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.

Question 4: Why should we charge newcomers fees for education and health care?

Question 4

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to quality for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the health care and education systems?

• This referendum question asks Albertans to approve imposing fees on non-permanent residents (temporary foreign workers, international students and refugee claimants) and their families to access health care and education.

• Albertans are being asked to vote on this question without any estimate of the revenue the fees would generate or the impact they would have on the people affected.

• The vast majority of temporary residents are paying taxes and contributing to the economy like other Albertans. Why should they pay fees in addition to that?

Background

On the government’s website that provides background on the referendum questions, it is estimated that temporary residents (temporary foreign workers, students and refugee claimants) cost the province $400 million in health care costs annually and $600 million in education costs for the 45,544 children of temporary residents. It is important to note that the government has not disclosed the details of these estimates or how they were calculated.

• The website fails to mention that the federal government covers some health care costs for refugees and refugee claimants.

• The Alberta government also fails to mention that reputable long-term studies have shown that immigrants and temporary residents, who are generally younger and must pass a medical examination before entry to Canada, have fewer chronic conditions and better health compared with the average Canadian.

According to Statistics Canada, the number of non-permanent residents in Alberta increased from 87,684 at the end of 2021 to 281,857 at the end of 2025, primarily due to the increase in temporary foreign workers as Alberta employers have increasingly relied on foreign workers to fill labour shortages.

• While those numbers grew quickly over the four years, non-permanent residents in Alberta account for less than 6% of the province’s population of about five million people.

• Starting in 2025, in response to concerns about increasing numbers of non-permanent residents, the federal government reduced immigration levels and temporary resident permits. Alberta’s Quarterly Population Reports show that the number of non-permanent residents in Alberta fell throughout 2025.

• While Statistics Canada reports that Alberta consistently attracts about 10% of Canada’s non-permanent residents, most of Alberta’s recent population gains due to interprovincial migration.

International students pay more than three times the tuition fees that domestic undergraduate students pay, covering the full direct and indirect costs of their education.

• These high tuition fees provide important revenue for Alberta’s post-secondary institutions (PSI) as the revenue helps the PSIs invest in educational programs, some of which would not otherwise be available to domestic and international students alike.

• International students, whose numbers are limited by a federal cap on international study permits, also contribute culturally to the campuses they attend, so provide domestic students with an opportunity to learn in a multi- cultural setting.

There are strict limits on how many temporary foreign residents can work in Alberta:

• There are stringent federal requirements for employers to hire temporary foreign workers. Employers must apply to Employment and Social Development Canada for a Labour Market Impact Assessment to ensure that no Canadians or permanent residents are available to do the job and that there is a need for the temporary foreign worker.

• While some temporary workers are exempt from this requirement and have an open work permit, this is limited to temporary workers such as students, refugees and family members of work permit holders and is not a free-for-all as suggested by the Alberta Government.

• According to Statistics Canada, the majority of non-permanent residents in Alberta have work permits (68%), while 16% have study permits and 7% have both a work and study permit. Less than 10% are accompanying family members or do not have work or study permits.

The impact of imposing fees:

People who live, work, and study in Alberta help fund public services and contribute to the economy through taxes, consumer spending and foreign student fees. This proposal would require many to pay twice for services that their taxes already support.

• Requiring non-permanent residents to pay extra health care or education fees could make Alberta less attractive relative to other provinces competing for the same talent. This will impact people we want to come to Alberta, including nurses and health-care workers, skilled tradespeople, agricultural workers, technology workers and international students.

Many temporary workers have children who attend Alberta schools. These temporary workers and their children often become permanent residents.

• If there are barriers to the children receiving education before they become permanent residents, there could be long term costs and consequences for the province and the families.

• The Alberta Teachers’ Association and Alberta School Boards Association oppose restricting access to provincially funded public education based on a child’s immigration status. These organizations recognize children’s right to education as articulated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• They are also concerned of the impacts restrictions on public education would have on immigrant children, who would be denied the opportunity to develop social connections and develop the skills needed to participate fully in society.

The same holds for health care. Fees, in addition to taxes, could be a barrier to temporary workers and their families getting timely health care and lead to greater costs and poor health outcomes down the road.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 4.

Question 5: Voter ID: A solution in search of a problem

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?

• There is no evidence of voter fraud in Alberta or lack of trust in our voting system.

• Steps like this are borrowed from the US and don’t have a place in Alberta’s democratic system.

• We should be encouraging more people to vote, not putting unnecessary roadblocks in the way.

How would voting change if this was implemented?

If this proceeds, when you go to vote in an Alberta provincial election, in addition to your driver’s licence (which in future will include your citizenship status) or other forms of accepted ID, you would have to show proof of citizenship. For most of us, that would mean showing a passport or Canadian birth certificate. (New Canadians could present a Canadian citizenship certificate.)

What percentage of Albertans currently hold a passport? Unless people travel internationally, why would they have a passport? How many people have a copy of their birth certificate handy? How many women would have their right to vote questioned if the name on their birth certificate doesn’t match the name on their driver’s license because they took their husband’s name when they married? (This has become a controversial issue in the US where proof of citizenship has been proposed as a voting requirement.)

In effect, this adds another unnecessary hurdle to voting at a time when it’s more important than ever for people to get out to vote.

What problem is this intended to solve?

Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, introduced by the UCP government in 2024 strengthened the requirement for people to present physical identification at a polling station and eliminated the practice of vouching – where a verified person living in their polling district could attest to another person’s identity to allow them to vote. Minister Ric McIver was quoted as saying that Bill 20 was about “strengthening the rules so that Albertans can continue to have trust in local elections.” The same reasoning, we assume, applies to this question.

On the government’s referendum website, they state that this proposal is intended to “help make sure that only Albertans who are Canadian citizens are represented in the outcomes of elections.” Critics suggest this measure is targeted specifically at immigrants.

But the fact is, there isn’t any evidence of voter fraud or hordes of ineligible voters showing up to vote that would justify the need for these additional measures. Between 2013 and the last provincial election in 2023, Elections Alberta had recorded only seven cases of voting irregularities. And there is no evidence that Albertans have lost trust in local elections.

Why take this step and what impact would it have?

University of Alberta professor Dr. Jared Wesley in his article “ID? Please.” states that in practice, voter ID laws:

• Borrow directly from the Trump playbook

• Prevent more eligible voters than fraudsters from participating

• Disproportionately affect the most marginalized groups in our politics

• Reduce the number of options for voters to prove their identity

• Rely on an inflated sense of how many people have the necessary ID

• Overestimate the electoral advantage it confers on right-wing citizens

Setting aside the political arguments, it’s hard to not conclude that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Our view

Voter turnout for elections in Alberta is relatively low. It dropped from 67.5% of eligible voters in 2019 to 59.5% in 2023. Those who believe in the importance of our democratic right to have our say through elections should not support putting more unnecessary roadblocks in the way of people turning up to vote. Current ID requirements are sufficient.

We are voting NO on Question 5.

Question 6: Appointment of Judges and the Rule of Law

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?

• At the heart of our judicial system is the fundamental principle that judges are required to act independently and impartially and to apply the law.

• The government’s role is to enact laws that are in the best interests of its citizens; the courts’ role is to ensure those laws are applied correctly and consistently.

• Democracies worldwide require their judges to be impartial and free of any government or other improper influence.

The question as framed appears benign. Those who favour separation will see the proposed change as entirely appropriate. Others, who understand the importance of the rule of law and the underlying intention of the question, will view it with alarm.

How are judges appointed now?

Alberta has three levels of courts: the Alberta Court of Justice, the Court of Kings Bench of Alberta, and the Court of Appeal of Alberta. All three levels of court are established by Alberta legislation. The court houses are built and maintained by the province and the staff (other than the judges) are Alberta government employees.

The Alberta Court of Justice handles the vast majority of legal cases including criminal, regulatory and civil cases such as traffic violations, offences against provincial laws, youth matters, family law and summary criminal offences. As set out in Canada’s Constitution, judges and justices of the peace of this court are appointed by and paid by the Alberta government.

The Court of King’s Bench acts as the superior trial court. It handles the most serious criminal trials (like murder or drug trafficking), corporate litigation, bankruptcy, estate disputes, and divorce. Pursuant to the constitution, judges of the Court of King’s Bench are appointed by and paid by the government of Canada.

The Court of Appeal reviews whether errors of law or fact occurred in judgements by the Court of King’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Justice. It sits as a panel of judges, usually three. As set out in the constitution, judges of this court are appointed by and paid by the government of Canada.

This structure for the appointment of judges to certain courts by the provincial government and the appointment of judges to certain other courts by the federal government has been in place throughout the country’s 159-year history.

The current appointment process for federally appointed judges, designed and implemented by the Mulroney government and subsequently modified by the Harper government, is as follows. Each province has at least one seven-member Judicial Advisory Committee tasked with screening applications for judicial appointment.

The committees are composed of a representative of the province’s judiciary, as well as representatives of the provincial law society and Canadian Bar Association. In addition, each committee has four members at large (provincial residents), three nominated by the federal government and one by the provincial government.

All applicants are required to submit a comprehensive application outlining their qualifications as well as their legal and community experiences. Notably, they are not asked to state their position on any matter they may be called upon to adjudicate if appointed.

The committees carefully review all applications and undertake comprehensive reference and reputation checks to ensure the candidates recommended for appointment possess the personal characteristics and experience required to discharge judicial duties fairly and impartially.

The federal government has promised to appoint only those applicants recommended by the committee and at the present time, this occurs without exception.

This screening process ensures a uniform national standard for the appointment of qualified judges.

Alberta has a similar screening process in place for the appointment of judges and justices of the peace of the Alberta Court of Justice.

So why change it?

Premier Smith has explained her concern. Her dissatisfaction with judicial authority was first voiced during the UCP leadership race to replace Premier Jason Kenney. Ms. Smith announced then that if she were elected Premier, she may decide to ignore decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada that were not in Alberta’s interests. The push back from all but her base was unanimous - the resulting chaos would destroy both the economy and social order; Alberta would be unable to attract investment without a properly functioning legal system. A few weeks after she won the UCP leadership Ms. Smith announced she was abandoning the idea.

More recently, the Premier advised that her government was increasingly willing to resort to the Notwithstanding Clause of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to counter judicial decisions which in her opinion, strayed too far from the public interest. In other words, that the government would protect legislation that courts may find unconstitutional – another way of overcoming judgments thought to be unfavorable.

In the ensuing discussion the Premier defended her position and shared her philosophy regarding the proper role of the judiciary. As reported by the Canadian Press, the Premier has said:

“Unelected judges making decisions without oversight, and without having to go to the people to get the democratic endorsement of their view – that’s not democracy. When elected officials make decisions, that is democracy.”

That followed an earlier comment by the Premier:

“We are not going to defer to unelected judges who do not have democratic accountability on their side.”

Another time, on her radio program, the Premier mused that she “wished she could direct judges.”

Other than President Trump, no duly elected leader of a democratic society has voiced such thoughts.

Undermining the fundamental role of the judiciary

The statements by the Premier and others evidence a profound and disturbing misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary and the importance of judicial independence.

At the heart of our judicial system is the fundamental principle that judges are required to act independently and impartially and to apply the law. Their decisions are not made on the basis of the political leanings of the party in office when they were appointed. Nor are they made on the basis of what might appear to be popular opinion or the opinion of the majority. In fact, some laws, like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Act are expressly intended to protect the rights of minorities.

The government’s role is to enact laws that are in the best interests of its citizens; the courts’ role is to ensure those laws are applied correctly and consistently.

In response to the Premier’s statements, the three Chief Judges of Alberta, leaders of the three levels of court, took the unprecedented step of releasing a joint public statement to explain the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence in a democracy.

No other Canadian province, no other Western democracy, indeed no true democracy anywhere in the world allows its government to “direct” judges or have its judicial independence compromised in any way. The opposite is true – all require their judges be impartial and free of any government or other improper influence.

Judges who would allow their decisions to be influenced to favour the government that appointed them or take direction from that or any government would corrupt our justice system. In fact, this is the very reason judges in Canada are not elected; their role is to decide cases based on the law, not on what they think they need to do to be re-elected.

We must remember that there can be no justice without the rule of law and judicial independence which is an integral aspect of the rule of law. They are the foundation of every functioning judicial system, which in turn is the foundation of every true democracy.

So it is of concern when the Premier and others persist in speaking of the need to bend the judiciary to the government’s will.

And that appears to be the objective of this question Albertans will be asked to answer in October.

Our View

Based on our analysis, we are voting no to question 6.

Question 7: On the Senate

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 Senate?

Background: The Role of the Senate

• The Senate of Canada is an integral part of Canada's parliamentary democracy. It was designed to provide "sober second thought" on legislation passed by the House of Commons, to represent regional interests, and to serve as a check on the power of elected governments.

• While the Senate has evolved significantly over the past 159 years, debates about its role, effectiveness, and method of appointment continue to shape discussions about its future.

• The Senate was created by the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act). The Fathers of Confederation looked to both the British House of Lords and the United States Senate when designing Canada's upper chamber. Several objectives informed its creation. The Senate was specifically designed to represent regions within the federation. Over time, it has also become a forum for voices that may be underrepresented in electoral politics, including Indigenous peoples, linguistic minorities, and other minorities within Canadian society. 

• Seats in the Senate are allocated by region: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces and the Western Provinces each have 24 seats; Newfoundland and Labrador has 6 seats and the three Territories each have one seat. This distribution reflects the historical reality at the time of Confederation and later constitutional amendments.

• Most bills passed by the House of Commons must also be approved by the Senate before becoming law. Senators review legislation clause by clause and may propose amendments. The Senate can vote against legislation sent to them from the House of Commons, but this happens rarely. Much of the Senate's influence is exercised through its committees.

• Senate committees generally do outstanding work, often taking the time to consider important issues of public policy that House of Commons committees do not have the time for, or interest in taking up. Senate committees often hear from a wide range of people and interests that may not have other means of having their voices and concerns heard.

• Under the Constitution, senators are formally appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Historically, appointments were largely partisan, with prime ministers selecting individuals affiliated with their political party.

Senate Reform:

Discussions  and debate about the usefulness of the Senate and its ability to fairly represent the regions of Canada, helped lead to the creation of the Reform Party which demanded a Triple “E” Senate: elected, equal and effective. 

The Reform Party was a powerful voice for change, and when Stephen Harper became Prime Minister in 2006, he began his pursuit of Senate reform. None of his initiatives, legislative or otherwise, succeeded and in 2014 he submitted a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking a series of questions regarding fundamental change to the Senate, including its abolition. 

The Court’s response to those questions put severe constraints on the possibility of making major changes to the Senate. The Court emphasized that the Senate is a foundational component of Canada's constitutional architecture and cannot be fundamentally transformed without substantial provincial participation. It concluded that: 

• Parliament alone cannot create an elected Senate. 

• Parliament alone cannot impose term limits that fundamentally alter the institution. 

• Abolishing the Senate would require unanimous consent of Parliament and all provinces.

• Changing the fundamental characteristics of the Senate, such as electing senators, altering provincial seat allocations and modifying senators’ tenure, would require approval of Parliament and at least seven provinces representing at least 50 percent of Canada's population: the 7/50 formula.

After the Supreme Court decision, Prime Minister Harper abandoned all attempts at Senate Reform.

In 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to create a more independent, less partisan Senate but was constrained by the 2014 court decision. 

To make the kind of change he wanted, he established an Independent Advisory Board to vet interested candidates for the Senate and create a short-list from which he could make appointments.

He also removed Liberal Senators from the Liberal government caucus and indicated that they would sit as independents.  Today, individual Senators sit in several caucuses or groups: the Independent Senators Group; the Canadian Senators Group; the Progressive Senators Group; the Conservative Party of Canada; and the Non-affiliated group.

This year, Prime Minister Carney announced that he believes being a partisan should not be a barrier to a Senate appointment. Two of his recent appointments reflect this change. He also appears to be looking for Senators with expertise in areas that will help move his economic agenda through the legislative process more quickly.

The Reality:

Given the 2014 Supreme Court ruling that abolishing the Senate would require the consent of Parliament (including the Senate itself) and the unanimous consent of all ten provinces, it is almost impossible to imagine that any effort to abolish the Senate will be successful.

And considering that one of the founding principles of the Senate is the protection of regional interests, it seems unlikely that Alberta would find many “other willing provinces” agreeing to give up on that principle, however flawed it may be in practice.

The reality is that even if a majority of Albertans vote yes to this question, there is little chance that anything will happen as a result, other than, perhaps, futile and divisive debates, that distract from the more important issues facing Alberta.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 7.

Question 8: Opting Out is the Wrong Tool

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?

• The federal government has an interest in national programming so that all Canadians enjoy relatively equal access to the social programs it views as important to the wellbeing of citizens, regardless of where they live.

• The question seeks a constitutional amendment and it’s hard to imagine parliament would agree to a change which limits their power to enact programs.

• The better path is to keep negotiating the terms of federal-provincial cooperation, as governments have done for decades.

Background

In the power-sharing arrangement between the federal and provincial governments, the Constitution provides that the federal government can raise money through its power to tax citizens, both directly, where the tax is demanded of the very person intended to pay it (for example, income tax), and indirectly (for example, customs duties and the goods and services tax (GST)). Provinces can also raise money, but only through direct taxation within the province, such as personal income tax, retail sales tax, and resource royalties.

Building on its taxing and appropriation powers, the federal government is generally understood to have a “federal spending power,” giving it the ability to spend the money it raises and to make grants to provinces or individuals, even in respect of subjects that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The spending power is not defined in the Constitution. It is an implied power, located in a combination of provisions: public property (s 91(1A)), taxation (s 91(3)), and the appropriation of federal funds (s 106).

The Supreme Court of Canada has never definitively ruled on its existence or limits, but appellate courts have upheld it: in Winterhaven Stables, the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that Ottawa may spend the money it properly raises and may attach conditions to that spending, so long as the conditions do not in substance amount to regulating a matter outside federal authority.

The democratically elected government of the day may pass laws and set policies to advance the mandate given to it by voters. Its spending choices range from economic ones, such as the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, to social ones such as childcare, health care, pharmacare, and dental care. Some of these areas fall under provincial constitutional authority, which is precisely why Ottawa uses the spending power rather than a direct power to legislate.

Why does the federal government get involved in areas of provincial authority, such as health care, post-secondary education, childcare, and pharmacare?

The federal government has an interest in national programming so that all Canadians enjoy relatively equal access to the social programs it views as important to the wellbeing of its citizenry, regardless of where they live or what their means may be, so that there are national standards for the basics necessary to live a life with dignity. Some provinces have resisted federal conditions on the use of these funds, for reasons that include the long-term sustainability and design of the programs.

Do the provinces have a say?

Yes. For decades, and to this day, federal social objectives have been pursued through the spending power with varying degrees of collaboration with the provinces, expressed in negotiated multilateral and bilateral agreements that provide for reporting and accountability. Courts have confirmed that Ottawa may set, and later change, the conditions attached to these transfers.

In a number of areas, Quebec has secured asymmetrical arrangements with compensation. Canada is, in this sense, like a family of individuals with different philosophies and politics, pooling resources so that each member has enough support to meet basic needs and pursue the life they want, while remaining, constitutionally, equal and coordinated partners rather than dependents.

What is a recent example of the federal spending power used for the benefit of all Canadians?

A recent example is the federal government’s April 2021 commitment to drastically reduce childcare costs across the country. Childcare and family advocates celebrated it as an historic investment. Premier Jason Kenney initially decried the program as supporting only “nine-to-five, urban, government and union-run institutional daycare options,” but Alberta ultimately signed on, illustrating both the friction the spending power can create, and the benefits provinces secure by participating.

What would Question 8 actually require?

This is the part the question does not spell out. Question 8 does not ask for a policy change; it asks for a constitutional amendment. Amending the division of powers engages Part V of the Constitution Act, in particular the general (“7/50”) amending formula: it requires resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least fifty per cent of the population. Alberta “working with willing provinces” could not achieve this on its own; the federal Parliament would also need to agree; a significant hurdle, since it would mean Ottawa consenting to limits on its own programs.

The closing words of the question deserve particular attention: opting out “without a province losing any of the associated federal funding.” Much of that funding is conditional precisely because it secures the national standards the programs are designed to deliver. In practice, the question asks Parliament to continue the funding while a province steps away from those shared standards.

What does the question really ask?

At its core, Question 8 asks Albertans to support the province’s ability to set its own course on social priorities pursued nationally, while continuing to receive the associated federal funding. Those priorities have historically reflected widely shared Canadian values such as supported childcare and accessible, publicly funded health care, aimed at ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of circumstance, has the essentials to live a life with dignity.

Our view

The concern behind Question 8 is worth taking seriously, and provinces are right to press for a fair partnership. But this particular remedy is the wrong tool for the problem. The better path is to keep negotiating the terms of federal-provincial cooperation, as governments of all stripes have done for decades.

We are voting NO on Question 8.

Question 9: Greater Provincial Powers: Be Careful What you Wish For

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?

We ought never lose sight of the great genius of our constitutional structure, which has produced a free and secure democracy, one that has served Canadians well for 155 years. Our ancestors chose a federal, not unitary, structure for a purpose – to unify separate colonies and create a country. The negotiated division of powers lies at the heart of what makes this country what it is, and why, despite significant tensions from time to time, Canada has been able to survive and prosper since confederation. It remains one of this country’s greatest strengths. It will continue to benefit present and future generations as we face the environmental, economic, and security challenges ahead, providing that we respect the principles on which Canada has been founded: federalism, responsible government, and the rule of law.

— Chief Justice C. Fraser, Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165

Background

In 1867, the Constitution — the supreme law of Canada — was drafted to allocate powers, or areas of jurisdiction, between the federal government and the provinces to ensure a functional federalist democracy.

Federal powers include the power to make laws for peace, order and good government, the regulation of trade and commerce, and the criminal law. Provincial powers include the power to make laws for property and civil rights, municipalities, and non-renewable natural resources.

Some areas have a “double aspect”: both governments may share power to make laws, requiring cooperation and determination by the courts if they cannot agree. Shared powers, shaped by judges’ decisions, include the power to make laws regarding the environment.

1. What is the rule now?

When a federal and a provincial law truly clash in an area both can legislate, courts hold that the federal law applies and the provincial law is set aside — not struck down, just paused while the clash lasts. Judges built this rule (called “federal paramountcy”) over more than a century and use it sparingly.

2. What is the question is asking?

It asks Albertans to support reversing the rule about which law applies — so that in shared areas the province’s law applies, and the federal one is set aside where they clash.

3. When does this paramountcy rule matter?

Only where both governments are allowed to make laws on the same topic. In areas that are the province’s alone, like schools or hospitals, Alberta’s law already applies.

4. How was this paramountcy rule established?

Federal paramountcy isn’t written plainly into the Constitution. Judges developed it over more than a century of cases — and they use it sparingly, so most of the time both laws are allowed to stand. An approach of cooperative federalism has developed.

5. What are “shared areas” of power in the Constitution?

The Constitution has no clear list of “shared” areas; judges have made decisions over time as new areas of jurisdiction are identified. One area the courts have decided is a shared power is the environment. Even if the change happened, people would end up in court arguing over which law applies or whether they can co-exist.

6. Can this change occur if there are other “willing provinces” on board?

Alberta cannot do this with a few friendly provinces. Changing the Constitution needs Parliament plus seven provinces holding half of Canada’s people — and Ottawa itself would have to agree to let provincial laws apply instead of its own.

7. Does this change proposed in the question require a full constitutional amendment?

Deciding which law applies when two clash sets the basic balance of power between Ottawa and the provinces, so changing it would need a full constitutional amendment. Governments would likely need to consult First Nations first.

8. Is the constitutional change asked for in the question realistic and possible?

No. The question ignores the complexities and is near impossible to achieve.

Constitutional powers and the legal decisions that have interpreted them over decades are complex, nuanced, and not easy to reduce to simple solutions like that proposed in this question. It seems that Alberta has put this question to a vote simply to stir up controversy, well knowing the suggestion of achieving a workable constitutional amendment on paramountcy is dreaming in technicolor.

Our View

A “yes” vote won’t change any law. It only requires the Alberta government to formally start a process to try to make a change. It would still need Ottawa and most of the country to agree – which almost certainly won’t happen.

We are voting NO on question 9.

The Muttart Foundation: Response to the Immigration Questions Included as part of the October 19th 2026, Provincial Referendum

“Canada’s and Alberta’s successful immigration programs have resulted in immigrants contributing to all sectors of the economy. Immigrants make up over one third of the workforces in the professional, scientific and technical services fields as well as in the accommodation and food services sectors. They comprise just over half of home child care providers and four out of ten early childhood educators.”

Jared Wesley and Patricia Paradis: The many hazards of Alberta's Option B

“In short, separatist leaders are selling the 10th referendum question as a low-risk way of strengthening Alberta’s bargaining position with Ottawa. Complacent federalists should not accept that premise, nor take the outcome for granted. The stakes are much too high.”

Timothy Caulfield: Alberta’s Separatists Are Chasing a Total Cowboy Fantasy

“Separatists in Alberta like to bring up safety and crime as significant concerns. […] These concerns, too, stem from false narratives. The crime rate in Alberta and Canada has been shrinking—for example, my hometown of Edmonton saw a 6 percent reduction in total crime and a 10 percent reduction in violent crime in 2024.”

Jason Markusoff: What some immigrants could lose if Alberta votes yes to Danielle Smith’s questions

“If Albertans vote yes to the five immigration questions on this fall’s referendum, many of Alberta’s 260,000 temporary workers and other non-permanent residents could lose their health and education coverage — while all the rest could have to pay access fees on top of the taxes they pay.”

— Jason Markusoff

Calgary Chamber: Alberta separatism: economic & business perspectives one-pager

“8 in 10 members think the separation discussion is negatively affecting Alberta’s economy.”

Calgary Chamber: Lessons from Brexit: The economic risks of using referendums to send a message

“Some Albertans have suggested they would support separation in a referendum primarily to send a message to Ottawa about concerns related to energy policy, federal decision-making, equalization or provincial autonomy. Brexit demonstrates that governments, financial markets and investors do not interpret referendum results as symbolic gestures. Instead, they evaluate how the outcome could affect future political and economic conditions.”