As students traversed the main campus halls between classes on Monday afternoon, it seemed that the gloomy autumn clouds weren’t the only thing hanging in the air.
The future of the province would all boil down to today, and the tension was palpable.
In the days leading up to Oct. 19, members of the campus community could be spotted sporting “I voted!” stickers, maple leaf patches, and Alberta coat-of-arms pins.
This year’s provincial referendum consisted of 10 questions, and one outshone all the others — the question of separation.
The Gauntlet spoke to students from Hunter Student Commons to Scurfield Hall, it became clear that there were many doubts surrounding the idea of separation.
Treaty doubts
One of the main issues that students had expressed concern over was how the government would respect the numbered treaties and whether separation would be a violation of agreements between the Crown and Canadian indigenous peoples.
Manuela Benavides, a first year Biological Sciences student, participated in the advance vote a week before Election Day.
“I don’t really think it makes sense to separate from Canada. From what I know, it’s not realistic because of all the First Nations [treaties] and commitments that Canada has to them. [...] It would be disrespectful to even consider [separation], because it is [indigenous] land.” said Benavides.
From north to south, Treaties 8, 10, 6, 7, and 4 are applicable to Alberta, with all but Treaty 7 transcending provincial borders.
The Assembly of First Nations, a national advocacy group, shared a statement from National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, who disavowed separation.
“Treaty Nations in Alberta are in sovereign relationships with the Crown. The truth is that no province has the right to alter these constitutional realities.” said Nepinak.
Other students also considered treaty rights in their thoughts on separation.
Hanna Taing, a third year Finance student, shared her thoughts Monday afternoon before heading off to vote in the Election Day polls.
“[Separation] doesn’t work that well logistically, as most of our land is treaty land.” said Taing, “I’m hoping that we don’t end up separating.”
Making it make sense
The logistics of what a sovereign Alberta may look like were of common concern for members within the student body.
Aaron Clarke, in his second year of Biological Sciences, described the idea of separation from Canada as having “zero advantages”.
“What’s our healthcare gonna look like? [...] are we gonna end up losing healthcare?” said Clarke.
Following the money
Tristan Hernandez, a first year Chemistry student, had doubts about the allocation of funds if Alberta were to separate.
“I think the idea [of separation] doesn’t make a lot of sense. […] The main argument is [about] retaining Alberta’s income, but if we do separate, we won’t maintain that. We do benefit more by staying in Canada.” said Hernandez.
Of the 108 million dollars of federal support to be provided to provinces and territories in 2026-2027, Alberta will receive around nine million, which equates to 1,792 dollars per capita. This amount per capita is the same as what British Columbia and Saskatchewan are to receive, though it is the lowest per capita amount in the country.
Disillusionment
As a second-year International Business Strategy student in the Bachelor of Commerce, Daniel Mendez-Young weighed the strong emotional motivations of the separatist movement against the disadvantages of sovereignty.
“I think it’s disappointing that people feel disheartened with the situation our province is in […] I understand why people feel that Alberta has been treated poorly by the federal government for the last 10 years, but the solution is not to separate,” explained Mendez-Young. “It’s disheartening that some people feel so lost that that’s the only solution they see to be feasible.”
The other nine
The separation question, though, is only one portion of this year’s referendum. Nine other questions are also set to change the future of the province and the country if voters are in favour.
“I honestly didn’t know there were nine other questions. I thought there was just the one.” said second year Natural Science student Ani Kakarlapudi.
He also highlighted the lack of information surrounding what many voters, for and against, are calling “The Nine.”
Kakarlapudi’s friend Aaron Clarke shared the sentiment.
“I didn’t really know there were any other questions. Separation is the main one everyone talks about,” said Clarke.
Five of the nine questions asked about immigration, while four were constitutional, pertaining to changes to the Senate and Canadian federal governance.
Taing, alongside fellow third year Finance student, Tue Nguyen, described the questions as “discriminatory” — a word that reappeared in interviews with other students around campus.
Use your words
Nguyen also shared her concerns on the mechanics and language of the questions themselves.
“They try to confuse you on purpose, try to make voters not really understand [the questions] [...] they’re all just very discriminatory and they don’t really benefit Alberta at all.”
Nguyen was not the only student concerned on how the referendum questions were worded. Benavides stated that the other nine questions were “really hard to understand.”
Anna Marino, in her third year of Marketing, was critical of the phrasing of the content of the immigration and constitutional questions.
“I think they were written in a very biased way […] some people may not have the best reading capabilities to vote in a specific manner,” said Marino. “Everybody should have the right to healthcare. Everyone deserves to be protected as you are in Canada […] even if you are an economic immigrant, I don’t think you should be discriminated against in healthcare.”
The University of Alberta’s Parkland Institute released a report written by Bronwyn Bragg last month titled “Scapegoating and Separatists” exploring the biased and disparaging language throughout the referendum campaign towards immigrants.
“These questions will likely serve their intended political purpose, namely, to blame the ballooning deficit and Alberta’s social and economic challenges on an ambiguously defined 'other.' The language framing the immigration questions also aligns with a broader posture of blaming Ottawa for the province’s problems, in this case its 'disastrous open border immigration policies' and seeks to take control over immigration from the federal government,” stated Bragg.
It’s complicated
Mendez-Young differed from most other students interviewed in his take on the nine questions.
“I think [these questions] are much more up for debate […] It's really important that everyone reads through carefully and votes on their own. The “Yes to the Nine” and “No to the Nine” movements are more of a mob mentality,” said Mendez-Young. “People need to ask themselves what the right answers are and I don’t think that’s been done enough.”
“No to the Nine” is a phrase that has been appearing more and more frequently in campaign material and on social media leading up to the referendum, countered with “Yes to the Nine”. It was even chanted by Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney in a visit to Calgary with the Forever Canadian campaign just a few days before Election Day.
It most prominently appears in material from Alberta’s Voice, a third-party referendum advertiser.
Several other students across the main University of Calgary campus were approached, but declined to comment.
The results for Question 10, the separation question, will be available first after polls close, followed by the other nine.
