Several Alberta proposals have clear parallels in other Western liberal democracies. Calling all nine questions racist ignores both those precedents and the ballot’s actual wording.

 

Edmonton Mayor Andrew Knack has called Alberta’s nine non-separation referendum questions racist. Yet several immigration proposals resemble policies already operating in countries such as Britain and Australia. Four other questions concern constitutional reform.

Consider the proposal to charge temporary residents a fee or premium for health care and education.

The United Kingdom already charges many temporary migrants an immigration health surcharge as part of their visa applications, with exemptions for specified categories. Asking newcomers to contribute toward public health care is an existing British policy.

Alberta also asks whether certain temporary residents should live in the province for 12 months before qualifying for provincially funded social supports.

Australia imposes waiting periods of up to four years for various benefits for newly arrived residents, depending on their visa, the payment involved and applicable exemptions. Alberta’s proposal has a clear international precedent, although the eligibility categories and programs differ.

The official ballot wording distinguishes between citizenship and immigration categories rather than explicitly between racial groups. Questions three and four preserve existing eligibility for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. 

Declaring these measures racist requires more than disliking them.

And Knack’s blanket accusation has another problem: questions six through nine address judicial appointments, abolishing the Senate, federal program funding and provincial jurisdiction

What, exactly, is racist about abolishing the unelected Senate?