When all else fails, blame the immigrant 

By Imran Ahmed, March 25 2026—

In 2022, Alberta’s United Conservative Party (UCP) government launched the Alberta Is Calling campaign, an initiative designed to attract skilled workers from other Canadian provinces, particularly Ontario and British Columbia. It highlighted Alberta’s advantages: a lower cost of living, higher wages and a relatively better quality of life. 

In January 2024, Smith stated her position on immigration policy during an episode on the Shaun Newman Podcast. 

“Let’s have an aggressive target to double our population…We have to be that bastion of liberty, and people are going to want to come here,” Smith said. “We want to embrace them, and we want to be able to build this place out so that we can actually have the political clout in Alberta that we deserve, because right now, we’re being treated as a junior partner by Ottawa.”

When asked by the host whether that meant doubling Alberta’s population to roughly 10 million, Smith confirmed the goal. 

“Yep, I do,” she said. 

When asked where an additional five million people would come from, Smith said the population growth would materialize through both interprovincial and international immigration.

“They’re going to come from the rest of the country,” she said. “We’re also recruiting people internationally to come here from South Africa, from India, from China, who are investing in our province, who are getting engineering and technical degrees, who are building our province out.”

Around the same time, Premier Danielle Smith wrote a public letter to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asking for a higher allocation of immigrants, warning that limits on nominees and temporary workers could harm Alberta’s economy and its ability to support newcomers such as Ukrainian evacuees.

A change of heart 

A little over a year later, however, the UCP’s messaging has changed dramatically. The government that once celebrated population growth is now preparing a referendum centred on immigration, with critics arguing that immigrants are being scapegoated as the source of strain on housing, education, healthcare and social services. 

The government argues that although sustainable immigration is important and a part of Alberta’s provincial identity, federal immigration policy over the past five years has put tremendous pressure on social services, and therefore, must be addressed. 

The referendum, which is scheduled for Oct. 19, 2026, poses constitutional and non-constitutional questions regarding provincial sovereignty to voters. 

Several of the non-constitutional questions are focused on immigration and access to public services. Among them, voters will be asked whether they 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 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?
• 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?
• 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?

It is unclear what an “Alberta-approved immigration status” would look like.

Several of these proposals, if successfully implemented, could have significant implications for international students, all of whom live in the province on temporary immigration status while studying and working. 

International students are already expected to pay five times more in tuition than domestic students, a premium that has been increasing over the past decade. Additional restrictions tied to immigration status could create new financial and administrative barriers for students studying in Alberta. 

The fiscal justification 

Smith announced the fall referendum on immigration a week before her government tabled Budget 2026, which featured an estimated $9.4 billion deficit for this fiscal year. 

“The fact is, Alberta taxpayers can no longer be asked to continue to subsidize the entire country through equalization and federal transfers, permit the federal government to flood our borders with new arrivals and then give free access to our most-generous-in-the-country social programs to anyone who moves here,” Smith said in her televised address. 

The UCP government argued that Alberta’s elevated population growth rates over the past few years resulted in a funding shortfall, alongside depressed crude oil prices. 

However, when asked if the government had quantified the cost of immigration, Smith was not able to provide a dollar figure estimating the net fiscal impact of newcomers. 

Smith defended her referendum, saying that “not every newcomer is a net contributor.”

In an interview with the Gauntlet, University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe explained that producing a per immigrant cost-benefit estimate is far more complicated than one may assume. 

“When a new individual arrives in Alberta, not necessarily from another country, but even in another province, what happens on the revenue side is all of their provincial income tax revenue will go to the Alberta government, not where they were before,” Tombe said. “So there can be a boost on the revenue side, just mechanically from all of that going to whichever province you live in by Dec. 31 of each year.”

Additionally, public spending pressures, especially healthcare, depend heavily on age and household composition. 

“Most migrants are young. That’s just the way it is,” Tombe said. “If you move into Alberta as a younger individual without kids, you are in no way contributing to demand on education or health. Young people don’t cost much in health care, so for that individual it’s absolutely a net benefit to the province; higher revenues from tax payments and not a lot of costs in the short term.”

Since 2020, Alberta’s population grew by approximately 600,000 people, consisting of both international and inter-provincial migration. Of these newcomers, the vast majority were between 18 and 45 years old. 

The nature of estimating costs in of itself can also be difficult. This is because many public services involve marginal versus average costs. 

“If you have a classroom in a K–12 and there’s 25 people in the classroom and now there’s 26, that doesn’t cost much at all,” he said. “But each one that you add, you then may need to split the class and hire another teacher or incur a lumpy additional cost.”

However, Tombe stated that it is indeed likely that the government has some sort of estimate, even though it may be imperfect. 

“I suspect the government does have estimates internally. As imperfect as any estimate would be, they’ve got to exist,” he said. “I’m not sure why they would be withholding it except that perhaps it doesn’t add up to much. They do seem to want the, I guess, impression of the deficit on the part of the public to be that it’s not due to choices the government’s making, but due to external factors. That’s just not the case.”

For these reasons, Tombe said Alberta’s deficit cannot realistically be attributed to immigration flows. 

“The increase in Alberta government spending and the deficit we’re facing this year is not connected to immigration flows,” he said. “The increase in the deficit is due to two factors: lower royalties, of course, oil prices being lower, and higher spending. And in my view, you can’t argue that higher spending is tied to immigration flows or rapid population change in recent years for the simple reason that in this budget, the spending grew relative to the government’s own plans that they set last year.”

Data from Budget 2026 indicates population and inflation growing less than the government had anticipated. The budget projects that Alberta will lose roughly 30,000 temporary residents, following the trend of recorded declines in the number of non-permanent residents since the fourth quarter of 2024, largely due to changes in federal immigration policy. 

“I don’t mean to suggest that there’s no costs from immigration,” Tombe added. “But it just doesn’t add up to the several billion dollars that you’d need to have a material impact on the government’s overall bottom line.”

The consultation process

The Alberta Next Panel is described as a “province-wide consultation to chart our path,

secure our economy and assert our sovereignty within a united Canada.” The panel, which reportedly cost two million taxpayer dollars, was tasked with engaging Albertans and advising the government on how the province could enhance its autonomy within Canada. 

Formed and chaired by Smith, the panel consists of 16 members, five of which are UCP MLAs. Reporting has shown that, of the remaining 11 members not involved directly in Smith’s government, seven have previously donated to the UCP, with the group collectively contributing more than $44,000 to the governing party. 

Public consultations were held across the province through a series of town halls, where residents were invited to speak directly with panel members. Tickets to each town hall were allegedly released to UCP voters before the general public. 

Several of these sessions featured charged commentary about immigration, largely with little opposition from the panel. 

At the Lloydminster town hall, one attendee expressed fears about migrants entering the country. 

“We know that they are shoving all these migrants into all the countries under the crown,” the resident said. “We’re not vetting these people, they’re harming our children and it’s putting a lot of damage on our environment. Our family is looking at leaving for good.”

Another attendee asked the panel whether immigration enforcement measures would include deportations. 

“Hearing what you’re saying about fixing immigration issues in Canada, does that include removing the immigration problems that are already in Alberta?” the resident asked. “Does that mean that you’re going to look at deportation? Does that mean that you’re going to take the stress off our justice system with the immigration violence that is happening daily on our streets?”

During the Red Deer town hall, one resident questioned whether newcomers were receiving preferential financial support from the government. 

“Why is it that the immigrants that are coming in now make $6,500 a month when I can’t even make that kind of money myself?” he asked. 

He added that certain immigrants worked hard, while others were freeriding.

“Ukrainian people are working their butts off…but yet other people are allowed to come in and they take from the social services.” 

“They play the race card and get it scot-free,” he said. “It’s not fair.” Although he provided no evidence and left the question ambiguous as to which demographic of immigrants he was referring to, Smith did not push back and instead stated that she did not know the available federal social programs. 

The timing of the consultations unfolded amid a broader surge in Alberta sovereignty advocacy.   The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), a leading Alberta separatist group, has since begun the process of collecting signatures for a petition that would force a citizen-initiated referendum on Albertan independence. 

Anti-immigration rhetoric has appeared at events connected to the APP. StopeHateAB, an anti-racism watchdog organization, confirmed it received a complaint following comments made during a January 2026 APP town hall in Didsbury. 

During that event, APP leader Mitch Sylvestre was reported making inflammatory comments. 

“Old stock white Canadians, and that’s us, and we don’t have to apologize for this room being filled with white people,” said Sylvestre. “This used to be what Alberta was. We’re not apologizing for being ourselves.”

Sylvestre also told the audience that “the replacement theory is real” and that “they’re going to replace the people of Alberta.” 

According to the National Immigration Forum, a leading U.S. immigration advocacy organization, the great replacement theory postulates that nonwhite immigrants are part of a plot designed to replace the political power and culture of white people. 

In addition to the town halls, the Alberta Next Panel also conducted a series of online surveys intended to gather feedback from across the province. 

Reports state that participants were required to watch government-produced videos before completing the survey questions. 

In the video focused on immigration, the provincial government argued, without providing evidence, that rising costs of living, unemployment and increasing pressure on provincial public services were due to immigration. 

The speaker in the video also stated that social divisions that plague other countries have begun making their way into Canada as a result of immigration. It did not specify what exact divisions the government was referring to. 

When asked if referendums such as this run the risk of stoking division in society, Tombe, who served on the panel but has not donated to the UCP, said the possibility is real. 

“Immigration policy is a difficult policy area because it touches on so many aspects that different people evaluate differently,” he said. “It’s not just some cold economic calculation, it touches on many issues from moral issues to cultural issues and so on.”

“I think it’s objectively true that referendums of this type have the risk of creating division,” Tombe added. 

What is the purpose of the referendum?

The panel ultimately released its recommendations in December 2025, including a proposal that the government hold a referendum on greater provincial autonomy on immigration policy.

However, the role of such a referendum remains unclear. 

“Referendums are somewhat odd as a governance tool in our parliamentary system. We have representatives that we elect, and they are empowered to make choices,” Tombe explained. “Referendums serve no legal role in our system, they don’t bind governments in any way.”

Tombe added that in certain circumstances, referendums may be a reasonable tool at a government’s disposal. 

“Governments sometimes use them as a way to resolve difficult questions. We’ve had referendums nationally on constitutional change, Quebec’s referendums on separation, things where a government might not feel morally justified in making such significant choices. These are referendum questions that are not like that,” he said.  

One possible explanation, Tombe noted, is that a referendum could strengthen Alberta’s negotiating position with the federal government on immigration policy. 

“If there is a referendum, one might view it as providing the provincial government slightly higher negotiating power with the federal government to reach an arrangement around immigration policy. Quebec has this type of arrangement…likely because Quebec is unique,” he said. 

The politics of blame 

Only a few years ago, Alberta’s government was actively encouraging people to come. Today, many of these same newcomers are being framed as the cause of the province’s fiscal and social pressures. 

Alberta has indeed experienced elevated levels of immigration, but data from recent years, and the government’s own budget, suggests that it is mostly inter-provincial economic migration, not non-permanent residents such as temporary foreign workers or international students, that is driving Alberta’s population growth. 

When governments consistently appeal to voters by blaming outsiders for nuanced economic and social problems, the rhetoric tends to intensify and potentially lead to targeted suspicion, exclusion and even violence to a collective group of people. 

The United Kingdom serves as a good example, in which anti-immigration rhetoric has become an organizing force for certain political parties such as Reform UK. This leads to frustrations over housing, wages and public services being attributed to immigrants, often with human consequences. 

It is imperative that Alberta, and Canada as a whole, avoid this path.