Canada -
News Sections
Flaherty unveils new mortgage rules to curb debt
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTV.ca News Staff
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
User Tools
Most Viewed News Stories
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.
Email
Comments are now closed for this story
Bob NS
said
Mae Alexandria-Realtor
said
Steve Lillico
said
More to think about
said
Firinn
said
J man
said
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
EJP
said
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
Rod Hebner
said
German
said
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
Devon Johnstone
said
Linda in Vancouver
said
Ryan
said
Smart Move
said
Norm in Ontario
said
Trolls abound.
said
Max
said
Diana, AB
said
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
J man
said
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
Nathan
said
notrequired
said
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
Bob Couldwell
said
Evan in Athabasca
said
Spectator
said
Don Aitken
said
renaldo
said
OK Sunshine
said
Brian
said
Merle
said
dalavigne
said
Richard Victoria BC
said
J man
said
"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
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
Old Ted
said
Mike Kushneryk
said
George V.
said
MARG MM
said
Devil's Advocate
said
Intelligent Liberal
said
Jim in Ottawa
said
Albertaboy111
said
John
said
Henry@Crowsnest
said
johntoon
said
Kerry in Alberta
said
Robin
said
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
Ben
said
Mark
said
Greg Fortney
said
Vic
said
Bruce from Alberta
said
Tim
said
1Don1
said
Almost Debt Free Dude
said
Glen
said
Anon Amos
said
viral venus
said
HUNTER
said
Santa Claus
said
merci monsieur harper ,u da best !!
Karl
said
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
Darryl
said
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
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
ET_Vancouver
said
My two bits...
Chris
said
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
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
Brian Fr Langley
said
Keith
said
John
said
dm from sask
said
Mortgage Guy
said
Jay Morgan
said
ray francis
said
DM Rockyview
said
I renounced my Conservative views a while ago, and this just reinforces my choice.
eddytoronto
said
David
said
Diana
said
Devil's Advocate
said
RGBrook
said
bills_view
said
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
ExPat
said
Robert (Toronto)
said
Joe Tester
said
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
J.W.
said
Wally Ayoub BSc. MBA AMP Mortgage Agent
said
DANIEL H
said
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
Burnaby
said
Kathleen
said
IAN
said
ALK
said
KC
said
Steve
said
Redmeck Vic
said
Johnny
said
Anne
said
CYL
said
Chris
said
Neil
said
Foles
said
patrick
said
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
Wayne, Belleville
said
thetruth1028
said
Dayton
said
john NB
said
Stu
said
John
said
M A C
said
mining guy Jim
said
Marc
said
roula
said
Al
said
KC-bby
said
Paul
said
laughing
said
Alan
said
john
said
peter
said
Paul C
said
Nick
said
Robert
said
mark
said
brian
said
james
said