Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

In short ...Nothing of significance will change Just window dressing ...while you elbow up to beg around for everything

All the people who come to Canada, if they stop making reels and short videos, I think immigration will drop significantly.

Unfortunately, lowering the number of foreign students is significantly hurting colleges. Do I know the answer? No.

I’m a proud Indian who is now a Canadian citizen, and I’ve made a conscious effort to assimilate into Canadian culture and values. What bothers me is how this conversation has been reduced to blaming one group. The reality is that the Canadian government failed first by not properly managing immigration volumes, not enforcing document verification, and not honestly assessing whether the country could support such rapid population growth. That policy failure created pressure on housing, jobs, and social systems long before resentment followed. We also need honesty within the Indian community. Some Indians struggle to adapt being overly loud, culturally rigid, and sometimes lacking empathy for Canadian norms and shared public spaces. I studied Canadian and Indigenous history in school, and respecting that history matters. Assimilation doesn’t mean abandoning your culture, but it does mean understanding and respecting the society you chose to join. Cultural education should be expected, not optional. That said, one Indian doing something wrong does not make all Indians bad. Most Indian students and workers I know are hardworking, punctual, and serious about contributing. I’ve personally worked minimum-wage jobs for years, and what I noticed was not jobs being “taken,” but fewer Canadian youth willing to stay in or commit to these roles long-term. Indians didn’t replace Canadians, they filled vacancies that already existed. I also briefly volunteered helping the homeless, and what I saw was honestly shocking. It’s not that the government isn’t trying to help there are rehabilitation programs and support systems in place. The difficult truth is that a significant portion of the homeless population struggles with substance abuse and refuses treatment because it requires giving up drugs. Over time, homelessness itself starts to function like a culture, where benefits and assistance unintentionally enable continued substance use rather than recovery. This is an uncomfortable reality people don’t like to talk about. None of this is simple. Immigration didn’t break Canada, and neither did one community. Poor policy, weak enforcement, lack of accountability, and refusal from governments and individuals to adapt responsibly is what brought us here. Blame is easy. Honest solutions are not.

Yes, Canada’s asylum system is currently facing intense scrutiny due to record-high claim volumes and allegations of systemic fraud. THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM Backlog Explosion: The inventory of pending asylum claims has surged significantly, reaching approximately 300,000 active cases as of late 2025. Rising Claim Volumes: Annual claims reached a record 190,000 in 2024, though they decreased by about a third in early 2025 following new policy measures. Removal Gap: Criticisms have been raised regarding the low rate of deportations; reports indicate that 86% of rejected claimants remain in Canada. SOURCES OF "BOGUS" CLAIMS International Student Surge: There has been an "alarming trend" of international students claiming asylum to remain in the country after their study permits expire or in response to new caps on student visas. Fraud Networks: Investigations have highlighted vulnerabilities where unauthorized agents and transnational fraud networks counsel migrants to submit fabricated narratives or forged documents. "Rubber-Stamping" Allegations: A recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute warned that a paper-based "fast-track" system for certain high-risk countries may be bypassing essential security screenings and in-person questioning. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT Healthcare Costs: The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides medical benefits to claimants, saw its budget jump from roughly $66 million to over $1 billion annually. Policy Shift: To reduce incentives for non-genuine claims, the government is introducing a co-pay system for supplementary health services (like dental and vision) starting May 1, 2026. CONSEQUENCES OF FRAUD For individuals, filing a "bogus" or misrepresented claim carries severe penalties: A five-year ban from entering or remaining in Canada. Permanent record of fraud with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Loss of current temporary or permanent resident status

If significant numbers of people have not/do not pay taxes in Canada to support our health and welfare system then their use of those same systems weaken them for those who do. The weaken systems will start to fail and we’ll all be worse off unless, of course, we raise taxes or borrow more. How liberal is that!

Indian immigration significantly benefits Canada by filling critical labor shortages, boosting the economy, and contributing to demographic sustainability. As a leading source of skilled professionals, Indians represent over 30% of Canada's high-skill visas, notably in IT, healthcare, and engineering, which supports technological growth and public services. They help counter an aging population, bolster the workforce, and increase tax revenue, with over 120,000 Indians becoming permanent residents annually.

English and French colonization had a devastating and intentional impact on the Indigenous languages of Canada, leading to the severe endangerment and, in some cases, extinction of many languages. This was achieved through explicit colonial policies aimed at cultural assimilation and the suppression of Indigenous identities.  Key Impacts of Colonization Forced Assimilation via Residential Schools: The most significant factor in language loss was the government-funded, church-run residential school system, which operated from the 19th century to the late 20th century. Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities and sent to these schools. Punishment for Speaking Native Tongues: In the schools, children were forbidden to speak their Indigenous languages and were often subjected to severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse if they did. Intergenerational Trauma and Knowledge Loss: The experience in residential schools caused profound trauma. Survivors often did not teach their children their traditional languages, partly out of fear of punishment and partly because their own fluency had been impacted, which inhibited the languages from being passed to the next generation. Discriminatory Legislation: The Indian Act: This legislation, along with other colonial policies, was used to suppress Indigenous cultural expression, including language. Official Languages Act: Canada's official language policies recognize only English and French as dominant languages, effectively marginalizing the over 60 distinct Indigenous languages that existed on the land long before European settlement. Dispossession of Land: Forcible removal of Indigenous communities from their traditional lands and onto reserves disrupted the deep connection between language, culture, and the natural environment. Indigenous languages often encode unique knowledge about local ecosystems, which was lost when communities were displaced. Social Stigmatization: Colonial ideologies viewed Indigenous cultures and languages as "inferior" or "savage," promoting English and French as the languages of "modernity" and "progress". This created a social hierarchy where speaking an Indigenous language could be a barrier to education and employment opportunities in the dominant society.  Current Situation and Revitalization Efforts The legacy of these policies has resulted in low numbers of fluent Indigenous language speakers today, with many languages considered endangered or critically endangered. However, there are significant ongoing efforts toward language revitalization.  The Canadian federal government passed the Indigenous Languages Act in 2019, which aims to support the efforts of Indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain, and strengthen their languages. Indigenous communities, educational institutions, and organizations are actively working to preserve languages through immersion programs, community initiatives, and documentation. UNESCO has declared 2022 to 2032 the International Decade of Indigenous Languages to draw global attention to the urgent need for preservation and promotion.

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.

The large influx of new immigrants is placing significant pressure on both the housing and rental markets. Simultaneously, the labour market is becoming increasingly unbalanced, creating economic challenges and a potential recession in the near future. Young people who grew up here are particularly affected, as many cannot afford to leave their parents' homes, to pay rent, and eventually purchase their own houses. The number of immigrants must align with the health care and economic capacity of provinces to sustain the housing and job markets. Currently, this balance is disrupted, leading to consequences that impact everyone.

I knew people working at Immigration back in 2018, and they were raising concerns with their supervisors about significant fraudulent applications, but were told to keep pushing people through because the government wanted numbers.

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.

Please help me understand why mass migration is considered beneficial. I believe globalization has very significant drawbacks. My primary concern is for my fellow Canadians "ONLY." It seems that the increase in new residents is driven largely by political motives, as new migrants often support the Liberal Party due to the benefits they receive upon arrival. Both the Liberal government in Canada and the Democrats in the United States appear to be aware of this trend. Regardless of political affiliation—whether Liberal, Conservative, Green, or any other party—if my party were to adopt such a policy, I would oppose it. Canadians really need to wake up. We need responsible citizenship that upholds and strengthens our Canadian culture and values.

Folk may think this reduction in immigration is far from any "slash" in numbers. Consider (search the web for "Is Canada's aging population an issue ?"): "Canada's aging population is a significant issue, creating major challenges for the economy, healthcare, and social services, as more seniors require care while fewer younger workers support them, leading to potential labor shortages, strained budgets, and increased demand for healthcare and long-term support. The trend of more seniors than children under 15 puts pressure on economic growth and government finances, requiring substantial funding increases for health and care services. " For every positive to reduced immigration numbers, Canadians are going to discover that there will be negatives. The negatives might very well justify using the word "slash". Time will tell.

Why does a country of 55 million (already significant immigration population) need diversity from a country of 1.4 billion?

Making Indigenous languages official in Canada faces struggles due to the deep, ongoing impact of colonization (residential schools, assimilation policies), the sheer number of endangered languages (over 70), lack of constitutional protection like English/French have, funding gaps, and challenges implementing legislation like the Indigenous Languages Act effectively, despite strong community efforts for revitalization. The core issue is moving beyond mere documentation to ensuring effective support for daily use, education, and government services, a goal hindered by historical trauma and systemic neglect.  Key Struggles & Challenges: Colonial Legacy: Policies like the Indian Act and residential schools suppressed languages, causing massive loss, with trauma still affecting intergenerational transmission. Constitutional Gap: Unlike English and French, Indigenous languages lack explicit, strong constitutional rights (e.g., in the Charter) for government services, as noted in this article from indigenouswatchdog.org. Urgency & Scarcity: Most of Canada's 70+ Indigenous languages are endangered, with many facing imminent extinction, requiring immediate action from the last fluent elders. Implementation of Legislation: The Indigenous Languages Act (2019) aims to support revitalization, but it's criticized for being non-binding and not creating effective rights, meaning legal recognition doesn't always translate to real-world resources or services. Funding & Resource Gaps: While funding exists, it's often insufficient, limited in scope, or not reaching grassroots efforts effectively, making comprehensive revitalization difficult. Integration Challenges: Integrating Indigenous languages into education (K-12, higher ed) and public services (health, justice) remains a significant hurdle, even where there's political will, as seen in territories with official Indigenous languages.

My father immigrated to Canada from India in 1961 to complete his PhD, where he met my mother, a local farm girl. They married, and he soon joined Agriculture Canada as a research scientist at the Regina Research Station in 1963. Over his remarkable 40-year career, he contributed significantly to the evolution of herbicide research during a transformative era for Canadian agriculture. In the 1960s, as herbicide use surged across the prairies—building on early selective compounds like 2,4-D introduced post-World War II—his work focused on environmental residues and applicator safety, helping refine application methods amid a boom that saw the number of available herbicides in Canada and the U.S. rise from about 25 in 1950 to over 100 by the end of the decade. This period marked the widespread adoption of chemicals for weed control, enabling reduced tillage and boosting crop yields in grain production. By the 1970s, Agriculture Canada's efforts intensified with the introduction of groundbreaking non-selective herbicides like glyphosate, which revolutionized prairie farming by facilitating no-till practices and minimizing soil erosion while controlling persistent weeds. My father's studies on herbicide drift, persistence in air and soil, and human exposure played a key role in ensuring safer, more effective use, aligning with broader innovations that transformed western Canada's grain sector into a global powerhouse. Into the 1980s, as resistance issues emerged and manufacturing processes improved to reduce contaminants like dioxins in phenoxy herbicides, his research supported sustainable advancements, including better monitoring and guidelines that influenced international standards. Through these decades, his pioneering contributions helped develop and optimize herbicides now employed worldwide, fundamentally changing farming practices and enhancing productivity across the vast Canadian prairies.

Thank God. Should be significantly higher.

That’s the harsh reality. During Trudeau’s time, Canada saw a significant influx of newcomers, which put pressure on housing, the labour market, and healthcare. It’s normal for a country to tighten immigration for a few years; lower quotas naturally mean higher requirements. Coming on a study permit or a work permit doesn’t guarantee permanent residency. Once a temporary status expires, and if there’s no other legal pathway to stay, the person must leave Canada.

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).