Finance Committee on Feb. 1st, 2017

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

I heard the conversation around good debt and bad debt, and I get it. However, isn't there the factor, whether you have an individual who perhaps has a mortgage that is a little more than they can afford if interest rates go up or a person who has a boat and a mortgage and can't pay both, that ultimately, if you can't afford your debt, whether it's good or bad, you stop paying for it and that, therefore, causes problems within the economy? This notion that if you have good debt, that's all fine, and if you can't afford it, well, it's still considered good debt, versus someone who can't afford their boat payment....

My colleague just said that this hurts the economy. I'm wondering, what would hurt the economy and the housing market more? Would it be telling individuals that if interest rates were to go up, they could only afford this type of mortgage, or allowing them to have whatever mortgage they prefer without stress-testing it to the realities of the economy and the situation right now, and having homes and mortgages being defaulted? That is the option. You tell someone, “You can afford a little less”, or they bite off more than they can chew, and in economic situations mortgages default. How was that experience for the U.S. on people's biggest investment in their homes?

When defaults happened on mortgages, so did value, so all that equity that was discussed was no longer there. Wouldn't that hurt the housing market dramatically if we didn't prepare and protect for risks like that?

[Ajay Soni]

I'll take a crack at that.

On this idea of good debt and bad debt, when we lend somebody a mortgage, at that time they follow the stress test. In other words, they qualify. There's always going to be an element of individuals—and it's a small element—who will take their mortgage and everything's good, and maybe they'll buy a boat after. That's after we've actually qualified them. That's going to be a small element.

Your worry is that people take on too much debt. Well, let's look at the great success stories of all Canadians who have bought their first homes. Think of your parents. Think of your grandparents. I haven't heard one easy story about the first home a person has bought. Sometimes they may feel a bit stressed, but are we to say that average Canadians are irresponsible with debt? I don't think they are.

I've been a mortgage broker since 1988, and I've seen nothing but success stories. Have we had some market slowdowns in that period? Yes, we have. The vast majority of people continue to do what they have to do to make their mortgage payments. Say, 25 years ago, when they were 25 years old, it was tough. Today they've paid off that home and they've been able to use that to fund their children's education—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Sorry, I have limited time so I'm going to interject, but I'm glad you brought that up because if I compare myself to my parents, my parents had double-digit interest rates. That comparison is exactly why we're doing this, to protect for changes in interest rates.

I want to move on quickly because I have very limited time, but you spoke about municipal fees. This is my wheelhouse. I was a municipal councillor for nearly 10 years and the suggestion to make development easier is exactly opposite to the argument you make in terms of regional differences. In my home province of Ontario, the province determines a lot of the supply in the area, and municipalities must comply with that first. If for the supply issues the federal government took a broad approach to that, you would have very different impacts across this country. It's the exact argument you are speaking against in the sense of regional differences.

Wouldn't it be better to ensure that debt is debt and that if people are at high risk, then we ensure that there is protection in the market for when interest rates change?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

I'm going to have to interject. I know a couple of hands are up, so if you can answer Ms. O'Connell's question in about 20 or 30 seconds, there may be time for a couple of answers, and then we have to conclude.

[Paul Taylor]

The first point I'd like to make is that these changes are a little overreaching in how conservative they are in the amount of capital that needs to be reserved to ensure that the financial system doesn't fall apart, as you have alluded to. Our arrears rates for mortgages are currently 0.28%. As we heard on Monday, they peaked in Canada at 0.65%, which is by no means anything close to what happened in the U.S.

Very simplistically, interest rates dictate the stringency of the credit underwriting used to issue the product. A credit card issued at 20 points can be issued with almost no underwriting. There's an expectation of default. That's what the market risk premium on that is for. A 2.5% interest rate for a mortgage at the volumes that are being issued...believe me, the underwriting standards in Canada before those loans are issued are second to none in the world.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

All right, we have to stop it there. I'm sorry but we have to go to a vote.

For those presenters who are here to present at 5:30, unfortunately we have two votes in the House at 5:45. We cannot reconvene until closer to 6 p.m., so I apologize for that. We will reconvene as soon as the votes are concluded, probably around six o'clock.

For the presenters here at the table, thank you very much. We'll see you all back after the votes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

We'll resume with our witnesses.

Obviously, our apologies for delaying you. However, we didn't have much choice. We had to be in the House for two votes.

In light of that, and because our scheduled time is 7:30 for adjournment and we have four different presenters, I believe, I would ask each one of you to try to be as concise as you can. Then I would ask all of the committee members to be as concise as you can in your questioning, so we can get the most answers in and try to keep it on track.

We have First National Financial, Mr. Smith.

Please go ahead.

[Stephen Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First National Financial]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having invited me to testify before the committee this afternoon.

I was born and raised in Ottawa, where my father worked as a public servant. It is always a pleasure to come back here.

First National is a prime mortgage lender that underwrites about $23 billion a year of residential and commercial mortgage loans. In addition to being Canada's largest non-bank mortgage lender, with 950 employees across the country, we are also publicly owned and traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

We use mortgage brokers to distribute our products, and CMHC securitization programs to raise the capital to fund these mortgages. We have employed leading-edge technology, together with competitive interest rates and a high level of service, to achieve our goals. We do not compete on credit quality. In fact, our credit quality meets or exceeds any lending institution in Canada. We estimate that we have provided about one million Canadians with the financing to enable them to achieve their dream of home ownership.

One of the cornerstones of our business model has been our relationship with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. CMHC was founded in 1945 to provide funds for housing for soldiers returning from the war. In 1954, CMHC introduced mortgage default insurance, in an effort to provide liquidity to Canadians for home ownership. In addition to CMHC, there are two private sector competitors to CMHC who now serve almost 50% of this market.

In 1987, CMHC introduced NHA MBS, National Housing Act mortgage-backed securities, and then in 2001, the CMB, the Canada mortgage bond program. These securitization programs have allowed pension funds, mutual funds, and other non deposit-taking institutions, both domestic and international, to provide mortgage funding to Canadian homeowners.

Prior to 1987, it was only the large deposit-taking institutions that could raise the large amounts of capital that was necessary to fund the mortgage market. The consumers' choice was quite restricted. The outcome has been to create a bigger playing field in Canada to give Canadians more choices in mortgage financing and to ensure robust competition among lenders to provide lower interest rates. CMHC has been an immense boon to Canadians seeking home ownership through its mortgage insurance and securitization programs.

The Minister of Finance has worked in tandem with CMHC to control and protect the Canadian housing market. Since 2008, pursuant to the credit crisis, the minister has introduced a number of changes to moderate consumer debt through mortgage lending. We have supported these changes.

In October 2016, the minister announced more changes that affect the mortgage industry. These changes included increasing the qualifying rate for five-year mortgages from the mortgage contract rate to the Bank of Canada rate. This change effectively reduces the amount of mortgage that a borrower seeking a five-year mortgage or longer-term mortgage can borrow. The rationale is to ensure that the borrower has the financial resources in the event of rising interest rates at renewal, and at the same time to temper some of the demand in the overheated markets.

While we are supportive of this change, it must be noted that this change only affects insured mortgages, which are less than 30% of the overall market. The remaining 70% of the market, which is uninsured, is not affected. As the average insured mortgage in Canada is $300,000, and mortgages in excess of $1 million cannot be insured, this change will reduce the affordability of housing for first-time homebuyers in the softer markets in the country—the Prairies, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada—and will have a minimal effect on the overheated markets in Vancouver and Toronto.

The most significant and structurally negative change announced in October was the elimination of the availability of mortgage insurance for borrowers who wish to refinance their mortgages. Canadians have always used the equity in their homes to borrow money efficiently, to fund home renovations, children's education, and other financial needs. The new rules significantly restrict the options that these borrowers have and put the clock back 30 years to 1987, when the only choice for these borrowers was to use the large domestic financial institutions. We view this as a retrogressive step, contrary to the broad public policy goal of promoting competitiveness and certainly contrary to CMHC's mandate of helping to house Canadians.

Subsequently, OSFI introduced changes to the capital requirements for mortgage insurers. These changes, effective January 1 of this year, require mortgage insurers to hold substantially more capital, and that's in the area of two to three times more, for a conventional mortgage relative to the capital required to be held by a large, domestic financial institution for exactly the same mortgage.

These changes, by essentially pricing out of the market those lenders who use mortgage insurance and securitization to fund their mortgages, will have the same negative effect on Canadian homeowners, as just discussed.

In summary, we would request that the minister and the superintendent reconsider their decisions to make mortgage refinances ineligible for mortgage insurance and to make no further changes to the rules governing the housing sector until the most recent changes have been absorbed by the marketplace and are fully understood.

I'd be delighted to take your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Thank you, sir.

We'll move on to Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Company and Mr. Charles.

[Andrew Charles, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Company]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon to the committee members.

My name is Andy Charles. I'm the president and CEO of Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance Company. By way of introduction, we are Canada's only 100% Canadian-owned private mortgage default insurer, and since 2010 we have helped over 250,000 Canadians enter their homes. Our company insures Canadians, primarily first-time homebuyers, who place less than 20% down payment on their house purchase.

We take the view that Canada's housing finance system has served our country well, particularly when contrasted to other jurisdictions. Canada has avoided some of the pitfalls other countries have experienced. In part, this is due to conservative underwriting practices in the mortgage industry, strong regulatory oversight, and the avoidance of tax incentives that discourage the reduction of a borrower's mortgage debt. I believe the rest of the world looks at Canada's mortgage insurance structure as a key factor in our overall housing finance stability.

Since 2008, Canada Guaranty has supported the various government interventions that moderated the housing market as being both prudent and well considered. While these interventions have primarily targeted first-time homebuyers, they have served to strengthen Canada's housing market. However, we do believe the impact of the most recent changes, in combination with a new regulatory capital framework, are potentially detrimental to the housing market.

I would like to take a moment to describe today's typical first-time homebuyer for the committee. The average first-time homebuyer ranges in age from 25 to 40, has average household incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. The first-time homebuyer segment now represents just 30% of annual new mortgage volumes as compared to 40% in 2010. They have an average mortgage size of $300,000 and an average credit score of 753. This is a score that demonstrates a very high level of credit worthiness.

In addition, the insured marketplace has a maximum $1 million house purchase limit, a ceiling that generally precludes the first-time homebuyer from participating in the GTA or GVA markets. The headlines one reads about elevated housing market activity in Toronto or Vancouver is not and has not been driven by the first-time homebuyer.

I would like to share more specific observations regarding the recent regulatory changes and our perspective for the future.

The concept of a uniform, homogenous national housing market does not exist in Canada. Accordingly, national policy levers can be problematic when the issues are regional or even city-specific. While Vancouver and Toronto have experienced significant property value increases, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, and other markets most certainly have not. This requires local or regional solutions to be considered. Recent housing policy decisions taken by the B.C. government are evidence of a regional solution to a regional issue.

While it is important to reflect on the cumulative impact of regulatory changes over the years on the first-time homebuyer's ability to enter the housing market, we believe the policy changes announced in October 2016 to be the most significant intervention to date. Specifically, the elimination of low-ratio refinance eligibility will reduce choice for borrowers by impacting the competitiveness of Canada's monoline lenders. More borrowers may seek mortgage funding from private lenders representing a higher cost option and with limited regulatory transparency.

The combined implication of the Department of Finance changes of October 2016, followed in short order with the introduction of a new regulatory capital regime, will materially change the housing market dynamics in our view. Before further regulatory initiatives are considered, we need to pause to understand the longer-term impacts.

Recognizing the potential cumulative impact of these changes, we encourage the government to consider the following recommendations.

At this point in time do not proceed with a risk-sharing model. Study the results of the most recent changes before considering any more.

We now anticipate the first-time homebuyer segment share of new originations will drop to just 20% of the marketplace. I would take the view that insured first-time homebuyers are the most regulated segment in today's housing market. They are not the problem, and we take the view that any further targeting of this segment is counterproductive.

Lastly, Canada has indicated plans to welcome 300,000 immigrants to Canada next year, a policy decision that we welcome. The majority of these immigrants will reside in our major markets. We will need to house these new Canadians, and we encourage all levels of government to coordinate their actions to ensure that the necessary housing stock exists to accommodate them.

Thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Thank you.

We'll move to the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

Mr. Finnigan, go ahead.

[Bob Finnigan, President, Canadian Home Builders' Association]

Thank you.

I am the president of the national association and a builder developer from Toronto. I am joined by Jason Burggraaf from our association's staff here in Ottawa.

Thank you to the committee for undertaking this study.

Simply put, housing matters. It matters to the economy. It matters to our huge industry of small businesses, which supports over a million workers. It matters to Canadians, who recognize home ownership as the cornerstone of attaining the middle class, and it matters that all Canadians have the security of a decent roof over their heads.

We know that there are ways to address stability concerns without causing damage to our industry or the economy. We are concerned that measures to cool markets can easily precipitate economic decline, triggering the very conditions they were intended to safeguard against.

We are also concerned that these measures move CMHC away from its purpose under the National Housing Act—to ensure equal access to mortgage markets for all Canadians.

If such measures lock out otherwise qualified homebuyers, they can cause a downward spiral in local economies. We need to be careful, because residential construction has been a major source of stability for Canada's economy in recent years. Today, residential construction supports over a million jobs, pays $58 billion in wages, and generates over $128 billion in economic activity, including over $41 billion in government revenue.

Home building and renovation are a vital part of every community, large and small, across this country, so effective housing policy is key to supporting Canadians, businesses, and communities in achieving inclusive economic growth. If we are going to support the middle class and those aspiring to join it, we need to ensure that first-time homebuyers and new Canadians have a fair chance to attain the cornerstone of the middle class, and that's home ownership. What's more, the current situation, if not curbed, will lead to a wider and wider gap between those who already have equity stakes and those who do not.

We are facing the potential of the home ownership situation creating social inequity within communities, among regions, and between rural and urban centres. To effectively address the housing challenges, we need to understand what's driving the markets. Why are so many Canadians now having a harder time becoming homeowners?

Housing affordability is determined by three factors: income, mortgage rules, and house prices.

In terms of income, we note that millennials were hardest hit by the economic downturn and the ensuing jobless recovery. Their income growth has been muted, yet house prices have escalated dramatically. We need to spur economic activity and income growth in all sectors so that young people can prosper.

At the same time, to guard against financial system instability, mortgage rules have been tightening, making it much harder to finance a house. While many of these measures have been intended to cool markets like Toronto and Vancouver, their application has been national, and that impacts markets, like Atlantic Canada, that were already in a bad state.

Our recommendation on mortgage rules at this time is simply this: do no more. Please stop for now. There have been many recent changes, the full effects of which have yet to play out, and it is critical to let these impacts become fully evident before any other actions are taken. There are also mortgage-related tools at the government's disposal that can be better utilized, without increasing market instability or leveraging. Increasing the limits to the first-time homebuyers' plan and allowing intergenerational RRSP transfers within the plan could facilitate increased down payments and decrease homeowner debt.

Perhaps the most interesting options are shared-appreciation mortgages, which should be more aptly named “shared equity down payment plans”. These tools, which have been successfully piloted for low-income families in some Canadian cities, should be considered for helping first-time homebuyers get into entry-level housing across the country.

The final factor thwarting affordability is, of course, house prices. Mortgage rules that limit access may reduce the buying power of homebuyers. What is needed are actions to reduce the upward pressure of house prices so that more first-time buyers can qualify. To address this, we need to understand what is driving those prices up. We have what we call “new fundamentals”. At the top of that list is the lack of supply of family-oriented housing.

Simply put, municipal and provincial zoning and regulatory restrictions in our major urban centres have dramatically reduced the amount of service land available. In the GTA, over the last decade, the number of newly built single detached homes available for purchase has fallen dramatically. GTA price trends reflect this disconnect between what the home-buying public wants and what is available.

With high levels of immigration and a significant increase in the birth rate over the last decade, our largest cities have a serious shortage of family-oriented housing. CHBA estimates that, at the current development rates, Canada will be short over 300,000 such homes in the next decade. Governments at all three levels need to work together to address this problem. So long as demand is outstripping supply, our more successful economic centres will continue to see price pressure and falling affordability, and this is the simple law of supply and demand.

These are issues that need to be addressed in the national housing strategy. From what we heard reported from CMHC, the current focus is almost exclusively on social housing. While social housing is very important, it's only part of the story. The final national housing strategy needs to address market-rate housing where 94% of us live. If we don't fix affordability, we have no chance of meeting the social housing challenge.

We are at a crossroads where home ownership is concerned, and affordability is at the crux of it. But there's a lot we can do to address this challenge. We look forward to working with the government to make it happen for the benefit of all Canadians. We have submitted a more detailed report that I hope you get to have a look at.

We're here for questions. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Thank you, sir.

The final presenters are the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association, and Sherry Donovan is the chief executive officer. Sherry, all three of those presenters were exactly five minutes and 30 seconds, so—

[Sherry Donovan, Chief Executive Officer, Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association]

All right, I'm on it.

Tamara Barker Watson will be sharing my time, so we'll be diligent on that.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Sherry Donovan and with me this evening is Tamara Barker Watson. She's president of the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association, and also the owner of a 20-year, new-home construction company in Halifax.

Thank you for the invitation to appear.

The issue today is of great importance for us in the Atlantic provinces, which is where we'll concentrate most of our presentation this evening. We'll be talking about the impact the new mortgage rules stress test is having on the eastern Canadian economy, how it affects home ownership for young people, and the impact it will also have on seniors.

We also feel that having one set of rules for the entire country is not the best solution when it relates to housing. We understand that this is about mitigating risk on a large scale across the country. However, what has been achieved is that through this mitigation of risk, there has been cause for great concern about the stress test and the impact these changes will have on the regional residential construction industries that are in decline in the Atlantic provinces. We are still in deep recovery mode from the weak economy, and this is being done at a time when we just cannot afford to have it happen. These new mortgage rules are exacerbating the problem by hurting the entire economy.

For example, from an economic standpoint, in Halifax we went from over 1,000 new single detached housing starts in 2009 to as few as only 400 last year, and according to CMHC, these starts in Nova Scotia continue to remain below the 10-year trend of 900 units. Further to these declining numbers in Halifax, the same situation can be felt all across Atlantic Canada. When you couple it with the new mortgage rules, this is significant.

One testimonial I feel is important to share is from a mortgage lender in Newfoundland. Only a week after the federal announcement, they shared that they would see an even further decline. They estimate that 25% to 30% of the clients they had in the past few months would not have qualified under the new guidelines. As well, one Newfoundland builder also went from 50 home sales on average between a typical October to December season, to zero this past October to December after the new rules came into effect. This is huge.

This is not a positive outcome for Atlantic Canada or the entire country. What seems to be a barrier is the same rules from coast to coast. We are aware that indebtedness of Canadians is a serious issue, but the unintended consequences that have spun out as a result of the new rules have created winners and losers. Atlantic Canada is coming out on the losing end of this equation. This is one of the key reasons we feel that regional rules would be a better solution for Canadians.

Let's look at two specific groups in the home ownership equation: seniors and first-time homebuyers. The new mortgage rules prevent many young people from beginning asset accumulation as many are unable to qualify for a mortgage under the new rules. In addition to the first-time homebuyers being at risk, the unintended consequence is that it will also have an impact on the seniors' market. With a reduced number of buyers seeking to purchase homes, seniors will be less able to access equity in their homes, and it will create disruption in their retirement or downsizing plans. This is a concern for us where the demographic of seniors is higher in Atlantic Canada than in any other area in Canada.

Tamara.

[Tamara Barker Watson, President, Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association]

If we can focus our concern on first-time homebuyers, what seems to be missed is the benefit of building equity in a low interest rate environment. When interest rates are at their lowest, the biggest proportion of your monthly debt service goes towards the principal amount of that mortgage. The consequences of these new rules is restricting home ownership growth in Atlantic Canada and also ensuring that when people do buy in the future they are paying much higher interest rates.

As a builder and a real estate agent in Nova Scotia, the impact it's had on my business is huge. The Friday before the new home mortgage rules were introduced, I met with a young couple who were going to put an offer in on one of my new energy-efficient homes in Bedford. They were excited about buying their first home. However, when we met on Monday they no longer qualified. The result was that they chose to sign up and rent for another year, and they bought a new car instead. They are not even sure that under the new rules they will be able to make home ownership a reality in the next several years.

This not only impacted the young couple but also my business. The loss of revenue from sales impacts how we move forward as a company in the future. If this trend continues, we will continue to lay off employees and can no longer afford our subs. This is not good for an already slow economy. If you are going to put more restrictions on young people taking on debt from buying a home, why not restrict them from buying a depreciating asset like a car and create a forced savings plan for them so they will actually be able to save money for their new home?

I also want to draw attention to a statement we made in The Globe and Mail in regard to this issue. If first-time homebuyers default on their ability to pay their mortgage “at the same rate as the general public—which is less than 1 per cent—then the government has decided that protecting young people from themselves is more important than giving the remaining 99 per cent”, which represents the largest percentage of household asset wealth in this country, a chance at home ownership. This will limit “access to new home ownership and the benefits that come with it”.

We appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and we advise you to take action on our recommendation for regional housing rules. We have lost so many builders and potential homebuyers in the past few months in Atlantic Canada that it's staggering.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ron Liepert]

Thank you all.

We will start with questions. The first group will have seven minutes each.

We're going to start with Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the guests.

I'm from Surrey, British Columbia. My riding is heavily dependent on the construction sector. Real estate is hot in British Columbia, as we all know, so this is a very important and dear subject to me.

My question is to Mr. Charles first. Of the CMHC-backed mortgages or insured mortgages, what is the percentage of first-time homeowners and what is the percentage of repeat homeowners, people who are buying their second or third home but still have to get it insured?

[Andrew Charles]

Thank you very much for the question. Virtually 90% of our business is the first-time homebuyer. We define that first-time homebuyer as someone who doesn't put a 20% down payment. That is the first-time homebuyer we provide insurance to. They may move on, they may sell their property, and they may not require mortgage default insurance in the event that they move up and are able to put the 20% down payment, but I would characterize our consumer profile as very much that first-time homebuyer.

They may stay with us. They may stay on that property. Our coverage is for the life of the loan, but if they were to move on to a different property that doesn't require mortgage default insurance, they would no longer have a need for it.

The majority of our business, sir, is very much the first-time homebuyer market.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Unfortunately, the way you characterize the definition of “first-time buyer” is not the definition that most of us would use. A first-time buyer is a person who is buying their actual first home.

I'm trying to get a number and I haven't been successful, even from other places. Out of the CMHC or secured mortgages, what is the actual percentage of people who are buying their first home. It would be similar to those who would get a rebate and those who would be eligible. They haven't owned a home in the last five years, and they're not buying their second home.

[Andrew Charles]

I can't give you a precise number. I take the view that as it relates to the insured industry—and I only can talk for Canada Guaranty—the overwhelming majority of purchasers we're providing insurance for would be first-time homebuyers.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Finnigan, I believe you said that the average mortgage debt level of a first-time homebuyer is approximately $300,000, and the average credit score is 753.

Was that you?

[Bob Finnigan]

No, that wasn't me.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Oh, it was Mr. Charles.

Mr. Charles, you had stated that the average debt level of a first-time homebuyer was $300,000, which is similar to what I had heard, which was $265,000, but $300,000 is very close. They have high average scores.

Are you concerned about the overall debt load of a young couple combined with their credit card debt and other debts?

[Andrew Charles]

It certainly is a fact that we consider the overall debt-to-income ratio. It is a metric. It is a consideration.

However, when I mention the average credit score being 753, if you look at that in the context of where that was five years ago or seven years ago—so if you go back to 2008 and 2009—that average credit score was closer to 700. We've seen over the intervening period of time a significant strengthening in the quality of that first-time homebuyer.

That's what I'd want to communicate to you.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

What is the average monthly payment by somebody who, say, has a $300,000 mortgage? Off the top of your head, would you be able to say?