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.