February 21, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
“Canadian nationalism is civic nationalism,” said Prime Minister Mark Carney in Montreal recently, sparking predictable controversy. The prime minister’s comments were a retort of sorts to comments from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about “Western Civilization” being defined by “Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices of our forefathers.” Some criticized Mr. Carney for diminishing Canada’s Christian history. Others celebrated the prime minister for distinguishing Canada from American political fixations. Complicating matters further, Mr. Carney’s comments came in the context of several Canadian debates. There’s a debate about national sovereignty and how to respond when other countries act against Canadian interests. There is also a security debate, with the Munich Security Conference fuelling speculation about the emerging global order. And the immigration debate continues amid new reports of asylum claims approved in Canada without proper vetting. Taken together, that’s a recipe for confusing dialogue that generates much more heat than light.
I can’t climb into the mind of the prime minister to know how he meant his words, but it does seem prudent to observe that “nationalism” and whatever adjective precedes it can be understood in multiple ways. I am using “Christian nationalism” to mean something quite different than what many others mean by it.
1. The Historical Question
First, there is the historical reality: Canada is a historically Christian country.
The preamble to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” In the constitutional debates, there is little doubt that the “God” the founders envisioned was the Christian God. At the time of Confederation, Sir Leonard Tilley drew from Psalm 72:8 in proposing the name “Dominion of Canada.”
Describing Canada as being a historically “Christian nation” means something very different from applying the same label to the United States. American history includes strands of “manifest destiny,” which expresses the belief that the nation possessed a unique covenantal relationship with God. Some settlers saw themselves as renewing a lost Christian project, hoping to establish a faithfully Christian republic that would secure divine blessing and have a special relationship with God.
Canada’s founding unfolded very differently. Confederation came amid the American Civil War and partly in response to American annexationist ambitions. This country was influenced by the United Empire Loyalists who left the American colonies and moved north at the time that the United States was founded a century earlier. Canada deliberately developed a more pluralistic polity, bridging French-English (and, quite differently, Indigenous) divisions to build a country committed to “peace, order, and good government.” The constitution spelled out minority protections for French Catholics and English Protestants. Civil respect and coexistence were foundational.
So, if Mr. Carney’s distinction between civic and Christian nationalism refers to Canada’s constitutional model in contrast to American-style religious nationalism, then he is correct. But if the implication is that Christianity played no formative role in Confederation (or to diminish the significance of that role), that would be plainly wrong. One may quibble with the specifics of how our founders understood the application of their Christian faith, but it would be ahistorical to deny that Canada and Canadians were consciously shaped by a version of Christian moral and political thought.
2. The Contemporary Immigration Debate
The prime minister’s remarks can also be read in light of contemporary debates about immigration and national belonging. Some argue that those with long-standing roots in Canada are more Canadian than recent immigrants. In the last decade, amid a massive increase in new arrivals from abroad, many have challenged the long-standing Canadian consensus on immigration. Today, it’s no longer a consensus that we need immigration to maintain our population, populate our large landmass, and ensure multi-generational sustainability as a country. Historically, the number of immigrants arriving in Canada annually was equal to about one percent of the country’s population. Over the last decade, that has doubled or even tripled at times. In certain circles, proposals for “re-migration” are gaining traction, including suggestions that even naturalized citizens could be stripped of status and deported.
To be unequivocal: I am pro-immigration. Canada has long been a destination for those seeking a better life, including my own parents (as teens) with my grandparents. Immigration is part of our national story. That does not preclude serious discussion about sustainable numbers, the integrity of our legal processes, or the need to enforce immigration laws, including deportation for those who are unlawfully in the country. Admission to Canada should include civic education and a commitment to constitutional democracy and basic human rights.
I would go one step further. I would defend Canada’s historic pro-immigration stance, which has resulted in a long legacy of compassion for those seeking to escape persecution in other parts of the world, as part of my Christian nationalism. While an appropriate ordering of my loves implies a greater responsibility for my neighbour in need than those troubled on the other side of the globe, I still have an obligation to do whatever I can to help those in need, regardless of where they come from. Every human being is an image-bearer of God, creating a brotherhood that is greater than whatever natural bonds develop between me and my fellow citizens. And that is the moral basis for civic nationalism and Christian engagement in the public square. When a lawyer seeking to limit his obligation to show compassion asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?” Jesus didn’t answer with a flag.
I fundamentally reject the claim that Canada properly belongs only to a subset of its citizens defined by skin colour, ancestry, or religion. Proposals to remove lawful residents or citizens on such grounds (or to encourage them to leave) are morally indefensible and incompatible with Christianity, full stop. At the core of Canadian culture is the conviction that every human being possesses equal, created dignity. Our equality before God is grounded in our shared humanity, not any ethnicity or national origin.
3. Whose Job Is It?
The foregoing neither implies unlimited responsibility nor ignores the need to build a sense of what it means to be Canadian, which can properly be required of all who want to live in this land. Whether it is through the education system for those born in Canada or the civic education requirements for those we welcome to this country as new citizens, cultivating a sense of national identity requires active, not passive, behaviour.
But whose job is it? The state has a role to be sure, but I resist those who task the government with developing and enforcing national identity. The state is not the same as the nation. Many mistakenly think that because something should be done, the state should do it. The biblical instruction to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God’s can only mean that there are clear boundaries and that certain things are beyond the state’s direct purview.
My Christian nationalism includes a sense of the limited state and a commitment to protecting all the different social institutions that reflect the diversity of God’s creation. If civic nationalism means commitment to constitutional order, equal dignity for all, and peaceful coexistence under the rule of law, then it is not opposed to Canada’s Christian inheritance; it is, in many ways, an outworking of it. But the state has coercive powers. The sort of culture and nationalism it creates is problematic. History would seem to confirm that such nationalism almost inevitably leads us to authoritarianism. (For the record, I would argue authoritarianism is unchristian as well, but that’s a claim I will gladly defend on another day when we have more time and space.)
Contrasting “Christian” and “civic” nationalism sparks all sorts of arguments, many of them involving vitriolic comments against those who differ. Sadly, such commentary is neither civil nor Christian, as any quick survey of this week’s online debates can attest. While I won’t pretend to know exactly what others mean when they use the terms, for me, “Christian” and “civic” nationalism overlap more than they differ. After all, civil order requires recognition of its own limits, which is itself a consequence of the Christian nationalism that underlies our history and our respect for our fellow human beings.
WHAT I’M READING
Floor Crossing to a Majority?
Wednesday’s announcement by Edmonton MP Matt Jeneroux that he’s leaving the Conservatives to join the Liberal government has reinvigorated the debates about the legitimacy of Parliamentary floor-crossings and of a minority government moving to majority status by recruiting opposition MPs to join it. Given the current culture of Canadian politics in which many voters cast ballots based on party and leader rather than local candidates, I get it. However, as I pointed out in the wake of a previous floor-crossing, this is only a consequence of the distortion of our system. Our democracy would work better (as it was originally designed) by increasing the power of parliamentary caucuses and individual MPs. This would leave floor-crossing as a tool to keep leaders accountable, including the leader of the opposition, whose job it is to present an alternative government. Presumably, an alternative government can keep a caucus together. I won’t link to the odious takes of some Conservative influencers who made “well-known allegations” about Mr. Jeneroux’s personal life (as if this information only matters when he joins another party). Either the issues are a reflection of an individual’s moral judgment and should have disqualified him while he was a colleague, or they aren’t. In the latter case, using the information now just becomes attempted extortion, which is contemptible. I did find Dan Robertson’s take on the whole matter interesting. He suggests that although the Jeneroux defection is a short-term blow to the Conservatives, it does buy them time before an election—exactly what Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs if he is ever to realize his aspiration to serve as prime minister.
Cross-Border Chess
Conservative MP Jamil Jivani attracted a lot of attention with his trip to Washington last week. He met various American officials, including US Vice President J.D. Vance (his friend since university). He also commented publicly on current Canada-US tensions. Mr. Jivani’s comment that Canadians were having a bit of “hissy fit” came under fire in particular, with his own party leader, Pierre Poilievre, making it clear that Mr. Jivani “speaks for himself, and I speak for the party.” Former Conservative cabinet minister Ed Fast had a rather balanced take on the controversy, using a “king’s gambit” chess analogy. He suggests that as all Canadians cultivate whatever relationships they have with Americans, it can be helpful and even has the potential to reshape the board. However, he warns when that work is not done well, “it can fail spectacularly” and “leave the player exposed.”
Russia-Ukraine Check-In
Trying to make sense of the Putin-Zelensky-Europe-Trump peace talks is next to impossible without specific expertise and frontline intel that is not readily available. It’s also easy to let the diplomatic chatter overshadow the reality of war as it affects the front lines. It would seem that the war in Ukraine remains a grinding, attritional conflict with fluid front lines and sustained long-range strikes. Broader strategic analysis from RAND underscores that the military trajectory, Western support levels, Russian force regeneration, and economic resilience on both sides will shape not only battlefield outcomes but also the timing and leverage of any negotiations.
Humanoids
A Vox essay on the likelihood of technology bringing humanoid robots into the household chores of ordinary Americans provides a reality check on some of the sensational claims about what technology would do for us. It notes that Elon Musk had already promised the humanoid servant several years back, casting doubt on his current 2027 promises as well. Reading about how challenging it is to teach human-looking machines the basics of doing and folding the laundry serves as another reminder of how amazing the human brain actually is and reinforces the inspiration of Psalm 139 which praises God for how we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Trevor Tombe cites the “economic policy uncertainty index” to argue that, regardless of which side one takes in the current debates about separatism in Canada, the mere existence of the debate could create significant economic costs for the country. 2025 data suggests that the uncertainty caused by the Trump tariffs had an economic impact many times bigger than the pandemic, with jobs dependent on American exports declining by 2.7 percent in Canada, in contrast to all other jobs for which payroll increased by a similar amount. He argues that Alberta separation talk creates a similar risk as it relates to interprovincial trade. While he acknowledges that his figures “simply illustrate orders of magnitude and should be taken with several grains of salt,” he still warns that those “who view separation as a costless protest vote should consider these effects carefully and, perhaps, explore other avenues to advance their concerns.”
TAKE IT TO-GO
Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal offered a piece on sleepcations, which are getaways focused entirely around REM-experiences. While the extra naps afforded on vacation, along with the luxury of not setting an alarm clock, are definite features of my desired vacation, travelling with sleep as the primary focus has never been a priority. When I stop to think about it, I guess the bears have been doing it for centuries, mastering the ultimate power nap. And what is Groundhog Day if it isn’t Wiarton Willie deciding whether to hit the snooze button for a shorter or longer duration? Still, I’m not planning to join the hiber-nation that celebrates close-eyed vacations with an absolute commitment to do nothing. I prefer eyes-wide-open getaways that have me seeing at least a book or some other distraction to feel relaxed. I guess to each their own. In the meantime, my February has some real writing and work deadlines, leaving any sort of getaway as nothing more than a dream for now. Part of those assignments include writing another Insights for your review next Saturday morning. ‘Til then, sweet dreams.