Social and Affordable Housing Survey — Rental Structure data release

CMHC releases results from the survey’s second cycle

Results from the second cycle of our Social and Affordable Housing Survey — Rental Structures (SAHS-RS) are now available.

The survey collected respondent and administrative data for an important component of Canada’s housing continuum: social and affordable rental-tenure housing. Information collected includes:

number of units
information on ownership and administrative body
vacancy rates
average rents
rent determination mechanism
building age, condition and repair needs

Data was collected from across Canada and results are available at the provincial and centre levels. The first cycle of the SAHS-RS was completed in 2019. (Note: The survey wasn’t conducted in 2020 to allow for further refinement of the survey questionnaire and data collection methods.)

We have expanded our survey coverage this year. Since the first cycle of the survey was completed in 2019, we have expanded administrative data collection in Ontario. We further refined our universe of surveyed structures in British Columbia . This resulted in fewer structures being eligible for our survey frame. Our Québec survey coverage excluded administrative data for structures managed by the Government of Québec via the Société d'habitation du Québec (SHQ).

Where we collected the social and affordable housing data:

The survey covered slightly more than 655,000 units located in:

Fifty per cent of the 655,000 units covered were in 9 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs):

What types of organizations were surveyed?

Our survey found that several types of organizations were responsible for social and affordable housing management:

44% of units were managed by various levels of government
35% were managed by non-profit organizations
11% were managed by cooperatives
7% were managed by private companies or partnerships between the aforementioned groups

Note: The numbers above do not add up to 100% as structures may be managed by multiple organization types or management structure was not known or provided.

What client groups are being served?

Our survey asked respondents whether they were mandated to serve a particular population or client group:

Nationally, the 2 most common groups being served were seniors at 19% and families with children at 15%. Lone-parent households was another significant group in 12% of the units surveyed. Veterans, and recent immigrants/refugees were each an identified group in 2% of the units surveyed.
55% of all client groups were served by government organizations, while 30% were served by non-profit organizations.
Youth, immigrants/refugees, veterans and survivors of domestic violence were more likely to be served by government organizations. Seniors and persons with disabilities were more likely to be served by non-profit organizations.

How old are the units?

What is the overall condition and repair status of the units?

Housing providers were asked about the overall current condition of their building. The proportion of social and affordable housing units this represented rated as follows:

55% of the units across Canada are in excellent or good condition, 23% are in average condition, while 22% are in either fair or poor condition.
Building conditions varied widely in the social and affordable housing stock. For example, only 2% of buildings in Nunavut were rated in the excellent or good condition categories. In Ontario, 60%, of the buildings were rated in the excellent or good categories, and 64% in Québec and 89% in Prince Edward Island had these high ratings.
Between 0 and 7% of the social and affordable housing stock in most provinces and territories were rated as being in poor condition.
When the age of the stock is considered, 70% of units built in Canada after 1990 were rated in excellent or good condition. Only 50% of units built before 1990 had similar ratings.
Finally, data collected revealed that no repairs are expected to be made in the next 5 years to nearly 24% of buildings in Canada. The percentages were much higher in Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick at 63% and 68%, respectively. It is important to note that a higher proportion of buildings to which no repairs are expected may not represent a lack of repair need. This percentage can be higher when lower density single-detached and duplex structures represent a larger share of total structures in a given portfolio. These structures typically are not assessed as often as larger apartment buildings, so repair needs are more uncertain.

How accessible are the structures?

Nationally, 38% of structures have no accessibility features.
Exterior barrier-free entrances, paved walkways for wheelchairs, accessible parking and elevators are the most common accessibility features.

What were the vacancy rates?

The vacancy rate is defined as units that were physically unoccupied and available to rent but no lease has been signed yet. In 2021, the vacancy rate was 2.8% nationally. At the provincial and territorial level, the vacancy rate ranged from:

1.6% in Ontario
2.1% in Quebec
2.8% in Nova Scotia
17.5% in Saskatchewan

A key reason for Saskatchewan’s elevated vacancy rate is due to a significant share of units being located in rural centres. Declining populations in rural areas have reduced the demand for these units.

What was the average rent?

The survey also gathered information on rents according to number of bedrooms. The average monthly rents nationally were:

Average monthly rents varied widely across the country. Nunavut had the lowest average rents across all bedroom types (from $138 for a bachelor to $383 for a 3+-bedroom). British Columbia had the highest rents, ranging from $540 for a bachelor to $992 for a 3+-bedroom. At the centre level, Chatham-Kent in Ontario had the lowest rents across all centres. Kelowna in British Columbia had the highest rents.

How were rents determined?

At 78%, household income was the most common mechanism used to set rents.
In Québec and New Brunswick, the main determinant of rents was operating costs or a percentage of market rents.
In Ontario, income was used to set rents for 92% of the social and affordable units. In Québec, income was the main rent-setting mechanism for 34% of units.

Download the data from the 2021 survey