Referendum 2026: Immigration Questions
Here’s the second of what will now be three posts dealing with the upcoming referendum. Similar preamble to the last one: it’s no surprise to anyone who knows me - or reads what I write - that I am 100% against separation, think the referendum is absurd, and plan to vote ‘no’ on the nine questions as presented. In the last related blog, I said 8 of 9 - more on that later. I drew heavily from lots of different sources, and they are linked at the bottom. The voting process will be long and cumbersome (by design), and people will be dissuaded from staying in lineups. Hand-counting and actively avoiding tech solutions will produce inconsistent and questionable results. And, there is a targeted campaign of anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment, which I warned about several months ago in another post.
As I mentioned previously, the impetus to all of this is allegedly the recommendations of the series of “Alberta Next” panels, which required registration and were very tightly controlled vis a vis subject matter. Adversarial questions were routinely cut off, while supportive ones were allowed to go over time.The panel reported on topics like an Alberta Provincial Police force, Alberta Pension Plan, personal income tax collection - none of which are in the referendum package - and immigration, equalization, and sovereignty which are. The full report can be found here:
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-next-panel-recommendations
I know there are a lot of people doing breakdowns of questions. Many of them are much smarter and more insightful than I am, and I know that I might be just adding to the noise here. (Although, many of them are also just AI slop, so I’m probably somewhere in the middle). But this is an important, generational decision that nobody should take lightly. While I know that the “separation” question will actually be the first one, the AB government numbers the subsequent questions as 1-9, as I will as well. I’m also not going to put the full text of the questions in, as this isn’t word by word or legal analysis. Those kinds of thorough breakdowns can also be found at the bottom of this blog.
“Immigration Questions”
Of the 27 entries on the UCP’s own FAQ, 18 deal with immigration specifically:
https://albertareferendum2026.ca/faqs/
Q1 - Decreasing Immigration
Immigrants / migrants / “foreigners” have been a convenient scapegoat for a long time, and are almost always the first group blamed for any economic turmoil. While sudden population spikes obviously put strain on a system, and there are valid arguments to be made about Alberta’s lack of preparedness for a wave of immigration they both begged for and knew was coming, it’s also way too much of an oversimplification to blame immigration as the only contributing factor to the various economic problems we have. I would argue the decades of underfunding in healthcare and education by a series of Conservative governments contributed way more.
That’s actually only partially relevant to the question, but it is significant context for all of the “immigration” ones. The government's claims that immigrants cost a net of $1 billion is dubious at best, and has been thoroughly debunked by people much more economically inclined than I am. But EVEN IF that were true, the question really has three separate (but ill-defined) goals, and all three exist in very hazy legal grey areas. Immigration is a shared responsibility, and preventing inter-provincial migration is difficult.
So, while you may read the question and think, “yes, I do support decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels”, you need to ask yourself several things:
What exactly is a “sustainable level”, and how much higher is the current level? Do you even know what these two figures are or should be?
How would “economic migration” be prioritized, and what possible negative effects might that have for attracting people from other parts of the country?
Have you considered that immigration is essential for population growth? Remember, domestic, multi-generation Canadians statistically don’t have enough children to sustain Canada’s population. Particularly in a place like Medicine Hat, that's a significant problem which will become greatly exacerbated in the next couple decades.
Who is an “Albertan” in the context of this question, and exactly how would we “prioritize” them for employment without violating Charter rights?
Q2 - Health Care, Education and Social Service Eligibility
One thing that's interesting is that several of the services this question would seek to limit or deny to people with various immigration statuses would be things that 1. are generally considered human rights, and 2. people with work or student visas pay into through various sources. So they could potentially be paying for services they aren't allowed to access.
"Alberta-approved immigration status" is not defined anywhere in government releases that I have found. The official referendum website has a very brief explainer that only says, “distinguish between the temporary residents it has approved and those it has not“ with no additional parameters. I'm happy to be corrected though - there's a lot of information out there.
While AB technically does already have control over this, any provincial rules would still have to fit federal conditions such as the Canada Health Act and Charter requirements. Does whatever an “Alberta-approved immigration status” is create a new category of Albertan that’s different from just someone who has permanently relocated here and passes the three month waiting period that already exists? Or is it just lumping the current statuses together into one category? Or is it something else entirely?
These “immigration” questions have many similarities, and require you to ask some of the same kinds of questions:
What is an "Alberta-approved immigration status", and how would it affect people you know, love, work with, or employ?
Are you comfortable having people contribute to services that you can access, but they can’t?
Q3 - 12-month Waiting Period
This one has many similarities to Q2.
It would potentially deny (or delay) services to people who are paying into the system that funds them. It could make Alberta less attractive for students or professionals seeking work visas in various fields (like healthcare, which we struggle to staff appropriately). It could conflict with the Canada Health Act which caps wait periods at three months.
Again, there are questions that need to be considered:
What is a “non-permanent legal immigration status”, and how does it differ from an “Alberta-approved immigration status"?
How could the implementation of Q2 affect people in the context of Q3?
Raw cost aside, why would it be fair to make new residents wait four times longer than they do now to qualify for services that they potentially start contributing to right away?
Q4 - Charging Immigrants for Healthcare & Education
Like Q3, this could potentially dissuade people from moving here (which may be the intent). But depending on what "Alberta-approved" means, that could also affect inter-provincial migration as well which could be bad for O&G, agriculture, service industries, healthcare, and many other sectors. And like the other "immigration" questions, this undermines the universality of education & health care. But it also forces immigrants to essentially pay twice for services. It scapegoats immigrants while setting up a two-tier system.
The questions to consider are essentially the same as Q3:
What is a “non-permanent immigration status”, and how does it differ from an “Alberta-approved immigration status" & “non-permanent legal immigration status”? (For some reason, “legal” is omitted from this question)
How could the implementation of Q2 & Q3 affect people in the context of Q4?
Raw cost aside, why would it be fair to make new residents pay for services that they contribute to through various taxes?
Q5 - Proof of Citizenship to Vote
Elections Alberta has published all kind of factual corrections about various claims, misinformation, and misunderstandings related to election fraud (which is exceedingly rare and already safeguarded with several redundancies):
There is no widespread voter fraud in this country. That is a fact, and it's not predicated on being a supporter or critic of anything. This question attempts to solve a problem which simply doesn't exist. But, it could disenfranchise people who ARE eligible to vote, but lack these specific proofs. That's why vouching and multiple forms of ID verification already exist, as does a voter registration list. A yes could disproportionately target immigrants, or lead to racial profiling.This question does not address citizenship requirements, but rather PROOF of citizenship. It does not change who is currently eligible to vote.
Ad an addendum to the question on the official referendum website the following is written:
“Should this question be adopted, clearer voting rules that require individuals to provide proof of citizenship to vote in an election will be required as part of provincial elections. Alberta is adding a citizenship indicator to driver's licenses and ID cards which will also be accepted as proof. This will help make sure that only Albertans who are Canadian citizens are represented in the outcomes of elections.”
The documents the question lists - “passport, birth certificate or citizenship card” - perform different functions and couldn’t be used on their own in order to vote, both presently and under the new system if passed. Again, this is a functionally meaningless question which feels very specifically targeted to immigrants, refugees, or possibly seniors who no longer possess these kinds of identifications.
There’s really only one question aside from the above to consider for me:
Are you comfortable disenfranchising someone who is legally eligible to vote, but WHO CANNOT PROVE their eligibility through these stricter proposed methods? Do you feel the same if this is a grandparent, colleague, family member, or employee?
Sources:
https://www.separationfacts.ca/ - an independent evidence project that examines specific claims about Alberta potentially separating from Canada.
https://www.cbaalberta-referendum-analysis.com/ - the Canadian Bar Association’s breakdown
https://knowthenine.ca/ - biased against separation and imploring people to vote “no” on all nine subsequent questions.
https://albertataxpayers.ca/ - thoughtful and balanced, but decidedly skewed toward fiscal and financial implications of the referendum questions.
https://www.thenonprofitchamber.org/blog-news/before-you-vote-a-nonprofits-guide-to-albertas-october-referendum - factual and procedural, but through a non-profit lens.
https://albertareferendum2026.ca/ - biased in favour of a ‘yes’ vote on the 9 subsequent questions. Lots of misleading language, or times where context is deliberately left out. Not explicitly in favour of separation, but again uses language on this matter which is deliberately unclear.
https://albertareferendumb2026.ca/ - a spoof website with surprisingly good information (note the extra ‘b’)
https://www.albertaprosperityproject.com/ - obviously very biased to separation and a ‘yes’ vote on all 9 subsequent questions.
https://stayfreealberta.stayfreealberta.workers.dev/ - clearly biased to separation. Mostly just a site collecting donations and newsletter registration.
https://www.forever-canadian.ca/en - kind of similar to Stay Free Alberta in that it’s mostly a site mobilizing and collecting registrations.
https://www.takingbackalberta.net/ - obviously quite biased in favour of separation. Very xenophobic and anti-immigrant.
https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/guide-alberta-separatist-stay-referendum-9.7217218
https://albertatransitioncouncil.com/ - the “serious” arm of the Keith WIlson-led Let Alberta Decide, ostensibly working on policy and a legal blueprint for separation.
https://www.albertaandthewest.ca/ - Manning Foundation
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-referendum-need-to-know-9.7345261 - CBC breakdown of questions
Nothing really cheeky to put here this time, just fucking pissed that we’re even doing this,
Adam
