News Sections
Banks strong, but credit must keep flowing: Flaherty
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(21)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Jan. 7 2009 8:49 AM ET
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says people across Canada are telling him that access to credit is the most important issue currently facing our economy.
Flaherty has hosted a number of meetings with stakeholders ahead of his Jan. 27 federal budget.
Speaking to CTV's Canada AM, he said thousands of Canadians have weighed in on the issue.
"The number one issue is access to credit, access to financing," Flaherty said.
"That affects everybody. It affects individuals about car loans, house mortgages, small businesses and large businesses as well. We've seen the leasing market contract substantially, particularly in the auto sector."
The main objective of a new private-public working group, in fact, will be to find ways to keep credit flowing, Flaherty said.
"We want them to work with the private banking sector -- which is strong -- to find ways to make sure we have good access to credit access, to financing in this country, and as I say they'll work on that the next week or so," Flaherty said.
"That's their focus."
Flaherty said the government's plan for the economy will provide for those with the lowest incomes, care of people who require Employment Insurance, and flow money quickly to infrastructure projects.
The government has signalled it is willing to enter deficit in order to balance the books, but not a long term, so-called structural deficit.
Flaherty also suggested Tuesday that infrastructure spending on projects like roads and bridges may not be enough to jolt the economy back to life, and further tax cuts are also under consideration.
One of the groups Flaherty met with on Tuesday, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, maintains Flaherty should avoid deficit at all costs.
Kevin Gaudet cited polls that suggest most Canadians would prefer a government spending cut, over a deficit.
The group also opposes the notion of bailouts for private industry, such as the auto makers, and is instead calling on the government to reduce taxes for individuals and Canadians to encourage economic activity.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, however, is encouraged by the direction Flaherty appears to be taking.
The group has drafted an alternative budget that would include $32.9 billion in stimulus spending.
The group's Armine Yalnizyan, said the government must act on a grand scale to prevent the economy from slipping into "freefall."
"When you've got banks not lending, and businesses not wanting to produce more because prices are falling and people aren't buying, and consumers looking at their own budgets and trying to balance them and prepare for a rainy day, the only actor left in this equation that is left to start spending and keep the economy from going into freefall, is the government," Yalnizyan told Canada AM.
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(21)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Michael Sampson
said
However, Loans should be made eaiser for small bussiness and corporations to obtain so the economy can be stimulated eaisly.
Roger T
said
Cheap credits are only a temporary sell to consumers, cause once the economy picks up a little, the banks/credit businesses will use it as a reason to jack up interest rates and you're in the same situation again from low to high!
I as a consumer have no interest in borrowing more money when I'm debt free, until the prices of cars/major items drop than I'll consider buying anything until than RECESSION it is. Why go into debt when you're debt free or burden yourself in uncertain times.
Saving comes before the economy!
Cathy
said
Service charges at banks are also crazy...why must I pay for a passbook fee when I don't even have one...I can't even remember the last time I went into a branch and was served by a teller.
I am sure the big banks can afford this. They have made some good profits.
Credit should be given where credit is due. We are all individuals with individual situations and should be treated as such.
James
said
This would be the economic kick in the pants that the world needs now. What people have now would be theirs, free and clear and any future credit would be extremely hard to get and closely monitored.
Even Obama has said that the U.S and world economies are in terrible shape and going to get much worse. Heck, when Obama says that there will be no pork in a $800 billion stimulus package, you know times are tough and getting tougher.
Forgiving all debt would be easy and the only people that would be hurt would be all the fat cats that have been cheating the system already. People like Madoff and his crooked friends would be the only ones to really suffer if all debt is forgiven.
Forgive all debt!!
Blair A
said
Doug BC
said
Credit card interest is extremely high because the default rates,and fraud are also extremely high.Credit card users should pay off the balances EVERY month.If you are not doing this,you are digging yourself into a hole.If you really need to borrow money,get a loan by applying for it.By showing you have the menas to re-pay it,you will get decent rates.
If there was less money tied up in useless consumer credit,there would be much more available for business to operate with.It is a huge part of the problem.Stupid consumers with several credit cards maxed out.
The dredit market started this mess.While the problem has spread,the root of it still lies with credit,and who actually gets it.
Now,we are on the horns of a dilema.If consumers close their wallets,the economy gets even slower.If the spend money they don't yet have,they go deeper in debt.
Some choice.We all must return to the days when we bought things AFTER we saved the money for them.We must not continue to spend our childrens,and grand childrens future earnings by ammassing huge amounts of debt.And NO,"James",we cannot ask someone else to pay off our debt either.If we did that,the same people would only do the same thing all over again.Of course,if it was done,these countries,and people,would have to promise to NEVER borrow anything,ever again.
G. Gravelle, Ottawa, Ontario
said
Sharon B. Saskatoon, SK
said
I agree that the credit card interest rates must be lowered to help pay off debt. However when Flaherty says the banks are solid these are the same fools that denied there was a recession or that it wasn't going to effect jobs to any great extent. This is also the same guy that put Ontario into such a debt. Flaherty has no credibility.
Dale - Edmonton
said
Look at the problem properly!
said
Very short term view and a quick fix not what the country really right now!
Alanna,Saskatchewan
said
Mel from Calgary
said
Now with consumers at their limits we are back to governments borrowing money.
Perhaps the banks after years of easy profits need to be goaded into lending to business. Small business owners in this country have always struggled to get loans now is the time for the banks to step up to the plate and give these entrepreneurs a break. They will create jobs and growth.
To use busniness jargon it is called "risk".
James
said
All debts forgiven!!
How else will the world economies begin to recover from the current massive debt load. Do we simply allow the number of defaults, personal, corporations and governments, to grow and for homes to go not lived in, products to be unsold and millions to lose their jobs?
Here's how it would work; On a certain date all debt (legal debt that is) would be wiped off the books. Since almost everybody is in debt, except for the extremely wealthy, then there would be few losers. Everybody would be starting with clean slates.
On the same day, new credit rules would be put in place. These rules would make it extremely difficult for people, companies and governments to get credit. We would all have to begin to live within our means.
Personally, I would prefer forgiving all debt to the alternative of massive unemployment, shattered economies and civil unrest or worse. Forgiving all debt would allow the world to take a collective deep breath and truely value what we have and need.
Forgive all debt!!
Cathy
said
To the person who wrote the comment: "Stupid consumers with several credit cards maxed out."
NOT EVERYONE IS IN DEBT BECAUSE OF SPENDING HABITS!
There are some people out there who are trying to pay their way through school...hence some debt, then there are people who don't have a health plan and require medication...hence some debt, not every procedure or medication is covered by OHIP or health benefits...eye exams, dental work, insulin, fertility drugs, caring for aging family members, being a single parent, funeral costs.
If you lose your job and you are in any one of the situations above...you will not always be able to pay off your balance in full. If life throws you an unexpected dilema...you can not always save for it.
Dan from Northern Ont.
said
Home and vehicle purchases are another (why rent when you can rent to own?)
The Finance Minister is not referring to credit card max'ers, and shopoholics.
Linda in Vancouver
said
As to the "fogive all debt" notion,James did not mention who should suffer the loss.That is a common left wing practise.If those debts are not repaid by the borrower,who pays?? If the government bails them out then taxpayers pay.Not a very fair or efficient use of tax revenue.And banks don't have money of their own either.They use the revenue from loans to pay interest to people who do save.And,to pay dividends to people who buy the shares in the bank.Many of them being seniors,who rely on that income to live on during their retirement years.
Sorry James.But unless you can spell out how your "Forgive All Debt" policy can work,it looks like a foolish idea right from the get-go.
The solution is a long term project.We must encourage people and our government to save more,and borrow less.One thing seems certain to me,if people or governments don't repat their debts,borrowing money will only get more difficult and extremely expensive in the future.I know for sure that I'm not lending money to anyone who isn't going to repay it.And it will cost a lot to borrow money from me if the risk of default is higher.
Red X
said
It is his Conservative government's mismanagement that would not acknowledge a problem until it was too late to act since the prorogation will limit the timely government action to help the "free market" in what is obviously a worldwide recession.
Michael (Ottawa)
said
Flaherty is 100% correct in his assessment. We need more flow of funds to get things moving. Without credit the system dries up and so does investment capital.
Barb in North Bay
said
I agree, interest rates could be decreased to lighten the burden and allow for the average person to pay their current debt down.
Flaherty is grasping at straws here. Think it over Flaherty!
Melanie
said
In the USA,this credit cruch has many people having their credit card limits lowered,and many people being denied credit cards at all.
Honestly,if you are crazy enough to carry big balances on your credit cards,I find it hard to sympathize with you.You are being charged a lot,but you do have choices about how you use credit.It is very clear,that the lenders face a lot of risk when they lend via credit cards.A lot of fraud,no one has to prove they are credit worthy,and there is no collateral to seize if the loans are not repaid.
Truthfully,if you borrow money you cannot repay,in most cases,you are either not very bright,or a just plain crooked.You were the master of your own personal economy,you have to live with it.It's a cop-out to blame others.
L.A.
said