>Is my statement incorrect ? Less people = less housing required. 
In the context of a root-cause analysis of the issue, yes your statement is incorrect. You can't reduce the housing load by having less people through any means short of mass murder (I doubt that's what you're advocating).
You can reduce the number of people by first reducing the housing load though (among other things) which will reduce the housing load in the distant future.

But even so - you are incorrect for this specific issue. The rate by which population urbanisation is growing the list is far, far higher than the birthrate. Even if you drop the birth-rate to zero, the growth on the list would barely even noticeably change.

>BTW , a million houses isn't enough and who's going to pay for them ?
A million is MORE than enough. The list is 'hundreds of thouands' - that's less than a million. And I believe I will be paying for them - with my taxes. It's one of the uses of my taxes I would be most happy about.