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.