pressures in our schools and hospitals passes the buck to others over our failure to meet the demands created by our growth and prosperity.
The flawed premise of these questions rests on the assumption that this group of newcomers to Alberta are taking advantage. It is alleged that they don’t contribute, they cost us money and therefore they should be prevented from accessing services and should be back of the line for employment opportunities. Not only are these assumptions discriminatory, they are factually inaccurate. These individuals pay taxes for starters, but more importantly the assumptions ignore the many and necessary contributions newcomers make to our province and our country. They ignore the fact that immigration is the foundation of growth and prosperity in our province and perhaps most importantly, they ignore the pride we have always taken in being a welcoming country and province where difference is a strength. Other than indigenous and first nations peoples, we can all trace our histories to other shores.
We already have many children in Alberta being denied entrance to our schools because their parents lack immigration status. Are we becoming so insular that we can stand aside and allow children living in our Province to be denied education and health care?
There is no denying that we need new Canadians to fill the gaps created by smaller families and an aging population. These social trends will have a negative impact in the future where fewer workers will be available to meet the expanding needs of the province.
It is incumbent upon the Provincial and Federal governments to work together to create and implement programs that will recognize the population growth needs in our society. This is not a task for provinces alone. This is a national challenge and well outside exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, our current provincial government has not demonstrated any ability to address these types of issues with the intelligence, humanity and compassion they demand. For all of these reasons, it is important that we vote to stay in Canada and vote no to all nine of the divisive questions manufactured by the provincial government. In particular, we must remember who we are as Albertans and Canadians and reject the false and racist premises upon which the referendum immigration questions are based.
Ron Ghitter (KC, CM – Member of Order of Canada), is a former Alberta MLA and senator and founder of the Dignity Forum. Cori Ghitter (KC) is the CEO of the Ron and Myrna Ghitter Foundation and a member of the Dignity Forum.
Understanding the Immigration Questions
Our immigration system is not perfect. The rapid increase in immigration in the decade leading up to 2024 without building out the infrastructure necessary to accommodate that immigration created challenges for the Canadian economy. While steps have now been taken to reduce the level of immigration to more sustainable levels, it is reasonable to consider other steps that might be taken to reform and improve the system.
In its October 19 referendum, the Alberta government has posed 5 questions relating to immigration. In our view, the proposals put forward in those questions would not improve the system. Rather:
they would create barriers to mobility in Canada, undermining efforts to strengthen the economy in the face of US tariffs,
they would exclude some persons lawfully resident in Alberta from accessing basic services, like education and health, contrary to fundamental Canadian values, and
they would create a barrier to voting by some particularly vulnerable Canadian citizens resident in Alberta.
Creating barriers to mobility within Canada
Question 1: Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immimgration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?
This is a complicated question, best understood by considering its constituent parts.
The first part involves the Alberta government taking increased control over immigration. As discussed in more detail in our article Question 1: A Poor Question offering Vague Choices, the Alberta government already has significant influence over economic immigration, including through the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. It should be noted that Question 1 does not propose any change in the constitutional distribution of authority over immigration; it only contemplates the Alberta government exercising the constitutional authority that it already has. A costly referendum isn’t necessary for a government to continue to do what it is already doing.
The second part of the question involves decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels. As noted above, steps have already been taken to reduce the level of immigration in Canada. As stated by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, its 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan “focuses on a return to sustainable immigration levels through continued decreases to temporary resident arrivals and stabilized permanent resident admissions.” The decrease in the number of immigrants entering Canada actually resulted in a decrease in the population of Canada in 2025, the first time that has happened since Confederation. And the Alberta Economic Dashboard shows a change in net international migration to the province between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 of minus 105.8%. It isn’t clear what steps, if any, the Alberta government proposes to further decrease the number of immigrants coming to Alberta.
The third part of the question involves prioritizing economic immigration. Canada already prioritizes economic immigration. Under the 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan, permanent economic immigration is forecast to reach 63% of all permanent admissions in 2026, rising to 64% in 2027 and 2028. It isn’t clear what steps, if any, the Alberta government proposes to further prioritize economic immigration.
The fourth part of the question involves giving priority to Albertans on new employment opportunities. The temporary foreign workers program already gives priority to Canadian workers; it permits immigration to fill temporary labor shortages when qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available. The proposal in Question 1 goes further than this by using the immigration system to give priority to Albertans, not Canadians. It isn’t at all clear how this would work. However, if Alberta could somehow use the immigration system to give priority for new employment opportunities to Albertans to the exclusion of other Canadians, other provinces could do the same to the exclusion of Albertans, thereby undermining mobility within Canada.
Quite apart from raising issues under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this proposal would involve erecting internal barriers at the very time that Canada and the provinces have committed to removing internal barriers to strengthen the Canadian economy in the face of the trade war with the United States.
Taking Question 1 as a whole, it is unclear what the Alberta government is proposing beyond what is already being done. What is new appears to be a proposal that would create mobility barriers within Canada.
For these reasons, we are voting NO to question 1.
Excluding some immigrants from access to education, health and other services
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 quality for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducting a law requiring individuals with a non-permenant resident legal immigration status to residen in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincial-funded social support programs?
Question 4: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permnanent 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 non-permanent resident immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the health care and education systems?
All three of these questions propose excluding some groups of immigrants from access to publicly-funded education and health services. Questions 3 and 4 go further to exclude persons from access to other publicly-funded services. While the category of excluded persons under Question 2 is unclear as “Alberta-approved immigration status” is undefined, all 3 questions likely apply to exclude temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students from publicly-funded services.
Question 2 proposes a permanent exclusion, at least until an individual becomes a permanent resident of Canada. Question 3 proposes an exclusion for one year after an individual moves to Alberta, no matter how long that individual has lived in Canada. Question 4 proposes that services be available only if a “reasonable fee or premium” is paid. Those who can’t afford to pay the fee or premium (in other words, those who are poorest) would be excluded from accessing the services.
To put this in practical terms, these proposals would mean that the eight-year-old child of a temporary foreign worker could be excluded from accessing public education. These proposals would mean that a 70-year-old refugee from Ukraine who is suffering a stroke could be excluded from accessing public health care. These exclusions would apply notwithstanding the fact that the excluded persons were legally admitted to Canada and pay federal and provincial taxes, just like everyone else.
The fundamental objection to these proposals was articulated by Senator Paula Simons in an article recently published in Alberta Views magazine:
“On what planet does it make any sense to prevent refugee and immigrant children from going to school, learning English and integrating? Let’s leave empathy and humanity aside for a moment. Does it make our communities safer or more prosperous to prevent children—including those whose parents are here legally—from acquiring the language skills, academic training and cultural know-how to work and thrive and contribute to our economy and society?”
The same objection applies to exclusion from health care and other publicly funded services. Once an individual has been legally admitted to Canada, that individual should not be denied access to basic social services. Exclusion from access is a denial of individual human rights. It is also detrimental to the growth and strengthening of our society.
On its referendum website, the Alberta government provides three arguments in support of the proposed exclusions.
The first is that the cost of delivering these services to these persons is estimated to cost Alberta taxpayers more than $1 billion per year. No authority is cited for that number. Nor does the website state the amount of taxes paid each year by these persons.
In any event, even if costs incurred exceed taxes paid by these persons, the right of an individual to access basic services in our province has never been based on whether the taxes paid by that individual exceed the cost of services accessed by that individual. In other words, access to services has never been based on whether an individual is a profit centre for the province. That isn’t who we are as a society. Indeed, those that most need publicly-funded services, like the elderly or persons with disabilities, are often those with the least income, and therefore those paying the least taxes. Accepting the argument that access to publicly-funded services by an individual should be based on a comparison of costs incurred versus taxes paid would set a very dangerous precedent for all Albertans.
The second argument made by the Alberta government is that past immigration policies have led to rapid population growth in the province, which has put “pressure on Alberta’s health, education and other social services, resulting in delayed access to health care for Albertans, larger classrooms for students and unaffordable cost pressures to social services overall.”
What this argument does not mention is that the rapid growth of Alberta’s population arose from both internal migration and immigration and was the result of the conscious policy of the Alberta government. On a podcast in January 2024, Premier Danielle Smith expressed the goal of more than doubling the population of Alberta to 10 million people, using internal migration and immigration. In pursuit of population growth, the government introduced the Alberta is Calling campaign to encourage people from across the country to move to Alberta. And in March 2024, the Premier sent a letter to the Prime Minister, requesting the federal government to double the allocation of places for immigrants to Alberta under the Provincial Nominee Program and under the Ukrainian refugee program.
The cause of the strain on government services is the implementation of the policy to pursue rapid population growth without investing in the infrastructure necessary to support that growth. One example of that failure is the strain on hospitals in Alberta. In Edmonton for example, the population of the city has doubled since 1988 when the last new hospital was constructed.
The problem isn’t limited to physical infrastructure. It also extends to failure over the years to invest in additional spaces for training professionals, like doctors and nurses, needed to meet the growth in population promoted by the province. In 2023, we saw a hopeful sign with the announcement of provincial funding for additional seats in medical and nursing schools and for additional medical residency places. Given the time required to complete this training, the impact of that additional funding has yet to be felt.
At best, it is disingenuous to blame the strain on schools, hospitals, and other facilities on temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students. And the solution to that strain is to build the infrastructure needed to support the population, not to exclude categories of immigrants from accessing publicly-funded services.
The third argument made by the Alberta government is that youth unemployment in Alberta is high (at 15.6%), suggesting temporary foreign workers are taking the jobs of young Albertans. No evidence is cited in support of this suggestion. In a report issued in July 2026, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses disputes the alleged link between youth unemployment and the hiring of temporary foreign workers, arguing that “the jobs most commonly filled by Temporary Foreign Workers are exactly the ones that young Canadians are least willing to take.”
In any event, even if the Alberta government could establish some link between youth employment and hiring temporary foreign workers, the solution to youth unemployment is not to deny access to health, education, and other publicly-funded services to temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students legally admitted to this province.
For these reasons, we are voting NO on questions 2, 3, and 4.
Creating a barrier to voting by vulnerable Albertans
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 election?
This question isn’t whether the right to vote should be limited to Canadian citizens. That is already the law. Rather, the question is whether individuals should be required to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote. And as only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote, the question is whether Canadian citizens should be required to provide proof of their citizenship before being allowed to vote.
The rationale for this question, presumably, is to avoid non-citizens from voting by pretending they are citizens. There is no evidence that this a problem.
In fact, this question comes directly from the MAGA playbook. President Trump has announced that his first legislative priority is the passing of the so-called SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. This piece of legislation has been passed by the House of Representatives but has been blocked in the Senate. In August 2026, President Trump unsuccessfully demanded that the Senate’s August break be cancelled until it passed this Act. He also unsuccessfully demanded that the filibuster power in the Senate be terminated in order to pass this Act. This legislation is strongly opposed by civil rights groups across the country.
In the United States, as in Canada, there is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud by non-citizens. A requirement to produce proof of citizenship is a solution in search of a problem. And it is a solution with potentially serious side effects.
The objection to the requirement of proof of citizenship as a condition of voting is that it has the effect of disenfranchising some of the most vulnerable members of society.
One third of Canadian citizens do not have passports. To state the obvious, those without passports are those who are not travelling outside the country. And those who are not travelling outside the country, on average, are less affluent than those who are travelling outside the country. For more affluent Canadians holding passports, producing proof of citizenship isn’t particularly burdensome. For less affluent Canadians without passports, producing proof of citizenship is more challenging.
Question 5 proposes birth certificates or citizenship cards as alternatives to passports for proving citizenship for the purpose of voting. But not everyone has their birth certificate readily available. And obtaining a citizenship certificate (citizenship “cards” referred to in Question 5 are no longer issued) requires a birth certificate for those born in Canada and additional documentation for those born outside Canada.
Again, for some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, including those who are unhoused, the requirement to produce this documentation may present a barrier to voting.
As there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud involving attempts to vote by persons who are not Canadian citizens, there is no justification for requiring Canadian citizens to produce documentation proving their citizenship as a condition of voting.
For this reason, we are voting NO on Question 5.
If you’re voting by mail, NO you don’t have to attest that you’re not able to vote in person.
Check out this article written by Cole Bennett on cole.notecole and the How To Vote section on our website for detailed instructions.
Opinion: Referendum questions are meant to divide Albertans
Originally published at EdmontonJournal.com on September 2, 2026.
On Oct. 19, Albertans are being asked to vote on 10 troubling referendum questions. We believe the five discriminatory and hateful questions targeting new Albertans deserve more attention, and we are united in calling out the divisive politics and poor leadership behind them.
The question of Alberta’s independence has sucked up most of the oxygen, but the other questions deserve scrutiny for what they reveal about the politics of the day. Rejecting them all, particularly the mean-spirited immigration questions, offers a chance to stand up for a welcoming Alberta within a stronger united Canada.
Four questions seek to treat some immigrants differently, limiting or withholding their access — or, appallingly, their children’s access — to education, health care and other social supports. These questions are framed as fiscal measures, as if human beings are nothing but the cost of the services they use. As elected leaders, we all took oaths to serve and respect everyone who lives here, even our guests.
That used to go without saying. By contrast, the thrust of these four questions would effectively create a caste system in Alberta. We reject that inhospitable worldview — that’s not the Alberta we know.
Another question asks whether folks should have to show proof of citizenship at the time they vote (regardless of whether they are already on the voters list). However, there is not one shred of evidence that anyone is voting illegally. This question is there simply to imply that some immigrants are voting improperly — which has troubling echoes of the American far right’s campaign in the 1960s to keep Black voters from casting ballots, and is making it needlessly harder for all of us to exercise our democratic rights.
(On this point, along with the cumbersome multi-ballot process that will likely create longx lines, we strongly recommend eligible voters request mail-in ballots for your own convenience, and to make space at the polls for others.)
Who We Are
Before You Vote was created by a small group of concerned citizens troubled by the lack of credible, fact-based information about the issues facing our province and country. We’ve all worked in or near government, public service, media and laws throughout our careers.