Immigration policy questions on Alberta referendum ballot and PQ platform highlight shifting debate across Canada

The Story

A shift in Canada’s immigration debate is set to play out at the ballot box in both Quebec and Alberta, with immigration policy featuring prominently as provincial leaders pursue different approaches.

In Quebec, the Parti Québécois has won a minority mandate on a platform that included promises of tighter immigration controls, which the party linked to protecting French culture and easing pressure on public services and housing. The platform includes reducing annual permanent resident admissions from 45,000 to 35,000, imposing a moratorium on permanent immigration from outside Quebec, prioritizing permanent status for temporary residents already in the province, and tightening selection criteria for temporary workers. Quebec has maintained far more control over immigration since 1991.

In Alberta, a referendum scheduled for Monday includes five separate questions pushed by the government of Premier Danielle Smith, focused on provincial control of immigration and access to provincial services. The questions ask voters whether the province should have more say over economic immigration; whether provincially funded services should be restricted to citizens, permanent residents and those with “Alberta-approved” immigration status; whether non-permanent immigrants should be charged a fee for accessing health care and education; whether non-permanent residents must reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for provincially funded social supports; and whether voters must present proof of citizenship when voting provincially.

Smith encouraged Albertans to vote in favour of the nine immigration and constitutional questions in the referendum in a video released Wednesday, saying the goal of one question is to “give us the same power as Quebec to recruit economic migrants.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney urged voters at a pro-unity campaign stop in Calgary on Thursday to vote “no to the nine,” repeating a phrase used by opponents of separatism.

Jason Kenney, a former Alberta premier and federal immigration minister, called for a broader, evidence-based debate on immigration policy and said immigration discussions can be derailed by more extreme politics. Kenney said, “We do need a serious debate on immigration because demography is destiny. There are very few things that are more important,” adding, “But we have to do it in a disciplined and respectful, thoughtful way, as much as possible, based on evidence and data and experience around the world.”

Kenney warned that public debates can be overtaken by accusations of racism from the far left and “actual racism” on the far right, and said he does not see Alberta’s immigration questions as race-based or xenophobic. He also pointed to separatist messaging in Alberta, saying key separatist leaders have argued that “in his republic of Alberta, no one will have citizenship unless you’re born there,” while maintaining that an “adult, grown-up conversation about immigration policy” is still possible.

Concerns about the referendum questions have also been raised by some Alberta diaspora communities. Avnish Nanda, a lawyer and co-founder of the advocacy group Our Alberta Advantage, is campaigning for a “no” vote on the immigration-related questions. Nanda said the reaction he has heard has been “overwhelmingly negative,” with people viewing the questions as targeting their communities and their “journey here,” alongside fears that the measures are tied to the separatism effort.

Nanda said the referendum is bringing out “ugly undercurrents” in Alberta, citing an example in which he said his parents were “jeered by a couple of white guys in a car” while out for a walk. He also said some people involved in supporting the questions do not distinguish between long-time residents and those who arrived more recently.

Across Quebec, political-science professor Catherine Xhardez of the University of Montreal said the debate has been politicized by restrictions introduced by the outgoing Coalition Avenir du Québec government, which the Parti Québécois now wants to strengthen. Xhardez described a previous consensus in Quebec that immigration supported the economy and francophone culture, and said that view shifted after 2018 when the CAQ argued it was “too much, too quickly, they needed less.”

Xhardez said the Alberta and Quebec immigration debates differ in how they are framed, saying the Alberta conversation is built around populist pushback blaming social-service shortages on immigrants, while the Quebec debate focuses more on identity and culture. She also said immigration has become part of the bargaining between Quebec and Ottawa.

Kenney said he is skeptical about greater provincial control over immigration policy, arguing that provincial governments may be less able than Ottawa to detect fraud and that local issues can dominate. He added that after the COVID-19 pandemic, some premiers told Ottawa their priority was to increase immigration even though early evidence of housing and youth unemployment challenges was driving the current debate.

Nanda argued that the loudest opposition to the immigration questions in Alberta has come from some chambers of commerce that represent businesses struggling to recruit staff. He said immigrants can help “lift up economies” and support social programs and services, and he pointed to staffing shortages in sectors such as hospitals and long-term care, where he said many nurses and support staff are immigrants because “we can’t find local workers to work there.”