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):
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.
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.
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.
We need more mass-housing, however it should not be at the expense of green space nor farmland
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
if its nessesary and people need homes but only if we have too because we dont need to waste resources.
Yes if people are going to live in them.
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
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, 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.
dont build new houses unless it is needed or to house the homeless
The government should help companies that build homes. The government shouldn't build the homes.
Yes, but "build-up" where possible and try not to take over large amounts of new land.
yes, but in an eco-friendly way
Yes, with volunteers.. if any.
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
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.
Yes, but only if they are affordable homes, not micro units with greedy property developer landlords
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
