Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

The birth rate in Canada is 1.3 per couple. In 1961 it was 3.1 per couple. Coincidentally, this was the same time as the availability of the first birth control pill. It’s been on a downward trend ever since. Populations can’t sustain themselves. Most western countries have the same problem. So we immigrate, and the countries with the highest birth rates will eventually take over the countries with the lowest it’s a sad reality.

I just read a story that over 851,000 immigrants have left Canada on their own because of the high cost of housing and living conditions here , and won't this solve the problem when it comes to immigration in the country . Should have asked Kenny who is going to pay his golf plated pension when the population starts going down and there is less taxpayers paying into the system when we start having a major population decline .

Canada has population growth problem and government tried solving it by laxing immigration laws. For example Canada can't even build it's own car because it would take massive investment and it won't be profitable because of it's tiny population comparing to other countries therefor making the Canadian economy limited.

Very good report. The labour shortage will only grow as the population gets older. The Trudeau government tried to deal with it but may have gone too far. The Carney government is scaling back but eventually the reality of the labour shortage will dictate the direction. Is it dividing the country? Not sure but there are definitely two camps with business supporting immigration.

News reports in Europe indicate that Switzerland may be holding a referendum in July 2026 to cap the population of that country at 10 million. If the population at any point reaches 9.5 million, then Switzerland would be obligated to withdraw from certain treaties involving free movement of European citizens. Perhaps It's something to consider here in Canada, capping the population at no more than 40 million. Oops. We're already past that.

The first problem is that no country has a long range plan: where do they want to be on 20/50/100 years. The basic economic plan is for growth but this is not sustainable. Reduced birth rates mean that immigration is needed, if only to reduce the impact of an aging population and to reduce the demands on the young adult population. This should be aimed at getting to a sustainable state but no government is planning for it. They only plan for the current electoral cycle.

Few years ago, Brampton overtook Mississauga in terms of population growth, also highest auto insurance rates in the country, my uncle pays 5k a year for Lexus insurance

This is perfect step from USA. When you say "Canadian", you need to understand and admit that the composition of "Canadian population" has changed substantially over the past few years. I wish Canada also takes enough security steps before getting influx. It is not the country where from you come, it is who is coming. And, if one has clean records, what should one worry?

In reality, all countries, do use immigration, to open, and, or close immigrants, (** based on their labor, economic, and population needs. **) Must recall, housing, and public services must be in sync, monitored, statistics wise, to ensure a realistic societial balance, as it relates to humanities basic needs .

Heightened scrutiny undermines Canada's reputation as a welcoming destination? Isn't this the point? Meanwhile, lax policies allow too much abuse of our "wecoming" system. Finally, with the US tightening their borders, Canada will be the desired destination for North America, and our policies must prepare for this likely outcome. One last point is this: i would rather this country take care of the first nations peoples, the dispossessed, those marginalized within our society and our elderly who've contributed to this country's growth and prosperity but, due to one or another reason, dont have workplace pensions for retirement. Once we've sorted out our own peoples, seen properly to the needs of those who were actually born here, ensured our hospitals and schools are well funded, then we can look to service the needs of a migrant population.

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).