Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

Its always always about attracting "doctors and engineers" whereas the overwhelming majority of Immigrants that I encounter here in AB is from low income groups. Besides of that having a degree from outside of Canada might help you to enter the country but has no practical value inside of it. All the engineers that I know here had to re-study in Canada again.

This is not true. And now that the Government of Canada has hid it, I can no longer prove it. However, not only did my MP admit that they get close to 2500 dollars per month for the first year and sometimes longer. They are automatically authorized for a loan. And hey, 50,000 for a family is enough for a downpayment, while we can sit here working all our lives and never be able to buy a house. But they are automatically authorized. So the question is, why is it profittable to bring in refugees? Maybe if the government gave me 50,000 or 2500 per month, and or they gave me easier loans....I would have already been profiting Canada in many ways. Other than trying to work hard and when I can't get a job, because I am not part of a minority group, collecting ei or assistance and never getting anywhere in my life.

Doesn't matter. There are groups of different nationalities migrating every dofferent global event that impacts them wanting to leave their home country. The world can be a better place. People in power don't want it to be. That's that.

Remember what happened in other countries like Italy for example men claiming to be young boys or students given ideas and fake visas. There was a group charged for all this in Ontario.

As a Canada who speaks both French and English and who follows politics quite closely, I have to say that the headline and some of the reporting here is quite misleading. A reduction in immigration has broad support across Canada. I wouldn't say that notion is dividing the country in any significant way. You do have certain industry groups that disagree, but among the population these reductions have broad support. This is a historic change in public opinion in Canada, but it has been driven by the unprecedented increase in immigration under the last term of the Trudeau government. To put this in context, non-permanent residents in Canada numbered around 1.5 million on Q3 2023, but by Q3 2025, that number sat a just over 3 million. The previous government increased immigration targets by 3 or 4 times over what they had been for years, which caused a number of economic issues. Essentially, the volume was simply too high for the economy and society to support. This was unfair to both Canadians and new comers, many of which could not find employment or afford a decent place to live. The changes being suggested are largely bringing Canada back to what the targets were for over a decade before, though a bit lower to account for the sudden surge. Canada remains one of the most pro-immigration countries in the world. However, and this is where I think DW's reporting is misleading, there is a distinction to be made between policies at the federal level and policies at the provincial level. Immigration, per our constitution, is a federal matter, however, Quebec in particular is distinct from other provinces. I don't mean only culturally and linguistically, but also in the powers that have been devolved to it by the federal government. On the question of immigration, Quebec has more powers and more ability to set its immigration targets and programs than any of the other 9 provinces. The particular program discussed here, the Quebec Experience Program (PEQ), is a particular immigration stream that only existed in Quebec. So what is happening with that program cannot be labeled as a whole-of-Canada thing. Where the changes to the PEQ are controversial, unlike the general changes at the federal level, is that people who immigrated under that specific program were promised certain things. There was a multi-year time line to Permanent Residency and then Citizenship. Many of those people have been in Quebec for 5-8 years already. However, the changes made to the program were done in such a way where people who many years into the program, had gotten an education, started a career, had children, ect. are now being told they can't continue and must leave Canada. There are even stories of people who married Canadians, now have children, and the one parent who was under this program now faces the possibility of having to leave Canada and be separated from their family. All through no fault of their own. That is what many people see as unfair, and I agree, however limiting future applications under the program, to bring in less people, that is not controversial. Canada has no responsibility to bring in people who are not already in Canada, but Canada does have some responsibility towards people who uprooted their lives to move to Canada and built new lives here based on promises and representations made to them by the Canadian and Quebecois governments. We should no simply kick those people out of the country.

Cultural clustering is a natural phenomenon. Even within India, if someone moves from the North to the South (or vice versa), they often seek out people from their own region/religion/community to feel a sense of familiarity and comfort. Brampton’s story reflects this same human instinct to find community and preserve traditions in a new place without disturbing the territorial harmony(but that didn't go well). At the same time, Indian culture and values are inherently inclusive, with a long history of adapting and coexisting with diverse communities. The real challenge lies not in immigrants forming close-knit groups, but in how well both newcomers and longtime residents accept and integrate with each other. When mutual respect and openness exist, diversity becomes a strength rather than a division. That said, the scale and pace of Brampton’s demographic change raise important policy questions. The Canadian government should have anticipated and planned for this transformation much earlier. Whether they did not act, or could not act, is a question only they can answer but it is central to understanding today’s challenges.

I wonder if this kind of journalism was reported when the English, Italian , or any European group migrated 🤔

There is a group creating a new social measurement called 'World Civility Index' to help immigrants to learn about the culture and values of their new host. The concept is to set a standard, common interface where everyone can interact and enjoy each other, not imposing their own "old country" culture, especially in public. We do this by cultivating social manners, empathy, intercultural awareness so that newcomers can be better employees, students, general citizens. What gets measured gets managed.

Canada is done , they r no longer sovereign they change laws to suit certain groups and the system is rigged to be taxed to death dang you can die is an emergency room of a hospital. Imagine paying into the system for 30 plus years and you can’t get an mir or a cat scan for months and when u do it’s too late

Canada has changed significantly in recent years, and I believe our post-COVID immigration policies have played a major role in the challenges we’re facing today. Here’s how things went off track: Many individuals who couldn’t pass the IELTS (English proficiency test) entered the country on visitor visas or through spousal sponsorships—some of which were questionable or fraudulent. During that time, the government was converting visitor visas into work permits with little to no scrutiny. Background checks and rejections were rare. Meanwhile, colleges rapidly expanded their intake capacity—understandably so, since international students pay three to four times more in tuition. At the same time, due to inflationary pressures, the government allowed international students to work 40 hours per week instead of the previous 20-hour limit. This created a new, ready-to-work labor force in just a year or two, heavily impacting the retail sector. As a result, a large portion of retail jobs shifted toward a single ethnic group, while many Canadian citizens found themselves sidelined. One key factor was flexibility. Many immigrant communities—particularly Indian—were more willing to accept irregular hours and last-minute shifts, often adopting a more compliant, “yes sir” attitude that employers found appealing. However, I’m already beginning to notice changes in the retail landscape, likely due to the government finally tightening immigration rules. Going forward, we don’t need to close our doors—but we do need smarter immigration policies, with proper checks and balances, to ensure fairness and sustainability for everyone.

My parents immigrated in the early 90s and I was born in Canada. It’s very hard to relate to the new immigrants in the last 10 years because we’re so different. The families that immigrated in the 80s and 90s had to assimilate and become “Canadian” which in hindsight was for the best. I learned about my culture and language at home, but my parents, emphasized the importance of being “Canadian first” and being a part of society and “fitting in.” This wasn’t at all a bad thing. I learned to ski, skate, make ice lollies with snow and syrup, went camping, played sports… I feel embarrassed when Indians are looked at in this light, but its true. 90% of this new wave of immigrants on “student visas,” dont intend to actually obtain any sort of an education, instead they use it as a pathway for permanent residency. I know this because I have relatives who say this out loud behind closed doors. I don’t agree with any of it, and quite frankly it’s very embarrassing, but most of us first generation Indian Canadians feel very upset about how its all played out and the negative light in which our people are now viewed under. Personally, I agree they arent interested in becoming culturally Canadian, they just want to be in Canada for financial reasons. They stay in their groups, dont integrate and think somehow this will play out well. It isnt discrimination when your own people also feel this way. I have yet to meet a first gen Canadian who disagrees

It’s about time and I have nothing to say about bad about immigration as thats how Canada was built and I’ve come to realize that Canadian Citizens are paying the government for rent to live in Canada to a particular group of people who weren’t the First people of Canada especially if the Government allows the information out !! Also 340 million is cheaper than keeping them here

Is MR still tied to W group?

If we actually want solutions, we should be talking about things like real-time tracking for overstays, linking federal/provincial systems, funding enforcement properly, and setting penalties that are predictable and enforced. Bring in experts not random paper pushers for “gotcha” moments. Sessions like this aren’t about fixing the system, they’re about stoking outrage. And more often than not, it ends up targeting vulnerable groups instead of creating policy that actually works.

"The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides temporary health care coverage for specific groups in Canada, such as refugees and asylum claimants, who do not have access to provincial or territorial health insurance. It covers essential medical services, but some supplemental benefits will require co-payments starting May 1, 2026"

I am supportive of immigration, but I believe there should be a cap of no more than 1-2.5% annually. A significant number of migrants moving to Canada from the same region or country could cause issues, as this can lead to the formation of "mini-bubble" societies within Canada. These groups may sometimes become the dominant demographic and undermine the existing communities that have contributed to building Canada for decades. We cannot expect new immigrants to seamlessly merge into Canadian society. This is a major oversight by Canada’s Immigration Department. Digital applications from foreign nations may play a role in this phenomenon. There should also be regulations concerning how many new immigrants can be brought in by family members. For instance, one new citizen can legally bring both of their parents and their spouse, which is fair. However, there have been cases where this process is repeated multiple times within ten years, leading to a 1:15 ratio, where one person can bring in six to eight relatives. If there is a labor shortage in essential fields, Canada can offer long-term residency to those who continue to work in those sectors, such as caretakers. However, the pathway to citizenship could be lengthened or require a higher standard. For instance, the requirements could extend from X years of living in Canada to X+5 years, as well as passing a basic Canadian citizenship test, either written or verbal. While an increase of five years may seem unfair or lengthy, it is essential. A newborn child from a Canadian family requires 18 years to gain voting rights in elections, whereas new immigrants—especially those who come for study for four to six years—can potentially gain both citizenship and voting rights sooner if they meet the previous administration's standard. Children under the age of 18 can gain citizenship in as little as X-4 years, regardless of their full integration into Canadian society. This loophole is sometimes abused and provides preferential treatment that favors this process over existing Canadian. In my opinion, it would be fairer to calculate the duration of "living in Canada" based on the number of years they have paid "income taxes" in Canada. This is important because many individuals with multiple passports pay taxes elsewhere while benefiting from Canadian healthcare and other services. The investment in home buying as a pathway to citizenship has contributed to the housing crisis, resulting in numerous empty homes in various regions. While it may offer short-term economic benefits that some politicians favor, it is detrimental to Canada as a whole. If buying a house is the only requirement for citizenship, wouldn't a large portion of the global population be eligible for U.S. citizenship just by investing in U.S. businesses or stocks? This perspective may seem illogical when looking at it from outside the box. Apologies for being a bit wordy; I had much more to say. Nonetheless, I also support temporary residency for up to 6-9 months for those who have been evacuated due to war, natural disasters, or similar circumstances. Special exceptions can be granted for families with members working in critical fields that merit such considerations (high-end industry).