Should be NOWHERE near a bank much less regulating them
An article at American.com explains why Canada hasn’t been hit by the housing / bank crunch as much as America has. In short… they lent to worthy borrowers and borrowers were less likely to speculate because they paid even if foreclosed.
Taken together, the features and regulations of banks in Canada outlined above create a healthy and sound “pro-lender” environment absent of political motivations for outcomes like greater homeownership, compared to the often politically motivated “pro-borrower” and “pro-homeowner” policies of the United States. While Canada’s banking system has promoted responsible borrowing and prudent lending and underwriting practices with little politically motivated interference, the U.S. banking system seems to have encouraged excessive lending to risky borrowers because of the political obsession with homeownership.
Showing that government really is bad at most things, in SPITE of political obsession over home ownership, the home ownership percent in Canada is actually HIGHER than in the U.S.
The main difference, although not highlighted very much in the article, is that there is no Fannie Mae in Canada. With nobody to buy crazy loans from them, the banks were stuck with what they sold, and they sold with diligence.
The problems we have right now stem ALMOST ENTIRELY from ill conceived government action. We would be MUCH better off if the politicians were significantly less involved in our economy.