Clearly, you have no knowledge of the requirements of the Canadian forces. I will point out that Canada has more coastline than the US and China (combined), and a carrier (of any sort) would be the right thing for Canada to operate.
Fuck whatever a "budget" or "mission requirement" means my nation deserves supercarriers because coastline and tacticool
- every post complaining about why their country needs supercarriers, summed down to its true points
Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.
The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations
There are two very fundamental differences between the type of fixed-wing carriers Canada used to operate, and the type of carriers the USN operates now (i.e., "supercarriers," which is why I used that word, very specifically). And those differences boil down to "cost" and "manpower." According to Wikipedia and some quick math, a single Nimitz is worth a whole damn quarter of
Canada's. Entire. Military. Budget. And that's before you factor in manpower. Enterprise costs around half a billion dollars just to decommission.
A supercarrier is not under the mission requirements of the Canadian Navy. Supercarriers are not used to patrol coastline. Supercarriers are used to conduct offensive strikes against enemy assets. This is their primary mission.