Discover Narcity
Get the latest and greatest stories every day in your inbox.
Separation, immigration, the Constitution: A look at Alberta's referendum questions
A look at the 10 Alberta referendum questions
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
Here are the 10 questions Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is sending to a provincewide referendum on Monday.
Question 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?
What you need to know: Smith has said she wants to see Alberta have a similar accord as Quebec, which has an agreement with Ottawa that lets the province set its own eligibility requirements for economic migrants.
She said in February that a "normal" and "sustainable" level of immigration would represent less than one per cent of the population, or about 50,000 newcomers per year. But critics say Smith has failed to plan for the population growth it invited with a countrywide ad campaign in recent years.
Question 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?
What you need to know: The premier has blamed overburdened public services on rapid population growth in the past five years.
The government's website claims temporary residents cost the province more than $1 billion in health care, education and social services. Critics say those numbers don't add up and that the government is ignoring the economic contributions and benefits they bring to Alberta.
The specific effect of a yes vote is unclear, since the government says it won't define "Alberta-approved immigration status" until after the referendum.
Question 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?
What you need to know: The government says it won't determine which programs would be affected until after the referendum, should Albertans vote yes.
Temporary workers are already ineligible for some provincial programs, such as Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, and the Canadian Bar Association's provincial chapter says this could run afoul of the Canada Health Act or the Charter's equality provisions.
Question 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 health care and education systems?
What you need to know: A potential new charge wouldn't be determined by the government until after the vote, though the premier told Calgary business leaders on Sept. 22 that a health premium could be as much as $1,900.
Education leaders in the province have come out against restricting access to schooling, saying it goes against internationally agreed children's rights.
Question 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?
What you need to know: Voting is already restricted to Canadian citizens, and both Elections Canada and Elections Alberta have reported very few cases of ineligible voting.
Smith has said it's about strengthening the integrity of provincial elections. Critics say this policy would only make lineups at the polls more time-consuming and open the door to racial or ethnic bias at the voting booth.
Question 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?
What you need to know: If approved by voters, this proposal would only commit Alberta's government to working with other provinces and federal lawmakers to make changes to the Constitution.
Changes generally need approval from seven provincial legislatures covering 50 per cent of Canada's population, as well as from the House of Commons and Senate in Ottawa.
Question 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?
What you need to know: Abolishing the Senate would be even more difficult than other general constitutional amendments. It would need to be unanimously approved by all provinces and ratified by the Senate and the House of Commons.
Question 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?
What you need to know: The federal "spending power" authority allows Ottawa to attach conditions to its funding for provinces, with health-care funding under the Canada Health Act as a key example.
A permanent provincial "opt-out" clause would require the Constitution to be amended.
Question 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?
What you need to know: Under the Constitution, federal laws are given standing over provincial laws when jurisdictional issues arise.
This change to the Constitution would require approval from the Senate, the House of Commons and seven provinces representing at least half the country's population.
Question 10: 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?
What you need to know: Advocates for separation say the province needs to get out from under federal taxation and regulation, freeing up wealth and sparking economic development. Federalists say the split would only hurt businesses and saddle landlocked Alberta with debt and the massive cost of delivering formerly federal services.
Smith has framed her other nine other questions on immigration and constitutional reform as a political compromise that could address Alberta's grievances, gain leverage with Ottawa and avoid dismantling the country.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2026.
Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
'Goodbye to a good friend': Snowbirds' final show to be livestreamed today
Final Snowbirds air show to be livestreamed today
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle
Members of the Royal Canadian Air Force Snowbirds aerial aerobatics team are set to perform their final air show Friday in Moose Jaw, Sask., before their decades-old Tutor jets head into retirement.
The RCAF is set to livestream the annual season home closer online at 2 p.m. ET on its Facebook page.
There will still be one more chance to see the CT-114 Tutors in action before they are sent to the airbase in Trenton, Ont., for disposal.
The Snowbirds are scheduled to perform a flyover at the Canadian Football League Grey Cup game in Calgary on Nov. 15.
Capt. Philip Rochon, public affairs officer for the Snowbirds, said it's a bittersweet time for the pilots who are saying farewell to the planes the team has flown for 55 years.
"It's like saying goodbye to a good friend," he said.
Rochon said the Snowbirds received an outpouring of support over the summer from Canadians across the country who shared memories of past shows and their encounters with an iconic "piece of Canadiana."
"At the same time, we're looking forward to the future with the new aircraft that was announced," he said. "That will come online hopefully in the next few years. We're looking forward to seeing what the next chapter of the Snowbirds will be."
Defence Minister David McGuinty announced in May that the old Tutors will be replaced eventually by the Swiss-made PC-21 Pilatus aircraft, known as the CT-157 Siskin II.
The RCAF is also acquiring those same aircraft for pilot training.
While the Snowbirds were formed in 1971, the air force obtained the Tutor jets in 1963.
The Snowbirds will go on a multi-year hiatus until the replacement aircraft are delivered and the team can be trained up on the new planes. That could take until the early 2030s but there's no set timeline.
The decision to ground the team came after planned upgrades to the Tutors' engines and escape systems meant to keep them in the air until 2030 encountered a range of problems, including parts obsolescence.
RCAF Commander Lt.-Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet told reporters at the AERO Gatineau-Ottawa air show last month that it's been "heartwarming" to see how Canadians have responded over the last season.
"The Snowbirds are so much more than just an air demonstration team, obviously, and it evokes so much emotion and we all have such fond strong memories," she said.
"I really can't overstate just how significant they are to Canadians and specifically to the RCAF. The idea that we'd have to take a pause was definitely not an easy one. However, the Tutor aircraft is 63 years old and it is time to move into the future and make sure that we're doing things for the right reasons."
She said the demonstration team has been focused solely on finishing the current season. Once that's done, she said, the RCAF can "build the right kind of plan" to ensure the pilots don't get rusty in the meantime.
"We're looking at things like, can we send an exchange into some of our allied teams, or obviously instructing and working with the PC-21 in Moose Jaw as an option," she said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2026.
By Kyle Duggan | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
Stellantis workers set to vote on potential strike action this weekend
Stellantis workers set to vote on strike mandate
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sammy Kogan
Stellantis workers in Canada are set to vote this weekend on whether to authorize a strike as their union says contract negotiations with the automaker remain at a standstill.
Unifor is holding the votes on Saturday and Sunday and plans to announce results at the start of next week.
However, the union representing more than 9,000 Stellantis workers in Canada said it is hoping to avoid a potential strike. It said authorization for job action would provide leverage to help reach a negotiated agreement.
"A strike authorization gives the bargaining committee the authority to call a strike if necessary, it does not automatically mean a strike will take place," said a statement last week signed by Unifor national president Lana Payne and other members of the union's bargaining committee.
"Strike action remains a last resort, but the ability to strike is an important part of collective bargaining and can help create the conditions for an agreement."
The previous collective agreement between Stellantis and the union expired Sept. 20 without the two sides coming to terms on a new tentative deal.
Unifor's bargaining committee and the company are at an impasse over several key issues, including job security and the future of the Brampton, Ont., assembly plant Stellantis wants to sell.
The fate of the Brampton plant, which has been idled since 2023, has been a central issue. Talks came to a standstill on Sept. 11 when Stellantis signed a memorandum of understanding with defence contractor Roshel for a potential sale of the facility.
Stellantis Canada president and CEO Trevor Longley said in a September letter to employees that “market and trade conditions have directly impacted the original business case” for the plant, but that the move to sell could support future operations at the site.
"Stellantis remains committed to bargaining in good faith and is prepared to continue discussions toward a negotiated agreement that recognizes the contributions of our employees while supporting the long-term competitiveness of our Canadian operations," the automaker's spokesperson LouAnn Gosselin in a statement this week.
More than 2,000 workers were laid off from the Brampton plant when it halted operations in 2023.
The facility had been slated to be retooled for Jeep production, a process that began early in 2024, before the company paused the plan in early 2025. It later announced it was moving production of the Jeep Compass to Illinois., leaving the plant idled indefinitely.
Unifor has filed a grievance over that move, alleging it violated the previous collective agreement.
For its part, Roshel has said it is willing to consider hiring laid-off workers from the plant as soon as this year “through the federal government’s Light Utility Vehicles procurement program and other automotive and defence opportunities.”
Roshel CEO Roman Shimonov said the company plans to establish a Canadian Centre of Excellence for Defence Manufacturing in Brampton in addition to automotive production, which would involve more than 2,000 jobs.
Payne has written to federal Industry Minister Mélanie Joly urging the government to block the potential sale and clarify whether the MOU breached Stellantis' previous commitments to Ottawa.
Last fall, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he had expressed disappointment during a conversation with the global head of Stellantis over the company moving Jeep Compass production to the United States. At the time, the prime minister said he reminded Stellantis of its commitments to the government under funding deals — such as keeping the Brampton plant — and warned there would be consequences if it failed to meet those obligations.
Joly's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Contract talks began Sept. 1 in Toronto after Unifor ratified new collective agreements with Ford Motor Co. and General Motors in Canada earlier in the summer, as part of its pattern bargaining process with each of the Detroit Three.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2026.
By Sammy Hudes | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Keep reading
Show less
Eddy de Big Brother confie que la slop ne lui a pas fait et la production fait le point
« Mon corps a très mal réagi à la slop. » 🤢
Lors de la septième semaine à Big Brother Célébrités, la patronne Claudia Bouvette a mis quatre nouveaux.elles candidat.es comme condamné.es. Ce sont donc Stéphanie Harvey, Guylaine Guay, Martin Vachon et Eddy King qui ont dû prendre des douches froides, dormir sur des lits de camp puis manger la fameuse slop. Après cette péripétie, Eddy King a confié que son corps n'a pas très bien réagi à la slop et la production nous a expliqué ce qu'il s'est passé.
C'est lors de l'émission de radio Véronique et les fantastiques du 28 février que l'équipe a demandé à l'humoriste comment il avait vécu sa semaine en tant que condamné dans la maison et c'est à ce moment qu'il a expliqué que ça ne s'était pas très bien passé :
« Je l'ai mal vécu parce que mon corps a très mal réagi à la slop. J'ai eu pas mal de maux d'estomac qui pouvaient se transformer en ulcères si on ne faisait pas attention. J'ai eu le soutien médical et ça va, je suis sous médication et ça se rétablit. »
Contacté par Narcity, le producteur au contenu Jean-Martin Bisson a confirmé que la slop n'a eu aucun effet néfaste sur la santé des joueur.ses mis à part l'adaptation au nouveau régime dans les premiers jours :
« Eddy avait quelques problèmes avant que la slop arrive ou qu'il soit lui-même sur la slop. [...] Il a eu une petite baisse d'énergie pendant une émission. Il a commencé à manger de la slop et, en même temps, il a commencé à avoir des brûlements d'estomac. Il a parlé à un médecin puis le médecin lui a dit que c'était impossible que ce soit à cause de la slop.
« Au début, étant donné que c'était nouveau pour leur corps, il y en a qui ont vécu certaines constipations pour peut-être une journée ou deux, mais ça, c'est dans le pire des cas [...]. Ce sont juste des conséquences normales à un changement de régime.
« Eddy a peut-être associé ça à la slop, mais il n'y a ensuite eu aucune médication reliée à de nouveaux problèmes de santé ou quelque chose d'autre que la constipation [...]. Il y a toujours des médecins qui s'assurent que nos joueurs vont bien au besoin », affirme le producteur au contenu.
La recette de la slop a été conçue par les nutritionnistes des athlètes de la maison, soit Hugo Barrette, Marc-Antoine Dequoy et Lysanne Richard, afin de s'assurer que les célébrités se nourrissaient des meilleurs ingrédients malgré tout au cours de leur semaine :
« Elle [était] fabriquée avec des aliments [et des légumes] frais préparés séparément et sans condiment. Les condamnés [avaient] le droit de la prendre comme ils [voulaient] : en smoothie, froide, réchauffée, frite ou au four. L’important, [c'était] de ne jamais altérer son goût », précise la production.
Il y avait deux variantes pour la slop, soit celle végétarienne ainsi que celle au poulet. Étant un concept bien répandu à Big Brother, la slop est généralement constituée d'un mélange similaire à du gruau, mais ce n'était pas le cas dans l'édition québécoise :
« On a même bonifié la slop [...] C'est bénéfique pour leur corps ce qu'ils ont reçu, c'est juste que pour nous et la télévision, avec l'odeur et avec la texture, c'est ça qui rend l'affaire un peu dégueulasse.
« Ce qui était très important, c'était de ne pas mettre nos célébrités en danger, de ne pas jouer sur la santé des célébrités. Au contraire, nous c'était juste pour un enjeu de télévision puis un enjeu pour eux de vivre une expérience plus difficile puis que ça devienne un jeu social et une contrainte de nommer des condamnés », ajoute Jean-Martin.
Après deux semaines avec la chambre des condamné.es, celle-ci a été fermée jusqu'à la fin de l'aventure. C'est maintenant la voûte de l'immunité qui préoccupe l'esprit des célébrités alors qu'Hugo Barette a déjà sélectionné l'immunité personnelle.