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