Broker to meet with MPP to discuss MBLAA

by |

Independent broker, Paolo Di Petta, will be meeting with Steven Del Duca, Liberal MPP of Vaughn and the man appointed to oversee the review of the MBLAA, on Thursday to discuss potential changes to the act – and he wants to collect and present broker feedback after a letter sent by CAAMP to the MPP did not represent brokers’ best interests.

CAAMP already wrote a letter to the MPP about it - and it doesn't look like they're looking out for brokers,” Di Petta told “It seems they support exemption for bank employees to be licensed; of course their members are both bank employees and brokers, but they've been trying to control broker licensing/education for years - so it seems like they're attacking brokers from both ends - making it harder to be a broker while keeping it easy for our competition.

“I think it should be harder across the board, especially, since as we've seen on MBN, banks don't always play by the rules.”

The letter, which was sent to Steven Del Duca was sent by CAAMP “on behalf of (its) 12,000 members across Canada, and 7,000 members in Ontario” to offer its comments on the five year review of the MBLAA. However, Di Petta believes the letter’s recommendations won’t benefit brokers. It states:

CAAMP has taken the position that if they are selling the product of their employer, they are not brokering and do not need to be licensed,” the organization said in its letter to the MPP. “We believe that such a measure would also not stand a legal challenge.

“However, we believe strongly that when such employees are placing mortgage products with a lender who is not their employer, they are brokering and should be covered by the provisions of the MBLAA legislation including licensing,” they continued.

Di Petta also takes umbrage with CAAMP’s recommendation to raise the minimum mortgage amount – especially concerning private deals.

“Private deals require more time, and when a deal falls apart in the 11th hour, that's a big hit to a broker's reputation with lenders, lawyers and anyone else working on the deal,” Di Petta said. “Due to the smaller volume of deals, one deal with a private lender makes up a larger percentage of total annual deals with that lender, and of course, the broker's reputation and the availability of that lender to the broker in the future.”

If you have similar or other concerns, contact Di Petta before his meeting with Del Duca to ensure your voice is heard.

  • Paolo Di Petta | on 2013-09-18 8:05:40 AM

    Thanks for the Coverage, Justin!

    I'll also accept feedback here in the comments section - just commenting so that I can get email updates.

  • Ron Price on 2013-09-18 8:39:39 AM

    Herein lies the fundamental flaw with CAAMP. It's not only an Achilles heel, it is a fatal flaw.
    In trying to represent the best interests of both Lenders and Brokers, CAAMP has an inherent conflict of interest since we are in direct competition with the banks.
    This will always be a problem and CAAMP cannot ever hope to satisfy its' membership.
    We endorse a new national association which exclusively represents mortgage brokers and we should be allowed to choose, rather than be forced to join CAAMP by our franchisor.

  • Jimmy the broker on 2013-09-18 8:46:35 AM

    Good luck Paolo and thanks from all of us for working on this. The playing field is not even with the banks and something needs to be done about it. Ive also had more and more clients tell me how they're bank is using tricks and lies to keep their business at the bank . For example, switching their mortgage to a collateral charge without really telling them what that is. Had a client say he was offered a (bank starts with an S) LOC after his mortgage was originally registered, but the rep didnt explain to him how this would cause problems with a transfer out later on. Sure enough he came to me for my rate on a mortgage renewal with another lender and got nailed with legal fees because of the collateral charge and having to do a refinance instead. S & T are notorious for this now. Beware.

  • Sylvia on 2013-09-20 10:13:05 AM

    Interesting. Two comments:

    1. You're saying CAAMP doesn't have the Broker's interest at heart, but then you quote a section that clearly indicates that they are trying to even the playing field between bank reps and brokers:

    “However, we believe strongly that when such employees are placing mortgage products with a lender who is not their employer, they are brokering and should be covered by the provisions of the MBLAA legislation including licensing,”

    2. REMIC's response says much the same thing about bank road reps, but I don't see any complaints about that.

    Seems people just like to complain.

  • M. Robertson on 2013-09-20 11:17:51 AM

    Ron... if your franchisor is forcing you to belong to an association, you should seriously reconsider your franchise. Associations have value only when their membership is engaged and has a vested interested in belonging. Forced membership devalues the association unless that association is the regulatory body for the industry - CAAMP is not that.

    To everyone else:

    As for CAAMP looking out for the interests of mortgage brokers - they are not a mortgage broker association, they are a mortgage association. They cannot side with one over the other - well... at least they shouldn't.

Broker news forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions