Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

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.

I have an issue to pick with the framing of policy change as “changing the rule in the middle of the match” because “the match” has a clear time stamp for beginning and end. So when would it be appropriate for the government to make changes? A soccer game last for about 90 minutes, how long should an immigration pathway last?

Maybe with a new, and NOT Liberal, government, family breadwinners can earn enough so that Canadians can affort to have the children that will make it not so necessary to import workers. It wouldn't be so bad if immigrants (not all - I know) didn't bring all their frustrations and anger from their home with them into our society. Currently immigration causes way too much friction and divisivness in Canada. They bring their problems with them They need to solve those issues in their home countries. We don't need those problems to be faught here in our peaceful country.

Losing millions in immigration will actually help Canada after over-inflating immigration. It will better control the housing crisis, food crisis, healthcare crisis. Pausing immigration so the numbers correct itself will fix a lot of the issues Canadians face.

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).