A Toronto Star opinion column by Jeremy Appel describes Alberta’s proposed restrictions on taxpayer-funded services for temporary residents as “anti-migrant racism.”

That accusation skips over the referendum’s actual wording and the policies already operating in comparable democracies.

The October 19 referendum asks Albertans whether citizens, permanent residents and people holding an “Alberta-approved immigration status” should qualify for provincially funded programs. Separate questions ask whether other temporary residents should face a 12-month waiting period for social supports or pay a “reasonable fee or premium” toward publicly funded health care and education.

All three questions are non-binding. They do not automatically change provincial law. 

The Star column leaves out the exemption for people with an Alberta-approved immigration status. The first question does not propose excluding every temporary worker or international student. It expressly allows Alberta to approve designated categories.

Alberta also does not currently provide unconditional health coverage to every foreign national who arrives in the province.

Go Ad Free

Temporary residents generally must establish Alberta residency, intend to remain for at least 12 months and possess an acceptable immigration document with at least six months remaining. Work-permit holders must normally work for an Alberta employer or hold an open permit. International students require a qualifying study permit and confirmation of full-time attendance.

Those who do not qualify are advised to obtain private insurance. Emergency treatment cannot be refused, although uninsured patients may be billed. 

Comparable countries impose stricter rules

The idea that every temporary resident must receive the same taxpayer-funded benefits as a citizen is not an international norm.

In the United Kingdom, most people applying for temporary permission to work, study or join family for longer than six months must pay an immigration health surcharge. The standard charge is £1,035 per person per year, while students and children generally pay £776. Dependants are charged separately. A temporary worker applying for three years normally pays £3,105 before arriving.

Australia is more restrictive. Its government says most visitors are ineligible for Medicare and remain responsible for their medical costs, including treatment in public hospitals. Many visa holders must demonstrate adequate private insurance, while international students commonly rely on mandatory Overseas Student Health Cover.

New Zealand generally provides publicly funded health care to citizens, permanent residents and temporary workers holding visas valid for at least two years. Shorter-term workers and most visitors require insurance or must pay for treatment.

These systems recognize a distinction between permanent membership in a country and temporary permission to work or study there. That distinction is based on immigration status, duration of residence and program eligibility, not race.

The Star cites activists and academics who characterize the referendum campaign as scapegoating migrants. Their concerns about political rhetoric can be reported and debated. They do not prove that residency requirements or premiums are inherently racist.

Countries across the political spectrum impose waiting periods, health surcharges, insurance requirements and status-based eligibility rules. A government may reasonably ask whether a person admitted temporarily should receive the same publicly funded benefits, on the same terms, as a citizen or permanent resident.

 The real policy dispute concerns whether those contributions are sufficient to provide immediate access to every provincially funded program, particularly when immigration levels and service capacity are set by different governments.

There are legitimate questions Alberta would have to answer before implementing any referendum proposal:

• Which temporary immigration categories would receive Alberta approval?
• How large would any premium be?
• Would refugees, protected persons, health-care workers or children be exempt?
• How would the province preserve emergency treatment and comply with constitutional and federal requirements?

 Branding the entire discussion racist avoids answering these questions.