27
The other questions from the Alberta referendum (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Q Question (short form) Leading
1 Alberta takes increased control over immigration - lower levels, prioritise economic migration, Albertans first on jobs Yes +10.6
2 Only citizens, permanent residents and Alberta-approved immigrants eligible for provincially funded programs Yes +13.4
3 Non-permanent residents must live in Alberta 12 months before qualifying for social support programs Yes +16.8
4 Charge a fee/premium to non-permanent residents for public health care and education Yes +14.8
5 Require proof of citizenship to vote in provincial elections Yes +26.8
6 Provinces, not Ottawa, select judges for provincial King's Bench and Appeal courts Yes +2.6
7 Amend the Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate Yes +6.6
8 Allow provinces to opt out of federal programs in their jurisdiction while keeping the funding No +2.8
9 Province's laws take priority over conflicting federal laws in provincial/shared jurisdiction Yes +1.4

These are arguably more important because unlike separation, they have slim to significant majority support.

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 17 points 1 day ago

individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status

https://albertareferendum2026.ca/faqs/

What is an "Alberta-approved immigration status"? [...] The Alberta government will work with employers and other groups to develop a system where we determine the workers our economy actually needs.

So it's the Family Guy skin colour chart I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 13 points 1 day ago

    Reminder a lot of these questions are either presented in a way that's complete word salad, or appears rational to the layman on first glance.

    The curve in educating voters was steep for these questions, and that was by design. I wouldn't blame voters for voting yes because they either aren't educated on the implications and impact on questions that appear rational at first (questions 1-5), rely on people's ignorance entirely (question 6), or were presented in the most unclear way imaginable (question 9).

    Question 7's Yes lead makes sense because there's people across the spectrum that dislike the unelected nature of the senate and want it abolished as such, and question 8's No lead can be attributed to the phrasing making sense to the average person despite maybe needing a second read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 15 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    None of these will be reality as you cannot change the constitution without broader support

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    @ag10n @avidamoeba

    > 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?

    Lol - do you know how many actual Canadian citizens this is gonna inconvenience? Ask your average Canadian voter (anywhere) what they used last time to prove at the ballot station who they said they were and I guarantee you 80% used their provincial drivers license. So now people have to rock up to a polling station with a passport or their birth certificate? Yes, we all just keep these on our kitchen counters, ready to go.

    If anything, the newly landed immigrants are going to have their paperwork* in order already.

    I can't wait for all the social media posts from angry multi-generational (i.e. cough*white*cough) Albertans being turned away from an Alberta polling station because they don't have their proper voter identification.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago

    @ag10n @avidamoeba

    **Anyone else find this surge in "Papers, please" to be troubling?

    p.s. to _any_ Canadian immigrant, or even 2nd or 3rd generational ones, hell, any non-Caucasian... citizen or not... I am so, so, so sorry Alberta is being such a bunch of racist whiney fascist fucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    Do you think other provinces wouldn't like to participate in shifting power from federal to provincial gov'ts? Quebec certainly would. I could see Ford signing up. Scott Moe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I agree - the new government in Quebec has an obvious stake in reopening the Constitution, and Ford's the kind of guy who would jump on it. They meet the 50% of the population stipulation all by themselves, and between them and Alberta, they have 3 out of the 7 provinces required. It's not implausible that they could find four more.

    BUT, the current version of Ford might not be too excited to be seen climbing into bed with separatists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Conservative immigrants are literally their base. That would be a death sentence for Ford and his party. Clearly you have zero connection to this topic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 day ago

    BUT, the current version of Ford might not be too excited to be seen climbing into bed with separatists.

    Agreed, BUT the rejection of Q10 launders the rest as common sense, non-separatist issues. So it would be interesting to see what the Canadian political class does with these results.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent