CMHC releases 5^th cycle Social and Affordable Housing Survey results

Results from the fifth cycle of CMHC’s Social and Affordable Housing Survey — Rental Structures (SAHS-RS) are now available. This survey collects respondent and administrative data on an important part of Canada’s housing continuum: social and affordable rental-tenure housing.

Information collected includes:

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

Data is collected across Canada using administrative data with results available at both the provincial and centre level. We continue to expand this administrative data collection and make refinements to our survey frame.

We are pleased to report that response rates have increased in all provinces and overall nationally from 66% to 76%. It is important to note that our survey coverage in Quebec excludes administrative data for structures managed by the Government of Quebec via the Société d'habitation du Québec (SHQ).

Where we collected the social and affordable housing data

The survey covered nearly 593,000 units located in:

Nearly 60% of the 593,000 units covered were in 8 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs):

What types of organizations accounted for the units in the survey?

Management of social and affordable housing was broken down amongst several types of organizations as follows:  

• 53% of units were managed by various levels of government
• 26% were managed by non-profit organizations
• 7% by cooperatives
• 17% were managed by private companies or partnerships among these groups

The management of social and affordable housing has been predominantly from government and non-profit organizations for all past survey cycles.

How was funding of social and affordable housing provided?

Funding of social and affordable housing was provided by several types of organizations as follows:

• Nationally, social and affordable housing was funded solely by the federal (17%), provincial/territorial (23%) and municipal governments (30%).  
• 11% were funded by other organizations or by a mixture of government organizations.
• 19% had no funding agreement in place.
• The lack of funding was most significant in the Northwest Territories, where no funding agreements were in place. By comparison only 1% of structures in New Brunswick and 5% in Quebec lacked funding agreements.

Operational deficit funding of social and affordable housing was provided by several types of organizations as follows:

• Nationally, social and affordable housing units had their operational deficits funded by the federal government (1.5%), provincial/territorial governments (24%) and municipal governments (32.4%).
• 5.6% were funded by other organizations or by a mixture of government organizations.
• 36.5% received no operational deficit funding.
• There were large variations in operational deficit funding across provinces. For example, only 5% of Manitoba’s social and affordable housing had no operational deficit funding, while this figure was 95% for Saskatchewan.

Who lives in these social and affordable housing units?

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

• Nationally, seniors (33%) and families with children (25%) were the 2 most common clientele groups. Single men and women each accounted for about 11% of the units surveyed, while persons with physical and mental disabilities were each identified in around 4% of units surveyed.
• Single men and women represent 1-5% of the clientele in Saskatchewan and Alberta, compared to 15 – 25% in other provinces.
• The majority (56%) of all clientele were served by government organizations, while 29% were served by non-profit organizations.
• Families with children and youth were slightly more likely to receive services from government organizations, while seniors were equally served by both government and non-profit organizations.
• Clientele groups including veterans, persons with disabilities, First Nations, Métis, Inuit, immigrants, refugees, victims of domestic violence and persons exiting homelessness were twice as likely to receive services from non-profit organizations.

How old were the units?

Nationally, the stock of social and affordable units is aging, with construction years grouped as follows:  

The age of the stock of social and affordable units varied significantly considerably by province and territory. In Quebec and the 3 territories, more than one-third of the stock was built after 2003. In contrast, in Ontario, the Prairies and the Atlantic provinces, 65% to 90% of stock was built before 1987.

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

Housing providers were asked the overall current condition of their buildings with the proportion of social and affordable housing units this represented rated as follows:   

• Nationally, 43.5% of units across Canada are in excellent or good condition, 19% are rated to be in average condition and 37.3% are in fair or poor condition.
• Building conditions varied significantly across regions. For example, in Saskatchewan only 15% of social and affordable housing units were rated as excellent or good, compared to 60%-70% in British Columbia and Quebec.
• Nationally, the percentage distribution across building conditions is almost the same as in 2023.
• The only major change was found in Saskatchewan, where the number of units in fair condition increased from 31% to approximately 79% largely due to a shift from building conditions previously rated as average in the 2023 survey cycle. When factoring in the age of the housing stock, a clear trend emerges:
• 77% of units built in Canada after 2003 are rated in excellent or good condition.
• By contrast, only 38% of units built before 2003 are rated similarly.

Looking ahead, nationally, nearly 23% of buildings in Canada do not expect to make any repairs in the next 5 years. The most common building features that were expected to be repaired within the next 5 years include:

• exterior building enclosures — walls and windows, for example (24%)
• unit interiors — kitchens and floors, for example (23%)
• interior construction (21%)

Provinces and territories with a higher rate of expected repairs also tend to have a larger number of buildings in poor condition.

How accessible are the structures?

• Nationally, 37% of structures lack accessibility features. This percentage is much higher in Nova Scotia (78%) as well as in Alberta and Quebec (68%).
• Paved walkways and wide doorways for wheelchairs and street level entrance without steps were the most common accessibility features offered.

What was the vacancy rate?

The vacancy rate is defined as units that were physically unoccupied and available to rent but no lease has been signed yet.

• In 2024, the vacancy rate was 2.9% nationally, decreasing from 3.1% in 2023. Bachelor and 3+ bedroom units had slightly higher vacancy rates than 1- and 2-bedroom units.
• At the provincial and territorial level, the vacancy rate ranged from 1.6% in Ontario up to 13.7% in Manitoba.

What was the average rent?

The survey also gathered data on rents by the number of bedrooms. The national average monthly rents were as follows:

Average monthly rents varied widely across the country. New Brunswick, Nunavut and Quebec reported the lowest average rents, while British Columbia and Yukon had some of the highest rents across all bedroom types.

At the centre level, rent variations were even more pronounced. Within Ontario, British Columbia and the Prairie provinces, rents fluctuated widely across different centres. There were also large variations in average rents in centres across the country. Iqaluit had the lowest rents, ranging from $31 to $426, while Whitehorse had the highest rents, ranging from $967 to $1,349.

How were rents determined?

• Nationally, at 84%, household income was the most common method used to set rents. In other words, rent is geared to the tenant’s income, often referred to as rent geared to income or RGI.
• As a result, rents for bachelor and 1-bedroom units in some geographies can be higher than those of 2- or 3-bedroom units.
• The reliance on household income as the most common rent-setting mechanism varied by province, ranging from 58% in British Columbia to more than 90% across the Atlantic provinces and Ontario.

Rents set to a fixed percent of market rent, lower end of market, for example, is a primary rent-setting mechanism in only a few major centres such as Wood Buffalo (82%), Tillsonburg (36%) and Calgary (28%). Similarly, operations influenced rent-setting in 30% or more of the housing stock in 4 of 6 Quebec CMAs.