Arday's Death as Rehabilitation and Selective Empathy

Left wing logic - if you didn't care about women's sports till men started getting into it, you don't really care about women's sports and are just a bigot. So since almost all the left wingers talking shit to defend his fraud only knew about him in the weeks before his death... 

Common Sense Heresy | Facebook

Every death is tragic. But that does not mean every death is equally exceptional, equally significant to the public, or deserving of the same degree of collective mourning. According to UN-based estimates, around **63 million people died worldwide in 2025, roughly 173,000 every single day**. Most of them never became international news. Among them were people who spent their lives working, raising children, caring for relatives, contributing quietly to their communities, and enduring circumstances far more brutal than anything the public will ever know about. Their families grieved just as intensely, but no Prime Minister commented on their deaths, no prestigious university issued statements about them, and no international press devoted columns to asking what society had done to them.

 

Jason Arday's death at 41 is tragic in that ordinary human sense. His family lost someone they loved, and there is nothing admirable about celebrating his death. What I reject is the suggestion that his death is somehow **especially** tragic, or that it creates a special obligation to suspend judgment about the life and career that came before it.

 

That distinction matters because something strange is already happening around Arday. Grief is beginning to merge with rehabilitation. His family has described him as the victim of misinformation and harassment; prominent supporters are focusing on the scrutiny he endured; and Britain's Prime Minister has called his death a tragedy "on so many levels" and urged reflection on how events reached this point. Reflection is appropriate, but it cannot mean starting with the fact that a man died and then working backwards until the evidence against him is recast as persecution.

 

We do not publicly know the cause of Arday's death. Police have described it as unexpected but not suspicious. That should put an end to attempts to use his death as evidence either of his innocence or of the supposed guilt of those who investigated him. Whatever happened on August 14 does not alter what was written in his thesis, what appeared in his published papers, what Cambridge was told about those papers, or what Arday himself claimed before any of this became a public scandal.

 

Those claims matter because Arday was not simply a moderately successful academic who later attracted unusually aggressive scrutiny. He became an international inspirational figure on the strength of an almost cinematic personal story. Cambridge's own announcement of his appointment described a child diagnosed with autism who could not speak until 11, could not read or write until 18, overcame predictions that he would require lifelong support, accumulated two master's degrees and a PhD, and ultimately became Cambridge's youngest Black professor at 37. His wider public biography included claims of raising more than **$8 million for charity** and running **30 marathons in 35 days**.

 

Cambridge did not treat those details as incidental. It presented his life experience as part of what made his appointment important, while a Pro-Vice-Chancellor publicly called him an "exceptional scholar" whose experience illustrated the barriers facing underrepresented groups. His story generated enormous symbolic capital, media coverage, prestigious appointments, and institutional support. The overwhelming majority of honest, intelligent, hardworking academics will never receive anything remotely comparable.

 

When someone receives extraordinary rewards partly because society accepts an extraordinary story about him, checking whether that story and the academic record beneath it are true is not cruelty. It is basic due diligence, and in Arday's case much of that scrutiny came far too late.

 

The case against him does not rest on political dislike, vague suspicions, or someone saying that his biography sounded implausible. There is concrete academic evidence. Retraction Watch reported that a **63-page dossier of textual comparisons** had been assembled concerning his work. David Sanders, a Purdue biochemist experienced in examining academic misconduct, reviewed the material and concluded that the plagiarism was extensive. Separately, dozens of passages in Arday's 2015 doctoral dissertation were identified as being nearly verbatim from a 2009 dissertation by another scholar.

 

His published research raises even more serious questions. Concerns about a 2018 paper were raised in 2023 after similarities were found with an earlier BMJ Open study. The correction that followed did far more than repair a misplaced citation or tidy up quotation marks. Descriptions of the methodology were changed. Claims involving NVivo analysis and independent coding were removed. Of the paper's original 31 interview quotations, **18 were either reworded or deleted**, with twelve altered and six removed. Retraction Watch reported that some quotations attributed to Arday's own interview subjects appeared to have been assembled from material in the earlier study. A second Arday paper was later corrected for textual overlap with that paper and other publications.

 

These are not ideological complaints about the themes of his research. They are basic questions about authorship, methodology, sourcing, and whether material presented as original actually was.

 

This is also why I find attempts to portray Cambridge mainly as another victim of the affair unconvincing. **Cambridge was warned.** In May 2023, only months after the publicity surrounding Arday's appointment, sociologist Martyn Hammersley contacted senior figures at Cambridge after reviewing the concerns and said he believed there was substantial plagiarism, including possible problems involving quotations attributed to research participants.

 

Cambridge's response matters. In June 2023, the head of the Faculty of Education said Arday had agreed to have the problematic article addressed but nevertheless retained the department's **"full support."** The University's Head of Policy, Governance and Integrity said that because the alleged misconduct predated Arday's arrival at Cambridge, the university did not consider the paper within its remit to investigate.

 

That position is difficult to defend. Arday's previous publications, qualifications, and academic record were obviously relevant to the credentials on which Cambridge appointed him. By December 2023 the paper had required correction, and another paper was corrected the following year. Yet there still appears to have been no comprehensive review of the broader pattern being alleged.

 

The institutional story gets worse from there. In 2025, *Times Higher Education* prepared a story about plagiarism allegations and assembled extensive comparison material. After its journalist approached Arday for comment, his lawyers at Carter-Ruck sent the publication a letter denying the allegations and warning of reputational harm; the story was subsequently dropped.

 

When the allegations finally became public through other channels in July 2026, Cambridge did not initially respond with caution or institutional humility. A university spokesperson described Arday as the victim of a **"vile campaign to undermine his credibility"** and said he had been cleared regarding allegations about his thesis and publications.

 

Within days, that position became impossible to sustain. On August 5, Cambridge announced an investigation prompted by new information concerning his academic qualifications and honorary appointments, while acknowledging that multiple academic-misconduct complaints were being handled under its research-misconduct procedures. Arday resigned that same day.

 

That chronology matters more than the politics or personalities of the people who eventually publicised the allegations. Cambridge had received specific warnings years earlier. It declined to investigate part of the evidence. It continued supporting Arday. It publicly attacked the credibility of the campaign against him. Only after the evidence escaped the institutional channels that had failed to resolve it did the university open a broader investigation.

 

For that reason, reducing the whole story to "a vulnerable Black academic was hounded until his life collapsed" is not a serious account of what happened. It leaves out too much.

 

There was racist abuse directed at Arday, and that deserves condemnation. But the existence of racist people among his critics does not answer a textual comparison. It does not explain why quotations attributed to one's own research participants resemble quotations published elsewhere. It does not explain why a paper's methodology had to be substantially rewritten after questions were raised.

 

The motives of a critic and the truth of the evidence are separate issues. Someone can dislike Arday for ugly reasons and still point to a passage that was copied. Someone can behave badly online and still identify a real discrepancy. Evidence does not become false because the person presenting it is unpleasant, partisan, or morally compromised.

 

That is also where institutional responsibility becomes important. Arday was responsible for his own work and his own public claims. Cambridge and the other institutions that validated, repeated, and amplified his extraordinary personal story were responsible for checking what they were endorsing. If credible warnings were treated as inconvenient, hostile, or reputationally dangerous instead of being properly investigated, that failure belongs to the institutions as well.

 

None of this means that Arday's death should be celebrated. It should not. His family is grieving, and basic human decency requires leaving them out of the spectacle. But his death also does not require the rest of us to pretend that the documented problems surrounding his career disappeared on the day he died.

 

What bothers me most is the hierarchy of compassion that becomes visible in cases like this. Thousands of decent people died yesterday. Thousands more will die tomorrow. Many lived extraordinarily difficult lives without honorary titles, elite appointments, newspaper profiles, political statements, or institutions invested in presenting them as symbols of social progress. They will die almost completely anonymously.

 

Their deaths are not less tragic because they were less useful to journalists, politicians, universities, or activists.

 

Arday received an extraordinary amount of prestige, attention, institutional sponsorship, and public sympathy during his life. If important parts of the record that produced that status were compromised, his death does not create a moral obligation to pretend otherwise.

 

The more useful moral question is why compassion itself has become so selective. Why are some people elevated into symbols while millions of others remain statistics? Why do institutions become so invested in inspirational narratives that questioning the narrative can be treated as an attack on the values the person supposedly represents? And why, once serious evidence finally breaks through, does a tragic ending suddenly make scrutiny itself seem indecent?

 

That, to me, is where virtue signalling becomes particularly ugly. It stops being simple kindness toward the dead and becomes a demand for moral indulgence based on symbolic status.

 

Jason Arday's death is tragic because a human being died young. It does not make the allegations against him false. It does not erase the documented problems surrounding his academic work. It does not absolve the institutions that promoted and protected his public mythology.

 

We can treat his death with basic human decency without rewriting the record of his life.

Links - 30th August 2026 (1 - Migrants: Canada)

Immigration referendum questions racist, says Edmonton mayor - "Mayor Andrew Knack is calling out nine upcoming Oct. 19 referendum questions regarding immigration as racist and is encouraging Edmontonians to vote ‘no’ on all of them... “I feel they are racist questions,” said Knack during the meeting. “I feel those questions are designed to divide and I am strongly opposed to them.”... A spokesperson for the office of the premier said the nine immigration referendum questions were a response to feedback received during last year’s Alberta Next town halls, which were largely held outside of Edmonton and Calgary.  “Any accusation that the referendum questions on sustainable immigration constitute racism is false and inflammatory,” said communications officer Ryan Fournier. “These questions simply address the current unsustainable immigration levels in Canada that are putting real pressures on critical public services. These questions also reflect the feedback we heard from Albertans during the Alberta Next town halls.”"
Left wingers are still using this line. If you're not for open borders and unlimited benefits for migrants, that's racist
Clearly, when left wingers smear people as racist, that's not intended to divide

Toronto Star on X - "His family in India took out a mortgage to fund his tuition in Canada. Why many temporary residents 'can't even think about going back'"a>
Rupa Subramanya on X - "The scam artist in the Indian knows there’s a Canadian audience for his sob story. Don’t fall for it! I too, came to Canada as an international student, and my father moved heaven and earth to pay my tuition. When it became clear there was no way I could fund my graduate program, I left and also my student visa was about to expire. I returned later when I had the money and I still had a spot in the program.  Notice how this sob story is rarely attempted in Gulf countries or elsewhere with large Indian migrant populations. Why? Because everyone understands that temporary residence is temporary. It is only in Canada that disappointment is repackaged as victimhood and a visa is treated as a down payment on citizenship."

Maxime Bernier on X - "The Liberals are importing cheap labour while Canadians struggle.   The Liberals just announced they’re restarting low-wage foreign worker visa processing in eight Canadian cities.   In cities where unemployment has barely fallen below 6%, meaning many Canadians are still looking for work, the government is bringing in low-wage foreign workers to compete with Canadians.   This is not a labour shortage. This is a wage shortage.   If businesses cannot find Canadians to fill positions, they can do one of two things: Raise wages until the job becomes attractive to Canadian workers. Or invest in robotics and automation to improve productivity.   What they shouldn't do is rely on a steady stream of cheap foreign labour that keeps wages depressed and gives employers an excuse to ignore Canadian job seekers.   This program is a subsidy for big business at the expense of Canadian workers.   The People's Party of Canada has been clear from day one: abolish the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.   There is no need to import foreign labour when Canadians are ready, willing, and able to work.   We just need to pay Canadians fairly.   Become a member of the only party that put Canadians first not foreigners, at"
Michael Bator PPC Burlington on X - "I am sick of subsidizing businesses at the expense of the jobless, homeless and struggling Canadians! Why I am paying to price out Canadians out of Jobs?"

JayGen 𝕏 er on X - "This is the kind of immigrant story that actually makes Canada stronger.  A guy who escaped Iran as a kid in 1989 just laid it out plain and simple. He came here and was blown away that parades were about Santa, balloons, and kids having fun — not tanks and missiles. He blended in. He didn’t get offended by pork on the BBQ or rainbow flags. He embraced it.  Now he’s watching newcomers show up and try to bring the exact same poisonous crap they ran from — getting angry at Canadian traditions, shoving religion down everyone’s throat, refusing to participate in something as basic as handing out Halloween candy, and trying to change the rules instead of joining the country that welcomed them.  His message is simple: Canada opens its arms. The least you can do is assimilate and mind your own business. If you’re not here to become Canadian, he’ll personally buy you the plane ticket home.  This is the difference between real immigration that built this country and the current mess that’s fracturing it. One group wanted to join Canada. The other wants to turn Canada into the place they fled.  We need more of the first kind. A lot less of the second.  #cdnpoli #Immigration #Assimilation #CanadaFirst #LiberalFail"
Damn old migrants pulling up the ladder behind them!

Chris Ryan on X - "They Threatened His Kids. Now the CBSA Whistleblower Who Exposed Gang Infiltration Has Gone Silent. A CBSA whistleblower who exposed gang infiltration, illegal passport shredding, and high-risk entries into Canada has now gone silent. Threats against him and his family. Advice from a security professional: drop out of the public eye.  The system protects itself. The officer who tried to protect Canadians is the one forced to hide.  This is Canada in 2026.  #cdnpoli #CBSA #Corruption"

Chris Ryan on X - "House Arrest For Rape… Because Sex Offender Registry Might Get Him Deported
Temporary resident Karandeep Singh from India sexually assaulted a woman in Prince George.   Judge Kevin Loo gave him 170 days house arrest… …and refused to put him on the sex offender registry to avoid “immigration consequences.” This is intolerable in Canada!  Singh works as a hotel security guard FFS! It’s not like he doesn’t know the damn law in Canada!  This is your Liberal/NDP run justice system: Canadian women & victims come last. Foreign criminals get protected and kid glove treatment.  Deport Singh NOW.  FIRE this incompetent activist judge.   Fix this now! @SeanFraserMP  @MarkJCarney  @Dave_Eby  @liberal_party  @BCSupremeCourt   #cdnpoli #CanadaFirst #Deport"

Natasha Montreal on X - "RCMP Called This A Habit. I Call Out The Double Standard. RCMP, "Engaging South Asian media to discuss the dangers of this habit." My reply, "Chewing gum is a habit." This isn't a habit. It's foreigners breaking gun laws in BC with zero consequences. Two-tier policing in action. Full video"

Adam Zivo on X - "Some Ontario bureaucrats have decided, on the basis of a legal technicality, that illegal immigrants are entitled to provincial welfare so long as they: 1) stay in the country long enough to no longer be called a “visitor” (this rule is entirely subjective); and 2) they don’t have a deportation order against them.  Notably, the illegal migrant in this case spent over two decades working under the table and never paid income tax — ergo, he didn’t contribute to the system he is now parasitically mooching from."

Allen Hampton on X - " Immigrant Group with Machetes Attacks Women in Victoria Park
July 3, 2026: Dallas Road near Beacon Hill Park, BC.  A group of ~10-15 men approached women saying, “Let’s go for a walk.” Refused, they pulled knives and a machete. Male friends rushed in, took hits from the machete, and helped detain the attackers until police arrived.  Three injured (deep slashes, wrist damage).
Charged: 20-year-old Hussein Saadedeen (aggravated assault + assault with weapon) and a youth. Both remanded.  This is the reality of unchecked immigration bringing imported violence to our once-safe parks. Thank God for the brave men who stepped up."

Kevin Klein on X - "You have to be kidding. That is the only reaction many Canadians will have when they fully understand what Ottawa has done to our citizenship laws. This is not a technical adjustment buried in legislation. It is a fundamental shift in what it means to be Canadian."

Wiretap Media on X - "REPORT: An all-out brawl breaks out between warring ethnic groups at the Red River Exhibition Park in Winnipeg, Manitoba. According to the organization's website, its objective is to foster growth between ethnocultural groups—which appears to include century-old blood feuds.  Canada is becoming unrecognizable."

Canadians are leaving Canada in record numbers and almost 50% are from one province - "The number of people leaving Canada reached a record high in 2025, with over 120,000 Canadians emigrating over the course of the year, according to the latest Statistics Canada data... According to Statistics Canada's quarterly international migration estimates, 120,640 people emigrated from Canada in 2025, up significantly from the record-setting 118,409 departures in 2024... While B.C. recorded 25,145 emigrants, less than half of Ontario's total, it had the highest per-capita emigration rate in the country at roughly 442 emigrants per 100,000 residents.  That's nearly double the national average of about 290 per 100,000 people and almost 10 times the rate seen in Newfoundland, which had the lowest rate in Canada."
Elbows up!

Sciohn Fhanne on X - "I'll try to be very careful and sensitive with this observation of Canada, because it touches on highly charged questions of ethnicity, immigration, belonging, and public space.  But here goes.  I've walked around Mississauga's Celebration Square on multiple evenings, and one thing I've increasingly noticed is neither hostility, nor tension, nor conflict, but something more subtle and perhaps more concerning.  Public spaces seem to become associated with particular ethnocultural communities to such a degree that many others gradually stop showing up.  The result is not segregation in any formal sense. Nobody is being excluded. Nobody is being told they cannot be there. Yet the effect can be remarkably similar. A space that is nominally shared begins to feel less shared over time.  To be perfectly clear, what troubles me isn't the presence of any particular diasporic community itself per se, but rather the gradual disappearance of the sense that these spaces belong equally to all of us as Canadians.  When a public square begins to be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as belonging primarily to one group, many others instinctively withdraw. Older-stock Canadians withdraw. Other immigrant communities withdraw. East Asians withdraw. Eastern Europeans withdraw. People who have no objection to anyone there nevertheless begin spending their evenings elsewhere.  Human beings are, for better or worse, tribal creatures. We gravitate toward familiarity. We seek places where we feel represented. We retreat when that sense of belonging is lost.  I understand this instinctively as someone from an East Asian diasporic background myself.  The bottom line here is that a healthy Canadian civilization cannot simply consist of parallel communities inhabiting the same geography. It requires common spaces where people from different backgrounds routinely encounter one another and develop some sense of collective belonging within the same civic realm.  What I increasingly worry about in Canada is not "diversity" itself, but the erosion of sharedness.  A country begins to lose something important when its public spaces cease to feel genuinely collective.  And whatever future Canada ultimately chooses for itself, it should never, ever feel like a collection of separate worlds living side by side while gradually forgetting how to inhabit the same one."

All-inclusive migrant health plan will burden Canada for years to come | National Post - "There are thousands of asylum seekers and illegal residents awaiting deportation who get more free health care than regular Canadian citizens. These all-inclusive care packages cost the public treasury $1 billion last year — and a recent attempt by the feds to bring it under control won’t help much... Known as the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), this freebie service provides the following to asylum seekers and rejects: hospital care, free doctor visits, free lab work, free ambulance trips. Before May 1, it also provided free medicine, and free “supplemental coverage”: vision and dental care, counselling, physiotherapy, speech language therapy, home care, medical supplies, etc. Earlier this month, the feds began requiring program users to pay a very modest $4 fee for prescriptions, and a 30 per cent co-pay for supplemental services. The small fees were added to reduce the cost of the program, which was estimated to be $1 billion in 2025-26 by the PBO in February. In 2029-30, without the addition of user fees, that number was expected to rise to $1.5 billion.  This week’s PBO report accounted for the new fees, and, well, it’s not impressive. The IFHP is only expected to reduce the program cost by $162 million this year. By 2029, it’s expected that this reduction will reach $217 million (or $220 million, if you take into account the impact of Bill C-12, which put minor limits on who can claim asylum) — that means the cost of providing health care to unvetted migrants and asylum rejects will be about $1.3 billion, far higher than should be tolerable.  Part of this comes down to the sheer volume of people coming to Canada to seek asylum...  The longer an asylum seeker has to wait for their claim to be assessed, the more time they can take advantage of comprehensive, taxpayer-funded health care. The more asylum seekers there are, the longer the wait. The more appeals and deportation threat assessments asylum seekers make when they’re rejected, the less capacity there will be in the system to deal with them all. It doesn’t help that immigration authorities keep finding new ways to let deportation candidates stay in Canada for longer... Only a fraction of the “removals inventory” — the asylum rejects that are supposed to be escorted out of the country — is deported each year. In 2025, that inventory had nearly 74,000 people, but only 20,000 were removed.  In 2025, 28,000 asylum rejects were listed as “wanted,” meaning they stopped showing up to removal proceedings. Some 23,000 had removals “in progress” (under appeal or undergoing threat assessment). Another 23,000 remained because their removal was listed as not possible. Canada simply doesn’t deport people if their home countries refuse to take them back, or if there are no flights home, among other reasons...  It’s clear from the PBO’s analysis that the IFHP’s new fees won’t do much to help Canadians. This means we’ll continue to feel the consequences: health care capacity will continue to be strained, and we’re still going to be on the hook for the health care of anyone with a pulse who managed to fill out an asylum claim form, even those who’ve been rejected.  What really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the asylum system. Right now, it’s an immigration pathway for the world’s destitute, a luxury health-care resort for the developing world where you can get your teeth fixed for free. The incentives need to be removed, entire categories of claims need to be mass-denied, and asylum eligibility needs to be narrowed to the point where only a small number can apply each year."

Carney government reverses refugee health care cuts - "The Carney government has quietly walked back some of its cuts to a program providing temporary health-care coverage to refugees and asylum-seekers, months after slashing benefits for some of Canada’s most vulnerable newcomers. Earlier this year, following a budget pledge to lower funding, Ottawa introduced changes to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides health care to resettled refugees and asylum claimants who are waiting to qualify for provincial or territorial insurance. Beginning in May, most people eligible for the program were required to pay 30 per cent of costs for health services, assistive devices and medical supplies that had previously been covered, along with $4 for prescription medication and refills.  But last week, Medavie Blue Cross, the program’s insurance provider, contacted health professionals with an update: items and services like feeding supplies, respiratory devices, implantable hearing aids, nursing homes and hospital-based rehabilitation would be moved to a different coverage tier, where co-payments would be scrapped entirely.  “We welcome any improvements in this situation because these co-payments were posing insurmountable financial barriers to patients who need this care,” said Dr. Vanessa Redditt, a family physician who primarily works with newcomer and low-income patients in Toronto.  “But gaps persist because there are still many essential medical services and medical supplies that are still subject to that 30 per cent co-payment and that are out of reach for individuals.”... The program, which had been scaled back under prime minister Stephen Harper and restored by Justin Trudeau, has been widely slammed by Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. The opposition leader has argued that some who benefit from the coverage receive better care than Canadian citizens, and says the program’s costs have skyrocketed.  Program spending has ballooned in recent years, growing from $210.6 million in 2020-2021 to $896.4 million in 2024-2025. Those numbers fluctuate depending on the number of asylum-seekers and resettled refugees, and are also tied to backlogs in hearing asylum claims. “We want to uplift care for everyone, not punch down to the most vulnerable. That’s the worst thing we can do for our society, for our health-care system,” said Redditt, on her desire to see even more services and devices fully covered.  “When we ensure that everyone has access to the care that they need, we build healthier communities, and that’s what actually makes Canada strong.”"
The left wing push for unlimited social spending continues Ottawa’s enduring problem of a surge in temporary workers - The Globe and Mail - "The federal Immigration Ministry is touting its progress in returning Canada’s temporary resident numbers to sustainable levels. However, recently released numbers paint a much different picture: the number of foreign nationals holding work permits is actually rising.  In fact, there are more now than in 2024, when the federal government announced it would tighten rules for hiring foreign workers. Unsurprisingly, this is contributing to the government’s slow progress toward its goal of reducing temporary residents to 5 per cent of the population.  This is concerning as it shows Canada isn’t doing enough to wean itself off the use of foreign workers with precarious temporary status and who are often subject to abuse. Employers’ dependence on foreign labour also pushes down wage growth and has contributed to the high youth unemployment rate... The government won’t meet its original 2024 goal of reducing the temporary resident population to less than 5 per cent by the end of 2026, from a peak of 7.6 per cent. The number is dropping, but slowly – as of January, 6.5 per cent of the population were temporary residents. According to a February Parliamentary Budget Officer report, the government is on track to reach the 5 per cent goal by its new deadline, the end of 2027. After that it’s likely to stabilize at just under 5 per cent – still well above the historical norm.  However, that doesn’t mean that the bulk of these temporary workers are heading home. They are being prioritized to stay, and now make up the majority of new permanent residents. While the most qualified temporary residents should certainly be selected for permanent residency, the system is now out of balance, with skilled immigrants from outside the country having slim chances of getting permanent residency, while unskilled workers already here have an edge. IRCC is doing a better job at managing new arrivals, but it needs to do more to reduce the overall number of work permits. The temporary foreign worker program outside of agriculture should be wound down. It’s also time to take a closer look at the International Mobility Program.  Immigration is a key driver of Canada’s prosperity, but more needs to be done to move away from the two-step immigration system of the last decade, and return to selecting the highest-skilled immigrants from abroad for permanent residency. Restoring balance has been too slow. The federal government shouldn’t pretend otherwise."

Feds have spent an "unconscionable" amount of money on TFW program | Toronto Sun - "A Conservative MP says the feds’ Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is wasteful spending. Michelle Rempel Garner, Shadow Minister for Immigration, says the program has cost the feds, in net terms, more than a $1 billion over the last five years.   “New data released in an Order Paper Question submitted by my colleague, Brad Vis, Shadow Minister for Small Business Recovery and Growth, shows that the Liberals have spent an unconscionable $1.6 billion (net $509 million) in the past five years to run the TFW program,” Rempel Garner said on Monday... “(The program) suppresses wage growth, fosters poor working conditions, stifles productivity, and eliminates entry-level job opportunities for Canadians,” Rempel Garner said. “It has masked structural economic weakness for years, a point that is particularly acute with Canada now firmly in the grip of recession. All of those problems that the program has created have had a massive negative impact on the Canadian economy and come at a high economic price. “These newly released figures show the Liberals have added insult to economic injury: they have spent more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize companies with what amounts to indentured labour in the past five years alone.”... “As of April, there are 442,000 unemployed youth in Canada, further proof that youth unemployment continues to rise well past critical levels,” Rempel Garner said. “Major abuses of the program are rampant. Frankly, it’s immoral that the Liberals would underwrite its operation to the tune of half a billion dollars over the past five years alone. Conservatives would introduce a standalone program for legitimately hard-to-fill seasonal agri-food and fisheries jobs.”"

Federal immigration officials just said the Liberals are planning a new taxpayer funded international advertising campaign to bring more foreign nationals to Canada to work. They’re doing this the middle of a youth jobs crisis and a recession. : r/CanadianVisaReform

Sciohn Fhanne on X - "Who would have thought, a decade ago, during the initial advent of Trumpism, that support for immigration would be souring far more in Canada than south of the border, where many influential voices remain enthusiastic and supportive?  We're not quite the beacon of the world we imagined ourselves to be during the False Renaissance of the 2010s, are we?  And no, this isn't simply about housing, infrastructure, abuse of pathways, or any of the other familiar explanations. Those are surface-level analyses.  Look south.  Diasporas are helping power world-beating technology firms, AI companies, research institutions, Olympic teams, and more.  I'm already seeing plenty of Mandarin, Tamil, and other immigrant-origin names at the very top.  Can we remotely say the same north of the border?  Do we offer our diasporas anything comparable to rise toward? Any project of sufficient scale, ambition, or consequence to attract and retain the most capable among them?  Before we wring our hands about a huge influx of people of what we consider "less than stellar" calibre arriving from "less than desirable" parts of the world, perhaps we should ask a more uncomfortable question: what if the problem isn't them, but us?"
Sciohn Fhanne on X - "What I'm trying to say, bluntly but without contempt, is this.  100 million Canadians under the Laurentian ethos would be a disaster.  But 400 or even 500 million Canadians under a far more intentional and serious civilizational ethos, one that knows where it is going, what this northern power wants to accomplish for itself and the world, and is willing to undertake the institutional transformations necessary to build housing, transportation, healthcare, education, energy, and food systems at mass scale, would be an absolute powerhouse."

Carney attributes ‘weakness’ in economic data to lower immigration targets - The Globe and Mail - "In a recent research note about Friday’s GDP data, three National Bank economists said immigration policy is a “key variable” weighing on growth.  “Due to the ongoing slowdown in immigration decided by Ottawa, the country’s population was smaller in the first quarter of 2026 than in the fourth quarter of 2025. This means that real GDP per capita growth was largely positive (+0.9 per cent) in the last quarter and has been on an upward trend for two years,” wrote economists Taylor Schleich, Matthieu Arseneau and Alexandra Ducharme."
Weird. We were told that open borders would lead to rising living standards for all