As Alberta prepares to vote in a province-wide referendum on October 19, questions on immigration and access to public services have raised concerns among Indian students, temporary workers and their families, many of whom hope to make Canada their permanent home.

Five of the 10 questions in the referendum, called by Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party government, concern immigration and access to provincially funded services. Questions 2, 3 and 4 have drawn particular criticism for proposing restrictions or additional charges for people who do not have permanent residency or citizenship.

Critics say the proposals could place an additional financial burden on temporary residents, including Indians who have moved to Alberta to study, work or build a future in Canada. They have also drawn parallels with historical Canadian policies that discriminated against newcomers, including Indians.

The questions are non-binding and will not automatically change immigration rules or access to services. However, a vote in favour would give the provincial government a political mandate to pursue legislation based on immigration status.

Question 2 asks whether only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and people with an “Alberta-approved immigration status” should be eligible for provincially funded programmes, including healthcare, education and social services.

Question 3 proposes requiring people with non-permanent legal immigration status to live in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for social support programmes. Question 4 asks whether such residents should pay a “reasonable fee or premium” for their families’ use of the healthcare and education systems.

The government has not defined what would constitute an “Alberta-approved immigration status”. The details, officials have said, would be worked out if voters support the proposals.

For Indian students and workers, the implications could be significant. Many arrive in Canada on study or work permits, hoping eventually to obtain permanent residency through provincial or federal immigration pathways. Restrictions on healthcare, education and social support could increase their costs and make their long-term plans less certain.

Alberta had approximately 279,000 non-permanent residents in mid-2026, accounting for about 5.6 per cent of its population. The group includes temporary foreign workers, international students, asylum claimants and their families. Work-permit holders form the largest category, followed by study-permit holders.

Indian nationals account for a significant share of Canada’s international students and temporary workers. Many contribute to the local economy while navigating the transition from temporary to permanent residency.

Critics argue that temporary residents already contribute towards public services through taxes and other payments. A system that restricts their access or imposes additional charges could place particular pressure on families with children.

Premier Smith has previously floated a figure of about $1,900 per person for healthcare in discussing possible charges for temporary residents. The precise nature and extent of any fee under the proposed measures remain unclear. The referendum has also revived debate over Canada’s history of immigration restrictions.

In an opinion article published in the Calgary Herald on October 15, Niki Bains, Avnit Dhanoa and Eric Crowther of Justice & Equity Alberta argue that the proposals echo earlier policies that used seemingly neutral rules to exclude or burden particular communities.

They cite the Chinese head tax, introduced in 1885 and increased over time, which imposed a heavy financial burden on Chinese immigrants. Canada later introduced restrictions that effectively barred most Chinese immigration until 1947.

They also refer to the continuous journey regulation of 1908, which was used to prevent people from India and Japan from entering Canada because they could not travel directly from their countries of origin by ship.

The regulation became central to the Komagata Maru episode of 1914, when a ship carrying 376 passengers, most of them Sikhs from Punjab, arrived in Vancouver. Although the passengers were British subjects, Canadian authorities prevented most of them from landing and forced the ship to return to India after a prolonged standoff.

The authors also cite a 1911 federal order-in-council against Black immigration, which described immigrants belonging to the Black race as unsuitable for Canada’s climate and requirements.

The Alberta government, however, says the proposals respond to rapid population growth and mounting pressure on public services. Immigration Minister Joseph Schow and other officials have argued that the province needs a greater say in immigration and that temporary residents account for a growing share of demand for healthcare and education.