English
Canada’s long-standing consensus on immigration has broken down. A surge in new arrivals after the pandemic, combined with rising housing costs and pressure on public services, has pushed immigration to the centre of Canadian politics. Now, that shift is reshaping how Canadians vote.
In Quebec, the Parti Québécois recently won a minority government on a platform that included tighter immigration controls. Meanwhile, Albertans headed to the polls Monday to vote on a potential separation referendum. Alongside that vote, Premier Danielle Smith’s government placed five separate immigration-related questions on the ballot.
Stay connected to every major update — subscribe and follow us on the PhoenixQ website and across our social media platforms.
Alberta’s Immigration Ballot Questions
The five questions asked Albertans to weigh in on several significant policy changes. These included whether the province should have greater control over economic immigration, whether provincially funded services should be limited to citizens, permanent residents and those with Alberta-approved immigration status, and whether non-permanent immigrants should pay fees to access health care and education.
Two additional questions asked whether non-permanent residents should live in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for social supports, and whether voters should present proof of citizenship when casting a provincial ballot.
Jason Kenney, a former Alberta premier and former federal immigration minister, said Canada needs a serious, evidence-based debate on immigration policy. However, he warned that such debates can quickly go off course.
“We do need a serious debate on immigration because demography is destiny,” Kenney told The Canadian Press. “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 said he does not view the immigration ballot questions as race-based or xenophobic. Even so, he expressed concern about some voices within the Alberta separatist movement. He pointed to Mitch Sylvestre, whom he identified as the leader of the primary separatist organization, and noted that Sylvestre has said citizenship in a republic of Alberta would be limited to those born there.
“I do think there are some currents on the extreme right of Alberta politics that we should all be concerned about,” Kenney said. “I do not think that necessarily means we cannot have an adult, grown-up conversation about immigration policy.”
Diaspora Communities Push Back
Many in Alberta’s diaspora communities have reacted negatively to the ballot questions. Lawyer Avnish Nanda, co-founder of the advocacy group Our Alberta Advantage, is campaigning for voters to reject all five immigration measures.
Nanda said the reaction from Alberta’s cultural communities has been overwhelmingly negative. He said people feel targeted by the questions.
“They view these questions as targeting them, their journey here and the roots they’ve established over the past 60 years,” he said. “There’s fear, there’s confusion and anger at this government.”
Nanda also said the referendum has stirred up troubling undercurrents in the province. He said his parents were recently jeered by strangers while out for a walk — something that had never happened to them since arriving in Canada in the 1970s.
“The people who are mobilized around this issue, a lot of them don’t differentiate between people who have been here 40 years and people who came here a week ago, because we all look the same to them,” he said.
Nanda warned that if the immigration measures pass, they could weaken Canada’s multicultural identity. He also argued that restricting access to provincial services would make it harder for newcomers to integrate successfully.
He added that some of the loudest voices opposing the ballot questions have come from chambers of commerce — representing businesses that rely heavily on immigrant workers. He said politicians need to make the case that immigrants strengthen economies, expand the tax base and help fund public services.
“If you go to rural Alberta hospitals or long-term care facilities, most nurses and support staff are immigrants because we can’t find local workers to work there,” Nanda said.
Quebec Takes a Different Approach
Across the country, Quebec’s newly elected Parti Québécois government has also moved to tighten immigration. Quebec has held significantly more control over immigration than other provinces since 1991.
The PQ platform included reducing annual permanent resident admissions from 45,000 to 35,000, imposing a moratorium on permanent immigration from outside Quebec, prioritizing temporary residents already in the province for permanent status, and tightening selection criteria for temporary workers.
Catherine Xhardez, a political science professor at the University of Montreal, said the previous Coalition Avenir Québec government broke a long-standing cross-party consensus on immigration when it introduced restrictions after 2018.
“Before that, they had a kind of consensus between political parties — that migration is good for the economy, good for demography, but even for the French language,” she said. “But then the CAQ broke this consensus by saying it was too much, too quickly.”
Xhardez noted a key distinction between the two provincial debates. In Alberta, the immigration debate centres on populist frustration over social service shortages. In Quebec, identity and culture remain the primary focus. She also noted that immigration has become a bargaining tool for Quebec in its negotiations with Ottawa.
Premier Smith appears to want a similar lever. In a video released Wednesday, she encouraged Albertans to support the immigration and constitutional questions to “send Ottawa a message.” She said one question aims to give Alberta “the same power as Quebec to recruit economic migrants.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney took a different position. During a pro-unity campaign stop in Calgary on Thursday, Carney urged the crowd to “vote no to the nine” — a phrase that has become a rallying cry among those opposed to separation.
A Broader Warning for Canada
Kenney said he remains skeptical of greater provincial control over immigration, describing it as a sensitive policy area. He argued that provincial governments lack the federal government’s capacity to detect fraud and tend to focus narrowly on local labour needs rather than national economic considerations.
“In the western provinces, very typically, the permanent residents that they recommend have been low-skilled temporary foreign workers who they’re flipping into permanent residency because the local MLAs get tired of being browbeaten by the Tim Hortons franchise owners,” he said.
Kenney also reflected on the period following the COVID-19 pandemic, when some premiers urged Ottawa to increase immigration despite early signs of housing pressure and rising youth unemployment. He said suppressing open debate on immigration creates dangerous political conditions.
“When you don’t have social permission to discuss these issues, that creates the kind of conditions where popular opinion gets totally detached from elite opinion,” he said. “If you want to avoid Alternative für Deutschland, Front National, U.K. Reform-style politics, then yes, we need a proper, open debate about these issues.”
Xhardez, originally from Belgium, agreed that Canada’s political environment differs from Europe and the United States. Canada currently has no mainstream anti-immigrant party at the federal level. Nevertheless, she said public attitudes toward immigration have clearly shifted — and the long-held national consensus no longer holds.
“Canada is maybe not so exceptional, we don’t know,” she said. “It’s not true that there is still this consensus and strong public support.”
