Social and affordable housing survey results for rental structures (4^th cycle)

Exploring Canada's housing landscape reveals a range of challenges, especially in the social and affordable housing sector. Detailed surveys and data collection gives us crucial insights into various aspects of this sector.

An analysis uncovers insights into vacancy rates, funding structures and resident demographics, offering valuable information about social and affordable housing across the country. Looking at trends from 2019 to 2023, we not only see the current situation but can also predict where this important part of Canada's housing is heading.

These survey results give us a current snapshot and help guide policymakers and stakeholders in making informed choices for the future.

National trends across past 4 cycles of the Social and Affordable Housing Survey

• The vacancy rate has trended up from 1.6% in 2019 to 3.1% in 2023.
• The average rent for 2-bedroom units increased about 17% from 2019 to 2023.
• Structures with no accessibility features declined from 60% in 2019 to 37% in 2023.
• The share of units being reported in poor condition has increased from around 2.5% in 2019 to 20.5% in 2023 while the share of units in average or fair condition has declined from 39% to 29%.
• The share of structures expected to have no repairs within next 5 years has declined from 34% in 2019 to 22% in 2023.
• Household income has remained the main determinant to setting rents over the past 4 survey cycles.

About the survey

Data is collected across Canada with results available at both the provincial and centre level. This year’s survey includes new information on social and affordable housing funding sources. It also includes a section featuring key trends over the past 4 cycles (since 2019).

The survey collected respondent and administrative data about a key component 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
• rent determination mechanism
• building age, condition and repair needs
• funding sources (new)

NOTE: Our survey coverage in Québec excludes administrative data for structures managed by the Government of Québec via La Société d'habitation du Québec (SHQ).

The survey covered slightly more than 595,000 units located in:

Nearly half of the units covered were in Toronto (33%), Vancouver (6.1%), Montréal (4.7%), Edmonton (3%).

Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor, Kitchener – Cambridge – Waterloo and St. Catharines – Niagara each accounted for approximately a 2.1 to 2.4% share.

What type 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:

• 47% of units were managed by various levels of government
• 31% were managed by non-profit organizations
• 15% by co-operatives

6% were managed by private companies or partnerships between the groups mentioned above

Did social and affordable housing units have funding agreements for rent support subsidies?

• Units funded solely by the federal (16%), provincial/territorial (27%) and municipal (35%) governments.
• 7% of units were funded by other organizations or by a mixture of government organizations.
• 15% of social and affordable housing units had no funding agreement in place.

Did social and affordable housing units have funding agreements to cover operating deficits?

• Units funded solely by the federal (9%), provincial/territorial (21%) and municipal (32%) governments.
• 8% of units were funded by other organizations or by a mixture of government organizations.
• 30% of social and affordable housing units had no funding agreement in place.

Who were the occupants of these social and affordable housing units?

• Nationally, the 2 most common population groups were families with children at 27% and seniors at 22%.
• Single people were in approximately 7 to 8% of units surveyed.
• Persons with physical disabilities and persons with mental disabilities were each an identified group in 3% of units surveyed.
• On a provincial level, however, the share of the total clients in each group differed, though seniors and families with children were consistently within the top 4 client groups.
• Around 50% of all clients were served by government organizations, while 27% were served by non-profit organizations.

Individuals exiting homelessness and immigrants and refugees were much more likely to be served by non-profit organizations while families with children and Indigenous peoples were more likely to be served by government organizations.

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

The stock of social and affordable units is aged and can be grouped into the following year of construction ranges:

What is the current state of the housing stock?

Nationally, 50% of social and affordable housing units across Canada are in excellent or good condition, 17.5% are rated to be in average condition, while 32.5% of units are either in fair or poor condition.

Building conditions varied widely ranging from 0% of units rated as excellent or good condition in Nunavut’s social and affordable housing stock, to between 60% and 70% in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Yukon and Québec. Nearly 100% of units in Northwest Territories were rated as excellent or good condition.

While units in poor condition represented between 0% and 7% of total units in 11 of 13 provinces and territories, in Ontario and Alberta, they represented 29% and 33% of units, respectively.

When the age of the stock is accounted for, 75% of units built in Canada after 2003 are rated in excellent or good condition, while only 47% of units built before 2003 are rated similarly.

Nationally, nearly 22% of buildings in Canada do not expect to make any repairs in the next 5 years.

For those respondents citing needed repair, the most common building repaired expected within the next 5 years were exterior building enclosures (26%). In provinces where buildings are expected to need more repairs, they are more likely be in poor condition.

How accessible are the structures?

Nationally, 37% of structures have no accessibility features, though this percentage is much higher for Nova Scotia (83%) and Québec (69%).

Paved walkways for wheelchairs and street level entrance without steps were the most common accessibility features offered.

What was the vacancy rate in 2023?

In 2023, the vacancy rate was 3.1% nationally. At the provincial and territorial level, the vacancy rate ranged from zero in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, 3.2% in Québec and up to 19% in Saskatchewan.

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

What was the average rent?

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

Average monthly rents varied widely across the country, with Prince Edward Island having amongst the lowest average rents in the country while British Columbia had some of the highest rents for social and affordable housing.

At the centre level, Chatham-Kent in Ontario had the lowest rents (ranging from $152 to $410) while Whistler in British Columbia had the highest rents (ranging from $953 to $2242).

How were rents determined?

Nationally, at 83%, household income was the most common mechanism used to set rents. In other words, rent is geared to the tenant’s household income (often referred to as “rent geared to income” or RGI).

As a result, it is possible for rents in Bachelor and 1-bedroom units in some geographies to be higher than 2- or 3- bedroom units.

The only mechanism other than income that was prominent in setting rents was operating costs, a rent-setting mechanism employed mainly in Québec (30%).

In British Columbia and in Québec, income was the main rent-setting mechanism for 59% and 68% of units respectively; however, this percentage is at least 78% in all other provinces and territories.