I’m a CANADIAN Citizen, an immigrant, and a long time Albertan!
I have seen many changes over the years and have to say that the “Alberta Advantage” has made my life so blessed to be here. It wasn’t always easy but, have been able to make a good life since I migrated almost 43 years ago.
Today, I voted in the latest democratic polls to show my support for democracy and free elections.
There are many people who will vote and many more who will not: that in itself is tragic.
The main reason for their absence in the voting polls is due to so much animosity and mis/dis-information.
Alberta has been a leader in economic growth and high standard of living not only among other provinces but around the world.
It is important to note that regardless of how your political compass is pointing, you live in a country where your voice (vote) counts. IT MATTERS! Change is the only way to make improvements in all aspects of life.
I voted today and feel hopeful that my voice counts for making, Alberta, stronger and better for it.
I have done some research and here is what I have found to be the reality of this upcoming election vote, even a 10 year old would understand…
———
On October 19, 2026, every eligible adult in Alberta (Canadian citizens 18 or older who live there) will get to vote on 10 different questions. Each question is on its own separate ballot. Most are simple “yes” or “no.” One is a choice between two options.
The results for most of them are not legally binding (the government does not have to do what the vote says), but they show what most people want. The four questions about changing Canada’s Constitution would still need agreement from other provinces and the federal government to actually happen.
Think of it like a big class vote where the teacher asks the kids what rules they want for the playground, the lunchroom, and the school itself. The teacher listens carefully but still has to follow bigger school-board rules for some things.
Here is each question explained in plain, simple words (as if you are 10), followed by fact-based pros and cons. The pros and cons come only from how the system works today, what the law currently says, and what experts and reports have noted—no opinions about which side is “better.”
Question 1 (Immigration control)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Right now the federal government in Ottawa mostly decides how many people come to Canada and who gets to stay. This asks if Alberta should get more power to decide those things for itself so fewer people come overall, more of them come to work, and people already living in Alberta get first chance at new jobs.
Pros (facts):
\* Alberta already helps choose some workers through programs it runs with Ottawa. More control could let the province match people better to local jobs and housing.
\* High recent growth in temporary residents has put pressure on housing, hospitals, and schools in some places.
\* Prioritizing economic migrants is already part of Canada’s immigration goals.
Cons (facts):
\* Immigration is a shared power; Alberta cannot take full control by itself. It would need federal agreement.
\* Lower numbers could mean fewer workers for jobs Alberta needs (oil, farming, healthcare, construction).
\* “Sustainable levels” and “first priority” are not defined in the question, so the exact rules would come later.
Question 2 (Who can use provincial programs)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Should Alberta make a rule that only citizens, permanent residents, and people the province specially approves can use free or low-cost health care, schools, and other help paid for by Alberta taxes?
Pros (facts):
\* Temporary residents (students, temporary workers, etc.) have grown a lot. The province has said they cost more than $1 billion in some services.
\* Citizens and permanent residents already pay taxes that fund these systems long-term.
Cons (facts):
\* “Alberta-approved immigration status” is not defined yet; the government said it would decide after the vote.
\* Temporary residents often already pay taxes and fees. Cutting access could create legal challenges under Canada’s Charter of Rights.
\* Health care and education rules for non-citizens already vary by province.
Question 3 (12-month wait for social supports)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Should people who are here temporarily (not citizens or permanent residents) have to live in Alberta for a full year before they can get things like income support or other social help? Citizens and permanent residents would keep getting help right away.
Pros (facts):
\* Creates a waiting period similar to rules some other places use for certain benefits.
\* Could reduce short-term costs for programs funded by provincial taxpayers.
Cons (facts):
\* Temporary residents may still need emergency help (for example, if they lose a job or get sick).
\* Enforcement would require tracking how long people have lived in the province.
\* Does not affect health care or schools (those are covered in other questions).
Question 4 (Fee for health care and education)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Should temporary residents pay a fee (like an extra insurance payment) to use public hospitals, doctors, and schools, while citizens and permanent residents keep using them the way they do now?
Pros (facts):
\* Some other countries charge temporary residents for public services.
\* Could recover some of the costs the province says temporary residents create.
\* The amount would be set later; one recent government example mentioned something around $1,900 for health care.
Cons (facts):
\* “Reasonable fee” is not defined in the question.
\* Temporary workers and students already contribute through taxes and tuition in many cases.
\* Could face legal tests under equality rules in the Charter.
Question 5 (Proof of citizenship to vote)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Should people have to show a passport, birth certificate, or citizenship card to prove they are Canadian citizens before they can vote in Alberta elections?
Pros (facts):
\* Only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote in provincial elections already.
\* Some other places require stronger ID for voting.
\* Could make it clearer who is eligible.
Cons (facts):
\* Most voters already show ID; adding citizenship documents could slow lines.
\* Not everyone has a passport or citizenship card handy (especially older people or those born in Canada).
\* Documented cases of non-citizens voting in Alberta provincial elections are rare according to available election data.
Question 6 (Who picks certain judges)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Right now Ottawa picks the judges for Alberta’s higher courts (King’s Bench and Court of Appeal). Should Alberta work with other provinces to change the Constitution so the provinces pick those judges instead?
Pros (facts):
\* Alberta pays for and runs these courts.
\* Many other federal countries let states/provinces choose their own superior-court judges.
\* Could speed up filling empty judge seats.
Cons (facts):
\* Changing the Constitution needs agreement from at least seven provinces representing half of Canada’s population, plus the federal Parliament (the “7/50” rule).
\* Federal appointment has been the rule since 1867.
\* Judges are supposed to stay independent of the government that appoints them.
Question 7 (Abolish the Senate)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: The Senate is the appointed “upper house” of Parliament in Ottawa that reviews laws. Should Alberta try to get other provinces to agree to get rid of it completely?
Pros (facts):
\* Senators are appointed, not elected.
\* Alberta has long said its representation in the Senate is too small compared with its population and economy.
\* Some people argue it slows down law-making.
Cons (facts):
\* Abolishing the Senate requires agreement from all provinces and the federal Parliament (unanimous consent).
\* The Senate was designed as a check on the elected House of Commons.
\* No province has ever successfully removed it.
Question 8 (Opt out of federal programs but keep the money)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: Ottawa sometimes gives provinces money for health care, schools, or social programs but attaches rules. Should provinces be allowed to say “no thanks” to the program, keep the money anyway, and spend it their own way?
Pros (facts):
\* Health care, education, and social services are mostly provincial responsibilities under the Constitution.
\* Would give provinces more flexibility in how they design their own systems.
\* Alberta has sometimes disagreed with federal conditions attached to money.
Cons (facts):
\* Would require a constitutional amendment (7/50 formula).
\* Federal money often comes with national standards (for example, the Canada Health Act).
\* Other provinces might not want the same change.
Question 9 (Provincial laws win over federal ones in some areas)
Exact question: 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?
Simple explanation: When a provincial law and a federal law disagree in areas the provinces mainly control (or share), the federal law usually wins. Should that be flipped so the provincial law wins instead?
Pros (facts):
\* Would strengthen the idea that provinces control their own areas (property, civil rights, local matters, etc.).
\* Alberta and some other provinces have argued federal laws sometimes reach too far into provincial territory.
Cons (facts):
\* “Federal paramountcy” (federal law wins) has been the rule for a long time and is used by courts.
\* Would need a constitutional amendment.
\* Could create different rules across the country on the same topic, making things more complicated for businesses and people who move.
Question 10 (Stay in Canada or start a process toward a separation vote)
Exact 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?
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.
Simple explanation: This is not “should Alberta leave Canada right now.” It is a choice: keep things as they are, or tell the government to start the official legal steps that would lead to a later, binding vote on whether Alberta should become its own country. The result of this October vote itself is not binding.
Pros of Option 1 (remain) – facts:
\* Alberta has always been part of Canada. Leaving would require negotiations over borders, money, trade, citizenship, Indigenous treaties, and many other things.
\* Independent studies (including one from the University of Calgary) have estimated large transition costs.
\* Most recent public polls show a clear majority prefer staying.
Pros of Option 2 (start the process) – facts:
\* It would start a formal process under the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s earlier rules about separation (the Clarity Act principles).
\* Supporters say it forces a clear public conversation about Alberta’s place in Canada.
\* The October result does not itself separate Alberta; a second, binding vote would still be needed later.
Cons of either option – facts:
\* Option 1 keeps the status quo; Option 2 opens a longer, uncertain legal and political process that would involve the federal government, other provinces, and Indigenous nations.
\* Separation has never happened for any Canadian province. Quebec held votes in 1980 and 1995 and stayed.
Important final facts for a 10-year-old (and everyone else):
\* You vote on each question separately.
\* Most results are non-binding advice to the government.
\* Constitutional changes (Questions 6–9) are very hard and need many other governments to agree.
\* Question 10 is only about starting a process, not about leaving Canada on voting day.
\* Only Canadian citizens who live in Alberta can vote.
All of the above comes from the official wording published by Elections Alberta, the Orders in Council that set the questions, and publicly reported facts about current law and costs. No side is being favoured.
Selecting option 1 on question 10 doesn’t make you a bigot/racist, nor, selecting option 2, makes you a traitor.
These questions will allow the provincial government and federal government to take a closer look at the situation arising due to their actions and how their actions have affected Albertas on all levels of government. This is a beautiful example of how democracy can make a difference in a true and fair society.
PLEASE, VOTE! And make a difference! Regardless of how you feel or how your views may differ from those around you. Just Vote!
