I never had a particularly optimistic view of Canadian culture or uniqueness, but at least conceived of us as "America without the excesses". For a long time I think this was true, and it was sort of enough.
We had most of the advantages of being American - the culture, the food, the same goods and houses, similar abundance - without the most excessive problems like crime, violence, severe racism, government corruption, and religious/political extremism. We didn't have as many extremely wealthy people but had far fewer desperately poor. Maybe a few less opportunities for success but it was in the same ballpark.
Well now we've given up much of what made Canada good, and embraced more of what the US does poorly. We are gravitating from being better Americans with the best of both worlds, to second-rate Americans without the advantages.
Quebec is vastly more different from English Canada than English Canada is from anywhere in the US.
And Quebec has only maintained that difference through two generations of very deliberate policy that basically treats Quebecers like rare endangered zoo animals who require an outlandishly unique and impractical habitat and diet artificially provided because they would die off if left to their own devices (or in their case end up speaking English and behaving like other North Americans).
I didn't know JJist was a word. It's funny how those older than say 50 are shocked by JJ McCullough while the youth just treat what we says in his videos as the obvious.
I think this is a misdiagnosis. We haven't gravitated more towards the Americans, simply differentiating ourselves by saying we avoided "excessive problems like crime, violence, severe racism, government corruption, and religious/political extremism" was part of why we're here.
If you can't define what made a Canadian a Canadian, then there's no gravitation in the first place. What is less Canadian?
"Less violent" or "less racist" aren't identities.
I think there is a way to emphasize a lot of distinctiveness. This is also true of Europeans, although who have more physical distance from American culture.
I don't think its easy, but I think its very possible. But you need to tell an alternative story in the first place. If we deconstruct and destroy our stories, we stand no change.
I’m in favor of allowing private care in Alberta. Whether or not there are early stumbles in this great Cdn experiment, we can’t know at this point. It’s about time a province tried this approach. It’s going to be a learning curve. And, it just might attract medical professionals to come here, set up a business, provide needed services, and horror or horrors - to make money - that would actually pay off student loans that made them the specialists that they are and that we so desperately need.
Quebec has been doing this for years. (Assuming that Quebec is a province of Canada). In some specialties there are more private than public doctors in QC according to Google. My understanding is that in QC you can’t bill the public system if you’re private. And as usual when QC does something that is prohibited or considered immoral elsewhere Ottawa looks the other way or changes the law to accommodate it. So the screams and moans of loss of Canadian identity are suspicious at best. I suspect unionized civil servants setting medical treatment rules are behind a lot of these squeals.
That's the one area I'm a bit skeptical (beyond not trusting politicians not to fuck it up): does the change actually attract / create more doctors or create a more efficient system? If not, anything we do is just shuffling the deck chairs.
Well, I’m skeptical about leaving things as is. One thing I know for certain is that it’ll attract more people to train in the profession. Few take on 7 yrs of uni to be altruistic.
Will there bumps on the road? Of course. I’m not a child expecting perfection, but what we have, these chaotic ERs, chemo waiting lines, is unsustainable. Why it’s taken Cdns this long for the nickel to drop is beyond me. Gods speed, Danielle, I love the ballsy move.
Oh for sure - status quo isn't an option. But we need to make sure we don't just replace the status quo with an equally bad system that costs us more. For example, attracting people to train as doctors isn't really a problem (medical school spots are already very competitive), though improved options could prevent people from leaving the profession or country (not sure if this is a big issue) and attract internationally. But we need to ensure we also pursue steps such as expanding medical school spots in parallel with other reforms.
Yes, Graeme, we need to ensure that we don't get an equally bad system.
But, but, but, are you for or agin this type of experimentation? The truth is that too many people are warning about all sorts of stuff and the effect is to cause no change by governments in the medical system.
So, again, are you for or agin the idea of these sorts of changes?
I'm basically with Matt - I'm glad we're discussing real reform and open to alternatives, but until we see the actual plan I'm not ready to say if I'm for or against it. I'm for experimentation so long as the experiment has a reasonable chance of success.
I'm not against privatization or some form of patient payment in principle, but also don't think it's the magic bullet some do. And the point of my original comment was that if the pool of doctors doesn't expand (and it's not clear to me that privatization helps with that to a significant extent), I'm not optimistic we see major improvements. The devil of any plan will be in the details.
Your comment is just fine. You have stated that you "... not against privatization or some form of patient payment in principle, but also don't think it's the magic bullet some do ..." Rational points.
My point in asking was that there are some folk who complain about the medical system but then complain further and louder about any attempts to change. You know, the folks who [ignorantly] yell "Americanization!" at any suggested change. You, it is clear, are not one of those.
As for a larger pool of doctors, the first thing that must be done is to dramatically increase the spaces available in med schools.
Great stuff, guys. On the ghost of Tommy Douglas, I don’t pretend to have much more than a surface level knowledge of him, but I’d be willing to bet that if he saw the *current* state of our health care system he would be rolling over in his grave. It is a disgrace by any reasonable standard, he would instantly see that it is, and the fact that the sanctimonious don’t seem to understand that, reflects poorly on them.
Also, FWIW the best health care I have ever received in my life was at the Shouldice Hospital. It’s a hospital in Ontario. And world-renowned – patients do literally come from around the world. It’s privately run and covered by OHIP. The example is lying in plain sight and had been FOR YEARS but when you are more interested in congratulating yourself for your egalitarianism it is important to ignore certain facts.
Universal healthcare was a great system that's existence relied on:
1) a young population with relatively fewer people needing major care and a larger tax base;
2) a more stable population that isn't importing millions of newcomers who haven't contributed to the system, many of them already middle age or older;
3) a time before hundreds or even thousands of expensive and complex new diagnostics and procedures became available;
4) a lower life expectancy where we weren't routinely keeping people alive into their 90's often with chronic conditions and/or requiring heroic interventions;
5) far greater federal transfer payments to provinces, which were curtailed in the 90's thanks to the dubiously lionized Chretien/Martin government who raided these transfers to "miraculously" balance the budget.
Time to acknowledge that true "free" healthcare for all is a fantasy from a different time and emulate the health system from essentially any other developed country other than the US (and that of a bunch of less developed ones would be fine too).
The Chinese name for Canada consists of three characters; if you scramble the characters in a certain way, you get "everybody takes". That indeed describes the problem with how Canada is today - we are increasingly a country where Everybody Takes, and rapidly running out those who are still giving.
For those interested in the details: Canada is 加拿大; if you scramble the characters to 大加拿, it sounds exactly like 大家拿 "everybody takes" in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
Like Matt, I think a mixed fleet of F35’s and Gripen are the way to go. While the US is operating F35’s in Alaska, I’m sure it’s a challenge with requirements for storage, maintenance and operations in a cold climate. The Gripen has been specifically designed to meet the operating conditions we have in Canada, including the north, and its capital cost, operating cost, ease of maintenance, landing requirements and general ease of operations make it an ideal aircraft for Canada. So having both would serve both the need for a high capability Gen 5 fighter to work with the US as well as a Gen 4.5 fighter that would work well for Canada and European allies. We could afford many more Gripen’s for the cost of the F35, so being fewer F35’s and more Gripen’s make sense to me. I am confused about the concerns of operating a mixed fleet - Canada currently operates 22 different aircraft, so it already has a mixed fleet. And as you said many of our allies also operate a mixed fleet. I was reading an interview with retired Lt.-Gen Yvan Blondin in the Ottawa Citizen on March 2025 who expressed the same view. Like you, I think we would be wise to have a more capable airforce and hiring and training pilots should be a high priority. Another topic missing from the discussion is the role of drones. It seems to me the Ukraine - Russia war has shown that the nature of aircraft in wars in the future will rely less on sophisticated fighter jets and more on drones. So significant investments in drone technology seems to be warranted. Perhaps spend less on fighters and more on drones.
And then there is the trustworthiness and ongoing control over the F35 maintenance and software given the actions and approach of the US government that gives me great concern over the sovereignty and autonomy of Canadian air defense.
Russia is still fighing like they’re in Stalingrad and Ukraine is nibbling back. Don’t take lessons in air warfare from this Sommefest. Think rather of China and their technological leap forward. For that adversary you’ll need lots of manned aircraft.
I think this is doable. Canada is going to have revise Section & Platoon in Battle to address drones. We have entered a new domain for warfare where the threat is drones and electronics. As a delivery system for chemical or biological weapons, too. Yikes.
We need to get on this because I believe that drones need to be a section level weapon that is portable enough to hook it into a person's web gear.
You bet we need to make thousands a week and we need to start that ASAP. Free of any "gotta make in Canada" proviso political crap. Government needs to tell those folks who want it done in Canada, we have buy them from a friendly nation that can accommodate.
For me, a damned war is coming. A big one. We need to pick our priorities. Also, if Canada wants more troops, we need to get serious and develop a prep for war strategy ASAP. Also, it is very hard to convince someone to join up where they might get injured or killed. Good to see the Carney government raiding veterans affairs budget to bankroll, say, the CBC.
My world sphere is pretty small compared to the Gurneys and Gersons of this world, but I personally know of four people who have purchased their new hips and knees in places as disparate as BC, Quebec, Lithuania and Turkey. Not wealthy people; people whose levels of pain and discomfort made the multi-year wait a worse choice than the huge personal expense.
As Matt says, we look after ourselves and our families before we give consideration to upsetting the ghost of T Douglas.
My parents are retired and affluent but far from rich. Faced with interminable waits for diagnostic procedures in Saskatchewan they elected to spend their money in North Dakota. Appointments booked, procedures done, diagnostic reports in hand in a few days.
You had me at 'Tommy Douglas's f-n poltergeist'. LOL. I'm with you on both the hope for an Alberta public/private system, and the worries about the potential cluster-f. And I also desire real conversation about the systems we currently have, rather than what the boomers and silents rightly remember from golden eras past, but was devolving by the time most of the rest of us reached adulthood. It seems like the fact that 'universal health care' is a fiercely defended Canadian feature/value prevents us from talking about necessary upgrades. We get collectively defensive about it. . . or something like that.
A very Canadian podcast. First rule, don't offend anyone.
Religion. The reason Christianity or Judaism can be criticized freely is that the followers are generally tolerant. For some religions, criticism (Charlie Hebdo), or even suggested criticism (Samuel Paty), carries a death sentence.
Immigration. Do not confuse race with culture. Doing so ensures there can be no discussion. No-one in their right mind can be against a multiracial society. Culture is a belief system and some are mutually exclusive, so multiculturalism is doomed to fail and assimilation is required. Song, dance, food and dress are the trappings of culture, and are desirable.
The editors have no solution yet they were provided a great example of why Canada has failed. The wife of a recent interviewee remained a permanent resident as they didn't want to give up their citizenship with the fatherland. Now, as dual citizenship, she becomes a hyphenated Canadian. So, she gets to vote for a government that meets her immediate needs, and she can bail when we reap what was sowed. My children don't get to check out of the hotel that easily.
Do away with multiple citizenships. This will not disenfranchise anyone who wishes to remain Canadian (no hyphen). As for Quebec, the second part of the solution...
We need to become proud of our history again. That doesn't mean sanitizing it, but it does mean celebrating the amazing things we've built. We need to rediscover the pioneering spirit and identity that makes us both Canadian and gives us a vision for the future.
We need to tell stories again about how great we are. If we become too full of ourselves in the coming decades, then we can deconstruct again. But now is a time of rapid construction.
Or else we will shame our ancestors and destroy something they fought, died, sweated, and suffered to create.
On religion, I also think woke-ism (for lack of a better word) plays a role. For example, many left-leaning institutions would prefer not to confront Islam's views on homosexuality which would mean criticizing a group they consider oppressed rather than oppressors.
In Japan, dual citizenship is permitted for children who have a non-Japanese parent until the age of majority (20 there). At that point they are expected to pick one, though this may not be strictly enforced (I doubt they search for hidden passports unless there are criminal charges).
I had no problem identifying values growing up. Loyalty to my ethnicity. Loyalty to the king and the British justice system particularly the right to appeal judgements to the House of Lords . Loyalty to my family. Fair play no favoritism. The right to property. The right to worship God in your own way. The ability to arm yourself to protect your life and property. Recognizing and accepting that all groups and ethnicities have the same rights. Free speech regardless (and especially if) of how abhorrent it might be. The duty to learn English (or French in Quebec), obtain citizenship, abandon grievances from your old country if an immigrant and participate in holidays and elections.
These values started to disappear under Trudeau Senior with his social engineering and dilution of values through multiculturalism, and official bilingualism instead of recognition of two distinct societies . It’s time to bring these values back.
Christianity in schools being replaced by Indigenous ceremony. (Smudging and all, without any choice) MSM now only highlights good works/community projects
Regarding public health care: I don’t think people care about Tommy Douglas, and I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize public healthcare as a “sacred cow.” Instead, I think people are afraid of adding medical bankruptcy on top of their illness and a cost-of-living crisis. We already can’t buy a house, we’re afraid of being unable to afford treatment. We’re afraid of medical bankruptcy.
The part about the transit disorder also really resonated with me. I'm one of the weirdos who recently voted Conservative federally and NDP provincially, and when trying to articulate why I think it comes down to voting for whoever I felt was more likely to implement a pro "abundance" agenda (the BC Conservatives pledge to reverse the NDP's pro-growth rezoning changes particularly annoyed me).
As someone who worries about climate change, likes vibrant cities and hates traffic, I want an "abundant" well-funded and highly efficient transit system. I also want highly efficient & accessible shelter and recovery systems. What I don't want is people using the transit system as the shelter & recovery system: it's inefficient, ineffective, dangerous, and counter-productive. As someone who still considers myself relatively left-leaning in many ways, the tendency for progressives to shoot ourselves in the foot by taking positions and actions that degrade trust in the institutions I want to prosper pisses me off to no end. After all, the Trudeau Liberals did more to turn Canadians against immigration than any white nationalist ever could.
Re fighters the digestible information you provided was well said!
I concur that a mixed fleet is the best, only since we have already bought 16 and started to build a bunch of the complex infrastructure (multiple billions so far) required to operate it. I would also offer that the F35 is marketed BY LM and RCAF personnel who want to be part of the 'club' as 'the best'. Further, '5th Generation' was a (very successful) LM originated marketing brand, but has no accepted definition of what the divide is between Gen 4, Gen 4.5, Gen 4.5+, Gen 4.5++, or Gen 5. Shaped structural Low Observability seems to be the default for Gen 5, but that is a whole other geek item about the tradeoffs in performance and even how LO the aircraft is depending on the radars and optical/IR/UV systems facing them. Also all LO is not built equal in all spectrums or aspects of observation of the aircraft and this is bound by a bunch of immutable physics. Nevertheless ...
The F35 is undeniably good, but it suffers from some serious developmental-upgrade issues inherent to its design approach, which are well behind delivery (US GAO reporting), costly in terms of dollars to implement (rising Can PBO program cost estimates), costly to maintain (people, infrastructure and $) and costly in terms of availability (US CBO and GAO reporting). It's the 1% use case aircraft for exorbitant cost-complexity and forever dependence on LM and the US govt.
The Gripen offers a very capable solution - possibly superior in some instances to the F35 depending on the mission and threat - including having latest generation weapons and network-fusion capabilities and it does this much more economically according to almost every estimate, at twice the availability rate. It also is fully capable of executing the NORAD mission set, including interoperability (don't listen to Hoekstra - interchangeability is not part of the agreement - he might want to actually read it) and highly useful in a NATO or other coalition operations. Its a 99% use case aircraft.
A lot of the RCAF is invested in the F35 and careers have been staked on it. It may be hard for them to be objective, but even the technical evaluation team passed both the F35 and the Gripen and then the Government went to "the finalization phase of the procurement process with the top-ranked bidder". https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html. Aka the Gripen also met the essential requirements according to the official program update!
The following also offers some perspective about the boogeyman challenges of integrating multiple fleets: The Ukrainians have/are bringing online F16s and Rafale, while still operating older Mig29 and Su27, and have a viable plan to bring online the Gripen with the 3 year lead time they have for that additional aircraft type. This is being done in the middle of a war that is close at hand. So surely the RCAF can manage a transition to F35 and Gripen with the might of LM/USAF (F35) and Saab/SWE supporting providing training and logistics support from the relative safety of North America/Europe with 3 years of lead time? If they can't that is a whole other problem.
You are also right. We need more than 88 jets total if we are going to be serious about doing our share and credible with our NATO & NORAD partners. For example the USAF has 2 Sqns of F22s, 1 Sqn of F16s and 2 Sqns of F35, plus AWACS and tankers and other supporting stuff like rescue helicopters in Alaska alone. They also have numerous Sqns and supporting assets in continental US (USAF and ANG) capable of doing the NORAD mission.
The RCAF number likely needs to somewhere near 170-180 fighters, plus AEW&C aircraft. In time of conflict/war (what we need a military for) we will need to man 5 Forward Operating Locations (6 aircraft each), have 2 Squadrons at Cold Lake and 2 Squadrons at Bagotville (defence in depth), plus a Squadron at each of Comox, Goose Bay and Greenwood to provide coastal intercept/more defence in depth and then an additional squadron to forward deploy to meet NATO (or other) commitments. This based on a squadron of 16-18 aircraft (4 flights of four (the fighting formation) plus a couple of spares).
I liken the F35 to a Ferrari and the Gripen to a Mazda MX5. Both will get you where you need to go, but the Mazda costs less, requires less maintenance and coddling, and it’s still functional and fun to drive. Hopefully we don’t fall for the “we only want the most expensive toys” syndrome.
I’d probably liken it more to a Mercedes G-Wagon vs. a Hyundai Tucson. They’re both 4x4 SUVs, but I’d definitely want the G-Wagon foe serious off-road use.
One thing a a more informed friend said (I am not informed enough to weigh in one way or the other) is that the Swedish fighter thing is one big PR joke by Saab. The Gripen is an old plane, only 10 years younger than the Hornet. Yes, its upgraded but the argument is its a functional fighter now that will fill limited roles and be almost immediately out of date.
There is no verifiable way to confirm which has the 'better' technology.
The Gripen E uses a continuous upgrade with a partitioned architecture, that allows for stable flight dynamics OFP (what makes it fly and doesn't get 'messed with' every time the mission software is updated) and open architecture for the mission side of programming (what makes it do the cool things to defeat the enemy). The F35 uses an integrated software architecture (OFP and mission), which is arguably harder to adapt latest generation mission software capabilities and a ~18 month batch upgrade formula, which is less configurable to any given nations specific needs. This appears to have been problematic (and costly) and has created delays, which the Saab solution hasn't seemed to suffer from, at least yet. Therefore, despite LM marketing, the Saab appears to have more recent 'tech injection', with greater ease to continue this path than the F35. To be clear both are upgradeable for as long as the producer intends to support them, which both say is many decades to come.
Shaped LO (which the F35 has) does not mean you are more advanced, its just one of two approaches (Shaped LO versus EW) to deny a tracking solution to the enemy killing you. Here is a digestible overview of that problem:
In the end, both are very advanced, both use some different approaches based on a number of factors and to get a good appreciation you need to cut through the marketing and look at the objective facts of the chosen design approaches and what that means for your ability to operate and afford it within the military structures you have. Arguably Canada's military structures are more akin to those of Sweden in term of size, $$, and consensus defence coalitions (e.g. NATO), especially when Canada is faced with the US pivot away from being a security guarantor.
I never had a particularly optimistic view of Canadian culture or uniqueness, but at least conceived of us as "America without the excesses". For a long time I think this was true, and it was sort of enough.
We had most of the advantages of being American - the culture, the food, the same goods and houses, similar abundance - without the most excessive problems like crime, violence, severe racism, government corruption, and religious/political extremism. We didn't have as many extremely wealthy people but had far fewer desperately poor. Maybe a few less opportunities for success but it was in the same ballpark.
Well now we've given up much of what made Canada good, and embraced more of what the US does poorly. We are gravitating from being better Americans with the best of both worlds, to second-rate Americans without the advantages.
1000 thumbs up
Yeah, I've honestly became a JJist, and just saying we have a shared culture with the US. We're just not a nation. Thats okay.
Quebec is vastly more different from English Canada than English Canada is from anywhere in the US.
And Quebec has only maintained that difference through two generations of very deliberate policy that basically treats Quebecers like rare endangered zoo animals who require an outlandishly unique and impractical habitat and diet artificially provided because they would die off if left to their own devices (or in their case end up speaking English and behaving like other North Americans).
Oh, and don't forget money from ROC to finance Quebec's illusions.
That's what pays for all that rare mountain grown French eucalyptus they need to be fed.
I didn't know JJist was a word. It's funny how those older than say 50 are shocked by JJ McCullough while the youth just treat what we says in his videos as the obvious.
I think this is a misdiagnosis. We haven't gravitated more towards the Americans, simply differentiating ourselves by saying we avoided "excessive problems like crime, violence, severe racism, government corruption, and religious/political extremism" was part of why we're here.
If you can't define what made a Canadian a Canadian, then there's no gravitation in the first place. What is less Canadian?
"Less violent" or "less racist" aren't identities.
We don't have a lot of differences from Americans, that's the problem.
I think there is a way to emphasize a lot of distinctiveness. This is also true of Europeans, although who have more physical distance from American culture.
I don't think its easy, but I think its very possible. But you need to tell an alternative story in the first place. If we deconstruct and destroy our stories, we stand no change.
Currently its just a vacuum.
So, what defines an American?
This is the sales pitch of Alberta separatism
You say that like it's a bad thing and surely it isn't.
I’m in favor of allowing private care in Alberta. Whether or not there are early stumbles in this great Cdn experiment, we can’t know at this point. It’s about time a province tried this approach. It’s going to be a learning curve. And, it just might attract medical professionals to come here, set up a business, provide needed services, and horror or horrors - to make money - that would actually pay off student loans that made them the specialists that they are and that we so desperately need.
Quebec has been doing this for years. (Assuming that Quebec is a province of Canada). In some specialties there are more private than public doctors in QC according to Google. My understanding is that in QC you can’t bill the public system if you’re private. And as usual when QC does something that is prohibited or considered immoral elsewhere Ottawa looks the other way or changes the law to accommodate it. So the screams and moans of loss of Canadian identity are suspicious at best. I suspect unionized civil servants setting medical treatment rules are behind a lot of these squeals.
I say go boldly forth where no (Cdn) man has gone before. Warp 4 speed.
That's the one area I'm a bit skeptical (beyond not trusting politicians not to fuck it up): does the change actually attract / create more doctors or create a more efficient system? If not, anything we do is just shuffling the deck chairs.
Well, I’m skeptical about leaving things as is. One thing I know for certain is that it’ll attract more people to train in the profession. Few take on 7 yrs of uni to be altruistic.
Will there bumps on the road? Of course. I’m not a child expecting perfection, but what we have, these chaotic ERs, chemo waiting lines, is unsustainable. Why it’s taken Cdns this long for the nickel to drop is beyond me. Gods speed, Danielle, I love the ballsy move.
Oh for sure - status quo isn't an option. But we need to make sure we don't just replace the status quo with an equally bad system that costs us more. For example, attracting people to train as doctors isn't really a problem (medical school spots are already very competitive), though improved options could prevent people from leaving the profession or country (not sure if this is a big issue) and attract internationally. But we need to ensure we also pursue steps such as expanding medical school spots in parallel with other reforms.
Yes, Graeme, we need to ensure that we don't get an equally bad system.
But, but, but, are you for or agin this type of experimentation? The truth is that too many people are warning about all sorts of stuff and the effect is to cause no change by governments in the medical system.
So, again, are you for or agin the idea of these sorts of changes?
I'm basically with Matt - I'm glad we're discussing real reform and open to alternatives, but until we see the actual plan I'm not ready to say if I'm for or against it. I'm for experimentation so long as the experiment has a reasonable chance of success.
I'm not against privatization or some form of patient payment in principle, but also don't think it's the magic bullet some do. And the point of my original comment was that if the pool of doctors doesn't expand (and it's not clear to me that privatization helps with that to a significant extent), I'm not optimistic we see major improvements. The devil of any plan will be in the details.
Your comment is just fine. You have stated that you "... not against privatization or some form of patient payment in principle, but also don't think it's the magic bullet some do ..." Rational points.
My point in asking was that there are some folk who complain about the medical system but then complain further and louder about any attempts to change. You know, the folks who [ignorantly] yell "Americanization!" at any suggested change. You, it is clear, are not one of those.
As for a larger pool of doctors, the first thing that must be done is to dramatically increase the spaces available in med schools.
https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-ideology-over-expertise-putting-health-care-at-risk
Great stuff, guys. On the ghost of Tommy Douglas, I don’t pretend to have much more than a surface level knowledge of him, but I’d be willing to bet that if he saw the *current* state of our health care system he would be rolling over in his grave. It is a disgrace by any reasonable standard, he would instantly see that it is, and the fact that the sanctimonious don’t seem to understand that, reflects poorly on them.
Also, FWIW the best health care I have ever received in my life was at the Shouldice Hospital. It’s a hospital in Ontario. And world-renowned – patients do literally come from around the world. It’s privately run and covered by OHIP. The example is lying in plain sight and had been FOR YEARS but when you are more interested in congratulating yourself for your egalitarianism it is important to ignore certain facts.
Universal healthcare was a great system that's existence relied on:
1) a young population with relatively fewer people needing major care and a larger tax base;
2) a more stable population that isn't importing millions of newcomers who haven't contributed to the system, many of them already middle age or older;
3) a time before hundreds or even thousands of expensive and complex new diagnostics and procedures became available;
4) a lower life expectancy where we weren't routinely keeping people alive into their 90's often with chronic conditions and/or requiring heroic interventions;
5) far greater federal transfer payments to provinces, which were curtailed in the 90's thanks to the dubiously lionized Chretien/Martin government who raided these transfers to "miraculously" balance the budget.
Time to acknowledge that true "free" healthcare for all is a fantasy from a different time and emulate the health system from essentially any other developed country other than the US (and that of a bunch of less developed ones would be fine too).
You’re right. We’re not doing good. But you guys are great and love learning from your podcasts. This one caused me to pour a stiff drink.
Why didn't I think of that???
I'm also ready to pour a stiff drink. Jen, if you really want to upgrade your Caesar drop the vodka and use a quality dry gin
The Chinese name for Canada consists of three characters; if you scramble the characters in a certain way, you get "everybody takes". That indeed describes the problem with how Canada is today - we are increasingly a country where Everybody Takes, and rapidly running out those who are still giving.
For those interested in the details: Canada is 加拿大; if you scramble the characters to 大加拿, it sounds exactly like 大家拿 "everybody takes" in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
Like Matt, I think a mixed fleet of F35’s and Gripen are the way to go. While the US is operating F35’s in Alaska, I’m sure it’s a challenge with requirements for storage, maintenance and operations in a cold climate. The Gripen has been specifically designed to meet the operating conditions we have in Canada, including the north, and its capital cost, operating cost, ease of maintenance, landing requirements and general ease of operations make it an ideal aircraft for Canada. So having both would serve both the need for a high capability Gen 5 fighter to work with the US as well as a Gen 4.5 fighter that would work well for Canada and European allies. We could afford many more Gripen’s for the cost of the F35, so being fewer F35’s and more Gripen’s make sense to me. I am confused about the concerns of operating a mixed fleet - Canada currently operates 22 different aircraft, so it already has a mixed fleet. And as you said many of our allies also operate a mixed fleet. I was reading an interview with retired Lt.-Gen Yvan Blondin in the Ottawa Citizen on March 2025 who expressed the same view. Like you, I think we would be wise to have a more capable airforce and hiring and training pilots should be a high priority. Another topic missing from the discussion is the role of drones. It seems to me the Ukraine - Russia war has shown that the nature of aircraft in wars in the future will rely less on sophisticated fighter jets and more on drones. So significant investments in drone technology seems to be warranted. Perhaps spend less on fighters and more on drones.
And then there is the trustworthiness and ongoing control over the F35 maintenance and software given the actions and approach of the US government that gives me great concern over the sovereignty and autonomy of Canadian air defense.
If the US disables our F35s we have bigger problems.
We can always go down to Coutts, yell obscenities and shake our pitchforks at the Americans.
Russia is still fighing like they’re in Stalingrad and Ukraine is nibbling back. Don’t take lessons in air warfare from this Sommefest. Think rather of China and their technological leap forward. For that adversary you’ll need lots of manned aircraft.
Drones. We need thousands of them. Enough to darken the skies.
Yes, but the actual key thing is that we need to be able to make thousands of them a week.
I think this is doable. Canada is going to have revise Section & Platoon in Battle to address drones. We have entered a new domain for warfare where the threat is drones and electronics. As a delivery system for chemical or biological weapons, too. Yikes.
We need to get on this because I believe that drones need to be a section level weapon that is portable enough to hook it into a person's web gear.
You bet we need to make thousands a week and we need to start that ASAP. Free of any "gotta make in Canada" proviso political crap. Government needs to tell those folks who want it done in Canada, we have buy them from a friendly nation that can accommodate.
For me, a damned war is coming. A big one. We need to pick our priorities. Also, if Canada wants more troops, we need to get serious and develop a prep for war strategy ASAP. Also, it is very hard to convince someone to join up where they might get injured or killed. Good to see the Carney government raiding veterans affairs budget to bankroll, say, the CBC.
Stay classy liberal government.
I think people are starting to grasp maybe just a little bit how radical a revolution in offensive war drones represent.
I don’t think people are realizing how essential they might be for defensive operations. Even just drones negating drones.
And no one can conceive how bad this will get when AI is running the attack patterns in real time.
Matt I will be interested to hear your takes after the Defense Conference.
The British intelligence said 3 years, six months ago. No chance the military will anything close to prepared. Consider this:
https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/entreprises/2025-11-17/commande-de-deux-traversiers/la-construction-se-fait-attendre-chez-davie.php
Not military, but same jokers.
Hate to make reference to the Glob, but:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadian-fighter-jets-f-35-mixed-fleet-defence/
My world sphere is pretty small compared to the Gurneys and Gersons of this world, but I personally know of four people who have purchased their new hips and knees in places as disparate as BC, Quebec, Lithuania and Turkey. Not wealthy people; people whose levels of pain and discomfort made the multi-year wait a worse choice than the huge personal expense.
As Matt says, we look after ourselves and our families before we give consideration to upsetting the ghost of T Douglas.
My parents are retired and affluent but far from rich. Faced with interminable waits for diagnostic procedures in Saskatchewan they elected to spend their money in North Dakota. Appointments booked, procedures done, diagnostic reports in hand in a few days.
Perhaps, rather than suggesting we need new values, we could consider merely returning to the values that held us in good stead for almost 160 years.
You had me at 'Tommy Douglas's f-n poltergeist'. LOL. I'm with you on both the hope for an Alberta public/private system, and the worries about the potential cluster-f. And I also desire real conversation about the systems we currently have, rather than what the boomers and silents rightly remember from golden eras past, but was devolving by the time most of the rest of us reached adulthood. It seems like the fact that 'universal health care' is a fiercely defended Canadian feature/value prevents us from talking about necessary upgrades. We get collectively defensive about it. . . or something like that.
Great episode. My wife and I were pissing ourselves laughing. " we tried nothing and we are all out of ideas"
A very Canadian podcast. First rule, don't offend anyone.
Religion. The reason Christianity or Judaism can be criticized freely is that the followers are generally tolerant. For some religions, criticism (Charlie Hebdo), or even suggested criticism (Samuel Paty), carries a death sentence.
Immigration. Do not confuse race with culture. Doing so ensures there can be no discussion. No-one in their right mind can be against a multiracial society. Culture is a belief system and some are mutually exclusive, so multiculturalism is doomed to fail and assimilation is required. Song, dance, food and dress are the trappings of culture, and are desirable.
The editors have no solution yet they were provided a great example of why Canada has failed. The wife of a recent interviewee remained a permanent resident as they didn't want to give up their citizenship with the fatherland. Now, as dual citizenship, she becomes a hyphenated Canadian. So, she gets to vote for a government that meets her immediate needs, and she can bail when we reap what was sowed. My children don't get to check out of the hotel that easily.
Do away with multiple citizenships. This will not disenfranchise anyone who wishes to remain Canadian (no hyphen). As for Quebec, the second part of the solution...
No argument on any of that here.
We need to become proud of our history again. That doesn't mean sanitizing it, but it does mean celebrating the amazing things we've built. We need to rediscover the pioneering spirit and identity that makes us both Canadian and gives us a vision for the future.
We need to tell stories again about how great we are. If we become too full of ourselves in the coming decades, then we can deconstruct again. But now is a time of rapid construction.
Or else we will shame our ancestors and destroy something they fought, died, sweated, and suffered to create.
We need to LEARN our history first, whether to be proud of it is a later issue.
We should be proud of what previous Canadians built. It is amazing.
On religion, I also think woke-ism (for lack of a better word) plays a role. For example, many left-leaning institutions would prefer not to confront Islam's views on homosexuality which would mean criticizing a group they consider oppressed rather than oppressors.
Views on polygamy, arranged marriages, women's rights in general and what was the age of the Prophet's youngest wife?
In Japan, dual citizenship is permitted for children who have a non-Japanese parent until the age of majority (20 there). At that point they are expected to pick one, though this may not be strictly enforced (I doubt they search for hidden passports unless there are criminal charges).
I had no problem identifying values growing up. Loyalty to my ethnicity. Loyalty to the king and the British justice system particularly the right to appeal judgements to the House of Lords . Loyalty to my family. Fair play no favoritism. The right to property. The right to worship God in your own way. The ability to arm yourself to protect your life and property. Recognizing and accepting that all groups and ethnicities have the same rights. Free speech regardless (and especially if) of how abhorrent it might be. The duty to learn English (or French in Quebec), obtain citizenship, abandon grievances from your old country if an immigrant and participate in holidays and elections.
These values started to disappear under Trudeau Senior with his social engineering and dilution of values through multiculturalism, and official bilingualism instead of recognition of two distinct societies . It’s time to bring these values back.
Christianity in schools being replaced by Indigenous ceremony. (Smudging and all, without any choice) MSM now only highlights good works/community projects
Regarding public health care: I don’t think people care about Tommy Douglas, and I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize public healthcare as a “sacred cow.” Instead, I think people are afraid of adding medical bankruptcy on top of their illness and a cost-of-living crisis. We already can’t buy a house, we’re afraid of being unable to afford treatment. We’re afraid of medical bankruptcy.
You might be, but I don't think that's the problem we have in the big picture.
Not yet, but we might just add medical bankruptcy to our existing problems without actually fixing anything.
Possible. So is the reverse.
The part about the transit disorder also really resonated with me. I'm one of the weirdos who recently voted Conservative federally and NDP provincially, and when trying to articulate why I think it comes down to voting for whoever I felt was more likely to implement a pro "abundance" agenda (the BC Conservatives pledge to reverse the NDP's pro-growth rezoning changes particularly annoyed me).
As someone who worries about climate change, likes vibrant cities and hates traffic, I want an "abundant" well-funded and highly efficient transit system. I also want highly efficient & accessible shelter and recovery systems. What I don't want is people using the transit system as the shelter & recovery system: it's inefficient, ineffective, dangerous, and counter-productive. As someone who still considers myself relatively left-leaning in many ways, the tendency for progressives to shoot ourselves in the foot by taking positions and actions that degrade trust in the institutions I want to prosper pisses me off to no end. After all, the Trudeau Liberals did more to turn Canadians against immigration than any white nationalist ever could.
Re fighters the digestible information you provided was well said!
I concur that a mixed fleet is the best, only since we have already bought 16 and started to build a bunch of the complex infrastructure (multiple billions so far) required to operate it. I would also offer that the F35 is marketed BY LM and RCAF personnel who want to be part of the 'club' as 'the best'. Further, '5th Generation' was a (very successful) LM originated marketing brand, but has no accepted definition of what the divide is between Gen 4, Gen 4.5, Gen 4.5+, Gen 4.5++, or Gen 5. Shaped structural Low Observability seems to be the default for Gen 5, but that is a whole other geek item about the tradeoffs in performance and even how LO the aircraft is depending on the radars and optical/IR/UV systems facing them. Also all LO is not built equal in all spectrums or aspects of observation of the aircraft and this is bound by a bunch of immutable physics. Nevertheless ...
The F35 is undeniably good, but it suffers from some serious developmental-upgrade issues inherent to its design approach, which are well behind delivery (US GAO reporting), costly in terms of dollars to implement (rising Can PBO program cost estimates), costly to maintain (people, infrastructure and $) and costly in terms of availability (US CBO and GAO reporting). It's the 1% use case aircraft for exorbitant cost-complexity and forever dependence on LM and the US govt.
The Gripen offers a very capable solution - possibly superior in some instances to the F35 depending on the mission and threat - including having latest generation weapons and network-fusion capabilities and it does this much more economically according to almost every estimate, at twice the availability rate. It also is fully capable of executing the NORAD mission set, including interoperability (don't listen to Hoekstra - interchangeability is not part of the agreement - he might want to actually read it) and highly useful in a NATO or other coalition operations. Its a 99% use case aircraft.
A lot of the RCAF is invested in the F35 and careers have been staked on it. It may be hard for them to be objective, but even the technical evaluation team passed both the F35 and the Gripen and then the Government went to "the finalization phase of the procurement process with the top-ranked bidder". https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/future-fighter-capability-project.html. Aka the Gripen also met the essential requirements according to the official program update!
The following also offers some perspective about the boogeyman challenges of integrating multiple fleets: The Ukrainians have/are bringing online F16s and Rafale, while still operating older Mig29 and Su27, and have a viable plan to bring online the Gripen with the 3 year lead time they have for that additional aircraft type. This is being done in the middle of a war that is close at hand. So surely the RCAF can manage a transition to F35 and Gripen with the might of LM/USAF (F35) and Saab/SWE supporting providing training and logistics support from the relative safety of North America/Europe with 3 years of lead time? If they can't that is a whole other problem.
You are also right. We need more than 88 jets total if we are going to be serious about doing our share and credible with our NATO & NORAD partners. For example the USAF has 2 Sqns of F22s, 1 Sqn of F16s and 2 Sqns of F35, plus AWACS and tankers and other supporting stuff like rescue helicopters in Alaska alone. They also have numerous Sqns and supporting assets in continental US (USAF and ANG) capable of doing the NORAD mission.
The RCAF number likely needs to somewhere near 170-180 fighters, plus AEW&C aircraft. In time of conflict/war (what we need a military for) we will need to man 5 Forward Operating Locations (6 aircraft each), have 2 Squadrons at Cold Lake and 2 Squadrons at Bagotville (defence in depth), plus a Squadron at each of Comox, Goose Bay and Greenwood to provide coastal intercept/more defence in depth and then an additional squadron to forward deploy to meet NATO (or other) commitments. This based on a squadron of 16-18 aircraft (4 flights of four (the fighting formation) plus a couple of spares).
A long diatribe to agree. LOL.
I liken the F35 to a Ferrari and the Gripen to a Mazda MX5. Both will get you where you need to go, but the Mazda costs less, requires less maintenance and coddling, and it’s still functional and fun to drive. Hopefully we don’t fall for the “we only want the most expensive toys” syndrome.
I’d probably liken it more to a Mercedes G-Wagon vs. a Hyundai Tucson. They’re both 4x4 SUVs, but I’d definitely want the G-Wagon foe serious off-road use.
One thing a a more informed friend said (I am not informed enough to weigh in one way or the other) is that the Swedish fighter thing is one big PR joke by Saab. The Gripen is an old plane, only 10 years younger than the Hornet. Yes, its upgraded but the argument is its a functional fighter now that will fill limited roles and be almost immediately out of date.
I don't know if this is true FWIW.
The Gripen was introduced in 1996 and upgraded since then. The F35 was introduced in 2002 and Canada joined the program in 2010.
What does introduction date have to do with it? You could pick manufacturing date and say two decades separate them.
The tech and operational level between them is very significant. No one argues the Grippen is outdated.
There is no verifiable way to confirm which has the 'better' technology.
The Gripen E uses a continuous upgrade with a partitioned architecture, that allows for stable flight dynamics OFP (what makes it fly and doesn't get 'messed with' every time the mission software is updated) and open architecture for the mission side of programming (what makes it do the cool things to defeat the enemy). The F35 uses an integrated software architecture (OFP and mission), which is arguably harder to adapt latest generation mission software capabilities and a ~18 month batch upgrade formula, which is less configurable to any given nations specific needs. This appears to have been problematic (and costly) and has created delays, which the Saab solution hasn't seemed to suffer from, at least yet. Therefore, despite LM marketing, the Saab appears to have more recent 'tech injection', with greater ease to continue this path than the F35. To be clear both are upgradeable for as long as the producer intends to support them, which both say is many decades to come.
Shaped LO (which the F35 has) does not mean you are more advanced, its just one of two approaches (Shaped LO versus EW) to deny a tracking solution to the enemy killing you. Here is a digestible overview of that problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CvdMbWGHTA
In the end, both are very advanced, both use some different approaches based on a number of factors and to get a good appreciation you need to cut through the marketing and look at the objective facts of the chosen design approaches and what that means for your ability to operate and afford it within the military structures you have. Arguably Canada's military structures are more akin to those of Sweden in term of size, $$, and consensus defence coalitions (e.g. NATO), especially when Canada is faced with the US pivot away from being a security guarantor.