Canadian Residence Costs Fell 5%. Canadians Nonetheless Cannot Afford Them. Here is Why.

/script type=”text/javascript” src=”https://app.getresponse.com/view_webform_v2.js?u=S6bT5&webforms_id=A25R”>

The 5% That Changes Nothing

The national benchmark home price in Canada fell 4.8% year-over-year as of early 2026. The Bank of Canada has cut its policy rate from 5% to 2.25% since late 2023. Meanwhile, home sales in Toronto hit a 20-year low. By the standard telling, this is progress. The housing crisis is easing and affordability is improving.

It is not.

RBC’s national affordability measure sits at 52.4% of median pre-tax household income as of Q4 2025. That means a typical Canadian household must spend more than half its gross income just to carry the cost of owning an average home. In 2015, when “housing crisis” was already common language, that figure was roughly 41%. The crisis has not eased. It has moved from catastrophic to merely terrible. The difference is being sold as a recovery.

What 52% Means for Families

The median after-tax household income in Canada is approximately $74,200 as of 2023, the most recent full-year figure. Pre-tax, that number is higher, but gross income is what the RBC measure uses, because mortgage qualification is based on gross. Even so, dedicating 52.4% of gross household income to housing costs leaves a family running on the remainder for food, transportation, childcare, taxes, and everything else.

The national average home price is roughly $664,000. For a household earning the median income, that home costs about nine times annual earnings. In the early 1980s, at the peak of what was then considered an affordability crisis, the ratio was closer to five. In the mid-1990s, after the correction, it dropped below four.

Nine is not a number that rate cuts fix. The Bank of Canada could cut to zero and a nine-to-one price-to-income ratio would still lock out most first-time buyers. That is the denominator problem: incomes have not kept pace with the price level that decades of credit expansion created, and no realistic combination of rate adjustments and modest price declines can close the gap.

How the Price Level Got Here

The conventional explanation blames supply. Canada does not build enough homes. This is true in a narrow sense, but it explains the direction of prices, not their level. Prices did not reach nine times income because of zoning bylaws alone. They reached nine times income because of what happened to credit.

The Bank of Canada’s balance sheet expanded from $120 billion to $575 billion during the pandemic, more than quadrupling in under a year. The policy rate was held at 0.25% for nearly two years. The Bank directly purchased $8 billion in Canada Mortgage Bonds, flooding the mortgage market with cheap funding. CMHC continued to backstop mortgage insurance, socializing the risk of lending at ratios that no private insurer would touch.

This was not the first round. The pattern goes back decades. Each time housing wobbled, the state intervened on the credit side: lower rates, expanded insurance, longer amortizations, first-time buyer subsidies. Each intervention pushed the price level higher. Each higher price level became the new floor from which the next cycle began. The result, compounded over 25 years, is a price level that has permanently outrun incomes.

Austrian business cycle theory describes this mechanism precisely. When a central bank pushes interest rates below their natural level through credit expansion, it does not create wealth. It redirects investment toward long-lived, interest-rate-sensitive assets (housing being the textbook example) and away from projects that would actually raise real incomes and productivity. The boom in housing prices is real. The wealth it appears to create is not. When rates normalize, the gap between the inflated price level and actual household earnings is revealed, but the price level itself rarely returns to where it started. It ratchets.

The Correction That Isn’t

This is what Canada is experiencing now. Prices are falling in Toronto and Vancouver, the two most inflated markets. The benchmark is down 6.7% in Ontario and 5.6% in B.C. year-over-year. But these declines are coming off a peak that was itself the product of an extraordinary monetary expansion. The National Bank’s affordability monitor shows the mortgage payment as a percentage of income at 51.6% nationally, still well above the long-term average of 40.5% since 2000.

Meanwhile, the cities where prices are falling are also the cities where new construction is stalling. CMHC’s Spring 2026 report projects housing starts will decline through 2026-2028, as developers cancel or delay projects in response to softening demand and elevated costs. Falling prices, in other words, are not drawing buyers in. They are driving builders out. This is the trap that credit-fueled booms create: prices fall enough to destroy new supply but not enough to restore affordability. The overhang from the boom prevents the correction the bust needs to complete.

And the government’s response is, predictably, more of the same. The 2024 budget launched a $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund. First-time buyers can now amortize insured mortgages over 30 years instead of 25. In addition to that, the Home Buyers’ Plan withdrawal limit has been increased. Yet, every one of these measures operates on the demand side, which means every one of them puts upward pressure on the price level, which is already the problem.

Who Bears the Cost

The distributional consequences are not abstract. Homeownership among Canadians aged 25 to 29 dropped from 44.1% to 36.5% in a single decade. Renter households grew more than twice as fast as owner households between 2011 and 2021. The people locked out are disproportionately young, disproportionately in cities, and disproportionately at the start of their working lives, exactly the cohort that needs to form households, start families, and build equity.

The people who benefited are disproportionately older, already own property, and saw their net worth inflate through no productive effort of their own. The wealthiest 20% of Canadian households hold nearly two-thirds of the country’s total net worth, averaging $3.3 million per household. The bottom 40% average $84,600. Housing is the single largest driver of that gap, and the credit policies that inflated housing prices are the single largest driver of housing’s role in it.

A 5% decline from the peak does not touch this.

What the Numbers Actually Say

The ViewHomes data, the RBC affordability index, the CMHC supply report, and the StatCan income figures all point to the same conclusion when read together rather than in isolation. Prices are softening. Affordability is not meaningfully improving. Construction is declining. Incomes are growing at roughly 3%, which is not fast enough to close a gap that took two decades of credit expansion to open.

The housing crisis in Canada is not a supply crisis, a demand crisis, or a rates crisis. It is a price-level crisis created by chronic monetary intervention, and no correction short of a deep and sustained decline in real prices will resolve it. Every policy that prevents that decline, from extended amortizations to infrastructure subsidies to mortgage insurance backstops, extends the crisis by propping up the price level that caused it.

So, prices fell 5%…

Canadians still cannot afford a home.