Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

I share the same sentiments as these Canadian citizens.I'm an immigrant myself, and it is our moral obligation, to respect the culture and Laws, etc. There are people coming from other countries, especially in certain parts of Asia, as if they are here to take over Canada. Some years ago I was going home from work about 9 :45 pm and an Indian female told me to get up from beside her, so her friend could sit beside her.

If only Canadians could get a conservative majority government and go back to what works!

I’ve lived in Canada for 30 years, but I became unemployed in 2021. This is the first time I’ve been out of work for more than a year and a half. I’ve applied online for over 20 jobs, but unfortunately I haven’t received any responses. This has never happened to me before. When I first came to Canada, it felt very safe—you could even leave your door unlocked at night. Things have changed a lot since then. Nowadays, there are many new immigrants and refugees, which has also changed the job market. I’ve noticed that many companies prefer hiring workers with student visas, because the government subsidizes part of their wages. That makes it more cost-effective for companies compared to hiring Canadian workers. I heard this directly from my former manager. As a result, some of my old colleagues now only get one or two days of work per week, while companies continue bringing in new employees.

The problem isn’t immigration it’s how rapid the immigration was there should’ve been a cap so that there wasn’t a major influx of people that destroyed the culture if immigration was controlled and had a yearly limit to how many people could immigrate that would’ve preserved canadas culture and forced immigrants to assimilate to Canadian culture. But all politicians saw was 💰 so they made it easier.

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.

Makes sense ... how could any reasonable Canadian disagree with this

As a Canadian. This is it. Tyler nailed it. It takes an American to call it as it is. I could shake Tyler's hand, well done.

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.

Before Trudeau's liberal government, Canada's permanent resident program was based on factors such as being fluent in English or French (in Quebec), passing standard exams in one's own country, being educated (Bachelor's or higher), work experience, family, age, and knowledge of Canada's general culture. If you had all the points, you would be selected. It took about three years, and while waiting, you could not apply for any visa to enter Canada. The security check was part of the process, and the Canadian government asked applicants to enter the country by bringing money (Like one year's salary). This system was a perfect plan, and many Western countries wanted to copy that (As I heard on many French and American radios before), but the liberals broke the system! And I still don't know why!

380 million dollars that could have been given out to Canadians as disability cheques to sit and comment on here.

Immigration is essential for Canada to survive.. but... it needs to be a reasonable, controlled intake. Global situations have pushed Canada to take more than they could manage. We don't need to stop immigration, just get control of it again. Also, yes, people coming in need to become Canadian... if you come here it's because you expect it to be better than where ever you left... so you need to embrace what's here, not try and change what's here to whatever you left.

Dude could have just walked either way over the border and not spent a dime doing it. The entire canadian border is open and not monitored. In some areas one side of the road is canada and the other side in America.

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).