Before You Vote: Provincial Programs & Federal Funding
A Nonprofit’s Guide to Alberta’s October Referendum: Receiving social service funding unconditionally
We explore Question 8 in our series breaking down the 2026 Alberta referendum.
Recent changes to referendum laws removed the referendum pre-requisite for the government to pursue a constitutional amendment.
What the Government is Asking
This is the third question on amending the Canadian Constitution. Question 8 asks:
“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?”
Voters will be asked to choose yes or no.
A ‘Yes’ vote supports pursuing a constitutional amendment that would allow provinces to decline participation in certain federal programs while retaining the associated federal funding. This means the government is required to pursue the amendment but doesn’t guarantee its outcome.
A ‘No’ vote supports maintaining the current approach, where federal funding agreements are generally negotiated between governments and may include conditions attached to funding. This means the government should not pursue the amendment, though they can still pursue it through a vote in the legislature.
Question 8 is one of four constitutional questions on the October ballot, which means the result is binding: a majority “Yes” legally obligates the Alberta government to pursue this change, though it cannot force other provinces or the federal government to agree.
To make the amendment, Alberta needs to meet the 7/50 formula: approval by the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of Canada’s population.
Getting approval for the proposed amendment in each of these bodies requires only majority support, not unanimity. A resolution passes with a majority vote, meaning not every Member of Parliament, Senator, or MLA in a participating province needs to agree – just a majority in each body.
Why the Government Has Proposed This Change
The Government of Alberta has expressed support for a ‘Yes’ outcome to this question. It argues that the federal government influences areas of provincial responsibility by attaching conditions to federal funding. The proposed constitutional amendment would, in the government's view, allow provinces to opt out of federal programs while keeping the associated funding, giving them greater flexibility to design programs that better meet local needs.
The government’s position, as outlined on its website, is that the federal government has repeatedly reached beyond its own authority – in areas like natural resources, environment, infrastructure, health care, and social services – without provincial input.
It also argues that federal funding often comes with conditions attached, and that the threat of withholding a province’s share of that funding gives Ottawa indirect control over matters that fall under provincial authority. Allowing provinces to opt out of federal programs in their own jurisdiction – while still receiving their full financial share – would, in the government’s view, let each province design services around its own population’s needs.
For Nonprofits
Nonprofits operate within both federal and provincial systems. Funding agreements, program rules, reporting requirements, and service standards are often shaped by a combination of federal and provincial governments. Changes to that relationship can affect how nonprofit organizations deliver services and how they work with government.
Many existing agreements already allow provinces considerable flexibility in how they administer services or programs with federal dollars, so the practical impacts would depend on how any future constitutional amendment was implemented.
If provinces could opt out of federal programs while keeping the associated funding, nonprofits could see changes to program priorities, funding agreements, reporting requirements, service standards, or eligibility rules. Advocacy efforts could also shift further toward provincial governments if more decisions were made at that level.
This financial flexibility could also create inconsistency between provinces. If Alberta opts out of a federal program while other provinces do not, nonprofits working across provincial lines, or following standards set by national associations, could face a patchwork of different rules, funding structures, or eligibility criteria depending on where they operate. For example, a national child care organization operating in both Alberta and Saskatchewan could find itself managing two different funding formulas, reporting requirements, and eligibility rules for what is otherwise the same program.
For many nonprofits, the central question is whether their work benefits more from consistent national standards or greater provincial flexibility. Common standards can make expectations more consistent across the country, while greater provincial autonomy can allow programs to be tailored to Alberta's needs.
K-12 education is funded through two provincial sources: general provincial revenue and education property taxes. Unlike post-secondary education, K-12 funding does not flow through a federal transfer.
Federal Funding Conditions Today
Many federal funding agreements already include conditions that influence how provinces design or deliver programs. Question 8 refers to areas of provincial jurisdiction – health care, education, and social services – but does not name specific federal programs or funding agreements. Not all federal funding comes with the same kinds of conditions attached, either. Here are some examples of specific funding mechanisms that currently carry federal conditions in these areas:
Health care: Alberta received $6.6 billion in 2025 through the Canada Health Transfer. Funding depends on provinces meeting national requirements under the Canada Health Act, including prohibiting extra billing and limiting residency waiting periods for health coverage.
Canada Social Transfer: Alberta received $2.1 billion in 2025 through the Canada Social Transfer. Funding supports post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, and early childhood development. One condition is that provinces cannot impose a residency waiting period for social assistance for Canadian citizens, permanent residents, certain protected persons, and victims of human trafficking holding temporary resident permits. There is no specific federal condition on how provinces use the post-secondary education portion of this funding.
Because question 8 does not identify which federal programs or funding agreements would be affected, it is not possible to know which specific conditions – like those in the Canada Health Transfer or Canada Social Transfer – could change, or whether they would change at all.
Rather than proposing changes to any specific program today, the question is about creating the constitutional authority for provinces to opt out of federal programs while retaining the associated funding. How and whether that authority would be used, and which conditions might be renegotiated in the process, would depend on decisions made after any amendment took effect.
How Nonprofits Can Get Involved
Interested in learning more about how you and your organization can get involved? See our post on the rules of engaging with the referendum, so that you and your organization can advocate responsibly.
Stay tuned for the next post. If you have any questions, reach out to us - policy@thenonprofitchamber.org