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

Yes, for the unhoused and low income. Repairs and maintenance should be done to existing properties when possible to avoid losing green space.

We need heavier regulation on developers and real estate. It doesn't matter how many houses you build if housing is not affordable. Building new housing is necessary but it's not the answer to the bigger issue.

Yes, but the homes must be affordable, energy efficiant, high density, and accessible to public services.

The priority should not be building new houses, but rebuilding and repairing existing houses, making the purchase of a house easier for citizens, leaving existing or building appropriate/enriching environments for wildlife.

Yes, including housing the homeless, not at the expense of farmland and greenspace and ALSO within reasonable prices that allow younger people and single income families to be able to afford housing.

With checks and balances in place to ensure that companies and entities other than average homebuyers cannot buy or rent out these homes for exuberant prices.

Taxes from non resident buyers should directly fund this

No single family dwellings, affordable dense multifamily homes.

As long as these houses won't cost millions of dollars

The government should work to make existing house more accessible by reducing foreign ownership particularly of inner city real-estate, restrict AirBnB and assist first time home buyers.

Only for low income and homeless.

No, there's too many people as there is, we will eventually run out of space for farming to support our already overcrowded world

Yes, but ensure that they cannot be purchased by landlords or corporations

Yes, as affordable housing those living under a certain tax bracket/homeless

Only if it's affordable housing for low-income families. Not overseas investors.

Yes, as long as these houses are affordable to the average Canadian income. Else it is wasted effort.

Yes, to support the homeless, but not at the expense of our farmland and green space. There should also be an excess of planning and though put into the infrastructure.

what does subsidize mean?

Update houses that have been abandoned or are to be torn down. Help veterans Houses are being built too close together, it’s getting crowed

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

Don't have much knowledge on the subject

You do you

Yes, but only if foreign and corporate ownership is prevented during those 4 years

Some but more echo frendly

Mini homes to house the homeless population.

Half the number.

Maybe Less homes

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

they should as long as it is low-income housing that is affordable for everyone.

yes, 1.4 million new affordable homes.

Yes but they should also ensure that deforestation will not become more of a problem

yes but they shouldnt destroy wilderness in the process

Houses should be built to fit the demand

Yes but withiit destroying ancient or old areas which include old growth trees all forests or old areas and neiborhoods

Build more affordable housing.

Yes, BUT THEY NEED TO BE AFFORDABLE!!!

No, the housing market has to equalize instead of rising outside what most people can afford.

I don’t think government should be in the business of building houses. I would prefer measures that would assist people to buy homes such as,
Assistance to purchase first home, grants, down payments etc ( means test)
Increase minimum wage
Guaranteed annual income
Cap on rents
Lower or no tax on income of low wage earners

Only if it is affordable, public housing.

Add accordingly

As long as the homes vary in value, yes. We don't need 1.4 million dollars spent on building houses that no new home buyers can purchase in our current economy. Look at building more income inclusive housing.

Yes, but limit single family homes and promote mixed use communities

I would agree as long as they are affordable homes so single parents or single parties can afford.

Yes, but for low-income families and with a priority on isolated communities who have inadequate housing

Yes, Provided the housing is public

Yes. Priority should be given to first time home buyers.

Affordable housing such as garden suites and couch houses and there should be no development fees for these homes as some municipalities charge these fees i.e. Brant County Tiny house communities

Yes, but only if they are affordable for low-income citizens OR they should lower costs of current homes that are empty

Yes, but do it in a responsible way with less of a negative effect on the environment

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

affordable housing

Repair and rebuild existing houses and properties, make more affordable housing for low-income and homeless people.

Yes, but only if they also build affordable housing as well.

Yes, as long as it avoids urban sprawl and promotes green, net-zero infrastructure

I do not support the subsidization of private homes, but rather more midsized rental apartments.

Yes, but the housing must be high density and affordable

Yes, but geared to low income people

For Veterans.

Maintain the historical properties that exist, there are many empty homes. The problem is affordability.

Yes, as long as it’s eco friendly

They should be working on how to get clean water to indigenous communities

Old homes and spaces should be made new rather than expanding cities

yes but only for those in poverty that can’t afford big homes or homes without proper assets, like clean water

Unless it's necessary, but 1.4 million new homes being built in the next 4 years seem a bit much.

As long as it wont destroy an ecosystem or anything like that.