speculators should be at 50%

Overall I agree, but they don't go far enough.I think it's a step in the right direction though. I would like to see the 35 year amortization drop to 30 years and then slowly back to 25 years. Bigger down payment for speculators should be higher. Remember, interest rates have nowhere to go but up.

Mr. Flaherty has effectively closed any possibility of my getting ahead. During the "good times" it was possible for me to purchase a couple of affordable rental properties and rent them out at an affordable price for the average person and keep the houses in good condition at that rate. Now that Mr Flaherty has tied my hands I can only rent a property for a very marginal return and that in the long run will effect the quality of house I am renting. I've never wanted to be a "slum landlord" but Mr Flaherty has made it so I can only afford to buy low quality houses and will be limited as to how much I can afford to put back into repairs. So when your roof is leaking and your landlord won't repair it, thank Mr Flaherty.

I don't think it will affect anything. If you can't afford a house in the longrun, you shouldn't be buying one in the first place.

I see nothing wrong with the new rules. I do not agree with the 35 year amortization. It should be 25 years at the most.

Having been in banking and finance my whole life I have seen both sides of this debate played over and over....if you had a good bank manager they would help you with your purchase and financing...making an impression that "budget" not "wants" must be the ruling factors...these changes are only what we had years ago you saved for a down payment and those who were fortunate enough to buy investment properties were good business minded people but it is not a right to have all taxpayers take the investment risk on someones multiply properties so they can flip them for a quick profit..it is unfortunate that some landlords will get hit...but I think this will make our market stronger ..don't forget there will always be secondary financing available...but in the long run who wants the headache of having to sell thier home because they could not afford it in the first place....see the USA situation for the realty on this ....good luck...

It's about time they tightened it. And as the poster above said, it’s not enough. People who plan their payments based on today’s rates, and expecting them to remain that way for the next 20 years of their mortgage are completely ignorant. Because of this, the gov't has to step in and do their financial planning for them.

My boyfriend and I have been "house hunting" for the past year now. We are both just out of University/College and feel our rent in being wasted into someone else's pocket when it could be going into our own home. We know what we can and cannot afford (also, because our banker wasn't going to give us a mortgage approval for anything we cannot afford).

I know there are people living WAY beyond their personal means, and that's why there was such a major financial collapse/crisis but, this increase doesn't help those of us who are trying to get on our feet and buy a modest house to make into our home.
(Finding a nice two bedroom rental that's affordable isn't all that easy to come by either).
The price of housing in our province has already increased over double in the past year already making it difficult to find something affordable.

With 9 years of University/College, and counting with Masters programs to be done, we feel stuck with the cost it is in trying to get our lives settled and into a home. We are both educated people with degree/diplomas, it shouldn't be this difficult to get settled down. Maybe one of us should have done engineering...

We really don't need the gov't assuring mortgages or so called fine tuning things. The market can do this on it's own. It's central banks and their involvment by keeping rates artifically low is what started this entire bubble housing market.

The solution is more gov't regulation? I think not.

the government didn't seem to mind the added debtload of the hst on buying a new home. tax tax tax tax take that away and we could all aford homes.

since it is the speculators that have caused this horrible state of affairs, triing to get rich quick, at the expence of the rest of us hard working Canadians!.
i say your not hard enough on these greedy mongers,but as we live in this great country of ours, well we can't shoot em. so if thats what has to be done better now before property becomes so expesive that Canadians them selfs can no longer affored to own. and have to leave, sound familliar. good luck Canada.

The government should not be insuring any single family units (incl. condos) that are not owner-occupied. If a person is buying the unit on speculation of flipping it for a profit then let the bank and non-occupying owner duke it out. This would take most of the speculators out of the market and bring some stabiliity to the housing market.

The 20% rule for non-owner occupied residences should be reserved mutliple unit apartment buildings.

So let's say for example i wanted to buy appt. buildings for 500 000. i now have to put 20% down? or is it still 10%. Or would that be considered speculating.

Someone please explain why it matters if a mortgage is 25 or 35 yrs??
The 25yr or 35yr has no bearing on whether the interest rates rise or fall for the purchaser, other than they will be paying more interest in the end.
I think its great that you can get a mortgage for 35yrs. Lets say you want a $400,000 home. Say you can afford it @ 25yr amorization. But it would be more comfortable monthly payments @ 35 yrs. How does this hurt??
It's like saying, instead of the regular 25yrs term, were going to make it 10yrs! And if you cant afford the 10yr. term you shouldn't be buying it. Even though maybe you can afford at 10yr. its much more comfortable to pay for a 25 yr. term.
The only 2 things that the gov't should be concerned about is a ratio of how much you can afford at a certain interest rate (ex.6%)..And your debt to asset value.

I don't understand the comments about the amortization periods what difference does it make if you have 25 or 35 years? I don't get why people are against it, it seems like a good way to get people in to a home and make the payments a little easier, which by the by helps the economy. The 20% down is a joke, as the one person mentioned earlier, the government didn't think about affordability when they threw in the stupid HST why all of a sudden are they concerned about people's financial well being? People roll their debt in to their mortgage because they've earned that right, the right to a lower interest rate on their debt, the right to gain equity, they've purchased their home as an investment for many positive reasons and taking advantage of equity plans is one of them. I would think the better case scenario would be to see someone pay their debt via their mortgage rather than not pay it at all or claim bankruptcy. (Which ps there's a program that someone should be looking in to! HELLO!) - Perhaps that's where our finance minister should focus his efforts, a person can have their entire debt erased by filing bankruptcy and what to they have to do? Pay a nominal fee, go to a few counseling sessions and three years later scott free, now that's bullshit!

this is a way to ensure that only the "have(s)" shall have and the "have not(s)" should work more overtime.

i feel that everybody want to achieve the dream, and thats a decent wage and a home. bottom line is the cost of living is to high and we are taxed to much.

alot of people may think that only "educated" people with a degree/ diploma or masters should own a home, there are many hard working canadians out there without a "university education" working 2 jobs in order to pay rent why shouldn't they own a home? i feel that lower income(s)within reason should have an opportunity to own a home on a rent to own basis and more programs should be in place which allow the income people to do so as long as they have good credit and job stability (of course within reason).

My mortgage broker has told that the new rules will only effect CMHC, and I would still be able to buy rental properties using other mortgage insurance companies...is that really the case?

While I don't think that the government should be regulating every aspect, ultimately these are steps that banks and homeowners should be following anyways.

For example, as I pay down my mortgage, my HELOC increases, but only within 80% of the house value. So I still don't have the option with my mortgage to borrow against my home up to 90% and certainly not the previous 95% that was allowed.

I think what they should have done is to force banks to make 25-35 year FRM - fixed rate mortgages available that people could lock into without worrying about the rate going up in 5 years. Other countries USA and Japan have them why don't we.

Wrote Jim Flaherty's office about this and didn't even get a regular office staffers reply.

Should be a 30-year FMR right now for about 5% but all we get is crap at 5 and 10 years.

Buying a home should be just that, it is a HOME! Somehow the home part has been replaced by $$$$$$. If people want property for profit, build on private lakes or some other recreational property, leave the HOMES for people who need a home.