Alberta’s Future Must Be Built on Inclusion, Not Division
Statement from StopHateAB | November 2026
Alberta is a province shaped by the contributions of generations of people from different backgrounds, cultures, faiths, and communities. Our province’s history, economy, and identity have been shaped by Indigenous Peoples, whose presence on these lands long predates the establishment of Alberta, and by generations of newcomers who have made this province their home.
From the healthcare professionals caring for our families to the educators teaching our children, the entrepreneurs creating employment opportunities, the workers building our infrastructure, and the volunteers strengthening our communities, people from diverse backgrounds have contributed immeasurably to Alberta’s growth and prosperity.
Yet today, we find ourselves confronting a troubling contradiction.
The same province that has encouraged newcomers to settle here, work here, raise families here, and contribute to our economy is increasingly debating policies that risk making some of those very individuals feel unwelcome, excluded, or responsible for challenges they did not create.
At the same time, the Government of Alberta is advancing legislative changes to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, framing these changes as necessary to restore merit-based hiring and fairness in public institutions.
These developments raise important questions about the direction of our province, our commitment to human rights, and what we mean when we speak about fairness, opportunity, and belonging.
As an organization committed to combating hate, racism, and discrimination, StopHateAB believes these conversations must be grounded in evidence, historical context, and respect for the dignity of every individual.
We recognize that Albertans have legitimate concerns about immigration, healthcare, education, housing affordability, employment, and the sustainability of public services. These concerns deserve meaningful responses and responsible public policy.
However, legitimate concerns must never become justification for scapegoating entire communities, undermining protections against discrimination, or creating divisions between Albertans based on where they were born, what they look like, or how they came to call this province home.
We cannot build a stronger Alberta by making some of the people who helped build it feel that they no longer belong.
The Referendum Results and What They Mean for Alberta
On October 19, 2026, Albertans participated in a provincial referendum that included five questions concerning immigration and eligibility for certain public services and programs.
All five immigration-related questions received majority support, with the level of support ranging from 51.78% to 58.06%. [1]
The questions addressed greater provincial control over immigration, eligibility for provincially funded services, residency requirements for certain social supports, potential healthcare and education fees for some non-permanent residents, and proof-of-citizenship requirements for provincial elections.
These results deserve serious consideration, but they must also be understood within their proper context.
A referendum provides a record of how people voted on specific questions. It does not necessarily explain the motivations, concerns, or assumptions underlying each vote.
Some Albertans may have supported the questions because of concerns about pressures on public services. Others may have been motivated by employment opportunities, immigration levels, government accountability, or the belief that certain eligibility rules should be strengthened.
The wording of referendum questions also matters.
Several questions combined multiple policy objectives or included language about sustainability, fairness, or protecting existing services. Such framing can make it difficult to distinguish support for a general principle from support for every potential consequence of a proposed policy.
For example, someone may support responsible immigration levels without supporting additional financial barriers to healthcare for temporary residents. Someone may believe public services require better planning without believing that newcomers should be excluded from essential supports.
We cannot assume why every Albertan voted the way they did. Nor can we conclude that those who supported a particular question intended to discriminate against anyone.
What we can and must do is examine the policies that may emerge from these results, the people they could affect, and whether their implementation would be consistent with our obligations to protect human rights and human dignity.
These five referendum questions were non-binding. The Government of Alberta therefore retains both the authority and the responsibility to examine the potential consequences of any proposed changes before proceeding. [1]
A majority vote does not remove the obligation to consider the rights, safety, and well-being of those who may be disproportionately affected.
Human rights protections are not conditional on whether they are politically popular.
Alberta Encouraged People to Come Here. We Cannot Now Blame Them for Our Growing Pains.
For years, Alberta has positioned itself as a destination for people seeking economic opportunity, employment, stability, and a better future.
Governments have promoted Alberta’s economic advantages, encouraged skilled workers to relocate, and recognized the importance of immigration in addressing labour shortages and supporting economic growth.
Employers have relied on newcomers to fill essential positions. Communities have welcomed families seeking to establish roots. Educational institutions have recruited international students, and industries have benefited from the skills, knowledge, and experience of workers arriving from around the world.
Immigration has not been an incidental part of Alberta’s development. It has been an important component of our economic and demographic growth.
But population growth also requires planning.
More people require more housing. More families require more schools. More patients require more healthcare capacity. More communities require transportation, public infrastructure, and essential services that keep pace with demand.
These are basic responsibilities of sound public administration.
When population growth outpaces the expansion of public infrastructure, the resulting pressures are real. Hospital emergency departments become crowded, classrooms become larger, housing becomes less affordable, and families experience difficulty accessing the services they need.
It is reasonable for Albertans to demand answers.
It is reasonable to ask whether immigration levels are aligned with available infrastructure, whether adequate resources have been allocated to healthcare and education, and whether governments have appropriately planned for changing population needs.
What is not reasonable is to place responsibility for these systemic challenges on the newcomers who were encouraged to come here.
When governments encourage population growth without ensuring that infrastructure and services keep pace, that is a planning and policy challenge. It should not become an indictment of the people who arrived.
Immigrants did not independently determine provincial infrastructure budgets, establish healthcare funding priorities, approve school construction timelines, or set the policies governing population growth.
Those decisions belong to governments and public institutions.
That does not mean immigration has no effect on demand for services. Population growth, regardless of its source, places additional demands on infrastructure and public resources.
But population growth also brings workers, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, caregivers, and professionals who help support those very services.
A responsible conversation must consider both sides of that equation.
Reducing complex challenges to a narrative that blames newcomers is neither accurate nor constructive.
The Contributions of Immigrants Cannot Be Reduced to a Political Talking Point
Across Alberta, immigrants and newcomers contribute to nearly every sector of our economy and every aspect of community life.
They work in hospitals, long-term care facilities, schools, construction sites, restaurants, manufacturing facilities, technology companies, small businesses, and public institutions.
They establish businesses, create jobs, pay taxes, purchase homes, support local economies, and participate in community organizations.
They volunteer at food banks, support charitable initiatives, mentor young people, help neighbours, and contribute to the cultural and social fabric of our communities.
These contributions are not merely anecdotal.
Statistics Canada reported that, in the third quarter of 2024, the employment rate among recent working-age immigrants was 75.5%, while the rate among working-age non-permanent residents was 75.8%. [2]
These figures demonstrate the substantial participation of newcomers in Canada’s labour market, even as many continue to encounter barriers to employment and economic integration.
Their contributions extend far beyond employment statistics.
Alberta’s communities are enriched by the languages, traditions, experiences, perspectives, and relationships that newcomers bring with them.
Yet there is a fundamental principle that must not be forgotten.
The dignity of immigrants should not depend on how much they contribute to the economy.
People do not earn their right to be treated with respect solely through their labour, taxes, professional credentials, or economic output.
A newcomer working in a hospital deserves dignity. So does a newcomer seeking employment. A highly skilled professional deserves fair treatment. So does a person facing barriers to having their qualifications recognized.
A family’s humanity is not determined by its immigration classification.
While citizenship and immigration status can legitimately affect legal eligibility for certain programs, they should never determine whether someone is treated as a person worthy of compassion and respect.
We must resist the temptation to defend newcomers only by demonstrating their economic usefulness.
Their contributions matter enormously, but their humanity matters independently of those contributions.
Public Policy Must Not Create New Barriers for Vulnerable People
Among the referendum questions, particular attention must be given to proposals affecting access to healthcare, education, and social supports for individuals with non-permanent immigration status.
The question proposing fees or premiums for healthcare and education for certain non-permanent residents received the narrowest majority support, with 51.78% voting in favour. [1]
That result should not be interpreted as an unrestricted endorsement of any fee structure the government might subsequently propose.
The impact of such policies would depend on their design, the individuals affected, the availability of exemptions, and the safeguards provided for people experiencing financial hardship.
There are important differences between international students, temporary foreign workers, refugee claimants, and other categories of non-permanent residents. Their circumstances, existing entitlements, and vulnerabilities are not identical.
A thoughtful policy response must recognize those differences.
We are particularly concerned about policies that could discourage individuals from accessing necessary healthcare, create additional financial hardship for families, or leave vulnerable people without appropriate support.
Policies that appear administratively straightforward can have very different consequences depending on the circumstances of the people affected.
Before implementing changes, the Government of Alberta should conduct meaningful consultations with settlement organizations, healthcare professionals, educators, employers, legal experts, and the communities most likely to be affected.
It should also undertake and publicly release assessments of the potential economic, social, and human rights impacts.
Albertans deserve to understand not only what a proposed policy is intended to accomplish, but also what it may cost, whom it may affect, and whether less harmful alternatives exist.
Protecting the sustainability of public services and protecting vulnerable people should not be treated as mutually exclusive objectives.
A government has a responsibility to pursue both.
The Changes to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Raise Another Troubling Question
Alongside the referendum debate, the Government of Alberta has advanced legislation that would restrict certain diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives within provincial bodies.
On October 27, 2026, the government introduced Bill 33, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (No. 2), which subsequently passed third reading in the Legislative Assembly on November 5, 2026. [3]
The legislation seeks to restrict certain equity-related hiring and promotion initiatives within provincial bodies and limit specified mandatory workplace training related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. These provisions are intended to take effect upon proclamation.
The government has characterized these changes as an effort to ensure that hiring and promotion decisions are based on merit, competence, and fairness.
Let us be clear.
StopHateAB supports merit-based hiring. We support qualified candidates being selected for positions based on their skills, knowledge, experience, and ability to perform the work.
We believe employment decisions should be fair, transparent, accountable, and free from unlawful discrimination.
But we reject the suggestion that merit and equity are inherently incompatible.
The existence of DEI initiatives does not mean qualifications and competence have been abandoned.
Nor does the pursuit of equity require organizations to disregard professional standards or employment requirements.
In many cases, equity initiatives are designed precisely to ensure that qualified individuals receive a fair opportunity to demonstrate their merit.
To understand why these initiatives exist, we must first acknowledge the historical and contemporary barriers they were developed to address.
Why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives Exist
DEI initiatives did not arise in a society where every individual had always enjoyed equal access to employment, education, professional advancement, and economic opportunity.
They developed in response to longstanding patterns of discrimination, exclusion, and unequal treatment.
For generations, women, Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities, people with disabilities, and members of other marginalized groups have encountered barriers that limited their access to opportunities.
Some of these barriers were explicit and legally sanctioned. Others operated through institutional practices, assumptions, informal networks, and policies that appeared neutral but produced unequal outcomes.
Progress has been made through human rights legislation, changing social attitudes, employment standards, accessibility measures, and the efforts of individuals and communities who challenged discriminatory practices.
But the existence of progress does not mean that every barrier has disappeared.
DEI initiatives, when properly designed and implemented, attempt to identify and reduce barriers that can prevent qualified individuals from accessing opportunities on fair terms.
They may involve reviewing recruitment processes, improving accessibility, addressing discriminatory workplace practices, examining pay disparities, broadening outreach to qualified candidates, strengthening accommodation measures, and ensuring that promotion decisions are based on transparent and relevant criteria.
Not every DEI program operates in the same way, and not every initiative is necessarily effective.
Programs should be evaluated, improved, and held accountable for their outcomes.
But abandoning efforts to identify discrimination simply because the language of equity has become politically controversial does not eliminate the underlying problems.
If discrimination exists, removing the tools designed to identify and address it will not make discrimination disappear.
It may simply make those barriers harder to recognize and challenge.
If Our Systems Are Already Fair, Why Do Significant Inequalities Persist?
Perhaps the most important question in the current debate over merit-based hiring is one that has not received sufficient attention.
If employment opportunities are already determined fairly by qualifications, skills, and experience, why do significant earnings and employment disparities continue to exist?
Research from Statistics Canada demonstrates that these disparities remain a reality for many Canadians.
In 2025, non-Indigenous, non-racialized women in Canada earned, on average, approximately 88 cents for every dollar earned by non-Indigenous, non-racialized men on an hourly basis.
The disparities were even more pronounced for certain groups.
Racialized women earned approximately 78 cents for every dollar earned by non-Indigenous, non-racialized men, while Indigenous women earned approximately 79 cents. [4]
These are national averages across employed workers. They do not mean that every woman earns less than a man doing identical work, and they do not account for every difference in occupation, experience, or job characteristics.
Nevertheless, the disparities are significant and deserve serious examination.
More detailed research reveals that differences can persist even when researchers account for important characteristics.
In a 2023 study examining the early career outcomes of bachelor’s degree graduates, Statistics Canada found that many racialized graduates experienced lower employment earnings than their non-racialized, non-Indigenous counterparts.
Among women, West Asian graduates earned approximately 16% less and Arab graduates approximately 15% less than comparable non-racialized, non-Indigenous women after accounting for differences in demographic, educational, and industry characteristics.
Black, Korean, South Asian, and Latin American women experienced adjusted earnings gaps of approximately 8% to 9%.
Among men, several racialized groups, including Black, Southeast Asian, and Filipino graduates, experienced adjusted earnings gaps of approximately 11% to 13%. [5]
These findings are particularly important because they challenge the assumption that educational achievement alone guarantees equal economic opportunity.
These graduates completed university degrees. They entered the labour market with postsecondary qualifications. Yet significant differences in their economic outcomes remained.
The research does not establish that every unexplained difference results from discrimination. Employment outcomes are influenced by numerous factors, and no single study can account for every relevant circumstance.
However, it provides compelling evidence that qualifications and educational attainment do not automatically produce equal outcomes.
There are similar concerns regarding the labour market experiences of immigrants.
Statistics Canada reported that, in the third quarter of 2024, recent working-age immigrant employees earned an average hourly wage of $29.97, compared with $39.29 for Canadian-born workers in the comparison group.
That represents a difference of approximately 23.7%.
Non-permanent resident employees experienced an even larger gap, earning an average of $26.15 per hour. [2]
These figures are not adjusted comparisons of workers performing identical jobs. Nevertheless, they highlight the considerable economic disadvantages that many newcomers encounter when entering the Canadian labour market.
Such findings demand more than a declaration that hiring should be based on merit.
They demand an examination of whether merit is always recognized, assessed, and rewarded fairly.
Are foreign qualifications being appropriately assessed?
Are workers’ relevant experiences being recognized?
Are recruitment and promotion processes genuinely transparent?
Are employees being compensated equitably?
Are qualified individuals being overlooked because of assumptions about their names, accents, backgrounds, disabilities, or identities?
These are legitimate questions that employers, policymakers, and public institutions should be prepared to confront.
When two individuals possess comparable qualifications, relevant experience, and demonstrated competence, their opportunity to succeed should not depend on their race, gender, background, or identity.
That is not a rejection of merit.
That is what a genuinely merit-based system should strive to achieve.
Equality and Equity Are Not the Same Thing
Much of the public debate surrounding DEI has failed to distinguish between equality and equity.
Equality, in a general sense, involves treating people according to the same rules and standards.
Equity asks whether those rules and standards provide people with genuinely fair access to opportunities, particularly when existing barriers affect some individuals more than others.
Both principles matter.
Consider a recruitment process that evaluates every candidate using identical criteria.
On the surface, that may appear entirely fair.
But what happens if some of those criteria are unrelated to the actual requirements of the job and disproportionately exclude otherwise qualified applicants?
What happens if candidates with disabilities cannot access the application or assessment process?
What happens if relevant international work experience is discounted without a legitimate occupational reason?
What happens if hiring practices rely heavily on personal networks that repeatedly exclude qualified candidates outside those networks?
Applying the same process to everyone does not automatically make that process fair.
Equity involves examining whether the process itself creates unnecessary barriers and whether those barriers can be addressed without compromising legitimate qualifications or professional standards.
An accessible interview process does not make an unqualified candidate qualified.
Recognizing relevant international credentials does not diminish Canadian professional standards.
Reviewing pay practices for unjustified disparities does not mean disregarding employee performance.
Providing reasonable workplace accommodations does not mean that competence becomes irrelevant.
These measures can help ensure that merit is assessed more accurately and fairly.
Equity and excellence can reinforce one another.
A fair system should identify talent wherever it exists, remove unjustified barriers, and hold everyone to appropriate professional standards.
Merit-Based Hiring Must Be More Than a Political Slogan
We understand why the principle of merit-based hiring resonates with Albertans.
People want to know that those entrusted with public responsibilities are competent, qualified, and capable of performing their duties.
Patients want qualified healthcare professionals. Students deserve skilled educators. Public institutions should employ people who can carry out their responsibilities effectively.
These expectations are reasonable and important.
However, framing merit-based hiring as something that can only be achieved by restricting equity initiatives creates a misleading choice.
The relevant question is not whether merit matters.
It does.
The question is whether existing hiring and promotion processes consistently identify and reward merit without discrimination.
If the Government of Alberta believes certain equity initiatives are ineffective, unfair, or inconsistent with appropriate hiring standards, it should identify the specific practices at issue, explain the evidence supporting its concerns, and demonstrate how its reforms will improve fairness.
Broad claims about merit should not substitute for that analysis.
Equally important, the government should explain what measures will remain in place to address systemic barriers, discriminatory practices, unequal access to advancement, and other persistent inequities.
Bill 33 retains existing human rights protections and the duty to accommodate, and that distinction matters. [3]
However, restricting certain equity initiatives may affect the ability of institutions to take proactive steps to identify and address barriers before discrimination occurs.
Human rights protections provide important remedies, but preventing discrimination should also be a public policy priority.
A system should not require individuals to experience unfair treatment before institutions begin examining whether their practices are equitable.
A commitment to merit means little if qualified people continue to face unnecessary barriers to demonstrating it.
The Broader Consequences of Political Rhetoric
Public policy debates do not occur in isolation from the language used to frame them.
The way governments, political leaders, and public institutions discuss immigration, diversity, and inclusion can influence how people understand and treat one another.
When immigrants are repeatedly associated with pressures on healthcare, education, housing, or employment without sufficient context, there is a risk that complex policy challenges become simplified into narratives of blame.
When DEI initiatives are discussed primarily as obstacles to fairness or competence, there is a risk of reinforcing the assumption that individuals from marginalized communities have received opportunities they did not earn.
Both narratives can have consequences.
They may encourage suspicion toward people based on their immigration status, racial background, gender, or other personal characteristics.
They may lead individuals to question the qualifications of colleagues who belong to underrepresented communities, even when those individuals have earned their positions through the same demanding professional processes as everyone else.
They may also undermine confidence among people who already face discrimination or exclusion.
StopHateAB does not suggest that every person who questions immigration policy or criticizes a DEI initiative is motivated by prejudice.
There is room for legitimate disagreement about government policy, public spending, recruitment practices, and program effectiveness.
Indeed, democratic societies depend on the ability to debate these matters openly.
But there is an important distinction between criticizing a policy and portraying an entire community as responsible for society’s problems.
There is also a distinction between evaluating whether an equity initiative is effective and suggesting that the success of marginalized individuals is inherently undeserved.
Political leaders have a particular responsibility to maintain those distinctions.
Words matter.
How we speak about people influences how they are perceived, how they are treated, and whether they feel that they belong.
In a province that continues to experience incidents of racism, discrimination, and hate, governments must be especially mindful of how their public messaging may contribute to social division.
We should be working to build understanding between communities, not reinforcing narratives that turn neighbours against one another.
Building an Alberta Where Everyone Has the Opportunity to Succeed
Alberta’s future depends on its ability to confront complex challenges without sacrificing the values that should unite us.
We need sustainable public services, responsible immigration policies, strong educational institutions, accessible healthcare, and employment systems that reward skill, competence, and hard work.
We also need public institutions that recognize discrimination, address unnecessary barriers, and protect the fundamental dignity of the people they serve.
These goals are not mutually exclusive.
We can support responsible immigration planning without blaming newcomers for failures in infrastructure development.
We can defend the integrity of public services without creating unnecessary hardship for vulnerable individuals.
We can support merit-based hiring while recognizing that unequal opportunities and systemic barriers remain.
We can evaluate DEI initiatives critically without dismissing the very real inequalities they were established to address.
And we can disagree about government policies without questioning whether our neighbours belong in this province.
As Alberta considers its next steps following the referendum and the legislative changes proposed under Bill 33, StopHateAB calls on the Government of Alberta to engage meaningfully with affected communities and ensure that its decisions are guided by evidence, transparency, fairness, and respect for human rights.
We urge the government to carefully assess the potential consequences of immigration-related policy changes, ensure that vulnerable individuals are not subjected to unnecessary harm, and provide Albertans with clear evidence supporting any proposed restrictions on public services.
We further urge the government to reconsider measures that could weaken proactive efforts to address discrimination and inequity within public institutions, and to demonstrate how its approach to merit-based hiring will address documented barriers affecting women, Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.
Meaningful progress requires more than declarations of fairness.
It requires a willingness to examine uncomfortable evidence, acknowledge institutional shortcomings, and take practical steps to ensure that opportunities are genuinely accessible.
Most importantly, we call on political leaders across the province to recognize their responsibility to foster an environment where every Albertan is treated with dignity and respect.
Our collective strength has never come from everyone having the same background, experiences, or identity.
It has come from the ability of people with different histories and perspectives to build communities together.
Immigrants and newcomers are not separate from Alberta’s story. They are part of it.
Women, Indigenous Peoples, racialized communities, people with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups are not asking for a province where qualifications do not matter. They deserve a province where their qualifications, contributions, and abilities are recognized fairly.
We should not confuse the removal of equity initiatives with the achievement of equality.
We should not confuse immigration restrictions with solutions to every challenge facing our public services.
And we should never confuse political popularity with the responsibility to protect human dignity.
Alberta cannot celebrate diversity as one of its greatest strengths while adopting policies or rhetoric that risk treating the people who contribute to that diversity as a problem to be solved.
The measure of a strong province is not simply how much its population grows, how productive its economy becomes, or how much wealth it generates.
It is also how it treats people, particularly those who are vulnerable, marginalized, or too often excluded from the opportunities available to others.
Alberta has the opportunity to build a future grounded in fairness, accountability, inclusion, and shared prosperity.
That future requires leadership willing to address difficult challenges without creating new divisions.
Because a stronger Alberta is not one where some people are made to feel less welcome, less deserving, or less valued.
A stronger Alberta is one where everyone has a fair opportunity to contribute, to succeed, and to belong.
— StopHateAB
References
[1] Elections Alberta. (2026). Referendum Official Results, October 19, 2026. Updated November 6, 2026.
https://www.elections.ab.ca/
[2] Statistics Canada. (2026). Labour market experiences of recent working-age immigrants and non-permanent residents, 2019 to 2024.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/
[3] Legislative Assembly of Alberta. (2026). Bill 33: Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (No. 2), legislative proceedings, including third reading on November 5, 2026.
https://www.assembly.ab.ca/
Government of Alberta. (2026). Merit-based hiring, stronger protection for victims and justice system reforms.
https://www.alberta.ca/merit-
[4] Statistics Canada. (2026). The gender wage gap persists.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/
[5] Galarneau, D., Brunet, S., & Corak, L. (2023). Early career job quality of racialized Canadian graduates with a bachelor’s degree, 2014 to 2017 cohorts. Statistics Canada.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/
