I feel it important to point out that rental laws in particular are provincial, not federal. Which is why Ontario and BC were the only provinces to have any kind of vacancy control, and which is why Ontario removed it 13 years after BC did. So unless that link includes provincial members of parliament as well, what you’re showing me is a list of people who are benefiting from a system they don’t have the authority to change.

Also: Please try not to explain ableism to someone who’s experienced it. You’re not going to route out discrimination by making it illegal. That’s been done already. Changing the ownership structure of a property doesn’t make that property more likely to accept a disabled tenant. Neither does making shelter a right (the TL; DR of that argument: “you have the right to a house, but not this house”). Now, if you want to talk about improving the rental or homeownership situation for everyone, then we can absolutely have that conversation. If you want to talk about abolishing homeownership entirely, we’re going to have a different conversation.

I did read your comment. You did not clarify what you meant. And I did not follow your link because it lacked context.

Nothing you’ve actually described is explicitly anti-property. In fact, some of what you’ve described - for example, rental regulations - is already in place and not actually helping. For instance it’s been illegal to discriminate against the disabled for decades. So they don’t. Instead, they discriminate against your credit score (not protected), whether or not you make a minimum income (not protected), whether or not you can obtain positive references (not protected), etc, all of which are more likely to affect the disabled.

One thing that would absolutely help would be rent control that includes vacancy control. Ontario used to have that. Without it, the current rent control legislation only protects me as long as I stay here. It doesn’t protect you if I move out and you move in.

Everything’s more expensive these days. I’ve been in this place a decade and my Premier hasn’t fucked that up yet, so it’s not as expensive for me as it should be. But, the fact that my Premier could still fuck that up tomorrow is precisely why I don’t trust a government solution to that problem.

I mean, find a party that actually wants proper government-run housing and you’ll change my mind. Alternatively, you can explain what you mean by being anti-property if not that. Because, as a person with a disability who’s experienced both the housing and support, I can throw pretty much every government in this country farther than I trust them.

Mom and pop landlords, perhaps? That’s why I avoid those.

Because renting from the government isn’t a good option either. I’ve done that and you couldn’t pay me to do it again. If I’m gonna be stuck renting, give me a landlord who’s motivated to fix shit when I say it’s broken. That is emphatically not the government.

So your opinion is that the “research” put forward in favour of separation should be taken seriously? Because that’s what engaging with it is doing.

Does the Quebec versus Canada framing also have no basis in truth? Was Canada wrong for allowing Quebec to have the autonomy it currently has? Because that’s what Harper’s spent years arguing for, including with his Alberta firewall letter addressed to Alberta’s at the time not separatist Premier. I mean, I personally don’t think Quebec should be allowed to have and run its own pension plan, but it does. If that’s something Alberta’s demanding, can we really be surprised?

How does “Alberta should have more autonomy” translate to “Alberta should leave Canada”? That’s the dot your line’s missing.

I keep meaning to watch Letterkenny, but always end up getting distracted by something else. Perhaps I’ll give that a look.

I may or may not also be from small town Ontario, which may or may not be how I heard of Letterkenny.

There’s no gymnastics required because every time Ottawa oversteps (their words, not mine), they get pissed off. And they usually think Ottawa is overstepping when Ottawa starts telling Alberta what it can do or not do with its resources. It happened in the 80’s (NEP), it happened in the 90’s (Kyoto Accord), and it happened in 2016 (no business case). The difference is in the80’s and 90’s the Alberta government itself wasn’t advocating for separation. Smith, today, is doing exactly that, and all of the changes made to the original 2021 law that enabled this referendum were made by Smith’s government.

I’ll look them up. Wanna give me the Cliff’s notes?

No gymnastics required. There’s been a separatist thread running through Alberta since it joined confederation. Literally they were complaining about Canada controlling what Alberta could do with Alberta’s resources in 1905. They’ve just never had actual government support. Quebec is exactly the opposite - most of the last 50 years was a PQ government, including the 1995 referendum, and it went about as you’d expect it to.

Oh, I’m not faulting anyone. It’s just an example of why this whole thing is lowkey dumb. If you’re on a strict “buy Canadian” diet, you get half a good TV series. Having watched the whole thing before things got lowkey dumb, that’s kind of a ripoff.

Wanting more autonomy for Alberta is not the same as wanting Alberta to leave Canada. The UCP is absolutely a separatist party. The CPC, while absolutely going full MAGA, is not. And I’ve not seen any actual evidence yet that Harper falls in either camp. Happy to be corrected, though.

I’m gonna need a very large citation on that.

And in about 15 minutes someone’s gonna come by and tell me to avoid Loblaws. In about half an hour someone else is gonna come by and tell me to avoid Metro. Those are kind of the options in most of the country.

The first three seasons of the expanse are on CBC Gem.

The other half of the series is only on Prime.

Reform party =/= Separatist party. He’s been advocating for more autonomy for Alberta, not Alberta separation. Come Monday you’ll get to see what an actual separatist party looks like.

Yup, which is why we should have been diversifying decades ago. Kudos to Carney for doing it now, but like… this really shouldn’t be the conversation in 2026.