Canadian Patriotism Then and Now

Patrick Gossage • July 7, 2025

When I was at university in the sixties, it was easy to love being Canadian. Patriotism was easy in the era of Pearson, peacekeeping and his Nobel Prize. He introduced defining landmark social programs like the Canada Pension Plan and universal health care. He also was crucial in launching the new Canadian flag, promoting bilingualism, and fostering a more inclusive immigration policy. His government got into the business of Canadian cultural promotion with the establishment of Telefilm Canada in 1967 to fund Canadian filmmakers. (The crown corporation, the National Film Board, was established in 1939.) The Pearson era went out with a proud Canadian bang at Expo67.


Canada was prosperous, our identities, either largely British and French, were secure. The writer and philosopher George Grant, put it this way: “English speaking Canadians have been called a dull and costive lot. In these dynamic days, such qualities are particularly unattractive to the chic. Yet our stodginess has made us a society of greater simplicity, formality, and perhaps even innocence than the people to the south.” This is the society in which most anglo seniors today grew up. Not chic, looking with some envy at the glamour of Hollywood and Broadway, but modest and content. But the seeds of change were there. In Toronto. Italian and Portuguese laborers were being brought in to build subways and suburbs. Canada was about to add to the core French and English culture, and value assumptions far more diverse, and multicultural influences. 


Multiculturalism became official government policy in 1988. In his speech to the House of Commons, Trudeau stated that no singular culture could define Canada, and that the government accepted “the contention of other cultural communities that they, too, are essential elements in Canada.”


A policy of multiculturalism was implemented to promote and respect cultural diversity, and to in fact fund ethnic efforts to preserve and develop their cultures within Canadian society, the opposite of the US “melting pot” objective. Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms officially recognizes multiculturalism as a Canadian value.


In a 1971 speech in Winnipeg to a Ukrainian audience, Trudeau said: “What could be more absurd than the concept of an “all Canadian boy or girl! “ Trudeau greatly enlarged the makeup of the body of immigrants by expanding the ‘family class’. In 1978 immigration act changes allowed new Canadians to sponsor their parents of any age. Those from less-developed nations found this particularly appealing.


Trudeau senior’s major accomplishment which ensured the protection of all minority rights was the repatriation of our constitution woth the Charter of Rights and Freedoms


Now In Canada, approximately 23.0% of the population are first-generation immigrants, meaning they were born outside of Canada. This figure represents the highest proportion of immigrants in Canada in 150 years and is the highest among G7 countries. Over half of our population are either of English or French heritage.


The torch of openness to refugees and immigrants and “diversity is our strength” has been taken up by Justin Trudeau in a big way. He told the New York Times Magazine in October 2014 that Canada could be the “first post national state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”


Many would argue that, yes, there is a core set of Canadian values. Often not recognized, they are regularly reflected in government policies. They set us apart from the United States, form part of our identity, and enrich our life experiences.

Pearson and the Trudeaus have been instrumental in implementing Liberal values, ensuring equality of opportunity across the country and that no minority is trampled on. Foremost is universal publicly funded health care, whatever its problems. His son will be remembered for the Canadian Child benefit which today grants parents up to over $6,000 per child, which greatly reduced child poverty and $10 a day daycare. Justin Trudeau also launched publicly funded denticare and started a pharmacare program. Recipients of these programs obviously see them as essential parts of being Canadian.


The generally shared values of Canadians include the importance of collective wellbeing, co-operation and social equality and a belief that active governments can improve our lives. Justin Trudeau’s self-declared “feminism” and his making cabinet one half women showed a dedication to equal rights for women which he tirelessly promoted. He was forever promoting the value of “diversity is our strength”.


We genuinely welcome immigrants and show a high degree of tolerance for differences. Perhaps the best indication of this is the late seventies welcoming of over 60,000 Vietnamese boat people. As well, after 2015, over 44,000 government and privately sponsored Syrian refugees were settled and helped to establish themselves in Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau personally welcomed the first arrival in Toronto.

While seemingly uncontrolled immigration of foreign students and refugees has become more controversial recently, it is accepted that we need immigrants, and the flow is now more rationally controlled.


 His father also ruled over a Canada that was very pro-Canadian and even anti American – not hard when the United States was immersed in the nightmare of Vietnam. He was well aware of the dangers signaled by George Grant in Lament for a Nation, which predicted the virtual integration of the Canadian and US economies. He established the Foreign Investment Review Agency to break the wholesale takeover of Canadian businesses by US firms. He established Petro Canada to get a window into the largely foreign owned oil and gas sector. And his government was very active in supporting and encouraging Canadian culture. The CRTC mandated Canadian content on our airwaves, spawning a healthy music industry. His son substantially increased funding for the public broadcaster CBC.


Then in 1988 came a major shift in our identity and sovereignty. Prime Minister Mulroney wanted a free trade deal with the US and John Turner, the defeated Liberal leader, finally found his voice: “I will not let Brian Mulroney sell out our sovereignty. I will not let this great nation surrender its birthright. I will not let Brian Mulroney destroy a 120-year-old dream called Canada, and neither will Canadians”.


But Turner lost, and a new deal sealed the situation we are in today with over 70% of our exports going stateside and Trump determined to wage economic warfare with a country he feels does not have a right to exist and should be the 51st state: “Economically we have such power over Canada.” In fact, we have inadvertently given him “all the cards” as Trump likes to say. Turner might well say from the grave, “I told you so!”

Sovereignty means more than building our own economy more independent of the United States. It means rebuilding the pride we have as Canadians and actually knowing and cherishing its values so different from those south of us.


And this seems to be happening ironically, thanks to Trump’s trumpeting us as a 51st state. Flags are everywhere and as we celebrate our 158th birthday there is a new patriotism bursting out across the nation. The national anthem is being enthusiastically sung by audiences at all sorts of gatherings and performances.


And worry as we may about the diverse cultures and beliefs of the hundreds and thousands of immigrant adults from every corner of the Globe, we know their children going to public schools will become knowledgeable, committed Canadians. There is a Canadian soul which will not be destroyed.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
By Patrick Gossage March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts