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

First money should be used rebuilding old empty homes then all new buildings must be affordable and a mixture of single family homes and apartments and seniors housing. All green buildings.

Yes for low income and homeless individuals. There needs to be an income cut off such as for individuals making under $125,000 per year amd only on first primary residence.

No. Cut the red tape and keep costs of industry down to prevent the rapid increase in housing prices and labour.

Target subsidies for affordable and workforce housing, rather than general market housing.

Pair subsidies with zoning reforms to speed up construction and reduce red tape.

Introduce policies to discourage real estate speculation, ensuring new homes go to residents, not investors.

Require a mix of housing types, including rentals, starter homes, and family-friendly units.

Ensure infrastructure funding is included to support new developments with roads, schools, and public services.

Yes, only for those buyers to own it not for landlords. Also no wonky definition of affordable - it has to be affordable for a family working 2 minimum wage jobs

No, and deport 10-15 million foreigners. We do not need to build more homes for all the foreigners that are coming here, we need to close the border and kick out 10-15 million people who do not belong here and we’re let in when they shouldn’t have been. Citizenships and other legal documents must be nulled and revoked. Deport them all immediately.

Rebuild and repair existing homes while subsidizing housing for the homeless, veterans, and low-income.

A crown corporation should own the homes to provide break even return on investment for the government and to force down property values while providing affordable rental housing.

Yes Funding the building of new homes, but they can only be purchased or used by people born in Canada or a Canadian Citizen of ten years or more.

The amount of homes being built versus the jobs available at despicable rates is disgraceful. This question ties in to several others, and the focal point for the general population is that nothing about any current policies benefits them.

No, not until the housing that is currently sitting vacant because of greedy people can be properly distributed to those indeed of housing

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

No. Eliminate red-tape, zoning laws, and other inhibiting factors that make developments challenging and expensive.

No, new homes should be built by the private builders. The government doesn't have a good track record of building low cost projects. The Government could assist with resourcing, including allowing skilled foreign workers to come into Canada to work on the projects.

subsidize those that needs it, those who are stable can continue to live their own while those that needs help can get financial help if they are offering that kind of support. help the homeless and they can increase the quality of life in the country.

The government should place a cap on how many properties an individual can own to prevent the rich from buying up and renting out all of the affordable houses.

Yes but not at the expense of farm land and the taxes or interest rate should not get more expensive

I believe that our urban centres need densification. Suburbs are harming urban centres. There should also be a national vacancy tax on homes not being lived in, and regulations on homeowners who own multiple homes and income properties

Yes to the homeless, however the government should take into consideration how much money that will cost, and go into that process it in small sections.

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.

I think the government should, only to help the homeless but we also cannot afford it. The government should subsidize after national debt is payed off and people aren't struggling to live on minimum wage.

Only build if we need to, to be able to house everyone. Focus on rebuilding and repairing what we have instead.

No, and reduce inflation, stop immigration, and send everyone who’s immigrated here in the last 10 years back to their home countries so that we can have our country back for ourselves—less people is what we need, not more homes.

Only if the new home buyer is a first time buyer, and only if they make below the average Canadian wage.

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

I feel that society should rebuild and repair old houses FOR the homeless, I feel that less commercial construction needs to take place and the homing crisis needs to be solved.

Depends on the type of housing. There's no point if it's only single family units in neighbourhoods that prioritize high property value. Needs to be units that are affordable for first time buyers. There also probably needs to be rents caps so that working class people aren't priced out.

yes and no, although they will be cutting down homelessness, with all the money they are spending that we don't have the cost of living will shoot up even more due to the government making our dept even greater making living even more expensive for the rest of the country.

Yes but with strict policies that the homes cannot be owned by foreign investors or corporations that stand to make a profit. The homes should be for citizens who require housing and are having trouble getting this as it is due to shortages and affordability.

We should first rebuild or repair existing houses and make some of them apartments for homeless and then start building new homes but not at the expense of farmland.

Yes, but to house the homeless and less fortunate and not at the expense of farmland and green space

We need to provide communal and security- based homes for the homeless and also leave land for farming.

Yes, and repair/ rebuild existing homes or transform unused/ unnecessary buildings into affordable housing while being environmentally cautious

The government needs to slow down the rate of immigration because we don't have the number of homes and infrastructure to support all the population growth.

Yes, but limited mostly to affordable housing and enforce a maximum 10% non-resident percentage per region.

The government should stop constructing housing and leave the work for private companies. If you can't afford to construct your own house it's because you don't contribute enough to society.

Yes, as long as the money is used to make housing cheaper for person residential use and not for rentals

this would be nice but isn't it just ruining the earth more? (I like trees and nature, but I don't always want to see homes)

The government should subsided affordable environmentally and economically stable housing. Multiple family residents and apartment based housing. Single family home should be second in line for subsides.

No, instead all immigration should be halted in order to stop the increasing demand for houses and other goods

No, the other way is to incentivize and reduce beaurucratic wait times of the government process

We should only do it within the safety of the environment, be without excess, and be helping repair already-existing homes.

I feel like this could be a great thing, but mostly depends on where the houses get built. If they build them in Toronto or Vancouver then they're going to be way overpriced, but if they're built in smaller, rural areas, people would actually be able to afford living there.

Yes, but only because we are facing a housing crisis.

Build smaller homes for those less wealthy but not at the expense of all green space and farmland.

Yes, but dont only house the homeless, house the homeless first.

The government should fund more housing projects so low income, homeless people and even middle class people stuck renting have the ability to buy a cheap home. These homes should be tiny homes and use sustainable energy. Canada is short on housing so we should be spending way more money on building homes for people to stay. It would be great if they were sustainable and affordable and tiny houses are really cheap to make.

The government should have nothing to do with the housing market. Give it to private construction companies, but make them have a contract that they have to build so many houses a year, and have a decent market price set and let the rate either go up or down from there.

No, rebuild or repair existing housing and ensure at least some of the subsidy makes it down to the consumer instead of entirely benefiting the manufacturer.

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

yes but to house the homeless and poor people and not at the expense of farmland and green spaces

Yes but to help the middle class and the homeless and stop bringing in all these immigrants taking over our homes 🏠

im in the middle

No, those homes are for africans

Reduce immigration first.

yes and no, only to house the homeless and not at the expense of farm land and green space but we also should rebuild and repair existing houses too.

I'm neutral about it

I want a house filled with marbles

Only for low income and homeless.

If we need to build that many new home's, then yes.

The government should have no role in subsidizing building. Funds should come from the private sector.

better city planning to accomodate housing while making space for greenery still.

Yes, but only for low income families

Yes, but high density public housing

If subsidies are provided, they should be geared towards the building of high density residential areas to reduce the environmental impact of a community and to provide more housing on the same footprint, hopefully bringing costs down

subsidize the building of homes for lower-income that are affordable for average people to live in

Should be a combination of repairing per-existing as well adding new to help limit urban sprawl. Any net new added should be apartment/condo to use new space as efficiently as possible. If the building being repaired falls into the abandoned or condemned category it should be repaired and turned into low income housing to help combat homelessness.

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 most places are left empty, leaving empty space that could be filled with useful buildings

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

only build 100 million dollar homes

No, not at the expense of the environment.

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

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

To support with providing affordable housing to people. Housing should be occupied.

Only if it is for people who are homeless or poor, and not at the expense of farmland and does not require deforestation

Take very old houses and break them down to build a new house there

yes, however it must not come at the expense of the environment and should be prioriized to people whom are struggling to qualify for a home regardless of generally economic standing. (think "millennials cant buy homes")

No because I want the borders closed, we already have more people then our infrastructure can handle, 1.4 million new homes means 1.4 million more problems for the current citizens trying to be happy in over populated areas.

No, work on increasing wages to keep up with housing

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

The problem with real-estate right now is that the price of land, supplies, and work is too high to justify low-income housing.

Yes, if it's affordable.

No, the government should not be in the business of building homes unless the project directly gives back to economy

Yes, but they should focus on affordable housing that would be catering to first-time home buyers. As the housing market is currently overrun by, expensive properties that only more financially established individuals can afford.

There are more relative issues at stake

If the regulations regarding the home building industry are changed to adjust with this policy, then yes

Housing should be upgraded in city centres, but city limits should not be exceeded.

we need more affordable homes however we do not need that many unless half are reserved for veterans

You do you

They should incentivize building 1.4 million homes

Only if the demand for housing requires that.

There is a cap on how many homes a home owner can own.

Mini homes to house the homeless population.

Housing should be evaluated on a need basis

Build accessible, affordable, adapted and modified homes

affordable homes yeah.

Subsidized housing within larger condo complexes

New homes for who?