100% agree. Private, inheritable land ownership in the context of a population that doesn’t all enter the game at the same time with the same resources available to them is inherently unjustifiable.

That’s a very good point. Telecom infrastructure is so important. And because it’s privately owned, it’s not extended to every corner of Canada or in communities in far regions. We rely on things like Musk’s Starling to bring internet to northern communities.

When electricity was made public in Québec under René Levesque with Hydro Québec, the broken down private electricity production and distribution networks were fixed, updated and expanded across the province. It’s become the pride of Québec and a god damn good example of how these essential services need to be provided.

Eeeh… I dunno. I kind of disagree with that one. I think it’s important to allow people to own their own piece of land. Otherwise everyone can risk being evicted from their home by the government and I don’t like that idea.

Limiting how much land people can own though… Like how many residential properties. That I could go for.

Isn’t that already the case though? Aren’t hospitals and schools mostly public except for a few private ones?

Maybe make them ALL public and forbid any private for-profit health care and education facilities. This will force the more priviledged to invest in that system if they want the best service for themselves and their children.

Didn’t some Scandinavian country do this already?

bring back nortel! oh wait…

lol people would go wild if that was even muttered on the news

How I read the question is what should be nationalised, not what else should be.

“everyone can risk being evicted from their home by the government”

A) The government already has a tool to do that, in Canada it’s called “expropriation” and they happen fairly regularly.

B) That’s actually a feature of this system. People buying up land and never leaving is actually one of the major problems with our current real estate prices. In areas of high demand, if the government just terminated leases and then forced those properties to be developed we wouldn’t have the pricing issues we have now. Does this hurt people? yes, but also not nearly as much. Given that property would be much more affordable under such a scheme moving elsewhere wouldn’t be nearly as difficult.

I agree, but it needs to still be talked about.

People still think we can build our way into affordable homes, which is impossible. Alternatives like this would actually deliver affordable housing, but you’re right that a lot of people would be unhappy about it.

I mean… they can already evict people from land they privately own. It’s called “expropriation” and it happens fairly regularly in Canada.

Not sure why this would change anything related to that.

No because of the distribution side. Unless the dustribution also goes COOP. But you asked for nationalization. Loblaws does both distribution and retail so narionalizing it solves the problem.

There’s a difference between hospitals being public and health care services being public. Drugs for chronic conditions. Dentistry. Optometry. Psychiatric services. Proper handling of transport costs for people not living in large cities who urgently need to see a specialist (Ontario’s reimbursement program for that is joke-worthy). Hospital equipment—constant fundraisers to replace things should not be required. There’s so much stuff that falls between the cracks under the current setup that really should be covered by the government.

Aaah OK I see your point. And, yes, I agree with you there.

Plus, a lot of property taxes and other local/regional usage income can be rolled up into the lease payments. What matters is how those leases are calculated, such that small/cheap properties for the working poor lease for almost nothing, but a McMansion (or actual mansion) would lease for a massive amount.

no, this would not pass, a small minority might be ok with, but the vast majority of millennials and gen Z/Alpha would shoot this down

Why? Most of those groups don’t even own property, and many aren’t ever likely to be able to afford it.

There’s some pretty pissed off young people out there.

government taking control of land where you live = communism to the general public.

In my opinion, almost ALL taxes should be rolled into this, including most income taxes. Remove all the income tax brackets below 2x the median income, and roll that amount into these lease costs. Working families should essentially get net 0, and people who own a McMansion and are retired just pay more for the privilege or sell it and downsize like they should.

That’s an education problem. The government already controls the land.

I understand your point. But I’m worried about government abusing this.

Yeah you can be expropriated, but usually you either get a fair compensation or have legal tools to defend yourself to a certain extent no?

I think my problem is that I have a certain fear of not being able to own my own piece of land because it’s the most essential things to own. It’s your own little part of the world where you are in control.