The ballot questions on immigration aim to create conditions that would allow human rights violations and intrusions into federal jurisdiction
Let’s take a look today at some of the “referendum questions” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party Government plans to put on a ballot next fall.
In addition to its separatist mischief, Ms. Smith’s government has formulated another nine referendum questions for her Oct. 19, 2026, vote.
All nine have been drafted to make it easier for her United Conservative Party Government push radical positions not in the interests of either Alberta or Albertans.
They have been intentionally worded, moreover, to influence voters to vote the way the UCP wants them to. In this sense, they are what would be known in public opinion polling as a “push poll” and their validity could probably be challenged in court.
Be that as it may, while Alberta’s Referendum Act allows the government to introduce votes on constitutional questions, the nine questions put forward by the UCP are quite clearly intended to create a constitutional crisis in Canada, as advocated by authors of the so-called Free Alberta Strategy, one of whom is the premier’s chief of staff.
The questions are also ambiguously worded, and many electors are bound to have trouble understanding the implications of the yes vote the government is fishing for.
In all cases, the five questions dealing with immigration are intended to appeal to a constituency of voters who support the racist and cruel approach to immigration taken by the Trump Administration in the United States.
At their base is the unstated assumption that immigration, especially by people with non-European and non-Christian backgrounds, is de facto bad for Alberta. They aim to create conditions that would allow the government to take actions that violate fundamental human rights and intrude on clear federal jurisdiction. As such, the five questions about immigration are also about the constitution.
As for the remaining four questions on constitutional matters, they are designed to advance a grab-bag of policy goals from a wish list associated with far-right politicians. In some cases, they are deceptively worded to sound more reasonable than they are in fact intended to be.
So, let’s start today with a short analysis of the five questions on immigration. Later this week, I will deal with the four remaining questions directly devoted to constitutional changes sought by Ms. Smith and her inner circle. In each case, I have recommended how I think Albertans should vote. No regular reader of this blog will be shocked by my recommendations.
The Questions on Immigration:
1. Do you support the Government of Alberta 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?
This question is worded in part to disguise the true intention of the UCP Government. Yes, the phrase “more sustainable levels” is partly a shot at the Trudeau Government’s unpopular approach to immigration, which is in the process of being rolled back by the Carney Government. But since the UCP clearly admits Alberta lacks workers in many occupations, such as the skilled trades, “more sustainable” in this context is likely intended to convey the message to the UCP base that too many newcomers are less Christian and less European than their party deems acceptable. As for prioritizing economic migration, aren’t most refugees from the Third World fleeing lack of economic opportunities? The dog-whistled implication, however, is that somehow Albertans are being discriminated against in favour of newcomers, a belief held by a sector of the electorate for which there is little evidence. So, how does the government propose to insure that Albertans have the first crack at jobs that need to be filled? In fact, that’s the way things work now – people with appropriate qualifications who are here and available immediately are most to likely get hired first. So this seems at best intended to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, and, more likely, is coded language for something else. Vote No.
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?
On economic, practical and humanitarian grounds, all legal residents regardless of their race, skin colour, religion, immigration status or any other quality should be entitled to access to health care. Indeed, if we are decent people, this should be extended to any human being experiencing a serious health crisis in Alberta, regardless of why they are here. Access to health care is a fundamental human right and should be recognized as such. The same applies to the education of children, regardless of the reasons their parents brought them to our country. The policy sought by this question is un-Canadian and most certainly un-Christian. In practice, it will inevitably be racist and unfair. It is hard to believe it is not intended to be. Vote No.
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?
This ballot question is clearly intended to justify denying sick newcomers access to medical care and the children of newcomers access to education for a full year. While it is presented as a cost-saving measure, the bureaucracy involved in determining who is who would likely increase costs. But which newcomers? The wording is very murky. Is it directed principally at refugees? In intended practice, it is appears to be designed to discriminate against certain classes of newcomers on racial and religious grounds, but could have the effect of discriminating against any immigrant from anywhere (except perhaps elsewhere in Canada) who does not have a significant bankroll. That would obviously be counterproductive in attracting immigrants with specialized skills needed in Alberta, but since the goal is essentially racist and intended to weed out non-Christians and those of non-European heritage, that may not matter to the government. Vote No.
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?
This question is intended to sound reasonable and ensure a yes vote. Will whatever fee the UCP comes up with be reasonable? How is reasonable defined? The intention is obviously malicious. One thing you can count on, though, is that if the government gets away with imposing this fee on immigrants, it opens the door to the same thing being applied to the rest us who already reside here, making life for everyone less affordable. Vote No.
5. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election?
This is weird, but also obviously intended to achieve a goal other than the one that is implied. Arguably, anyone who lives here legally and permanently or pays taxes other than sales taxes should be entitled to vote after a reasonable period of time. We can argue about what is a reasonable time frame, of course. But the categories suggested are interesting. What passport would prove one is entitled to vote? Not a Canadian passport since, in case the UCP missed it, there are nine other provinces and three territories that also have residents. Under current law, those residents of other provinces are not allowed to vote here. (I have lived in Alberta for decades. My Canadian passport gives another Canadian province as my place of birth. Is this a sly way to enforce the call by some separatists that only people born in Alberta should have the right to be full citizens of the new state they imagine? Or is this rule intended to be grandfathered to apply only to Alberta passports?) Likewise, many Albertans have birth certificates issued by other provinces or countries. Of what utility would they be in determining our status as legal Alberta voters? The only way this question makes sense is if it is a gimmick to justify the UCP’s intention to stamp our citizenship on our diving licenses as a way to make it easier to deny medical care to sick and injured people, education to certain classes of kids, and, of course, to round up the people the UCP’s base would like to deport after “independence.” Vote No.
I will return to the other four questions – those directly related to the UCP’s constitutional wish list – in my next piece on the UCP’s nine referendum questions. DJC
