Snapshot of Canadians’ finances
| This is super interesting. Also remember that less than 1% of Canadians work in oil and gas, and less than 20% of Canadians make more than $85,000 a year! It shows how well Alberta is doing. |
| Jason Heath Jun 30, 2012
Who is the average Canadian — financially speaking? According to the Association for Canadian Studies, our median household income is $68,560 per year. Personal incomes are lowest in Prince Edward Island at $21,620 and highest in Alberta at $36,010. We pay $11,000 per year in income tax, donate $260 to charity, contribute $2,790 to our RRSPs and carry a credit card balance of $3,462. Mortgage and household debt comes in at a total of $112,329 Our net worth per capita has continued to rise, most recently clocking in at $193,500 per capita according to Statistics Canada. Real estate gains have continued to drive the increase to our net worth, though many have suggested the Canadian market could be in for a correction — or at least a pause. The Toronto Stock Exchange has risen 59% over the past 10 years, compared with a 3% gain for the MSCI World Index and a 4% loss for the S&P 500 (excluding dividends). Our Canadian dollar has appreciated 47% against the U.S. dollar and 16% against the euro over the past 10 years. This has made global and U.S. stock market returns even worse in Canadian dollar terms. Canada had a double-digit personal savings rate in the ’90s, but over the past two decades, this has dropped dramatically to the current 3.1% — one of the lowest savings rates of all OECD countries. The flipside of this coin is that our current personal debt to income has simultaneously reached an all-time high of 153%. So gains in real estate and stocks have been tempered by a corresponding increase in personal debt. The Economist Intelligence Unit lists Canada’s government debt per person at about US$39,883 or 81.6% of GDP. This compares with the U.S. at $37,953 or 76.3%. Go figure! That said, Greece’s public debt is currently $35,874 or 141.0% and Japan is at $87,601 or 204.9%. Canada’s federal government has been consistently posting budget surpluses of about 1% of GDP since the mid-1990s, a time when many people thought Canada was on the path to a sovereign debt crisis of its own. Quite to the contrary, Canada entered and emerged from the 2008 recession relatively unscathed. And this is the asterisk beside Canada’s 81.6% debt-to-GDP ratio when compared with the 76.3% figure for the U.S. — given our neighbours are currently spending US$1.50 for every US$1 of federal revenue. Call it a “Tale of Two Countries.” Some people suggest the U.S. and Europe could learn something from the Canadian government debt experience of the 1990s. While many people in other Western countries are now suffering as a result of their government’s debt problems, our government is sitting pretty. Our personal debt is the one black spot for the red and white as we celebrate our country’s birthday. Jason Heath is a fee-only Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and income tax professional for Objective Financial Partners Inc. in Toronto |
Has the US housing market hit bottom?
This is a copy of the blog from Boris – the president of MERIX bank – a broker bank we love and deal with often. It is worth pasting all of it here AND it is good news!
Article written by Boris Bozic on the 17 Jul 2012 in Current Events
I’m referring to the real estate market in the U.S. There have been some signs that real estate market may have reached the point where you can actually see the bottom. Interesting to note that new home construction is up in many regions of the U.S. Drive through parts of Florida and you’ll be surprised by the number of new homes being built. Another sign is the number of pending sales just recently reported. On a year over year basis, pending sales were up 14.5% in the West, 22.1% in the Midwest, 19.8% in the Northeast and 11.9% in the south. Another sign that real estate market is getting better is due to increased foreclosures.
As odd as that made sound, a real recovery of the real estate market in the U.S. will only happen when financial institutions finally deal with the backlog of foreclosures. Recent reports indicate the U.S. financial institutions are taking action against more delinquent home owners. Statistics indicated that foreclosure proceedings increased by 6% in the second quarter as compared to the precious year. That’s the first increase since 2009. How is that possible? Simple, banks chose to do nothing. If the borrower didn’t approach the bank and request a loan modification or approval of a short sale, the banks were free to act at their own pace. I suspect their motivation to deal with these issues had nothing to do with any kind of empathy for the home owner. It was more to do with flooding the market with more distressed properties which ultimately would drive the prices down even further. The shadow inventory is a subject that all stakeholders wanted to set aside and deal with it in a mushroom growing fashion. Clearly something has changed, and the banks now feel that the market can absorb the additional foreclosures. This could have further impact on home prices in the short term but many analysts are predicting the drop could be as little as 1%. Here’s another stat I found to be both encouraging and staggering. At of the end of the 2012 first quarter, approximately 11.4 million homes or 23.7% of all homes with a mortgage in the U.S. were under water, negative equity. On a quarter over quarter comparison it was 12.1 million homes or 25.2%.
There’s no doubt that U.S. real estate market has a long way to go before anyone would suggest that it’s a “normal” market. Until they (the politicians, Federal Reserve, regulators etc.,) deal with the real estate issue there will be no full economic recovery. Put aside the markets and consumer spending because the real estate market is the 800 pound gorilla. The real unemployment rate in the U.S is just over 14%, the 8.2% reported unemployment rate is manipulated data and reported by Obama sycophants, and will not come down until there’s marked improvement in the real estate market. As soon as that has happened, the better it is for us. We love it when Americans are working because they love to spend, and we have stuff we would love to sell them. Recently, given the value of the Canadian dollar, we been purchasing more in the U.S., like their homes. If you’re thinking of buying a second home in the U.S., this might be the bottom.
Until next time,
Cheers.
NEW MORTGAGE RULES
Here is the news release from the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals (CAAMP):
The Federal Finance Minister announced further changes to Canada’s mortgage insurance rules. Four measures were announced:
1. Amortizations reduced to 25 years
2. Refinancing limited to 80%
3. Properties purchased at over $1 million no longer eligible for mortgage insurance
4. GDS and TDS set at 39% and 44%
5. Line of Credits – LOCs – will soon be limited to 65% of the home value or LTV (Loan to Value.)
How the changes will be applied…
So we have until July 9th to get as many applicants under contract in order to access the current mortgage insurance rules. Possession on these contracts must be completed prior to Dec. 31, 2012.
Applicants going under contract on a home purchase drawn up after July 9th will have to qualify for a mortgage under the new guidelines. We will update all pre-approvals on July 9th under the new insured mortgage guidelines.
Q1. What is required to qualify for an exception to the new parameters?
A. The new measures will apply as of July 9, 2012. Exceptions will be made to satisfy a binding purchase and sale, financing or refinancing agreement where a mortgage insurance application has been made before July 9, 2012. While the changes come into force on July 9, 2012, any mortgage insurance applications received after June 21, 2012 and before July 9, 2012 that do not conform to the measures announced today must be funded by December 31, 2012.
These guidelines have existed for some time but are now more solidified. Lenders typically require that borrowers have a credit score of greater than 680 to qualify for these elevated GDS and TDS levels. Now that we are limited to a 25 year amortization knowing exactly what the upper limits on GDS and TDS are going to be critical.
Q2. Why is the Government limiting the maximum gross debt service (GDS) and total debt service (TDS) ratios?
A. The GDS ratio is the share of the borrower’s gross household income that is needed to pay for home-related expenses, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and heating expenses. The TDS ratio is the share of the borrower’s gross income that is needed to pay for home-related expenses and all other debt obligations, such as credit cards and car loans.
The new measure announced today will set the maximum GDS ratio at 39 per cent and reduce the maximum TDS ratio to 44 per cent. These debt service ratios measure the share of a household’s income that is required to cover payments associated with servicing debt. Both measures are already used by lenders and mortgage insurers to assess a borrower’s ability to pay. Setting a GDS limit and reducing the TDS limit will help prevent Canadian households from getting overextended and reduce the number of households vulnerable to economic shocks or an increase in interest rates.
—
More Technical Nerdy Data:
CAAMP believes that Canadians understand the importance of paying down their mortgages. These changes, together with new OSFI underwriting guidelines – also to be announced today – may precipitate the housing market downturn the government so desperately wants to avoid. The changes take effect July 9, 2012.
CAAMP was pleased that it was again successful in ensuring the 5% down payment rule remains intact; however, the government may have overreached with this latest round of changes.
To review this morning’s Globe and Mail article click here
To review the government press release and backgrounders click here
To contact Minister Flaherty or your local MP click here
-Important to note that these rules apply in high-ratio insured mortgage – not conventional mortgages. We will likely see changes to conventional lending over time. Many lenders will opt to apply the same rules to all mortgages but there will be exceptions. Many lender is Canada now only offer insured mortgage regardless of the down payment so these rules are going to impact the majority of applications.
-We have seen changes every year for the last four years and in all cases existing mortgages already approved under the old rules were exempt from the rule changes. I would expect the same response this time with existing approved files not being affected by the current changes. I will let you know as soon as I have some understanding of how pre-approvals will be affected.
-In his new release this morning Jim Flaherty specifically mentions the Toronto/Vancouver condo market so rather than restricting condo development in those two cities they have opted to impact the entire country. They also mention the concern over Canadian household debt which had already consistently been dropping.
-OSFI the mortgage regulator is also expect to make mortgage related changes today. 65% maximum finance for lines of credit and amortization restrictions relative to age have been discussed as additional possibly changes. There is going to be a lot of confusion relative to news releases so check in with me if you have questions on specific client situations.
1. Item one is pretty severe. Fewer buyers will qualify to get into the market, those that do qualify took a haircut on what they can afford.
2. Reduced from 85%. Somewhat immaterial because the reduction from 90-85% limited the refinance market significantly already. Now even more Canadians will not be able to move high interest debt into extremely low interest mortgage debt.
3. We don’t see a lot of insured mortgage files in this price range. This rule appears to be focused directly on Toronto and Vancouver.
4. This one needs some clarification. These higher GDS and TDS ratios have always been around but limited to very high credit score applicants. I will try to get some clarification on the specifics of this changes. I believe that this item is just solidifying rules that have been very subjective historically.
Why putting less than 20% down can lead to a better mortgage rate
This is true – the banks are sending us 2 rates … 1 rate for a CMHC/ Genworth insured mortgage and a slightly higher one for more than 20% down – or a conventional mortgage that is not insured.
The article below fully explains why.
By Garry Marr, Financial Post May 3, 2012
It doesn’t make much sense, but a skimpy down payment on a home might actually get you a better mortgage rate in today’s market.
Blame the government subsidy known as mortgage default insurance, which ultimately makes it less risky to lend money to someone who has only 5% down compared to someone with 20%.
Consumers with less than 20% down must get mortgage default insurance in Canada if they are borrowing from a federally regulated bank. The cost is up to 2.75% of the mortgage amount upfront on a 25-year amortization but that fee comes with 100% backing from the federal government if the insurance is provided by Crown corporation Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.
“It’s already happening,” says Rob McLister, editor of Canadian Mortgage Trends, who says secondary lenders are now offering rates that are 10 to 15 basis points higher for a closed five-year mortgage for uninsured consumers.
The crackdown on mortgage insurance announced by Jim Flaherty, the federal Finance Minister, could exacerbate the situation. Mr. Flaherty, who mused to the Financial Post editorial board last week about getting CMHC out of the mortgage insurance business, has placed the agency under the authority of the country’s banking regulator, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Mr. Flaherty also put in new rules on bulk or portfolio insurance. The banks had been paying the insurance premium on low-ratio mortgages – loans with more than 20% down – because it was easier to securitize them.
However, Mr. Flaherty says those loans will no longer be allowed in the government’s covered bond program.
“Long story short, it is going to tick up rates to some degree,” Mr. McLister says. “You are seeing an interesting phenomenon where if you go to get a mortgage today, you are oftentimes quoted a higher rate on a conventional mortgage. Presumably you have less risk because you have more equity.”
“There is a question on whether they will continue doing that or raise rates overall to compensate for higher conventional mortgage costs,” Mr. McLister says.
“When we can’t securitize a deal, there is a different cost of funds but the bank continues to offer the same rate,” said Ms. Haque, adding her bank did charge a premium for stated income deals, which usually means self-employed people, but removed the difference last week. The premium was 20 basis points.
“Looking at the competitive landscape, it was a disadvantage,” she says. “We were aiming to target pricing that was specific and for the risk appetite for that deal itself. We didn’t want one [deal] compensating for the other.”
But the banks have bigger fish to fry than just your mortgage. Those with the larger equity position in their homes may be a costlier mortgage to fund, but they also could be a future line-of-credit customers. There’s also the potential for other business such as RRSPs and TFSA, so losing a few basis points might make more sense in the long run.
Peter Routledge, an analyst at National Bank Financial, says he wouldn’t want to be an investor in a bank that approached its business any other way, though he did acknowledge there is a cost to keeping those conventional mortgages. “It’s in effect a subsidy,” Mr. Routledge says.
While banks may be eating some of the costs for people who are not eligible for a subsidy, if they continue down that road they might not be able to match the rates some of the secondary lenders are able to offer with insured mortgages.
It doesn’t sound like much, but the difference between, say, 3.14% and 3.29% on a $500,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years would be about $3,500 extra in interest on a five-year term.
It’s true that those people getting the better rate pay a hefty fee up front in insurance premiums, but they also represent a greater risk to the taxpayer. Do they deserve a better rate?
More problems with collateral mortgages
Here is more bad news on collateral mortgages.
People refuse to sign a 3 year cell phone contract but then for some reason have no problem in losing every single thing you have ever made and be sued into bankruptcy by your bank for taking one of these mortgages. Again, we do not offer them but TD, Scotia, ING, and RBC have them as STANDARD. I would rather take a new 3 year cell phone contract!
Beware the pitfals of collateral mortgages
By Mark Weisleder | Sat Jul 30 2011
When you apply for a mortgage, you usually just ask about the term, amount, interest rate and monthly payment. Not many people understand the difference between a conventional mortgage and a collateral mortgage. Yet many banks are now asking borrowers to sign collateral mortgages — and it could result in them being tied to this bank, for life.
With a normal conventional mortgage you bargain for a set amount, rate and amortization. Say the property is worth $250,000 — you bargain for a $200,000 loan, at 3.5 per cent, a five-year term/25-year amortization, payments of $998.54 per month.
A conventional mortgage is registered against the property for $200,000. If all the payments are made on time, the mortgage is renewed on the same terms every five years and no prepayments are made, the balance is zero after 25 years.
Should another lender decide to lend you money as a second mortgage, there is nothing stopping them from doing so, subject to their own guidelines. Under normal circumstances the principal balance on a conventional mortgage goes only one way, down. In addition, banks will accept “transfers” of conventional mortgages from other banks, at little or no cost to the consumer.
A collateral mortgage has as its primary security a promissory note or loan agreement and as “backup,” a collateral security, being a mortgage against your property. The difference is that, in most cases, the mortgage will be for 125 per cent of the value of the property. In our example, the mortgage registered will be for $312,500. But you will only receive $200,000. The loan agreement will indicate the actual amount of the loan, interest rate and monthly payments.
The collateral mortgage may indicate an interest rate of prime plus 5-10 per cent. This will permit you to go back to this same bank and borrow more money from time to time, without having to register new security. The lender will offer you a closing service, to register the mortgage against your property, at fees that will be cheaper than what a lawyer would charge you. Sounds good so far, doesn’t it?
However, this collateral loan agreement has different consequences, which are usually not explained to the borrower.
• Most banks will not accept “transfers” of collateral mortgages from other banks, so the consumer is forced to pay discharge fees to get out of one mortgage and additional fees to register a new mortgage if they move to a new lender. Thus the bank is able to tie you to them for all your lending needs indefinitely because it will cost you too much to move.
• Lenders may be able to use the collateral mortgage to offset any other unpaid debts you have. Offset is a right under Canadian law that says a lender may be able to seize equity you have in your home, over and above the mortgage balance, to pay, for example, a credit-card balance, a car loan, or any loan you may have co-signed that is in default with the same lender. In essence any loans you may have with that lender may be secured by the collateral mortgage. Nobody goes into a mortgage thinking about default, but “stuff” happens in people’s lives and 25 years is a long time.
• Let’s say your house value is $200,000. A collateral first mortgage registered on the property is $250,000. The amount owing on the mortgage is $150,000. If you were to need an additional $20,000, but the lender declines to lend it for any reason, then practically speaking you won’t be able to approach any other lender. They will not go behind a $250,000 mortgage. Your only way out would be to pay any prepayment penalty to get out of the first mortgage and pay any additional costs to get a new mortgage.
• Let’s say your mortgage is in good standing but you default under a credit line with the same bank. The bank could in most cases still start default proceedings under your mortgage, meaning you could lose the house.
• Some lenders are offering collateral mortgages in a “negative option billing” manner. Unless you are informed enough to say you want a conventional mortgage, you will be asked to sign documents for a collateral mortgage.
I spoke with David O’Gorman, the president and principal mortgage broker with MortgageLand Inc. He tells me it is his duty under the law to ensure the “suitability” of any mortgage he arranges for a consumer.
He would be hard pressed to justify the recommendation of this type of collateral first mortgage to any consumer, without disclosing both verbally and in writing the points listed above, and he believes the consumer should have their own lawyer review everything before they sign.
Lending money to people without proper explanation of the consequences is wrong. The banking regulators need to look into this practice and stop it. In the meantime, do not sign any mortgage document without discussing it first with your own lawyer.
The upside of higher rates
We all know interest rates are going to go up. Even after reading this the big hit we all know is coming is that variable rate mortgage payments go up right away. The rest mentioned below may come later.
Jason Heath Mar 31, 2012 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 30, 2012 9:09 AM ET
For three years, the word on the street has been that interest rates have nowhere to go but up. But few Canadian commentators – other than David Rosenberg – got the call on rates right. Although the prime rate has risen since dropping to an all-time low of 2.25% in April 2009, the increase to the current 3% rate that has remained stable since September 2010 has been modest to say the least. Long-term rates, like fixed mortgage rates, have gone up and come back down during that time, such that one can currently lock in fixed rates under 3%.
York University’s Moshe Milevsky did a study in 2001, which he revised in 2007, and determined that borrowers are better off going with a variable rate mortgage instead of a fixed rate mortgage approximately 9 times out of 10. That said, we have to be close to if not already in that 10% sweet spot where fixed beats variable.
Despite the opportunity to lock in low rates today, it could actually be beneficial for the average Canadian for rates to rise. Conditions need to warrant rate increases and the Bank of Canada (which directly governs the prime rate) and the bond market (which indirectly governs fixed mortgage rates) won’t raise rates until the time is right. How soon that time comes depends partially on domestic influences, but also on our neighbours to the south and the current eurozone debt debacle.
Greece is a perfect example of why rates should rise. Greek participation in the European Union gave them access to cheap credit and helped facilitate some of the excess spending that has them where they are today. Despite bond markets demanding higher interest rates on Greek and some other European government bonds, market intervention by the EU has helped keep rates artificially low.
The U.S. Federal Reserve has been doing the same thing, buying up U.S. government treasury bills to keep U.S. rates artificially low as well.
It’s hard to justify how artificially low interest rates for an extended period are good for anything other than delaying the inevitable for some market participants.
Higher rates would have a negative impact on those of us with outstanding debt, as higher interest charges would follow. But Canadian debt levels have moved ever higher in recent years, likely a response to the low rates that have been in place in part to stimulate spending. Higher mortgage rates could protect us from ourselves by making higher debt levels more punitive and less tempting.
Furthermore, fixed income investors could benefit. The emphasis on “could” is key. Rising rates typically hurt those holding bonds because today’s bonds are that much more appealing than yesterday’s as rates go up. How much the hurt hurts is a matter of fact. But those renewing GICs or sitting on cash these days are desperately awaiting higher interest rates to help their savings grow. So higher rates could at least lead to higher returns for fixed income investors in some cases.
Higher rates could benefit stock investors. Once again, the emphasis on “could” is key. Higher rates usually mean the economy is improving and inflation is rising. This could be a good sign that corporate profits and corresponding stock prices are moving higher. That said, one has to wonder if low bond and GIC interest rates and cheap credit have pushed more money into the stock market than should otherwise be there. Rising rates could bring income investors back to the more traditional income investments like bonds and GICs from the blue chip stocks they’ve potentially flocked to in order to obtain yield.
Despite the purported uncertainty above on stocks and bonds, higher rates should at least contribute somewhat to restoring equilibrium to credit, debt and equity markets. Something seems wrong with near zero or negative real interest rates. That is, something seems wrong with a GIC investor earning 2%, paying 1% of that away in tax and 2% inflation resulting in an effective return of -1%. On that basis, something seems right about higher interest rates, whether we like it or not. What happens to mortgage debt, stocks and bonds remains to be seen.
Jason Heath is a fee-only Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and income tax professional for Objective Financial Partners Inc. in Toronto.
Mortgage interest rates are poised to increase as soon as this summer.
If the banks aren’t prepared to put the brakes on rising mortgage debt, the Bank of Canada may soon be, hinting that it could raise its key overnight rate as soon as this summer.
“The heightened uncertainty around the global economic outlook has decreased in the weeks since the Bank released its January Monetary Policy Report (MPR),” reads Thursday’s announcement maintaining the Central Bank’s benchmark rate at 1 per cent. “With tentative signs of stabilization in European bank funding and sovereign debt markets, conditions in global financial markets have improved and risk aversion has decreased.”
For analysts, that translates into the strongest indication in more than a year that the bank may have enough room sometime this year to raise the interest rate it charges banks. The knock-on effect would be to raise interest rates for borrowers.
Ensure you get a rate hold before this happens.
Immigrants the proudest Canadians, poll suggests
We love people that are New to Canada. New immigrants are 20% of our business. There are lots of tricks on what is needed to get a mortgage for them and not all banks do these files BUT WE ARE SPECIALISTS at it. I will upload our brochure for it here.
They can normally buy with:
- 5% down if they have a foreign credit report – England, most all of South America – including Mexico, Portugal or Spain.
- or 10% down. 5% from own savings and 5% from other possible sources – like relocaton allowances, gifts from home, etc.
- and a full time, permanent job.
Call to discuss these files. The one tough part is their files do not get rate holds so it is live deals – when you have an accepted offer to purchase – only.
Most Canadians feel immigrants are just as likely to be good citizens as people who were born here, a recent Environics survey suggests.
Canadians also don’t appear to have problems with dual citizenship or with Canadian citizens living abroad.
The telephone survey is, according to Environics, the first poll to directly ask Canadians their views on citizenship. Its results suggest Canadians have a broad, inclusive view of the concept and of immigrants in general.
“To be a good citizen, it means to contribute to the society, to obey the laws of the country, to help other citizens, to volunteer, and it’s a rewarding feeling when you do all those things,” said Sara Jhangiryan, an Armenian-born resident of Toronto who became a Canadian citizen last year.
“It’s not only to take what the country offers but to give back, as well.”
Although not part of the survey, Jhangiryan echoes the views of many of those who responded to the poll, a joint initiative of Environics, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the Maytree foundation, CBC News and the Royal Bank of Canada.
When asked what makes a good citizen, the top five responses were: obeying laws, actively participating in the community, helping other people, being tolerant of others and sharing or adopting Canadian values.
But when asked to list what they did to be good citizens, respondents cited volunteer work, being kind/generous to others, paying taxes, obeying laws and voting.
The survey suggests Canadians see immigrants as their equals: nearly 9 out of every 10 respondents agreed that a person born outside Canada is just as likely to be a good citizen as someone born here.
“There’s no real evidence of people feeling threatened or a sense that, ‘Well, people can come live here from other countries, but they’re not quite the same,'” said Keith Neuman, executive director of the Environics Institute.
When it comes to immigration and citizenship, the views of the majority of Canadians born in the country and the 20 per cent born outside it are largely aligned. Canadian-born and foreign-born respondents were equally likely to feel fully like citizens (78 per cent versus 75 per cent).
Usha George, dean of Ryerson University’s Faculty of Community Services, says the survey’s findings confirm a lot of what those working with new Canadians know already.
The willingness of Canadians to not view a person’s foreign background as an impediment to citizenship is a product of the country’s multicultural policies and the visible effect of immigrants on the economy, George said.
Integration of immigrants has worked in Canada because the government has funded programs that teach immigrants about Canadian values and society has adapted its institutions to accommodate diversity.
“The mutual recognition that we should be respectful to each other and celebrate diversity in a genuine way, those values permeate the whole society,” said George, whose faculty trains many of those who provide social and other services to new immigrants.
Whatever Canada is doing, it seems to be positively influencing immigrants’ views of the country, the survey suggests: 88 per cent of respondents who were born outside Canada said they were very proud to be Canadian, compared with 81 per cent of those born here.
“Canadians who were not born in Canada are more proud than naturally born Canadians simply because we had the choice of being Canadian,” said Vikram Kewalramani, who immigrated to Canada in 2006 from India. “It wasn’t something that, literally, was a birthright. We consider it a privilege.”
For Amal Ibrahim, a Palestinian who became a citizen last year along with her two children, Canadian citizenship is primarily about respecting differences.
“It’s a great diverse culture where people learn how to live in harmony with each other while they have different ideas, different religions and different backgrounds,” she said.
Tolerance of others who are different was among the top five behaviours survey respondents considered a “very important” part of being a good citizen. Others were:
Treating men and women equally (95 per cent ranked this “very important”).
Following Canada’s laws (89 per cent).
Voting in elections (82 per cent – the same as tolerance of others).
Protecting the environment (80 per cent).
Immigrants’ views of what makes a good citizen were strikingly similar to those of native-born Canadians, said Neuman. In the majority of cases, the responses of the two groups varied at most by only a few percentage points.
“People might think … that newcomers are coming [into] this country … with their own sense of what it means to be a citizen, and they don’t really buy into the same perspective that native-born Canadians have,” he said.
“And this research pretty clearly suggests that they’re largely the same perspective, and the more somebody is in this country, the more immigrants buy into the native-born view.”
Canadians are generally satisfied with the rules for obtaining citizenship, the survey suggests. Only 26 per cent of respondents said the rules were not strict enough. Six per cent felt the rules were too strict, though that number tripled for permanent residents.
Canada’s willingness to allow multiple citizenships also got broad approval in the survey: 71 per cent of those surveyed felt Canadians should be allowed to hold dual citizenship.
That sentiment was even higher among 18- to 44-year-olds, with 80 per cent supporting dual citizenship, but lower for those 60 and over, at 58 per cent.
“I am equally proud of both citizenships,” said Natasha Nikolovska-Angelova, 32, who became a Canadian citizen last April. “Macedonia is more like my mother … the country where I was raised, and Canada is the country I chose to live in. It’s like the spouse you choose.… It’s the country of my future.”
Nikolovska-Angelova is part of the roughly 2.8 per cent of Canadians who hold at least one other citizenship.
Most of those surveyed also didn’t have a problem with Canadians living abroad. Sixty-six per cent of respondents who were born in Canada said it was generally a good thing to allow Canadian citizens to live abroad, compared to 55 per cent of respondents born outside of Canada.
The survey of 2,376 adults was conducted between Nov.18 and Dec. 17 and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points 19 times out of 20 (+/- 4.3 percentage points for the foreign-born subsample group). Only households with landlines were surveyed.
Banks Have Canceled their 4-year Promos – Rates on the rise.
Still time to get a rate hold at the old rates if you hop to it.
The banks 2.99% four-year fixed promotions were intended to last until February 29. RBC and others have cancelled them early.
The nation’s banks rates are now:
- 4-year fixed “special offer” by 40 bps to 3.39% – ours is at 2.99% – live deals only, closing in 30 days or less
- 5-year fixed “special offer” by 10 bps to 4.04% – ours is at 3.09% / 3.25% – live deals only, close in 30 days or less
- 5-year fixed posted rate by 10 bps to 5.24% – ours is at 3.29%, 120 day rate hold
Some quick points on these changes:
- Other major banks are expected to match some or all of RBC’s rate increases.
- For just 10-20 bps more (i.e., 3.09-3.19%) you can find several brokers offering 5-year fixed mortgages. That’s a reasonable premium for one extra year of rate protection.
- RBC’s 4.04% five-year “special offer” is almost a full point above 5-year fixed rates on the street. No one other than the most novice mortgage shoppers take this rate seriously.
- RBC spokesman Matt Gierasimczuk attributed today’s rate increases to this:
“Our long-term funding costs have gone up considerably due to global economic concerns and, while we have held off in passing on these rate changes to our clients, it is now necessary for us to increase this mortgage rate.” (Source: Bloomberg)
- We can find nothing to suggest RBC’s 4-year fixed funding cost rose 40 basis points since mid-January. It has among the lowest cost of capital in Canada and other lenders have recently launched new 2.99% four-year specials of their own (one of them today). That is some pretty bad spin they are trying to put on.
- The Globe and Mail quotes sources who say that regulators were unhappy with the “price war” that followed BMO’s 2.99% five-year special. That may be somewhat linked to this announcement, hints the article. The government is clearly worried that low rates may incite borrowing and inflate the debt balloon further.