conspiratemus1

I'm assuming you are both trading good-natured tongue-in-cheek shots at each other. But still....

1) Mass transit is often too crowded with Greta Thunberg clones and other budget-conscious travelers squatting in the parts of railway cars nominally designated for bikes for it to be bike-friendly in practice. I like trains. We've tried to use trains to get around after arrival at our gateway airport, but it's just too damned difficult, compared to getting a connecting flight.
2) Free university is worth about what you pay for it. The selective, competitive schools that give you an entrée into the well-paid bureaucratic and financial echelons of the social-democratic utopia are most assuredly NOT free. And still weak enough on STEM that the French are starting to have angst about it. Irrelevant to travelers and visitors in any case.
3) Universal health care is relevant for residents, not for tourists. If you get sick or injured or want elective surgery as a visitor, you will pay retail. Just like in Canada.
4) " . . .Social safety net so you don't have the crime. . ." ?? Evidence that this sneaky implication of causality is true? Britain's NHS covers everyone, even for dental care, and in many families, no one has worked, ever, in 3 generations. Yet alcohol- and meth- fueled knife crime in the post-industrial northern cities (where tourists don't visit) is a serious problem for residents. Tourists in busy destinations in Europe (esp. Prague, Rome, Naples, Nice) are often victims of usually non-violent crime, although you can be injured by a purse snatcher on a Vespa, even though much of the country seems to be on benefits. Buying off the criminal class might reduce predation of wealthier neighbourhoods by the dangerous classes, but doesn't seem to have much bribery value when the town is full of distracted and careless tourists. And even in meek and mild Canada, a German tourist was shot in the head by local no-goodniks as he was just driving along with his family on an Alberta highway on their way to visit the Rocky Mountains, Because the perps are a protected species, they are still living free along that road, which bicyclists would normally use as the alternative to the Trans-Canada Highway to ride to Banff. But mostly tourists to France stay out of the banlieus of Paris and tourists to North America stay out of Flint and Rexdale (Toronto). On both sides of the Atlantic tourists can afford to avoid the bad neighbourhoods, the residents can't. The welfare state has very little to do with the risk of a tourist getting robbed at gunpoint.

Even with the Soviets on their borders from 1945, Europeans knew that Americans were more existentially fearful of "losing" Europe to communism than Europeans were themselves. So they played you: they spent their Marshall Plan money and then their tax money (as reborn capitalism made them rich) on welfare instead of on their own defense, knowing that you would fight the Sovs for them if it came to that. But now that America doesn't really care about Russia any more, what happens to the assumption that America will risk nuclear war with them over Latvia or Turkey (or Canada.) What happens to the welfare state if defense spending in Europe (or Canada) has to rise to 5-6% of GDP to counter an aggressive Russia (or China)?

No country in Europe any more is "socialist", in the correct sense that the state owns the means of production. Britain came close when it nationalized so many dying industries after the War. But the legacy of socialism's toxic labour relations lives on in the form of wildcat strikes (and protests by farmers angry about cutbacks in subsidies) that can seriously wreck a visitor's travel plans. By "socialism", most North Americans mean the high redistributive taxes it takes to fund a European-level welfare state. These are important drivers of costs of travel as a visitor in Europe, without any compensating benefit. Indeed, high taxes levied on tourists the world over help fund the welfare state for the locals. (The most popular taxes are those paid by someone else.)
But Europe, especially "egalitarian" Scandinavia, may be having second thoughts about their redistributive taxation, now that they see it being harvested by new arrivals (migrants and asylum-seekers) who don't look like them and who don't participate in the labour force (i.e., work.) Lars doesn't mind being taxed heavily to pay for Sven's unemployment benefit or his kids' free day care, because he trusts that Sven will do the same for Lars when Lars is out of work. But Sami and Ahmed haven't worked since they arrived in Stockholm, and they and their children draw benefits all the time. Most of Europe (other than the U.K.. and France from their former colonies) is not used to having legal, invited immigrants from faraway places who speak your language. The notion that people who look different can be productive Swedish citizens helping to fund the welfare state is not a commonplace there. So when unskilled migrants who speak no Swedish fetch up in large numbers, liberal Sweden becomes very illiberal indeed. This is the dark side of redistributive social welfarism: the consensus breaks down when an identifiable group seems to be all takers and no makers.