Recession Fears Loom, 51% of Canadians Would Miss Mortgage Payment Within Three Months

From RateFilter.ca

By Alan Harder

New data shows that Canadians are struggling with housing costs, with 62% spending more than the recommended 30% of pre-tax income on housing. Homeowners aren’t as financially secure as presumed, especially those holding mortgages. A concerning 51% of mortgage holders couldn’t survive more than three months without their primary income. This financial strain underscores the urgent need for both individuals and policymakers to address housing affordability.

Key Takeaways

51% of mortgage holders could not make it more than three months without their primary income without missing a payment; 16% couldn’t last even one month.
62% of Canadians exceed the CMHC’s recommended 30% limit on housing expenses, with the average household spending 37% of their pre-tax income on housing.
Homeowners generally spend less on housing than renters (average of 34% vs. 43% of their pre-tax income). However, this is skewed by the 35% of homeowners who are mortgage-free. Mortgage holders spend an average of 41% of their income on housing.

The Hidden Struggles Behind the Housing Data

For many Canadians, the dream of homeownership is being challenged by a worrying financial reality. New data reveals a landscape where both homeowners and renters are grappling with costs that exceed the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) recommended limit of spending no more than 30% of pre-tax income on housing.

Homeowners Not as Secure as Assumed

Although homeowners have traditionally enjoyed a degree of financial security, the numbers tell a different story. Yes, 35% of homeowners are mortgage-free, which brings down the average housing expenditure for this group to 34% of pre-tax income. However, that percentage can give a misleading impression of overall financial well-being.

The Precarious Position of Mortgage Holders

When you focus on homeowners with mortgages, the picture becomes quite bleak. These individuals are devoting a whopping 41% of their pre-tax income to housing. Alarmingly, over half (51%) couldn’t manage more than three months without their main source of income; 16% would be in trouble within just a month.

Ongoing Financial Strain Amid Past Rate Increases

Over the past 18 months, we’ve seen a series of rate hikes from the Bank of Canada, which has contributed to an ongoing financial strain for many Canadians. These historical increases have only intensified concerns about housing affordability and financial stability, irrespective of what future rate changes may or may not occur. This backdrop of rising rates adds another dimension to the already challenging landscape of housing costs.

A Critical Time for Financial Health

“These statistics corroborate what we’ve been hearing anecdotally,” says Andy Hill, co-founder of ratefilter.ca. “Many Canadians feel like they’re at a breaking point due to higher interest rates. Even if the Bank of Canada pauses the rate hike, these borrowers will still be dealing with rates at a 20-year high.”

The Fragile Job Market

The data is even more unsettling when considering job security. Despite a low unemployment rate, 16% of mortgage holders could not withstand a month without income before falling behind on their mortgage payments.

Conclusion

These figures underscore the urgency for both policymakers and individuals to address the rising costs of housing in Canada. While the statistics offer a broad view, the individual stories highlight an unsettling financial instability lurking beneath the surface.

Proportion of Pre-Tax Income on Housing

R1. Please think about how much you spend on housing each month. This would include mortgage/ rent, property tax, strata fees, and utility costs such as electricity, heat, water, and other municipal services. Approximately what percentage of your pre-tax income do you spend on housing?

Methodology

These results are based on an online survey of a representative sample of 1,548 adult Canadians (including 1,028 homeowners and 650 mortgage holders) surveyed using Leger’s panel, LEO, from October 13-16, 2023.
As a non-random internet survey, a margin of error is not reported. For comparison, a probability sample of n=1,548 would have a margin of error of ±2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Any discrepancies between totals are due to rounding.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 4 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.