Alberta’s Referendum Results Pave the Way for a Wave of Anti-Immigrant Policies

The headline everyone is talking about is that more than 75 percent of Albertan voters want Alberta to remain in Canada. But – that’s not the question I’m focused on. I cannot stop re-reading the results of the four immigration questions on the ballot. For all four immigration-related questions, a majority of Albertan voters have selected the option that places more restriction on immigrants.

Of course, this vote is non-binding, it doesn’t actually change policy. But, with these responses Premier Danielle Smith and her United Conservative Party could potentially use the voting results to justify some substantial policy changes.

So, prepare yourself for a possible wave of anti-immigrant policies coming out of Alberta.

Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare, a man without whom no Canadians (not even Albertans) would have access to Canada’s coveted universal healthcare, once said:

“We are all in this world together, and the only test of our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us. How we look after each other, not how we look after ourselves. That’s all that really matters, I think.”

Looks like we just failed the test.

Let’s talk about what these results mean for recent and prospective newcomers to Alberta and for Canadian immigration more broadly.

First: The Results of the Alberta Referendum’s Immigration Questions

I’m publishing this article at 10:00am MDT on Tuesday, October 20. Currently, 83 percent of votes have been tallied in Alberta, so these numbers will change. But, at the time of writing this article, these are the results of the Alberta referendum’s four immigration questions:

As it stands, the “Yes” vote has the majority in all four questions. Again, this doesn’t change policy, but it does pave the way for Alberta to justify some blatantly anti-immigrant policy pivots.

Here’s why I think that’s unfair and manipulative.

Has Danielle Smith Ever Heard of a Leading Question?

I’m a part-time writer for Moving2Canada. My true passion is in making documentaries. I’m an expert at interviewing people, especially about complicated and sensitive subjects. One of the most basic principles of interviewing – one of the very first things you learn in school – is that you should avoid asking leading questions.

The way I phrase my questions has a big influence on how someone answers. “Were you sad when you found out?” will elicit a different response to the open-ended, “How did you feel when this happened?” If I really want to understand how somebody felt, I need to give them the opportunity to tell me without insinuating what they’re supposed to think first.

That’s the first thing that makes me livid about these questions. They’re some of the most blatantly manipulative questions I’ve ever read. Put these in a proposal for an intro course on communication and you’ll get a failing grade.

Take the first question, for example. Albertans were asked whether they support the provincial government 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.”

From the very beginning, the question makes assumptions: “decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels” implies that immigration is currently at unsustainable levels. For a layperson who doesn’t follow immigration, this might feel true, especially considering the high immigration levels two years ago coming out of the pandemic.

However, in the past two years immigration levels have been slowing down so much that Canada’s population actually shrunk in the final quarter of 2025. The population is growing again now, but has reported its lowest year-over-year growth in 80 years.

Next, this question is not a single question. It rolls at least four questions into one.

What if I think Canada should reduce immigration levels but don’t think Alberta should have more control over immigration? What if I support economic immigration but don’t agree that Albertans should get first priority for jobs? What if I think Alberta should have more say over immigration but don’t agree with the government’s proposed priorities?

Too bad, baby. One question: one answer.

And, the poor question construction continues. Question Four asks whether temporary residents should pay a “reasonable fee or premium” for access to health care and education.

What the hell does “reasonable” mean? Are we talking about $100? $1,000? $10,000? Would a family with three children pay five separate fees? Would someone who couldn’t afford to pay be turned away from a hospital?

Premier Smith did eventually provide a figure: $1,900. However, this was floated in interviews with media and didn’t make its way into the question itself. Voters were asked to approve the idea based on the language of “reasonable fee” alone.

The questions are also structured to reassure Canadian citizens and permanent residents that their access to services won’t be affected, before asking whether other people should face additional restrictions.

It’s a pretty convenient way to frame the debate. “Don’t worry, your health care and education are safe. We’re just talking about making things more difficult for those other people.”

What’s that sound? Oh, it’s Tommy Douglas rolling over in his grave.

What Happens to the People Who Actually Live in Alberta?

Let’s move beyond political rhetoric and think about what these proposals could mean for the people who would actually be affected by them.

Temporary residents are not some abstract population that exists only in StatsCan data. They are real people who live in Alberta, work in Alberta, pay taxes in Alberta, and contribute to Alberta’s economy and culture.

They’re the people working in restaurants, hospitals, construction sites, farms and countless other workplaces. They’re international students studying at Alberta’s colleges and universities. They’re families who have moved to the province hoping to build a future.

And, of course, some of the people arriving in Alberta are those who have fled violence and persecution in their home countries and are seeking safety in Canada.

Under the proposals now endorsed by voters, some of these people could face additional costs for healthcare and education, and uncertainty about whether their immigration status qualifies them for provincial services.

Again, the referendum doesn’t automatically change any of these rules. And there are already important distinctions in how different groups of temporary residents access services.

For example, international students and foreign workers can currently qualify for Alberta’s public health insurance without having to live in the province for a full year first. But, Alberta requires them to “intend to reside” in the province for at least 12 months, which is a very different thing from imposing a 12-month waiting period.

Refugee claimants can also often qualify for healthcare coverage through the federal Interim Federal Health Program, even when they aren’t eligible for provincial health insurance. So, there are still supports in place.

But – that’s precisely why I find these proposals so frustrating. They’re broad, they’re vague, and they leave massive questions unanswered about who’s going to be impacted.

What happens to somebody who loses their job and needs temporary assistance? What happens to a family that can’t afford a new healthcare premium? What happens when someone’s immigration status doesn’t fit neatly into whatever category the Alberta government decides to approve?

“The only test of our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us.”

And, it’s worth noting that many of these are people who Alberta asked to come. In 2022 and 2023, only three years ago, Alberta ran the “Alberta Is Calling” campaign:

The goal of this campaign was literally to attract skilled workers to move to the province. I’m sure those arriving on temporary work permits will be thrilled to learn that their access to healthcare and social services might be in jeopardy.

Another question I keep asking is what happens to children? And, I’m not the only one with this concern.

Former Alberta public school teacher Liz Plante, who was born and raised in the province, is particularly concerned about the implications for young people.

“What are immigrant children supposed to do for a year if they are not able to access public education? Will they just fall further behind and struggle to catch up to their peers in an already overloaded and underfunded system? How will that affect our communities and the youth that are our future?”

The referendum doesn’t explicitly propose banning children from public schools for 12 months: the 12-month residency requirement concerns social support programs. But, the separate education question floats charging fees to people with non-permanent immigration status.

Hell yeah, let’s make those immigrant kids pay to go to elementary school. That’s patriotism, baby.

And look, I’m not suggesting that immigration policy should never change. Immigration levels need to respond to economic conditions, housing availability, labour market needs and the capacity of public services.

But – if Alberta has a shortage of housing, then build more housing. If hospitals are overwhelmed, invest in health care. If classrooms are overcrowded… I don’t know – maybe instead of spending $125-million to run a xenophobic referendum ballot you could use it to HIRE SOME GODDAMN TEACHERS.

How does making temporary residents pay more for public services solve any of those problems?

Maybe the government has a detailed plan demonstrating how these policies would improve services for everyone. If so: buck up, Danielle Smith and show your cards, I’d love to see ‘em.

So: What Kind of Country Do We Want to Be?

I want to be clear about something. I don’t think every Albertan who voted “Yes” on these questions hates immigrants. I don’t think every person who wants lower immigration levels is xenophobic. And I understand that people are frustrated about the cost of living, housing shortages, and the hoops we have to jump through to see a doctor or a nurse.

Those are real problems that deserve real attention.

But – I also think we need to be willing to call out anti-immigrant policies when we see them.

“The only test of our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us.”

Tommy Douglas built a system wherein we are all given access to the services essential to life. It’s imperfect, but it aspires towards equality. And I, for one, will choose imperfection that aspires towards the good of all people, rather than a perfect system that only benefits those at the top.

What kind of system do you want to build? Where do your values lie? Ask yourself those questions and think about them, really think about them before you answer. To build a system that works for all of us, sometimes we have to make sacrifices. But, as Tommy Douglas said:

“Courage, my friend, it’s not too late to make the world a better place.”