Navigating Alberta’s Referendum on Immigration: Insights from the CBC West of Centre Discussion

Raj Sharma, founding partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi and an immigration lawyer with extensive experience in Canadian policy and practice, appeared on CBC’s West of Centre podcast on February 20, 2026, guest hosted by Jason Markusoff. The discussion focused on Premier Danielle Smith’s proposed referendum questions, set for the October 19 ballot, which have sparked intense debate, particularly around their implications for newcomers, healthcare access, and provincial services. Many view them as a means of scapegoating immigrants amid economic pressures. In this blog post for Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, the key points from the discussion are broken down, providing a factual overview while analyzing the political, economic, and broader implications. The goal is to offer clarity on these complex issues for clients and stakeholders navigating Canada’s immigration landscape.

Factual Framework: Healthcare Access for Non-Permanent Residents

To ground the conversation, the discussion began with a clear explanation of how healthcare currently operates for temporary migrants in Alberta. Under the Canada Health Act, individuals lawfully admitted to Canada and residing in a province are entitled to medically necessary care. In Alberta, residency is defined by the Alberta Health Act as approximately six months or the establishment of domicile, and this applies to those with status beyond a simple visitor visa.

Key distinctions include:

Asylum seekers and refugee claimants: Once eligible, they receive interim federal health coverage, meaning their care is funded federally, not by the province.

Temporary foreign workers (TFWs) and international students: These groups are covered under Alberta’s provincial health plan.

Exclusions: Asylum claimants are not covered provincially because of the federal program, so the current controversy largely revolves around TFWs and international students.

Alberta has previously tested the waters on restrictions, such as proposing to cancel coverage for “working holiday” participants under the International Experience Class in areas like Banff and Canmore, insisting they carry private insurance. This was later reversed, which Sharma described as a “trial balloon” for broader curbs on temporary residents.

Comparatively, provinces like Manitoba require international students to register and pay for private health insurance— an approach Alberta could adopt without a referendum. It’s worth noting that Alberta cannot amend the federal Canada Health Act, raising questions about why referendum proposals target areas outside provincial jurisdiction. Panelist Evan Menzies agreed that discussing the extent of coverage for international students and TFWs isn’t unreasonable, as Canada may be an outlier in its generosity here.

Framing the Referendum Debate

Premier Smith’s announcement of nine referendum questions marks a historic moment—potentially more than Alberta has seen in its entire history. These include constitutional reforms like abolishing the Senate and altering judicial appointments, but several zero in on immigration and access to services. In her televised address, Smith linked higher immigration to budget woes, while also nodding to volatile oil prices as a traditional Alberta factor in deficits. With a severe budget shortfall expected soon, hard decisions loom.

Highlighted proposals include:

Greater provincial control over immigration, especially economic migrants.

Limiting eligibility for provincial services (healthcare, education, social services) to citizens, permanent residents, and those with “Alberta-approved immigration status.”

A one-year residency requirement for temporary residents to access social programs.

Charging fees or premiums for healthcare and education to those without permanent status.

Requiring proof of citizenship before voting.

Sharma led the segment explaining these immigration-related questions, emphasizing their potential to reshape access for newcomers.

Political Motivations and Strategic Analysis

The panel explored whether these referendums are genuinely policy-driven or more about political maneuvering. Sharma argued they’re “more about politics than policy,” as the issues aren’t top priorities and risk scapegoating immigrants. Evan Menzies saw them as a “release valve” from 18 months of consultations, providing a mandate for federal negotiations—though some could be handled legislatively.

Rob Breckenridge called the approach “convenient” for rallying supporters against Ottawa, predicting strong approval unless major additions appear. He viewed it as a distraction from a “bad news budget,” with immigration dominating headlines post-announcement.

Shannon Greer suggested Smith is reframing issues but losing ground with her base and the public. She praised the NDP’s pre-emptive strategy in blaming Smith for avoiding responsibility, potentially shifting the narrative. Sharma placed blame on the federal Trudeau government for its mishandling of temporary resident inflows, eroding public support and enabling such provincial tactics. Restoring broad immigration consensus could take years.

Economic and Policy Contradictions

A core tension lies in aligning these proposals with Alberta’s growth ambitions. Shannon Greer highlighted Travel Alberta’s data showing a 6%+ growth in the visitor economy, reliant on labor for demanding roles like kitchen work and housekeeping. Restricting healthcare could drive people to costly emergency rooms, increasing inefficiencies.

Sharma noted Smith’s vision of growing Alberta’s population to 10 million, including letters to Trudeau requesting up to 20,000 Provincial Nominee Program spots. It’s jarring to shift from campaigns like “Alberta is calling” to implying the province is “full.” As with Manitoba’s model, Alberta could mandate private insurance for students without a referendum—questions likely worded to garner affirmative votes.

Evan Menzies contextualized this against demographic pressures: Canada’s fertility rate hovers around 1.2, necessitating immigration for growth. Businesses and post-secondaries will continue pushing for talent, making immigration a dominant political issue for decades.

Greer pointed to UCP policies like the renewables moratorium, which chilled investment and cost millions, and the lack of IVF funding (unlike Ontario and B.C.), where treatments cost $13,000–$20,000. If boosting fertility is a goal, supporting family-building is essential.

Broader Implications for Immigration and Federal-Provincial Relations

Looking ahead, the panel addressed societal and governance ripple effects. Rob Breckenridge questioned the citizenship proof for voting, as non-citizens can’t vote anyway, and ID is already required. Implementation could open a “can of worms,” potentially targeting those who “look like immigrants” and requiring documentation changes.

References to comments like Bruce McAllister’s on “Judeo-Christian heritage” versus “failed systems” underscore volatility. Greer saw much of the referendum as restating existing rules to distract from deficits and healthcare crises.

Menzies reiterated the existential challenge of low fertility and labor needs. Sharma attributed many issues to federal missteps, predicting net outflows, heightened enforcement, and over a million temporary residents leaving in the next year. This signals a policy reset, with a turbulent five years for immigrants ahead.

In conclusion, while these referendum questions highlight real pressures, they risk politicizing immigration without addressing root causes. As your immigration law firm, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi is here to guide clients through these changes—whether you’re a temporary worker, student, or employer. Contact the firm for personalized advice on navigating Alberta’s evolving landscape.

Immigration Blogs

24