Alberta voters narrowly said “yes” in the province’s October referendum to five proposals about immigration – ranging from assuming more provincial control over the system to restricting newcomers’ access to public services and imposing new voter ID requirements – that form the foundation of the government’s proposed agenda for reform.

But interpreting those results as a sweeping mandate to revamp immigration policy would be a serious mistake.

The questions were ambiguous, the electorate was deeply divided along urban-rural lines, support for the government’s position declined by at least ten percentage points over the campaign and voters’ understanding of the questions and the motivations for their votes were anything but uniform.

Given this, the Danielle Smith government would be wise to restart the policymaking process it circumvented with the referendum, doing a deeper dive into options and consulting those most affected by the proposed changes.

One referendum, five questions, three conversations

Referendums are blunt policy instruments. They can register public frustration but cannot tell governments precisely what upsets people or how to resolve their grievances. At best, referendums can provide a general direction for reform. At worst, they gin up division and dissension, making it more difficult to decide where to go next because referendums do not substitute for detailed policy analysis and consultation with those most affected.

If the Smith government thinks it has a mandate for change based on the referendum results, it needs to recognize first that three very different conversations took place during the campaign. Then, it needs to reckon with that during the next phase of policy development.

The first conversation was about immigration as a concept. Some Albertans approached the referendum as a question of values: Are we a welcoming society that recognizes immigration as central to our economic and cultural prosperity? Or do we reject that notion?

The second concerned the management of the immigration system. Here, dissatisfaction spanned the left-right spectrum and there was a broader mandate for change than for adjustments to social program accessibility.

Urbanites and progressives have concerns about lengthy processing times, barriers to permanent residency and citizenship, as well as the exploitation of immigrants. Rural folks and conservatives worry about immigration levels outpacing housing supply and the capacity of........

© IRPP - Policy Options