Canada -   

1
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pauses while answering questions from the media following an announcement on Canada's mortgage rules in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Pawel Dwulit) Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pauses while answering questions from the media following an announcement on Canada's mortgage rules in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Pawel Dwulit)

Tougher mortgage rules to cut down default risks

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV National News: Richard Madan on the rules
In a move to prevent Canadians from becoming involved in reckless spending, Ottawa is tightening up its rules for obtaining a mortgage. The change could also help calm Canada's housing market.
CTV National News: Craig Oliver on the bubble
The Canadian government is hoping not to repeat a similar bursting of the housing bubble as seen in the U.S. and Europe while keeping the economy from being stifled.
CTV Montreal: Annie DeMelt explains the rules
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced new rules for homebuyers Tuesday, as the government looks towards expected future interest rate increases and the risks those pose for Canadian homeowners. Annie DeMelt explains.
CTV Toronto: Andria Case on the financing changes
The federal government is tightening its rules for obtaining federally-backed mortgages, a move Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says is necessary to prepare for the higher interest rates of the future. Andria Case reports.
CTV Calgary: Reg Hampton on the changes
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wants to discourage Canadians from using their homes as ATMs with tougher new mortgage rules.
CTV News Channel: Ian Lee, Carleton University
A professor with Carleton University says the new rules are needed to lower risk and prevent Canadians from seeping further into debt, and the new rules will also help boost the economy.
CTV News Channel: Peter Kinch, part one
Mortgage expert Peter Kinch explains how Ottawa's tough new mortgage rules aimed at keeping Canadians out of debt may just be to up appearances.
CTV News Channel: Peter Kinch, part two
According to a mortgage expert, if the Canadian government overshoots with its attempt to cool down the housing market, it could harm the industry it's trying to protect.
CTV News Channel: BNN's Michael Kane reports
As interest rates go up, the Tories are looking to curb the overwhelming burden of debt homeowners may face by implementing tougher mortgage rules in Canada, which many see as an appropriate move to prevent a housing market crisis in the future.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (112) Facebook   

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pauses while answering questions from the media following an announcement on Canada's mortgage rules in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Pawel Dwulit) Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pauses while answering questions from the media following an announcement on Canada's mortgage rules in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Pawel Dwulit)

Photos

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pauses while answering questions from the media following an announcement on Canada's mortgage rules in Ottawa on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Pawel Dwulit)

View Larger Image

Date: Tue. Feb. 16 2010 9:33 PM ET

Ottawa has tightened the rules for obtaining a government-backed mortgage, as it casts an eye towards expected future interest rate increases and the risks those pose for Canadian homeowners.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Tuesday morning that prospective homeowners will soon have to meet the requirements for a five-year, fixed rate mortgage -- as opposed to the three-year standard in place right now. The rule will apply even if they choose a mortgage with a lower interest rate and shorter term.

Flaherty told reporters gathered at an Ottawa news conference that the change will "help Canadians prepare for higher interest rates in the future."

"One must always guard against the temptation to take on more financial risk simply because interest rates are low. Our government is acting to help prevent Canadian households from getting overextended and acting to help prevent some lenders from facilitating it," he said.

Flaherty also announced Ottawa will also limit the amount of mortgage refinancing that homeowners can undertake.

"We will lower the maximum amount Canadians can withdraw in refinancing their mortgages to 90 per cent from 95 per cent of the value of their homes," he said.

"This will discourage the kind of mortgage refinancing that can create unsustainable debt levels as interest rates go up," he added.

"We are encouraging people to build equity over time, using homeownership as an effective way to save, rather than as a vehicle for quick cash."

The finance minister also announced that housing speculators will now have to put down a 20 per cent down payment on properties they will not be living in, to qualify for a government-backed mortgage.

But he said the government is not trying to crack down on investment properties such as rental units.

"What we're getting at is the speculation in multiple-condo markets, in particular," he said, making reference to incidents in the Vancouver and Toronto markets as examples.

Preventative measures

Flaherty said the changes, which are expected to come into force on April 19, were necessary to prevent future problems and he insisted they would not make it harder for Canadians to buy houses.

"The only restriction would be qualifying at a five-year, fixed-term basis, which is a credit qualification that a number of our chartered banks have already gone to," Flaherty said.

"I think that most prudent Canadians would want to have that level of ‘credit-worthiness,' of credit qualification, so that they could rest assured that their house would remain affordable -- and the mortgage remain affordable -- when interest rates rise, as they inevitably will."

Pointing to mortgage changes the Conservative government instituted two years ago -- including a minimum five per cent down payment for new mortgages and a maximum 35-year amortization period -- Flaherty said they also helped Canadians avert the kind of housing crisis seen in the United States in the current recession.

Economists had previously called for the minister to be stricter about who can get new mortgages, but warned the government not to put on the brakes to strongly, in order to preserve the fragile economic recovery. On Tuesday, several said they favoured the new rules brought forward by the government.

"Given the prospect of higher interest rates and the recent run-up in housing prices in some markets across Canada, the measures announced today are prudent," Frank Techar, president, personal and commercial banking, BMO Bank of Montreal said in a statement.

Carleton University professor Ian Lee said he supported the changes, but said he would also like to see the required mortgage housing down payment doubled from five to 10 per cent.

"In my judgment, the most important predictor of risk in home ownership is the amount of down payment," Lee told CTV News Channel from Ottawa on Tuesday morning.

Lee said he was hoping the finance minister would increase the required down payment "to really take out that additional risk that is there, which is caused by the fact that interest rates are going to go up."

"And when they go up, some of these people will not be able to keep their house, because they will not be able to afford the payments," he said.

BNN's Michael Kane said Flaherty's position is that while there may not be a housing bubble immediately on the horizon, he wants to be proactive in preventing one from forming.

"What Mr. Flaherty is saying here, is that even though he doesn't see the bubble really forming at all, to put certain measures in place so one does not get the chance to build is the prudent thing to do," Kane said Tuesday morning from Toronto.

Overall, Flaherty said the Canadian housing market is "healthy and stable," with about two-thirds of Canadians owning their own homes.

"Our housing market… has been a source of strength for our country and a source of growing wealth for hardworking Canadians themselves," Flaherty said.

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

John
said

Real estate is a horrible investment, in general. If you look at long-term real estate appreciation, it's about 3%. Inflation is also about 3% in the long term. So a house doesn't really grow at all. Then you have to pay 1.25% in property tax, and 1% to 2% in upkeep so a house actually LOSES MONEY in the long term.Sure some people can buy a house in a price-depressed area and can see a gain if that area becomes more desirable. Most people will lose money by buying a house vs. renting because houses cost about 2x to 3x more than they should, based on the rental alternative.Make people put 10% or 15% down and make the maximum term 20 years. Maybe then houses will cost what they should. But no, we need to keep the old rich current property owners' net worth up! Houses have risen way too fast in the last decade, and need to fall very very far, but the government will keep it all propped up to keep the old generations happy.


jeremy
said

30 or 40 grant isn't reasonable a first time down payment of 5% is fine thank you. Ian Lee has to much money or isn't really involved in the real world. I wish the news would stop chatting with the crack pots.


frankieb
said

I think it is too late. The damage has been done. A lot of the past carefree spending issues have been swept under the carpet. It will not go away with a little tightening. This government is not taking our problems seriously. We are playing kerplunk with our economy.


M.
said

It amazes me how many people feel they are entitled to own a home. If you can't afford a decent down payment how are you ever going to maintain the home. There is always something to improve, emergency repairs etc.. Just being able to make the mortgage payment is just a small part of home ownership. Give your head a shake! If you can't save a down payment you don't get to own a home. Personal responsibility is a dying virtue.


simon
said

It is now time to give those people who rent apartments a Reno Apartment Renovation Rebate. Those who own houses got their rebate last year. It is now the turn of the RENTERS because they will continue to be renting for a long long time, at least until the huge debt has been repaid! Until then, housing construction will have to stop or slow down. The only stimulus available through the economic action plan will be the replacement of door knobs on their bathroom doors.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ André in Ontario: While you are correct in linking the Conservative government in Ottawa to the HST in Ontario, the wheels come off your argument in failing to grasp the critical point...that Liberal Premier McGuinty had latitude with respect to the detailed implementation of the harmonization tax. In other words, his Liberal government decided, specifically, how it would be applied (ie. new homes, heretofore not subject to provincial tax). Therefore, Ontarians such as myself have every right to criticize his measures, for it is widely believed that his "revenue neutral" pitch is a complete crock that can't be supported. Lastly, spare me any of your political concerns for the federal deficit, as your man, Ignatieff, supported every nickel of the government's "Economic Action Plan" (read: stimulus program), and would have surely spent more if his/your wallowing Liberal Party was in power. (The Chretien/Martin "surplus" was bogus accounting founded upon Mulroney's GST, provincial transfers, and raiding federal programs such as EI.) Thanks.


Norm in Ontario
said

The people in this country speak, but the fat burocrats lined up at the endless trough don't listen. I love it when 1 person can impose his will on 35 million. Hmmm, last time I looked at a democracy, Canada did not appear in the picture.


Joan
said

That's it! I've given up being a home owner or at least having the idea of being one...Is it my fault that people who owned various properties are not solvent to pay their mortgages? Is it my fault that some home owners are not paying their debts? I have been working hard but it is not enough...I still study and have two jobs, how, Mr Flahertly, I would be able to make my dreams come true? And how can I anticipate being financially stable when everytime I have some monies saved...boom!! you drop a bomb!!!


Bob
said

Isn't it ironic that the same guy that wants to protect my personal debt is the same guy the driving the Canadian economy into the ditch.


Jack - AB
said

With 20% down on investors it may be enough to scare off many of those looking to make quick money off of an inflating real estate market. Will remove excess demand. Also, assessed on 5 year fixed rate should help eliminate bad borrowers from entering the market. These may be enough but time will tell. The CPC will check the impact of these changes and decide that if more is needed they will raise down payment to 10% or lower amortization to 30 years. Getting many investors out will be a plus because they were buying 3 places at a time under current system driving prices upwards. Why 20% only? B/c conventional mortgage was 25% down and changed to 20% in 2006. To note, there is an inverse relationship with mortgage rates & house prices. When rates go up (like they eventually will), prices go down - less buyers with higher rates = less demand. Watch what happens to house prices in next few years.


Doug
said

I moved 2 years ago and was screwed over by lawyers, my banker, the moving company and the utility company who tried to extort an additional 300 bucks from me because I was new to the city and did not have a credit rating here. Hydro Ottawa even threatened to cut off my hydro and put a red tag with cut off date on my front door.I agree with Flaherty but more is needed to all of the fat cats in the housing industry from snorting at the housing trough.


lolCarl
said

This sure feels like 'smaller' government to me. Ha. Too pull out a right wing classic: welcome to the nanny state. If this had been a Lib proposal, the regulars on here would be whining about survival of the fittest and "if you're not smart enough to know what you can afford, then tough."But, anyway, you're not a hypocrite if you get the last word, so we shall bow down to Flaherty's genius and forward thinking.


Peter
said

I think what Dean H said makes the most sense.


MARG MM
said

If some people were capable of managing their own affairs, these policies would not likely be needed. Unfortunatly, we live in an "I want it all"society. Too many people are unwilling to do without anything, and with so many "toys" on the market this means a huge monthly output of money. If you can't afford to pay the interest rates on credit, then you should not be buying the product.Having the common sense to make wise purchases within your means,is a lesson well learned and easy to adhere to if you aren't trying to "keep up with the Jones's". There are many young people that have scrimped and saved, and now own their own homes, it takes management skills, and being able to say no to some of lifes luxuries. We should not need Governments to legislate common sense, but unfortunatly that seems to be the only way for some people to rein themselves in these days.


Pip
said

Kelly states "This is really a sad day for real estate investors. 20% down - way to limit our leverage in the one greatest wealth building vehicle that we have to take us from middle class to wealthy. Thanks for ruining capitalism once again ...."And that is EXACTLY how the real estate bubble in the USA came about - pure speculation and greed! I'm rather glad that government is taking steps to slow down those greedy ones who have forced most housing out of the reach of Mr Average Joe and family. Why should the government insure a person's speculation? It doesn'y happen on Bay Street, why must it happen in the real estate market? You want to speculate, do it, but NOT on the public's dime.


Melanie Terrace,BC
said

Economic stimulus is just another way of saying we are spending the next generations money.But the government is in tough trying to mak epolicy here.On one hand,they need us to spend our money,so other people can be kept working.On the other our future,and the futures of the next generation,and of Canada itself,is at huge risk if we keep living on credit. Housing prices in the city are outrageous.But there are reasons for that,and very little any government can do to control them.We moved to northern BC.Housing prices are very reasonable here.Jobs are not always easy to find,BUT we can live on a whole lot less money,so we are better off,over all.What offends me is that my tax dollars are being spent to subsidize homes in Vancouver.Not because I mind helping the homeless or the hungry,but because I have to pay for them to live in the most expensive real estate in the whole country.A place which is not affordable for my family. Personal,consumer debt is another matter.It is a persoanl responsibilty.They are controlling some of it in the USA.Not the government,but the credit card companies.Because there is little cash flow,companies are lowering credit card limits and denying credit to people who can't show they are worthy. Lower credit card rates are availble here.But only to those who show responsibility and an ability to repay their loans.Just like it was decades ago,and the very reason past generations did not have this problem.If they could not afford to pay for it,they simply did not buy it.All in all,not a bad idea,considering most of them had much lower levels of education than we do.They were just not as GREEDY as we are today.


Jeff in Halifax
said

the value of housing just fell about 5 % and the people that are landlords just raised the rent 10 %to keep the new home buyers in their properties.saving up the 5 % down was hard enough for people now if you double it a lot more people will be lifelong renters.


André in Ontario
said

Prof. Pye CharttsaidAs a footnote to my reply to "HG," I forgot to thank Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty for the implementation of the HST in Ontario; in such a way as to ensure that it amounts to a damaging tax grab, and not a "revenue neutral" delight. You're more loved than ever, Dalton.Maybe you should try blaming Harper for the HST since he's the one bribing provincial governments to raise & harmonize the taxes. The Harper Sales Tax will hurt everybody but he'll just blame the provincial governments for raising taxes. The Ontario Cons say they're against it but refuse to say that they would get rid of it if elected. Typical Con BS. So there's enough blame here for McGuinty & Harper on this one & if anyones say anything different they're just not being realistic. Let's talk about spending beyond having to raise taxes. Lets look at what Flaherty $60 Billion deficit with no plans to pay it back. He's burning the furniture to heat the house as he tried doing in Ontario. So for him to try & control peoples debt maybe he should look in the mirror first. When they get voted out the true numbers will appear & they'll be much higher as they were in Ontario under the master of mismanaging tax payers dollars.


Island Man
said

Harper had to close Parliament to come up with this? Just more tinkering by Flaherty. Clearly this government has run out of ideas. Going to the Olympics and Hait have not helped Harper come up with anything useful. This is the result of Harper's recallibration? LOL


Charles Regina
said

I agree with Linda from Vancouver.Taxes are and always have been a big, fat SCAM.Simply put; the governement should work for people, not for the bank. A world without taxes is a world where the governements makes THEIR OWN MONEY, INDEPENDENTLY.


A P
said

This is going to make it almost impossible for young couples to become first time home buyers... couple that with it being illegal in some municipalities to rent basement apartments... this means less affordable housing for most, and increased rents to landlords who seldom maintain buildings to standard


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ Proff. Line Chartt: The lending criteria for public-insured mortgages, private-institution mortgages, and the specific mechanisms behind mortgage-backed securities sold by Wall Street investment banks were NEVER equally paralleled in Canada. Furthermore, "sub-prime" mortgages in Canada (which differ fundamentally from those structured in the U.S.) weren't invented by PM Harper and his Conservatives. You should read up a little more, especially about the CMHC, before tossing your Liberal tripe into the ring. (P.S. Clever moniker. It amuses me because it illustrates your political frustration, and lack of creativity, in putting forth your own misguided ideas. I'm actually flattered you feel compelled. It's telling.)


LisaS
said

The changes that will be implemented by these new rules will have very little impact on people who already own a property, but think really hard about those first time homeowners. A majority of them will be recent graduates. Raising the minimum mortgage from 5% to 10% means that I now have to attempt to save double what I had planned just for a down payment. I am currently renting for well over what the cost of a mortgage would be every month and I pay for all my bills. But with paying off my student loan (which almost all grads now have!) I am now expected to save over $40,000! This is really discouraging when trying to break into the market for the first time!


trent
said

The only one to blame for bankrupcy are the people who borrow the money, plain and simple. If you don't understand what you are doing when you borrow the big bucks, then don't do it. Your Mommy can't tuck you in forever.


Jack - AB
said

bobfar said it best!!! During boom you get too many dopes going in and buying houses @ over-inflated prices. Add to this all the investors that treat this as the stock market who jump in looking to flip houses for quick cash and you can see how the demand rapidly increases in turn taking house prices to higher levels. 10% down would mean fewer dopes to buy houses = less investors getting involved = lower house prices = less debt. Those that bought in late 2006 onwards will be in for a shock in the next 3 years time when interest rates go higher up and you pay hundreds more for your (large) mortgage. I guess people will have to learn this lesson the hard way. If I recall, past generations had to put 25% down to buy a house, which kept prices low, but today everybody expects to buy with 5% down bringing prices way up in booms.


Proff. Line Chartt
said

I completely agree with all the CON employees: this is a sensible move. Too bad they fail to not that they're merely returning the rules to where they were BEFORE they made it so easy for people to buy homes they couldn't afford, a la US (zero down payment? Crazy long amortizations?). Yep - once again taking credit for either doing something that someone else thought up, or taking credit for fixing their own screw up.


Stephen
said

Re: Roger Peterson,the reason why this wasn't debated in parliament is because the CMHC is a crown corporation, controlled through the executive, not legislative, branch of the government. So the CMHC was created through legislation where the crown corporation would have its policies not set by the legislature but under the authority of the Finance Minister. However, it could still be brought up during question period (once parliament resumes) as that is the time when other parties are able to bring the Prime Minister and cabinet to account for their decisions while running the government.


billiam
said

I have been saving for so long and it's like climbing Mount Everest saving for a house. I don't know that this is such a bad idea because I do believe living within my means. I'm sure that a lot of the other people that agree with Flaherty already have a house/place and just want to feel good about themselves. I say ignore their comments they don't really count if it doesn't affect them. I guess the other thing is the HST, and now in Toronto with the new budget being announced it looks like a 4% property tax is on the way. keep climbing.


Kelly
said

This is really a sad day for real estate investors. 20% down - way to limit our leverage in the one greatest wealth building vehicle that we have to take us from middle class to wealthy. Thanks for ruining capitalism once again ....


eddytoronto
said

I see further stimulus or jobs programs are anathema for most because the number 1 issue I see developing is no longer jobs; it’s the budget deficit/debt. If we have entered a new crisis phase in which sovereign nations have to bailout out other sovereign by issuing more debt, the final crisis stage will occur when the market revolts against the debt of the nations that bailed out other sovereigns. This is checkmate.


Linda in Vancouver
said

Mortgages are only a smalll part of the real debt problem in Canada.Most home buyers have to qualify by showing they have a reasonable down payment,and have the income to make the payments.That is a reasonable expectation that was not met in the USA,and look what it got them.If Canada had the same lax rules as they had in the USA,we may not have had what some people think is bank "gouging".Instead,we would have had,just like the USA, massive amounts of tax dollars being spent to bail out banks that were failing.While I know Canadians tend to think things the government pays for are FREE, they are not.Those things we think of asa FREE, are nothing more than debts we leave for our children and grandchildren to re-pay in the form of even higher taxes.THAT is the lie the political left does not want to discuss.What happens to FREE health care,when the economy goes south and there are not enough tax dollars to pay the bills.Or FREE schools,or FREE day,or FREE welfare cheques,etc,etc.What really happens is the government still sends out the cheques by borrowing from the next generation.And this practise MUST stop. Governments and people make the same mistake by assuming their incomes will always be there.Or that they will continue to rise.That,in my non economist opinion,is a mistake.Just like a persons income goes DOWN if their job is threatened or lost,the governments income tanks every time the global economy goes into recession.But,when government incomes go down,Canadians want still more FREE social programs.Who pays??? Our children,and their children. NOT FAIR!!!! Especially considering the the generation who fought WWII left us a great nation,with little or no debt.We owe our children the same consideration. We must reduce our debt footprint.


Kim in Calgary
said

Just wondering how much of this debt was created to take advantage of the Home Renovation Tax Credit....you remember the federal government's plan to have everyday Canadians spurring on the construction industry by spending when they had no savings to begin with.......


Glyn
said

And why are we providing governement backed loans to speculators even at 20 % downpayments? I thought the purpose of CMHC was to help people buy their homes not allow speculators to outbid the first time home owners. I gues if they heat the market up enough they can gaurentee finding rentersts not going far enough because unfortunatly to many people and banks are showing there inabiltiy to manage their finances. At 5 % equit what is your tie to the home if markets do go down, we will have a banking crash to go along with a housing crash if everyone who purchase a home in the last 5 years declares bankruptcy because its cheaper than taking responsibilty for their actions


Doug # BC
said

I'd like to as "Av" why the middle calss he feels are being gouged,are not part of the general public.What distinction do you make when you make that preposterous statement. I consider myself middle class,though perhaps lower middle class.I also think I'm a member of the general public.I never made a lot of money, but I managed what I made as well as I could.I went camping in BC when my friends took expensive vactions in Europe.I bought a small home way out in the suburbs while my friends built 3500 sq.ft.homes in the city.I bought used cars,while my friends bought brand new gas guzzlers. Bank gouging?? I have used credit cards over the years.But NEVER did I run a balance of more that $2500 or so.And,as I got established I made sure I paid it off,in full,every month.Paying 20% interest on the balance is simply an expensive personal choice.You don't like it,don't run those balances.People who thinkk banks make to much profit,are whistling in the wind.Do like I have done over the years,put aside one latte every day,and buy a couple of banks shares with the money.You willl get your share of those bank profits.It's OK,but you will soon realize they are not as "excessive" as you think. Gee.You ran up credit,and then lost your job.Do you think this is anything new,or someone else's fault?? That's why you build up an emergency fund BEFORE you run up huge debt.Then,when you lose your job,you go get another one. Excuses people.To many excuses for failures or shortcomings that were largely as a result of poor planning. But alas,this is the Canadian way.The nanny state mentality that assumes that,if health care is "free',everything else should be "free" too."I am so entitled to whatever I WANT."


eddytoronto
said

If governments had not manipulated interest rates and set them at artificially low levels, the normal forces of supply and demand would have forced rates considerably higher, most probably in double digits. The higher rates would have reduced demand for credit and thereby prevented the credit and asset bubbles that have caused the worldwide financial crisis. In recent years, Greenspan reduced rates from 6% to 1% between the end of 2000 and 2003. And Bernanke again applied the only remedy that central bankers know, in addition to printing money, when he reduced rates from 5% to 0% between 2007 and 2008. These people seem incapable of understanding that simple laws of supply and demand would have repaired the economy automatically without their incompetent and desperate interventions. By leaving monetary policy to market forces we would have normal recessions and minor booms that would be totally self-regulating. What the central bankers instead have created is the most enormous bubble in world history. And sadly like all bubbles, this one can only end in a disaster of a magnitude that will affect the world for a very, very long time.


eddytoronto
said

The current financial crisis was not created by the banks. It was created by governments' irresponsible policies of buying votes by manipulating the financial system through constant money printing, especially since the creation of the Fed in 1913 and the abolition of the gold standard in 1971. In addition they have used interest policy as a popularity contest thereby creating a totally artificial market which distorts the normal laws of supply and demand. It is clearly ludicrous to artificially keep interest rates at 0% and print massive amounts of money. Neither governments, nor banks should be allowed to create money out of thin air or interfere with market forces by artificially setting interest rates. It is this corrupt manipulation of the financial system and the economy that has totally destroyed the value of money in the last 100 years. Governments seem totally incapable of comprehending that they cannot solve the world's greatest financial crisis by applying more of the same toxic medicine that created the problem in the first place.


Jim
said

I think Flaherty's move shows good insight and prudence. It helps protect the honest, hard working, wise-with-their-money folks from the risk of an unrealistic frothy market which ultimately collapses and hurts everyone. Just look at the U.S. where unsavory sub-prime lenders made millions off stupid borrowers who just signed their name and got a house for a while. Good savers were hurt because the price of the house they wanted, and legitimately should have been able to buy, kept rising insanely. Then it all collapsed and taxpayers got stuck with the bill.


Jay from NB
said

Hey AAA,With your "they can pay the HST too" comment, I assume you are not considering the GENERATIONS of hard-working families that SAVE to purchase homes above $400k, do you? Oh, that's right, because you have over $X in your bank account that absolutely implies that it was all given, hasn't been maintained over generations, & you are not maintaining it...yeah, those kind of people are rich yuppy jerks, aren't they?


allan
said

Does anybody miss question period in parliament? I think not.


eddytoronto
said

As the Austrian economist von Mises said: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency involved. I view, governments like the Canada ,US and the UK and many others will not abandon further credit expansion. They are committed to printing increasing amounts of worthless paper money in order to finance the growing deficits and the rotten financial system. Therefore there is no chance of Quantitative Easing ending but instead it will accelerate in 2010 and after. The consequence of this will be a hyperinflationary depression in many countries due to many currencies becoming worthless. No economy in the world, including China, will avoid this severe economic downturn which is likely to have a major impact on the world economy for many, many years to come.What makes the current situation in the world economy so intriguing is that most investment markets have not recognised the risk. Stockmarkets and bond markets rallied substantially in 2009, totally oblivious of the risks. The housing market is down in Canada, US and some European countries like Spain and Ireland. But in many other countries it is still near the bubble highs created by low interest rates and reckless lending. The effect of a collapsing currency will be a hyperinflationary depression. This is the inevitable outcome for the UK and US and there is sadly no action that the governments of these countries can take to alter this course."The Dark Years Are Here". There will be extreme poverty.


Sandra
said

Good Job Mr Finance Ministerthe way this country is going only the rich will be able to surviveToronto is raising taxesHydro has prime time cost 5-9 pm


john
said

to Matt in NS, I respectfully disagree with your statement "Houses are typically a terrible investment to begin with.", real estate is a great investment. The keep word is investment . real estate is not a quick fix for your financial woes, and those who think you can do what they do on TV and do these flips is not in reality. For the average Joe/Jane, if you buy a house (within your means) and live in it for years and pay off the mortgage instead of new cars every 2-3 years and trips all over the world, real estate is a great investment. The problem is peoples eyes are bigger than their wallets. Who do people think they need a 5 bedroom house as a starter home? Why do they need all the latest gadgets and 2 cars and each kid have their won room etc. Computers and flat screens in every room, tvs on fridges etc. As a society we are spoiled rotten. Cell phones for each kid, Ipods etc it is crazy. Real estate is great and people need to prioritize what their values are. I only own one home and paid it off in 17 years and have 1 car for 2 people, don't own a personal cell and my house more than doubled in value in those 17 years. I am not alone, youjust have to be smart about it.


Mark
said

Yay, lets make it so easy for the baby boomers to buy a house that they buy everything, driving the prices up. Then, when the next generation comes along, change the rules so that they can't get into the market. Wouldn't want a market collapse to affect the value of the baby boomers fleet of houses. Someone needs to read "How the Baby Boomers Stole the Future from their Children, and Why They Should Give It Back".Oh well I guess us kids can just rent from our parents and look forward to the day when the boomer generation dies of.


bobfar
said

Two little change. The 10% down payment is needed to save most dopes from themselves. As a broker I see and hear such tripe about how "..the borrower is going to make thousands of dollars by next year because the market is going up ...blah blah." I heard this in the 80's and 90's and saw those same "last to the trough" buyers go belly up whining about the nasty "bank" foreclosure. Look for it again in two years as the rates climb to 6-7% and those who bought last year and this at 3.69% see their monthly payments nearly double. The whining that is to come "oh my". ;)


Inconvenient truths
said

I remember the Cons FIRST budget -- they REMOVED all the lending restraints and opened the mortgage market to predatory loans. If Harper had been in a couple years earlier, Canada would have the exact same problem the U.S. did, as the rest of the world. Canadian banks were able to weather the storm, in spite of this government's actions, not because of them.


Andrew
said

My wife and I are now on our second home, we had accumulated about 125 thousand of equity on our first home. When we went to get pre-approved for the mortgage on our current home we were asstounded that the bank was willing to lend us about 300 thousand more than we had planned to spend. If we had used that ammount of money the would be NO WAY for us to afford our bills and food and we would have been making minimum payments on the mortgage. My point is that we had a plan and didnt let the amount of money we were ELIGIBLE for cloud reality. This sound so cliche but, we are the makers of our own destiny. Also the expenses that the banks include in their "means" assessment are not based in reality. They should do a spending assessment of people before that give them a mortgage.


Dan
said

Here goes "Big Brother" watching over us irresponsible consumers again. I mean really, who knows better on what I can afford than the Federal Government? Maybe....if revenue canada didn't slam me for every penny I made I would be able to afford a little more! .....no, that's just me being an irresponsible consumer again I guess.


Guy
said

We now live in a dictatorship where we will be told what we can and can not do. Iggy now has my vote this is what will push people to the other side. I'd rather be living in the states right now were people are actually free to make thier own decisions. This is a sad day for Canadiens when dreaming of home ownership is as far as they will ever get.


alex vassallo
said

As a mortgage and real estate broker for Love Financial and Love Realty working in the Mississauga Toronto areas - I have to say this is the right thing to do. But increasing the down payment to 10% would indeed slow down the housing market and will likely have a negative effect on home equity as prices will falter. The best way to avoid delinquencies is to make sure that buyers are well within their means when financing and to this end reducing the amortisation period and basing the TDS (Total Debt Service) ratio on five year fixed rates should go a long way in doing this. Believe me we don’t want a meltdown in housing here.


Keith in Brampton
said

He should have included in the formula a provision to take all existing debt into account when calculating affordability. Otherwise, a sound & balanced move (something I don't as a rule expect of Mr. Flaherty).


ryan
said

Affordable housing is a concern across Canada, these additiional qualifications won't make much difference on qualifying for a mortgage. You shouldn't be buying something that you can't afford on higher interest rates. I agree things have changed over the past couple of years. Next big crunch is consumer debt-- paying 19% on debt makes no sense the card companies should be regulated to reasonable interest rates.


Anne
said

I would hope to NOT see an increase in downpayment from 5% to 10% as that professor prefers. There are many people currently renting who could afford a mortgage payment (given how high rent is), but it is impossible to save a huge downpayment. It is so discouraging to pay for someone else's equity building, knowing you could afford a home of your own except for finding the downpayment.


Roger Petersen
said

While I am in agreement with the intent of limiting Canadians' use of their homes as "piggy banks", I think this issue is important enough to be debated in our Parliament. What's happened to our Canadian government system?


Sober, Newmarket
said

AV and Simon in Montreal should read the article gain. They missed some key information and commented before they got to the end of the article.


bb of markham
said

Finally he is doing something!!!Its been awhile since I was part of a young couple buying their first home but the common thought of the day was never get a mortgage that ate up more then 25% on your monthly take home pay!!The real culprit is the speculators that drive up the prices to unattainable levels.20% is a step in the right direction but 50% would have worked better.I know people with not one or two condos but 50 or 60 and as long as they could finance 95% and rent for more than the payment they keep buying only hurting first time buyers more.This speculator driven market must be stopped!!When two young people earning good salaries can not afford an average house something is wrong with our society!!


Doug in Dartmouth
said

The financial institutions, credit bureaus, B of C, CMHC should sponsor a debt management course through continuing education for those entering the work place with no borrowing record. Those who participated would get recognition with points added to their Credit Score, which is a main driver of how much credit you get. It could be a win-win for the lenders and the borrowers, as once someone is overextended its difficult to undo.


SThompson
said

Its good to know that while each member of the Liberal Government sits comfortably in their half million dollar homes, us first-time homebuyers trying to get out of the renting clutch, will now have an even bigger struggle getting into that first home and trying to save not only enough money to have in our pockets for home repairs, but for the extra down payment as well. Im glad they're thinking of us. Thanks Flaherty, Dont expect anything close to a vote from me.


GLENN
said

AV is right. The bank gouging has got to stop. I have Home Equity LIne of cedit with the bank. .25 or .50 above prime which was great. Now they went and added another 1% above prime because they could not afford to contiinue the other way. What ever happen to signing a contract and honouring it. I asked the loans manager about it and he said that they could. Nowhere in my contract does it say that they can at any time do this. I can't be the only one. I can see a class action suit coming.


Paul
said

A lot of you people are really stupid. The housing market crash in the US was due to the lending of subprime loans to non creditworthy people. Rates then went up and the idiot consumers couldn't afford their payments anymore. This is exactly what Flaherty is protecting against and it is the proper move.If you work in Wal-Mart and were hoping to buy you "dream home" get real. Save for longer or get a better job, it is not our fault you fail at life.


chel in the Peg
said

Maybe now developers will return to building realistic-sized homes (1000 to 1500 square feet) rather than these horrible mcmansions that gawd knows who can afford or would want or need.


PBW
said

There seem to be an awful lot of comments decrying what is, after all a sensible decision. If you are required to make a bigger down payment, you have more equity. If you are "means tested" to ensure you can actually pay for the property, then you are guaranteeing increased equity and at the same time not risking losing the property. If the government action means some people won't be able to buy a home so what? where do our laws or constitution state that everyone has the right to own a home? It was that attitude, started by US president Carter, that eventually caused the big bust in the US, where financial institutions were required by law to lend to unsuitable customers. And those who point the finger, complaining nothing was done about credit card interest: just stop and think. If you run up a large debt you then have problems paying, whose fault is it? Why must the government always be required to correct (with taxpayer money) the misguided actions of individuals? Is there no longer such a thing as personal responsibility? If you want to take on debt, do so, but only to the extent that you can afford to pay it. This holds true for home buying too. People generally save to get a house deposit; that same savings habit can be applied to RRSP's other purchases too.


Ki-Som Victoria BC
said

It's my house, my line of credit, Tories, stay the hell out of it. Clean up your own mess.


Jack - AB
said

For some reason I thought they raised the minimum down payment to 10% but this is not the case - still 5%. Flaherty made a few changes which will help but should have gone a little further with 10% down & 30 year mortgages to bring house prices back down to normal levels. I guess I will have to move to the USA instead to buy a house twice as big and nicer for the same or lower price than what is sold here.


Tom (NS)
said

Finny how people commenting on these boards that some people should get they debts under control and not make hugh purchases that they might not be able to afford down the road. While on the flip side Canada is one of the highest taxed nations and the Gov't is spending on big ticket commitments while financial troubles loom. Ah we all forget that if only the middle class got a break and the present income tax was cut by half we would not have people with debt issues or possible issues of default. Consumer debt is another story and that is individual specific.Sure these measures will slow down as well as the HST inclusion, however many people will be hurting or defaulting if the job market does not improve.


AAA
said

To all those commenting on the HST..... read the fine print... unless you are purchasing a home that costs over $400k, you are exempt from HST... and if you are approved to buy a home over $400k, well then frankly you can probably stand to pay a few extra bucks in taxes.....


Richard in Ontario
said

Good move. I've just seen a young couple take on a big mortgage under the old rules and after the fact looked at all other expenses that they will incur. Could create problems down the road. Big mortgages and long terms seem good at the time but as mentioned here, loss of job, sickness etc can deal a terrible blow to the best laid plans. The old adage "Hindsight is 20/20 sure fits here. Unfortunately those who oppose the present government will work hard to paint their usual bleak picture instead of looking at the Big Picture.


Greg in the Hammer
said

"Look at us Canada, we're busy....see, we're doing something....anything". Sorry Jim, changing the channel from shutting down the house doesn't work.


happy
said

Matt in N.S. - I'm sorry that has been your experience but I can honestly say, from my personal experience, that buying my house was the best investment I ever made. It's worth more now than when I purchased it and since I paid it off in only 15 years due to a 50% downpayment and accelerated repayment schedule I own it free and clear. It's a great feeling.


Jack - AB
said

Finally, something right by the Conservatives. They allowed 40 year mortgages with 0% down during the economic boom which worsened the housing situation and allowed prices to skyrocket out of control - look at Calgary, Vancouver, etc.. They now realize the mistake and are fixing it to make only serious people buy homes. It was investors treating the house market like the stock market who were buying up houses like crazy and flipping them for profit to other investors or home buyers. Housing prices were going upwards fast because everybody was being told to buy - created a house buying frenzy. I only wish we could go back to 25 year mortgages. These 35 year ones allow banks to borrow out more funds to the consumer (qualify for higher mortgages) because of the longer (additional 10 year) time span. These moves are welcomed, I agree with them and should help bring house prices to somewhat more affordable levels in the next 5 years.


Steve in Manotick
said

Let me see here. CMHC insurance is about 3% of the initial loan. But didn't Steve bail out CMHC awhile back to the tune of about 30 billion so the Banks could lend yet more money to fill their coffers and fuel the housing bubble. Oh BTW Jim doesn't believe there is a housing bubble. I guess his adults kids aren't living at home with him as are mine as they can't find affordable housing earning just above minimum wage... Life styles sure has gotten worse in the last few years and to tell the truth the future scares the hec out of me..


Rosalie
said

Well, if people refuse to use common sense to buy only the size of house they can afford and not risk default and bankruptcy, I'd say this is a good move.


BGD
said

This is an interesting step for a government that does not like regulation. Makes me wonder how concervative the Concervatives truly are. However, what about the sky rocketing cost of housing? Are they going to regulate that? I have a good job. My wages have doubled fhrough promotion and wage increases over the past 20 years. Can we say the same about housing costs? Wages have not kept up with the reality of the housing market. A 100% wage increase is not enough to afford a house in most major cities. My parents bought a house in a good neighbourhood of North Vancouver for a lot of money back then -- 26000 -- they sold it for 475000. 18 fold increase over 20 years -- nice profit. Only if wages had increased 18 fold then the average person could afford something nice without going into servatude to do so.


SVCR
said

Well something had to be done to protect the consumer as the greedy banks just want the money they could careless if you survive. How do you think all those outrageous bank salaries and bonuses get paid?No employee is worth a 6 figure income PLUS bonuses no matter what they feel the deserve!


Margo
said

A good move, he is being proactive. How many times do couples buy outside their means and after a few months the house is up for sale. this should have happened ages ago, and since there is so much personal debt consumers should be glad. The Feds now need to attack the banks who nickle and dime customers, its disgusting given the amount of money they make.


BABE
said

Matt in NS Said it all. Thanks Mat and of course Jim Flaherty.


rd
said

Jim, start attacking the credit card companies first, with their rediculous interwst rates, then go to the banks! It's always the middle class that has to pay.


Frank Buchan
said

Banks are gouging, but where mortgages are concerned, those rates haven't been unreasonable for a while. The actual problem has been buying beyond sustainable means. I'm not sure these rules will solve that, but as stated I'm fairly sure they won't benefit banks either.


Joshua Wasylciw
said

This is a good first step, but it is equivalent to pulling out the weed by the leaf and not by the root. The root of the debt load problem is "other debt." Credit cards, lines of credit, student loans, etc. etc. etc. If all Canadians spent within their means, this would go a long way to reducing debt. Houses (ie mortgages) are needed - $500 pair of jeans on a credit card are not.


Jogc
said

Is the gov't scared that their banker buddies may not deserve their soon to be billion dollar bonuses? Why do we have to police the banks? We need to separate big business and gov't and do away with CMHC. The banks are living on the edge because we're there to bail them out.


Sean McD
said

These measures are a good start. As a mortgage broker I know many people are stretched to the max because of greed or poor advice. I believe they should have went one step further and had clients qualify at the 5 year posted rate(instead of the 5 year discounted)


Larry
said

So the poor sap who has to continue renting will continue to pay for someone else's property.Good move! That ought to fix the economy right up!I don't suppose it ever occurred to these politicians that maybe, just maybe, people would have the ability to pay for a house if the bleedin' credit card interest wasn't so usurious!


don
said

Well said Steve, if you have to wait 2 more years to be able to afford a mortgage so be it, it is better than purchasing a home and finding later you can't afford it. It seems that some people here figure if you have lost your job that it is not your responsiblity to find work but the governments job to keep you aflot for ever, Wrong.


Carolyn
said

I think Mr. Flaherty should help those who ALREADY have a high mortgage interest rate to try and get them to drop the rate so those who are out of work (with no prospect of a job in the near future) still be able to keep the homes they already have! Our mortgage rate is unreal and we have tried everywhere to remortgage but no one will help us. We have given up almost everything we own, just to keep our mortgage, lights and phone paid.


lc
said

I see the misinformed cons are spewing propaganda talking points again. The housing crisis in the states was caused but a deregulated market.The reason Canada did not suffer the same fate is the libs did not cave to the Tories and their allies in the banking industry who wanted the same deregulation here.Mind boggling how the Tories are now trying to take credit for a strong banking sector.Whats next?Bragging about no Canadian blood running in Iraqi sands!


Manner
said

Thanks alot, this is the year you do these rules for home ownership and by your sanction bring in the HST in Ontario, also the year I am getting married.


MRC in Ontario
said

First, this government proactively props up our Canadian banks & told them to prepare for the coming storm (this recession) and our financial system has been proven to be (one of) the strongest in the world. Secondly, they got rid of the ridiculous zero down 40yr mortgages. Now, being PROACTIVE AGAIN and considering the proof that average Canadian household debt is not improving, they are requiring home buyers to reasonably prove that they can weather through an inevitable increase in mortgage rates. It is just a good thing to introduce anyways, period. People have to learn how to save again, not "spend" credit. Do you like to complain about how the world has become & like to curse the banks/capitalism...then save your money, don't use credit, & prove you can buy your home in a very reasonable manner as in these new CMHC-backed mortgage rules.


George V.D.
said

It is very hard to legislate against stupidity, People will put themselves in vulnerable positions, such as a Vendor take back of a 2nd mortgage, or the borrowing of the downpayment from private sources later to be registered as a second mortgage. This is a good step in the right direction requiring borrowers to pass a means test.


corporate twins
said

The 2 major parties are corporate cousins with no noticeable difference.Both have a agenda to transfer the tax load to the least fortunate among us through user tax on them while tax cuts are given to the elites.To add salt to the wound slashing the social net is the choice when books gets out of balance.To hear the shallow try to make a case for either of these corporate cronies would be comical if not so sad for those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.


good morning
said

I think action has been "appropriate". It is moderate, and there is a very transparent link between interest rates and the real affordability of a home within the rational for adjustment.


Kim in Calgary
said

It is not surprising to see no requirements put into effect with respect to the unrealistic interest rates charged on mortgages. Within the last year I signed for a secured loan at Prime rate only to have the bank send me a letter within 6 months increasing the rate to Prime 1%. I certainly did not see an equivalent increase on my deposit rates. In fact, within the past year all of the majors have increased their mortgage rates although the Bank of Canada rate has remained the same. Wonder who is really at risk here?


kimbee1969
said

I think it would be wise if we also had restricted access to any other type of credit ( lines, credit cards , car loans), to me that seems like another HUGE problem. People buy the house they can barely afford, then they fill it with new furniture that they defer payments for a couple years. I believe the whole financial picture should be addressed.


happy
said

Having purchased my home many years ago while Canada was still ruled by Liberals it seems to me these same rules were in force then. Wasn't it under the Conservatives that the rules were slackened and at one time the Conservatives wanted to be just like the States and allow 0% down mortgages? People need to buy only what they can afford when they can afford it and stop whining if they have to say "no" to themselves sometimes. Setting priorities, being responsible and exerting a little self-discipline will get you a home you can afford and still allow you to sleep at night.


Jjaycee
said

This is absolutely needed. On our Line of Credit which covers the loan on a rental property, the difference that .05% made on a $190,000 Loan was $93 per month.One of the problems in the USA was that as Interest rates went up people could not afford to pay their Mortgage payments.Interest rates will be going up, starting as soon as the summer work starts. People have to be able to handle this both Financially and emotionally. Sad truth is that some people will not be able to afford the house they think they deserve.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

As a footnote to my reply to "HG," I forgot to thank Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty for the implementation of the HST in Ontario; in such a way as to ensure that it amounts to a damaging tax grab, and not a "revenue neutral" delight. You're more loved than ever, Dalton.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ HG: Unfortunately, most Ontarians, being typical Canadians who wake up to decry a tax AFTER it's implemented, will soon discover that the HST will be a true kick in the pants ($$$$), and not a little matter of having to pay merely a couple thousand dollars more for a new home. (The provincial media failed miserably on this one, and seemed disinterested in listening to the real estate and homebuilding industries.) Given the average home price in the population-dense Greater Toronto Area (GTA), a major Canadian market, it doesn't take a math wizard to figure out the impact of the HST on the new-home side of the real estate market equation.


Shirley - SK
said

I understand the need for caution in handing out mortgages. The real problem is that the houses are too inflated, anyone wanting to get out of renting finds themselves with basically nothing in there affordable range unless its a shabby shack. I do agree if the means test to qualify will be too drastic the market will shut down.


Steve
said

HST only applies to new houses, not resale.Don't blame the government because you lost your job unless you work in the public sector.You are an adult, act like one and take responsibility for your actions. Don't buy things you can't afford, we all have the risk of losing our job at some point (regardless of recessions) and you need to save up an emergency fund in addition to EI.The government is not your mommy and daddy to fix all your problems for you.


Michael
said

Great idea. The last thing we need is the system cratering like in the US because we feel sorry for people who can't afford a mortgage.


Sandy
said

I am not sure he went far enough, but this is a good start.


M.M.B. Ont
said

I do think this is a good move however I also feel that once the HST takes effect, it is going to hurt each and every one of us badly through the extra 8% we will have to pay on electricity, heat etc. To anyone wanting to buy a house, I think it would be prudent on their part to have a good idea if there job is secure or not, however no job in Canada or anywhere is guaranteed anymore. Add to that, illness and health issues can come into play that can prevent someone from working whether temporarily or permanently, therefore there are no guarantees in life whatsoever !


simon in Montreal
said

Av is right. This is like Protecting the Banks so that they can gouge the people even more and this time under the guarantee of an umbrella from government.


Scott in Wild Rose (Party) Country
said

This had to be done In order to avoid the same mistakes the US has made. Better to prepare _before_ the mortgage than to get one and not be able to afford it. There's a reason for CMHC. Get your head out of the sand (or go join the black-clad Olympic ninja peacenics) if you believe otherwise.


Mintie
said

I'm ok with these new rules. I'm in my early 30's and I've seen to many young couples with a huge mortgage and patio furniture in the dining room because that is all they can afford...and yet, they were approved for the mortgage. I'm a renter, and proud of it!


Dean H
said

None of this matters, other than shortening amortization periods. I am a Senior Manager with a big 5 bank and I can tell you that we already do affordability tests. The problem is that we cannot control what other debts consumers acquire AFTER they take out the mortgage. Consumer debt is the real problem, not asset backed mortgage debt. Flaherty is, once again, barking up the wrong tree. Shortening amortization periods is also not necessary, since a home can be expected to last well beyond the current 35 year maximum in most circumstances.


Matt in NS
said

Houses are typically a terrible investment to begin with. Good move Flaherty, keeping people out of the housing market for as long as possible might help them realize that owning an average home is nothing but a huge debt trap. Although, come to think of it 90% of the population still hasn't figured this out yet, so I guess maybe regardless of the rules in place people will still continue to burn money up in housing.


HG
said

Don't worry, once the HST hits our province there wont be a need for the income test being no one will be able to afford to buy a house anyways if its going to cost them an extra $15,000 or more just to get into the market or to progress through the market...just watch the Real Estate Market crash come July........I feel sorry for anyone who is thinking about buying in the next year...might take them an extra 2 more years to come up with the additional funds required once that ridiculous tax comes into effect.


Doug in Dartmouth
said

This is a positive move. It does not mean that home buyers will be unable to buy a home, They will be buying one that is within their ability to afford.In the past 20 years, competition for mortgage business has pushed the rules to the limit. Its time to pull it back somewhat.


Norm in Ontario
said

What a surprise. Another typical knee jerk reaction.Marion is correct. Pass the test, buy a house, lose your job...oh wait, the gov't says the recession is officially over. All is OK. Life is good.


Norm in Ontario
said

Av. Very well said. Couldn't have put it better myself


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Good move. We have a great number of "slow" Liberal supporters in Canada who became quite upset that Mr. Flaherty didn't take out highway billboard ads declaring the recent recession. This forthcoming announcement will help these same "slow" folks understand that if you bite off a mortgage that is, or becomes, unaffordable, you'll spiral into the financial abyss and become homeless. Thank-you, Minister Flaherty, for considering that some people weren't blessed with any common sense, and for helping to maintain a mortgage and real estate market that is fundamentally distinguished from that in the U.S. (Some poorly informed folks in the Liberal peanut gallery think that because Canada is home to a basket of CMHC-driven "sub-prime" mortgages that we're poised for a default disaster...but these political partisans selectively avoid detailed articles by informed market professionals who debunk this myth.)


Av
said

Maybe I am missing the boat here, but shouldnt Mr Flaherty start with the banks & control the constant gouging of the public, instead once again he attacks the working class, who are trying to get on the property ladder. Sure, let's increase their monthly payments!

Marion in the Creek
said

"income test" ? Hmmm. What does that consist of? Can Flaherty develop a test that will guarantee jobs for these prospective home buyers? What happens once you've passed the tests and signed the mortgage and then have lost your job, like so many have this past year?


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Canada Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt appears on CTV's Question Period on Sunday, May 27, 2012.

Raitt: Ottawa prepared to step into CP Rail dispute

More   2 Comments 2    1 Video(s) 1

Pedro Gonzalez bangs his pot in support of the growing protest movement that started against tuition fee hikes in Montreal, Friday, May 25, 2012. (Ryan Remiorz / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Focus of Quebec protests swells beyond tuition hikes

More    Comments    1 Video(s) 1

O'Neil King is pictured in this undated handout photo from Peel Regional Police.

Brampton, Ont. man arrested on Canada-wide warrant

More

Most Talked about Stories

It is about time - as a grandparent I have watched our kids (who were allowed to fail although I do remember some nagging on our part) learn, I have watched our children now micro-manage their children. A big part of it is the fact that there are predators out there and an extreme reluctance on the parents part to alllow freedom that might result in the children becoming victims.

Harvey

Parents must learn to stop meddling, author urges