what the opponents are argung is that it's a lot like ubi - give everyone a universal basic income (or something like that, in this case affordable housing) and there's literally no difference from giving them SNAP or other food stamps, in the case of the united states. the argument i'm trying to make, however, is that government needs to be able to control for market inefficiencies (this is particularly true in the case of medicaid, which, as a single-payer system is more effective than multi-payer systems in general.) government involvement needs to be minimalized except to solve for possible market inefficiencies.

even if you don't buy that, consider the basis of ubi- it's such a massive financial burden and unaffordable for developing and developed countries alike. housing is the same. the financial impact this would have on canada's government would be huge AND it would likely create an artificial resource cycle of supply and demand (housing bubble) which would ultimately sap away at canada's economic/fiscal resources. this would divert from funding allocation towards important things such as healthcare and education. consider ought implies can (kant's ethical framework). in order for canada to implement this we should actually be able to do so and still be prosperous in the wake.