On October 19th, 2026, Albertans go to the polls to answer ten questions posed by the Maple MAGA premier, which, all together, are focused on undermining Canada. Passing individual policy decisions off to the electorate in this manner is to shirk her responsibility to govern, so we must consider them as a package with a specific objective. The questions bear close examination.
In the order asked — although not the order Elections Alberta intends to count them:
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?
Immigration is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. Alberta already has a series of agreements with the federal government, giving the province a say over certain aspects of immigration to the province. If the government of Alberta wishes to renegotiate their agreement with the federal government, this referendum question does not achieve anything new.
However, if the question is treated as the dog-whistle that it is, it changes the meaning rather completely. The phrasing implies to the voter reading it that the mass of arriving immigrants are stealing Albertans’ jobs, while also calling for “economic migration” — that is, moving in search of better jobs. It should be read for what it is: a call for a mandate to only accept certain types of immigrants, and all that implies.
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 is in the same vein as the first question. Alberta’s UCP government wants to filter immigrants for the right kind of people. Whether that’s ethnicity, country of origin, gender, financial status, or religion can be left up to the imagination. Those who are not accepted by Alberta under the policy this proposes would be denied healthcare and education, even if they were granted appropriate visas by the federal government.
Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs?
Right now, when a Canadian resident changes provinces, there is a three month lag for healthcare services. As with the first two questions, this proposes to place a barrier to entry for unfavourable migrants to the province by making them effectively stateless for nine months. Someone moving from Ontario to Alberta on an open work permit, for example, would lose Ontario’s services after three months, and have nine months with no coverage until Alberta accepts that they have arrived.
Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the healthcare and education systems?
Aside from being more dogwhistling about immigrants ‘costing’ current residents unduly, this is also asking Albertans to endorse a slippery slope strategy to privatise healthcare and education. Suggesting that families arriving in the country, and changing provinces along the way, pay premiums for otherwise universal services because their permanent residency applications have not yet been approved serves the dual purpose of opening the door to private payment of those services while also raising the barrier to entry to immigrants the government of Alberta deems undesirable.
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?
It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote. If there is evidence of fraudulent voting taking place, they should be prosecuted individually. This is a MAGA-style fear tactic to suggest that non-citizens voting is a rampant problem. It also raises the barrier to entry for existing citizens to vote, while not being foolproof. Even having an Alberta birth certificate does not guarantee the right to vote in an Alberta election. This is another dogwhistle.
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?
On its face, this can be construed as a legitimate question, but one has to consider why the question is being asked in the first place. I would advise Albertan federalists voting in this referendum to consider that Danielle Smith’s agenda is to assert provincial sovereignty for her province, and defang the courts to prevent them from obstructing her unconstitutional acts. Giving her appointment power over the arbiters of those decisions may not be wise.
Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?
The Senate is worthy of its own extensive writing, and it is on my todo list to do so. The Senate provides a value to our legislative system that is poorly understood but is easy to attack. The purpose of the Senate is to offer a house of “sober second thought” — that is, a legislative oversight body whose occupants do not have to consider their post-political careers and political debts in considering their votes on legislation. Abolishing the Senate is not about improving the quality or equity of our democratic institutions or systems, but about removing checks against short-sighted decision-making and obstructions to extremist agendas.
Once again, while the question appears fair on its surface, it is important to ask who wants to know and for what reason?
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?
As with some of the earlier questions, this is a backdoor attempt to break Canada’s already hurting universal healthcare system. National standards need enforceability. Having strings attached to federal funds to adhere to national standards is not only reasonable, it is to be expected. If the province wishes to opt out of national standards, they will have to opt out of national funding as well — and tax their residents accordingly.
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?
This question is also a leading question. Provincial law already has precedence on matters of provincial jurisdiction. Federal laws on those matters, as with the Canada Health Act, bring about national standards by attaching funding to the question. In joint or federal jurisdiction, the same should apply. The federal government retains authority over certain aspects of regulation and policy for a reason, ensuring pan-Canadian standards and interests are protected. The only purpose to this is for Alberta to, once again, undermine Canada as a confederated nation.
Which, of course, leads us to the most important question of all:
Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
The last time a Conservative government asked a question of its people on breaking a powerful political union that the Prime Minister of the day claimed not to want to happen, the United Kingdom pulled out of the European Union over its own better judgement. A decade on, the country has not recovered from Brexit, and now we’re facing the unexpected prospect of Canada holding a more comprehensive relationship with the EU than the UK has.
Aside from the numerous legal and logistical problems around Albexit, such a move would benefit two major players: the United States, who would be in a position to dominate Alberta’s energy industry to a greater degree than they already do and Russia, whose objective is the destabilisation of western democracies. It is not by accident that those two places are the major sources of funding for the separatist cause.
Elections Alberta has also not done the process any favours by undermining the credibility of the vote, shorting the registration period for special ballots by two weeks on September 3rd, changing it from October 9th to September 25th.
The ten questions on this referendum should be seen holistically. The Alberta government, while premier Smith claims to not want Alberta to separate, is doing everything it can to undermine Canada itself, and each of these questions tackles that objective from a slightly different angle.
While I reject the premise of this entire referendum, if I were still a resident of Alberta, I would be sure to show up and vote ‘no' on questions 1 through 9, and ‘remain’ on question 10.
So where is the pushback from the federal government and other provinces? Carney may have stopped (or slowed) appeasing Trump but he keeps walking and speaking gently around Smith. She is an existential threat to our country. We need strong leadership here, not just for our economic future but for the future of Canada itself.