Canada -   

1
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty holds a news conference on household debt, in Ottawa on Monday, January 17, 2011. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Finance Minister Jim Flaherty concludes a news conference on household debt, in Ottawa on Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS)  Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces the changes during a press conference, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces the changes during a press conference, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011.

Flaherty unveils new mortgage rules to curb debt

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Don Drummond, economic advisor
A member of TD Bank Financial Group reveals some tips and advice on how to work with the new mortgage rules. He explains why it is important for home owners to try to pay their mortgage as fast as they can.
CTV National News: Robert Fife on the changes
The federal government has put a restraining hand on how Canadians borrow money and how they spend it, by creating three new mortgage rules. CTV's Ottawa bureau chief explains what effects these changes will have.
CTV National News: Patricia Lovett-Reid, TD
The senior vice president at TD Waterhouse explains why the government decided to make new mortgages rules, instead of hiking interest rates.
CTV News Channel: Robert Mclister, analyst
Robert Mclister, an analyst from CanadianMortgageTrends.com, discusses mortgage changes and his criticisms over Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's new rules.
CTV British Columbia: Sarah Galashan on new rules
New mortgage rules from the federal government mean it will cost more to own a home.
CTV Calgary: Sue French with reaction
A local charity and mortgage broker both say new rules won't hurt Canadians but people need better financial education.
CTV Winnipeg: Jeremy Hunka on rates
The federal government has tightened mortgage rules and it will affect first-time home buyers. The rules might make it harder for Winnipeggers to qualify for a mortgage.
CTV Southwestern Ontario: Nicole Lampa reports
There have been three major changes to mortgage rules, all being put into place to help cut Canadians' debt and stabilize the economy.
CTV Ottawa: Karen Soloman on the overload
Some experts argue the federal government could have done more to control Canadian household debt.
Power Play: Jim Murphy and Phil Soper
The president and chief executive at Royal LePage and Jim Murphy of the Canadian Association of Mortgage, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the new mortgage rules and how it will affect Canadians.
CTV News Channel: Ian Lee, professor
A Carleton University business professor discusses the two different mortgage markets in Canada, how much a mortgage will cost under the new rules, and explains why the federal government's measures could work.
CTV Southwestern Ontario: Nicole Lampa reports
There have been three major changes to mortgage rules, all being put into place to help cut Canadians' debt and stabilize the economy.
CTV News Channel: Alan Silverstein explains
A real estate author and lawyer discusses who will and will not be affected by the new mortgage rules, what will stay the same about getting a mortgage and says the new rules are a good thing.
CTV News Channel: BNN's Pamela Ritchie explains
A correspondent from the Business News Network says business analysts believe the new rules are a positive and preventative move.
CTV News Channel: BNN's Michael Kane explains
A correspondent from the Business News Network discusses why the new mortgage rules were put in place, how the mild recession led to record debt levels and why the new rules are precautionary.
CTV News Extended: Flaherty takes questions
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty speaks at a press conference, where answers reports' questions after announcing the new mortgage regulations.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (136) Facebook   

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty holds a news conference on household debt, in Ottawa on Monday, January 17, 2011. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Finance Minister Jim Flaherty concludes a news conference on household debt, in Ottawa on Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS)  Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces the changes during a press conference, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces the changes during a press conference, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011.

Photos

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty holds a news conference on household debt, in Ottawa on Monday, January 17, 2011. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

View Larger Image

Date: Mon. Jan. 17 2011 10:33 PM ET

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced new rules for Canadian mortgages on Monday that he said will "protect the stability of the economy."

Flaherty's announcement comes on the heels of a recent warning from the Bank of Canada that Canadians' domestic debt burden is the highest on record.

The Monday announcement included three new rules for the mortgage industry that will come into effect March 18:

  • Mortgage amortization periods will be reduced from 35 years to 30 years.
  • The maximum amount Canadians can borrow to refinance their mortgages will be lowered from 90 per cent to 85 per cent of the value of their homes.
  • The government will withdraw its insurance backing on lines of credit secured on homes, such as home equity lines of credit.

"Taxpayers should not bear any risk related to consumer debt products unrelated to house purchases. Those risks should be managed by the financial institutions that originate and offer these practices," Flaherty said Monday.

It is the third time in three years that Flaherty has tightened credit rules while interest rates remain historically low.

The new restrictions are intended to ensure that Canadians don't slip into unmanageable debt, which could throw the economic recovery off the rails, he said.

"Today's measures are about our government continuing to protect the stability of the economy by ensuring lenders' practices are sustainable, which will in turn ensure Canadian families have increasingly secure and sustainable home ownership."

Flaherty targeted home-equity loans and lines of credit because some Canadians were using the money on consumer goods rather than to build equity into their homes, he said.

"They are used to buy boats and cars and big-screen TVs, and that's not the business mortgage insurance was designed for," he said. "Our measures will help improve the financial situation of households in Canada."

The Bank of Canada announced earlier this month that Canadians' domestic debt burdens had hit the highest levels on record. The bank said the ratio of household debt to disposable income has reached 148 per cent -- which is higher than in the United States.

The International Monetary Fund also recently warned that household debt is the number one risk to the Canadian economy. Canadian household debt is now at $1.4 trillion, while mortgage delay payments have increased by 50 per cent.

However, Flaherty maintained that Canada is not facing a debt crisis.

"We are responding to a situation that could develop," he told reporters.

"It's obvious we could have gone farther. We have not touched down-payment requirements, for example. This is intentional. We are trying to strike the right balance so that we do not create any sort of shock in the market, or any sort of dramatic pressure in the market."

Phil Soper, president and chief executive at Royal LePage, said the new measures "shouldn't have a significant impact on the housing industry itself."

"Policymakers and the minister needed to put an exclamation mark behind the concerns related to rising household debt and they did that with this," he told CTV's Power Play.

Jim Murphy of the Canadian Association of Mortgage Brokers agreed.

"The government is trying to find a balance between increasing household debt while at the same time trying to keep a healthy housing market," he said on Power Play.

The measures are equivalent to boosting interest rates by half a percent but are more specific, according to Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at The Bank of Montreal.

"This is way a way of not affecting a lot of innocent bystanders, including the manufacturing and the tourism sector, by putting more upward pressure on the Canadian dollar," Porter told The Canadian Press.

Meanwhile Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC, said the new rules will have only a "marginal" effect on mortgage lending.

"It's the difference between somebody borrowing $200,000 and $180,000 or 190,000," he said. "More dramatic would have been to raise the down payment, which would have a larger impact on people's ability to finance their first home."

BNN's Michael Kane said Flaherty is clearly concerned that Canada's low lending rates have inspired people to borrow more than they would normally.

"What he is saying, and he reiterated this two or three times, is we see Canadians borrowing to the max at record low interest rates, and what he is afraid of is that when interest rates to start to rise...then you can get into a dangerous situation where you can't pay down your mortgage," Kane told CTV's Canada AM.

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Bob NS
said

Please make your comments shorter.Any idea can be expressed in 6 lines top or you lose your reader. We all have busy lives and use time the best we can. Remember that principle and you will stand a better chnce to be read.Bob NS


Mae Alexandria-Realtor
said

I am a Realtor and I do not want to see home prices go higher to earn more commission! (we are not all self serving)Obviously, we all would be better off if more people could afford to buy a home. However, I think the real problem is with unsecured debt.......CREDIT CARDS and the purchase of luxury items. Did you read the ratio of household debt to disposable income?We need to all start living within our means-period.


Steve Lillico
said

"Conservativism at its finest. Preserve, protect and grow the economy"Malarky, bankers wanted these changes to ensure they could recover their money when they steal your house by raising interest rates to record levels.Individual banks applying these rules were getting creamed by the the free market, so they get their friends to shove it up everyones arse.What's wrong with home ownership, low interest rates and long amortization have allowed many many canadians to become home owners, and owners of homes that they can actually live in and afford for the expensive beginning few years of home ownership.Not all canadians have mommy and daddy and inheritances, or great do nothing big money jobs after do nothing but party paid for by mommy and daddy educations.This was about the banks getting ready to start stealing homes, and the government acting as their agents. Conservatives at their best, shove it to the little guy, to make the big guy richer and tell the little guy it's for your own good.To the ones that spout this partys malarky and repeat for them time and time again, wake up and smell the coffee, unless you are in the top 1% of wealthiest people and own your own big business, this party does not have your interests in mind ever. You are expendable, disposable, usable and useless and if the conservatives had their wish and their way and could get away with it, you would be enslaved till early death.Getting people into their own homes is the goal, this governement by going against that goal is showing their stripes good and clear. Governments control interest rates and could easily keep this standard of living growing for the ordinary folk.


More to think about
said

I don't disagree with the rules, but be forewarned-you need to have at least a 40% down payment if you live in Metro Vancouver. Why? Because the garbage they sell as condos here pretty much always leak, at which point you will be faced with a stunning bill to pay on top of your mortgage. So, the 85% rule-if you get hit with a leaky condo repair bill of say-$150,000 (yes very real amount) will you have the equity to cover that? If not, really consider not buying unless you have at the very least the ability to take a hit like that. Added to the already massively expensive real estate costs here (the leaky condo crises that never ends is part of what drove the prices so high) this outcome has devasted many lives. So if you live here, be very very cautious about buying any of the stuff on the market, you will be quite amazed at just how badly built these buildings are. And if you can't afford a bill for a leaky condo then don't buy at all because it is an all too real issue here.


Firinn
said

You mean Jimmie , Canada is facing a big colourful housing bubble. Say it's not so. So many Cons have said on these forumns that this is all doom and gloom. NOOOOOOOO, wake me up from this Country of debt nightmare. " Are there no prisons ".......Yes Scooge, the King has decreed more to be built.


J man
said

To the conservative fan base...enough with the political trumpeting. In a diffent time the Cons were prepared to loosen rules and generally speaking a Con falls on the side of free market and letting banks and business do what they want. Taking credit for this as a conservative fundimental is pretty frickin' hillarious. For more evidence look at the conservative regime in the US. The lax banking rules and pro big military thats driven them into debt didn't come from just the libs thats for sure.

Leave partisan politics out of this. All it does is serve to close off the ears of any other party supporter before you've even made a point. If you want to make an effective point leave the egos at the door and stick to the facts. Why does everything always have to be painted Black and white (cons and libs) when the reality never is?...and we wonder why nothing gets solved.


JD
said

If they were really serious about helping us reduce debt they would allow us to draw from our RRSP's to pay it down.


EJP
said

It's about time these rules were put in place. Everyone dreams of owning a home but not everyone should be able to qualify. When you consider buying a home, run the numbers on what an increase in 3% on your interest rate will do to your payments. If you can't afford an upward swing of that size, reconsider what you should be buying or if you should be buying at all. Understand what the penalties are if you need to get out early or re-finance.

The only people this new set of rules will impact are those whose remaining amortizations will be more than 30 years at their next renewal or when they choose to re-finance. At which point, if you wait until after the new rules are in place you will need to qualify based on the new rules on a 30-year or less amortization.

Those faced with this decision, especially if they re-finance, will have to choose the lesser of two evils: 1. sell and take a loss if your home has lost more value than your mortgage, or 2. pay the penalties to exit out of your existing mortgage and re-qualify under new rules and shorter amortization.


RatRipper
said

Thats right ...make it harder for people to buy a home but don't lower the ridiculous interest rates charge on credit cards , or Sears cards . Don't remove oil from the stockmarket as a commodity here , even though we export it not import it so people can afford to drive to work , Protect big banks , big business and big shots , their your real buddies , not the working stiffs who could use a break . Other countries that export oil sell gasoline for 50 cents a liter right now but not our tax guzzling , over spending democracy of fat , self serving politicians !!!!


Rod Hebner
said

In light of the fact that this Finance Minister has us in a big deficit and with the help of Harper and the Conservative Party, leading us into the biggest deficit in Canadian history. I would be more inclined to respect and listen to this Minister if he wasn't giving us his speal on do as I say and not as I do. He should get together with Colin Hanson as both are of the same mind sharing the same frame of mind, deficit, HST and giving advice but unable to take it. Incompetence, stupidity were not in short supply when he and his party decided to hold the G20 Summit in the worst place in Canada. Downtown Toronto was a blatant disregard for common sense or the taxpayers money. Absolutely stupid beyond belief.


German
said

People,

Gov cannot reduce taxes. DO you know that Canada ran deficit of $56B last year and running $44B deficit this year? As a country we use more money than we earn.
It's like gigantic credit card too.
You should not use your credit card either unless you pay your balance in full each month. Don't spend money that you don’t have, or if you do stop complaining about it.
Good move on mortgage restrictions. People without money should not buy houses they cannot afford. Save 25% and prove to yourself at least that you can save money and have capacity to earn money to pay your house off. If you do not pay your mortgage down you are not better off than renting and too many people buying too much house that they cannot ever repay. They bank on appreciation and capital gain and want all taxpayers pay up if there would be capital loss and "your" house sells for less than you paid. I don’t want to pay for people who speculate and drive house prices to the levels when I cannot afford house and they don’t even risk any of their own money on this. Put some of your skin in the game, people.



Doug # BC
said

There must be a lot of young people posting on this subject.I know for sure Flaherty was alive during the 1980's,and remembers all to well what happended to people when mortgage rates soared to 20%.You may or may not like to hear this,but that could happen again.If he reminds people of what they can do now,to avoid the same pitfalls that cost people their homes in the 1980's,that is a good thing.I did not lose my home,but I have friends who did.And homes and mortgages were a lot smaller then. Whether you like Flaherty,or not.And even if you're just a party hack posting on behalf of another party,give your empty head a shake if you think record levels of consumer debt is a good thing,or that you were forced to take on debt by government. As to the same people who constantly whine about interest rates on credit card debt,give the old noggin another shake.If you are paying those rates,you are doing something wrong.Credit card rates are high because that's where the big losses are for those who lend.Fraud and default are high,and the loans are unsecured.If you are credit worthy,use a bank loan or a line of credit.If you are not,you are the reason those rates are so high.Why should anyone want to subsidize you further?


Devon Johnstone
said

Stop blaming the Government, banks and credit card companies for your mistakes. Live within your means. It is really not that hard to do.Stop buying houses or condos right now at the absurd prices that they are.Let the prices fall like we did in the 80's. Protest against all property taxes and make the government charge you on what you paid for your accommodation, not what the new sub division one block behind you sold their new houses for. They just want the money so they can get their higher pensions.


Linda in Vancouver
said

It's statistics Canada that reports the record level of consumer debt in Canada.How anyone can think that is a good thing escapes my level of logic.It is probably not mortages that are the real problem.Equity in a hoe covers most of the risk.But many people are following the example of our American friends.Re-mortaging their homes to buy luxury items they WANT,but don't necessarily NEED.When interest rates rise,as they surely will,people up to their a**es in debt will be screaming blue murder. Credit card debt levela make it obvious that to many Canadians Are fiscallt illiterate.These changes will not imose a lot of hardship on very many people.But they may cause people to consider their own debt situation.And that is an exercise well worth doing. Debt kills people,nations,and economies. If you doubt that,look at Europe.


Ryan
said

I just had a series of e-mails with my banker, and she said nothing is going to change on my mortgage (40 years - 37 left, we paid 20% down). Looks like the changes are for future mortgages... So no need to cause panic that people are suddenly not going to be able to afford their houses.


Smart Move
said

Smart moves by a wise government. Conservativism at its finest. Preserve, protect and grow the economy unlike the McGuinty tax and spend Liberals who have managed to destroy the Ontario economy.


Norm in Ontario
said

Oh good, we have nothing to worry about now. The Gov't is going to take (care of) us from birth to death.


Trolls abound.
said

Liberal trolls posting on this forum are getting boring. Given the terrible situation in the McGuinty government and their incredible mismanagement of the Ontario economy the Liberal trolls have little to argue with to make any point. Flaherty has managed the Canadian file quite well and in fact Canada is prospering or don't any of you Liberal subscribe to "The Economist"?


Max
said

BMO, CIBC, and Royal Bank all made a record high revenues last year during the so-called global recession. Maybe the govt should put the responsibilities back to the banks who they want to do business with and let them bear the risk! The current policies has already guaranteed the banks to win/to make $$$$$$$$$$ at the end regardless people can afford the mortgage or not!


Diana, AB
said

Some of you should try buying a farm. Most of the time you need 20-25% down plus your mortgage can sometimes only be for 20 years. Maybe some of you complaining about 10-15% down should think about where your food comes from and how much those farmers struggle. My husband and I work very hard on and off the farm and don't have nice things in order to supply Canadian markets. Maybe we need to look around us as many have said, 1200 sq ft 2 bedroom houses??? What are you doing in that house that you need it so big? We have a family of 4 living in less than 900 sq ft(1 floor!) Not only are we breaking ourselves financially but the environmental footprints we are leaving are going to be devastating to our children.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Plenty of misguided melodrama in this forum today. Too many people don't seem to understand that this is a MACROECONOMIC effort. It's not about credit cards, unsecured personal loans, and the like. Our government is trying to strengthen one of the key socioeconomic pillars -- the real estate market -- by modifying the mortgage banking game. As it presently stands, Canadians are holding too much household debt. A residential mortgage is the biggest debt instrument, by a mile. The financial meltdown that led to the partial collapse of the American banking industry and, in turn, precipitated a global economic recession, was rooted in mortgage instruments. Our government isn't trying to punish you cantankerous debt junkies; rather, it's simply trying to ensure, by modest and reasonable means, that our country doesn't become vulnerable to a "domino effect" created by the deflation of a national real estate market that seems to continue to raise many eyebrows with its stamina. It's a security measure; literally. Our economy and our real estate market have been defying the odds. Couple this with above-average household debt, and you've got a recipe for a POTENTIAL problem with serious macroeconomic consequences. This measure coincides rationally with the gradual, soft elevation of interest rates. Wake up, folks...and take a breath. (P.S. Contrary to the assertion by some nattering Liberal supporters, so-called "zero-down" mortgages are NOT a serious independent issue in Canada.)


J man
said

Forget politics. Prices were driven up with a loosening of the rules and will be driven down until people can afford to buy...PERIOD. With these rules nothing changes as far as your wealth relative to everyone else. So you loose some access to debt...so does the joe shmoe your bidding against. Yet people keep fighting for higher mortgages...umm you do realize that this just means the guy you're bidding against also has access to a bigger mortgage and more bidding money...don't you?????


This is neither a Con or Lib issue. This is a public joe not being able to distinguish a "want" from a "need". I personally know lots of people who see a 2500sqft house as necessary even though their parents raised the same family in half the house....Things the make you go HMMMMMMMMM. Not saying one can't have "wants" BUT at least wait until the day u can actually afford it!

Political motivation of all parties is self serving and will never change...its up to us to think for ourselves and defend ourselves and our interests. Anyone sitting back rehashing the Lib, NDP or Con rehetoric is just an unknowing pawn in a game slanted to the decision makers. Wake up for goodness sake.


Lori
said

So Flaherty doesn't live in Vancouver--you can tell. Instead of capping banking fees or credit card rates (where my consumer debt is!); the Convservatives have made it that much more difficult for me to purchase a home in my own community where I live and work.....and pay taxes.


Nathan
said

To 90% of the commenters here: I will not feel bad when I profit greatly from your ignorance and lack of ability to live within your means.


notrequired
said

basically, he is acting like your father and mother.... live within your means....


obviously ALOT of you cannot do this on your own, and i for one will appreciate it when I don't have to bail you out because you like your gadgets you cannot afford.

to put it another way, not everybody SHOULD have the american dream...only those who work for it and can afford the finer things SHOULD have them. PERIOD


Sandra
said

So does anybody wonder why there are no restrictions on unsecured debt?? credit cards etc. Maybe that would be because the big banks are all earning large amounts of money on credit cards and the interest rates they charge without any gov't restrictions. It is the unsecured debt and the large car loans that cause people the difficulties and yes it is there own fault. I am saying there should be restrictions for both, but one without the other will not help the situation. Once they have incurred the debt there is no going back - so restrict the amount of cards that are issued as well as the interest rates they are allowed to charge. How about qualifying people for car loans and credit cards - as long as they have a history of paying they never say no.


Bob Couldwell
said

When is this Federal Government going to stop giving our Taxpayers money away. It is hard to believe why we have to purchase new planes all at the same time, try puchasing 5 plane per year for the next 10 years. Giving the automoble industry MILLIONS. Spending MILLIONS to refit submarines that are ready for the graveyard. Mister Finance Minister WAKE UP and smell the flowers. I am tired of this and other governments puting our future childern in massive debt borrowing, These Government should be accountable for their actions.


Evan in Athabasca
said

Canadians asked, they got it, now we have to say "told you so!!!" and take it back. Obviously the government has rules in place in regards to debt, and total amounts allowed to borrow. I saw this happening when they relaxed the rules, people getting houses that were way out of their price range, who's to blame? the consumer!!


Spectator
said

Flaherty screwed up Ontario when he was Finance Minister in the provincial government and now he is doing the same to the entire country.As I was going thru the posts here, it amazed me how some of the folks kept saying that we should not be buying iPod, iPads and iWhatever or buy houses we can't afford to pay off in 25 years...why 25 may I ask? Maybe we should not buy houses unless we can pay 100% cash upfront? Or maybe we should not buy houses with washrooms? How about buying ones with a s*** hole outside? Using your logic one could argue that a washroom in a house isn't a necessity...So let us all buy houses for cash, take a d*** outside on a day like today in Toronto and be proud we don't owe anyone any money for that.What strikes me with this whole mortgage new rules business is that there are lots of people who will be renewing their mortgages and they will have to figure out how to cough up thousands of dollars to increase their equity to 15% now. They were going by the book when they were getting their mortgage and they did spend time planning but the government decided to change rules on them (because it can?).


Don Aitken
said

It is interesting how the Harper Tories are going to reduce the length of Mortgages in Canada. They are trying to take credit for the very problem they created in their first year in office.In 2006 they opened the Mortgage Insurer market to AIG & GE to compete with CHMC. . Flaherty first raised the length to 35 years for Mortgages, But AIG wanted it raised to 40 years so he complied with their wishes. This was the start of Sub prime loans in Canada. The only thing that saved us from the American disaster was the fact that. AIG collapsed . & Harper started his back tracking .


renaldo
said

I was looking to get into the market but I guess I am out of luck. Thanks Flathery for all the help.


OK Sunshine
said

It seems like just a couple of years ago that the same Mr. Flaherty was telling us that Canadian mortgage regulations should be opened up and there was nothing wrong with 40 year amortizations with zero down.This probably isn't such a bad move, but I have no confidence in Flaherty. He manages to get us into the highest deficit in Canadian history and then tells us what a great job the conservatives are doing of managing our money.So far, he hasn't been right on anything, so I'm not sure he's right this time either.


Brian
said

If the government is this concerned about our debt, rather than taking away the essentials of life like they seem always do why don't we go after these credit card interest rates that do nothing but gouge us all of our lives. 18 to 24% and higher is just not right and yet the government ignores this. Protect the consumer this is where the economy keeps stable not by making it more difficult for young people to buy a home. With the average price of a home well over 300 thousand where are the young ones going to get 45,000 down payment. I thought is was hard when I was young. But as usual common sense seems to be something that is always lacking ion those that have more than the average person. I have yet to see a politician that lives at the same level as most of us. And now maybe we should take awqay al their perks and tax exemptions? See how they like going down a notch or two.


Merle
said

I can't believe the stupidity of these changes to mortgages! If you're going to make changes, change the rules on unsecured debt, high interest and high payment debts. The Government should be putting stricter rules on payday loans and Credit cards and those types of debt. We have a consumer debt problem and the Government is oblivious to this reality, consumer debt has nothing to do with the mortgage. In fact what the Government doesn't understand is that the Home is one of the only secure vehicles for Canadians where rates are far lower, it appreciates in value and allows Canadians to increase their net worth because even if it's maxed out to 90% and amortized over 35 yrs (current rules) it's still a better situation than having $100 down and buying a car that has a loan wrapped into from a previous car and amortized over 8 years. This loan is a problem. During this uncertain rebuilding of our economy, what the Government has done is eliminated a buffer to Canadians if their employment status changes. The comments on how Canadians should have there house paid off by retirement is so short sighted it's embarrassing. Unsecured debt that only has a min payment, or a car loan that is a high interest and over 7 years, this is the issue. Why not allow Canadians to use the equity to wrap up high interest debt to a lower interest ie. their home lowering their monthly payments and allowing them to save the difference in TFSA or RRSP's that can actually grow in value over time. These rules will create more issues for Canadians by restricting them access to the extra funds and get back on track from this recession and will hurt their retirements long term.


dalavigne
said

So Flaherty thinks that reducing home equity loans by 5% will have a dramatic impact, huh? How about making some meaningful moves to tighten the PayDay Loan industry, where millions of the working poor are held hostage to the modern day Company Store? The reduction in home equity loans has no impact whatsoever on most home owners because our banks are already only lending up to 80%, so Flaherty is apparently out of touch with reality. So, as usual, the cons make moves that do nothing to help the vast majority of Canadians and instead help only the Banks and Uber-rich, SURPRISE!


Richard Victoria BC
said

The Government knows we have an inflated housing market mostly driven by young people that are not old enough to remember the last housing bust, the government knows at some time we have to have a major correction to get in line with the rest of the world and that the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for all these insured mortgages with none or negative equity. CMHC keeps telling us that housing prices are going up because they are the idiots that keep insuring mortgage debt against any bank losses, it's the biggest Ponzy Scheme since Bernie Madoff.


J man
said

The only reason house prices and household debt loads have exploded well past what the average income can justify is because of this
"creative" easy banking. Wages didn't go up 200% in the last 10 years nor did other living costs go down.

All that info yet the same people who are most negatively affected by this stuff are still defending these poor practices! Go figure.

Lesson: If the rules take some buyers out of the market and lower the amount they can spend that is only going to lower prices. The only one's that lose if prices go down are the banks and realtors! Or don't you want a smaller mortgage and less commission?


Debbie - Calgary
said

This is how wars start! People don't actually get the correct information, and take from it what they want to.

Mr. Flaherty is NOT raising the amount of downpayment required. So unless you are funding your new home from your parents' home equity, (and if you are, you have way more problems than discussed)then there is no problem. No one should EVER have been approved for more than 30 years max.

Think of it this way: most people get into their own homes between the ages of 25-35 years old. (if they are lucky; I understand some never will) A 30 year ammortization will at best have you mortgage free at 55-65; right around when you want to retire. If you make extra payments when you can, and do the accelerated bi-weekly payments, you can knock a few years off that.

The whole point of owning a home is NOT to see who has the longest mortgage... the MORTGAGE part is what you acheive to be out of.



Jake
said

Funny how most of the comments have better ideas of how to run the economy and the country, when they can't even spell. Lots of negative advice not much constructive, of course it's way easier to do that. We are lazy, we have no idea how the economy works and we are all experts at putting it right. Just saying.


Old Ted
said

The average person has neither the will power, knowledge or sense not to get into debt over their heads. The bankers and government supposedly have enough brain power to reign in people so that they don't foolishly get into financial problems. However, banker greed overrides everything and the mess is created. Go down to the US to see what a REAL mess is. Mortgages let to people who could no more afford the houses than fly, derivitives and other such money manipulations have just about destroyed an already bankrupt country. Countries, like Canada, who kept a tighter reign on the banks, are the only ones weathering the storm in any meaningful way. The greedy rich are no more to be trusted than the poor fool on the street who has no idea of how the system works.


Mike Kushneryk
said

What a joke (new mortgage rules). The federal government, which can't manage government finances is telling Canadians how to manage theirs. It's like an alcoholic telling another alcoholic how to quit drinking.


George V.
said

We can make all the rules we want on mortgage debt there will always be borrowers who will find other ways to circumvent it. Instead of having a mortgage for 90% of the property value as is now in place, they will then place a mortgage for 85% of the property value and arrange a second mortgage for the shortfall usually at a higher rate, or have the vendor of the property take back a second mortgage over a shorter term and usually at a higher rate making the sale of the Vendor take-back so much easier. In either case they will have the same amount of debt at more cost to the borrower. Where there is a will there is a way.


MARG MM
said

It is unfortunate that the Government has to make rules to save Canadians from themselves. It sounds as if most of you would prefer to live in a communist country where you are looked after from cradle to grave, everything paid for by Government. Those going on about high credit card rates should learn to live within your means and pay your cards off each month, result: NO interest. If it wasn't for all the credit card fraud that the banks cover, the rates could likely be lower, however that doesn't change the fact that there is no interest if the card is paid on time. To the person blaming the "baby boomers" think again. In those days most people lived within their means, had one car, one TV and worked hard building up equity in their homes. Those that lived beyond their means are in the same boat as those of you complaining now. Governments are NOT here to look after your personal lives, and keep you debt free, that is your job. At this time it seems that the Government has to step in to save some of you from yourselves.


Devil's Advocate
said

Bills_view and Greed: you two have opened up a HUGE off-topic can of worms here! My point is we all need to start self educating ourselves outside of school. North American schools are no longer enough these days and are tragically overpriced post-secondary! We all have the tools to do so, free speech (I hope) and the internet. Look for case studies and avoid things like Zeitgeist for now. They are another can of worms...


Intelligent Liberal
said

The most expensive housing in Canada is the Toronto market, which happens to contain mostly Liberal supporters. This is a thinly veiled attack on the opposition, making them rent and live outdoors since the new mortage rules makes housing unaffordable.


Jim in Ottawa
said

35-40 year mortgages are a dumb idea anyway (even 30 years is too long), and anyone dumb enough to fall into that trap is making themselves a victim. Look, the bottom line is that the government is trying to protect it's own butt in ensuring that Canadians continue to have just enough disposable income to cover their tax obligations. Your credit card obligations are your own problem--not a national problem. If you have credit card debt at 28% or more, then you are a victim of your own doing--nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to take out a loan at 28%. Credit cards are unsecured loans and therefore require a high interest rate in order to protect the interests of the credit card company. If you simply do not overspend on your credit card, or simply pay your credit cards on time, your interest rates on your credit cards is zero! Do you see how that works? None of this is rocket science people! But it does require that you understand basic Grade 5 mathematics and that you use basic common sense when spending your money.


Albertaboy111
said

I wish every year could be an election year. Seems to be the only way to get anything useful out of this government.


John
said

Like always, the richer will get richer and the middle class and the poor will get stuck. It never change.


Henry@Crowsnest
said

Remove the vitriolic and partisan comments, and reasonable analysis will suggest this change is generally sound. One downside - I use mortgage lines of credit, not to "buy fur coats", but to buy older houses, and invest significant amounts to fix them up for affordable rent. I will respond to what will be higher interest rates by doing less of this - less affordable rents will ensue. But overall, good policy.


johntoon
said

Peter made a comment that he would be paying for his house 3 times over by the time his mortgage is done, guess what Peter that's not something new.


Kerry in Alberta
said

To Hunter - "since they "let us" get into so much debt??? You let yourself! No one holds a gun to your head and says borrow and spend. Cudos to Flaherty. It turns out "we are NOT richer than we think" I am a top 1% earner and buy NOTHING unless it is on sale. I am going to Sears in the States to buy Garage cabinets because they are $2,300 cheaper than they are at the Sears in Canada. Why would I pay a 45% surcharge when my dollar is worth more??? NO ONE makes enough money to spend like that! Canadians are being fleeced by businesses and we are lining up to part with our money.


Robin
said

Thumbs up on this one.

30 year mortgage for a person buying a house would have the mortgage paid off before retirement. This takes into account 10 years to finish university and save the 10% down payment. People are delaying retirement due to their debt load.

Of course I would have also added a clause that no person over 65 could have a mortgage.

It would be nice if the rules to get a new mortgage would change to ensure that people could afford to pay all their bills.

House prices have gotten out of hand. No person should purchase a home that is more than 3 or 4 times their gross income.

This is the second change in the correct direction. Hopefully more next year after the forced election and the Conservatives get a majority.

Remember, any debt other than mortgages are your choice. A credit card interest rate of 25% is no problem if you don't have a balance. If people cannot control their debt, then this is a good move. Your principle resident is just that, your home.



Ian
said

SOME comments here are from people who clearly do not understand a thing about economics. Lower taxes? Do you understand that governments are running deficits? Do you understand that socialism is expensive? You should be telling your MLA's that you want reduced government and that you are willing to accept reduced services and programs if you want them to lower taxes. The government NEEDS money to function.The housing changes are great, with maybe the exception of the amortization period. And for some, rental for life will be the fact of life. This is not a communist society, it is capitalism. Accept that you may not earn enough. It is not the governments responsibility to ensure that you can buy a house. I am sick of hearing this. The government is here to make regulation and law.


Ben
said

In the first half of 2008, as the subprime mortgage crisis was exploding in the United States, a contagion of U.S.-style lending practices quietly crossed the border and infected Canada's previously prudent mortgage regime. New mortgage borrowers signed up for an estimated $56-billion of risky 40-year mortgages, more than half of the total new mortgages approved by banks, trust companies and other lenders during that time, according to banking and insurance sources. Those sources estimated that 10 per cent of the mortgages, worth about $10-billion, were taken out with no money down. The mushrooming of a Canadian version of subprime mortgages has gone largely unnoticed. The Conservative government finally banned the practice last summer, after repeated warnings from frustrated senior officials and bankers that the country's financial system was being exposed to far too much risk as the housing market weakened. Just yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty repeated the mantra that the government acted early to get rid of risky mortgages. What he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper do not explain, however, is that the expansion of zero-down, 40-year mortgages began with measures contained in the first Conservative budget in May of 2006.


Mark
said

This from the guy who changed the mortgage rules in 2008 so we could have a housing bubble like the US...now they're going to fix the problem they caused in the first place. This from the guy who with his boss has been borrowing money to finance ridiculous spending binges....$1 billion G8/G20 photo ops...a practice police state...fake lake....even more Action Plan election propaganda for Harper...$16 billion for F35 fighter jets which don't meet Canada's operational requirements for the North....and $ 8 billion for prisons we don't need. Being Flaherty means never having to say you're sorry


Greg Fortney
said

It sure would have been nice to have included in the report when the new rules take effect? What, where, WHEN, how, who?


Vic
said

Good job Mr F, this should help future homeowners view housing as a place to live and not a place to leverage. IMHO, housing is controlled by supply and demand. These new rules will reduce demand since there are fewer qualified buyers. So...housing prices will fall or incomes will rise to catch up with demand.


Bruce from Alberta
said

Rent in Canada buy in the States for investing. If you have to have your own house in Canada make 80-100K a year or be broke the rest of your life.


Tim
said

The damage from these ridiculous mortgages has already been done. Bankruptcies are up 22.5% from pre-recession levels. It's good they're correcting their mistakes but the damage has already been done.


1Don1
said

Realtors take at least 5% out of home equity every time a home sells.Why not control this monopolistic pricing structure???


Almost Debt Free Dude
said

I don't care. My house paid off and my 3 year old condo only has $10k left on the mortgage. All this while living off 90k a year salary and maintaining my family. Yes folks, you can live and enjoy life on a single income. It's how stupid you become with your money is what gets people into trouble. I'm now teaching my kids the value of money and they are appreciative of that. No, I don't go to Starbuks, no I don't go to movies, no I don't go to restaurants but yes, I now have properties.


Glen
said

Stop trying to keep up with Joe @hole down the street.


Anon Amos
said

I agree that a 25 year rate should not be exceeded for a borrowing term but 30 is a step in the right direction. I do wonder how this will affect those on a 35-40 year that have to refinance based because of a 1 or 2 year variable rate, I'm sure they don't have the equity to refinance at 85% for a lesser amortization... I also want to mention that most people that were complaining about renting forever obviously didn't read that the move from 90% to 85% was for REFINANCING which has nothing to do with new home buyers, they would still be required the 5% down for a new home purchase. I also agree with last portion of one of the comments stating that basic personal financial management should be taught in schools. If kids are led by example, the next generations are, to put it nicely, screwed...


viral venus
said

The most laughably arrogant statement I have heard in along time is that people should "buy a less expensive house" when these new rules make mortgages less available. Where might one find that Mr Flaherty? That statement is right up there with Marie Antoinnette's "if the peasants can't afford bread, let them eat cake" for it's utter insensitivity to the reality of a majority of buyers. The competition is always fiercest for whatever passes for affordable in any given market. Once again this man is so out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians that this is of no help to anyone and will further crush our struggling housing markets. As for the reduced refinancing levels, hardworking people will lose homes they have been faithfully paying for when they can't meet the new refinancing levels when renewing at the end of a term. How is this preventing any crisis. It looks more to me like it will generate one where none need exist. I guess we can't expect these pampered, 7 figure salary, expense account sucking politicians to have any sense of what it means to want a home and a life on incomes that are often less than %25 of their annual take.


HUNTER
said

great news, now that they have let us get so indebt, now there's no help at this time to get us out. Next up, to forgive banks for any bad debts they took and add to the deficit and make the tax payers pay for this too.


Santa Claus
said

no money for canadien peeple to spend or invest on a home in this country of Canada,butt the gouvernement has billions to spend on a stupid war and rebuild another country!
merci monsieur harper ,u da best !!


Karl
said

@Joetester
If everyone used your strategy, giving up any stake in a government pension by continually investing in real estate, homes would no longer be affordable. It has been my experience that the constant flipping of real estate from one non-resident's hand to the next is partly responsible for such over-inflated housing prices in the first place. I would also point out that learning financial best practises in school would not prepare anyone for dealing in the real estate market. Imagine how much money people would have lost in the US if all of their investments were in real estate.


Greed
said

I direct every one to bill_view comment because folks in this content need to get their heads out of the clouds and get over themselves. "..way way way too much greed here....live and learn!!"You're all a bunch of greedy and delusional lunatics mired in mediocrity and laziness ... my mother once told me that Canadians were going to start cannibilizing one another for jobs,money, keeping up with Jones' and as always, mother was right. Also, the other part of this economic and social disaster we're experiencing is the refusal of baby boomer's to retire out of the work force and allow their own children and grandchildren to move up the ranks so that income levels for middle class can rise instead the under 45's are stuck at the bottom of the career spectrum because there is no where to go until their 80 year old father retires or drops dead. Karma is a real b*tch though because you boomer's who caused this global financial disaster are now broke and can not afford to retire. Enjoy the fruits of your selfishness.


Darryl
said

Finally, F has done something! Not enough, but it's a start, i would have liked to see a minimum down payment of 10% as well as the decrease from 35 to 30 year amortization, but i guess you can't get everything you want.

You can tell the difference between people who are good with money from the people who aren't. Those who actually see the "light" that this is a step in the right direction obviously have a grasp on how the economy works, those who complain obviously don't.

I laugh at those who say the government should lower income taxes to put more money in their pocket, because they will be the same people that will start complaining when they have to wait at the hospital an extra hour, who will complain that the 401 has potholes that aren't getting fixed, who will complain that schools are becoming overcrowded because class sizes are too large.

I have an idea, instead of asking for an income tax cut, how about you just start using your brain and save! Cut up your credit cards, your debit cards, use cash, and start living within your means. Yes, we ALL want a 60" plasma and stainless steel appliances, but news alert! you don't need it to survive. I know people that make half the income i make and have these "necessities", and i don't....but then again, i actually have money to my name....take your pick, be in debt for life so you can live like a king, or get with the times!


Elarie
said

If this change in policy makes it impossible for anyone to get a mortgage, that alone is proof that they are spending too close to the wire.

Really people, the point is to get what can afford. People always seem to borrow to the max and never take into consideration that rates will/can rise. A rise in interest rates should be part of your planning. You should also take into account, an emergency fund (2-3 months worth of expenses). If you can not manage that, you should not be borrowing so much.

The point of a mortgage is to pay it off as soon as possible, not have it for as long as possible. People who only pay the minimum amount are nuts. And if you can't afford to pay more than the min, then your mortgage is too high.


Pass the Buck
said

Dear Mr. Jim Flaherty. My car is 15 yrs old and has finally broken down. My choices to finance a new car at the bank and negotiate a 8.5% car loan, or buy the car with my $17,500 credit card limit at 21%. Or, get this -- put it on my 3% PLC. Oh the decision is far too hard to make. Please help!Dear Flaherty may I please have your permission to us my PLC? Honestly sir I didn't question you about the imbecilic $11 Billion dollar F35 purchase at tax payers expense.Oh, oh, it that another boat of 650 illegal immigrants coming? Please be gentle with them and put them up in the Hilton at $120 per night for 24 months while you review each case. Don't even consider using a military jet to fly them home at their expense the moment the boat lands in Vancouver - duhh!


ET_Vancouver
said

I want to buy a house for my children this year to help them get out of the rental market. My savings and equity in our home, when this rule comes in, I will not make the cut in the Vancouver housing market. For the people who could potentially buy another house is now out of the market again! Your honor (Mr. Finance Minister), please leave the housing market alone and tackle the banks and credit card's exorbitant interest rates instead.

My two bits...


Chris
said

Supply & Demand: Rents will go up!
Cause & Effect: The people it's trying to help will be the very people that get screwed further.

I agree with the aims of the changes, and ultimately the change itself but they should be brought in slowly. Big changes just destabilise the market. I experienced this in the 1980's in Britain and got caught on the wrong side and I have effectively been paying for it ever since.


nate
said

A really bad decision at this time. Decision like this need to be made when the economy is in true recovery. Food and fuel are all set to rise, as well as many others costs adding to a family's financial burden. This is not the time to expect them to pay more on their mortgage. This is why the governments paid all the banks our public money to keep them afloat. Otherwise, they would have paid people big cheques instead.

These guys have a poor understanding of thefinancial system- even though they pretend to. Keep big banks afloat MORE by transferring debt to people trying to run a family and get ahead. Now they will have to drastically lower their standard of living (unreasonably) and find money from somewhere to pay higher amounts on their mortgage, without any added help (lines of credit). As many families simply don't have lots of money like the government thinks they do - looks to me like many will have to work second jobs in the evenings. This is sure to spur the economy.


john
said

Perhaps more focus should be placed on credit card debt. He should take a page out of Diefenbakers book and require credit card holders to put 10% cash down before making any purchases. If they can't afford the 10% down , they can't afford the purchase



Brian Fr Langley
said

More nanny state mentality, having said that, given the modern consumers penchant for having little or no knowledge about things fiscal (nor desire to) leading them by the hand wide eyed and child like has become a necessity.


Keith
said

Sounds to me like a large number of Canadians are now trying to live off their credit for as long as they can before having to abandon their homes and declare bankruptcy. The large number of skip payments for mortgages is disturbing. We are possibly heading into the same pit as the USA which we so smugly thought we avoided.


John
said

What happens when a person's renewal comes up ? If a individual had a 35 year mortgage and can only renew for 30 , he or she may not be able to afford the renewal or if they only put down 10% in the first place are they going to have to come up with another 5%? Again this may not be affordable. It doesn't seem well thought out to me.


dm from sask
said

Of course people borrow all they can at record low interest rates, you'd be a fool not to. When a home is the most expensive purchase you'll probably make in your lifetime, how do you not 'go for it' when rates are as low as they ever will be? Most of us trust our financial institutions to guide us in how much we can afford; but they are also the ones making a profit on this; so maybe there should be another institution that helps us decide how much we can afford now and in the long term.


Mortgage Guy
said

In order to prevent a US style housing collapse, the government has two choices; Raise interest rates, or make it more difficult to get financing. They can't raise rates without sending the dollar into the stratosphere, so this is their alternative. And for the uneducated, going on and on about home equity lines of credit being back by taxpayers dollars, about 1% of bank lines of credit are insured by CMHC. Most banks only issue lines of credit up 80% of the market value, which negates government involvement.


Jay Morgan
said

I agree with this comment: [CHRIS[] "...If you want to put more home equity money in people's pockets, get rid of the monopolistic anti-competitive MLS system that is used by Realtors to get a lock on most home sales." I worked for real estate agents as a photographer and dealt with MLS employees - a sorry, uncooperative, lazy, surly bunch of sad people. Ideas are not welcome; improvements - get loats. MLS gives the minimum acceptable service. MLS needs massive competition to improve service. You're paying for their "services" and getting little (and low quality) in return. We need competitors to MLS. All parties in real estate will benefit from this (including MLS - it will improve or die).


ray francis
said

if anyone wants to read what our government should really be doing ,,, search " the web of debt",,,go to her website and buy her book,,,there is a better way to run our world where all of us would prosper,,the answer is simple.


DM Rockyview
said

Thanks to Mr. Flaherty's decision, I'll have to come up with an extra $10,000 for my mortgage down payment. As a young working professional with excellent credit and ZERO debt, I've been shafted by this new amortization criteria.

I renounced my Conservative views a while ago, and this just reinforces my choice.




eddytoronto
said

Unless things change fast, human history will show that the phenomenon of retirement was limited to one generation. The economy has nosedived, and many more retirements are being delayed. The unfortunate reality is that many who planned on retiring will work until the grave. More importantly, corporations have been driving down real wages since the seventies, allowing less money to be saved for retirement, creating a mood of desperation.The autoworkers struggle is at the forefront of the pension battle nationwide. Equally important is the pension struggles emerging with public . Employees will find their pensions under immense attack as the economic crisis intensifies, and government budgets are depleted. New levels of organizing and solidarity are needed, such as the example of the United Electrical Workers, who occupied their factory and organized in a brilliant fashion. They won a stunning victory by utilizing the methods of the original autoworkers struggles from the 1930's. The UEW workers have shown the way forward for the labor movement, which can no longer rely on union concessions or the promises of Democratic politicians, but only their own collective strength and the Newest Trick of Big Business:declaring bankruptcy to destroy pension obligations. These obligations apply with equal weight to workers already retired, many of whom are seeing their pensions slashed in half, forcing them out of retirement. Of course, people who have nothing do not retire. Now the safest possible investment, too, has turned sour. For millions of people, the home they lived in was their nest egg, which they had planned to sell and move into a smaller place. No more. Canada, have we been living in an illusion? Has our country ever been totally free? Are our politicians really puppets for the Royal Family?


David
said

Household debt may be a problem, but looking at the type of debt would reveal just in what shape Canadians are on a whole. Those who use debt as investments are not the ones targeted by these new measures. Consumer debt is the target, and the problem is how do you differentiate between them. Flaherty is not changing the landscape enough for those with bad debt and goes too far for those with good investment debt.


Diana
said

I don't understand the people who are complaining that this is some gov't scheme to take more from us. He is 100% correct that this will only help most homeowners in the long run. If you can't afford a 30 year mortgage, you can't afford a home. The government is finally fixing a problem they should have fixed years ago. This is the reason we got into this mess in the first place, these ridiculous lending practices over the last decade, allowing every joe to own a home whether he can manage it or not. Unfortunately this may end up hurting people who have purchased a home in the last 4 years or so, because it might level out the market to more reasonable levels, causing new home owners to have upside down mortgages. No matter what the gov't does now, someone will be screwed. The way it's been hasn't exactly been great, we are headed for a train wreck the way we spend in this country, like there's no tomorrow. Believe me, I am in the process of looking to purchase a new home in the next year or so and I would love a lower payment, but the security of actually having some equity in my home is the tough love most of us canadians need.


Devil's Advocate
said

After reading the article, it seemed to make sense, but then reading the blog posts, I have to admit I have no idea what is up or down here... Either I know nothing on this, or no one has bothered to elaborate their points. The only thing clear to me is the last bullet point in the article which will appear to hurt buyers' chances of getting a mortgage from the bank for a time. I do know that many homes have over-inflated costs in comarison to the average income of most canadians though. That problem will solve itself in time as the rule of supply and demand. My best guess from a home buyer's perspective is to wait for housing prices to drop.


RGBrook
said

And what about the high credit card interest rates people are forced to pay? With our dollar hovering around parity, the prices for consumer goods between Canada and the US still differs dramatically. Our cost of living is incredibly high, over-inflated, and deserves some serious action from this government. Families have little choice but to go into debt these days, and they're being taken to the cleaners!


bills_view
said

Folks!!!! the problem here in Canada is that everyone wants to 'look like their rich' when in fact they are not.

What seems to be missed here is that many Canadians inherited money/housing from their parents. This has resulted in them foolishly burning through that resource without knowing how to replace (spoiled). On the flip side, their friends seem to want to keep up with them an just dig themselves into debt. This cycle basically leads to both sides going massively into debt.

Additionally, how does anyone here in Canada explain how the bulk of the population can possibly afford homes in excess of $400,000.00 ? Especially when the average Canadian income is ONLY $45,000/year. There is a massive disparity and the governments effort is REALLY too little TOO LATE!!! Let the cards fall where they may, unfortunately like our American friends, Canadians can't just pack up and move to one of the other 49 states, they will have to really figure it out, the hard way!!! Again, as in the USA, Big Banks, Car Dealers(Car Manufacturers), Unions, Realtors and Government have botched it up for everyone, way way way too much greed here....live and learn!!!


Gord
said

I once had a neighbour who kept re mortgaging to maintain lifestyle. He treated his home equity much like an ATM, long before the term became popular in the U.S. Our banking system is what saved us from the U.S. mortgage mess.


ExPat
said

Bring on the flat tax!!


Robert (Toronto)
said

As a firm supporter of the Liberal Party, I'm glad to see that the Conservative Government has finally done something right! A 25-year mortgage limit would have been even better, as the homeowner would save a ton of interest at a cost of just a few extra dollars a month, but at least a 30-year limit is better than 35 years. The other steps taken by the Government are also prudent. They help Canada take a step back from the financial brink we have reached by our vast, unsustainable overborrowing. The alternative would almost certainly have been a U.S.-style housing collapse with subsequent bank bailouts, a jump in unemployment, etc. Thank you for taking these responsible steps before it's too late, Flaherty.


Joe Tester
said

I'm a real-estate investor who uses the equity in the last building I buy to make the down payment on the nect building I buy. I have no faith int he gov't pension plan and expect my own real estate holdings to give me the retirement income I need. Flaherty's new rules aren't helping me do that.

Instead of having the gov't doing the financial thinking for us, why not teach basic financing and banking skills in grade school and high school?


Rich
said

Finally the government has done something to put accountability back on the individual. I know this is a real kick in the butt for the citizens that feel that the government is an endless pit of money and should be responsible for looking after them from cradle to grave but as a tax payer who lives within his means and manages his debt load this is great news. Hopefully this policy change will make people evaluate what is a necessity and what is a luxury. Remember folks, items like, cell phones, IPods, IPADs, flat screen TVs, high speed internet access, sunny vacations, etc. are not a necessity or an entitlement.


J.W.
said

Am sure this will mean taxes go up even more down the road. The one area tries to help families with bills and the property taxes will go up cause you know those UNIONIZED groups keep getting nice increases and more benefits and pensions.Say it again, the rich, middle and poor class will go away and you will have two classes, unionized and non-unionized. When is the levels of government gonna start looking at these 'mob' style departments and controling them instead of pay me or we will strike!


Wally Ayoub BSc. MBA AMP Mortgage Agent
said

I do not know why all the financial conservatism burden has to be carried by mortgage debt, when a lot of people are borrowing on unsecured LOC at Prime 2 or Prime 3% and VISA at 18% and dept stores debt at 29% and taking on car leases and car loans that they can not afford. This other borrowing is what the govt should focus on, not only on mortgages that are secured by RE.When people borrow against secured HELOC or refinance their mortgage, it is to pay off those credit cards and unsecured LOC which will remain and probably grow at expensive interest rates, now that it is harder for people to consolidate them into their mortgages and who is the winner? The banks of course they make more money off credit card debts and LOC than on mortgages. Wally Ayoub BSc. MBA AMP Mortgage Agent


DANIEL H
said

While I agree with the concept of trying to reduce the debt load of Canadians, I don't think this is the right way to go. I think it's too easy to get credit from sources that charge outrageous rates. It’s to easy to get that payday loan from the “money stores” that charge outrageous fees. Too many people buying toys they really don’t need. Why do so many people feel they need that constant connection of a cell phone for example? Why do they need to have the latest and greatest? Making homes harder to get will only drive more people into rentals that cost more than a mortgage. The slumlords will get even worse than they are now. I say place more limits on what credit companies can accept as total debit from individuals and limit rates. I got rid of a wife that couldn’t understand simple economics at home. Now I’ll retire a millionaire!


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Nothing radical, just sensible, in light of Canada's current overall household debt issue. Until the government no longer ultimately backs the chartered banks (which, of course, will never happen), "downside" macroeconomic protections of this sort must be in place, especially on the heels of a fragile recovery from an intense global recession. Suck it up, folks.


Burnaby
said

ARE ALL YOU LAGGARDS finally seeing what the rest of us have been telling you about this govt for years? Do you now understand why the MAJORITY of Canadians won't vote for this crew? I hope every would be homeowner who lost their dream of home ownership keeps this day in mind. If you are a homeowner, you will see the equity built over the years evaporate in the coming days and weeks as home values start to crash. And down the road as the value of your home diminishes, do not for a second assume that your mortgage company will renew your mortgage. It is time to call for an election to stop these people. They just cost you thousands of dollars. If you dare to cast another vote for these people you deserve every bit of consequence that is coming to you and it certainly is coming for you.


Kathleen
said

I can guarantee that the financial industry will have an immediate reaction to elimination of their security for home secured lines of credit - they will recall every one of those loans and that will then put far too many of them into bankruptcy. The government would have been far smarter to do a staged approach. For all 'new' home secured lines, the government will no longer back the loan; and for all existing lines, the government will continue to back for a staging out period to not exceed 2 years which would hopefully give enough time for people to get their financial houses in order. This will so backfire on the government. I totally undertstand wanting to reduce Canadians debt, but you can't take away security as quickly as planned without the banks following suit. Banks haven't been in the industry of 'risk' for decades and the government should know that by now.


IAN
said

A step in the right direction but, Doesn't go far enough! It should be set at 25 down and 25 yr Mortgages. Then the gov needs to cap the interest rates the banks are charging on their lending vehicles [mortgage, credit cards, car loans, personal loans, etc...] and cap their service fees!Once this is done the CMHC needs to get a swift kick in the arse and start doing what they were suppose to be doing in the first place - protecting the CONSUMER and, while we are at it, set the NEW HOME WARRANTY program straight! They are not doing what they were suppose to do either!Restoring balance is they only way to correct the problem. While this is more than any other Government has ever done, this measure is just is just a fresh coat of paint on a dirty wall!But lets face it - Nothing major like this will ever happen until Canadians collectively say enough is enough and actually do something other than shrug and say "NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!"


ALK
said

So the key to these changes is this. The bank of Canada will be raising the key lending rate, which is presently at 1%. This is the rate that sets the prime lending rate which is at 3%. All lines of credits and variable rate mortgages are tied to these rates directly. This should be a warning to everyone holding these types of mortgages. Your payments will be going up. The brain trust that controls the Bank of Canada has rumoured that the bank rate should go up around 2.5% over the next couple of years. This is an essential change to create a more stable banking system for Canada.


KC
said

Some of you are still thinking that the government is responsible for your debt problems. If you go to a bank for a mortgage, and you sign a contract saying you will pay back x amount of interest, and you will be penalized for ending the contract sooner than later, then how is it the governments fault for you entering into this contract? What they are trying to do is make sure the tax payer doesn't become responsible for more bankruptcies than what we already are. It is not your right to "own" a home you cannot afford. And as far as more regulations for banks...shop around; if you want to pay less, then bargain shop. If you are a loyal customer you'd be surprised at what your bank will do to keep you. for example: I use my visa as a bankcard for all our monthly needs. It is paid off every month, and I never pay interest, except for one month when the bank changed the time period before interest is charged. When I saw the interest charge I immediately called and even though I had missed the notice, they subtracted the interest charge. I have never had problems with the same bank I have used for over 35yrs, but then again, I have never tried to live beyond my means, and I have always paid my debts - and our household income has never been more than 40,000.


Steve
said

This new mortgage policy by Flaherty could push the economy in Canada over the edge. The problem the Western world has is debt. Consumer debt and government debt. It is beyond servicing. Sooner or later, it has to be reconciled, either through runaway inflation or default or inheritance taxes. The problem with reducing limits now, is that this will push those on the edge over. The banks will no longer have the protection of the government for home equity backed credit lines and they will pull the plug on many homeowners, flooding the market with a Canadian Government made home repossessions. This will depress housing prices, further depressing the market and exacerbating the problem. As equity levels fall, people will automatically go into default on their more reasonable debt, as home values decrease lending limits. Many of those who fall off the bandwagon will then go on social assistance, raising the overall cost to the Government. This policy by Flaherty is truely a made in Canada disaster. This one policy will, in one fell swoop, destroy everything the Tories have worked so hard to build. It is a gift to the incompetent and divided Opposition. The Tories were very close to gaining a majority in the coming election and once again, they have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.


Redmeck Vic
said

Reducing credit card rates might help but what he did was perfect. I know how all you cry babies out there can watch your credit card rates "DO NOT USE THEM EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY)As for banks making too much money ; what are they suppose to do, have you seen the rates lately i think they are pretty damn good! There are some that want taxes lowered! Yea me too but then who will pay for the Cadillac health care system that we all want & who will pay for the world class education system we all want? All we have to do is start living within our means and you know what i have done it for years and it is not hard all you have to do is learn to say "NO".


Johnny
said

This is not for the "banks" I work in mortgages and for a bank. This kind of announcement is terrible for the banks, because tighter lending guidelines means less business and less profitability. I know for certain the targets for this year will be more difficult to reach as less and less people will be able to afford a mortgage. I do agree Canada should have never gotten into the amortization over 25 yrs to begin with as that is what has created this mess.


Anne
said

Why do we have debt - maybe it's because the governments takes so much bloody income taxes from us that it's tough to make ends meet. As they say, we work to July for taxes then after that the money is ours. And for those who always have 25% down, well goody for you. So many young families are stuck in the rent rut because while they could afford a mortgage payment because that is how high the rent is, there isn't hardly any money left to save for a big down payment. Flaherty et al's actions sure smack of patronizing rhetoric which is nothing more than serving their own bottom line.


CYL
said

to pay debt one's gotta have income !!! with meager income first comes food.... and so on....


Chris
said

If you want to put more home equity money in people's pockets, get rid of the monopolistic anti-competitive MLS system that is used by Realtors to get a lock on most home sales. Realtors extract thousands and thousands of commission dollars from homeowner equity at the time of sale and yet they do very little to earn it other than list it on the MLS system. It is not worth $10,000 to $20,000 to have a poorly educated real estate agent do a bit of clerical work and sit back and wait for the phone to ring.


Neil
said

What doesn't make sense to me is that if people can't use their homes to secure low interest money for renovations, trips, unexpected expenses, they will be using their higher interest rate credit cards to pay for it. In the end, you'll owe more on credit than on your home. Reducing LTV from 90 to 85% won't help much. The government must be expecting the housing market to drop.


Foles
said

I have no problem with these changes. The only average joe this will effect is the same one that always makes the minimum payments on his credit card. When will people learn to live within their means? If you can't afford a 30 year mortgage on a $400K house, than don'y buy a $400K house.


patrick
said

There is no breaks here. Potential home buyers will just have to rent.
That will drive up rents and there will be no options to save for a home. I ask is the constant meddling by the BOC and Fed government causing more problems in a market that is just trying to survive. For the average Joe's, that just want a simple life and own their own home this is another bow to that dream. I question if the problem could be the banks excessive profits and BOC and Fed government going merrily along while people struggle under the excessive debt payments.


Gord.Robson , Nova Scotia
said

The Finance Minister did the right thing. Too many people keep borrowing and refinancing and before you know it you are 65 years old and do not own your own home. That is a dangerous situation. The problem is many people want too many things too fast. A bigger house a more expensive car etc. All these things are fine IF you can afford them. Me I have a one bedroom 500sq ft new home that is paid for and a small car, a fishing rod and no debt. Yes I do not have much but it is paid for and it is all I need to survive.Keeping up to impress the Jones? No thanks !


Wayne, Belleville
said

Funny, how, despite the economic condition of many Canadians and businesses, the banks are posting record profits.Flaherty, the problem isn't the TDR, its how we got there. Diminished income, followed by easy credit. The credit cards were a means to allow banks to foreclose on homes. Anyone could have seen the outcome, had they not panicked and expected early recovery.The banks have been periodically, and systematically liquidating the assets of the masses for almost 200 years. Thanks Mr. Bauer-Rothschild.


thetruth1028
said

Great..so now more people will be forced to rent instead of build equity....especially in Markets where it is about the same price to rent as it is to buy. Also: Why would you not allow longer mortgages to help keep the payments down? So what if it takes an extra 5-10 years to pay off....


Dayton
said

Why is it in the USA you can lock in a 30 year mortgage at 5%? In Canada it's 5% for only 5 years so the least we can get for 25 years is around 10%. It's almost like the banks want to entrap you knowing the rates will be substantially higher in 5 years. Why the big difference? One would think if a size able down payment was offered the mortgage rates could be lowered to better suite the times.


john NB
said

Very well said KC, still trying to please the ignorant voters. thats why there has been such upsets at poll time.


Stu
said

Proud to live in a country that still has hope!I personally think the could have been a bit more, but that was easily balanced government exiting from the insurance aspect of home mortgages.One thing's for sure, the opposition's answers to current financial issues, would destroy our hope and spiral us towards our southern neighbors.


John
said

Finally the govt did something to stem poor debt management. this is exactly what needed to be done. i worked for a bank and saw how people racked up credit cards/lines of credits and used their homes as a ABM machines. this is EXACTLY what caused the US housing market to collapse. by reducing the amort to 30 years will hopefully lower the housing prices since they were getting out of reach for most canadians.


M A C
said

Ok, so the government is undoing some if its stupidities. 40,35, and 30 year amortizations were American in origin and stupid ideas. If you can't pay off your mortgage in 25 years you shouldn't be buying a home, or a condo that is now the same price as a house? Flaherty is way behind the times and it shows, he needs to overhaul the whole system and start regulating real estate agents and new home sellers where this whole problem began. Why do real estate companies that make commission on home sales give market reports on their industry hyping that you need to buy now before prices get our of reach? Basic economics, supply and demand will take hold of the market and then we will all be able to, unfortunately "in time", buy our own homes. Canadians need to save, we need to stop taking the easy money the banks so want to throw at us, and we need to take repsonsability for our own actions. Wake up people, we are the problem, running like rats in a maze trying to keep up with all the trends, and the Jones's. We need to save up, then buy, not buy now and hope to pay later....our government created a situation for a mess, but look in the mirror and realize it is our mess and only we can clean it up. As for bank penalties, interest rates, home prices, read before you sign and accept that a contract is a contract. You wanted that home that bad, you relied on your mortgage broker to put your needs first, maybe you should have asked how much they were making on your deal? Knowledge is power!!!


mining guy Jim
said

Mortgage rates are still in the lowest zone they've been at in the last 25 years. Anyone who is crying about the interest they are paying on their mortgage needs to speak to a financial councellor. These same people probably have 3 different credit cards in their wallets that they use every week. Therein lies the madness.


Marc
said

You know, reducing loan to value (85% vs 90%) means absolutely nothing except that the consumer can no longer pull out as much equity from the home as before. Problem is TDS (total debt service ratio) and is never talked about but is the real factor in determining your repayment capacity. If TDS is too high, meaning your income is not high enough to repay your debt, then no matter what loan to value you borrow, you will not be able to repay. So in fact, govt is only protecting itself from not losing too much money in repossessions....a prop at 85% is much easier to sell than at 90% or even 100% as it once was. Govt doesnt care if you cant pay....if you cant, someone else will....as long as govt doesnt lose any money! Reduced amort is good....should have never surpassed 25 years in the first place but going down to 30 is a good step.


roula
said

Its not clear to me how this is going to actually help Canadians curb their on going household debts?!!! basic commodities are still over inflated in costs, house prices are still over inflated, people are receiving almost next to nothing for raises, taxes keep climbing, and somehow these new mortgage rules are supposed to help us?!!! There are better strategies out there that help Canadians reduce their debts....Lets get real! We know who is benefiting here!


Al
said

I just recently moved from one town to another and got penalized for selling one house even though I took out another mortgage to buy another. The penalty is quite substantial and the mortgage on the new house was larger. People and homeowners are not the problem its the gouging banks that are driving up debt but no one including government seems to want to do anything about the gouging.


KC-bby
said

A 30 yr mortgage is too expensive for many people and couple that with an expected mortgage increase down the road you got yourself a receipe for a mass of foreclosures. The thing about securing a 35 or 40 yr mortgage is that the monthly mortgage payment is similar to the cost of renting except that with a mortgage you are building equity, you have the flexibility to rent the unit out yourself, and you could always sell and make a bit of profit. It seems our friend Flarehty is trying to engineer problems again. Why is he tinkering with mortgage qualifications when it doesnt need fixing? The debt problems people are experiencing is stemming from 19% credit card interest rates not the 3.45% mortgage rates. What is this man doing??


Paul
said

These are perfect rules. Right now too many people think they can afford a home. I have never bought a house with less then 25% in cash. If people can not save before they buy a house then they should not be given that permission.


laughing
said

Help reduce their debt?? Lower peoples taxes if you want to help them. Govt is looking after its own ass. I could ramble on with what people need but you don't care.


Alan
said

Note - they are not increasing the downpayment required for a mortage - they are reducing the percentage you can REFINANCE on an EXISTING mortgage from 90% of the mortgage to 85%. This has no impact on purchasers not refinancing an existing mortgage. I have no problem with reducing the amortization period from 35 to 30 years maximum.


john
said

are you kidding me. what about the tax rate increases in quebec to 8.5%. how about we lower that, how about we pay less on income tax. come on, this is ridiculous. "people cannot pay their bills" so lets tax them more. NICE. The goverment just takes, takes, takes and drives richer people richer and middle class down to the poor class. soon there will be no middle class. LETS ALL TAX THE GOVERNMENT AND CALL IT A INCOMPETENCE TAX.


peter
said

well what about getting the banks to lower the intrest rates on the mortgaes? by the time i finish paying my mortgage i would have paid it over 3 times! that is what needs to fixed.


Paul C
said

I agree that income tax needs to be lowered, but the driving force of our economy is the housing industry. If we don't regulate mortgage rules first and turn a blind eye, it could come back to haunt us. Good going Flaherty and Harper, keep up the good work.


Nick
said

My bank Scotia has me with a penalty of 20,000$ if I decide to break my mortgage. I am less than two years away from a renewal. I have offerred the 3-6 months penalty but no..it is at the bank's discretion. Credit card rates at 28%. Bank fees on top of bank fees. Certainly these are not issues to look at for Canadians crumbling with their debt.


Robert
said

This is for the consumer, the average Joe???? Right.. We are not stupid.This is for nobody but the banks.


mark
said

So its I'll be stuck renting for life...


brian
said

@James: well put.


james
said

so...rather than reducing personal income taxes, introducing cap and control on HUGELY overpriced credit cards (private and bank-issued) and further control on the so called payday loan companies, Flaherty takes steps instead to ensure that when these institutions makes loans, they will be much more certain to get their 'nickel' back from the average Joe........nice.....


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Canada Stories

Double lung transplant recipient Helene Campbell appears on 'Ellen,' on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Campbell celebrates recovery with 'Ellen' appearance

More   13 Comments 13    10 Video(s) 10

Gatineau Quebec Police investigate an abandoned van that may be connected to a major crime scene that happened kilometer away were multiple bodies were found on Thursday May 24,2012 in Gatineau, Que. across the river from Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand

Estranged husband charged in Gatineau, Que., murders

More  1 Video(s) 1

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty holds a press conference in Toronto on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Federal deficit falling despite $9B spike in March

More  1 Video(s) 1

Most Talked about Stories

I feel that if certain organs were in demand, less effort would be made to revive people. Am I being silly? Not really. I had a bad experience in hospital when my heart stopped, the doctors tried to revive me and failed. They stopped and said I was gone. I came around on my own when the nurse was giving a final BP reading of 'zero'. I heard her declare me dead! It was all I could do to shake my head but they never caught on til I was able to open my eyes. You should have seen them scramble then! I thought the nurse was going to faint. The thing is, I think we may write people off too soon when there is something of value to be gained from them.

me

Should all Canadians be automatically considered organ donors?