Question 1 and the Overall Argument
What Alberta’s immigration control question sets in motion, and what it means for settlement practice
At a Glance
- Question 1 asks Albertans to endorse a direction: more provincial control over immigration, lower immigration levels, a priority on economic migration and a first claim for Albertans on new jobs.
- Questions 2 to 5 describe how that direction could be put into practice through service eligibility rules, a residency wait, fees and new voting documentation.
- Citizens and permanent residents keep their current access under Questions 2 to 4. Temporary residents carry the uncertainty
- The phrasing, “Alberta-approved immigration status,” has not been defined.
- The most useful thing counsellors can offer clients right now is accurate information about what has changed and what has not.
Why Question 1 Deserves A Closer Read
Question 1 is the broadest of the five immigration questions on the October 19 ballot, and it is easy to read as a general check of Alberta’s attitudes towards immigration. It does more than that.
Questions 2, 3 and 4 each describe a specific restriction on temporary residents. Question 1 presents a broader policy direction reflected in Questions 2, 3 and 4, specifically: that immigration should be lowered, focused on economic value, and managed so that Albertans come first.
This matters for the settlement sector as newcomers do not experience these questions individually. Rather, they may interpret this question as signalling future priorities regarding immigration levels and immigrant selection. If understood in this way, Question 1 may provide context for understanding the remaining immigration questions.
What Question 1 Actually Says
Alberta is the first province in Canada to attach a mandatory citizenship marker to a general-purpose driver’s licence. Understanding what other jurisdictions have done, and crucially, how they have done it, clarifies why Alberta’s approach is without precedent among Canadian provinces.
The official wording, as published by the Government of Alberta (2026), is:
“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?”
The question makes one request and attaches three reasons to it. The request is increased provincial control. The reasons are lower immigration, economic priority, and job priority for Albertans. Voters must accept or reject all four elements together. They cannot support one reason and reject another, which means a single voting choice will be read as endorsement of the whole package.
The Case the Province Makes
The province argues that federal immigration policy brought about 600,000 new people to Alberta over five years and put pressure on Alberta’s health, education, and other social services (Government of Alberta, 2026).
It argues that Alberta should have increased control over immigration so that levels come down to what it describes as sustainable, that selection should prioritize economic migration and that Albertans should have first priority on new employment opportunities (Government of Alberta, 2026).
It estimates that services for temporary residents cost more than $1 billion a year, made up of about $600 million in education, about $400 million in health care and more than $100 million in other social services, and describes that total as a net figure after accounting for jobs it says could have been filled by Albertans and for additional capital costs (Ali, 2026).
This is the case as the province states it. What follows examines what each question would do rather than what is proposed.
Increased control
Immigration is a shared jurisdiction under section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and federal law prevails where the two conflict. Alberta already selects some economic immigrants through the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program (AAIP), which allows the province to nominate around 6,600 people for permanent residence in 2026 (Ali, 2026). Final decisions on permanent residence applications are made by the Government of Canada (Government of Alberta, n.d.). Every province and territory except Quebec and Nunavut makes its nomination decisions under a bilateral agreement with the federal government (Muttart Foundation, 2026b). A Yes vote would give the province a political mandate to seek more authority, not automatically transfer the authority.
Sustainable levels
The question does not say what level of immigration would be sustainable. It also arrives after significant federal reductions are already under way. Federal Budget 2025 set permanent resident targets at 380,000 a year for 2026 to 2028 and lowered temporary resident admissions from 673,650 in 2025 to 385,000 in 2026 (Parsons, 2025). The Muttart Foundation (2026a) notes that the 2026 to 2028 federal plan proposes to reduce the number of non-permanent residents coming to Alberta by 25 to 30 percent. It is reasonable to confuse federal changes already in effect with provincial proposals that are not.
Economic migration and Albertans first
The question does not define economic migration or explain how a priority on new jobs would operate. The government’s campaign materials frame the case in terms of pressure on public systems, stating that federal policy put “pressure on Alberta’s health, education and other social services” (Government of Alberta, 2026). The question does not describe what an economic priority would mean for refugee resettlement or family reunification.
Who Is Affected: Getting The Categories Right
It is easy to assume Question 1 and the rest of the questions are aimed at people without status. That assumption is inaccurate. The questions concern people with lawful temporary status: workers, students, refugee claimants, and their families. They hold federal permits or have active claims. Non-permanent residents make up around five percent of Alberta’s population, and those who work pay provincial and federal income taxes like other workers (Muttart Foundation, 2026a). CBC News estimates that Alberta is home to about 260,000 temporary workers and other non-permanent residents (Markusoff, 2026).
One wording difference deserves attention. Question 3 refers to “non-permanent legal immigration status,” while Question 4 omits the word “legal.” The Canadian Bar Association Alberta (n.d.) observes that this creates ambiguity about whether Question 4 is limited to people with federally recognized temporary or refugee related status or whether Alberta would define the affected groups differently. The accurate summary for clients is that the primary focus is lawful temporary residents, while the reach of Question 4 remains unclear.
The table below sets out current access by status, drawing on AAISA’s resource Understanding Who Lives in Alberta (Alberta Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies [AAISA], 2026), alongside what Questions 2 to 4 could change and what remains unknown.
| Status | Current access (summary) | What Questions 2 to 4 could change | Still unknown |
| Canadian citizens | Full access to provincial services. | No change to services. Question 5 would change the documents needed to vote. | Which documents will be accepted in practice. |
| Permanent residents | Generally treated the same as citizens for service eligibility. | Current access protected by the wording of Questions 2 to 4. | How the policy climate affects service seeking in mixed status households. |
| Temporary foreign workers | Provincial health coverage after a waiting period; no Alberta social assistance; children may attend public school. | Could lose eligibility unless “Alberta-approved;” could face fees; 12 months wait for social supports. | Whether AAIP candidates and workers with implied status would qualify (Ali, 2026). |
| International students | Provincial health coverage for students in programs of 12 months or longer, after three months of residence. | Same exposure as other temporary residents. | Which classes of students would qualify as “Alberta-approved” (Ali, 2026). |
| Refugee claimants | Health coverage through the federal Interim Federal Health Program (Ali, 2026); provincial Income Support only if criteria are met; free K to 12. | Provincial supports and schooling could be affected. Federal health coverage is outside provincial control. | Whether claimants would count as “Alberta-approved.” |
| Ukrainian temporary residents | Temporary status through federal programs. | Same exposure as other temporary residents. | The province did not answer when asked (Ali, 2026). |
The practical reach of Question 3 also depends on which programs currently serve temporary residents. The Canadian Bar Association Alberta (n.d.) notes that temporary residents are already excluded from provincial income supports, and CBC News cites childcare subsidies as one example of a support that could be affected (CBC News, 2026). Counsellors should avoid telling clients that any specific program will be cut until legislation names it.
Noteworthy is that permanent residents are not referenced in the Questions but are still part of the discourse. CBC News reports that none of the policies in the immigration questions would affect permanent residents or citizens living in Alberta (Ali, 2026). That is accurate but some situations might still cause concern.
- Mixed status households. A permanent resident may live with a spouse, parent, or adult child on temporary status. Questions 2 to 4 would apply to those family members, and Question 4 explicitly extends to family use of health care and education.
- The pathway to permanence. Some clients are working toward permanent residence through provincial nomination. Question 2 would tie service eligibility to provincial approval, which makes the pathway itself a condition of access during the years before permanent residence is granted.
The Labour Market Question
Question 1 ties lower immigration with an economic priority. Yet the fundamental question is not if immigration levels should change, but how the province would lower numbers while supporting sectors where continued growth in demand is projected. Immigrants make up over one third of the workforce in professional, scientific, and technical services, in social services and in accommodation and food services (Muttart Foundation, 2026a). The federal Job Bank rates the outlook for registered nurses in Alberta as good for 2025 to 2027, citing population growth and a national shortage, with about 45,000 people working in the occupation (Government of Canada, 2025). Alberta’s health care and social assistance sector employed an estimated 326,700 workers in 2024, and the federal government projects 11 percent employment growth in the sector from 2024 to 2027 (Government of Canada, n.d.). At the same time, some economists and policy analysts have argued that recent immigration levels have outpaced housing, infrastructure and service capacity, creating pressures that governments must address.
It is worth noting that the case for lower immigration levels has economic grounding. The C.D. Howe Institute, a nonpartisan economic policy institute, convened an advisory group on immigration targets that concluded Canada’s system needs reform to better balance population growth with economic capacity. They also broadly supported a gradual reduction in both permanent and temporary immigration, with priority given to high skilled immigrants, attention to housing and health care pressures and the restoration of public confidence (C.D. Howe Institute, 2024). Parisa Mahboubi of the same institute argues that chasing numeric targets has undermined wage growth and discouraged productivity investment, and that who is selected matters more than how many are admitted (Mahboubi, 2025).
These discussions raise two separate policy considerations: immigration levels and the treatment of individuals currently residing lawfully in Alberta. Readers may find it useful to consider these issues separately when evaluating the implications of the referendum.
What This Means for Practice Now
The most immediate effect of the referendum is informational. Public opinion research found that two thirds of Albertans (66 percent) supported restricting temporary residents’ access to government funded social services (Angus Reid Institute, 2026). The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (2026) has argued that the referendum uses immigrants as a scapegoat. While some organizations have argued that the referendum unfairly targets immigrants, supporters argue that the questions are intended to address public service pressures and provincial jurisdiction.
As mentioned in the last article, whatever view one takes of that argument, counsellors should expect questions from clients who are worried about losing coverage, and some clients may delay seeking services they are still entitled to use.
Discussions about immigration, belonging, and future uncertainty can be challenging. If you or someone you know is feeling overwhelmed, 211 Alberta can connect you with local mental health, counselling, crisis, and community supports. Settlement workers, volunteers, community leaders, and newcomers may all experience stress during periods of uncertainty. Reaching out for support is a normal and healthy response.
Where AAISA Stands
AAISA does not tell Albertans how to vote. Our role is to make sure the people who serve newcomers understand what is on the ballot, what it would and would not do and where the open questions lie. Question 1 is worth that attention because it frames everything that follows. Whatever the result on October 19, the settlement sector will be central to how any change is explained, implemented, and experienced.
For any further inquiries, please reach out to research@aaisa.ca.
REFERENCES
Alberta Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies. (2026). Understanding who lives in Alberta: A quick reference guide to residency categories [Fact sheet]. AAISA.
Ali, R. (2026, September 16). What you need to know about Alberta referendum questions 2, 3 and 4 on immigration. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-referendum-2026-immigration-questions-9.7149381
Angus Reid Institute. (2026, April 10). The other Alberta referendums: Majority support restricting temporary residents’ access to social services. https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2026.04.10_AB_referendum.pdf
C.D. Howe Institute. (2024, October 30). Canada must focus on highly skilled immigrants and reduce overall immigration intake. https://cdhowe.org/publication/canada-must-focus-highly-skilled-immigrants-and-reduce-overall-immigration-intake/
Mahboubi, P. (2025, October 8). Immigration reform begins with simplifying the system. C.D. Howe Institute. https://cdhowe.org/publication/immigration-reform-begins-with-simplifying-the-system/
Canadian Bar Association Alberta. (n.d.). CBA Alberta referendum analysis. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://www.cbaalberta-referendum-analysis.com/
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. (2026, May 25). Unpacking Alberta’s anti-immigrant and anti-constitutional referendums. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/unpacking-albertas-anti-immigrant-and-anti-constitutional-referendums/
CBC News. (2026, July 14). Immigration is on the ballot. Here’s what some of Alberta’s multicultural communities say about the referendum. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/immigration-is-on-the-ballot-heres-what-some-of-albertas-multicultural-communities-say-about-the-referendum-9.7263829
Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 95 (UK).
Elections Alberta. (2026). Referendum. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://www.elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/
Elections Alberta. (n.d.). Information for students on provincial elections. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://www.elections.ab.ca/voters/information-for-students-on-provincial-elections/
EY Law LLP. (2026, April 28). Canada: Alberta government provides additional information on referendum scheduled for 19 October 2026. https://globaltaxnews.ey.com/news/2026-0950-canada-alberta-government-provides-additional-information-on-referendum-scheduled-for-19-october-2026
Government of Alberta. (2026). Immigration questions. Alberta Referendum 2026. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://albertareferendum2026.ca/immigration-questions/
Government of Alberta. (n.d.). Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://www.alberta.ca/aaip
Government of Canada. (2025, December 10). Job prospects: Registered nurse (R.N.) in Alberta. Job Bank. https://on.jobbank.gc.ca/marketreport/outlook-occupation/993/AB
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Health care and social assistance (NAICS 62): Alberta, 2025. Job Bank. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://www.on.jobbank.gc.ca/trend-analysis/job-market-reports/alberta/sectoral-profile-health-care
Markusoff, J. (2026, July 19). What some immigrants could lose if Alberta votes yes to Danielle Smith’s questions. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-alberta-immigrant-referendum-explained-9.7274985
Muttart Foundation. (2026a). The Alberta referendum immigration questions. https://www.muttart.org/?p=1886
Muttart Foundation. (2026b). The Alberta referendum immigration questions: Background. https://www.muttart.org/?p=1888
Parsons, M. (2025, December 17). Slowing, but still growing. ATB Economics. https://www.atb.com/company/insights/the-twenty-four/preliminary-population-estimates-third-quarter-2025/
Roach, R. (2025, May 21). Adding up: Population trends in Alberta. ATB Economics. https://www.atb.com/company/insights/the-twenty-four/adding-up-alberta-population-report-may-2025-atb-economics-robert-roach/