I’ve kept quiet about this electoral cycle, not because I don’t have opinions, but because I was raised to believe that talking politics (and religion) was poor etiquette. But that social norm has long eroded—especially since COVID-19 hit. Now, social media has become our collective soapbox, where copy-and-paste experts reign and facts often take a backseat to emotion.

But as a parent, a woman of colour, and a citizen who has voted for multiple parties over the years—based not on blind loyalty but on policy and principle—I can no longer sit this one out. Not because I want to sway your vote, but because we desperately need to talk. Really talk.

---

The Elephant in the Room: Immigration

It’s easy to point to immigration when the job market feels tight or your neighborhood starts to look different. But let’s call it what it is: change is uncomfortable. And for many Canadians, this discomfort is new.

For the rest of us? It’s familiar.
I immigrated to Canada in 1972 as a child. My parents, like many others, came seeking a better life. But they also understood the unspoken rule: assimilate. My brother and I were enrolled in hockey, girl guides, figure skating, piano, ballet, scouts—you name it. We adapted because we had to. We looked different, and we felt it, and we both assimilated in a landscape of being the obvious minority.

Now there’s a new wave of immigrants—and with them, a backlash that often sounds like: “Make Canada Great Again.” Let’s unpack that. What does that really mean? A return to a time when one group held the majority, shaped the culture, and closed doors to others? If so, it’s not about Canada’s greatness—it’s about comfort, power, and nostalgia for exclusivity.

Let’s be real: unless you’re Indigenous, you’re an immigrant too. If we applied ancestry logic literally, most of us would be packing our bags. So before you boycott Tim Hortons because the staff look different, ask yourself—what change are you actually demanding?

---

Poor Infrastructure = Poor Planning

Now, I’ll say what others won’t: immigration wasn’t managed well under our previous leadership. Quotas increased, but infrastructure didn’t. During a global pandemic, Canada allowed immigration to continue—despite travel restrictions. This led to system strain, housing shortages, and visible tensions. But mismanagement is a leadership issue, not a cultural one. Blaming immigrants for policies they didn’t create is scapegoating, plain and simple.

Moreover, comparing immigration quotas to countries with ten times our population makes no sense. We need to enforce numerical caps, not percentages, to ensure fair, sustainable intake and meaningful cultural integration. Equity means ensuring everyone—not just newcomers—has access to housing, healthcare, and opportunity.

---

Spoiler Alert: No One’s Getting DeporteD

Pierre’s platform is to lower immigration—umm, okay, that’s obvious. But immigration is already out of control, which ironically proves my point: we’ve lost the plot on how to manage it responsibly. And now people think mass deportations are the solution?

If you actually believe that “getting the old Canada back” means rounding people up and shipping them out, you’re delusional. But at least now I know what you’re really saying. Look at our neighbours to the south. They tried that. It hasn’t worked. In fact, it’s torn communities apart and left a legacy of fear, regret, and dysfunction.

I agree—legal immigration should be respected. But let’s stop pretending people weren’t applauding strict policies until it started affecting them or someone they cared about. Suddenly it’s “this isn’t fair.” We’ve become an “as long as it doesn’t affect me” society.

The rhetoric of mass deportations and performative crackdowns doesn’t fix anything. It fractures societies, deepens division, and pushes away people who are already contributing to the economy and the community.

So if Pierre’s platform is about “lowering numbers,” let’s ask: how? And more importantly, then what? Because you can’t dangle the fantasy of mass deportation and pretend it’s a viable plan. It’s not. It’s bait for resentment. And once you’ve got it, be careful what you wish for—just ask our neighbours.

And let’s be honest: “lowering immigration” doesn’t undo the realities already here. That’s like trying to fix a crowded Tim Hortons by locking the front door—meanwhile the drive-thru’s still backed up around the block. It’s not policy. It’s posturing.

We cannot afford to mimic extremes. We need a thoughtful approach to immigration—one that focuses on fair and responsible management, not knee-jerk reactions that harm everyone.

Know Who Does What: Federal vs. Provincial

A lot of online anger gets misdirected because many people don’t know which level of government handles what. Here’s a quick breakdown to help clarify:

Issue	Federal Responsibility	Provincial Responsibility
Immigration	Sets quotas, national policy, border management	Runs settlement programs, selects via PNPs
Healthcare	Provides funding and oversight	Delivers care, runs hospitals, hires staff
Seniors’ Benefits	CPP, OAS, GIS administration	Long-term care, home support, elder services
Education	Rarely intervenes, sets high-level standards	Oversees curriculum, K–12 schools, colleges, universities

So no—voting federally won’t fix your ER wait time or get your child’s school air conditioning and it definitely won’t get your double double right at Timmies :)- That’s your provincial government’s job. And let’s not forget: Pierre Poilievre voted against increases to senior benefits and other social supports. So when assessing leadership, remember to follow the policy trail—not just the soundbites.

---

Mark Carney: The Unlikely Candidate?

Some brush him off as just another elite insider. But let’s be real—he didn’t have to step up. With over a year left as Prime Minister, Carney could’ve coasted. Instead, he called an early election to let the people decide. That’s not weakness—it’s democratic guts. And just for that alone, you’ve got to respect it. Or are we criticizing integrity now too?

He had a global career. He didn’t need the spotlight, the stress, or the scrutiny. But he’s here anyway—pushing for transparency, equity, and yes, inclusivity. National parks free for all? That’s not pandering. That’s policy with perspective—a response, not a retreat, to the cultural backlash. Deliberate. Measured. Canadian.

---

The Platforms: What Each Candidate is Really Proposing

When you look at the candidates’ platforms, it’s clear that immigration and economic management are central. But let’s break down the details so we’re not just repeating buzzwords:

• Pierre Poilievre (Conservative): Promises to lower immigration levels to alleviate pressure on housing and healthcare systems, while focusing on securing jobs for Canadian workers first. However, the plan doesn’t account for the fact that the Canadian workforce will need immigration just to keep up with retirement rates. Poilievre’s rhetoric often paints immigration as a drain, rather than recognizing the contributions it makes.
• Mark Carney (Liberal): As our current Prime Minister, Carney has committed to maintaining a robust immigration system to support Canada’s aging population and economic growth. However, while the government supports the intake of skilled workers, it hasn’t effectively addressed the housing shortages and integration challenges that come with high levels of immigration. His policies also focus on economic diversification and addressing gaps in healthcare and housing.

---

Voting: Facts Over Feelings

Let’s not pretend that voting out of frustration will fix our problems. Housing, inflation, aging populations—these are complex issues decades in the making. One party didn’t create this mess, and one party won’t magically fix it. In fact, by 2050, half of Canada’s workforce will be over age 50. We’ll need immigration just to maintain our economy and fund our services.

So ask yourself: are you voting for policy or for payback? For a real platform or just the illusion of control?

---

A Final Thought

It’s okay to want change. But be honest about what change you’re asking for.
We don’t need more slogans. We need leadership rooted in compassion, responsibility, and truth. We need voters who do their homework—not those who blindly copy and paste rage-filled soundbites from social media.

I miss the old Canada too. But maybe what I miss is civility, fairness, and the ability to disagree respectfully. Because shouting “F— Trudeau” or “If you vote Liberal, you’re a clown” doesn’t make you a patriot. It makes you sound classless.

Trust and believe—Pierre had my vote when Justin was still Prime Minister. That was based on his leadership, and on what Trudeau’s immigration policies have done to this country, creating many of the very issues we’re now facing. But now there’s a new contender. And I can’t ignore the platform he’s bringing forward. So I’m doing what every responsible voter should: looking at both sides, comparing policies, and conducting my own cost/benefit analysis. Not based on who I liked before, or who let me down—but based on where we’re going next. And I’m asking you to do the same.

The irony is not lost on me. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives are often criticized when someone of colour rises to a position of power, with whispers of “affirmative action” or “the DEI hire.” Yet here we are—with two white men running for leadership—and the most qualified one, Mark Carney, is under attack. Why? Because he’s successful? Because his business dealings—now in a blind trust—make him less relatable? Meanwhile, Pierre, with a degree in international relations, has spent most of his life on the public payroll, and somehow he is seen as the self-made man of the people?

If we truly believed in merit—the very principle DEI was meant to ensure—this wouldn’t even be a competition. The irony is, those crying foul over DEI are now doing exactly what they claim to oppose: ignoring qualifications, and upholding a narrative that has less to do with leadership and more to do with loyalty.

And that’s something I know all too well. As an immigrant, a Canadian citizen, a woman of colour, and someone who holds a PhD, I’ve had to work twice as hard just to be seen as equal. I’ve seen education undervalued in favour of “experience,” especially when that experience belongs to someone who looks the part. In a Venn diagram of lived experience and academic rigor—I live in both circles. I’m not here to sway your vote, but I am here to call out the quiet part that’s always left unsaid: immigration is often the scapegoat, and racism is still the undercurrent.

Most of us are here because of immigration. So go ahead, put out your “We’re full” sign—but be honest about what you’re voting for. Is it a vision for a stronger, more inclusive country? Or is it about fear, division, and resentment?

Oh—and this just in: we’re still going to be full. Because it’s too late to rein anything in. The issues we’re facing aren’t going anywhere. And no, no one’s getting deported.

We are better than this. And we can choose better—starting at the ballot box.
I know I’m voting with my son’s future in mind. And now that he can vote too? Even better.

Sources for Context and Further Reading:

• Statistics Canada. (2023). Labour force projections and aging population trends.
• Government of Canada. (2023). Immigration Levels Plan 2023–2025.
• Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2022). Provincial Health Responsibilities.
• Parliamentary Voting Records. (2022–2024). Votes on social programs and seniors’ benefits.
• CBC News. (2024). Mark Carney’s potential leadership run and proposed national park policy.