Alberta's 2026 Referendum: All 10 Ballot Questions

Official wording

Should Alberta remain a province in 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 in 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.

What it means

Voters pick one of two options: that Alberta should stay a province, or that the government should begin the legal steps toward a separate, binding referendum on separation at some future date. The Order in Council states this result is not binding, so choosing to start the process would not by itself remove Alberta from Canada.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for the province seeking a larger role over immigration: lower overall levels, more emphasis on economic immigrants, and priority for Albertans on new jobs. Immigration is a shared federal-provincial responsibility under section 95 of the Constitution, so any change would still involve the federal government and existing agreements.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for a law that limits provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services, to citizens, permanent residents, and people with an Alberta-approved immigration status. Any rules would still have to fit federal conditions such as the Canada Health Act and Charter requirements.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for requiring people with a non-permanent immigration status to live in Alberta for at least 12 months before they can access provincially-funded social support, while citizens and permanent residents keep their current access. The Canada Health Act caps health-coverage waiting periods at three months.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for charging people with a non-permanent immigration status a fee or premium for their family's use of public health care and education, while citizens and permanent residents keep their current access. What can be charged is shaped by the Canada Health Act and federal coverage rules.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for a law requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, in order to vote in provincial elections. Only Canadian citizens are currently eligible to vote in Alberta provincial elections.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for amending the Constitution, with other willing provinces, so provincial governments rather than the federal government would choose the judges appointed to Alberta's Court of King's Bench and Court of Appeal. Changing how those judges are appointed would require a constitutional amendment.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for working with other willing provinces to amend the Constitution and abolish the appointed federal Senate. Abolishing the Senate requires the agreement of Parliament and all ten provinces under the constitutional amending formula.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for a constitutional amendment, sought with other willing provinces, that would let provinces opt out of federal programs in areas like health, education and social services while keeping the related federal funding for their own programs. This would change how the federal spending power and provincial jurisdiction interact.

Official wording

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?

What it means

A yes signals support for a constitutional amendment, sought with other willing provinces, that would give a province's laws priority over conflicting federal laws in areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction. This would alter the current rule of federal paramountcy, under which federal law prevails in a genuine conflict.