Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Green Party and the Bank of Canada


Click on the link above to watch Part 4 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.


As more of us are becoming aware of the crucial role played by the international banking system in the Greek crisis, what about Canada?  How much do our politicians know about international banking?  More specifically, how much do they know about our own Bank of Canada?  Do they know the history of how Pierre Trudeau decided under the urging of the international bankers to change the rules that had allowed our government to borrow money from the Bank of Canada at little or no interest to one of compound interest from the private banks?  That the compound interest of the private banks is what has caused our debt, both public and private? That most of our national debt piling up now is composed of interest being paid on the compound interest of private banks?  Just like Greece?  But that the rules that caused this in Canada can be reversed?

Well, let’s ask the politicians. I know one who has worried about this bank robbery…let’s call it what it was and is…massive bank robbery…for a long time, and that’s Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party.  She understands that Canada is going down the same road Greece is on unless we get our Bank of Canada back, working for the people instead of the international bankers.  Elizabeth May is a serious and brilliant politician and I don’t blame her for maybe having a drink too many at the silly, frivolous gathering she was in at the time (Press Gallery dinner May 9, 2015).  It was probably easy to do, considering.  I go with the American female politician (I can’t remember her name) who said she reserved the right to occasionally act as inappropriately as any male politician when under stress.   Nobody’s perfect, but in my opinion Elizabeth May is the most perfect politician Canada has.  The vast majority of our politicians, along with the majority of our media, are mostly too dense or too cowardly to even think about how the international banks are screwing with the people of Canada, much less report on it.

I don’t think any Liberals running for office will want to discuss the Bank of Canada with us because it was Justin Trudeau’s father who threw us to the international banking wolves in the first place.  The NDP?  They are doing some good things but I don’t think they will risk any votes over this vital issue.  The Conservatives? Stephen Harper?  He’s too busy waiting for the Rapture.  He certainly expects his vengeful god to reward him for fleecing Canadians out of their environmental safeguards along with their civil rights.  Well, then let’s ask Elizabeth May.  Especially as there is a lawsuit before the courts now asking that the government overturn the banking rules that have stopped the government from reverting back to borrowing from the Bank of Canada.  Next time.

Sunday, July 12, 2015



Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian  Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”
But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think  highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.
The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.
All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.
So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015


Click on the link above to hear Part 2 of my series on Stephen Harper and The Canadian Banking System. Please also read the accompanying text.

No, not really. Not in today’s bail-in banking rules. But first, in last week’s post I said that anything over ten thousand dollars in a Canadian bank account could now be prey to confiscation by the banks in case of an international bank melt down under the new “bail-in” rules. I was reminded by viewers that the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits up to one hundred thousand dollars. So the feeling of many is that any Canadian depositor can feel secure if their bank accounts are under the one hundred thousand limit of insured deposits. Right? Well, that depends.

On April 3, 2013 on CBC Neil Macdonald, as Senior Washington Correspondent for the CBC report, said “It boils down to this: Ottawa is contemplating the possibility of a Canadian bank failure-and the same sort of pitiless prescription that was imposed on Cypress…while officials in Ottawa are playing down the possibility of a raid on the bank accounts of ordinary Canadians, they chose not to include that guarantee in the budget language”. Let’s think about that for a moment. Ottawa chose not to include that guarantee in the budget language. And then Mr. Macdonald goes on to explain that: “as the Cypress meltdown proceeded (2013) it became clear that Europe’s finance ministers and
central banks, encouraged by the International Monetary Fund, were not only willing to freeze and seize uninsured deposits over 100 thousand euros, they were also initially willing to cancel deposit insurance and go after small deposits, too.

In the end the plan was rewritten and insured deposits were protected, but the signal had been sent. The Europeans and the IMF had been prepared to do the unthinkable. That is to cancel any insurance plans for under one hundred thousand euros and to go after the smaller deposits, too. And we are reminded that Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, was prepared to seize a portion of all deposits in Cypress, insured and uninsured. So was the European Central Bank, and so were Europe’s
finance ministers. Collectively they were like ducks on the backs of unsuspecting June bugs. But in this same CBC report, Macdonald tells us about a speech given by departing central banker Mark Karney who supported such a system (bail-in) and then of remarks by Craig Alexander, chief economist at TD Canada Trust who says that “this kind of a system would make the banks stronger” and then added: “he also notes that many Canadians believe, mistakenly, that their RRSPs and other holdings are safe and insured, up to the one hundred thousand dollar threshold. They don’t realize that government bonds as well as stocks and mutual funds are among the investments that don’t
qualify for CDIC”.

This to me is truly shocking that RRSP’s are not insured by the Canadian government. I think it might shock a lot of other Canadians, too, many who are banking these RRSPs and banking on them for future security. But you know, this raises a much larger question in my mind… Why do all these provisions that are so grossly unfair to everybody but the banking system and those in finance who stand to profit from a banking meltdown, seem to suggest that a banking crisis might be imminent, one worse than the last one? Otherwise why would the international banks all be huddling together legalizing the right of western and European banks to seize depositor’s money in case their
stupid greed causes another massive banking failure?

Sometimes I’m accused of seeing connections where none may exist, but human society is in nature, so to speak, and it evolves like nature, and in nature everything is connected. I don’t like to think this, but I think it nevertheless…that there may also be a direct connection between a sooner rather than later bank melt-down and so many of Harper’s top people jumping ship and refusing to run in the upcoming election. Could they all be trying to escape an ugly, ugly bank melt down on their watch? Especially with Greece in the throes of a melt-down? More on these connections next time.