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

Yes, but under 3 conditions 1) House the homeless 2) Without harming the environment and others 3) When we are financially able to do so

Not enough single family homes, too many multi family homes being built, too many houses being demolished to make room for multiple homes on the property

we should make it a process, like we get enough money and build those houses accordingly, then the process of that continues until we reach our goal

Yes, we are in a housing crisis caused by shortages right now, the government should help subsidize the building of the homes with private companies, in return the companies should reduce the price of homes once they hit the market so young Canadians are able to afford.

Yes, but only for low-income people and homeless people and not at the expense of farmland and green space.

Yes! For the sole purpose that the government are to blame for an increase in Canadas population with limited housing. One of the issues leading to Canadas housing crisis!

Yes, but only for young students(or people under the age of 25) that are struggling with finding a place to live

Yes, we should aim to exceed that number and build half as many multi unit complexes such as high, mid and low rise apartments, duplex, multiplex, townhomes and condos.
we must also repair and rebuild existing homes and housing units as well.
in total we should aim to build 10 million new housing units by 2050, 1-2 million ideally by 2030.

yes, but not at the expense of green space, actually affordable housing, homeless housing, and rebuilding and repairing already existing housing

No with an emphasis on encouraging communities to allow small backyard housing with not extra charge for infrastructure (ie: garbage, water, sewer, etc) And yes in the form of tax credits for building or adding a suite or backyard structure to an existing home.

No but they should provide crown land for development of hoseing by others as long as they can meet certain cost criteria. These development should be created as seperate municipalities away from dense populated areas

Deregulate the process of gaining development approval, so private developers can build homes quicker and cheaper.

I would say yes, but the need for more affordable housing is a bigger need and if houses are being built for millions of dollars, I would think that the price of the houses would be pretty crazy.

Yes, but it should go towards housing the homeless, much lower than market value home prices for low to middle income earners and support building co-op housing

Yes, but new homes should be affordable (<30% of household income) according to median incomes in the neighbourhood

Stop all mass immigration only immigrate to people that have been vetted and let the economy look after itself.

Yes, but only for below market rentals allowing the younger generation housing opportunities while saving for their down payment.

No, they should regulate he construction industry to make sure they build four affordable houses for each luxury house.

The government should not fully front the bill but rather work with building companies and realtors to partially subsidize while offering strong incentives for new homes nationwide. The economy should be allowed to freely flow with a little push from the government.

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 we need to make cities have less cars in them. By having better public transit we can turn a lot of parking space into affordable housing. Also we need to bring back Neo classical architecture restrictions on architecture with the exception of heritage zones and native territories.

Invest more money into affordable single family homes, second stage treatment homes, seniors homes for people with concurrent disorders

If it goes to more low income people yes because my family and I are almost homeless and don't want to finally get a home after being homeless...

No, the government should decrease the bureaucracy around home-building, and reform the industry standards and inspections regulations. There are too many deficiencies getting passed in the current system with little to no recourse.

We need legitimate named Canadian developers, not offshore or numbered companies benefiting from these programs.

Yes, the housing sector should be nationalized. Zoning laws should be taken over by the federal government and single-family zoning must be abolished to preserve farmland and green space.

They should mandate developers actually build rental housing, and penalize if they don't go through on their promises

Yes, but start with large buildings not in use and renovate them. All new homes built should not be available to non Canadians for the next 10 years unless they pay a much higher tax on it or pay for the new house to be built

No, we need to rebuild and repair pre-existing homes as well as reduce the number of vacant homes by creating stricter laws around vacancy.

Yes, but only for the homeless, and not at the expense of green space, but rebuilding old houses should be a priority.

Yes, only if they're doing it right and promoting equity.

As stated earlier we should focus on reducing housing construction cost

No, they should seek to remove the legislative barriers to new housing construction and limit foreign home ownership

Yes, to help the homeless, but protect farmland and green space.

Yes, and we should house the homeless, as well as protect our farmland and green space.

yes but we must also deal with the poverty problem as well.

Yes, as long as it is walkable, multi-family housing.

No, demand side measures are needed

Yes, but not with the money they collect from taxes

The government should allow the building of new houses but should focus on allowing and building apartment complexes in residential areas

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.

Yes, but also encourage more coop developments rather than large scale apartment developments - not for developers, but for public good. Not on farmland or greenspace.

Yes, but not overboard (ie. Whistler Olympic Village) on the design and cost per house.

We need to stop real estate scalping, otherwise this is free money for house flippers paid by tax payers

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.

yes, but only for locals to live in

Yes, and nationalize the housing sector

with what money?

yes but not at the expense of nature and it should be affordable housing.

Yes, not at the expense of farmland or Green space. Additionally, new homes should contain multi family homes and mixed use developments, and should be constructed in a non-car-dependent "walkable" manner connected to public transit.

house the homeless and don't build on farmland or forestry

Foreign investment is unquestionably driving the cost of the housing markets, supply and demand equation. Unquestionably. Address that and stabalize the market. Not a laissez faire for the majority of society.

Only if it is to house the homeless, is safe for the farmland and green spaces, and if we can repair/rebuild existing houses

yes only if it is affordable housing

if affordable

Yes, but don't make taxes higher or destroy forests

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

The government should incentivize upzoning

Yes, but not at the expense of forest etc.. and only to house the homeless

Housing prices in the lower mainland or Vancouver island are ridiculous

Yes, but only to house the homeless and not at the expense of farmland and green space. Also, build apartments, so we build up and use less land.

what does subsidize mean?

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

No rebuild and repair existing areas and housing to maintain green space and farmland and build only 400,000 affordable new homes over four years.

Yes, but not at the expense of farmland and green space, and only be available to residents that that are non-beneficial owners already.

I think that not building on farmland that is in use and keeping green space that is important to people and/or is mandatory, but we can also rebuild houses that are not currently being lived in.

Yes but affordable housing not lux condos

Should build far more

It depends if the government is going to own the homes or not. I do not support the government building homes that they own.

Don't have much knowledge on the subject

I would need more information

Single family homes with property yes. Condos/apartments/townhouses no

Yes, provided that at least 25% of the homes are subsidized rental housing for low income families, and the rest are rented or sold at or below going market rates.

No on the environmental part of thing but more housing would be nice for making living more affordable and accessible

No. Help private enterprise build more

Only if foreigners and company’s don’t buy them cheaper only to make a profit

The only homes the government should build are low income housing or long term care facilities

We should build a reasonable amount of new homes.

Yes if it is for low income or under $100 000!

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

Don’t need to spend that much

Yes but make sure that they are affordable housing or housing for homeless

1.4 million homes should be built, but not by the government

For born and raised Canadians at a sub sized rate yes

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 build low income homes, not million-dollar homes.

only if they are low income housing and not million dollar homes.

Yes, but make it affordable!! And not just condos.. townhomes too, places with yards for families

yes but it should be affordable homes

Yes but make them affordable for all famillies

No, but private companies should be incentivized to build more affordable housing.

yes but they shouldnt destroy wilderness in the process

yes but i belive they should also lower the price to make it more a affordable due to the fact that houses are SOO expensive

They should leave some land for builders so they can make a living as well

yes, as long as the are envronmentally friendlt

no they should build 69 houses

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