I think what the general was referring to is that the latest version of the F-16 has not yet experienced a catastrophic engine failure resulting in a crash, but the newest version of the F-16 has acquired relatively few hours so far. It's a bit like looking at the Saab Gripen that is produced in Sweden—it has relatively few hours of flight time, and so it's difficult to tell.
Again, fighter jet engines are massively more reliable now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. The F-35 will be more reliable than the F-104 Starfighter was. But it's a question of whether you actually factor in reliability and pilot safety as part of your consideration, all things being equal in terms of the choice of plane?
The Canadian situation is almost unique. Again, it's the second-largest country in the world, with massive Arctic and marine areas and relatively few airports. These planes do not glide well. It's all of these factors.
The same general pointed to the Norwegian situation. I've been to the Norwegian Arctic. They have incredible infrastructure. They have incredible search and rescue. They have chosen to fly single-engine fighter jets, but it's not the Canadian Arctic.