Support Canadian—Except When It Comes to Leadership?


When former U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian goods, many of us rallied around the patriotic slogan: **“Buy Canadian.”** We proudly urged one another to support local industries, protect Canadian jobs, and strengthen our own economy. It was a moment of national unity—an understanding that to grow Canada, we must invest in Canada.

But there’s a contradiction we don’t often talk about. When it comes to choosing the next Prime Minister, many of us abandon that same principle.  

Take a closer look at the two leading candidates:  

One is Canadian through and through—born here, educated here, worked here, and served the country for over two decades. He has lived and breathed Canadian values his entire life. Ironically, some mock him for attending Canadian universities or “not being worldly enough.”  

The other candidate, though also Canadian-born, spent a significant portion of the last decade outside the country. And interestingly, what many highlight as his greatest asset isn't Canadian at all—it’s his time spent in the American system. His private sector background and U.S. connections are praised as proof that he's capable, tough, and ready.  

Now let’s ask the uncomfortable question:  

How can we say "support Canadian-made" with our mouths, but mock Canadian education and experience with those same mouths?

How can we demand loyalty to Canadian industries and then idolize foreign influence when it suits us?

This is more than politics—it’s hypocrisy. If we truly believe in growing Canada, we need to start valuing Canadian excellence in every form—not just in maple syrup and lumber, but in leadership, education, and service.  

We can’t pick and choose when “Canadian-made” matters. If we want to see our country thrive, then we must learn to respect and elevate those who have lived, learned, and led right here at home. Otherwise, our support for Canada is just talk—convenient when it benefits us, discarded when it challenges our bias.  

Canada deserves better. And maybe, just maybe, the answer to our future isn't abroad—it’s been here all along.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CALLING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT

Image
In Canada today, we are witnessing a growing narrative that blames the increasing population for various social problems—rising housing costs, overburdened healthcare, and crumbling infrastructure. What’s more troubling is the subtle suggestion that these issues are the fault of immigrants, without outright saying so. This narrative has roots in long-standing tactics that rile people up against newcomers while avoiding direct confrontation with the values of diversity and inclusion that Canada upholds. While this perspective may resonate with some, it distorts the reality of what many Canadians are asking for when they call for immigration reform. It is a dangerous oversimplification to conflate critiques of the immigration system with anti-immigrant sentiment. The fact is, immigration has been—and continues to be—an essential driver of Canada's economic and social development. Our country’s prosperity has been significantly shaped by the talents, labor, and innovation that immigra...
Read more

Safe Consumption Sites and The War on Drugs: A Misguided Battle or Necessary Evil?

Image
  The War on Drugs, initiated in the United States and later adopted by countries like Canada, has been a costly and contentious endeavor. With billions of dollars spent, lives lost, and communities devastated, many are questioning the true efficacy and moral grounding of this war. The juxtaposition between the drug dealers’ methods during the crack epidemic and the modern approach of harm reduction strategies, such as safe consumption sites, raises significant questions about the rationale behind this prolonged conflict. During the crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, drug dealers were portrayed as ruthless criminals, solely motivated by profit. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex dynamic. These dealers were indeed motivated by profit, but this motivation led to practices that, albeit unintentionally, mirrored modern harm reduction strategies. For instance, dealers had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive. Overdoses were bad for business—dead custo...
Read more

Is the State Nurturing Irresponsibility to Justify Social Spending?

Image
 In our society, actions have consequences, and it's a fundamental principle that has long been a pillar of social order. When people take responsibility for their actions, they contribute to a more functional community. However, there is an unsettling trend in which the state seems to be actively minimizing the consequences of individuals' decisions, raising questions about the role of social spending and the motives behind it. We understand that it is part of a humane society to ensure that those who make mistakes, especially those who are vulnerable, have a safety net to fall back on. We also recognize that a society cannot thrive if it fails to provide opportunities for individuals to rehabilitate and re-enter the workforce or community life. However, the balance between compassionate support and encouraging accountability is delicate. When the balance tips too far towards removing consequences, the outcome can foster irresponsibility. One cannot help but notice the growing...
Read more