CMHC releases results from the 6^th cycle of the Social and Affordable Housing Survey – Rental Structures

Results from the sixth cycle of CMHC’s Social and Affordable Housing Survey – Rental Structures (SAHS-RS) are now available. The survey collects respondent and administrative data about 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 sources and results are available at both the provincial and centre level.

We continue to expand this administrative data collection and make refinements to our survey frame.

It’s 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 data

The survey covered nearly 591,000 social and affordable housing units located in:

Sixty per cent of the 591,000 units covered were in 8 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and in rural Ontario:

Social and affordable housing represented an estimated 4% of Canada’s total housing stock. The survey covers structures that have at least one self-contained rental unit subsidized by a public entity and that are not on-reserve.

What were the average rents and how were they determined?

The survey¹ also gathered information on monthly rents by number of bedrooms. Nationally, average monthly rents were:

Average monthly rents varied widely across the country. In general, New Brunswick, Nunavut and Ontario had the lowest average rents, while British Columbia and Yukon had among the highest average rents across all bedroom types.

Nationally, 85% of units used household income to determine rent, referred to as rent-geared-to-income (RGI).

As a result, average rents do not always increase with unit size in every area. In some geographies, studio or 1-bedroom units may have higher average rents than 2- or 3-bedroom units¹ because rents were tied only to tenant incomes.

Other methods used to set rents include:

• operating costs
• external entities
• market conditions

What was the vacancy rate and what did it reflect?

The national vacancy rate for social and affordable housing was 2.9% in 2025, similar to previous survey cycles.

The vacancy rate is the percentage of units that are unoccupied and available for rent but for which no lease has been signed yet. Unlike the broader rental market, the vacancy rate reflects tenant turnover rather than changes in demand. Many housing providers have long waiting lists for available units. As a result, the vacancies often reflect the turning over of a unit from an existing tenant to a new tenant from an existing waiting list.

Who manages social and affordable housing in Canada?

Social and affordable housing units were managed by several types of organizations²:

• 58.5% of units were managed by governments (federal, provincial, territorial or municipal)
• 29% were managed by non-profit organizations
• 4.5% were managed by housing co-operatives
• 8.5% were managed by private companies or partnerships involving the organizations listed above

Government and non-profit organizations have managed most social and affordable housing units across all past survey cycles.

How was social and affordable housing funded?

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

• Nationally, 5% of units were funded by the federal government, 19% solely by provincial or territorial governments, and 45% solely by municipal governments.
• 11% of units were funded by other organizations or through a mix of government organizations.
• 20% of units had no funding agreement in place. This may indicate that external funding agreements were not needed because the units were funded internally and may also be owned by governments.

How were operational deficits funded?

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

• Nationally, operational deficits for 2%, 26%, and 38% of units in social and affordable housing were funded by the federal, provincial or territorial and municipal governments, respectively.
• 6% of units received operational deficit funding from other organizations or through a combination of government organizations.
• 21% of units received no operational deficit funding compared to 36% in 2024. This decrease was largely driven by Ontario, where the share fell from 37% in 2024 to 23% in 2025, and British Columbia where it fell from 41% to 16%.

What client groups were served?

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

• Nationally, the 2 most common client groups were seniors (41%) and families with children (30%).
• Single men and single women were each identified as a client group in around 15% of units surveyed.
• Persons with physical disabilities and persons with mental disabilities were each an identified client group in about 4 to 5% of units surveyed.
• The majority (61%) of all client groups were served by government organizations, while 27% were served by non-profit organizations. 12% were served by co-ops and other organizations.

How old was Canada’s social and affordable housing stock?

Nationally, the social and affordable housing stock included many older units. The housing stock can be grouped by year built as follows:

The age of social and affordable housing varied considerably by province and territory. In Quebec, British Columbia and in the 3 territories, more than one-third of units were built after 1995. By comparison, between 80 and 95% of units in Ontario and the Prairie and Atlantic provinces were built before 1995.

What was the overall condition and repair status of these buildings?

Housing providers were asked to rate the current overall condition of their buildings. The proportion of social and affordable housing units in each condition category was as follows:

• Nationally, 45% of units across Canada were in excellent or good condition.
• 21% were in average condition.
• 33% of units were either in fair or poor condition.
• These percentages were nearly unchanged from 2024.
• Units in newer buildings were more likely to be rated in excellent or good condition.
• Respondents were also asked to provide information on expected renovations based on their knowledge of budget and renovation priorities at the time of the survey. Nationally, about 77% of the structures are expected to undergo repairs over the next 5 years, ranging from 64% in Quebec to 90% in Alberta.

How accessible were the structures?

• Nationally, 65% of structures had accessibility features. This share was higher in Prince Edward Island (91%) and Manitoba (94%), and lower in Nova Scotia (16%), Alberta (22%) and Quebec (33%).
• Paved walkways, accessible parking and street level entrance without steps were the most common accessibility features offered.