Premier Danielle Smith faced questions from reporters Friday after announcing plans for an Alberta-wide referendum on immigration and provincial powers.
Smith spoke in Calgary, sharing details about the challenges the province is facing and the pressure that has been placed on social services by the huge number of people who’ve moved to Alberta.
She said the province has long been a destination.
“The province has attracted new arrivals for generations now. We’ve got a strong economy, lower living costs and a quality of life here that’s pretty irresistible as a package,” Smith said.
“What’s different now is the speed and scale of this growth and the impact it’s had on services.”
During the Alberta Next panel discussions last year, Smith said she heard a lot of “frustration” from participants.
“Albertans are frustrated that their kids’ education is being affected. They were frustrated that their teenagers can’t find a part-time job. They’re frustrated that it’s harder and harder to find an affordable place to live.”
In a 13-minute televised address Thursday night, Smith placed a lot of blame for those challenges on the immigration policies of the previous federal government.
“During the Alberta Next sessions in every community, the issues that came up most often were immigration as well as Alberta’s fiscal and constitutional role within a united Canada,” she said.
Smith couldn’t say how much those temporary residents were costing taxpayers.
“We don’t track residents and how much they use. We use averages about how much things cost. We were able to see through education just because we went through for the first time a comprehensive review of what was happening in our classrooms,” she said, adding there are a certain number of residents who are very high users of social services.
“I don’t know what the breakdown is between those who are permanent residents, Canadian citizens or temporary workers, but we’ve got to find that out.”
During the Thursday address, Smith said Albertans will be asked to vote on nine questions on Oct. 19.
Five of the inquiries focus on immigration and access to provincially funded services, including whether Alberta should take more control over immigration levels, restrict eligibility for some social programs and potentially charge fees to certain non-permanent residents accessing health care and education.
Smith linked projected budget deficits to falling oil prices and what she called “out-of-control” immigration, saying Alberta’s population has grown by nearly 600,000 people in five years—putting pressure on schools, hospitals and other public services.
The ballot would also ask broader constitutional questions, including whether provinces should have more authority in selecting judges, whether the federal Senate should be abolished and whether provinces should be able to opt out of federal programs without losing funding.
- ‘Increased control over immigration?’ Nine questions on Alberta referendum in October
- ‘A clear crackdown on immigrants’: Critics push back on Smith’s provincewide address
- Alberta to hold referendum on ‘out-of-control’ immigration amid strain on social services, budget: Smith
The Alberta NDP’s deputy leader, Rakhi Pancholi, said Friday after the address that Smith is “trying to distract” from the real issues facing Alberta.
“She’s trying to distract us from separatism, which she put on the agenda and is already putting our province at risk,” she said.
“The premier is blaming oil prices and immigration for her poor planning and financial mismanagement.”
Pancholi said oil production is instead at record levels, and resource revenues from the past five years are the highest they’ve been in decades.
She also called out Smith for “hypocrisy on immigration.”
“Less than two years ago, in 2024, Danielle Smith herself asked Justin Trudeau to increase immigration levels because Alberta wanted more than what Ottawa was offering.”
Pancholi said while Smith is “stoking the flames,” she is seeking to go to the polls on new referendum questions that aren’t the priority of Albertans.
“Premier, stop with the distractions, and if you’re so convinced this is what Albertans want, call an election and let Albertans decide,” Pancholi said.
How much will the referendum cost?
Elections Alberta said planning for the Oct. 19, 2026, referendum is already underway, though a final cost has not yet been determined.
While no number has been released, the agency noted the referendum is expected to cost roughly the same as a provincial election, which in 2023 came in at about $36.7 million.
“Date and number of questions both play a significant role in our event delivery calculations,” Elections Alberta said in a statement to CTV News.
“This new information will greatly assist us in accurately analyzing our preparations, needs and requirements to successfully fulfil our mandate, including a full financial forecast for conducting an Oct. 19, 2026, referendum.”
The agency said planning is focused on ensuring the vote is conducted efficiently, fairly and in a way that allows all eligible Albertans to participate.
Officials are reviewing logistics, staffing, ballot distribution and other operational needs, emphasizing that the number of referendum questions and their complexity will influence final costs.
Elections Alberta said its preparations include detailed forecasting to avoid surprises and ensure the vote meets the standards of transparency and accessibility that are expected of provincial elections.
Referendum seen as political
Gerard Kennedy, an associate law professor at the University of Alberta, said a referendum vote itself would not change the Constitution.
“The referendum will not be legally binding. In and of itself, the referendum at most will enable the premier to enter into negotiations with the federal government, and probably almost certainly actually other provinces, to try to get a constitutional amendment, to get some of these proposals across the board,” he said.
Kennedy said Alberta cannot compel constitutional change.
“There’s nothing Alberta can really do to force the other governments in the country to amend the Constitution,” he said.
Kennedy instead emphasized the vote is primarily a tool to gauge public opinion.
“She can certainly say that this is what Albertans want and that these are good ideas, and therefore we should do it merely because it’s a good idea,” he said.
Kennedy went on to say the referendum itself also has limited legal impact but noted the debate over Alberta’s role on judicial appointments could be viewed as reasonable.
However, Kennedy added that broader constitutional changes, such as abolishing the Senate, would require a much higher threshold.
“That one would require unanimity from all 10 provinces and the federal government, including the Senate, to agree to its abolition,” he said.
“I think the odds of that coming to pass are very small.
“The other amendments could mostly be done if you had seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population agreeing.”
Ultimately, Kennedy said, any constitutional amendment would remain a political process, subject to negotiation and consent.
“The federal government could be persuaded these are genuinely good ideas, and then it will be up to them to decide whether or not to do that,” he said.
“They could be persuaded national unity is somehow implicated, or if the province is willing to give something up, that is another possibility.”
Legal community raises concerns
Meanwhile, members of Alberta’s legal community are voicing alarm over the proposed referendum and recent government actions.
The Alberta Coalition of Defence Counsel—which represents roughly 400 defence lawyers across the province and includes organizations in Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer and southern Alberta—issued a warning about what it described as threats to democratic institutions and judicial independence.
Shawn King, co-president of the coalition, said his organization is troubled by what it sees as a pattern emerging over recent months.
“We’ve noticed here over the last six months, there’s been a slow erosion of the rule of law, of the respect to the judiciary,” he said.
King argued the implications reach beyond individual policy debates.
“The government is now trying to consolidate its own power, strip away the rights of individuals. It’s trying to not be held accountable, which is what the judges would do,” he said.
King warned Albertans should pay close attention to the broader consequences, saying the pattern could set a dangerous precedent.
“This is how fascism starts,” he said.
“At some point, it will be reviewed by justice, and it’ll probably be found to be unconstitutional, but they’re forcing it all through as quickly as they can. This leads to the erosion of the rule of law. This leads to the erosion of individual rights. This leads to tyranny. This leads to government overreach. This leads to a government that wants to have all of the power, and eventually, what that becomes, if we let it happen, is that we lose our individual freedoms.
“This should be exceptionally concerning to everybody in Alberta, and if this spreads, this should be exceptionally concerning to everyone in Canada as well.”
King emphasized that a free and democratic society relies on judicial independence.
“A free and democratic society requires limited government, and it requires that the government also hold itself to be accountable to justices and judges and to the public.”
Premier, minister call for balanced representation
Smith also addressed criticism surrounding the referendum question dealing with judicial appointments.
“I don’t know why anyone thinks that three federal appointees and one provincial appointee, as the current system is, is somehow not skewing it,” she said.
“Most judges don’t make contributions, and that’s a good thing. I’m glad that’s the case. But when you look at the judges who have, 80 per cent of them paid money to the Liberal Party. How is that not skewed? How is that not ideological?”
Smith said Alberta had previously proposed what she described as a more balanced model.
“Our first letter was to see if we can get a more balanced approach just so that we can have that additional lens to make sure that we have neutrality,” she said.
Smith also framed the issue around Alberta’s growth and complexity.
“We’re not a tiny 500,000-population province anymore. When you become a large-population province as complex as we are, it makes sense that your judiciary would draw from a pool of people who understand Alberta,” she said.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery also weighed in, saying Alberta is seeking a greater role in federal judicial appointments, raising concerns about the existing system.
“We know that it’s not a non-partisan process. We try to avoid that here in this province,” he said.
