Should the government subsidize the building of 1.4 million new homes over the next four years?

We don’t need new houses as much as we need incentives for existing structures, mortgage affordability, etc.

The house ownership should be under the government to provide people who have difficulty with housing, and after they finish their usage the house should return to the government to pass to other people that have this kind of issue. Public rental housing, like Singapore.

Yes. Ensure that housing is provided to homeless and those in lower socioeconomic settings. Preventing access to this housing for corporate entities and high net worth individuals

Yes, but to fix the current housing costs and vacancies first, however, the homeless should be able to receive lower cost housing as they begin to get back on their feet.

Yes, but prioritize the rebuilding or repairing of existing houses and new homes should not come at the expense of farmland and green space.

Builders who make a fortune off of new home sales should be included in this equation and not just tax payer dollars.

Yes, but do not allow them to be sold to foreign investors and sit empty

Yes, more to the homeless. Repair already made homes.

Yes, but only to house the homeless, and not at the expense of farmland and green space.

Can rebuild existing damaged houses and provide home to the homeless. Do not build too much homes so it will help in reducing pollution and overuse of resources.

We need more mass-housing, however it should not be at the expense of green space nor farmland

Yes, but carefully planned to minimise environmental impacts, urban sprawl and over intensification (superficially contradictory, I know, but if it was easy I'd be a politician). The goal would be to add more affordable housing to the market.

both to housing th homeless and farmland and green space

both housing the homeless and not at the expense of farms or green space

Yes, but not with the money they collect from taxes

Not in developed markets; other solutions are needed there

We should actively aim to build more housing for Canadians as we're going to need it in the future to help solve the affordability crisis, but also welcome new residents to Canada. I also worry about government organizations doing this entirely by themselves, as we've seen government often neglect services like this. Not to say that the private sector is any better, as there are problems with homeowner's associations within apartments/condos and gated communities that have to wait years to get something fixed, but at least there's the option of moving out or actively finding solutions to repair things so that they don't get neglected. So yes, we should build housing but we should be very cautious in how we implement it, and make sure that we're not causing new problems in doing so.

if its nessesary and people need homes but only if we have too because we dont need to waste resources.

Deregulate and let industry deliver.

Yes, condos

Yes if people are going to live in them.

I would say that it should be a mix of all three of these answers. If it houses the homeless, that's always good to get someone a safe place to live. If it is within a city, and trying to make the downtown area more densified, that's always a good thing for the environment, and we should also encourage people to open up their homes to people looking to rent, within reason as they don't always feel safe doing so. But yes, I would say building 1.4 million homes is a good idea, as we are going to need them, and though it might not solve everything with the affordability crisis, we can at least increase demand, and do other things like stopping speculation buying.

No, the government should withhold funding to municipalities that don't build more housing

Yes, so long as it respects the territorial rights of Indigenous communities, is within financial limits, and includes Indigenous communities as a part of the recipients

I think we should focus more on climate change and adding new houses will greatly increase the amount of greenhouse gases that produce.

Yes, and focus on transit-oriented development and mixed-use zoning

Yes, so long as they are affordable and within designated build sites, while avoiding traditional Indigenous lands and public greenspaces.

Depending on the situation and what it's used for. Right now you could probably reduce that in half and focus on bigger issues like the Covid-19.

Yes, but only for those who cannot afford new homes by themselves

Yes, to house the homeless or poor, but not that many houses

yes they should, but apart of this housing it should not be at the expense of farmland or green space they should make houses affordable for the people who don't have a high income.

Develop new homes in less developed areas to reduce the amount of congestion in certain cities.

it depends because if they make it expensive no-one would be able to but it

yes, to lower the housing market. i simply cannot handle this bubble.

dont build new houses unless it is needed or to house the homeless

they should make more houses but not take up to much land

Absolutely, if they will be an actually affordable price.

Only if it is going to be used for homeless or low-income families who are in need of private shelter

build more

The government should help companies that build homes. The government shouldn't build the homes.

No. Help private enterprise build more

Yes, but they need to be affordable for the city they are in.

Yes, but "build-up" where possible and try not to take over large amounts of new land.

depends on the population , but building more houses means more jobs options and the list goes on

yes, but in an eco-friendly way

Yes, with volunteers.. if any.

Build more homes but not that much

Less than a million

If there is a need for it, yes

I believe that building affordable housing is important, and I support this if it's low-income housing, but if it's insanely priced houses then I don't.

If more houses are needed yes. Maybe make some of them for the public for homeless people.

So long as you don't build on farmland that supports are environment and ecosystem

Yes, but in more remote areas

Yes, build new areas across cities, instead of populating already busy cities

Build homes for low income individuals

i feel like it would deal with the homeless population but we would run out of resources

Yes, if it is low income housing to eradicate homelessness.

yes, but only for the homeless.

Yes but not at the expense of farmland and green space and only to house the homeless

Yes, but not at the expense of green space and farmland. It should also be affordable for everyone.

Yes if it benefits people

no, no more homes let the people die so theres less of them please

Yes, 250,000 houses are a better number

a mix of building some new ones and rebuilding old one's also where no farm or green space's are.

Maybe fewer due to forestry and farmland

Yes if they are not just condos, but proper homes/houses for people to live, and build outside of major cities,

Yes, but they should be careful of where they build new homes.

Instead of government, make it easier for future home owners to build new homes.

Spooder man

Yes, but only if they are affordable homes, not micro units with greedy property developer landlords