OK, got it. Frankly, it seems like a system that makes owning a home less attractive, but I suppose US policy has been driven by the idea that home ownership should be encouraged.
Other differences: Canada does not have a mortgage interest tax deduction nor does it have low/no down payment mortgage options. Generally, the more conservative approach to banking makes things more sane and is part of the reason that Canada rode out the global financial crisis relatively unscathed.
Well, it also makes people less likely to own homes, and I'm not really convinced you couldn't have a relatively cautious system that still had long, federally backed mortgage terms or tax deductions or even relatively low down payment options. The big crash was preceded by lots of outright fraud.
I got curious, so I did a google search. It appears that the home ownership rate is very similar between Canada and the US. At the moment, it is higher in Canada as the US is still recovering from the effects of the mortgage crisis. That said, I don't disagree with you. The US has made a policy of promoting home ownership, more so than other countries. That has potentially come with adverse side effects. On the other hand, Canada's relative banking conservatism has arguably prevented Canada's own housing bubble from bursting which could be, itself, a bad thing.
It doesn't seem like there's anything radical about a standard, simple interest, fixed rate loan with no balloon payment. Setting aside questions of rate and term, your typical USA 20% down 30 year fixed mortgage is about as simple/ordinary/traditional as loans get.
Which makes me think it's not really any special favoritism in the US...
It's my understanding (which I freely admit may be in whole or in part mistaken) that such loans didn't really exist until heavy political intervention/the creation of Fannie Mae.