The Other Nine Questions

Advance voting in Alberta’s provincial referendum opened on Tuesday and runs through Saturday 17 October, with election day on Monday 19 October, Elections Alberta said. Each voter is handed ten colour-coded ballots, one per question, and drops each into its own box; a voter may decline any of them. This publication has already written about Question 10, the choice between remaining a province and asking the government to begin the legal process for a binding separation referendum. This piece is about the other nine, which differ from one another in what a majority could set in motion.

The Government of Alberta set all ten questions by Order in Council, according to the Elections Alberta referendum page. Two orders, O.C. 109/2026 and O.C. 110/2026, were approved on 31 March; a third, O.C. 160/2026, on 28 May. The page says O.C. 110/2026 (Questions 1 to 5) and O.C. 160/2026 (Question 10) order that the results “are not to be binding.” It describes O.C. 109/2026 (Questions 6 to 9) as setting out “constitutional questions” and says nothing either way about whether those results bind. It states no threshold for any question, and adds that “Elections Alberta may not interpret the questions,” referring voters to the government or their MLA.

Five questions about people, not the Constitution

Questions 1 to 5 concern immigration, provincial benefits and voting. Question 1 asks whether voters support the government “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.” Question 2 proposes a law making only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and people with an immigration status approved by Alberta eligible for provincially funded programs, “such as health care, education and other social services.”

Questions 3 and 4 both begin by assuming that citizens and permanent residents keep qualifying as they do now. Question 3 proposes a law requiring people with “a non-permanent legal immigration status” to live in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for provincially funded social support programs. Question 4 asks about the government charging people with a non-permanent immigration status “a reasonable fee or premium” for their and their family’s use of health care and education. Question 5 proposes a law requiring proof of citizenship, “such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card,” to vote in a provincial election.

Four of the five are framed as something the Government of Alberta would do itself: introduce a law or charge a fee. Question 1 is different in kind. Under section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, immigration is a shared field: a province may make laws on immigration into the province, but a provincial law has effect only “as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.” Whatever the count, the order makes these five results non-binding, so any law would still have to be drafted and passed.

Four questions that need other governments

Questions 6 to 9 each begin: “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution”. Question 6 would have “provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts”; section 96 of the 1867 Act now provides that “The Governor General shall appoint” the judges of the superior courts in each province. Question 7 would “abolish the unelected federal Senate.” Question 8 would “allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs.” Question 9 would “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.”

The phrase “other willing provinces” concedes the structure. Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 sets out the amending procedures. The general one, in section 38, requires resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces. Section 41 requires the Senate, the Commons and every provincial legislature for a short list of matters, among them the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada and any amendment to Part V itself. Under section 47, the Commons can proceed without the Senate on amendments under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 if the Senate has not acted within 180 days. Apart from a province’s power to amend its own constitution, every procedure in Part V requires the federal Parliament.

What the Senate question runs into

Question 7 is the one with a settled answer. In Reference re Senate Reform, decided on 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “the abolition of the Senate requires the unanimous consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all Canadian provinces,” under section 41(e). The federal government had argued that the general procedure was enough. The Court rejected that, saying abolition “would fundamentally alter our constitutional architecture” and would change how Part V itself works.

A yes on Question 7 would therefore ask the Alberta government to pursue a change that needs the agreement of Parliament and of every other provincial legislature. Alberta’s consent would be necessary, not close to sufficient.

For Questions 6, 8 and 9 there is no equivalent ruling, and Elections Alberta does not say which procedure the government has in mind. In the same reference the Court called section 38 “the procedure of general application” and the other procedures “exceptions to the general rule.” That much is settled. Which procedure would govern these three proposals is not, and this publication does not guess.

What the count will and will not settle

On the page’s own account, the government wrote the questions, ordered six of the ten results not to be binding and said nothing about the binding effect of the other four. Premier Danielle Smith has given no threshold for the nine; asked on 9 October, she said that “majority rule” seems to be how most decisions are made.

The count itself is set out in detail. Ballots are counted by hand, Question 10 first and then Questions 1 to 9 in order. The Referendum (General) Regulation requires counts to be completed and unofficial results published within 48 hours of the close of all voting locations on 19 October, and official results are to be announced on Thursday 29 October. What the government does with nine majorities is a separate question. Five ask for laws it would write itself; four ask it to go looking for partners.

Sources

The wording of all nine questions, the Orders in Council and their dates, the non-binding orders for Questions 1 to 5 and 10, the count order and Elections Alberta’s statement that it may not interpret the questions are from the Elections Alberta referendum page. The advance-voting dates, the ten-ballot procedure, the 48-hour rule and the 29 October date are from Elections Alberta’s 13 October news release. Sections 95 and 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 are quoted from the Justice Laws website. The Senate holding and the federal government’s argument are from the Supreme Court’s judgment, 2014 SCC 32. Smith’s remark is from CBC News, as reported in this publication on 10 October.