距离艾伯塔省关于10项内容的全省范围公投倒计时已经所剩无几,投票定于10月19日(星期一)上午9点开始。
其中五个问题与移民有关,四个问题涉及宪法修改,这些都是“是”或“否”的选择题。
The clock is ticking down to Alberta's province-wide referendum on 10 questions, with polls set to open at 9 a.m. on Monday, Oct. 19.
最后一个问题则关乎艾伯塔省独立的未来。选民将被要求在两个选项中二选一:一是该省留在加拿大,二是举行关于脱离联邦的第二次具有法律约束力的公投。
Five of those questions are related to immigration, while four propose constitutional changes — each of these are "yes" or "no" questions.
CBC新闻此前已对这些问题进行了广泛报道,以帮助选民在填写这10张选票前做好准备。请浏览下方的公投问题,并点击链接阅读对每个问题的深入分析。
The final question has to do with the future of Alberta independence. Voters will be asked to choose only one of two options: for the province to stay in Canada, or to hold a second binding referendum on separating from the country.
问题1:“你是否支持艾伯塔省政府对移民事务加强控制,以便将移民数量降至更可持续的水平,优先考虑经济类移民,并让艾伯塔省居民在获得新的就业机会方面享有优先权?”第一个移民问题建议艾伯塔省对移民拥有更多控制权。这个问题的核心是联邦政府与省政府在移民管控制权之间的拉锯战。在我们的分析中,我们将对该问题的措辞进行逐句拆解,并探讨导致这一特定问题产生的复杂历史背景。
CBC News has reported extensively on the questions to help voters prepare before marking the 10 ballots. Scroll through the referendum questions below and click on the links for in-depth analyses of each of the questions.
“您是否支持艾伯塔省政府引入一项法律,规定只有加拿大公民、永久居民以及获得艾伯塔省批准的移民身份的个人才有资格获得省政府资助的项目,例如医疗保健、教育和其他社会服务?”未获得“艾伯塔省批准”的临时居民将失去获取公共医疗和教育的资格。这个问题暗示完全拒绝某些非永久居民获得公共医疗保健、教育和其他社会 services——除非该省批准他们的移民身份。我们的报道探讨了这个问题以及问题 3 和 4 是如何相互关联的,并且可能重塑该省对待临时居民获取服务的方式。
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?"
“假设所有加拿大公民和永久居民继续像现在一样有资格获得社会支持项目,您是否支持艾伯塔省政府引入一项法律,要求所有具有非永久合法移民身份的个人在艾伯塔省居住至少 12 个月后,才有资格获得任何省政府资助的社会支持项目?”非永久居民需要等待至少 12 个月才能获得社会服务。这个问题询问持有临时许可的人在抵达艾伯塔省后是否必须等待至少整整一年才有资格获得社会服务,但不包括医疗保健和教育等公共服务。
关键问题:
The first immigration question suggests Alberta take more control over immigration At the heart of this question is a tug of war between federal and provincial control over immigration. In our analysis, we break down the wording of the question step-by-step and explore the complex history that has led to this particular question.
- 假设所有加拿大公民和永久居民仍能像现在一样享受公共卫生服务和教育,你是否支持阿尔伯塔省政府对在阿尔伯塔省居住的非永久居民收取合理的费用或保费,以便他们及其家人也能使用这些公共服务?阿尔伯塔省政府提议对非永久居民收取使用公共卫生服务和教育的费用或保费。该省政府表示,具体的收费标准将在投票后确定。丹妮尔·史密斯省长最近提议对非永久居民收取1,900加元的医疗费用,这一收费标准与英国的收费标准类似。
"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?" Temporary residents who are not 'Alberta-approved' lose eligibility to public health and education This question suggests denying certain non-permanent residents public health care, education and other social services altogether — that is, unless the province approves their immigration status.
- 你是否支持阿尔伯塔省政府出台法律,要求选民在参加省级选举时提供公民身份证明(如护照、出生证明或公民身份证)?阿尔伯塔省提议在选举中要求选民提供公民身份证明。如果该提议获得通过,政府将制定更明确的投票规则,要求选民在投票时出示公民身份证明。本文将探讨这一提议背后的动机、选民欺诈现象的普遍程度,以及在该提议通过后可能受到最大影响的群体。
Our story explores how this question, and questions 3 and 4, are interconnected and could re-shape how the province approaches temporary residents' access to services.
卡尔加里开眼节目(Calgary Eyeopener)卡尔加里人阅读并回应10个全民公投问题“你是否支持阿尔伯塔省政府与其它愿意合作的省份政府合作,修改《加拿大宪法》,以便由省政府而不是联邦政府来挑选被任命为省国王皇座法庭及上诉法院的法官?”省政府力争获得为某些法院选举自己法官的权力通过这个问题,阿尔伯塔省正在提议一项宪法修改,这将重写自1867年联邦成立以来一直延续至今的安排。
"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?"
我们的报道探讨了阿尔伯塔省在当今任命法官方面所扮演的角色,以及该省在公投之前就已开始争取对司法任命控制权的努力。
Non-permanent residents wait at least 12 months to access social services This question asks whether people who hold temporary permits should have to wait at least one complete year after arriving in Alberta before becoming eligible for social services, but not including public services like health care and education.
“你是否支持阿尔伯塔省政府与其它愿意合作的省份政府合作,修改《加拿大宪法》以废除未经选举产生联邦参议院?”修改宪法以废除联邦参议院阿尔伯塔省政府长期以来一直对联邦参议院感到失望,这一选票问题提议将其彻底废除。我们的报道追溯了阿尔伯塔省的不满历史,并探讨了为什么即使在出现“赞成”投票的情况下,废除的可能性也极低。
"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?"
“您是否支持艾伯塔省政府与其他有意愿的省政府合作,修改《加拿大宪法》,允许各省退出联邦项目中那些侵入省级管辖权限的领域,如医疗保健、教育和社会服务,同时该省不会失去任何可用于本省社会项目的相关联邦资金?”艾伯塔省选民将就是否退出联邦项目进行投票,同时保留相关资金。对此,艾伯塔省正试图限制宪法专家所谓的“宪法支出权”,即渥太华在向各省拨款时附加条件的能力。本文将探讨围绕此类主张的不同宪法观点,以及这可能对现有联邦项目产生何种影响。
Alberta charges temporary residents for public health care and education The Alberta government suggests charging non-permanent residents a fee or premium for access to public health care and education. The amount of the premium or fee would be decided after the vote, the province said.
“您是否支持艾伯塔省政府与其他有意愿的省政府合作,修改《加拿大宪法》,在宪法赋予省级或共享管辖权的领域,当省法与联邦法发生冲突时赋予省法优先权,从而更好地保护省级权利免受联邦干预?”在某些领域发生冲突时优先适用省法而非联邦法。这一问题涉及加拿大宪法中的“联邦法优先”原则,即当联邦法律与省级法律发生抵触时,联邦法律优先适用。本文将探讨艾伯塔省为何希望扭转这一规则,以及这样做对加拿大联邦体制这一理念意味着什么。
Premier Danielle Smith recently floated a $1,900 fee for temporary residents' access to health care, similar to a premium charged by the United Kingdom. "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?"
“艾伯塔省应继续作为加拿大一个省,还是应由艾伯塔省政府启动《加拿大宪法》规定的必要法律程序,举行一次具有约束力的省级公投,以决定艾伯塔省是否应脱离加拿大?”
Alberta referendum pitches proof of citizenship at the polls The province suggests if this question is adopted it will develop "clearer voting rules" that require individuals to show proof of citizenship to vote in a provincial election.
这不是一个“赞成”或“反对”的问题。选民将须在以下两个选项中选择一个:选项一:艾伯塔省应继续作为加拿大一个省。
Our examination explores the underlying motivation behind this question, whether voter fraud is a widespread problem and which groups may be impacted most in the case of a "yes" vote.
Calgary Eyeopener Calgarians read and react to the 10 referendum questions "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?" Province pitches gaining power to elect its own judges for certain courts With this question, Alberta is proposing a constitutional change that would rewrite an arrangement that dates back to Confederation in 1867. Our story explores the role Alberta has in appointing judges today and the province's push to secure control over judicial appointments, which predates the referendum. "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?" Amending the Constitution to abolish the federal senate Alberta governments have long expressed disillusionment with the federal Senate, and this ballot question proposes doing away with the whole thing entirely. Our story traces the history of Alberta's grievances and explores why abolishment is highly unlikely even in the event of a "yes" vote. "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?" Albertans to vote on opting out of federal programs — while keeping cash Here, Alberta is pitching an attempt to limit what constitutional experts refer to as constitutional spending power — essentially, Ottawa's ability to transfer money to provinces while attaching conditions to it. This story explores the varied constitutional perspectives tied to a push like this, and what it could mean for existing federal programs. "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?" Prioritize provincial laws over federal laws in some areas where they conflict This question is tied to the concept of federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law, which essentially means that when federal and provincial laws are at odds, federal law wins out. Our story explores why Alberta wants to flip the script and what it means for the concept of Canada as a federation. "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?" This isn't a "yes" or "no" question. Voters will be asked to choose one of the following two options: Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada. Referendum on whether to have binding referendum on separating from Canada This question has often been at the centre of referendum-related discourse across Alberta. CBC News has covered the Albertan independence movement and responses to it, including federalist sentiment. Here are some of the stories we've recently reported: With time running out, new poll suggests Alberta separatism support is slipping Establishing independent Alberta could cost up to $170B over 5 years: report Pensions, passports and misinformation: What each side says the other gets wrong about Alberta independence For more: Follow all of our Alberta referendum coverage