Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Lucky or prescient? Chrétien takes credit for stronger banks

SINCLAIR STEWART

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:19 AM EST 08/10/08

Amid the worst financial crisis in a generation, Canadian banking system has emerged as the most stable and best performing in the world ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Paul Deiter from Canada writes:
    Chretien might be smiling but it was pressure from the NDP that forced his hand and kept our banking system safe. If we had listened to the C.R.A.P. come Conservatives the nation's banking system and economy would be in full melt down mode right now.
  2. Dipstick Dong from City of 2010, Canada writes: Lucky? No way, I remember the public outcry because these mergers would had made our choice in banking LESS competitive. With Joe public facing higher and more bank fees would had been a very real sore point for all Canadians.
  3. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Well, as I recall, the NDP's point was that there would be job loss. As it as turned out, we can either pay higher fees or we can pay, through taxes, to bail out badly run banks out. In fact, some of the latter has taken place.
  4. Joseph Sis from Ottawa, Canada writes: Chretien, Liberals or NDP, the important point is that throughout Canadian history, liberal government has generated progress, prosperity, lower deficits, lower unemployment. Conservative governments, , because of their lack of Canadian pride and their blind following of the US (it is not just Harper/Bush II, but also Mulroney/BushI, Diefenbanker destroying the Avrow Arrow program to satisfy US defence lobbyists, etc..).

    If you want a free, strong and independent Canada, there is only when logical way to vote: liberal. NDP and Green folks are wonderful but a vote for them equals electing Harper's reform party or teh block separatist party, we can't risk five more years of close minded radicalism: look south if you need more evidence of what this can of mayhem that mentality can cause, at home and abroad.
  5. G JG from Canada writes: Typical Chrétien comment, always taking credit for everything. Though he doesn't get credit, the GST introduced by Mulroney govt is what really got the revenue side of Federal finances under control. Years of Liberal over-spending had mad Canada a basket case.

    The brutal reality is that none of the political parties supported bank mergers in Canada because the voters were clearly against them. One does tire of this NDP holier than thou crap.

    Comments about differences between off and on balance sheet transactions in the banking systems are nonsense. BMO and CIBC are still unwinding their off-sheet entities. I think that only real difference is that the Canadian banks learned from the Enron fiasco, and managed their risk better. They unwound their sub-prime positions much earlier and thus limited their loses. Ed Clark at TD in particular deserves some accolades.

    Canadians don't understand the fundamental differences between US and Canadian mortgage economics. As someone who has had both, it's important to appreciate the practical differences. In the US, you can deduct your mortgage interest payments from your taxable income. That in effect means that Americans grossly underestimate the risks in a house purchase. How could you not misjudge risk when your personal cash flow effectively says that it costs nothing to borrow money to buy your house? With any kind of a burp in Americans' income, the sky falls around them because they really can't afford the real cost.

    This is also why so many Canadians think that Americans are so much better off materially. For many years American appeared to have much higher personal cash flow, but is that really true when all you've done is pass the real costs onto the government in the form of a bail-out?? Sooner or later, Americans are going to pay the real price of risk, and in my opinion with their current personal and government deft levels, it's going to be sooner!!
  6. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Joseph Sis from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Conservative governments, , because of their lack of Canadian pride and their blind following of the US (it is not just Harper/Bush II, but also Mulroney/BushI, Diefenbanker destroying the Avrow Arrow program to satisfy US defence lobbyists, etc..).'

    Your comments regarding the Avro Arrow are ludicrous and contradictory. Spending the money on the Arrow would have bankrupted Canada which was then entering an economic downturn. If the Liberals had been re-elected after 1957, they would have cancelled the project. The recommendation for cancellation came from the Chief of the Air Staff - the government simply acted in this recommendation. Get educated.
  7. left leaning ontarian from Canada writes: G JG FROM CANADA WRITES: Typical Chrétien comment, always taking credit for everything. Though he doesn't get credit, the GST introduced by Mulroney govt is what really got the revenue side of Federal finances under control. Years of Liberal over-spending had mad Canada a basket case.

    GJG, IF THE GST WAS WHAT GOT THE REVENUE SIDE OF THE FEDERAL FINANCES UNDER CONTROL WHY O WHY HAS HARPER CUT THIS FUNDEMENTAL TAX? DOES IT MEAN HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORK AND WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO TO HELP THE KEEP THE FEDERAL FINANCES UNDER CONTROL. OH MY GOD. IS HE NOT AN ECONOMIST. IS HE NOT A LEADER. OR IS HE JUST A POLITICIAN. OH MY OH MY. WE HAVE BEEN DUPED BY AN ECONOMIST POLITICIAN. THE WORST KIND OF POLITICIAN.
  8. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Suffice it to say Harper and Flaherty are NOT responsible for any possibility of Canada's banks being in a stronger position. Harper's ideology of 'get government out of regulating anything in the free market' would have Canada in the same sinking ship as the States. And we are feeling the consequences of that already and it is not over.
  9. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm willing to give Chretien his due. He was a 'steady as she goes' guy. Remember his view on 'nervous nellies.'? I honestly don't think he'd be calling for an immediate '30 day action plan.'
  10. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: There were other potential pitfalls awaiting merged Canadian banks if they had become much bigger players in U.S. banking.

    It is hard to see how they would have been able to resist the explosion in lending unleashed by the U.S. SEC when it removed capital limits from U.S. banks in 2004. Many ended up with loan-to-capital ratios of more than $30 in loans out, backed by $1 in cash reserves. To compete in the deregulated, laissez-faire U.S. market, Canadian banks would have been sorely tempted to play the same game.
  11. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: When things go wrong, politicians get blamed. When things go right, let's give them credit. The Chretien years were good years marked by some good decisions on banking and the Err-Wreck War.
  12. D W from Halifax, Canada writes: Amusing as always :)

    Canadian 'banks' operate fundamentally differently from their US counterparts; both through regulation (nothing to do with Chretien) and tradition. Mergers would have changed none of this.

    Canadian banks learned (at least 2 of them have, the other 3 have been less well guided...and 2 of them are being pounded for it now...with a TD fiasco not far away if I'm guessing...you just need to look) from the 3rd World debt problems of the early 80's and the commercial real estate meltdown of the early 90s. Combine better risk management with the fact that they operate in a smaller, less speculative marketplace and one can easily understand the superior performance in hard times.
  13. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: Chretien is taking credit for something that may have been beneficial not 'because' of his decision, but 'in spite' of his decision. That plus the Canadian banking system is different from the American system. But that does not mean that bank CEO's are any smarter than their American or European counterparts either.
  14. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: I remember the out cry, better to keep the banks separated.
    I think we can say the liberals do have a better record at finance. At this point it seem the best decision a lot of what ifs?
  15. Piet F from Canada writes: I miss the Liberals of the 1990s... Thank god free-wheeling Harper wasn't in charge during those years or we'd still have a deficit (thanks to irresponsible tax cuts and no economic plan other than to let the market regulate itself) and our banks would be doomed.

    I have to say that as much as they hated each other - I miss the duo of Chretien/Martin. They really knew how to run a country - even if there was a bit of dodginess going on behind the scenes.
  16. Jeff S from Canada writes: At this point in time I would take Chretien's word over that of any Banker.

    I've lived in several countries including the USA and UK and suffice to say the Canadian banking system is without a doubt one of the best in the world.
  17. V Patterson from Freddy, Canada writes: oh my gosh, is there a country big enough to hold that mans ego. anything good that happened he did all by himself, and anything bad that happened (or is happening) is someones else's fault.

    .....it would be interesting to read Mr Martins take on this.
  18. Andre041 L from Ottawa, Canada writes: Chretien, what a pompous a$$. I always voted Liberal, but have yet to do so since Chretien and his ego took over leadership. Now, thanks to him, the Liberal party is a complete joke.
  19. A Canuck from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is ridiculous - Canadian Chartered Banks are legislated to behave a certain way, wether they're intact or merged. Chretien likes to re-write history, the books got balanced solely due to 2 things, and HE should know them, they are the GST and FTA.
    Perhaps he should take the credit for the creation of the Bloc Quebecois, the rise of the Reform and coming dangerously close to losing the last referendum. Chretien's legagcy is scandals, scandals and scandals.
  20. John Connor from Canada writes: I'll give Chretien credit for one thing, he has a sense of humor. He's also delusional if he thinks he deserves credit for the strength of the banking sector.

    Canadians would be much better off eliminating the pillars between insurance and banking, as well as allowing the less financially strong banks to consolidate their systems, than continuing as is.

    Chretien is wrong, but he never fails to make us laugh. Thanks for the funnies Jean, you may return to retirement now.
  21. Ob Server from Canada writes: Before you vote next Tuesday, just remember who saved Canada's bacon by disallowing the bank mergers. Had the cons been in power, the mergers would likely have been approved....one at least, and we'd all be alot worse off. Just remember the prosperity and growth of Canada under Liberal stewardship for the vast majority of our 141 years of existence.
  22. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Great, can Chretien now take credit for the abysmally low consumer savings and high debt? The average Canadian has a higher debt load than the average American. Yes, it's the average Canadian who bears the responsibility to save but the federal & provincial gov'ts should encourage it as well...
  23. Crystal Glass from Canada writes: I think he was smart. I think that Jean Chretien is a VERY intelligent man, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
  24. Ob Server from Canada writes: slapdash....the dead dogs are the cons who want to get elected so they can do to us what the cons have done to their people in the US....ONE HELL OF A MESS!! Give it up....vote PLC and survive.
  25. slapdash dapoint from trawnana, Canada writes: Ob Server:

    sadly, i'll agree somewhat. but only in so much as the con party today is just a rebranded reform party.

    i can't wait for real conservatives to be back on the ballot.

    that said, i still think ex politicos should be restricted from making claims of grandeur. let the people decide who was responsible for what.
  26. Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: Yeah, sure - Canadian banks are strong because Chretien sat on his hands for 13 years. In fact, the consistent refusals to permit mergers forced the banks to expand by buying up banking operations in the (now-troubled) US market, exposing our banks to their problems. Nothing bad has come of it... yet. Pop another cork, Chretien!
  27. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Andre041 L: At the risk of getting us off topic, I suggest that the Liberal party was doing quite well, until the Martinites deposed a sitting prime minister from within his own party--a prime minister who had been chosen for the third time by the electorate.

    Martin's 'It's my turn' was the hubristic cry that undid the Liberals, as I see it. And it looks as though he is still doing it in the nasty leaked excerpts from his book--coming out, interestingly enough, just as the Liberals are gaining ground against the Harper Conservatives.

    Not satisfied with bringing down his own party to get himself on top, after he flopped as PM, his ego seems to be carrying out a scorched-earth policy against his successors.
  28. David Ho from Markham, Canada writes: I never want to hear another word out of Chretien. I don't know why anyone went to get his opinion. I'm not giving him any credit for this, and the fat lady hasn't sung yet.
  29. Richard Soley from writes: Mr.Chretien takes credit for the Banks, please give me a break! Chretien can also take credit for Abscam, helicopters, business jets. afghanistan, weak military, ruinous relations with the US, failure of soft wood lumber talks, etc. If he wants credit he takes all the credit what an example of political bloody nonsense. The G&M should avoid steeping into the current political soup with a has been bully that can't and couldn't keep his moutn shut. Credit for Canadian Banks, next it willl be Chretien had forsight, saw this crisis comming, warned Martin, was resonsible for the Fundy Tides, Winter snow, the moon cycles, Really!
  30. Eric MacKinnon from Canada writes: I agree with the sensible posters who realize that, while Chretien gives himself a pat on the back for balancing the books, he needs to thank Brian Mulroney. While in opposition Chretien was going to tear up the free trade deal and eliminate the GST. When he came to power, Chretien knew it would be folly to do such things. So thank you Jean Chretien for following the wise plan of Brian Mulroney who is the one who really deserves credit for any stability we now enjoy.
  31. G JG from Canada writes: re left leaning ontarian
    Actually I believe that one cut of the GST was quite appropriate, but I agree that the second should not have occurred.

    The GST was over-sized initially intentionally so that some headway could be made on paying down the national debt; you forget how bad Canada's debt had become. But as soon as surpluses started to accumulate, everyone became greedy and thought we should revert to the Liberals spend, spend, spend days and living off the public trough. Ontario to this day keeps up the whining about wanting more when what they must do is get rid of their bloated bureaucracy.

    Over looked is that we still have a national debt. Yes, we're in a lot better than most OECD countries, but why is the target a debt of 25% of GDP? The target should be zero!!! It's called live within your means!! And once we get there, it's personal taxes that should be cut.

    But then history does have a way of repeating itself:
    '...the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.' Cicero , 55 BC

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!!!
  32. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Before you vote next Tuesday, just remember who saved Canada's bacon by disallowing the bank mergers. Had the cons been in power, the mergers would likely have been approved....one at least, and we'd all be alot worse off. Just remember the prosperity and growth of Canada under Liberal stewardship for the vast majority of our 141 years of existence.
    =================================================
    So if the banks merge, the laws regulating banks change? It is brain dead liberal/NDP such as yourself that allow buffoons like chriton to take credit for Paul Martin's accomplishments. It was Harper that put a stop to the 40 year almost no money down mortgage. That is what got banks into trouble. People allowed to borrow more than they should, not because a bank is big. You see, jonny chiton downloaded everything to the provinces who were forced to download to the cities. What a hero!!!!! You go put your a$$ back up your butt.
  33. Robert Waddell from Canada writes: Knowing several people who've met with Chretien I can safely say he's nothing but a scumbucket lawyer. The real problem here is that so many are so ignorant about our banking system and why it's intact that they'll actually swallow the rediculous idea that Chretien somehow saved us. Liberals have performed better financially? What world are you living in? The only reason there was any improvement in our national debt was due to policy enacted by Mulroney...the hated GST. What did the Liberals do? Promise to remove it and then didn't when they realized it was the only thing allowing them to at least appear fiscally responsible. Don't get me wrong, Martin was a shrewed finance minister but the reason he had room to pay down the debt was not related to any policies the Libs adopted. Some cry 'but irresponsible Harper has cut 1% of the GST while we still owe!!'. Yes Harper cut the GST and his reasoning is simple. It was intended as a temporary measure and having paid down a significant portion of our debt he felt that dropping 1% would still allow us to continue to pay back our debt at a reasonable speed while giving some of our money back to us. I know it's blasphamy to allow Canadians to actually keep their money in Liberal land but I still like the idea.
  34. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes:
    Our saving grace so far has been our regulation.

    We'll see what CIBC (in particular) has been up to over the next few months and see if keeping them small was enough to save them from themselves.
  35. s like from Canada writes: lucky
  36. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie B, you asked 'So if the banks merge, the laws regulating banks change?'

    Well, if those banks move into the US, they have to compete with US products and will use US regulation to do so. So, in this case, the answer to your question is yes.

    Now, Chretien's point might be self-aggrandizing in this article, but Charles Baillie's is just nuts. '...had the Canadian banks merged, they would have been able to resist the temptation of reckless lending that consumed Wall Street.'

    Yeah, right Charlie.
  37. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Freddie B....It's obvious that lacking a coherent argument, you are, of necessity forced to the extreme....insults. The fact is that you have no clue what I'm talking about but feel compelled to say something....anything that sounds even remotely plausible. Go study economics 101 and then put your brain in gear before you set your fingers in motion and while you're at it, take your head out of your a$$.
    ================================================
    Right!!! Bigger banks means a change to the laws. Obviously, the economics course you took in the union shop tells you big is bad and people that make money should burn in hell. Merged banks DO NOT change bank regulations. So again, I understand that all that fecal matter is clouding your judgement, but don't despair, there are enough of your type to ensure Harper does not get a majority and we can play the I Dare You game for 3 more years.
  38. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: Joseph Sis - 'AVRO ARROW'

    Yeah, right. See 'CANDU TECHNOLOGY'. We would have had an aircraft program that would have only had a market in Canada, or one that only could be sold to countries who demanded huge subsidies to take them. One was sold to Korea when it was a developing country. Now that Korea is wealthy, they are building many more reactors, none of them CANDU. Watch Romainia in the future (remember being paid in strawberry jam for that one?)

    No, we would have had another program, with huge hidden, sunk costs, and no way of measuring the return.
  39. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie B, you asked 'So if the banks merge, the laws regulating banks change?'

    Well, if those banks move into the US, they have to compete with US products and will use US regulation to do so. So, in this case, the answer to your question is yes.
    =================================================
    If the banks have offices in the US, then they play buy US rules. In Canada, they still play by Canadian rules. Seriously, how can you make such an argument. You suggest that any time a foreign entity takes up shop in Canada, they still play by the rules of the home country. So the answer is still no, just because a bank merges, does not mean a cahnge to regulations. Who feeds you guys this bunk???
  40. Mike G from Waterloo, Canada writes: How can it be that the GST is what saved Canada's bacon, as many posters have stated? The GST simply displaced a litany of less visible taxes with some likely overshoot to pad the numbers. The GST was in place in 1993 when the PCs were defeated and when they had put forth a budget that was $40B in deficit, why didnt it help them?

    In fact, the broad based cuts to government spending are what saved Canada's finances. Our hospitals fell behind, as did our infrastructure, and educational facilities, and training for doctors etc. We took the cash we might have invested in our wellbeing and balanced the budget. Good for us.

    So the credit for Canada's wellbeing shouldn't be given to the PC or Liberal parties, because the parties didnt make the sacrifices and only did what they were supposed to do. In reality, Canadians bore the cost of by taking a hit on our future wellbeing.

    If today Canada's governments are now on better financial footing, it is the Canadian people who deserve the credit.
  41. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: Yesterday, the Liberals and NDP'ers where saying that the Cons where hiding the facts that Canada is suffering from the credit crunch and that we need to call a 30 day meeting to save our banking system.

    Today, they are taking credit for our strong banking system that is the envy of the world during this global credit crunch.

    Yep, I know now for sure who I'm voting for.
  42. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie B, you said 'If the banks have offices in the US, then they play buy US rules.' Since your argument actually backs up my post, I suggest you re-read it.

    Or re-read the article.

    Or read the article once.

    My thesis is that if TD had moved into the US market balls- to-the-wall 10 years ago, they would be in far worse trouble than they are today. What are you missing? Why are you arguing?
  43. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Mike G: The Canadian people elected the Chretien Liberals three times because they saw that tough, unpopular deficit-reduction policies were put in place and the books were balanced. You can't separate the people from their political choices, no matter what point you want to make about political parties.

    What should have been done with the eventual surpluses is something that can be debated (Chretien and Martin both started reinvesting the surplus--the $12 billion in new spending for the military over five years Martin budgeted in 2005 being a case in point).
  44. Sen Siv from Canada writes: Chrétien also told this George Bush to keep away from Iraq and if they wanted the oil Canada could provide it from the Oil sands.
    We ended up being the US's largest oil source. 14 Years of Financial Discipline by Him as well as Paul Martin and the Liberals saw all parts of Canada develop. The Green Plan is visionary projects which will create Jobs the Liberals are the only ones who could steer the country to be No 1 in the world. I like those conservative ads on carbon tax - just no substance and full of innuendo and down right misleading
  45. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie B, you said 'If the banks have offices in the US, then they play buy US rules.' Since your argument actually backs up my post, I suggest you re-read it.

    Or re-read the article.

    Or read the article once.
    ================================================
    My argument is that if BMO merges with TD, the regulations of the banking acts don't change as Ob Observer's post suggested. It means a bigger player playing by the same rules. If TD merges with Citi, in Canada the bank plays by same rules. I agree that a there may be temptation or arm twisting to get into crappy paper (by the US side). But the Canadian side would still have to follow capitaliztion rules established for the operations of Canada. But all the uproar 10 years ago was because of Canadian banks merging with Canadian banks. I am not trying to argue the US Canadian merger scenario. I don't think chriton cared either if it wasn't for the public backlash.
  46. gordon davies from VICTORIA b.c., Canada writes: In my 73 yrs. it has seldom been to the good of anybody but the shark that proposes the sci em to make us all rich , with our own money . Those sharks being with the politicians ,or finance all who gamble with other peoples property.
  47. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Freddie B....it's pointless to discuss any further with you because you need to go punch the card before they dock you another 15 minutes. When you understand the economics of banking, come back and post intelligently.
    =================================================
    Answer the question. How does the merger of 2 canadian banks change the bank regulations? Besides, I think that it was economics 2 that dealt with this. Or maybe you didn't pass economics 1 to get there.
  48. Durward Saar from Canada writes: It was not bank mergers that led to this meltdown, It was lending to those un-able to pay back the loans.
    Chretien was a do nothing PM and the fact he did nothing for thirteen yrs accidently saved us, He did not allow the banks to loan in the sub-prime market backed by government agencies Like fanny may and freddy mac because we have no equivilent structure like fanny and Freddy.
    Chretien did nothing and for once we thank him for his uselessness as a PM.
  49. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie, that's the point of the article. That these banks would have gone into the US and screwed themselves.

    No, being bigger alone would not have made trouble. But being bigger and staying in Canada also would not have made sense. The mergers were intended to compete with the US banks, and to do it from Wall Street.

    I cant comment on Chretien's intention or cares. Dunno.
  50. John...Ish... Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    CHRETIEN SAVED OUR BANKING SYSTEM AND ECONOMY

    ---- If a [regulated] Cdn bank merges with a foreign one, especially a NAFTA member entity, the entity changes because of of market realities and NAFTA treaty obligations. Prior to 'merger' the rules would be changed, what ever those might have been one can reasonably surmise that they would have contemplated the regulatory and market environment of the merger partner.

    ---- Those who posit that bank mergers would require a Act that simply said: 'Sure, merge - be happy mon' are happily removed from reality. Cons? Jean Chretien left a legacy of several flaws, including the AdsScam and neglect of Aboriginal claims and issues. But he saved Canada from:


    Deaths, maimings and financial disaster of the Empire's war on Iraq
    Stealth integration with the Empire [he slowed the process]
    Afghanistan deaths.
    Dissolute banking system
    Militarization of Canada to serve the needs of the Empire's Foreign Legion - NATO .

    ---- Paul Martin's rich kid, weak leadership led Canada to its current Homicide by Politician in Afghanistan, when he succumbed to Rick Hillier and the war lobbyists and signed off on the slide to the current almost 100 dead Hillier Heroes, abbetted by successor Harper. Martin also re-invigourated the stealth integration of Canada into the American Empire. Martin's de-legitimization of Chretien also destroyed the Lib brand.

    ------ Had Harper been PM, Canada would have been an economic vassal bled dry by his NeoCon mentors of the Wall Street Casino and the Pentagon. Canada's banks would have ruined along with the savings and health care of 98% of ordinary Canadians. That is the realtiy of Jean Chretien vs the re-visionist history of Cons of Canada.

    Vote. ABC. Be well. JOHN ISH ISHMAEL.

  51. dave ross from Canada writes: Robert Waddell wrote: "...Yes Harper cut the GST and his reasoning is simple. It was intended as a temporary measure and having paid down a significant portion of our debt he felt that dropping 1% would still allow us to continue to pay back our debt at a reasonable speed while giving some of our money back to us."

    Income tax was instituted as a temporary measure as well. I hear tell that World War I is finally over and so look forward to the hated income tax's demise any day.
  52. John...Ish... Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    WISHFUL THINKING

    >>>Freddie B from Woodbridge ..My argument is that if BMO merges with TD, the regulations of the banking acts don't change >>>

    Take off the cap from your binoculars, Freddie W; and look through the small endie thiningie...

    If RBC, TD, CIBC ... merged with an American bank the game changes. IN reality the banks would have 'merged' into one big target and then would have been asborbed by one of the Financial Casinos if America. Thank you, Mr. Jean Chretien.

    Had Harper been PM Canada would have been wallowing in American turd as the citizens of that war monger, financial casino are. Not to mention that thousands of Canadian would also have lost their live and limbs for the Empire.

    Be well.

    JOHN ISH ISHMAEL.
  53. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Freddie, that's the point of the article. That these banks would have gone into the US and screwed themselves
    ================================================
    Yes, but the fact chriton is taking credit for this, is just another smug remark from one of the most arrogant PM's in Canadian history (yeah, Muhlrony is up there too). As Ob stated, I have to go punch in now or I will be docked pay by the plant.
  54. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: John...Ish... Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    WISHFUL THINKING

    >>>Freddie B from Woodbridge ..My argument is that if BMO merges with TD, the regulations of the banking acts don't change >>>
    ================================================
    First you quote me the change the scenario. Even so, Canada is still a sovreign state and our rules prevail. Save your I hate BUSH/HARPER ranting for Allah. This is about banks.
  55. Bob Robblee from Innisfail, Canada writes: It is nice that JC can take credit for our stable banking system, hindsight being 20/20. Better yet that Canadian Banks have only ABCP to pay off and some slight exposure to the Sub-Slime mess in the Excited States.
    Which brings us to the G.W. Bush administration which has embraced DE-REGULATION during its term in office; first bringing us the Enron fiasco. [CIBC lost its shirt in that one too]
    The de-reuglation and lack of enforcement of rules for the financial sector in the USA has brought about this crisis. Having the forlks that precipated the fiasco doing all they can to avoid the abyss is similiar to having the Keystone Kops stop the influx of illicit drugs.
    The cost of George's other little administrative adventure in Iraq now pales in comparison cost-wise to the trillions of this boondoggle. Rest assured that bottom line is that the citizens of the USA will pay for it all.
  56. Luke Penseney from Mississauga, writes: Not Chretien - give the kudos to Paul Martin. Martin was one of Canada's best Finance minister's. He saw merit in Canadian bank's relatively lean profitability & endorsed their continued strength & protection behind Canada's financial markets 'walls' (for good or bad..). They consistently number in world's top 10 best ROC.
    Le petit gars (like Harper since) just dug his heels in for Bay St.!
    Luke Penseney, Markets Intelligence, Mississauga;
  57. Casual Observer from The End of the world as we have known it., Canada writes: Lucky or prescient? Makes no difference, it was the right decision. So give Jean Chretien and Paul Martin their well-deserved credit. We have stable banks in Canada - thanks Paul, thanks Jean. The banks that may have been miffed when their desire to merge and grow was thwarted should also be grateful that wiser heads prevailed and saved them from disaster.
  58. had enough from Canada writes: It kills me to give that SOB credit for anything but he did do this right for whatever reason.
  59. had enough from Canada writes: Bob Robbllee Just for the record not that you will pay any attention to facts, but it was the Republican congress and Bill Clinton who signed into law the "Banking Overhaul Measures" in 1999 which started this ball rolling. Clinton and Schumer and Dodds and the Republicans all were the big players in this Bipartisan screwup.

    Old George W just jumped on the bankwagon when it looked like it was working and took some credit.

    The whole bunch are complicit.
  60. dp ludwig from Any City, United States writes:
    Chretien never foresaw the credit crisis, and he never cited such a scenario as a justification what he did with the Canadian banking system.

    It's disingenuous for Chretien to claim credit. Chretien is full of it.
  61. Mrs. T from Canada writes: Randal, "Chretien was a steady as she goes, no nervous nellies" guy. Indeed. Sound like someone else in this current election, who is currently being villified for it? Just shows, Chretien knew how to win elections. Did not do a whole lot once he occupied 24 Sussex, but he knew how to win.
  62. Benjamin Franklin from Canada writes: Hey Jean,,,where is the Proof!
  63. James Convey from Vancouver, Canada writes: As usual Chretien takes the credit for nothing. He doesn't, and never did understand the laws of "cause and effect." The effect of our Banks being financially sound has nothing to do with him or his growth blocking tactics regarding M@A's. If anything, our banks would be stronger and larger, and even more of a force for stability, in this "new" environment, if a few consequential mergers had occurred, allowing them to become acquisitors and bring major stability through acquisition, to our financial system! This present market condition will prove to be another example of lost opportunity for Canada's banks to become a real world financial force, as the "cause" of the limits under Chretien and Martin's banking policies. The stability of our banking system owes it's strength to a much older and wiser political dynasty from the past. What a load of typical pietistic political pettifoggery, from a true master of the art. If he hadn't done so much damage to Canada I could almost admire him!
  64. Louise Fribance from Abbotsford, Canada writes: Whether Mr. Chretien can take credit for the stability of our banking system, I don't really care, but I am grateful that as a Liberal he can admit that our banking system, as we speak today, is in better shape than the rest of the world. Isn't what Mr. Harper has been saying for 2 weeks now? Will the rest of the lefties in this country believe him? Probably not because it doesn't suit their political agenda and they're trying to score points at the expense of the Canadian public by trying to create a panic. Shame on you all. Keep your cool people and we will weather this storm and as Mr. Harper said, if you have some money available, do buy stocks. It will be a great bargain for you and will help the marketes stabalize. That is how it works. Not selling off everything you have at dirt cheap price. Please people, buy!
  65. ST W from Canada writes: He was the jerk that let our last large independent Trust company be purchased by TD Bank. Our Banks are strong, but competition is non existent. I give him no credit.
  66. Louise Fribance from Abbotsford, Canada writes: JOHN ISH ISHMAEL - your ranting is breathtaking. In the list of wrongdoings by the US you seem to forget one big item. 9/11. Weren't people killed in the US by fanatical Islamists? Doesn't that count in your crazy world?
  67. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Louise Fribance said: "if you have some money available, do buy stocks." I would, Louise, if they would only stop going down . . . ;-)
  68. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: an an udder ting. dah Sun it rises in adah morning because of me.
  69. Larry Hill from Canada writes: ST W from Canada writes: He was the jerk that let our last large independent Trust company be purchased by TD Bank. Our Banks are strong, but competition is non existent. I give him no credit

    ST W, you must be from Ontario. Everywhere else has a strong Credit Union system that gives chartered banks a lot of competition.
  70. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: And obviously if it wasnt for Harper and Flanagan all our banks would be Income Trusts. Gotta love and hate Chretien at the same time. Incredible instincts as to when to keep his head low, not to mention knowing when to pop and steal a little credit for himself (pun intended lol).
  71. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Oops make that Flaherty, as in Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance, not Flanagan. Mind you I am starting to realize I can only name a few Conservative Ministers. I wonder why? At least Chretien knew how to get his ministers to fall on their own swords so it didnt affect him too much. Harpers problem with taking it all upon himself is that he is the one doing all the bleeding.
  72. Brent Beach from Canada writes: The problem is leverage - how much you can borrow to invest. In the banks, the US merchant banks (the first to go) had the most leverage. They could borrow up to 40 times their capital. Looks good on the way up. Bankrupts you on the way down. The European banks have the next most leverage and are suffering almost as much. The US home owner has much more leverage than the Canadian home owner, because of mortgage deductibility. On the way up they kept on remortgaging, increasing their exposure to a falling market. It was not bad risks that caused this bubble, nor poor people getting in over their heads. It was middle income people, borrowing more to support their consumerist lifestyle, using their homes as collateral, that formed the largest part of the bubble. When the bubble popped, the bottom fell out for them. Canadians cannot just don't remortgage in the same way, so we have not developed quite the bubble the US did. But we have one - we must if housing prices in Calgary doubled in 7 years. Ours will pop too, but fewer people will default on their homes so the let down will be slower. Watch out when the Conservatives start to promote mortgage interest deductibility!
  73. Robert Vincent from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Of course, this is only hypothetical, but I wonder what would have happened if Stevie had a majority this time: Would the banks have been deregulated by now? You just have to wonder if Stevie even noticed what happened. ... Which makes me wonder what he'd do if he got a majority this time. I may have to turn into the Scream Channel for the election results.
  74. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: The Reform Party did not support bank mergers either. Some would like to rewrite history to make the Liberals look like the heroes every time, but reality has a way of catching up to them.
  75. summom bonum from Canada writes: I'm glad SOMEONE on the other side has the good sense to assist Stephen Harper in assuring Canadians that their banks are solid.

    Ironic that the guy that would do anything to win realizes the importance more than the Doomsy Twins!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.