This is why I'm so tired of people here acting like Trump is our biggest problem. This admin got in merely because it was critical of him when the PC's could not, and with a majority, they've been able to push some extremely harmful policies. They've been waiting decades for conditions to be this favourable.

Hasn't been passed yet, but yeah it made it through the House of Commons despite opposition.

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-22

Listen, I'm not gonna give this much more attention because I really don't think you're the kind of person who's super open to criticism of this system.

So, yes, the federal government does have a massive influence on what is guaranteed to citizens, and definitely funnels money into specific subsidy programs that meets shelter insecurity with support for private capital. It does not need to be the sole regulator for shelter for us to consider how the material interests of its members conflicts with our own. Even if it was irrelevant, this same information should spur you on to question whether your understanding of this system is appropriately taking into account the disparity in material interests between you and regulators.

If you humoured that curiosity for just a minute, you'd have seen that, yes, they also have a list of provincial reps, on the same site, within a click of what I sent you: https://www.readthemaple.com/provincial-landlords/

What you're doing is contriving some defense of liberalism that somehow naturalizes its institutions and it's dysfunction, which is a markedly circular argument that I find uncommon in vulnerable people who are forced to navigate this system. Don't act like you're interested in anything having to do with improving renters' conditions if you won't even put in the work to investigate the system you're talking about.

Have fun reading these, I won't read whatever you send next.

🫩

it's a link to the Maple's list of property-owning MP's, y'know, the people who legislate property and rental laws. In the context of my comment, it indicated that this isn't because vaguely "the government" is an issue, but that landlords are in the government, and since this is a system oriented around property as a commodity and thus the precarity of shelter, that means that they are highly incentivized to increase the value of rental properties commercial or residential.

You'll also notice that I've mentioned the ableism specifically, as it emblemizes the cruelty of a system where shelter insecurity is required for people to be "motivated" to work, and people who cannot work are never guaranteed sufficient welfare support. These are not disconnected things.

Read through these fully, as people disagreeing with you do not always do so for the reasons and in the ways that you assume they will.

I don't get how it's sarcasm if you seem to genuinely subscribe to the idea that market forces ever determined the prices of necessities. Did you just mean the last bit about competition was sarcastic? Wouldn't that mean the opposite is assumed to be the appropriate value?

Then actually read my comment.

I'm getting the impression that you didn't even read my comment or follow the link.

Anti-property could certainly involve socialized housing, but does not necessarily involve that. Property is a fundamental element in our social and political systems, and serves as a basis for every form of discrimination that exists within those systems. Anti-property could be limiting that effect -- via rental regulation, shelter security subsidies, more robust social welfare programs to mitigate the harm and likelyhood of shelter insecurity (like disability) -- or abolishing the concept altogether through yes, public ownership of shelter, but also through mutual aid and kinship organizing. The reason why I wasn't specific is because I don't necessarily subscribe to a specific set of politics to respond to the issue as much as I recognize the need for Canadians to address property as a fundamental threat to human life, instead of a glitch in the system.

Yes, I know, I gave one explanation as to why it would be bad in its current form on purpose.

Oh yeah wow, I wonder if there's a reason why socialized housing in Canada would be unpleasant.

This isn't what I was suggesting either way, at least not directly, but I think it's very funny to live in Canada and talk about landlords being motivated to fix things even though they're hoarding shelter, and say that's better because the same system that has purposefully insufficient disability support programs also doesn't seem to want public housing to be comfortable; it's almost like they'd do it on purpose.

Somebody better talk to that "government," and get them to shake their heads straight, amirite? https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/

Pretty much, yeah. Legalized weed kinda nicks the easy-access inebriation that alcohol was kind of reliant on as a market, and then there's just more and more data that illustrates just how harmful alchohol is even with low consumption. Plus, booze is just really expensive here. If you're in Ontario, it is like 40-50 bucks for a 40z spirit, or about 4-5 bucks per tall boy. Comparatively, I can grow a few weed plants in my backyard for less than 150 bucks in the plants and supplies, and provide for the whole village if I wanted to.

Then why the hell aren't more of you anti-property?

edit: Somebody responded with something funnier than I expected, and I'm leaving this here because I can actually see it being something some of you read and agree with without ever thinking twice. There's a lot of good reasons why public housing isn't a very pleasant way to live, but this is definitely my favourite to talk about when people start saying landlords are motivated to do anything for them: https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/

me when the eldritch being that I commune with reveals that empathy, anti-fascism, decolonialism, and tolerance of immigration are all con shit, actually: