Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

They are terrorist, gangsters, they spread violence, they addicted & supply drugs, intoxicants... They are funded by Pakistan and supported by canada, USA, Pakistan, UK for their nerrative and agenda....they will spread violence where they will live and canada will be next khalistan in future, so stay safe... They are backed by a country that is full of terrorist and terrorist organizations...Punjab is in full of violence, drugs, intoxication due to these khalistani people they got fund, weapons, drugs, traning, by Pakistan.... So save your country before becoming next Punjab or khalistan

"We need talent"? We have talent! Canada is full of talent going to waste. Our government would rather import foreigners and slide them into canadian universitys and jobs than support, educate and train Canadians. The old argument that canada just does not have the talent is starting to sound like "other countries have the talent" that Canadians don't measure up..... we need to elect people who think Canadians ARE the talent!

The governance of Canada produced that church full of homeless people, so the government has imported a cohesive family friendly culturally united community. It would have been nice if Canada could have simply nurtured its own people to support a Canadian culture. . . but that's not profitable. It seems that to survive in the face of Canadian Liberal governance . . . native Canadians need to learn from the Indians . . . to look after themselves in each community.

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).