Patrick Deneen has written an excellent article on why the revival of Canadian nationalism pushed the country to the left and not to the right:
Canadian conservatism remains firmly under the control of the “Old Right” – the Right of Reagan-era fusionism, and even today heavily overrepresented by libertarian business interests. I encountered not just one, but several booths proudly sporting the visage of Ayn Rand as an icon of a “conservatism” — a label that Rand herself rejected, and a form of “conservatism” that many Americans now rightly suspect of not having conserved anything at all. Joining her on one banner – the “Ladies of Liberty Alliance” – was the libertarian, transgender economist Deirdre McCloskey, dedicated foe of conservatism. Such is the general state of conservatism in Canada.
https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/make-canada-conservative-again
Canadian conservatism has not been able to detach itself from neoliberalism, and that made it hostile to nationalism. Between the neoliberal Left and the equally neoliberal Right, people will always choose the Left because neoliberalism is so much more natural to it. If freedom and choice are your gods, then your side is quite automatically the one that celebrates the freedom to snip away body parts or identify as whatever strikes your fancy.
Deneen cites George Grant, a Canadian nationalist who warned in 1965 that Canadian (or any other) nationalism is doomed:
The United States is [simply] the most progressive society on earth and therefore the most radical force for the homogenizing of the world. By its very nature the capitalist system makes the national boundaries only matters of political formality.
Grant was a visionary who described the horror of neoliberalism over a decade before it started to dawn on anybody else how scary it was. He’s not known in Canada and zero national pride has accrued to the achievement of having the first philosopher in the world to have described the threat of the approaching neoliberalization. As usual, Canadian are silencing their own achievements and erasing themselves from history. The threat to their statehood is not in the White House. It is inside themselves.
Clarissa's Blog 
The traditional distinction is between collectivism and individualism, which people have been arguing about for centuries.
https://dailyfriend.co.za/2022/10/25/why-im-not-conservative/
Collectivist societies often flip between supposedly opposing ideologies such as socialism and fascism.
Focusing on one specific collective, such as the nation, as all important is problematic since this can alienate equally important collectives like the city, which are more natural being more local.
LikeLike
Cities instead of nations is the Rahm Emmanuel approach. It’s a favorite neoliberal shibboleth. I’m not in favor. Neoliberals love the city because it has no borders. You can swap up populations endlessly.
There’s a whole chunk about it in my new book and I quote neoliberals who say this openly.
LikeLike
Cities can have borders. This was a huge part of apartheid, carving up cities into what and back areas because they were supposedly separate nations.
LikeLike