Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

Employers should be aware of SINs before hiring people. I am also an immigrant, but my dad worked hard as a skilled worker to bring us here to Canada. I pay my duly taxes monthly and yearly. So I find it unfair when people work under the table. However, I've noticed that some students, who never attend their classes, end up in high positions with well-paying jobs at big companies. Meanwhile, I can't count how many refugees and immigrants are in low-income brackets, receiving 100% coverage for their medication and a monthly allowance from the government. In contrast, Canadian senior citizens still have to pay 20-30% of their medication costs and don't get the same privileges when it comes to their essentials. It frustrates me that the government makes our senior citizens suffer at retirement age, even after they've worked so hard for so many years. Yet they still struggle to pay for their own medication and necessities. I've encountered many rude refugees and people on income support from other countries who feel entitled to special treatment just because they are under government programs. Ironically, some of them come wearing luxury clothes and bags—like Gucci and Louis Vuitton. As I said, I am an immigrant too, but my heart goes out to those who have fully earned the support and benefits they deserve.

🇨🇦 My theory is Canadian debt, deficit, aging population are so high Canada is hoping mass Immigration will pay the debt off, a debt the immigrants didn't incur.😮

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.

As a Canadian who lives in an area with high immigration levels, this is not the sentiment of the majority. I work alongside many people who were trained abroad from a variety of cultures and my experience has been great. Immigration has brought a lot of positives to Canada. And at some point, majority of us or our families immigrated here. There’s a lot more to the story than these random conversational clips. I am not condoning smuggling, that should never happen. But in every people group you’ll find illegal activity, that doesn’t mean that’s how they all operate.

I don't know anyone who is "divided" on this issue. Many of my friends are 1st gen immigrants, a couple of them had to go back to their home country after their visa expired, they were bummed that they personally couldn't stay, but they also openly complained that the levels of immigration was unsustainable, competition for rent/jobs/healthcare too high and felt that some people would have to go back home and it happened to be them.

Let’s interview the guy who makes more money when immigration numbers are high. Great unbiased reporting there🎉

High immigration. High housing costs. High food prices. Thank a Liberal voter.

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 only problem with 75% of the population believing immigration is too high is the 25% that is still not understanding what has happened.

I’m sure the immigration levels will help with housing, healthcare and the high unemployment rate

This feels 6-8 years too late, You could even argue it as far back as 2010. We should've never kept our numbers at such high of a % of our population, it should've always been focused industries only such as agriculture. Instead our business model is basically : Cheap Labour via Worker Visas, Housing Market due to quick and massive population boost and Student Visas making them pay 3.5x more than regular students that encourages post-secondary schools to choose international over domestic which may also have long-term consequences as we see many immigrants go back to their home or take their degree to a higher paying nation.

I feel bad that many of these people were given false hope, but this reduction was needed. In the early 2020's immigration levels reached levels that were simply too high. We had a population growth rate similar to Sudan. It strained our education, health care and prevented young people from getting jobs. We are a nation that welcomes immigration, but it cannot be at a level beyond our capacities.

I want to say thank you for high lighting this problem in a compassionate and professional manner, this video is not blaming the newcomers, it is the govt who did not have the foresight to see a problem before opening the flood gates. My grandpa was an immigrant, my husband's grandparents were as well. They came here with nothing, no handouts, worked hard in this country ❤

having an immigration lawyer talk about high immigration numbers is like a real estate agent arguing housing prices should keep rising — it directly benefits their business, so their opinion isn’t neutral expertise, it’s aligned with self-interest

We didn’t keep up our infrastructure expansion at the same rate as our growth through immigration over the last few years. Jobs,hospital personal and bed space, schools, housing (affordable )etc are all overwhelmed and can’t cope with the higher numbers. Because of that our children and seniors are high risk for lower education and health care provision etc.

Actually support for tightened immigration controls is extremely high.

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 .

Still these numbers are way too high. All immigration should be stopped till housing situation is resolved.

Stick to the old points based system selecting the people coming in,exceptions for attracting talent in high tech,and have just a decent number of people coming.Yes we do need immigration but not over immigration for economical and social and integration reasons.

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).