Skip to main content
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
Get full digital access to globeandmail.com
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
// //

The Liberal minority government risks turning up the heat on an already feverish housing market if it makes good on its election campaign promises to tinker with mortgage insurance offered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

In what can only be described as a reckless attempt to curry favour with cash-strapped home buyers – many of whom are part of the sizable millennial voting bloc – the Liberal Party pledged two changes that would make it cheaper and easier to obtain mortgage insurance through the federal agency.

First, the Liberals proposed to reduce CMHC mortgage insurance premiums by 25 per cent, claiming the cut would save the average borrower $6,100 in costs. The party also wants to increase the insured mortgage cutoff from $1-million to $1.25-million and index it to inflation. That means for the first time in years, CMHC could provide coverage for homes worth more than $1-million.

Story continues below advertisement

Let’s get down to brass tacks. It would be utterly irresponsible for the Liberal government to fulfill these promises. Not only would they inflate home prices by stoking demand from financially stretched borrowers, they would intensify consumer debt loads, increase taxpayer exposure to the housing market and add more risk to the financial system.

Mortgage insurance, which reimburses a lender if a borrower defaults on a loan, is required when buyers make a down payment of less than 20 per cent of a home’s total price. Under the current system, the federal government guarantees 100 per cent of CMHC’s obligations to lenders for insured mortgages. Private insurers Sagen MI Canada Inc. and Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Co., meanwhile, receive 90-per-cent backing from Ottawa.

Taxpayers, though, are the ultimate backstop for these higher loan-to-value mortgages. To put that into perspective, chartered banks had $481.8-billion worth of insured residential mortgages outstanding at the end of 2020.

That’s precisely why a responsible government should not help risky buyers purchase homes they cannot reasonably afford – especially not when inflation is already eroding paycheques and interest rate increases are on the horizon.

“There’s no analysis behind it,” said Evan Siddall, chief executive officer of Alberta Investment Management Corp., in a telephone interview when asked about the two proposals. Mr. Siddall, who is also an advocate for housing affordability, previously served as CEO of CMHC.

“What they’re basically doing is they’re putting a whole bunch of risk back on to the government’s balance sheet,” he later added.

As Mr. Siddall rightly points out, the proposal to cut CMHC’s mortgage insurance premiums by 25 per cent is ill-conceived because these rates are set based on regulatory capital requirements imposed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada’s banking regulator, along with sophisticated modelling, stress testing and risk analytics.

Story continues below advertisement

“And what? The government is just going to give a 25-per-cent reduction?” he added. “It has to do with the stability of the housing system through an economic cycle.”

Just this week, CMHC warned the residential real estate market is overheated because of rising home prices and issued its highest risk rating for the country.

Any attempt to liberalize mortgage insurance would only intensify the fallout from any potential downturn in the market, creating hazards for taxpayers and homeowners.

It’s pure financial folly.

Record mortgage volumes increased total consumer debt to $2.15-trillion during the second quarter of this year, according to Equifax Canada. Although only a portion of that debt is from insured mortgages, the credit bureau expressed concern about the amount of mortgage debt held by consumers with low credit scores.

Instead of stimulating more demand through CMHC, Ottawa’s focus should be on increasing housing supply. Despite his criticisms, Mr. Siddall acknowledged the Trudeau government is doing what it can to achieve that goal.

Story continues below advertisement

“The problem is the supply problem is beyond the fiscal capacity of any government,” he said.

So what can be done to cool the housing market?

The Liberals have proposed an anti-flipping tax. The details are not yet known.

But many experts, including Mr. Siddall, have suggested Ottawa should gradually start taxing capital gains on the sales of principal residences – not retroactively, but from here on out.

It’s tough love that will no doubt rile homeowners, but lest we forget that easy money is what caused the financial crisis of 2007-09.

Make no mistake, the Liberal Party’s proposals to fiddle with CMHC mortgage insurance are fraught with risk. Case in point: The Bank of Canada has indicated it could raise its trendsetting interest rate as soon as next year.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Trudeau needs to turn over a new leaf and start thinking about how monetary policy affects the financial wherewithal of Canadians.

He should have never floated such irresponsible housing policies during the election campaign. For the sake of all of us, let’s hope he breaks his word.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies