Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Budget 2018: The Most Disappointing Budget Ever March 14, 2018
    Premier Pallister’s Trump-esque statement that budget 2018 was going to be the “best budget ever” has fallen a bit flat. Instead of a bold plan to deal with climate change, poverty and our crumbling infrastructure, we are presented with two alarmist scenarios to justify further tax cuts and a lack of decisive action: the recent […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2018 Federal Budget Analysis February 14, 2018
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis Some baby steps for dad and big steps forward for women, by Kate McInturff (CCPA) An ambition constrained budget, by David Macdonald (CCPA) Five things […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CED in Manitoba - The Video January 29, 2018
    Community Economic Development in Manitoba - nudging capitalism out of the way?
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • With regional management BC’s iconic forest industry can benefit British Columbians rather than multinational corporations January 17, 2018
    Forests are one of the iconic symbols of British Columbia, and successive governments and companies operating here have largely focussed on the cheap, commodity lumber business that benefits industry. Former provincial forestry minister Bob Williams, who has been involved with the industry for five decades, proposes regional management of this valuable natural resource to benefit […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Community Economic Development in Manitoba - a new film January 16, 2018
    Cinameteque, Jan 23.  7:00 pm - Free event Film Trailer CCEDNET-MB, CCPA-MB, The Manitoba Research Alliance and Rebel Sky Media presents: The Inclusive Economy:  Stories of Community Economic Development in Manitoba
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Glass-House Mortgages

A letter appears in today’s Globe and Mail in response to recent direction given by Minister Flaherty to private mortgage lenders over mortgage rates.  The letter was written by Steve Pomeroy, one of Canada’s leading housing policy experts.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Glass-house mortgages

Twice in recent weeks, the Minister of Finance has chastised Canada’s lenders for offering discounted mortgages, which he feels will overstimulate the precarious housing market (Flaherty Pushes Up Lending Rates – March 20).

The difference between Manulife’s discounted 2.89-per-cent rate and its previous rate of 3.09 per cent for a five-year mortgage amounts to $10 a month, on a $100,000 loan – a saving of $600 over five years. Meanwhile, the minister is spending $185-million this year to hand out tax credits worth $750 to to first-time buyers to “help people buy homes.” I’m not sure $750 really makes a difference!

So the minister should ask himself: Who is really overstimulating the housing market, and at what cost to taxpayers? Hint: People dwelling in glass houses should not throw stones.

Steve Pomeroy, Carleton University Centre for Urban Research and Education

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Larry Kazdan
Time: March 21, 2013, 3:36 pm

For an analysis of housing bubbles and debt, read The Bubble and Beyond by Michael Hudson

Comment from Kasey
Time: March 28, 2013, 8:01 am

Does this example suffer due to the 100,000 mortgage? Are not most mortgages at least twice that amount which would make Flaherty’s spending look a little better?

Comment from Derek
Time: April 3, 2013, 8:11 pm

Nice point about Flaherty handing out $750, but the comparison is not valid. Houses don’t cost $100,000, the average house is $350,000. Using your number of $10, that would make it $35 which would be more than $750 after 2 years and $2100 after 5 years.

So while the $750 is also a bad idea, it is only a one-time payment. The slight change in interest rates is many times more important over the course of a mortgage.

Write a comment

Related articles