Let me see if I have this straight.

So the Canadian gentlemen makes a comment in which he lambastes Americans for having an overly romanticized, inflated view of their military history. This same person then goes on to take credit on behalf of Canadians for burning the White House and victory in the war of 1812.

The only problem with this is that the notion that Canadians were responsible for burning the White House and victory in the war of 1812 are not robustly supported by historical fact. The wikipedia article on the Burning of Washington mentions Canada only a single time, and even then only to mention that the attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American's sack of Toronto (then called York). There is no question that it was the British army which led the attack on Washington, and the mere fact that Canada was part of the British Empire at the time gives Canada no more right to claim responsibility than, say, India.

Of course, although it seems indisputable that this particular offense was thoroughly a British offensive, there remains the question of whether the divisions which carried it out contained substantial numbers of Canadian troops at the time. I had a hard time finding a good source on this (I'm a little crunched for time, but perhaps someone could do better) but this was a fairly lengthy response on the topic posted on Yahoo answers (yes, I know, yahoo answers but he provides sources).

Quoting in relevant part:

The commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn. These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington. From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.

There doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.

So, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House. Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning. Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House. That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein. They had men in the coalition forces, after all.

So, in other words, unless someone can provide better sources on the topic, it appears that you are guilty of the very thing you are accusing Americans of - that is to say, an overly romanticized, inflated view of your country's military history. Which would be no small irony.