PDA

View Full Version : Bank of Canada Lawsuit



Reckidecky
02-26-2016, 09:15 AM
So, posted this exact comment, perhaps in the wrong category, because there was not even a whisper or mention about what I posted, so I shall try here.


Existentially, one of the most important cases in Canadian history, barely covered by the MSM, constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati --- COMER.org --- Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform...
and his pro bono case against The Bank of Canada and the Canadian government to compel the Bank of Canada to eliminate loans from the World Bank and/or IMF and to start loaning money from the Federal level at NO interest to Provinces and Municipalities as was their mandate as a publicly owned bank prior to 74', I believe it was, before Pierre Trudeau sold out Canada. Sovereignty is being stolen and sold on both sides of the border. One is not better or worse than the other...All Canadians should be supporting this cause!!! If borders, resources, and a country's money are being taken and replaced by one economy and one government we are doomed. We lose our status as Canadians and all is lost in my opinion. Typically, opponents are just labeled right wing nuts and that it's just all a big conspiracy theory towards a NWO, but rest assured, we are done as a Nation if we cannot regain our sovereignty. Pretty straight forward. Should have gotten away from the UN a long time ago!

Reckidecky
02-26-2016, 06:05 PM
And you are a perfect example of what is wrong with the majority, and so it seems more than a few on this board too. Just replace debate and discussion with ignorant and/or rude remarks and comments, all the while, ignoring the point...aside from the point, ignorance is bliss. Seems that, you have down pat.

Barry Morris
02-26-2016, 06:22 PM
Interesting news. Seen it elsewhere.

Even more when you consider there's little or no media coverage.

Reckidecky
02-26-2016, 06:57 PM
There was actually a single interview on CBC with him, but, would hardly call that coverage though. Seems there are not many who have even heard of the case...or understand the consequences, implications and importance. I really don't feel as though I'm overstating its importance.

riggs
02-26-2016, 07:23 PM
The full article if anyone was interested...


One of the most important legal cases in Canadian history is slowly inching its way towards trial. Launched in 2011 by the Toronto-based Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending.

Renowned constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati has taken on the case for COMER, and he considers it his most important case to date.

On October 14, a Federal Court judge cleared away yet another legal roadblock thrown in the lawsuit’s path. The federal government has tried to quash the case as frivolous and “hypothetical,” but the courts keep allowing it to proceed. As Galati maintains, “The case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds.”

When asked after the October procedural hearing why Canadians should care about the case, Galati quickly responded: “Because they’re paying $30 or $40 billion a year in useless interest. Since ’74, more than a trillion to fraudsters, that’s why they should care.” (COMER says the figures are closer to $60 billion per year, and $2 trillion since 1974.)


The Fraudsters
Created during the Great Depression, the Bank of Canada funded a wide range of public infrastructure projects from 1938 to 1974, without our governments incurring private debt. Projects like the Trans-Canada highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, universities, and hospitals were all funded by interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada.

But in 1974, the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau was quietly seduced into joining the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the powerful private Swiss bank which oversees (private) central banks across the planet. The BIS insisted on a crucial change in Canada.

According to The Tyee (April 17, 2015), in 1974 the BIS’s new Basel Committee – supposedly in order to establish global financial “stability” – encouraged governments “to borrow from private lenders and end the practice of borrowing interest-free from their own central banks. The rationale was thin from the start. Central bank borrowing was and is no more inflationary than borrowing through the private banks. The only difference was that private banks were given the legal right to fleece Canadians.”

And that’s exactly what “the fraudsters” did. After 1974, the Bank of Canada stopped lending to federal and provincial governments and forced them to borrow from private and foreign lenders at compound interest rates – resulting in huge deficits and debts ever since. Just paying off the accumulated compound interest – called “servicing the debt” – is a significant part of every provincial and federal budget. In Ontario, for example, debt-servicing charges amounted to some $11.4 billion for 2015.

What is key to the COMER lawsuit is that the Bank of Canada is still a public central bank (the only one left among G7 countries). Their lawsuit seeks to “restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to the municipal, provincial, and federal governments for ‘human capital’ expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.”


Deliberate Obfuscation
In February 2015, Rocco Galati stated publicly: “I have a firm basis to believe that the [federal] government has requested or ordered the mainstream media not to cover this [COMER] case.” Subsequently, the Toronto Star and the CBC both gave the lawsuit some coverage last spring and there was good coverage in alternative media. But given the importance of infrastructure-spending in the recent federal election campaign, it’s amazing (and sad) that the COMER lawsuit was so ignored, even by the political parties – especially the NDP.

With the Harper government touting its ten-year, $14 billion Building Canada Fund, and the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau promising to double that amount of funding by running three years of deficits, the NDP led by Tom Mulcair pledged to balance the budget. The NDP could have explained and championed the COMER lawsuit and even possibly utilized it to somehow justify the balanced-budget promise – a platform plank that likely cost it the election.

In August, Justin Trudeau spoke vaguely about financing infrastructure spending with a new bank. As a COMER litigant wrote in their newsletter, “During the recent federal election, Trudeau floated an interesting plank about creating an infrastructure bank. My first response was ‘You already have one. The Bank of Canada.’ My second question was, ‘Public or private?’ Again we see both the colossal ignorance and deliberate obfuscation of money issues in this country by our leadership.”

A Liberal Party Backgrounder explained, “We will establish the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to provide low-cost financing to build new infrastructure projects. This new CIB will work in partnership with other orders of governments and Canada’s financial community, so that the federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier – and more affordable – for municipalities to finance the broad range of infrastructure projects their communities need … Canada has become a global leader in infrastructure financing and we will work with the private sector and pools of capital that choose for themselves to invest in Canadian infrastructure projects.”

It’s those “pools of capital” – including Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs – that are set to profit handsomely from Canada’s new infrastructure lending and spending spree.

In a cynical move, the Liberal Backgrounder doesn’t mention the interest-free loans of the past, but it does cite their results in order to tout the Liberal Party’s “transformative investment plan” for Canada: “A large part of Canada’s 20th century prosperity was made possible by nation-building projects – projects that without leadership from the government of Canada would not have been possible … the St. Lawrence Seaway served as a foundation for prosperity in Quebec and Ontario; the TransCanada Highway links Canadians from coast to coast; and our electricity projects, pipelines, airports and canals have made it possible to develop our natural resources, power our cities, and connect with each other and the world.”


Pools of Capital
Enthused about Justin Trudeau’s victory and his infrastructure campaign platform, Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times (October 23, 2015), “We’re living in a world awash with savings that the private sector doesn’t want to invest and is eager to lend to governments at very low interest rates. It’s obviously a good idea to borrow at those low, low rates … . Let’s hope then, that Mr. Trudeau stays with the program. He has an opportunity to show the world what truly responsible fiscal policy looks like.”

Of course, borrowing from the Bank of Canada at NO interest rates would be even more fiscally responsible, and would keep policy decisions out of the hands of foreign lenders
- See more at: http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/bank-canada-lawsuit#sthash.VxUm0Twt.0yY97C1I.dpuf

Hans
02-26-2016, 08:04 PM
I can see why the interest free borrowing from the bank of Canada was stopped.
Think about this for a second: If you borrow interest free from your own national bank, what are you really borrowing?

You are in effect printing money and giving it away interest free to yourself disguised as a loan.
All you are getting back is your own money, which equals to what you handed out.

I can see why they stopped this practice and added interest to the loans.

Reckidecky
02-27-2016, 07:14 AM
I can see why the interest free borrowing from the bank of Canada was stopped.
Think about this for a second: If you borrow interest free from your own national bank, what are you really borrowing?

You are in effect printing money and giving it away interest free to yourself disguised as a loan.
All you are getting back is your own money, which equals to what you handed out.

I can see why they stopped this practice and added interest to the loans.

Bingo nothing. There is absolutely no sense to adding debt to your own money and deteriorating your own economy because of it. There is such a thing as fiscal responsibility for governments. Really, there is. Then consider the fact that debt is compounded interest and becomes owed to foreigners whom have no vested interest in Canada. There is absolutely no need for this and billions are coming out of every Canadians pocket and leave Canada. Actually there vested interest turns out to be the opposite of many Canadians. This is why foreigners have leverage to take over a governments reliable income generating public owned assets. OLG, LCBO, Hydro 1 just to name a few. But the list does go on. Aside from the economic benefit of major "infrastructure" investment itself, the influences including, but obviously not limited to, substantial increases in employment for many Canadians. Substantial incentive for businesses and the added increases in tax base revenue back to the respective government from all of it generated foreign money coming into Canada, not the other way around! It's a very simple process really. As the article explains, a great number of major projects that benefited all of Canadians were built through this process.
The Ontario provincial government, under Wynne last year, was the first to ever cut health care spending due to payments on provincial compounded debt. Ever! And the headlines continue. Have you seen the recent headlines of how many nurses have lost there jobs so far this year? We will continue to be fleeced if our government does not change how it does business.

Reckidecky
02-27-2016, 07:19 AM
And actually, how would their inflation or devaluation be any different than your own? Going back to the years the Bank of Canada was properly funding the provinces and municipalities, there was no indication of inflation or devaluation of Canada's currency and the idea is based merely on a speculative argument. Certainly not fact.

Hans
02-27-2016, 05:09 PM
Bingo nothing. There is absolutely no sense to adding debt to your own money and deteriorating your own economy because of it. There is such a thing as fiscal responsibility for governments. Really, there is. Then consider the fact that debt is compounded interest and becomes owed to foreigners whom have no vested interest in Canada. There is absolutely no need for this and billions are coming out of every Canadians pocket and leave Canada. Actually there vested interest turns out to be the opposite of many Canadians. This is why foreigners have leverage to take over a governments reliable income generating public owned assets. OLG, LCBO, Hydro 1 just to name a few. But the list does go on. Aside from the economic benefit of major "infrastructure" investment itself, the influences including, but obviously not limited to, substantial increases in employment for many Canadians. Substantial incentive for businesses and the added increases in tax base revenue back to the respective government from all of it generated foreign money coming into Canada, not the other way around! It's a very simple process really. As the article explains, a great number of major projects that benefited all of Canadians were built through this process.
The Ontario provincial government, under Wynne last year, was the first to ever cut health care spending due to payments on provincial compounded debt. Ever! And the headlines continue. Have you seen the recent headlines of how many nurses have lost there jobs so far this year? We will continue to be fleeced if our government does not change how it does business.

But in that case, why not give all Canadian citizens interest free mortgages issued by the Bank of Canada? I am sure that will be met with open arms by every citizen in this country.
Why not get rid of all interest on loans and hand out loans interest free? People will go on a shopping spree and the economy would surge to never before seen heights.

Alas, things do not work that way in the real economy.

Barry Morris
02-28-2016, 12:02 AM
So where does the money for these loans come from? Printing money, taxes, issuing savings bonds?

Taxes of course, and I have no problem with that, considering all the services I get. Bonds for special projects are not a problem.

But if it's going out of the country as interest, I want to put a stop to it!!!

Hans
02-28-2016, 08:00 PM
So basically you want to abandon the banking system and replace it with an interest free government banking system?
I am sure our taxes will not go up because of it...

Barry Morris
02-28-2016, 09:08 PM
So basically you want to abandon the banking system and replace it with an interest free government banking system?
I am sure our taxes will not go up because of it...

No, it seems to me that there WAS a system in place, as the OP states, until 1974?? Then it got screwed up.

Going back to that might help.

Hans
02-28-2016, 09:20 PM
I don't see it as being screwed up. I do hope the original poster realizes there is no such thing as an interest free loan.
All the interest free loans add fees and extras to it to make up for the interest free part.
Best interest free loan is pay cash.

riggs
02-28-2016, 11:13 PM
I don't see it as being screwed up. I do hope the original poster realizes there is no such thing as an interest free loan.
All the interest free loans add fees and extras to it to make up for the interest free part.
Best interest free loan is pay cash.

"the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending."

So let me get this right Hans........you believe this lawsuit now in its fifth year is all in vain for your above stated reason? Perhaps Rocco Galati should have spoken to you first. It would have saved him and the feds (who have spent a great deal of time throwing in road blocks) to stop him.

Barry Morris
02-28-2016, 11:16 PM
I don't see it as being screwed up. I do hope the original poster realizes there is no such thing as an interest free loan.
All the interest free loans add fees and extras to it to make up for the interest free part.
Best interest free loan is pay cash.

You'll be correct just as soon as the government, THAT WE FUND becomes a business!!!

Hans
02-29-2016, 06:13 AM
"the lawsuit would require the publicly-owned Bank of Canada to return to its pre-1974 mandate and practice of lending interest-free money to federal, provincial, and municipal governments for infrastructure and healthcare spending."

So let me get this right Hans........you believe this lawsuit now in its fifth year is all in vain for your above stated reason? Perhaps Rocco Galati should have spoken to you first. It would have saved him and the feds (who have spent a great deal of time throwing in road blocks) to stop him.

Well, it is always a good idea to dig a bit deeper into a case. So I did. Let's see what else there is to know about this case.

- In 2005, Galati brought a case against the Canadian government to restore the Bank of Canada as a lender to the government. The case was brought on behalf of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform. COMER argued that the Bank of Canada is mandated to provide debt-free financing for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

- COMER was co-founded by William Krehm, a Trotskyist and Toronto resident.COMER says it studies the destabilization that current economic and monetary policies have caused, and are causing, for the citizens of Canada and other countries. COMER argues for a mixed economy, and changes in monetary policy through through what it argues is the mandate under the Bank of Canada Act. Ann Emmett is the chair of the organization.

- In 2011, COMER brought a lawsuit against the Canadian Government. COMER claimed that the Bank of Canada is mandated under the Bank of Canada Act to to provide debt-free support for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and city governments. COMER said that Canada has unconstitutionally given up control over its ability to set its independent monetary policy to "secret" deliberations and control of private foreign bankers, including the Bank for International Settlements. The organization is represented by Rocco Galati. COMER has been called "conspiracy theorists" because of the claim.

You know what this reminds me off: http://www.ownlife.com/tax/cases.htm
The constant "fight" from a bunch of delusional people who insists taxes in Canada and the USA are illegal and the government does not have a right to tax their citizens.
And guess what: you will never win that case, ever.

So yes, he should have talked to me first. I could have told him how idiotic this case is.

Barry Morris
02-29-2016, 08:47 AM
Well, it is always a good idea to dig a bit deeper into a case. So I did. Let's see what else there is to know about this case.

- In 2005, Galati brought a case against the Canadian government to restore the Bank of Canada as a lender to the government. The case was brought on behalf of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform. COMER argued that the Bank of Canada is mandated to provide debt-free financing for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

- COMER was co-founded by William Krehm, a Trotskyist and Toronto resident.COMER says it studies the destabilization that current economic and monetary policies have caused, and are causing, for the citizens of Canada and other countries. COMER argues for a mixed economy, and changes in monetary policy through through what it argues is the mandate under the Bank of Canada Act. Ann Emmett is the chair of the organization.

- In 2011, COMER brought a lawsuit against the Canadian Government. COMER claimed that the Bank of Canada is mandated under the Bank of Canada Act to to provide debt-free support for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and city governments. COMER said that Canada has unconstitutionally given up control over its ability to set its independent monetary policy to "secret" deliberations and control of private foreign bankers, including the Bank for International Settlements. The organization is represented by Rocco Galati. COMER has been called "conspiracy theorists" because of the claim.

You know what this reminds me off: http://www.ownlife.com/tax/cases.htm
The constant "fight" from a bunch of delusional people who insists taxes in Canada and the USA are illegal and the government does not have a right to tax their citizens.
And guess what: you will never win that case, ever.

So yes, he should have talked to me first. I could have told him how idiotic this case is.

It "reminds you"?? "Has been called"???

You provide no new facts. Just "shooting the messenger".

Do I believe in this case?? I'm actually not sure. Sound interesting. Especially when the government doesn't just let it go to court, but keeps putting roadblocks up.

And frankly, it seems to me that you want the government to act like a business, to profit, with interest, ON MONEY WE GAVE THEM IN TAXES. And of course the question is now, who is making that profit?? Does the money stay in Canada?? Please look into that.

riggs
02-29-2016, 11:13 AM
Well, it is always a good idea to dig a bit deeper into a case. So I did. Let's see what else there is to know about this case.

- In 2005, Galati brought a case against the Canadian government to restore the Bank of Canada as a lender to the government. The case was brought on behalf of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform. COMER argued that the Bank of Canada is mandated to provide debt-free financing for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

- COMER was co-founded by William Krehm, a Trotskyist and Toronto resident.COMER says it studies the destabilization that current economic and monetary policies have caused, and are causing, for the citizens of Canada and other countries. COMER argues for a mixed economy, and changes in monetary policy through through what it argues is the mandate under the Bank of Canada Act. Ann Emmett is the chair of the organization.

- In 2011, COMER brought a lawsuit against the Canadian Government. COMER claimed that the Bank of Canada is mandated under the Bank of Canada Act to to provide debt-free support for public projects undertaken by federal, provincial and city governments. COMER said that Canada has unconstitutionally given up control over its ability to set its independent monetary policy to "secret" deliberations and control of private foreign bankers, including the Bank for International Settlements. The organization is represented by Rocco Galati. COMER has been called "conspiracy theorists" because of the claim.

You know what this reminds me off: http://www.ownlife.com/tax/cases.htm
The constant "fight" from a bunch of delusional people who insists taxes in Canada and the USA are illegal and the government does not have a right to tax their citizens.
And guess what: you will never win that case, ever.

So yes, he should have talked to me first. I could have told him how idiotic this case is.

Really Hans? Your post is "deeper into the case"? You didn't show one fact or legal precedent regarding the case. If this is your idea of depth, it's time to hide the tape measures at home...

Reckidecky
02-29-2016, 03:57 PM
That is certainly part of the problem...where does the money made off of Canada's indebtedness go? I can assure you it does not stay in or go to any benifit of Canada or Canadians. Seems to me Hans has a vested interest in this global economy mandate and has been noted by remarks of how strong the European Union is. Of course third banks are a lost hope, which is why now every country seems to be talking about their own -exit plan. Britain, Netherlands, Norway...they are all looking to get out. And rightfully so. Their monetary issues are all being controlled by people who have no vested interest in their country. Here in Canada though, the public owns the banks, not a group of foreign nationals and our country was much more stable pre '74 and we still maintained sovereignty, until then. That is not the case now, nor is it the case for all of Europe.

RWGR
02-29-2016, 05:23 PM
That is certainly part of the problem...where does the money made off of Canada's indebtedness go? I can assure you it does not stay in or go to any benifit of Canada or Canadians. Seems to me Hans has a vested interest in this global economy mandate and has been noted by remarks of how strong the European Union is. Of course third banks are a lost hope, which is why now every country seems to be talking about their own -exit plan. Britain, Netherlands, Norway...they are all looking to get out. And rightfully so. Their monetary issues are all being controlled by people who have no vested interest in their country. Here in Canada though, the public owns the banks, not a group of foreign nationals and our country was much more stable pre '74 and we still maintained sovereignty, until then. That is not the case now, nor is it the case for all of Europe.

Very well said!

Hans
02-29-2016, 08:23 PM
Really Hans? Your post is "deeper into the case"? You didn't show one fact or legal precedent regarding the case. If this is your idea of depth, it's time to hide the tape measures at home...

The legal precedent is you are going up against the government of Canada. And guess what, you will not win. Worst case scenario they will change the laws to work around your evidence.
Read the cases I provided regarding taxation laws. You will notice a clear precedent.

Hans
02-29-2016, 08:28 PM
That is certainly part of the problem...where does the money made off of Canada's indebtedness go? I can assure you it does not stay in or go to any benifit of Canada or Canadians. Seems to me Hans has a vested interest in this global economy mandate and has been noted by remarks of how strong the European Union is. Of course third banks are a lost hope, which is why now every country seems to be talking about their own -exit plan. Britain, Netherlands, Norway...they are all looking to get out. And rightfully so. Their monetary issues are all being controlled by people who have no vested interest in their country. Here in Canada though, the public owns the banks, not a group of foreign nationals and our country was much more stable pre '74 and we still maintained sovereignty, until then. That is not the case now, nor is it the case for all of Europe.

You are looking at half of the picture. Simplistic view: Investments create jobs and keep people working. The interest is part of the cost you pay for such an investment. Your interest in turn allows lenders to make a profit, enabling them to borrow you more money and keep people employed at the lender.
It is impossible for a bank to operate unless they can make a profit. The only reason why the Bank of Canada could do it is because they received the money from the Government of Canada.

Hans
02-29-2016, 08:32 PM
It "reminds you"?? "Has been called"???

You provide no new facts. Just "shooting the messenger".

Do I believe in this case?? I'm actually not sure. Sound interesting. Especially when the government doesn't just let it go to court, but keeps putting roadblocks up.

And frankly, it seems to me that you want the government to act like a business, to profit, with interest, ON MONEY WE GAVE THEM IN TAXES. And of course the question is now, who is making that profit?? Does the money stay in Canada?? Please look into that.

You did not give them taxes, you owed them taxes.
Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. I bet you end up paying even more.

The government has to act like a business, balancing budgets left and right. The reason for that is that they control the printing of currency. Without proper check and balances the economy will tank and the CAD will be worthless.
Just look at several African countries who had no check and balances: they are bankrupt.

Reckidecky
03-01-2016, 08:30 AM
The only reason why the Bank of Canada could do it is because they received the money from the Government of Canada.


And this, in part, is exactly my point. You nailed it! Perhaps if you looked at Mr Galati's record vrs the Canadian Government you would see he has a very good record, actually winning in the 70% range I believe it is. He has sued them and won on many occasions. Besides, I think you might be a little confused...this is a Constitutional issue, not a tax issue. He will win.

Hans
03-01-2016, 08:11 PM
Show me the original text that mandated the Bank of Canada prior to 1974 to give out these interest free loans.

riggs
03-01-2016, 09:03 PM
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihsP6y86DLAhWFyIMKHVvrCR4QFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FOpinion%2F2015%2F04% 2F17%2FLiberate-Bank-of-Canada%2F&usg=AFQjCNGRIMtuPSaYELrQDbtfEm7hBXK5kQ

Interesting read

The good folks at COMER have for years -- decades, actually -- been trying to get people to pay attention to what is far and away the biggest, most outrageous fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian people. I am speaking here of the fact that instead of the Canadian government borrowing money from its own bank, our bank -- the Bank of Canada -- it has, since 1974 chosen instead to borrow exclusively from private international and domestic financial institutions providing them with enormous, absolutely risk free profits for almost four decades.

The result, according to economist Ellen Brown: "By 2012, the government had paid C$1 trillion in interest -- twice its national debt. Interest on the debt is now the government's single largest budget expenditure -- larger than health care, senior entitlements or national defense." While some of that interest was paid to holders of Canada Savings Bonds, the vast majority was paid to private lenders. In the early 1990s, at the height of the media's deficit hysteria and rhetorical nonsense about hitting a "debt wall," 91 per cent of the $423 billion debt was due to interest charges. Our real debt -- revenue minus expenditures -- was just $37 billion.

Hans
03-01-2016, 11:46 PM
But where is the actual text showing this mandate?

riggs
03-02-2016, 10:26 AM
But where is the actual text showing this mandate?

Lawyers and government would both have access to copies.

Hans
03-02-2016, 06:39 PM
So basically everyone who is arguing on this thread for a return to pre 1974 language, does not know what the actual language states.
Do you not think that is the centerpiece if this whole case, and is conveniently left out by the parties that are pursuing this?

riggs
03-02-2016, 07:27 PM
So basically everyone who is arguing on this thread for a return to pre 1974 language, does not know what the actual language states.
Do you not think that is the centerpiece if this whole case, and is conveniently left out by the parties that are pursuing this?

Do you not believe it exist?

Hans
03-02-2016, 08:31 PM
I have no doubt something it exists. However, it is all in the wording and any possible terms and conditions.
Often people read what they want to read, and I have a feeling this is one of those cases.

riggs
03-02-2016, 09:08 PM
I have no doubt something it exists. However, it is all in the wording and any possible terms and conditions.
Often people read what they want to read, and I have a feeling this is one of those cases.


If that was true, I'm sure the challenge would have died relatively quick. There would also be no need for our government to road block the attempt if they felt the wording supported their position.

The loans did exist prior to 1974 but whether or not the language still does, we may never know.

Hans
03-03-2016, 06:07 AM
If the language does not exist, or is not exactly like the complainant claims it is, there is no case.

Barry Morris
03-03-2016, 06:46 AM
If the language does not exist, or is not exactly like the complainant claims it is, there is no case.

You'd think they would have figured that out a long time ago.

riggs
03-03-2016, 10:20 AM
If the language does not exist, or is not exactly like the complainant claims it is, there is no case.

Exactly. Which is the reason why the legal battle is in its sixth year!

Hans
03-03-2016, 07:45 PM
Remember, the gloves did not fit OJ.
This is more of the same.

riggs
03-03-2016, 08:32 PM
Remember, the gloves did not fit OJ.
This is more of the same.

Exactly Hans.....they manipulated his prescriptions which caused that.
This is more of the same thing but with bankers.

Reckidecky
03-04-2016, 06:43 PM
Quick google search Bank of Canada Act 1938...would give you all the literature you would need I think, but here is some of it...


Details on the Bank of Canada


Royal Commission recommended by Lord Macmillan.
Royal assent by Parliament - July 3, 1934

Bank of Canada Preamble

-To regulate credit and currency in the best interest of the economic life of the Nation...
“…to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices, and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action and generally to promote the economic welfare of the Dominion."

The Bank of Canada commenced business on March 11, 1935

Right of note issue, to print "legal tender" Private bank tender to be phased out over the next 10 years.

The Deputy Finance Minister - sits on the Bank Board as a non-voting member.
The collective responsibility for the conduct of Bank affairs rests with the Governing Council composed of the (1) Governor, (2) Senior Deputy Governors and four other Deputy Governors.

The new Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938. All private shares were bought out and the 100,000 shares, belong to the people of Canada, held on their behalf by the elected Minister of Finance.

To the credit G.G. McGeer advisor to Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King who aid these words: "Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to the government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile ... Once a Nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. ... Usury once in control will wreck any nation."

William Lyon Mackenzie King (1884 - 1950)

Bill 143 - Municipal Improvements Assistance Act First reading May 31,1938 an Act to assist Municipalities to make self-Liquidating improvements.

This Act was passed and not rescinded until 1975 (1884 - 1950)

Graham Tower - first Governor of the Bank of Canada - from 1935 to 1955

Question: to Graham Towers: "But there is no question about it that the banks do create the medium of exchange"

Answer: "That is right. That is what they are there for… That is the banking business, just the same way that a steel plant makes steel.




The Law in Canada: concerning monetary issues


Constitution Act of 1867 Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada

Article 91 - hereby declare that the "exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada" Extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated: that is to say,
Section 1 A, The public debt and property.

Sub 14. Currency and coinage

Sub 15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the issue of paper money

Sub 16. Savings Banks

Sub 20. Legal Tender.


... it is desirable to establish a Central Bank ill Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the nation-al monetary unit and to mitigate thereby its influence fluctuations ill the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the Dominion... The preamble has never been changed.

Bank of Canada Act of 1934 - created specifically to end the hardships of the depression and to make government fully responsible for the economic well-being of the Nation.
Bank of Canada preamble:

By Article 18 (1) of the Act, the Central Bank may:
(C) buy and sell securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any Province

(J) make loans or advances

(k) make loans to the Government of Canada or any Province

Hans
03-04-2016, 06:52 PM
Now where does it say they are required to hand out interest free loans?

That is the kind of thing I am looking for, and I have found nothing yet so far.

Barry Morris
03-04-2016, 07:17 PM
Now where does it say they are required to hand out interest free loans?

That is the kind of thing I am looking for, and I have found nothing yet so far.

It might be better to ask where they are allowed to charge interest.

Hans
03-04-2016, 07:30 PM
You cannot use an argument like that in a court of law.

Reckidecky
03-05-2016, 02:28 PM
It might be better to ask where they are allowed to charge interest.

Thanks Barry, because that, I think, was a point I was getting to also. If you in fact owned a bank, that was supposed to control and manage your money and use it to your greatest advantage, would you charge yourself interest? Remember, your issuing and controlling your own currency for your best economic interest...why would you fleece yourself? LOL

Reckidecky
03-05-2016, 02:36 PM
You cannot use an argument like that in a court of law.

Why not, show me where it says that??

This is exactly why they have allowed foreign banks to issue and control our currency because they have no argument. They themselves could not go against the very foundation of our public bank and rape our own country. Foreign banks however do not have our country's best interest at heart and is therefore unconstitutional in and of itself.

Reckidecky
03-05-2016, 03:53 PM
You'll be looking for a long time.

Never mind interest free, where does it say they are required to issue any loans? It doesn't.


Actually...

By Article 18 (1) of the Act, the Central Bank may:
(C) buy and sell securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any Province

(J) make loans or advances

(k) make loans to the Government of Canada or any Province

Hans
03-05-2016, 06:34 PM
Why not, show me where it says that??

This is exactly why they have allowed foreign banks to issue and control our currency because they have no argument. They themselves could not go against the very foundation of our public bank and rape our own country. Foreign banks however do not have our country's best interest at heart and is therefore unconstitutional in and of itself.

Barry, it is called a circular argument. If in court you make a statement that they are required to issue interest free loans, you have to back up that statement with facts. In a case like this that would be written facts.
You cannot use the argument "show me where it says they are allowed to charge interest" to prove that they are not allowed to charge interest.

If you make a claim, you have to back it up.

Hans
03-05-2016, 06:35 PM
Actually...

By Article 18 (1) of the Act, the Central Bank may:
(C) buy and sell securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any Province

(J) make loans or advances

(k) make loans to the Government of Canada or any Province

Perfect. Now show me where it says they are required to issue those loans interest free.

Hans
03-05-2016, 06:36 PM
'May' is far different than 'required to'.

I see you avoid the question of where the money will come from.

The Bank of Canada commenced business on March 11, 1935

Right of note issue, to print "legal tender" Private bank tender to be phased out over the next 10 years.

In other words, they print it themselves.And that is exactly why toy cannot have them issue interest free loans.

Reckidecky
03-05-2016, 08:11 PM
The Bank of Canada commenced business on March 11, 1935

Right of note issue, to print "legal tender" Private bank tender to be phased out over the next 10 years.

In other words, they print it themselves.And that is exactly why toy cannot have them issue interest free loans.

Really, your going to argue the semantics? First of all, precedent had been set by the Bank of Canada itself pre 1974 and since the culmination of the Bank since 1938 as it in fact, operated on this pretense. Second, the reason for its existence was to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the nation-al monetary unit...what part of "the best interest of the economic life of the Nation" are you unwilling to accept?

Reckidecky
03-05-2016, 08:15 PM
In other words, they print it themselves.And that is exactly why toy cannot have them issue interest free loans.

So because they print it, that is your argument as to why it cannot be interest free? Why exactly, might that be? Is that just your opinion?

riggs
03-05-2016, 08:33 PM
Really, your going to argue the semantics? First of all, precedent had been set by the Bank of Canada itself pre 1974 and since the culmination of the Bank since 1938 as it in fact, operated on this pretense. Second, the reason for its existence was to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the nation-al monetary unit...what part of "the best interest of the economic life of the Nation" are you unwilling to accept?

Past practice is a strong precedent. Believing this language exist, I would like to get more info regarding the legal battles fought over the last 5 years.

Hans
03-06-2016, 12:43 AM
So because they print it, that is your argument as to why it cannot be interest free? Why exactly, might that be? Is that just your opinion?

Because it does not generate any value. You are basically giving it away free of charge.
If you are the only legal issuer of money, you cannot keep giving it away for free as it makes the currency worthless.

Hans
03-06-2016, 12:50 AM
Really, your going to argue the semantics? First of all, precedent had been set by the Bank of Canada itself pre 1974 and since the culmination of the Bank since 1938 as it in fact, operated on this pretense. Second, the reason for its existence was to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the nation-al monetary unit...what part of "the best interest of the economic life of the Nation" are you unwilling to accept?

You are under the assumption that interest free loans = best interest of the economic life of the Nation.
Can you back up that statement with actual facts besides what you believe "makes sense"?

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 07:30 AM
Because it does not generate any value. You are basically giving it away free of charge.
If you are the only legal issuer of money, you cannot keep giving it away for free as it makes the currency worthless.


This is where I believe you are wrong Hans...the return is not on the interest but in the runoff from the overall economic benefit. The benefit would be in the thousands of doctors and nurses working, opposed to shortages and nurses being laid off and the numerous other jobs associated with massive amounts being invested and spent on healthcare. Imagine the economic benefit just in that sector alone. Increases in food services, janitorial, laundry...the list goes on. The largest population bubble, with the baby boomers, retiring right now, should have huge increases in spending, but instead the federal and provincial governments are cutting spending. How can that be? All we have heard from Wynne at the provincial level is how much is needed for infrastructure spending. Selling off Hydro 1 to pay for this is so misguided I can't even begin to try to justify it, but if the Feds invested in this sector directly, the economic benefits would definitely be a boom for the economy. Thousands of direct jobs, accompanied by thousands of spinoff jobs. The taxes generated through all the jobs, and the spending into the economy is, in part, the obvious benefit. Instead, we are losing jobs, reducing spending, forced into austerity, (similar to Greece, or on the the way to), all to pay down debt that should not have been there in the first place. Thousands of jobs are dissolving in front of our eyes and how you cannot see the benefit to all Canadians under this construct baffles me.

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 07:36 AM
You are under the assumption that interest free loans = best interest of the economic life of the Nation.
Can you back up that statement with actual facts besides what you believe "makes sense"?

Yes, the most indebted population in North America, at what, 300 billion! With compounded interest, going out of the country...certainly that can't be bad for the "best interest of the economic life of a Nation", right. Really!!?? That makes sense to you?

Barry Morris
03-06-2016, 08:14 AM
Yes, the most indebted population in North America, at what, 300 billion! With compounded interest, going out of the country...certainly that can't be bad for the "best interest of the economic life of a Nation", right. Really!!?? That makes sense to you?

"going out of the country." If THAT can be changed, it certainly can't hurt!!!

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 09:42 AM
[url]I can see a good argument for encouraging a change in policy to move away from the BIS though.

No doubt! Their argument falls apart IMO when they say "Doing so, would reduce the value of our money, raise interest rates, and undermine the growth in the economy. Really? What makes our printed money any different from the IMF/World Banks printing of our money.? Created during the Great Depression, the Bank of Canada funded a wide range of public infrastructure projects from 1938 to 1974, without our governments incurring private debt. Projects like the Trans-Canada highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, universities, and hospitals were all funded by interest free loans from the Bank of Canada. There was no inflation, reduced value, high interest or poor economical growth...why not?

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 10:07 AM
The whole premise, on charging interest or not is actually a secondary argument. If they in fact did charge interest, it would go back to the Feds and stay in Canada. Which it obviously is not. That is the crux of the issue, I would think. As of now, our sovereignty has been sold, the government therefore has no fiscal responsibility or accountability and our monetary policy is being dictated to us outside of the realm of our Governments. This has to stop and the Bank of Canada along with our sovereignty has to be returned to the Canadian people.

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 10:14 AM
I fail to see how printing money wouldn't devalue the currency. It would be nice to just create money out of nothing and pay off all our foreign debt but do you really think that would work?

So yes, it would devalue our currency. And no, I'm saying anyone wants to create a magical solution by paying off our debt with printed money but the more we print the less it would be worth or that would be an option.

Ya, no...the debt at this point is a whole separate issue and I'm not sure exactly what can be done there. But to continue to put good money after bad certainly doesn't make sense either. Would be nice to just print and pay it off...that is not at all what I'm saying nor do I think can even happen. That may have a devaluation effect, but I'm certainly no economist.

Reckidecky
03-06-2016, 04:51 PM
Throwing good money after bad doesn't make sense, agreed. The best thing would be if we could learn to live within our means.

For us to start borrowing money from within that money has to come from somewhere. I don't see how us printing money, in order to loan it to us and therefore avoid borrowing it, would not devalue the currency. It's really no different than printing money to pay off the debt except for the degree of money printed.

The money printed has always come from central banks. Ours just happens to be public owned. It is not avoiding borrowing the money that's an issue in so much as the debt burden from the compounded interest that our lenders have strapped us with, that's the problem. Lastly, the amount of money printed and circulating has a lot to do with its valuation, for sure, but that is where, once again, brings us back to the sole responsibility of the Bank of Canada and one of the exact reasons for its inception...not the BIS.

Hans
03-06-2016, 06:38 PM
Yes, the most indebted population in North America, at what, 300 billion! With compounded interest, going out of the country...certainly that can't be bad for the "best interest of the economic life of a Nation", right. Really!!?? That makes sense to you?

You are forgetting 2 crucial aspects in your argument:
- Who prints Canadian currency?
- How much money flows back into Canada when taking foreign loans?

Put that in your arguments, and you will start to see why Canadian money flowing out of the country and foreign money flowing back in the country is not necessarily a bad thing for the economy.

Hans
03-06-2016, 06:44 PM
The money printed has always come from central banks. Ours just happens to be public owned. It is not avoiding borrowing the money that's an issue in so much as the debt burden from the compounded interest that our lenders have strapped us with, that's the problem. Lastly, the amount of money printed and circulating has a lot to do with its valuation, for sure, but that is where, once again, brings us back to the sole responsibility of the Bank of Canada and one of the exact reasons for its inception...not the BIS.

And once again you are forgetting a crucial factor in your calculations: If you borrow $1 billion from a foreign bank, how much money flows back into Canada? $1 billion flows back, that does not require the printing of another $1 billion in Canadian currency, and that generates jobs and value in Canada.
The key factor is to ensure it generates more revenue than $1 billion + interest. Once you achieve that, you in effect have added + $1 billion of value to the Canadian economy without requiring to print + $1 billion in Canadian currency.
It makes our dollar stronger because less is in circulation.

This is one of the reasons why most countries switched to the IMF system.

Reckidecky
03-07-2016, 01:24 PM
You are forgetting 2 crucial aspects in your argument:
- Who prints Canadian currency?
- How much money flows back into Canada when taking foreign loans.

Who does print it Hans? Seems to me, since switching to the new plastic notes, that there printed in Mexico now, but I could be wrong. The new plastic versions came out of Australia I think. It is somewhat irrelevant to the argument though, and off topic. Nonetheless, the Bank of Canada should be the one to decide what and how much to print. Not the BIS/IMF/World Bank or any other bank outside of Canada. It's called sovereignty.
The money that flows "back in" (are you referring to some or part of the money, in the trillions since 74' that we have paid in interest on our debt), can come from numerous sources and reasons, obviously. Generally, it is through economic policy which is beneficial to investment and private business that drives economic growth in the market no? Our current provincial and federal government have not done very well on this front for the past few decades, IMO, to say the least. There are more than a few reasons for that, but one of which, is the tax burden due to our current indebtedness. Certainly your not insinuating that it's only under the pretence of us borrowing from foreign lenders that we have investment in our country, are you?
One other thing I'd like to mention is, after the 2008 fraud, debacle, economic crisis...America printed some 20 TRILLION in "quantitative easing"... Canada on the other hand was looked at as a model of strength, economically. Now some 7-8 years later Canadians have just about lost 40% of their buying power and the American economy is recovering. Really? Is it? What happened? Where did our strength go? How can the American dollar be so much stronger than the Canadian dollar after having printed so much? Where is all the inflation, or what should be hyper-inflation? High interest?
Our dollar is being manipulated outside of our own governments control and that in itself should be enough of an argument that we do not want our currency controlled by others. Period.
There were many wise leaders and many great quotes, but if we are to ignore their advice and history outright we are ignorant indeed. “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

Hans
03-07-2016, 07:38 PM
And look at what happened to Napoleon...

Also, you should use some structure in your replies, so it does not look like a wall of text. The above reply was difficult to read.

I would also urge you to read this before shooting down the IMF: https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/howlend.htm

Reckidecky
03-08-2016, 02:16 PM
Taken from the IMF website...

Upon request by a member country, IMF resources are usually made available under a lending “arrangement,” which may, depending on the lending instrument used, stipulate specific economic policies and measures a country has agreed to implement to resolve its balance of payments problem...

Like in Ontario where they reduced healthcare spending to service debt payments.

This is my point Hans. Dictating to you your economic policy because you couldn't continue to service your debt...so when a country is hamstrung by its debt from the world banks, the generous people of the IMF will help you out. When a country does not have control of its own currency these banks control your government, the people and your livelihood.. Canada should be excluded from these constructs because we have a public bank, but we have been suckered in and sold out and have since been taken over through compounding debt. Debt that we should not have or at the very least should not be on the books of the world bank. With the resource rich country we are, this is ridiculous on so many fronts.

Perhaps there are countries where the IMF would be beneficial...Canada should not be 1 of them.

Reckidecky
03-08-2016, 03:18 PM
The argument is futile. Your pro EU construct fits well within the confines of the World Bank/BIS/IMF. I somewhat disagree, but that's a whole other argument.
Canada is not European however, and should not be treated as such. Canada's banks are public and its mandate was such that "it" control, protect its value and issue its currency. It should never have been allowed to be controlled by others.
You have not given any facts other than your "common sense opinion" and you seem to be under the assumption that compounded interest loans = best interest of the economic life of the Nation. I disagree, wholeheartedly.

Hans
03-08-2016, 06:44 PM
Tell me what is the better option of the 2 mentioned below:

- Print money as needed, use it to issue interest free loans, print more.
- Take out a loan with the IMF, be forced to have an economic plan to ensure you stay financially viable in the future, pay off loan and hopefully don't have to take out another one.

Reckidecky
03-09-2016, 02:18 AM
Ya, ok, let's go with austerity, and the compounded interest loans and debt that can never be paid off until all public owned money making assets are sold off. That sounds like a great idea. The reason being is somewhat the same as a credit card that is maxed out...making the minimum payment on the balance will just pay the interest and you will never pay the card off. But like the banks, the bankers are always making money. Is that how you run your budget at home Hans? We all know governments can't be fiscally responsible unless they are using World Bank money and loans. Yes makes complete sense to me now.

WOW.

Please explain to me why it is you think the money that The Bank of Canada prints and loans as needed cannot be paid off but yet somehow compounded interest loans can be. Please.
I'm also curious to know why those said interest free loans and the benefits from the economic spin off in employment and created tax base serves somehow a different purpose than compounded interest loans. Loans I might ad, made by unelected bankers with no interest in your Country other than making money.

And in other news...an ex Canadian banker after setting Canada up, moves on to the Bank of England.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mark-carney-governor-of-the-bank-of-goldman-sachs/5512969

Reckidecky
03-09-2016, 02:00 PM
And once again you are forgetting a crucial factor in your calculations: If you borrow $1 billion from a foreign bank, how much money flows back into Canada? $1 billion flows back, that does not require the printing of another $1 billion in Canadian currency, and that generates jobs and value in Canada.
The key factor is to ensure it generates more revenue than $1 billion + interest. Once you achieve that, you in effect have added + $1 billion of value to the Canadian economy without requiring to print + $1 billion in Canadian currency.
It makes our dollar stronger because less is in circulation.

There is, in fact, no forgotten crucial factor Hans, and is exactly the same argument I have, minus the borrowing from foreign banks at compound interest. Its not rocket science mate. A billion is a billion. That same money whether it comes from BIS/IMF or the Bank of Canada, invested into our economy, generates jobs and value. How could it not, or be so much different? Honestly. Really not sure what it is you fail to see. Any interest, even if there was any, would be dependent on, and reflect the state of the economy, and as such, could be changed by our bank. There is no need to have a middle man, taking advantage of the Canadian government and fleecing Canadian people in the process.

I wasn't, nor ever was implying, that money could be just continually printed forever and ever because even basic economics would suggest that would devalue the currency.

Economic policy that encourages foreign investment and brings businesses and their investment/money into Canada, is a much better model for the benefit of the Nation. Not, what is looking to be, a trillion $ in debt by the time "nice hair/the drama teacher" is done with us through this election cycle, and all that money leaving the country, with no need or reason to stay. More will be leaving next month, and every month after that, too.

Any interest, on loans, if any, would go back to the Feds, create an increased tax base, plus economic growth and spending, which would all be, and remain in Canada. That I believe would be a much better approach than the current form and what you have suggested.

As it stands now, being the most indebted population in North America and barely able to even service the interest on our debt at this point, it would seem evident that this is a failed model, for Canadians. Not so much for the lenders. They have us exactly where they want us, slaves to our debt and making hundreds of millions, or billions rather, just because our government allows them to. They have given or sold our sovereignty away. Treasonous, IMO actually. That cannot be a good thing for Canada or Canadians.

Hans
03-09-2016, 04:52 PM
It is not the doom and gloom you seem to think it is.

Something to read, with pictures: http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2010/report-rapport-eng.asp#a5

Reckidecky
03-10-2016, 09:45 AM
You can pretend to engage and be a snob and condescending, if you so chose Hans. That's your choice and that's fine. It's obviously much easier to avoid the issues I have brought up, avoid that which you cannot refute and provide a link without dialogue. That's your choice and that's fine. Your obviously more pro-European than Canadian anyways, so, your opinion doesn't really matter and now means nothing to me, anyways. It seemingly does not deserve my respect either, but, I digress.

Reckidecky
03-10-2016, 09:53 AM
It is not the doom and gloom you seem to think it is.

Right, because half a trillion dollars with compound interest debt payments are not dismal or oppressive at all. It's all just sunny days.

Hans
03-10-2016, 07:20 PM
You did not look at the pictures, did you? lol

Reckidecky
03-11-2016, 12:45 PM
Your response and argument is duly noted. Ignorant, petty, sarcastic. Denial could be added too, I guess. Well done.
Seems you find it humorous.
Well, as previously stated, your opinion on the topic, to me, is impertinent and extraneous.

I'll let you respond, have the last word, and consider the discussion bankrupt. The same as our Country...thanks to the IMF/BIS/IBRD/IDA. The fact that you think, that is good for our economy and country is both laughable and astounding. Done.