{"id":814365,"date":"2026-07-20T15:12:45","date_gmt":"2026-07-20T15:12:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/814365\/"},"modified":"2026-07-20T15:12:45","modified_gmt":"2026-07-20T15:12:45","slug":"what-some-immigrants-could-lose-if-alberta-votes-yes-to-danielle-smiths-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/814365\/","title":{"rendered":"What some immigrants could lose if Alberta votes yes to Danielle Smith’s questions"},"content":{"rendered":"

If Albertans vote yes to the five immigration questions on this fall\u2019s referendum, many of Alberta\u2019s 260,000 temporary workers and other non-permanent residents could lose their health and education coverage \u2014 while all the rest could have to pay access fees on top of the taxes they pay.<\/p>\n

When it comes to the most prominent question on Alberta\u2019s Oct. 19 ballot, Premier Danielle Smith has said she is against separating. But she endorses and has vowed to campaign for the other nine questions she\u2019s put to Albertans on immigration and constitutional reform.<\/p>\n

She\u2019s pitched them as a third-way option for supporters to express frustration with Ottawa without going as far as endorsing secession.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you want to send a message, you should vote for the nine other questions. Give us a mandate to pursue greater and greater autonomy,\u201d she told a gathering of UCP members in the town of Edson last month, according to a segment posted to social media<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some of those nine might verge more on the symbolic or directional, especially questions on constitutional reform and the one on wresting from Ottawa more control over immigration.<\/p>\n

But others ask Albertans to mandate the province to take real action on real people \u2014 to pass laws restricting real services and supports those people rely on.<\/p>\n

Critics say these ballot measures may have significant ramifications for temporary residents, a group that includes asylum seekers, student visa holders, temporary foreign workers and their families. But it\u2019s confusing to really figure out how.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey don\u2019t make sense on their own, a lot of them,\u201d\u00a0 said Avnish Nanda, an Edmonton immigration lawyer and leader of Our Alberta Advantage, a group campaigning against the referendums. \u201cAnd when you read them together, you can lead to these contradictory results.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here, CBC News does its best to parse them, with the information the province has made available.<\/p>\n

Welcome mat no more<\/p>\n

The first of five immigration referendum questions in October asks if voters support the provincial government taking increased control over immigration so it can decrease the pace of newcomers.<\/p>\n

After encouraging rapid population<\/a> growth earlier<\/a> in her term, Smith has more recently taken a rhetorical turn against immigration<\/a> and its costs to the provincial government. That’s come after a sharp rise in non-permanent residents earlier this decade pushed up the population throughout Canada, adding to strains on housing supply, class sizes and health-care access.<\/p>\n

However, new federal restrictions have caused those numbers to sharply drop in recent years. Far more non-permanent residents have left Alberta than arrived over the past year.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s also quickly dispense with the fifth immigration referendum question. It asks about requiring proof of citizenship when voting, which has been a larger talking point<\/a> south of the border than in Canada.<\/p>\n

Questions 2 to 4 all deal with provincial services and supports, in overlapping and wordy ways. Here they are:<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

3. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify 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?<\/p>\n

4. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify 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?<\/p>\n

It might appear these questions are overlapping or would cancel each other out. Would voters potentially choose to block temporary residents\u2019 social services and make them wait a year and pay a fee for services?<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s explore.<\/p>\n

\"AAvnish Nanda is an Edmonton immigration lawyer who has launched a campaign group to oppose Smith’s referendum questions. (Craig Ryan\/CBC)<\/p>\n

For the third question, focus on the term \u201csocial support programs,\u201d which makes it different from the other two. \u201cThis refers to things like childcare subsidies, student aid, and other benefits and income supports, not standard health care and education,\u201d states the government\u2019s referendum website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(The Smith government referred all of CBC News\u2019 detailed questions to the website and its FAQ. Joseph Schow, Alberta’s minister of immigration, did not have time for an interview over a three-week period, his press secretary said.)<\/p>\n

Questions 2 and 4 are the ones that are most like interlocking policy building blocks.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If Albertans vote yes only to 2, they are endorsing future legislation to make temporary residents ineligible for publicly covered health and education, unless they are deemed to have \u201cAlberta-approved immigration status.\u201d The government says it will only define after the referendum which classes of foreign students or work-permit holders will qualify for this status, and therefore basic social services.<\/p>\n

Those lacking that status would have to get private health insurance coverage or pay out of pocket, like visitors to Canada. \u201cTemporary individuals should be treated as that \u2014 temporary and tourists,\u201d Smith told reporters in February.<\/p>\n

If voters only say yes to 4, they are endorsing charging all temporary residents a \u201creasonable fee\u201d to access public health and education \u2014 note that there\u2019s no exclusions listed here for \u201cAlberta-approved\u201d temporary residents. Fee size to be determined after the vote, though the province\u2019s FAQ notes it already charges foreign students at least $11,000 tuition for public elementary or secondary school.<\/p>\n

WATCH | Ukrainian temporary residents in Alberta:\"\"<\/p>\n

Ukrainians are still flowing into Alberta, but free settlement services for temporary residents will soon end<\/p>\n

Settlement agencies fear the loss of federally-funded services will hurt Ukrainian newcomers as they try to learn English and find housing and employment. They fear waitlists for some programs, including English language training, will only get longer.<\/p>\n

What happens if Albertans vote yes to both 2 and 4, which is what Smith wants?<\/p>\n

In that policy scenario, \u201cAlberta-approved\u201d newcomers would need to pay the fee for provincial health and education, according to the government\u2019s FAQ. Other temporary residents and their families would remain left out like they would in Question 2.<\/p>\n

Essentially, this would create three separate classes of Alberta residents: the citizens and permanent residents who enjoy the health and education coverage that all residents now enjoy; the \u201cAlberta-approved\u201d immigrants who pay an extra premium for social services; and the temporary residents who lack \u201capproved\u201d status, and would lack coverage altogether.<\/p>\n

The provincial government declined to clarify a few other points CBC News asked: whether these policies would apply to temporary residents who are already in Alberta, or just new arrivals after October; and whether these restrictions would affect the thousands of Ukrainians who arrived on special permits since the 2022 Russian invasion, but have not yet become permanent residents or citizens.<\/p>\n

(And remember, all of these referendum questions are non-binding, giving the province plenty of latitude to interpret the results and fashion a response. Remember, too, that the provincial government could enact these policies without a referendum mandate.)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe details of new legislation to implement the will of Albertans as expressed in the referendum will be decided by the legislature thereafter,\u201d the premier\u2019s spokesperson Sam Blackett wrote in an email.<\/p>\n

One thing is clear, however: the federal government already covers asylum seekers\u2019 health care in all provinces, so Alberta couldn\u2019t deny health coverage to that group of residents.<\/p>\n

Questioning the questions<\/p>\n

There is a stunning lack of information or public outreach from the government on these major questions affecting immigrants, said Bukola Ojemakinde, who left industrial engineering in 2020 to launch two charities that serve women and seniors with African and Caribbean heritage.<\/p>\n

\u201cA lot of newcomers don’t even know what this is about. They don’t know the implications of it,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe seem to hear if this doesn\u2019t happen, our social institutions will crumble. But if it happens, what does it actually mean?\u201d<\/p>\n

Ojemakinde said there\u2019s been much \u201cdevaluing\u201d of immigrants\u2019 contributions recently. And that doesn\u2019t only include the taxes they pay, but also their volunteerism, cultural contributions and more.<\/p>\n

\"WomanBukola Ojemakinde leads two Calgary charity groups that serve the Afro-Canadian and Caribbean communities, including the Ladies in the Family Foundation. (Bukola Ojemakinde\/Supplied)<\/p>\n

She stressed that she is expressing her own views, not speaking on behalf of her charities. Laws restrict the types of political advocacy that charities can engage in.<\/p>\n

Nanda, the immigration advocate, argued that the actual policy outcomes of the referendums might not be the point.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is politics more than policy,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is part of that same effort to appease that same rump of the United Conservative Party for Danielle Smith to maintain her position.\u201d<\/p>\n

LISTEN | Marcello Di Cintio on separatists and immigration:<\/p>\n

Day 610:02Why calls to deport get the biggest cheers at Alberta independence rallies<\/p>\n

As the fallout over a leaked voters\u2019 list continues, Calgary writer Marcello Di Cintio says you can learn a lot about the Alberta independence movement by watching what gets the loudest and most reliable cheers at rallies. He says it\u2019s not equalization payments, pipelines or carbon taxes \u2014 it\u2019s immigration and deportation.<\/p>\n

The lack of clarity and open-endedness of the questions may be deliberate, he said, so that Smith\u2019s cabinet has freer rein to act as they please after the vote.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s giving the province a mandate to do something,\u201d Nanda said. \u201cWhat that something is, it’s for the province to decide, but I think they’re seeking a mandate to go a bunch of different ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

These questions have garnered far less attention than the headlining question on separatism, although that one would merely lead to a subsequent binding referendum, if Albertans voted that way.<\/p>\n

But these less discussed, less understood questions would have a direct impact on which taxpayers and residents of Alberta do or don\u2019t receive public services like everyone else.<\/p>\n

Clarity on what they mean before the vote on Oct. 19 would help the public understand their options, if the government indeed wants voters to understand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"If Albertans vote yes to the five immigration questions on this fall\u2019s referendum, many of Alberta\u2019s 260,000 temporary…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":814366,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194293],"tags":[49,2798,48],"class_list":["post-814365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-calgary","tag-ca","tag-calgary","tag-canada"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/814365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=814365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/814365\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/814366"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=814365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=814365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=814365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}