Please send this to ONE Canadian immigrant today and ask them to subscribe here.

The Rockies, Chinooks, the Calgary Stampede, Edmonton’s green onion cakes, and the endless prairie skies are just a few of the things that make Alberta universally, undeniably great. But it also has plenty of others that aren’t, such as a divisive referendum about our place in Canada and who should have access to public services. And as the vote gets closer, there’s also been a noticeable rise in racist rhetoric.

While the rise in racist rhetoric is based on personal observations, it’s still worrying. Especially because immigration questions can sometimes be used as an excuse to blame immigrants for some of Alberta’s problems.

As Jared Wesley, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta, says in his latest essay on the referendum, we live in a time of deep polarization in Alberta and the broader world.

Lately, I’ve been thinking more and more about this issue, which might be a result of running The Newcomers and talking with other immigrants. So, after my September 28th interview on CBC’s The Current about the referendum, I decided to share a longer version of my prep notes, including the sources and details behind my answers.

The first question tries to squeeze several big decisions into a simple yes-or-no vote. It asks if Alberta should have more control over immigration, lower immigration numbers, focus on economic migration, and give Albertans first pick for new jobs. Whew!

These decisions don’t always lead to the same results. For example, Alberta could use more control to bring in more nurses without cutting the total number of immigrants. Or, the province could reduce arrivals in certain jobs and then find that builders can’t get enough electricians to finish projects.

Now, depending on where a voter stands, they might support the first approach and oppose the second. Imagine the number of Venn diagrams we could create from the first question.

But the ballot only lets us answer yes or no.

The government’s worry about how fast the population is growing makes sense. Newcomers need places to live, but building houses, schools, and clinics can take years. For example, Evanston Heights School opened on August 31, 2026, after two years of construction. The Calgary Board of Education already expects it to be full.

Alberta’s student population grew by about 89,000 from 2021–22 to the preliminary 2025–26 count. The most recent yearly increase was around 8,500, down from about 24,000 the year before. So, enrolment is still rising, just more slowly, and these numbers don’t show how much of the growth is from temporary immigration.

But the Evanston Heights example shows that slowing arrivals could give Alberta more time to add spaces. However, the province still needs to keep building and hiring, because having fewer newcomers does not change the need to support the children who are already here.

The same goes for housing. With fewer newcomers, there would be less competition for homes, giving tenants more options and making it harder for landlords to raise rents.

But if restrictions make it hard for builders to find enough workers, new homes could be delayed. If employers can hire local people by offering better pay or training, that benefits local workers. If they cannot find or train enough people in time, construction could still slow down.

Federal policy is also already trending towards a reduction in arrival numbers. Ottawa plans to lower the number of new temporary workers and students from 385,000 in 2026 to 370,000 in 2027. Alberta’s non-permanent resident population also dropped by 0.6% in the quarter ending July 1, 2026. But a smaller temporary population doesn’t mean everyone left—some may have become permanent residents.

The real question is whether Alberta can build housing and expand services quickly enough to keep up with the demand caused by these federal changes.

Since Ottawa is already lowering arrival targets, Alberta should show how much pressure would still exist and what extra provincial limits might help. If slower enrolment lets schools and teachers catch up, there’s less reason for more cuts. But if schools are still struggling, more reductions and ongoing investment could help.

I am concerned that the referendum asks people to support lower immigration without explaining how much lower it should be, or which limits would help without causing more problems.

Does this still seem like a simple yes-or-no question?

The fourth question suggests charging healthcare and education fees to non-permanent residents and their families. Premier Danielle Smith mentioned a $1,900 healthcare premium, but there’s no final plan showing family rates, exemptions, or what happens if someone can’t pay.

If Alberta charged $1,900 for each family member, a family of four would pay $7,600 just for healthcare. This is only an example, since there is no official family rate yet. But it shows that the word “reasonable” doesn't mean much unless we know whether children pay, employers help, or low-income families get exemptions.

The government recently said that temporary residents cost Alberta over $1 billion a year in services. Officials shared some of their calculations with The Tyee. But their numbers don’t show how much is left after considering what temporary residents contribute.

For example, if Alberta spends $100 on services for temporary residents and gets $40 back in provincial taxes, the real cost is $60. So, saying the whole $100 is a loss ignores their contributions, but saying “they pay taxes” doesn’t mean they cover all the costs either.

Smith says permanent residents commit to Alberta for the long term and pay taxes over their lifetimes. But a temporary worker might spend a few years working here, pay provincial taxes, and leave before ever needing healthcare in retirement.

That is why we need to look at both the contributions and the costs over the time people live in Alberta.

If these fees make it too expensive to stay in Alberta, some families might leave. That would lower demand but also mean losing a worker and their tax contributions. If employers decide to cover the fees, their hiring costs go up.

In January 2024, Smith talked about doubling Alberta’s population to 10 million by 2050. By August, her office was focused on how hard it is to keep housing and services in step with growth. That March, she also asked Ottawa for 20,000 provincial nominations a year because of labour shortages.

Her letter to the Prime Minister at the time said Alberta’s program was focused on helping temporary residents become permanent residents. This meant a worker already living and working in Calgary who receives a permanent residency nomination didn’t become an additional person needing a home.

But by September 2024, Smith was calling for more limits on immigration, especially temporary migration. She also announced a bigger three-year budget for building and upgrading schools, about $8.6 billion.

It makes sense for Alberta to want a larger population in the long run, but also decide that short-term growth is too much right now. The government should be able to adjust its plans as things change.

But the government still needs to explain how its recruitment goals fit with its plans for social services.

In my May article about the referendum, I mentioned Alberta’s projected $9.37 billion deficit. Since then, the province’s revenue forecast has gone up to $86.3 billion, almost $11.8 billion more than the original budget, mostly due to higher oil prices.

Of course, a better forecast does not put a teacher in a classroom or help someone find a family doctor. But it does show why an overall budget balance cannot be used as a measure of immigration’s costs.

I understand why a parent who is worried about their child’s crowded classroom wants the government to slow things down. Immigrant parents feel that frustration too, since we use these services as well. But wanting things to work should not put us on opposite sides.

What troubles me is how a conversation about the cost of providing services has become one about neighbours costing us too much. Temporary residents work and pay taxes, and they also need healthcare and places for their children to learn. If we only talk about what they use, Albertans get an incomplete picture of the people living beside them.

Being pro-immigration doesn’t mean the system is all sunshine and rainbows. If I could propose one change, it would be to make it easier for people trained abroad to have their qualifications assessed and recognized.

When a nurse already living in Alberta is waiting for an assessment or additional training, patients who could benefit from their skills are waiting too.

Faster assessments, courses that fill specific gaps, and supervised practice could help those residents enter their professions. This does not mean we should lower our standards, and programs like these need funding and training spots.

But they offer a way to expand healthcare capacity without asking another family to move here first. The Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s Ready to Contribute report has some great ideas on this topic.

A yes vote doesn’t mean a family wakes up the next morning owing a healthcare premium. The five immigration questions are non-binding, and changes would need further government action. But approval means the provincial government has the political support to pursue policies whose details voters have not yet seen.

Families, however, could start responding before any changes take effect. Someone considering a job in Alberta might wait until they know what schooling would cost. An employer could find it harder to explain what accepting the offer would mean for the worker’s household.

These are reasonable responses to uncertainty, rather than predictions about how many people would change their plans.

Over time, the restrictions could slow demand enough for construction and hiring to catch up. Fees could help fund additional services. If Albertans saw shorter wait times at the ER and less crowded classrooms, confidence in the government’s handling of immigration could improve.

But these outcomes could mean different things for different communities. Fewer arrivals might ease competition for apartments in one city while making recruitment harder in a smaller town.

There are also social consequences. It is possible that the referendum debate has divided our society in ways we do not yet fully understand. I have found some of the rhetoric disturbing.

An Albertan who is worried about access to the ER or their child’s crowded classroom deserves answers. I don’t think treating every supporter of immigration restrictions as hostile to immigrants is the right approach. We need a way to have an honest, open conversation. Maybe a public discussion or town hall about “What it means to be Albertan?”

Whatever happens on October 19, I hope we will all still see ourselves as neighbours on October 20.