Open this photo in gallery:
A recent Nanos poll found that 46 per cent of Canadians either support or somewhat support withholding access to some provincially funded programs.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Canadians are split on whether they support withholding access to health care, education and other social services to certain non-permanent residents, closely mirroring the opinions expressed by Albertans in last month’s provincial referendum, according to a new poll.
The public opinion poll, conducted by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail, also shows Canadians share similar levels of support for some of the other proposals that were on the referendum ballot, including abolishing the unelected Senate and requiring proof of citizenship when voting.
Nik Nanos, the company’s chief data scientist, said in an interview that the findings suggest it’s not just Albertans who are split on the issue of whether temporary foreign workers and asylum claimants should be allowed access to public health care and education.
“You’ll see many Canadians that agree with Albertans or have the same degree of divisions or lack of consensus on these issues,” Mr. Nanos said. “Generally, Albertans are not the outliers on this. They might have a different level of intensity, but they’re not outliers.”
The Nanos poll found that 46 per cent of Canadians either support or somewhat support withholding access to provincially funded programs such as health care and education from temporary foreign workers. On the flip side, 51 per cent said they somewhat or fully oppose the idea.
Support for the measure is highest in the Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba). Support in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Quebec ranges between 43 per cent and 48 per cent. In British Columbia, nearly 40 per cent of respondents said they would endorse withholding access.
The results are based on a poll of 1,058 Canadians from Oct. 31 to Nov. 2, with a 3-per-cent margin of error, and are considered accurate 19 times out of 20.
The poll question echoes three proposals that were on Alberta’s referendum ballot last month: limiting provincially funded services to certain non-permanent residents; requiring many of those individuals to live in Alberta for 12 months before qualifying for publicly funded social supports; and charging temporary residents fees for health care and education.
In the end, Alberta voters narrowly endorsed the ideas, with support barely scraping past 50 per cent.
Alberta migrant groups express alarm over referendum results on immigration reform
In the days after the referendum, Premier Danielle Smith – the architect and proponent of the proposals – said the results indicate she should “proceed with caution” before implementing them.
But the outcome has become part of a broader discussion about provinces having greater control over immigration, currently a shared federal-provincial responsibility.
Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have joined Alberta in asking Ottawa for more immigration powers. Prime Minister Mark Carney has signalled openness to the idea, though it’s unclear how much territory he’s willing to cede.
Mr. Carney’s moderate approach to immigration since the record-high levels under his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, has appeared to lower public opposition to the issue.
But the topic re-emerged after last week’s federal budget revealed plans to grant permanent residency to 200,000 temporary residents in Canada, in addition to the 380,000 spots previously allocated in 2026. The one-time measure could potentially raise total permanent-resident admissions in 2027 to more than 650,000 people.
Mr. Nanos said the findings in his poll underline how divisive politics around immigration have become – and how the issue is a political minefield.
“If you’re a politician that wants to play in this area – especially if it has to do with taking away provincially funded programs – you’ve got to be prepared to potentially be in the crossfire,” he said.
Albertans largely support measures aimed at reducing immigration, split on constitutional questions
Christopher Worswick, an economics professor at Carleton University, said the poll question lacks details on how withholding services would play out – such as whether companies would be asked to pay health and education premiums for temporary workers they hire – which could affect how Canadians respond.
But the responses exhibit a reflexive negative opinion to immigration among a significant segment of Canadians, acknowledged Prof. Worswick, who studies immigration policy.
“I don’t think that was the feeling 10, 15 years ago in Canada,” he said.
The Nanos poll also asked about other issues on the Alberta ballot, including some constitutional amendments (all of which voters rejected) and whether proof of citizenship should be required to vote in elections.
Again, the responses to the national poll largely reflect the results in Alberta.
Sixty-one per cent of Canadians said they support requiring voters to supply proof of citizenship in provincial elections, only a few percentage points higher than the 58 per cent of Albertans who voted in favour of the idea.
On the matters of abolishing the Senate; allowing provinces to opt out of federal programs but still receive funding; giving provinces control over certain judicial appointments; and giving provincial law precedence over federal law, Canadians largely rejected the proposals, same as Albertans in the referendum.