In 2017, The Canadian government announced that it would allocate C$40 billion (US$31.6 billion) to a national housing plan to alleviate the severe lack of affordable housing. This includes building 100,000 affordable housing units, repairing another 300,000 social units that already exist and reducing homelessness by 50%.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Electoral District (2011):
@B46F8F94wks4W
No, this will not help growth for our economy. We need preapproved permits for building and housing designs.
@B35Q7K52mos2MO
I am happy to have gov't fund not-for- profit housing in Canada. I am NOT ok with gov't giving subsidies to for-profit entities to own these houses. Housing should re-use already developed land whenever possible and benefit the poorest in our society first.
Yes, not affecting farmland and green space and be reasonable affordable housing. The post war housing is a good example of affordable housing for the average family.
@9VQZSZ46mos6MO
No, the government should not subsidize but invest instead. Taking the profit from the sales to spend on healthcare and education for the area.
@9TQYT757mos7MO
The government should mandate that developers build more and fix more homes. They are being extremely lazy.
@92J77K33yrs3Y
sure for deeply affordable housing not sacrificing farmland and green space with a a focus on repair and improvment on existing housing stock
@8ZRQ7W73yrs3Y
Yes, and focus on transit-oriented development and mixed-use zoning
@8VTF7Z34yrs4Y
We don’t need more government housing
@8VSNDY24yrs4Y
Yes, but there should be a mix of different housing options, sizes that can accommodate families and affordable housing options for vulnerable, lower income and middle class.
@8VNLSJ64yrs4Y
It depends, if that is how much we need in 4 years than yes, but if we don't need 1.4 million homes why ruin the environment if we don't need to?
@8VJSLNH4yrs4Y
Yes, the government should build even more than 1.4 million new homes over the next four years.
@9CMTQB32yrs2Y
Yes, but not at the expense of farmland and green space and do more to make already existing housing more affordable.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
