The Government of Alberta’s process for its 10 referendums in October 2026 is undemocratic and unfair, and facilitates foreign interference, in the following 12 key ways:
- Having too many questions on the ballot confuses voters
As the past experience in the past several decades in several U.S. states has shown, it’s a bad idea to have 10 questions on the ballot like the Government of Alberta has done because it increases voter confusion. Having 2-3 questions at most is best practice.
- Government-drafted questions manipulate voters to support ruling party’s agenda
The Premier, leader of the government, is also the leader the ruling party, and so having the government draft the questions makes the questions partisan and aimed at manipulating voters to further the government’s agenda. If the government wants to ask a question by referendum, it should have an expert committee whose members are not chosen by any political party draft the question.
- Government of Alberta calling referendums “binding” is misleading
Under Canada’s Constitution, only the legislature in any jurisdiction has the legal power to enact or amend laws or the Constitution itself (with the consent of most or all other provinces, and the House of Commons and Senate, needed for many constitutional amendments). Referendums are never “binding” in our political system, and so when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith calls any referendum “binding” she is misleading voters.
Alberta’s Referendum Act, section 4, says that a majority vote in a referendum is binding, but then says the government “shall, as soon as practicable, take any steps within the competence of the Government of Alberta that it considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the referendum” (subsection 4(2)) and that “the government that initiated the referendum is not required to implement the results of the referendum if doing so would contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. Both of these qualifiers essentially mean that the results of any referendum are not binding on the government.
Sections 14-16 of Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act also give the government the provincial Legislative Assembly and the Cabinet the power to ignore a citizen initiative petition even if the petition meets the threshold for signatures.
Question #10 is also misleading because it contains the word “binding” but also the vague word “should” (which does not mean “must” or “shall”). The question asks voters whether “Alberta should remain a province of Canada” or whether 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.”
- Pre-referendum review of questions by courts should be required
Referendum questions should be referred to the courts in advance of any referendum being held so that the courts can rule on whether the wording of the question is unconstitutional or illegal. Doing this avoids wasting time and money on referendums that propose clearly unconstitutional or illegal. Some of the Government of Alberta’s questions ask voters if the government should do something that it does not have the power to do under Canada’s Constitution.
- The Government should be prohibited from spending in referendums
The Government of Alberta imposed on voters 10 referendum questions that the government drafted, and is further trying to rig the process to produce the results the government wants by spending $4 million on an advertising campaign which, as of October 8th, was more than twice the combined total amount ($1.84 million) spent by all of the registered “third-party” interest groups on their referendum campaigns.
The Premier and Cabinet ministers already have the powers of issuing news releases, holding news conferences, and making statements at public events, allof which will very likely be covered by the media extensively.
Also, the Premier and Cabinet ministers come from one political party which has a policy and political agenda. When the Premier and/or ministers spend government money, the public’s money, during a referendum, it is as unfair to opposition parties and voters as when they spend the public’s money on government advertising that furthers the ruling party’s agenda during the lead up to a provincial election. For all these reasons, the government should be prohibited from spending the public’s money during referendum campaigns.
- “Third-party” rules do not cover provincial political parties, MLAs or riding associations
In addition to the Government of Alberta spending money to influence the outcome of the referendums, the rules in Alberta’s election finances law for “third parties” do not cover spending by political parties, Members of the Leglislative Assembly (MLAs) or riding associations. All of these entities should be covered by the law.
- Donation and loan rules for “citizen initiative petition” to propose a referendum question undemocratically favour wealthy interests
The application fee for a “citizen initiative petition” was increased by the Government of Alberta in December 2025 from $500 to $25,000 (which is refunded if the petition is successful). This favours citizen initiatives supported by wealthy donors.
Unlimited amounts in loans from financial institutions are also allowed to citizen initiative proponents, and that also favours proponents supported by wealthy donors who could register as a guarantor of any loan.
And while Alberta has a limit on donations to a proponent of a “citizen initiative petition” to get a referendum on the ballot, the limit of $4,600 (currently, it increases after each provincial election) is much higher than an average voter can afford (Democracy Watch’s research at the federal level and in Ontario shows a large majority of voters donate only $75 on average — $4,600 is 61 times higher than $75). As a result, the limit favours proponents who propose referendum questions that wealthy voters support.
The high donation limit of $4,600 also facilitates foreign interference, as a relatively small number of people can be used by a foreign government or foreign entity to funnel a relatively large amount of money to a proponent’s citizen initiative petition campaign.
In addition, any individual, business or organization can register and do advertising as a “third party” to support or oppose a citizen initiative petition effort, but there is no limit on donations to these third parties. This also favours the capacity of wealthy interests to influence such efforts.
All of these rules violate the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote – only individuals should be allowed to donate and lend money to citizen initiative proponents and third parties, and donations and loans should be limited to the amount an average voter can afford. Businesses should not be allowed to spend money as a third party because they don’t represent anyone except their few executives who run the business. The spending limit for all other types of organizations should be based on the actual number of voters that are members or supporters of the organization.
- “Third-party” donation, loan and spending rules for referendums undemocratically favour interest groups supported by wealthy interests
While Alberta is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a limit on donations to “third-party” interest groups during provincial elections, referendums etc., and while the lowering in 2025 of the donation limit to $5,000 (from the previous limit of $34,400) was a step in the right direction, again the donation limit of $5,000 (currently, it increases after each provincial election) is much higher than an average voter can afford (again, the large majority of voters donate only $75 on average — $5,000 is 67 times higher than $75). In addition, businesses, which don’t actually represent anyone except their few executives, are allowed to donate $5,000 to a third party.
Unlimited amounts in loans from financial institutions are also allowed to third parties, and that also favours third parties supported by wealthy donors who could register as a guarantor of any loan.
Alberta is also the only jurisdiction in Canada to have the good measure of a limit ($5,000 currently) on the amount one voter or a business or an organization can spend of its own money as a third party.
However, the overall spending limit of $607,000 for all types of third parties is the same, whether the third-party is a business that doesn’t actually represent anyone except their few executives, or a citizen group that has tens of thousands of supporters (Note: the limit increases after each provincial election).
As a result, a third-party supported by only 121 wealthy voters (or businesses) who each donate the maximum $5,000 could spend the total it raises of $605,000, while a group supported by 4,000 voters who only donate the average amount of $75 would have less than half that amount ($300,000) to spend.
All of these rules violate the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote – only individuals should be allowed to donate and lend money to third parties, and donations and loans should be limited to the amount an average voter can afford. Businesses should not be allowed to spend money as a third party because they don’t represent anyone except their few executives who run the business. The spending limit for all other types of organizations should be based on the actual number of voters that are members or supporters of the organization.
The high donation limit of $5,000 also facilitates foreign interference, as a relatively small number of Albertans (or Albertan businesses or organizations) recruited by a foreign government or foreign entity or foreigner can be used to funnel a relatively large amount of money to a third party’s referendum campaign.
- “Third-party” disclosure rules hide from voters (until after they vote) some information re: who is bankrolling third parties
While Alberta’s political finance law requires disclosure of donors to third parties weekly during a campaign period, the last few days before voting day are not covered and disclosure of people and entities that donate during those last few days doesn’t happen until after voting day. This allows third parties and donors who may be controversial to collude to hide their donations until after voters vote. All donors should be disclosed before voters vote.
Click here to see details re: the above loopholes and flaws in third-party rules and how to correct them.
- “Third-party” rules were interpreted incorrectly by Elections Alberta
While Elections Alberta has set out a compliance agreement with the group Forever Canadian that requires the group to disclose more of its contributions, it should never have exempted the group from the requirement to register and disclose its contributions.
Referendum question #10 asks whether “Alberta should remain a province of Canada” (Option 1) or whether 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” (Option 2).
Elections Alberta’s July 8, 2026 interpretation bulletin for what constitutes “referendum advertising” stated correctly that: “General messages that are associated with the issues that are the subject of a referendum, but do not “promote” or “oppose” a referendum question, may not fall within the definition.”
But the bulletin incorrectly went on to say that “statements such as “Celebrate Canada”, “Celebrate Alberta” or “send a message to Ottawa” do not specifically promote or oppose a question in a referendum and taken alone, would not constitute “referendum advertising.” Given the wording of question #10, that was an incorrect interpretation because voting for Option 1 is celebrating Canada, and voting for Option 2 is sending a message to Ottawa.
As a result, all of Forever Canadian’s advertising with the “unity” message should have been considered by Elections Alberta to be referendum advertising as soon as the referendum period began. All advertising that promotes (or opposes) Alberta staying in Canada in any way, or promotes (or opposes) Alberta leaving Canada in any way, should be considered by Elections Alberta to be referendum advertising.
The downside of allowing unlimited spending backed by secret donors outweighs the upside of fairness, public disclosure, and public accountability for anyone trying to influence a referendum or any other political process.
- Effective measures needed to stop foreign interference, and to stop disinformation and misinformation
Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act and Referendum Act and political finance law have only one flawed measure in them aimed at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing foreign interference, which is that donations can only come from individuals, businesses, unions and organizations that reside/operate in Canada. However as noted above, the high donation limit of $5,000 means a relatively small number of Albertans (or Albertan businesses or organizations) recruited by a foreign government or foreign entity or foreigner can be used to funnel a relatively large amount of money to a third party’s referendum campaign.
The federal government, and all provinces, territories and municipalities across Canada (except Quebec which limits donations to $100), similarly only have excessively high donation limits aimed at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing foreign interference. While the federal Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act is finally in force, years late, it only requires people acting as agents (paid or unpaid) for foreign governments and government institutions to register their activities trying to influence political processes in Canada. People acting as agents for foreign businesses, organizations or individuals are not required to register, making it very easy for a foreign government to use a foreign business or organization or individual as its “front” to hide its activities in Canada.
It is also very unlikely that agents who are trying to undermine any political process will register voluntarily as that would expose their activities, and the chance of getting caught is very small as the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner has very limited resources.
Prevention is the only way to stop foreign interference, and there are no laws at the federal, provincial, territorial or municipal level in Canada that even attempt to prevent foreign interference.
Click here to see the measures that must be enacted by all governments across Canada to prevent, and thereby effectively stop, foreign interference.
Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act and Referendum Act and political finance law also have only one flawed, limited measure in them aimed at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing disinformation and misinformation, especially online disinformation. The measure, which was added in spring 2026 as Part 6.21 to the political finance law, prohibits misleading “deepfake” images, audio or videos of party leaders, Cabinet ministers, MLAs or election officials (and, during elections and contests, nomination contestants, candidates and party leadership contestants), and empowers Elections Alberta to remove them (if possible).
All other false statements and claims and online and social media posts (other than in financial returns filed by third parties) are allowed in referendums in Alberta.
In August there was a significant volume of social media misinformation relating to voter registrations and Elections Alberta’s online Voterlink tool. And last spring investigations linked fake websites and posts concerning the Alberta separation referendum issue to operations based in Russia.
The federal election law also prohibits deepfakes, and some false claims about party leaders, party officials and candidates, as do some measures in provincial, territorial and municipal election laws across Canada, but all other false claims are allowed, expecially online false claims.
Governments across Canada have been pretending for the past decade that they can “educate” all voters to be able to identify false claims, and that fact checkers can correct the false impressions voters have who are exposed to disinformation and misinformation.
Neither of these strategies will ever be effective because they will never reach all voters, and most elections and referendums are decided by margins of 5-10% so if only 2.5% to 5% of voters are fooled by a false claim it can affect the outcome.
In addition, the reality is that by the time any enforcement agency would be able to have a misleading online “deepfake” or social media post removed, the referendum (or election or contest) would likely be over. This is especially true if the deepfake or misleading claim is posted during the last two weeks of a campaign, which surveys show is the time period during which many voters make up their minds about how to vote.
Prevention is the only way to stop disinformation or misinformation, and there are no laws at the federal, provincial, territorial or municipal level in Canada that even attempt to prevent disinformation or misinformation.
Click here to see the measures that must be enacted by all governments across Canada to effectively prevent, and thereby effectively stop, disinformation and misinformation.
- Lack of quorum means non-voters should be considered “No” voters
The lack of a quorum means that a low voter turnout on any of the 10 referendum questions will result in essentially no legitimate mandate for government action on the issue addressed by any of the questions. The assumption should be that voters who do not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates they are not interested in having the change made that is proposed in each question.
In an election under a first-past-the-post system like Canada uses, low voter turnout does not indicate such a clear lack of interest in who wins because voters in any riding that is consistently “safe” for one party (and there are many such ridings) have a rational reason for not voting (whether they are voting for or against the candidate of the party that always wins).
In contrast, in a referendum if a voter wants the “Yes” side to win they have no rational reason for not voting. And voters who have no interest in the change made that is proposed in a referendum question express their lack of support for the change fairly clearly by not voting on the question.
Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting Systems Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Foreign Interference Campaign and Stop Disinformation and Misinformation Campaign
