Alberta Oct. 19 2026 referendum - Premier Danielle Smith will try to get support for UCP government blaming new arrivals, immigrants for its record in providing less-than-quality core services

On Feb. 19, 2026, Premier Danielle Smith announced that in addition to a possible citizen-initiated question on separation from Canada or staying in Canada,

her government will be putting nine government-initiated questions to voters on October 19, 2026:

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?

"decreasing immigration" -- three years ago Alberta advertized for immigrants (skilled workers); (see https://globalnews.ca/news/11675260/alberta-danielle-smith-immigration-constitution-referendum/) Now the government is talking about putting up barriers. by immigration does the UCP mean immigrants coming to Canada or does it include in-migration from other provinces. federal government has jurisdiction over how many come to Canada. and

"Prioritizing economic migration" -- we have free labour movement within Canada - is Alberta government actually considering implementing border controls, to prevent people from coming into Alberta, if they don't come for economic reasons? Would we prevent inter-province marriages?

"giving Albertans' first priority on new employment opportunities"

- a hire-Albertans-first policy, irrespective of skills - for new jobs... but perhaps old jobs can still be filled based on suitability.

What is difference between old job openings and new job opportunities? How do we tell them apart?

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?

are the "provincially-funded programs" the same as "social support programs" in question 3 and the same as the "social programs" and "social services" in question 8.

there are very few in Alberta who do not fall into those three categories. Just:

-temporary workers (perhaps)

-illegal immigrants.

if this is passed by majority of voters, will the UCP government close the hospitals to temporary workers, and to anyone who cannot prove with documents on hand that they are a citizen, a permanent resident, or have an Alberta-approved immigration status (whatever that is)?

Even if that person will die without treatment?

3. 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?

are the "social support programs" in this question the same as the "social programs" and "social services" in question 8.

if this is passed by majority of voters, will the UCP government close the hospitals to legal immigrants who have not lived here for at least 12 months even if they need life-saving treatment?

if this is passed by majority of voters, will the government close the hospitals to temporary workers who have not lived here for at least 12 months even if they need life-saving treatment?

if we do this , hospitals will have to check both immigrant status and length of stay in Alberta of patients. Anyways, it is very hard to prove how long you have lived in Alberta, unless the UCP governments establishes foreigner registration offices.

immigration is not the cause of hospitals performing badly these days -

Edmonton population has grown it is true but not only from immigration from outside Canada but also due to people arriving from other parts of Canada and from births.

But also note

Edmonton has fewer full-service hospitals relative to its population size compared to 1988.

and in fact it has fewer hospitals now than it did in 1990.

While Edmonton has added specialized clinics and expanded existing facilities, no new major acute-care hospital has been built in Edmonton since the Grey Nuns Community Hospital opened in 1988. (Google AI research)

as well, the Edmonton General Hospital ceased operations as an acute care facility in the mid-1990s.

of course some hospitals have been expanded since 1988, but looking at actual hospitals, Edmonton has fewer hospitals now than it had in 1990.

4. 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?

in other words bringing in extra billing for people with non-permanent immigration status . This applies to just a wafer-thin portion of the population, but still if a temporary worker gets hurt on the job or injured in a car accident, he or she will not be treated unless he or she pays a special fee -- really, think about that.

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?

They are still pushing myth that our elections are faulty. Meantime at least one voter was dropped from the voters list even though she has lived in same house of more than 20 years.

But perhaps that is what we can expect from this UCP government - many in certain sections of the province dropped from voters list and then required to produce passport, birth certificate or citizenship card to vote, instead of just proof of residency and age. so-called "voter suppression".

Constitution

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?

this would allow UCP government to control judges, and thus potentially (at least indirectly) control who is punished and who is allowed to go scot-free.

Likely appointed judges would be encouraged to to be gentle on speeders and oil companies and coal mining corporations, polluters?

trans youth and Indigenous activists can expect a hard time under such system.

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 federal Senate?

That is what we need -- a triple-A Senate - abolished, abolished, abolished.

long a cry of Labour and socialist groups.

Put all legislative power in the hands of the elected House of Commons.

But we need the House of Commons to change so that we not have:

-wrong-winner elections where a party with fewer votes than another party takes more seats.

-false-majority results where a party with less than half the votes takes a majority of seats in the HofC

unicameralism with dependence on just the HofC is fine, as long as HofC is fairly elected through some form of Proportional Representation,

or even a semi-PR system such as each voter having one vote and each district electing five MPs, or three in rural ares, and in some single-seat districts. Even that simple system would be an improvement on the present first past the post winner-take-all contests in 342 separate micro-districts.

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?

Notice vague phrasing -- are "social programs" different from "social services"?

Wouldn't be great for Alberta UCP government to get the same amount of money from federal government but not need to adhere to Canadian healthcare principles such as free quality public healthcare with no extra-billing, etc.

As if that is going to happen -- talk about having cake and eating it too.

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?

if a province's laws are given priority over federal laws, then really federal laws are going to be weak.

that is not better "protect provincial rights" and is really about having separate legal system, with federal laws being used only in un-important areas.

surely Canadian Criminal Code has to apply within Alberta, even if Alberta UCP passes its own laws....

=============================================

All in all, we see unclear questions, and many of the proposals are difficult or impossible to achieve under Canada constitution. For example, all provinces except AB, SK and BC stand by need for unanimous consent by provinces to abolition of the Senate. [although in old days (1980s), Quebec saw no need for it to have veto as it had opposed the repatriation of the Constitution in the first place.]

Back in 1920s, Robert Michel warned that plebiscite ought to be avoided (viewed with critical eyes) as "a Fuhrer would lead the people astray through unclear questions and would himself be solely entitled to interpret the results afterwards." (Michel (1925) (author's translation), p. 431 as cited in OHES, p. 374-5)

plebiscites were seen as the most important of the screen devices that Hitler used to gain legitimacy. (Voeglin 91940), p. 193)

the instance of plebiscite under authoritarian regimes seems self-contradictory, but it perhaps allows outlet for opposition but principally is way to legitimacy of sorts.

if voters are used out to vote, then it way to control voters and impose discipline on them. regime used plebiscites as a way to demonstrate [control over voters], to indoctrinate people, and to test control over them. (Lately 1969 (paraphrased, p. 145 as cited in OHES, p. 376)

perhaps way to smoke out opposition voters, leaders etc.

but in Hitler's plebiscites, whether voters were forced to vote in favour of Hitler's proposals or not, the results of plebiscites in 1933, 934, 1936 and 1938 showed vast majority in favour, thus some saw widespread approval. (OHES, p. 376)

plebiscites become a mechanism of repression and control. (OHES, p. 376)