Canada has a history of discrimination; don't fall for it in Alberta

Separation has been front and centre in Alberta. But the provincial referendum is about more than separation. Half of the questions focus on immigration.

As Albertans, we are concerned about what the government is signalling with these questions and what it’s asking the public to approve. Questions two to four target newcomers, seeking approval to restrict their access to services.

There are many reasons to reject these questions, including the fact that newcomers pay taxes that fund public services, despite not being eligible for all of them.

But there’s a simpler reason to say “no.” The questions follow a familiar pattern of scapegoating that we should all reject.

Throughout our history, governments have relied on anti-immigrant sentiment to scapegoat, distract and discriminate. These referendum questions ask us to draw distinctions between newcomers and other Albertans, suggesting that only those who have been here longer are deserving of public services.

This isn’t occurring in a vacuum. The Alberta government should take responsibility for providing the services Albertans rely on, rather than blame newcomers for its failures.

We see concerning parallels between what the government is proposing and some of the most shameful chapters of Canadian history — a history we do not want to repeat.

Between 1885 and 1947, Canada imposed discriminatory restrictions on Chinese immigrants, fuelled by racist public sentiment. After recruiting thousands of workers from China to build the railway in dangerous conditions for little pay, the government imposed the Chinese head tax in 1885. With few exceptions, Chinese immigrants were required to pay a $50 tax to come to Canada; the amount was raised to $100 in 1900 and then $500 in 1903. While the head tax was removed in 1923, this came with a virtually complete ban on all Chinese immigrants until 1947.

Like the head tax, the government’s proposal in referendum Question 4 imposes arbitrary costs on newcomers. Why should newcomers, who already pay taxes like everyone else, have to pay additional fees to access health care and education? Do we want children to be denied access to education based on where they were born?

In 1908, Canada passed a continuous journey regulation. It prohibited the entry of immigrants who did not come to Canada by a direct, uninterrupted journey from their place of origin. The regulation, although appearing neutral on its face, was designed to target immigrants from India and Japan, since it was nearly impossible to get to Canada directly from those places.

In 1914, the government was challenged on its exclusionary rule by 376 prospective immigrants from Punjab, India, who came to Vancouver aboard the Komagata Maru. Despite arriving after a continuous journey, and being British subjects, the passengers were forced to stay on the ship in Vancouver’s harbour for two months, and were ultimately denied entry and forced to return.

When the government seeks to restrict public services to individuals with an “Alberta-approved immigration status,” what does it mean? History teaches us to be wary of vague and seemingly neutral categories, especially if we are concerned with equality.

In 1911, Albertans petitioned against Black immigration. Widespread anti-Black sentiment even led to the Canadian government passing an order in council that banned “any immigrants belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to climate and requirement of Canada.” The order signalled that Black immigrants were not welcome in Canada.

While this type of explicit race-based criteria would not be tolerated today, we are deeply concerned that the referendum questions seem designed to secure public approval for the government to discriminate against racialized immigrants.

For us, that’s a mandate we refuse to provide.

These historical examples provide not only a window into our past, but also context for understanding the present. This referendum is a chance for us to break the pattern of scapegoating immigrants and the harmful feedback loop of anti-immigrant sentiment and policy.

On Monday, join us in voting “no” to scapegoating.

Niki Bains, Avnit Dhanoa and Eric Crowther on behalf of Justice & Equity Alberta.