I come originally from Alberta, and I have certainly met my share of people whose opinions would not be anywhere close to the centre of American politics.
Broadly the conservative right in Canada tolerates socialized medicare. They'd gladly and instantly throw it under the bus the moment it being politically possible to do it. But for now at least it's still poisonous to make those opinions known.
Former PM Stephen Harper worked for the National Citizens Coalition for a period of time, and that organization was explicitly founded in the late 70s to oppose and try to stop/end public healthcare and the Canada Health Act.
I suspect if you get them in private and off the record, most Conservative leaders would admit to desiring to see change here.
> a country which is unilingual English by policy?
To be clear the US only has a unilingual policy because Trump signed an executive order this year (and I believe even this SCOTUS would strike the order down as unconstitutional if anyone had standing to sue over it).
The US has always been de facto unilingual, but de jure we don't have an official language since Trump has no legal authority to establish that. The "policy" is political and legally empty.
The former de facto status of the US unilingual nature, even with its soft acceptance of Spanish here and there, is so far from Canada's official bilingualism it's not even in the realm of comparison.
And not anywhere close to what would be tolerable for Canada's francophone population, and especially Quebec which would simply immediately begin separation.
I am not disputing any of that, nor am I trying to put a positive spin on anything coming out of Trump. My only point was that it's misinformation to say that the US is unilingual by policy - that only became partially true in March 2025 via a toothless (and blatantly unconstitutional) executive order.
And it's not "soft acceptance of Spanish here and there," all levels of government are legally required to print official documents in whatever languages their community speaks; cities usually have ballots in dozens of languages. This is a constitutional requirement, bolstered by the Voting Rights Act, and Trump has not yet done enough damage to make those legal requirements go away via diktat.
You genuinely do not understand the level of personal freedom we have restricted in Québec to protect our language. As a francophone, I am forbidden by law to send my children to English school. Any public signage MUST have French predominantly displayed. Any company of a certain size MUST allow its workers to work in French. Any immigrant can receive government services for six months in a language other than French.
We are not kidding when we say that the American way of life and the Quebec one are incompatible. But this is all moot, the Canadian constitution would require a referendum to decapitate Canada, and that would never get the 50% vote per province that is required. Right now they'd get at most 10%.
All federally managed things & services, including travel on airlines, airporst etc, fully bilingual. All packaging of goods, across the whole country. Access to legal services, no matter where, bilingual. Highway signs, etc. The list goes on.
Here in Ontario, at least, right to full public school education in French, in the French system, if you come from a Francophone family.
The idea being that even in areas of the country that are not Quebecois or predominantly Francophone there are rights granted because of the French being part of the founding of the nation.
It's also not a coherent proposal at any level, how the hell does all of Quebec join the US, a country which is unilingual English by policy?