Housing unaffordability potentially imposes greater social burden than cancer

By Grant Cameron

for Daily Commercial News

Sept. 28, 2026

For years, the housing debate has centred on familiar statistics: home prices, rents, housing starts and interest rates.

But according to Paul Smetanin, president and CEO of the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis (CANCEA), those numbers tell only part of the story.

The more important question, he notes, is how housing unaffordability is affecting the health, stability and overall well-being of Canadians.

At a recent housing summit sponsored by the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, Smetanin presented research that measures the human cost of housing unaffordability, revealing impacts that extend far beyond household finances.

His findings suggest housing affordability is no longer simply an economic issue. It has become a public health issue with consequences severe enough to be compared to chronic disease.

The study focused on the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and examined how housing circumstances influence people’s satisfaction with life. Rather than relying solely on economic indicators, the research measured well-being at the individual level, drawing on survey data collected over more than a decade from hundreds of thousands of respondents.

“We’re asking a different question,” Smetanin explained. “How is housing unaffordability affecting the health, stability and well-being of society?”

The answer is alarming.

Nearly one in three households in the Greater Toronto Area lives in unaffordable housing, meaning they spend more than 30 per cent of their before-tax household income on housing costs. Many are faring even worse. A significant portion of households spend more than half of their income simply keeping a roof over their heads.

According to Smetanin, those financial pressures create a cascade of consequences that negatively affect daily life.

As housing costs rise, basic necessities become harder to afford. Families have less money available for food, transportation, education, recreation and health care-related expenses. Housing options shrink, forcing many residents to accept unsuitable living arrangements, longer commutes or overcrowded conditions.

Unexpected expenses also become more difficult to manage. At the same time, stress levels increase as households struggle to balance competing financial demands.

Smetanin said the pressures contribute to reduced social participation, fewer opportunities and declining overall well-being.

“Housing burden leads to constrained choices and financial insecurity,” he said.

“Those conditions ultimately produce stress, instability and lower quality of life.”

People living in affordable housing reported significantly higher levels of well-being than those facing financial strain.

Average well-being among households living affordably registered approximately 7.5 on a 10-point life satisfaction scale. That figure fell by roughly seven per cent for people spending between 30 and 50 per cent of their income on housing. For households spending more than 50 per cent, well-being dropped even further, by about nine per cent.

While those percentages may appear small at first glance, Smetanin emphasized they represent substantial declines in people’s overall experience of life. The reductions reflect lasting impacts on health, security, optimism and personal stability.

To better understand the significance of those losses, researchers converted changes in well-being into economic terms. By estimating the amount of income required to restore affected households to the same level of life satisfaction enjoyed by those living affordably, they were able to calculate the social value cost of housing unaffordability.

The result was staggering.

CANCEA estimates the social value cost of housing unaffordability in Ontario reaches $26.2 billion annually.

That figure represents lost well-being across society and reflects the cumulative effects of chronic financial strain, diminished quality of life and reduced opportunities experienced by households struggling to afford housing.

“It is close to 15 per cent of Ontario government revenues,” Smetanin noted.

Perhaps the most striking finding from the research came when CANCEA compared the burden of housing unaffordability with the burden of major diseases.

Using methodologies commonly employed in epidemiology and health research, analysts assessed the total impact of housing unaffordability across the population and compared it with the burden associated with illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

When measured across society, the social burden created by housing unaffordability was found to be approximately one-and-a-half times greater than the social burden of cancer. It was also equivalent to roughly 70 per cent of the burden associated with heart disease and 75 per cent of that associated with diabetes.

Smetanin noted housing unaffordability touches millions of residents, creating widespread negative impacts that accumulate across the population.

The findings led to the conclusion housing unaffordability can increasingly be viewed as a disease-like condition because it chronically undermines well-being and contributes to persistent stress, insecurity and reduced quality of life.

The implications extend far beyond housing policy.

If rising housing costs continue to erode people’s well-being, he noted governments may face increasing pressure on health care systems, social services and economic productivity.

Meanwhile, communities may become less resilient and social cohesion may continue to weaken as people feel trapped by circumstances beyond their control.