REPORT: Calgary Chamber underscores importance of immigration to Alberta’s economy

Calgary Chamber underscores importance of immigration to Alberta’s economy. 

Why we are voting NO to the 9

Immigration Questions

Question 1

This question has several elements. It proposes that Alberta take increased

control over immigration. Alberta would then decrease immigration to “more sustainable levels,” prioritize economic migration, and give Albertans priority over new employment opportunities.

Let’s unpack that.

Increased control over immigration. Under the Constitution, responsibility for immigration is shared by the provinces and the federal government. This question doesn’t propose any change to the constitution, so it is just talking about doing what Alberta is already authorized to do! If the Alberta government thinks it should be doing more, it should just get on with it.

Decreasing immigration. In the recent past, we have faced unsustainable levels of immigration. However, the government has reversed course over the past two years, and immigration has decreased significantly. Growth of the population in Canada over the past year has been the lowest in decades. Economists and business leaders say further decreasing the level of immigration would pose risks for the Canadian economy.

Prioritizing economic migration. Canada’s immigration policy already prioritizes economic immigration. What else does the government have in mind? The question references “migration”, not “immigration”, suggesting that it also applies to Canadians from other provinces. That would impinge on Charter-protected mobility rights, just at the time we are looking to break down economic barriers between the provinces.

Giving priority to Albertans over new employment opportunities. Again, Canadian immigration law is already structured to give Canadians priority over employment opportunities. This question proposes giving priority to Albertans. It isn’t at all clear how that would work, but it suggests the government would tell employers who they can hire for any job opening (what about all those Maritimers working in Fort McMurray?). And again, this would impinge on Canadian mobility rights. If every province followed this approach, Albertans would have a hard time finding jobs in the rest of Canada.

We are voting NO to Question 1.

Questions 2 , 3 and 4

These questions share a common theme – making it more difficult for refugees, temporary foreign workers, and foreign students to access publicly funded services, such as health and education. If implemented, a child of a temporary foreign worker could be denied an education. A refugee suffering a stroke could be turned away from the emergency room at the hospital. Those are not Alberta values.

The government’s explanation for these proposals is that the cost to provide services to this group of people is greater than the taxes they pay. We have never limited publicly funded services to those who pay enough tax to qualify! Those who most need publicly funded services often are those least able to pay, including the elderly and people with disabilities.

In recent years, the Alberta government has encouraged people to move to Alberta, including through the Alberta is Calling advertising campaign, without building the infrastructure to support the resulting growth in population. The solution to overcrowding in our schools and hospitals is to build that infrastructure, not to deny access by a relatively small group of people.

We are voting NO to Questions 2, 3, and 4.

Question 5

This question proposes that Albertans should be required to show proof of Canadian citizenship, like a passport or a birth certificate, before we are allowed to vote. For Albertans who already have a passport or a birth certificate readily at hand and in their current name, this proposal isn’t particularly burdensome. But many Albertans don’t have a passport, and many may not have a copy of their birth certificate readily available (and if they are married, the birth certificate might not have their current name). For those without that documentation, some of the most vulnerable persons in our province, this could prevent them from exercising their right to vote.

Why is this being proposed? It’s a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of voter fraud in this province.

The proposal is straight out of the MAGA playbook. Donald Trump’s key legislative aim is to enact the so-called SAVE America Act, requiring proof of citizenship to vote. This legislation has been blocked in the US Senate because of the impact it would have on the right of vulnerable US citizens to vote. Courts in the US have found time and time again that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, including voting by non-citizens. Equally, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Canada.

Ironically, the “anti-red tape” government wants to create a new, unnecessary bureaucratic process that could deny people the right to vote.

We are voting NO on Question 5.

Constitutional Questions

Question 6

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend time and energy to try to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to transfer the power to appoint judges of two levels of court from the federal government to the provinces.

The provinces already appoint judges to the Alberta Court of Justice, which hears most of the legal cases in this province. Why is the Alberta government now seeking the power to appoint ALL judges? Because occasionally it doesn’t like the decisions those judges make? This proposal for additional power suggests the Alberta government hopes that judges it appoints will more often reach decisions that it does like.

Let’s be clear. The role of judges is to act independently and with integrity to interpret and apply the law. In reaching their decisions, it is irrelevant which government appointed them or what result the government might wish them to reach. (Judges are not elected for the very reason that their decisions must be driven by the law, not by considerations of what they need to do to get re-elected.)

There is no evidence that judges appointed by the province have been better than those appointed by the federal government.

There is no valid reason to change the existing system for judicial appointments and it’s doubtful that other provinces and the federal government would support Alberta on this. The focus of the government should be on issues that matter to Albertans, not on issues doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 6.

Question 7

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend its time and energy trying to convince other provinces and the federal government to abolish the Senate. The structure of the Senate may not be perfect, but the Senate continues to play an important role in our democracy. Senators from Alberta help to represent the interests of our province in Parliament.

Would we be better off if the Senate didn’t exist? The answer is simple: no.

What are the chances that the Alberta government would succeed in abolishing the Senate? Again, the answer is simple: none. This would require the consent of all provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate itself.

As with Question 6, the focus of the Alberta government should be on issues that matter, not on issues that are doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 7.

Question 8

This question proposes that the Alberta government spend the time and energy required to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs for health care, education, and social services and still receive federal funding for those services.

This proposal would risk the loss of standards applicable across the country for the provision of services, like health care and subsidized day care, aimed at ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of circumstances, has the essentials to live a life with dignity. If Alberta were to have the right to receive federal funding without an assurance that certain standards are met, so would every other province, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

In fact, systems are already in place for a province and the federal government to agree on the use of federal funding for particular services untethered from federal standards. If the Alberta government wishes to do that with programs in the future, it should make its case and negotiate an agreement to that effect, instead of seeking a constitutional amendment that has no chance of success. Why would the federal government agree to place no standards on the programs it funds?

We are voting NO on Question 8.

Question 9

This question relates to an obscure principle of constitutional law.

The federal government has jurisdiction over certain areas of law. Each province has jurisdiction over certain other areas of law. In some areas of law, both federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction. In that case, if the federal law and the provincial law conflict, the provincial law is inoperative to the extent of the conflict, under a principle called paramountcy.

Question 9 proposes that this rule should be flipped, so that provincial law would have paramountcy over federal law. Conflicts giving rise to application of this principle are very rare. Courts have developed precedents over decades to address any such conflicts, and where possible, the laws will co-exist.

It is extraordinary that the Alberta government is spending the money required for a referendum and is proposing to spend further time and energy seeking a constitutional amendment on such an obscure point – a proposal that the federal government is certain to oppose.

And be careful what you ask for. If Alberta law were to have paramountcy over conflicting federal law in areas of shared jurisdiction, so would British Columbia. Do we really want to grant British Columbia the right to override federal law designed to facilitate a pipeline to the west coast?

We are voting NO on Question 9.

WE ARE VOTING NO to the NINE    

Jared Wesley: How to lose a referendum in 30 days

“This fall’s referendums in Alberta will be decided by turnout. There are vanishingly few undecided voters when it comes to the lead question on separation. This leaves both sides with nothing to do but pull the vote.”

Jared Wesley: Ten Questions, One Real Decision

“It is easy to dismiss the whole exercise as political theatre. The votes are “non-binding,” after all. And the pretext for the referendums is clear: the government is struggling to handle the policy files most important to Albertans and is looking for scapegoats and distractions.”

Parkland Institute: Scapegoating and Separatists

The report shows how Premier Danielle Smith is using the five immigration questions in the referendum to redirect public anger over affordability and strained public services toward immigrants. It also traces parallels between the language used in the ballot questions and anti-immigrant rhetoric advanced by Alberta’s far-right and separatist movement.

Opinion: Immigration questions in fall referendum a measure of who we are as Albertans

Originally published at CalgaryHerald.com on September 5, 2026.

---

On October 19th Albertans will be invited to express their opinions through a referendum that, in a convoluted manner, asks us whether Alberta should begin a process to separate from Canada.

We are also being asked a series of disturbing immigration related questions. These questions are likely unconstitutional and designed to satisfy the extremist element of the United Conservative Party (UCP).

One might ask why, as a province, we are spending an estimated $150 million dollars and requiring 60,000 employees to ask us these referendum questions when this money could be put to much better use responding to the growing pressures in our education and health care systems? But here we are. Referendums are a waste of time and energy, voter turnout is poor and their results do not reflect public opinion.

Very little discussion and exposure centers around the ambiguous and unconstitutional questions surrounding immigration. In fact, many Albertans are not even aware there are questions other than the separation question. It is time for Albertans to focus on the negative implications that are contained in the immigration enquiries.

As we think about who we are as Canadians and as Albertans, the message we send with our responses to the racist immigration questions may say more about us than anything else. We need to pay close attention to the implications of the immigration questions being put forward. We need to reject all of them and vote NO.

The referendum proposes increased provincial control over immigration, restrictions on access to services for non-permanent residents, a “head tax” discriminatory fee system for non-permanent residents, a 12-month waiting period for social supports, fees for healthcare and education, and citizenship verification for voting. These changes will significantly impact non-permanent residents (some 65,000 people) which includes temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugee claimants.

The implication seems to be that these newcomers fill our hospitals and schools and take jobs away from Albertans. To scapegoat our newcomers as the source of funding pressures in our schools and hospitals passes the buck to others over our failure to meet the demands created by our growth and prosperity.

The flawed premise of these questions rests on the assumption that this group of newcomers to Alberta are taking advantage. It is alleged that they don’t contribute, they cost us money and therefore they should be prevented from accessing services and should be back of the line for employment opportunities. Not only are these assumptions discriminatory, they are factually inaccurate. These individuals pay taxes for starters, but more importantly the assumptions ignore the many and necessary contributions newcomers make to our province and our country. They ignore the fact that immigration is the foundation of growth and prosperity in our province and perhaps most importantly, they ignore the pride we have always taken in being a welcoming country and province where difference is a strength. Other than indigenous and first nations peoples, we can all trace our histories to other shores.

We already have many children in Alberta being denied entrance to our schools because their parents lack immigration status. Are we becoming so insular that we can stand aside and allow children living in our Province to be denied education and health care?

There is no denying that we need new Canadians to fill the gaps created by smaller families and an aging population. These social trends will have a negative impact in the future where fewer workers will be available to meet the expanding needs of the province.

It is incumbent upon the Provincial and Federal governments to work together to create and implement programs that will recognize the population growth needs in our society. This is not a task for provinces alone. This is a national challenge and well outside exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, our current provincial government has not demonstrated any ability to address these types of issues with the intelligence, humanity and compassion they demand. For all of these reasons, it is important that we vote to stay in Canada and vote no to all nine of the divisive questions manufactured by the provincial government. In particular, we must remember who we are as Albertans and Canadians and reject the false and racist premises upon which the referendum immigration questions are based.

Ron Ghitter (KC, CM – Member of Order of Canada), is a former Alberta MLA and senator and founder of the Dignity Forum. Cori Ghitter (KC) is the CEO of the Ron and Myrna Ghitter Foundation and a member of the Dignity Forum.

Understanding the Immigration Questions

Our immigration system is not perfect. The rapid increase in immigration in the decade leading up to 2024 without building out the infrastructure necessary to accommodate that immigration created challenges for the Canadian economy. While steps have now been taken to reduce the level of immigration to more sustainable levels, it is reasonable to consider other steps that might be taken to reform and improve the system.

In its October 19 referendum, the Alberta government has posed 5 questions relating to immigration. In our view, the proposals put forward in those questions would not improve the system. Rather:

• they would create barriers to mobility in Canada, undermining efforts to strengthen the economy in the face of US tariffs,

• they would exclude some persons lawfully resident in Alberta from accessing basic services, like education and health, contrary to fundamental Canadian values, and

• they would create a barrier to voting by some particularly vulnerable Canadian citizens resident in Alberta.

Creating barriers to mobility within Canada

Question 1: Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immimgration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?

This is a complicated question, best understood by considering its constituent parts.

The first part involves the Alberta government taking increased control over immigration. As discussed in more detail in our article Question 1: A Poor Question offering Vague Choices, the Alberta government already has significant influence over economic immigration, including through the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. It should be noted that Question 1 does not propose any change in the constitutional distribution of authority over immigration; it only contemplates the Alberta government exercising the constitutional authority that it already has. A costly referendum isn’t necessary for a government to continue to do what it is already doing.

The second part of the question involves decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels. As noted above, steps have already been taken to reduce the level of immigration in Canada. As stated by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, its 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan “focuses on a return to sustainable immigration levels through continued decreases to temporary resident arrivals and stabilized permanent resident admissions.” The decrease in the number of immigrants entering Canada actually resulted in a decrease in the population of Canada in 2025, the first time that has happened since Confederation. And the Alberta Economic Dashboard shows a change in net international migration to the province between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 of minus 105.8%. It isn’t clear what steps, if any, the Alberta government proposes to further decrease the number of immigrants coming to Alberta.

The third part of the question involves prioritizing economic immigration. Canada already prioritizes economic immigration. Under the 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan, permanent economic immigration is forecast to reach 63% of all permanent admissions in 2026, rising to 64% in 2027 and 2028. It isn’t clear what steps, if any, the Alberta government proposes to further prioritize economic immigration.

The fourth part of the question involves giving priority to Albertans on new employment opportunities. The temporary foreign workers program already gives priority to Canadian workers; it permits immigration to fill temporary labor shortages when qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available. The proposal in Question 1 goes further than this by using the immigration system to give priority to Albertans, not Canadians. It isn’t at all clear how this would work. However, if Alberta could somehow use the immigration system to give priority for new employment opportunities to Albertans to the exclusion of other Canadians, other provinces could do the same to the exclusion of Albertans, thereby undermining mobility within Canada.

Quite apart from raising issues under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this proposal would involve erecting internal barriers at the very time that Canada and the provinces have committed to removing internal barriers to strengthen the Canadian economy in the face of the trade war with the United States.

Taking Question 1 as a whole, it is unclear what the Alberta government is proposing beyond what is already being done. What is new appears to be a proposal that would create mobility barriers within Canada.

For these reasons, we are voting NO to question 1.

Excluding some immigrants from access to education, health and other services

Question 2: 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?

Question 3: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to quality for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducting a law requiring individuals with a non-permenant resident legal immigration status to residen in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincial-funded social support programs?

Question 4: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permnanent 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 non-permanent resident immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family’s use of the health care and education systems?

All three of these questions propose excluding some groups of immigrants from access to publicly-funded education and health services. Questions 3 and 4 go further to exclude persons from access to other publicly-funded services. While the category of excluded persons under Question 2 is unclear as “Alberta-approved immigration status” is undefined, all 3 questions likely apply to exclude temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students from publicly-funded services.

Question 2 proposes a permanent exclusion, at least until an individual becomes a permanent resident of Canada. Question 3 proposes an exclusion for one year after an individual moves to Alberta, no matter how long that individual has lived in Canada. Question 4 proposes that services be available only if a “reasonable fee or premium” is paid. Those who can’t afford to pay the fee or premium (in other words, those who are poorest) would be excluded from accessing the services.

To put this in practical terms, these proposals would mean that the eight-year-old child of a temporary foreign worker could be excluded from accessing public education. These proposals would mean that a 70-year-old refugee from Ukraine who is suffering a stroke could be excluded from accessing public health care. These exclusions would apply notwithstanding the fact that the excluded persons were legally admitted to Canada and pay federal and provincial taxes, just like everyone else.

The fundamental objection to these proposals was articulated by Senator Paula Simons in an article recently published in Alberta Views magazine:

“On what planet does it make any sense to prevent refugee and immigrant children from going to school, learning English and integrating? Let’s leave empathy and humanity aside for a moment. Does it make our communities safer or more prosperous to prevent children—including those whose parents are here legally—from acquiring the language skills, academic training and cultural know-how to work and thrive and contribute to our economy and society?”

The same objection applies to exclusion from health care and other publicly funded services. Once an individual has been legally admitted to Canada, that individual should not be denied access to basic social services. Exclusion from access is a denial of individual human rights. It is also detrimental to the growth and strengthening of our society.

On its referendum website, the Alberta government provides three arguments in support of the proposed exclusions.

The first is that the cost of delivering these services to these persons is estimated to cost Alberta taxpayers more than $1 billion per year. No authority is cited for that number. Nor does the website state the amount of taxes paid each year by these persons.

In any event, even if costs incurred exceed taxes paid by these persons, the right of an individual to access basic services in our province has never been based on whether the taxes paid by that individual exceed the cost of services accessed by that individual. In other words, access to services has never been based on whether an individual is a profit centre for the province. That isn’t who we are as a society. Indeed, those that most need publicly-funded services, like the elderly or persons with disabilities, are often those with the least income, and therefore those paying the least taxes. Accepting the argument that access to publicly-funded services by an individual should be based on a comparison of costs incurred versus taxes paid would set a very dangerous precedent for all Albertans.

The second argument made by the Alberta government is that past immigration policies have led to rapid population growth in the province, which has put “pressure on Alberta’s health, education and other social services, resulting in delayed access to health care for Albertans, larger classrooms for students and unaffordable cost pressures to social services overall.”

What this argument does not mention is that the rapid growth of Alberta’s population arose from both internal migration and immigration and was the result of the conscious policy of the Alberta government. On a podcast in January 2024, Premier Danielle Smith expressed the goal of more than doubling the population of Alberta to 10 million people, using internal migration and immigration. In pursuit of population growth, the government introduced the Alberta is Calling campaign to encourage people from across the country to move to Alberta. And in March 2024, the Premier sent a letter to the Prime Minister, requesting the federal government to double the allocation of places for immigrants to Alberta under the Provincial Nominee Program and under the Ukrainian refugee program.

The cause of the strain on government services is the implementation of the policy to pursue rapid population growth without investing in the infrastructure necessary to support that growth. One example of that failure is the strain on hospitals in Alberta. In Edmonton for example, the population of the city has doubled since 1988 when the last new hospital was constructed.

The problem isn’t limited to physical infrastructure. It also extends to failure over the years to invest in additional spaces for training professionals, like doctors and nurses, needed to meet the growth in population promoted by the province. In 2023, we saw a hopeful sign with the announcement of provincial funding for additional seats in medical and nursing schools and for additional medical residency places. Given the time required to complete this training, the impact of that additional funding has yet to be felt.

At best, it is disingenuous to blame the strain on schools, hospitals, and other facilities on temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students. And the solution to that strain is to build the infrastructure needed to support the population, not to exclude categories of immigrants from accessing publicly-funded services.

The third argument made by the Alberta government is that youth unemployment in Alberta is high (at 15.6%), suggesting temporary foreign workers are taking the jobs of young Albertans. No evidence is cited in support of this suggestion. In a report issued in July 2026, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses disputes the alleged link between youth unemployment and the hiring of temporary foreign workers, arguing that “the jobs most commonly filled by Temporary Foreign Workers are exactly the ones that young Canadians are least willing to take.”

In any event, even if the Alberta government could establish some link between youth employment and hiring temporary foreign workers, the solution to youth unemployment is not to deny access to health, education, and other publicly-funded services to temporary foreign workers, refugees, and foreign students legally admitted to this province.

For these reasons, we are voting NO on questions 2, 3, and 4.

Creating a barrier to voting by vulnerable Albertans

Question 5: 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 election?

This question isn’t whether the right to vote should be limited to Canadian citizens. That is already the law. Rather, the question is whether individuals should be required to provide proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote. And as only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote, the question is whether Canadian citizens should be required to provide proof of their citizenship before being allowed to vote.

The rationale for this question, presumably, is to avoid non-citizens from voting by pretending they are citizens. There is no evidence that this a problem.

In fact, this question comes directly from the MAGA playbook. President Trump has announced that his first legislative priority is the passing of the so-called SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. This piece of legislation has been passed by the House of Representatives but has been blocked in the Senate. In August 2026, President Trump unsuccessfully demanded that the Senate’s August break be cancelled until it passed this Act. He also unsuccessfully demanded that the filibuster power in the Senate be terminated in order to pass this Act. This legislation is strongly opposed by civil rights groups across the country.

In the United States, as in Canada, there is no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud by non-citizens. A requirement to produce proof of citizenship is a solution in search of a problem. And it is a solution with potentially serious side effects.

The objection to the requirement of proof of citizenship as a condition of voting is that it has the effect of disenfranchising some of the most vulnerable members of society.

One third of Canadian citizens do not have passports. To state the obvious, those without passports are those who are not travelling outside the country. And those who are not travelling outside the country, on average, are less affluent than those who are travelling outside the country. For more affluent Canadians holding passports, producing proof of citizenship isn’t particularly burdensome. For less affluent Canadians without passports, producing proof of citizenship is more challenging.

Question 5 proposes birth certificates or citizenship cards as alternatives to passports for proving citizenship for the purpose of voting. But not everyone has their birth certificate readily available. And obtaining a citizenship certificate (citizenship “cards” referred to in Question 5 are no longer issued) requires a birth certificate for those born in Canada and additional documentation for those born outside Canada.

Again, for some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, including those who are unhoused, the requirement to produce this documentation may present a barrier to voting.

As there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud involving attempts to vote by persons who are not Canadian citizens, there is no justification for requiring Canadian citizens to produce documentation proving their citizenship as a condition of voting.

For this reason, we are voting NO on Question 5.

Question 1: A Poor Question offering Vague Choices

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?

• A referendum question should test one clear proposition. There are three different propositions referred to in this question. You might be in favour of one and entirely opposed to another.

• It is unclear what some of these choices mean. What is a “sustainable level” of immigration? What does prioritizing economic migration mean in practice? How would the government ensure Albertans get “first priority” on new employment opportunities? (Would they start telling employers who to hire?)

• Alberta already has significant influence over immigration. What would “increased control” mean?

Alberta already has significant influence over economic immigration

Under an agreement with the federal government, originally signed in 2007, Alberta and the federal government agreed to cooperate on the level and composition of immigrants to Alberta. The agreement recognizes Alberta’s economic development and labour market priorities, and authorizes Alberta to develop a Provincial Nominee Program to meet Alberta’s immigration needs.

Alberta’s Provincial Nominee Program is now called the Alberta Advantage Immigration program. It allows the province to directly select and nominate skilled workers, entrepreneurs and international graduates who meet specific labour market needs. By doing so, Alberta can fast-track permanent residency for individuals who fill critical shortages in key sectors.

This program already provides the province with several targeted mechanisms:

• Strategic Sector Prioritization: Alberta can focus on in-demand industries—such as healthcare, technology, agriculture, and construction—by issuing targeted invitations to candidates with experience in these fields.

• Express Entry Boost: Through the Alberta Express Entry Stream, the province can select candidates from the federal pool and grant them a provincial nomination. This awards the candidate an additional 600 points, virtually guaranteeing their permanent residence.

• Rural Revitalization: The program features dedicated streams, like the Rural Renewal Stream, that allow local communities and employers to sponsor and retain newcomers in smaller, underserved regions of the province.

• Economic Growth & Retention: By evaluating candidates based on established job offers or business ownership plans, Alberta ensures that immigrants can economically establish themselves and support the province's ongoing growth.

Labour shortages may occur if immigration falls significantly

Many Alberta industries rely on immigrants and temporary residents, including health care, construction, agriculture, hospitality, and technology. If the goal is economic prosperity, reducing immigration may make it difficult for Alberta to build the workforce it needs.

For example, in the key Alberta oil and gas industry, it is forecast that the sector will need about 72,000 workers by 2035, primarily to replace retiring employees, according to a new report (June 2026) by Careers in Energy, a division of Energy Safety Canada. According to this report, the number could climb well above 100,000 positions needed if proposed major energy projects like pipelines move forward in the coming years. It is unclear whether those jobs can be filled internally.

What does “giving Albertans first priority” mean?

It may seem like a simple concept, giving Albertans priority in hiring. But It’s not clear exactly what it means or how the province could enforce this idea in practice. Would the government start dictating to employers who they could and could not hire for every job opening? And by “Albertan,” does it mean only people living here who are citizens or could it include immigrants who are already living here but not yet citizens?

Would it mean current Alberta residents would get priority in employment over other Canadians? If so, how would this impact mobility and equality rights in the Canadian constitution?

What is a “sustainable level”?

The question implies that current levels of immigration are too high and therefore should be decreased to a “more sustainable” level. The problem is that "sustainable" is more of a value judgment than a measurable target.

In late 2025, the federal government made a commitment to return Canada’s immigration to sustainable levels. This means stabilizing permanent resident admissions to less than 1% of the total population beyond 2027 and reducing temporary residents to less than 5% of the total population by the end of 2027.

This referendum question is asking Albertans to vote on “more sustainable” immigration levels, but it is not clear what sustainability means to the Government of Alberta. Is it more or less than the federal plans for sustainable immigration?

The Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration met recently to discuss the 2027-2029 Immigration Levels Plan and the federal commitment to return immigration to sustainable levels. Ministers also discussed the importance of economic immigration and Provincial Nominee Programs, which provinces (including Alberta) use to address labour shortages. However, the Alberta Minister responsible for immigration did not attend. If economic immigration, provincial control of immigration, and sustainability of immigration levels is so important to the Government of Alberta, why did the Minister not bother to attend this meeting?

Immigration is not the only cause of pressure on services

Implicit in this question is the notion that reducing immigration is a key solution to relieving pressures on housing, schools, health care and infrastructure. But the government has not provided evidence that new immigrants are the cause of problems in these areas, and in fact, there are other policy choices being made by the province that contribute to these challenges.

Our view

The Alberta government already has the tools it needs to influence economic migration. This question is unnecessary, confusing and misleading.

We are voting NO on Question 1.

Question 2: What is this question actually asking?

Question 2

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?

• This question appears to be directed at temporary residents such as foreign students, temporary foreign workers, and asylum seekers, but it’s not clear.

• According to the government’s website established to explain the referendum questions, the government claims that temporary residents cost the province over $1 billion annually in health care, education and social services. However, it is not clear how the government calculated these costs, and whether the number is credible.

• Albertans deserve and expect their government and political leaders to lead thoughtful discussions about which public services are available to temporary residents. This question will not further that cause.

What’s the problem with the question?

This question focuses on the costs of temporary residents without considering their economic contributions and benefits. It’s like a business looking at one expense and ignoring the revenue it generates. In this case, it ignores the economic and community contributions made by newcomers in the province:

• Temporary foreign workers have jobs and pay taxes that pay for health, education and social programs.

• Alberta employers rely on temporary foreign workers to fill labour shortages.

• Foreign students pay high foreign student fees, which helps post-secondary institutions offer a broad range of educational programs to Albertans.

This question is unclear and doesn’t reflect the complexity of the issue.

• As written, this question could refer to: temporary foreign workers, international students, refugee claimants, individuals awaiting immigration decisions and people on various federal visas or permits. A voter might support restricting benefits for some temporary residents while supporting certain services for others. But this yes-or-no question does not allow for that kind of distinction or for a thoughtful examination of the issue.

• Bundling health care, education and social services into a single yes-or-no question makes it difficult to analyze what savings might be expected and whether there would be negative economic, social or humanitarian consequences. Each one deserves careful analysis. Only by examining each program can Albertans decide what makes sense to offer temporary residents.

• Under an agreement with the federal government, Alberta can nominate immigrants for permanent residence in Alberta to fill job shortages or start or buy a business. Is this what is meant by “Alberta-approved immigration status?” Perhaps, but it’s not clear.

• The question assumes that temporary residents currently have access to health care, education and social services, when in fact, eligibility requirements are different for different programs and services in the province.

For example:

• Alberta's health insurance plan generally requires lawful residence and meeting residency requirements. Uninsured temporary residents and visitors who don’t have AHC coverage will receive emergency treatment but will be billed for hospital and physician services.

• Some health care costs for refugee claimants and refugees are covered by the federal Interim Federal Health Program.

• K–12 education is already governed by provincial rules regarding who may attend publicly-funded schools. Currently, children of temporary residents on valid work or student visas have free access to that education, just as all the other children throughout the province do. Children of parents who are in Canada as visitors must pay international student fees, as do children arriving on their own to go to school in Canada.

• Temporary residents are not eligible for many social programs, including income support, AISH, student loans and rental assistance.

• The Canada Child Benefit and Alberta Child and Family Benefit restrict eligibility to temporary residents who have lived in Canada for at least 18 months.

What would be the economic impact if Albertans vote yes to this question?

Alberta relies on temporary foreign workers and other newcomers in many sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, energy, construction, health care and hospitality. Reducing access to basic services will make Alberta less attractive to workers that employers depend on. It may even create worker shortages in critical areas of the economy.

In the past, the provincial government under Danielle Smith ran high-profile, aggressive campaigns, such as “Alberta is Calling,” to woo immigrants and temporary foreign workers to come to Alberta. This, and other referendum questions, suggest a dramatic “pivot” in approach, implying that newcomers are to blame for lack of services, and increasing costs.

What other consequences might there be?

Health care: Restricting preventive care can increase long-term costs when conditions worsen. Vaccinations, infectious disease control, and maternal health programs often benefit society broadly, not just the individual recipient.

Education: An uneducated population creates long-term economic and social costs. Public education is a touchstone of a free and democratic society and is one of our great strengths as a society.

Social Services: Denying access to some services could create larger downstream costs.

What about humanitarian and constitutional considerations?

Beyond pure economic considerations, there are basic concerns about how we treat people in Alberta, and whether we view things like basic health care and education for children as rights that serve the collective good. Do we want pregnant women, for example, to have no access to maternal health care because they don’t qualify for coverage?

Canada has international commitments regarding refugees and asylum seekers. A change to services we provide in Alberta could contravene those agreements. And restrictions on services could face legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other legislation, depending on how future laws are drafted.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 2.

Question 3: Why would we impose a waiting period on social services for newcomers?

Question 3

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to quality 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?

• This referendum question asks Albertans to approve a blanket 12-month waiting period for all temporary residents (temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugee claimants) to access social support programs.

• However, the government has not provided evidence that this is a problem that needs addressing. In fact, temporary residents are already not eligible for many support programs, and many other programs already have waiting periods in place.

How much are temporary residents using provincial social support programs?

On the website set up by the Government of Alberta to provide background on the referendum questions, it is estimated that non-permanent residents (temporary foreign workers, international students and refugee claimants) cost social services more than $100 million annually. It is not clear where the $100 million cost estimate comes from, nor how much any costs to social services are offset by the economic contributions and taxes paid by temporary residents.

While the website acknowledges that non-permanent residents are not eligible for programs like AISH and income support, it lists programs like the childcare subsidy, Alberta Child and Family Benefit and student aid as targets of this new initiative.

However, those programs already have conditions which limit their availability to temporary residents.

• The Alberta Child and Family Benefit restricts eligibility to temporary residents who qualify for the federal Canada Child Benefit, which in turn restricts eligibility to temporary residents who have lived in Canada for at least 18 months and have a valid work or study permit beyond 18 months. As a result, there would be no savings if the Government of Alberta limited eligibility to temporary residents in Alberta for at least 12 months.

• To be eligible for the Alberta childcare subsidy, temporary residents need to show that they meet the income requirements by showing their CRA Notice of Assessment, something that is only possible if they have lived in Canada for several months.

• Only citizens and permanent residents are eligible for student aid for full-time or part-time studies.

What would be the impact of imposing the 12-month waiting period for all non-permanent residents?

The question lumps together very different categories of people: temporary foreign workers filling labour shortages, international students, spouses and children accompanying workers or students, and refugee claimants. The impact of withholding services for a year would vary with each group.

Alberta's economy relies on temporary foreign workers and international students in sectors such as health care, agriculture, hospitality, construction, and post-secondary education. A one-size-fits-all waiting period ignores the fact that most temporary residents are working, studying, and paying taxes while helping Alberta address labour shortages.

If Alberta wants temporary foreign workers and international students to come here, contribute to the economy, and eventually become permanent residents, policies that treat them differently for accessing services may discourage them from coming to Alberta.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 3.

Question 4: Why should we charge newcomers fees for education and health care?

Question 4

Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to quality 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?

• This referendum question asks Albertans to approve imposing fees on non-permanent residents (temporary foreign workers, international students and refugee claimants) and their families to access health care and education.

• Albertans are being asked to vote on this question without any estimate of the revenue the fees would generate or the impact they would have on the people affected.

• The vast majority of temporary residents are paying taxes and contributing to the economy like other Albertans. Why should they pay fees in addition to that?

Background

On the government’s website that provides background on the referendum questions, it is estimated that temporary residents (temporary foreign workers, students and refugee claimants) cost the province $400 million in health care costs annually and $600 million in education costs for the 45,544 children of temporary residents. It is important to note that the government has not disclosed the details of these estimates or how they were calculated.

• The website fails to mention that the federal government covers some health care costs for refugees and refugee claimants.

• The Alberta government also fails to mention that reputable long-term studies have shown that immigrants and temporary residents, who are generally younger and must pass a medical examination before entry to Canada, have fewer chronic conditions and better health compared with the average Canadian.

According to Statistics Canada, the number of non-permanent residents in Alberta increased from 87,684 at the end of 2021 to 281,857 at the end of 2025, primarily due to the increase in temporary foreign workers as Alberta employers have increasingly relied on foreign workers to fill labour shortages.

• While those numbers grew quickly over the four years, non-permanent residents in Alberta account for less than 6% of the province’s population of about five million people.

• Starting in 2025, in response to concerns about increasing numbers of non-permanent residents, the federal government reduced immigration levels and temporary resident permits. Alberta’s Quarterly Population Reports show that the number of non-permanent residents in Alberta fell throughout 2025.

• While Statistics Canada reports that Alberta consistently attracts about 10% of Canada’s non-permanent residents, most of Alberta’s recent population gains due to interprovincial migration.

International students pay more than three times the tuition fees that domestic undergraduate students pay, covering the full direct and indirect costs of their education.

• These high tuition fees provide important revenue for Alberta’s post-secondary institutions (PSI) as the revenue helps the PSIs invest in educational programs, some of which would not otherwise be available to domestic and international students alike.

• International students, whose numbers are limited by a federal cap on international study permits, also contribute culturally to the campuses they attend, so provide domestic students with an opportunity to learn in a multi- cultural setting.

There are strict limits on how many temporary foreign residents can work in Alberta:

• There are stringent federal requirements for employers to hire temporary foreign workers. Employers must apply to Employment and Social Development Canada for a Labour Market Impact Assessment to ensure that no Canadians or permanent residents are available to do the job and that there is a need for the temporary foreign worker.

• While some temporary workers are exempt from this requirement and have an open work permit, this is limited to temporary workers such as students, refugees and family members of work permit holders and is not a free-for-all as suggested by the Alberta Government.

• According to Statistics Canada, the majority of non-permanent residents in Alberta have work permits (68%), while 16% have study permits and 7% have both a work and study permit. Less than 10% are accompanying family members or do not have work or study permits.

The impact of imposing fees:

People who live, work, and study in Alberta help fund public services and contribute to the economy through taxes, consumer spending and foreign student fees. This proposal would require many to pay twice for services that their taxes already support.

• Requiring non-permanent residents to pay extra health care or education fees could make Alberta less attractive relative to other provinces competing for the same talent. This will impact people we want to come to Alberta, including nurses and health-care workers, skilled tradespeople, agricultural workers, technology workers and international students.

Many temporary workers have children who attend Alberta schools. These temporary workers and their children often become permanent residents.

• If there are barriers to the children receiving education before they become permanent residents, there could be long term costs and consequences for the province and the families.

• The Alberta Teachers’ Association and Alberta School Boards Association oppose restricting access to provincially funded public education based on a child’s immigration status. These organizations recognize children’s right to education as articulated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• They are also concerned of the impacts restrictions on public education would have on immigrant children, who would be denied the opportunity to develop social connections and develop the skills needed to participate fully in society.

The same holds for health care. Fees, in addition to taxes, could be a barrier to temporary workers and their families getting timely health care and lead to greater costs and poor health outcomes down the road.

Our view

We are voting NO on Question 4.

Question 5: Voter ID: A solution in search of a problem

Question 5

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?

• There is no evidence of voter fraud in Alberta or lack of trust in our voting system.

• Steps like this are borrowed from the US and don’t have a place in Alberta’s democratic system.

• We should be encouraging more people to vote, not putting unnecessary roadblocks in the way.

How would voting change if this was implemented?

If this proceeds, when you go to vote in an Alberta provincial election, in addition to your driver’s licence (which in future will include your citizenship status) or other forms of accepted ID, you would have to show proof of citizenship. For most of us, that would mean showing a passport or Canadian birth certificate. (New Canadians could present a Canadian citizenship certificate.)

What percentage of Albertans currently hold a passport? Unless people travel internationally, why would they have a passport? How many people have a copy of their birth certificate handy? How many women would have their right to vote questioned if the name on their birth certificate doesn’t match the name on their driver’s license because they took their husband’s name when they married? (This has become a controversial issue in the US where proof of citizenship has been proposed as a voting requirement.)

In effect, this adds another unnecessary hurdle to voting at a time when it’s more important than ever for people to get out to vote.

What problem is this intended to solve?

Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, introduced by the UCP government in 2024 strengthened the requirement for people to present physical identification at a polling station and eliminated the practice of vouching – where a verified person living in their polling district could attest to another person’s identity to allow them to vote. Minister Ric McIver was quoted as saying that Bill 20 was about “strengthening the rules so that Albertans can continue to have trust in local elections.” The same reasoning, we assume, applies to this question.

On the government’s referendum website, they state that this proposal is intended to “help make sure that only Albertans who are Canadian citizens are represented in the outcomes of elections.” Critics suggest this measure is targeted specifically at immigrants.

But the fact is, there isn’t any evidence of voter fraud or hordes of ineligible voters showing up to vote that would justify the need for these additional measures. Between 2013 and the last provincial election in 2023, Elections Alberta had recorded only seven cases of voting irregularities. And there is no evidence that Albertans have lost trust in local elections.

Why take this step and what impact would it have?

University of Alberta professor Dr. Jared Wesley in his article “ID? Please.” states that in practice, voter ID laws:

• Borrow directly from the Trump playbook

• Prevent more eligible voters than fraudsters from participating

• Disproportionately affect the most marginalized groups in our politics

• Reduce the number of options for voters to prove their identity

• Rely on an inflated sense of how many people have the necessary ID

• Overestimate the electoral advantage it confers on right-wing citizens

Setting aside the political arguments, it’s hard to not conclude that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Our view

Voter turnout for elections in Alberta is relatively low. It dropped from 67.5% of eligible voters in 2019 to 59.5% in 2023. Those who believe in the importance of our democratic right to have our say through elections should not support putting more unnecessary roadblocks in the way of people turning up to vote. Current ID requirements are sufficient.

We are voting NO on Question 5.

The Muttart Foundation: Response to the Immigration Questions Included as part of the October 19th 2026, Provincial Referendum

“Canada’s and Alberta’s successful immigration programs have resulted in immigrants contributing to all sectors of the economy. Immigrants make up over one third of the workforces in the professional, scientific and technical services fields as well as in the accommodation and food services sectors. They comprise just over half of home child care providers and four out of ten early childhood educators.”

Jason Markusoff: What some immigrants could lose if Alberta votes yes to Danielle Smith’s questions

“If Albertans vote yes to the five immigration questions on this fall’s referendum, many of Alberta’s 260,000 temporary workers and other non-permanent residents could lose their health and education coverage — while all the rest could have to pay access fees on top of the taxes they pay.”

— Jason Markusoff