So in regards to payment cards etc.... the CC's basically have three primary benefits to them: 1. They can do 'quick' settlements for in person POS services. 2. They are generally accepted for online payments far more than other methods. 3. They provide access to credit / funds that the customer/user may not normally have access to, in exchange for a high interest rate on amounts owing each month. This also allows people to make larger purchases periodically, and pay off the purchase price over a slightly longer period.
For item 1, the physical cards are not that different than the regular debit cards that get used. There's nothing 'technically' stopping a debit card from being mapped to a line of credit account on a banking system -- such a card would be able to get used anywhere debit cards can get used, so pretty good market penetration off the bat. Only thing potentially stopping the tech side would be 'paper' agreements with interac etc... but those are 'easy' to change with enough demand. So you'd potentially need some adjustments from industry to accommodate this, across the payment switch providers and back end orgs.
For item 3, the availability of credit on those cards / accounts is entirely do-able through a small FI -- historically, they offered lines of credit based on 'signatures' / 'a promise to pay' and good general payment standing at a credit bureau. Canada's regulators changed much of that, forcing industry to heavily preference real estate backed loans -- debt servicing risks for cc 'personal' locs are generally offloaded onto the credit card company directly. So the govt would likely need to relax their regulations on this front, otherwise its untenable for a small FI to provide credit based on signatures. In some ways this would likely be better for the end user, in terms of rates and limits, as a smaller FI, especially one that's cooperative in nature, is less likely to push exploitative rates/conditions.
To clarify how that's controlled by regulators: in BC as an example, the BC FSA regulates Credit Unions, and it also oversees the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation -- the thing that insures the CU's deposits. Credit Unions pay premiums to CUDIC based on the "risk assessment" of the FSA. The FSA rates you very risky if you do signature loans / stuff not backed by RE or other 'fully funded' types of securities (eg. a $5k line of credit, 'secured' by a $5k term deposit). The annual cost difference can eat up like 30% of the small FI's profit, if they're deemed risky. Unless there was some way to 'make up' that loss via the 'risky loans', it's not a viable business decision for CUs to take -- especially when you add in the need for slightly increased monitoring for more 'fluid' payment accounts. Best to keep the regulators happy, to keep your insurance costs as low as possible. So you'd need govt to change its approach.
For item 2, there are lots of viable options for online payments already -- the issue is mostly user adoption and business standardization / app availability. For purchases that aren't 'in person', having a slightly longer settlement time isn't a big issue -- if you're buying a thing online, in general, who cares if the payment is 'instant', or if it takes 15 mins to clear. Things like the interac e-transfers are able to route payments to people in this fashion, and are heavily used in some areas currently -- paying trades, paying rent, paying kids extracurricular, and anything where 'cheques' use to be a norm. AFTs are also still used for many 'bigger' bills/companies, but they're decreasing in popularity -- there are fewer millenials/genZ who are using AFTs for payments, and fewer businesses that go through the process of getting it setup on their end to allow for it. That last parts a similar impediment to adoption of etransfers more broadly -- you see CC payment options for most online purchases, but you almost never see e-transfer options... even though they're functional for regular person to person payments. Having a business email setup with an auto deposit isn't too difficult -- as noted, many small contractors go this route -- but its not common at larger businesses.... for no particular reason.
All that on item 2, is basically to say you need to get most businesses to adopt a 'standard' method for online payments. If every shop you went to had a different 'payment app' you had to download, create an account, transfer money to the account, to use the account... it wouldn't have general end user appeal due to its burden. Credit cards have a simple, ubiquitous standard that's got a ton of apps and plugins to accommodate -- we'd need similar embracing of a, general industry/economy/nation wide approach.
All of these things are do-able, if there's political will. But only if there's political will. If you look at the financial industry, they're generally in bed with US/foreign tech companies these days. Even our govt is run on Microsoft. Getting people to move away from American options would require clear messaging from regulators of "critical infrastructure" industries (like banking), and potentially options for government support as part of those tech migrations (tax breaks to hire specialists/retrain people/develop different apps). Like a positive step would be seeing the BC FSA charge huge "insurance" premiums for Credit Unions which are almost entirely in Microsoft's cloud / US controlled infrastructure. We don't see any of that currently -- instead, we see regulators like the BC FSA shrugging as the industry debates whether online banking portals should be outsourced to a company in Portugal, one in India, or one in the USA (the Canadian CU Trade association, central1, recently walked away from this service area -- with their CEO even getting a bloody business in vancouver award for abandoning it). We likely won't see anything 'material' on this front until after the next election at the very earliest, is my guess. But even then, I doubt they'll put the kind of urgency on it to avoid this sort of thing becoming a potential issue in trade talks.
