Category: Banking Cartel

Posted on

IBC #6: Mark Carney’s UN Role, Climate Finance, Chicago Climate Exchange

(UN: Mark Carney to become Special Envoy for Climate Action & Finance, once he leaves post at Bank of England)

(Notice, from COP25 in Madrid, Spain)

(Carney: businesses ignoring climate change will go bankrupt)

(Bank for International Settlements)

(Chicago Climate Exchange)

1. Context For This Piece

Mark Carney is the current head of the Bank of England, and is the former head of the Bank of Canada. After he leave the BoE, he will take on a UN position as the Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.

Carney will supposedly be working for a token $1/year, which means that money is not the motivation. Rather it is ideological. Okay, so why is he doing this? And why would the UN go an seek out a head of 2 Western central banks? Is there to become a “central bank” of carbon credits and emissions trading? Will nations who don’t cut Carbon Dioxide be hit with extra bank fees, or have their assets frozen or seized?

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is sort of a central bank for central banks. Debt, credit, interest and monetary policy all come from the BIS. It’s an illusion that individual nations are sovereign. In fact, the Rothchild Family controls the banking for most nations on the planet. So it is extremely powerful. Now, why would a head of 2 central banks (England and Canada) be put in charge of climate action and finance?

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, but a fundamental part of photosynthesis and respiration. An 8th grade science text book would confirm that. So the “science” is bogus, especially when the issue of solar activity is repeatedly ignored.

Also included is Chicago Climate exchange, which Wikipedia describes as “North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil”.

If these “carbon credits” are being bought, sold and traded just as another commodity, then one has to ask the obvious question: how much of this is about the environment, and how much is just a money-making gimmick?

2. Mark Carney, UN Climate Action/Finance

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.

It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?

Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.

3. Announcement From COP25 In Madrid

The UN Secretary-General has outlined the “increased ambition and commitment” that the world needs from governments during the coming days of the COP25 UN climate change conference which opens in Madrid on Monday, calling for “accountability, responsibility and leadership” to end the global climate crisis.

The “social dimension” of climate change must also be paramount, so that national commitments include “a just transition for people whose jobs and livelihoods are affected as we move from the grey to the green economy.”

Mr. Guterres said at least $100 billion dollars must be made available to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation and to take into account their “legitimate expectations to have the resources necessary to build resilience and for disaster response and recovery.”

A statement from the Spokespersons’ office said his tasks would include “building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.”

The Bank of England Governor has held numerous positions in finance in both the private and public sectors and will become a member of UN staff at the point at which he ceases to work for the Bank. He also served, from 2011 to 2018, as Chair of the Financial Stability Board and Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008-2013.

“The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance”, as the UN looks to next year’s 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), due to take place in Glasgow, Scotland.

COP25 in Madrid. Pardon the sarcasm, but these questions need to be asked: if climate change is such a pressing matter, why have they not accomplished their goals in 25 annual conferences? Why do we finish one conference and immediately schedule another? If burning fossil fuels is so harmful, then why do tens of thousands of people have to fly across the world? Why not video conference?

Guterres admits that at least $100 billion needs to be raised. Okay, very expensive agenda.

It’s also admitted that a lot of this money won’t be used for “climate change”. Instead, it will be used to pay off people whose livelihoods have been destroyed.

Carney is a former central bank head (UK and Canada), Is he in this role to remake the climate change scam this way? Is the UN going to establish a sort of “UN central bank” to regulate and control carbon taxes?

4. Is This Just A Protection Racket?

From a piece by YourNews.com:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

From the Guardian:

Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow.

From a piece by Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

There are many more articles on the subject, but the above describes it bluntly. Carney, in his new role, is making it clear that businesses that don’t adapt will go bankrupt. In fairness, this could simply be grandstanding to make headlines. However, Carney could actually be sincere about it.

Now, this “could” be interpreted to mean that they will simply not be able to keep up with changing conditions. But a more likely meaning is that companies who do not play along will be shut down — one way or another.

If this is the latter case, then this is nothing more than an elaborate protection racket. Play along, pay your fees, jump through the hoops, etc… Or else, you won’t be doing business here (or anywhere) anymore. More sophisticated than mafia thugs who simply burn down your business, but the basic idea is much the same.

5. A New Form Of Central Banking?

For background information, please review the CENTRAL BANKING articles posted previously on this site. Lots of important detail is given in these other postings.

An interesting article by Christians For Truth suggests that Rothschilds’ central banking cartel is behind the move to force climate action. It quotes the Guardian article and then concludes:

The Rothschilds founded the Bank of England right after the Jews were readmitted to England after having been expelled for 300 years by King Edward I for usury and ritual murder. The BoE was the first central bank to issue money as unpayable debt, the world’s greatest Ponzi Scheme, and it has been the model of all central banks, including the Federal Reserve, since then.

And if you want to understand why the global warming or “climate change” propaganda is pushed 24/7 by the jewish-controlled media, now you know: the Rothschilds are using it as a way of keeping their ever-expanding Ponzi Scheme afloat, and they clearly intend to threaten and punish any businesses that won’t play ball.

While it seems easy to dismiss the article as conspiracy theory nonsense, it is worth a look. Does the Bank for International Settlements engage in this climate finance agenda? Are they getting in on the United Nations’ climate change scam?

And absolutely, BIS does involve itself in the climate change scam. A quick search of “climate finance” yields 1276 results. Search “climate finance Mark Carney” and 76 hits comes up. So it is not at all a conspiracy theory to see cooperation between the banking cartel and the climate cartel. It looks like they are cooperating to screw us over.

Let’s look at some of these articles.

https://www.bis.org/review/r191008a.htm
Mark Carney: TCFD – strengthening the foundations of sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r160523b.htm
Mark Carney: The Sustainable Development Goal imperative

https://www.bis.org/review/r120622c.pdf
Mark Carney: Financing the global transition

https://www.bis.org/review/r151130f.pdf
Klaas Knot: The role of central banks; the Netherlands Bank and sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r191029a.htm
Jens Weidmann: Climate change and central banks

https://www.bis.org/review/r190206b.pdf
Climate Change and the Irish Financial System

https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights20.pdf
Turning up the heat – climate risk assessment in the insurance sector

https://www.bis.org/review/r181122b.pdf
Remarks at the Accounting for Sustainability Summit 2018

The above is just a small sample of what is on the Bank for International Settlements’ website. Again, just searching “climate finance” gets 1276 hits. So they are very active on this topic, and have been for years. It’s not at all a stretch to think that the BIS and the UN will collaborate to control Carbon taxes, and climate finance.

Of course, it’s not clear — yet — how exactly the BIS will be involved in running this scheme. But it’s disturbing, putting one of their operatives at head of the UN “climate finance action”.

6. Chicago Climate Exchange

We started out in 2000 with the idea of transforming the energy markets by creating an electronic marketplace that removed barriers and drove transparency and access.

By staying close to customers, we saw the demand for the efficiency that technology brings and expanded our electronic trading platform into new markets. At the same time we understood that along with liquidity, trust and integrity are central to the effective operation of markets and began investing to build and acquire clearing houses.

As our electronic markets and demand for clearing grew, access to new sources of information became central to our customers and data has increasingly become the lifeblood of markets. We saw this evolution and consistently we advanced our capabilities, building a data business which is complementary to every part of our solution.

Despite the word salad this is an organization that tries to effectively run a climate bond trading market. Setting aside the bogus science, this is an industry that can only survive as long as people keep buying into the scam. Sooner or later, it will collapse.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

This Canada Free Press article, see archive, gives a damning critique of the operation. It also raises point that the biggest shareholder was Goldman Sachs. This is important as Mark Carney worked for Goldman Sachs, and in fact was their managing director of investment banking.

Read the Britannia piece for more information on Carney’s background, but the conflict of interest here is plainly visible.

(1) Carney was a Director for Goldman Sachs.
(2) Goldman Sachs was largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange.
(3) CCE’s existence was based on the climate bonds industry.
(4) Carney is former head of Bank of Canada.
(5) Carney is current head of Bank of England.
(6) Carney used positions at BoC and BoE to promote climate change agenda
(7) Carney promotes climate change with Bank for International Settlements.
(8) Carney gets a UN post to push climate finance agenda.

Mark Carney has been going on about the dangers of climate change for years. Now, is he doing so as a concerned head of the Bank of Canada or Bank of England? Or is he doing so as a Director for Goldman Sachs, and part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange? Pretty hard to tell, isn’t it?

7. Where Does This Lead?

Hard to say for sure. But it looks like the banking cartel and the climate change cartel are effectively working together. Perhaps this is just a way of centralizing and controlling the scheme more efficiently.

However, it is nonsense to think that paying taxes to the UN, or the Bank for International Settlements (or anyone) will make the climate better. It is a money grab, and junk science. Again, Carbon Dioxide, the most commonly cited “greenhouse gas”, is not pollution. It is necessary in order to sustain life.

Even if these taxes were to be avoided, the only way to do so would be to collapse the economy, and get rid of most (or all) of industrialization. If that is the goal, then it’s one that will effectively end Western civilization.

At what point can we call these people traitors?

(1) https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/personnel-appointments/2019-12-01/secretary-general-appoints-mark-joseph-carney-of-canada-his-special-envoy-climate-action-and-finance
(2) https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1052491
(3) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mark-Carney
(4) https://yournews.com/2019/07/31/1120477/boes-carney-warns-of-bankruptcy-for-firms-that-ignore-climate/
(5) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/13/firms-ignoring-climate-crisis-bankrupt-mark-carney-bank-england-governor
(6) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-boe-carney-idUSKCN1UQ28K
(7) https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2019-07-31/boes-carney-warns-of-bankruptcy-for-firms-that-ignore-climate-change
(8) https://www.theice.com/index
(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange
(10) https://canadafreepress.com/article/obamas-involvement-in-chicago-climate-exchange-the-rest-of-the-story

Posted on

IBC #4(B): Bank Of Canada (Sort Of) Answers Some Questions

(The Bank Of Canada)

(Our debt started to spike in 1974)

(The Bank for International Settlements)

(The Basel Committee)

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

(Will Abrams explaining the money system)

(Jack Layton and Elizabeth May know full well about the international banking cartel. However they act as controlled opposition and remain silent)

This is the response to some email questions to the Bank of Canada, two weeks ago. Attached is the text of the email, minus personal identifiers.

1. Email From Bank Of Canada

Thank you for your email and your interest in the Bank of Canada.
.
For a copy of the original Bank of Canada Act, we suggest you go to Library and Archives Canada.
.
In response to your question about government borrowing in Canada, we’d like to offer a few points of clarification:
.
First, the Government of Canada has essentially funded its spending the same way since long before the Bank of Canada came into existence – namely through taxation and the issuance of marketable debt (e.g. bonds and treasury bills).

This debt was issued for investors to purchase. Financial institutions have always purchased government debt, as investments on their own balance sheets, and to sell on to customers. For a history of government debt markets in Canada, please consult the following document: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pellerin.pdf.

Moreover, in the 1970s, subsequent to the first oil shock, inflation in Canada and many other advanced economies increased significantly. This led to higher costs for goods and services, and in the case of the federal government, increased spending, resulting in a rapid and sizeable increase in annual deficits. To fund those deficits, government borrowing (issuance of bonds and treasury bills) also increased. So government borrowing sources didn’t change, but the magnitude of borrowing did (see Figure 1 below).

Further, please note that while Section 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act does allow for the Bank of Canada to lend to the federal and provincial governments, the long-standing policy of the Bank of Canada is not to make direct loans to governments.

The Bank’s Statement of Policy Governing the Acquisition and Management of Financial Assets for the Bank of Canada’s Balance Sheet is available on our website. On page 9 of this policy, under the heading Exceptional Circumstances, Section 7.5 states:
.
“Loans or advances to the Government: The authority granted under Sections 18(i) and 18(j) of the Bank of Canada Act to make loans or advances to the Government would only be used to make a 1-business-day advance to the Government of Canada. This would only be done as appropriate to prevent the level of government deposits held at the Bank from falling below zero. Any such advances would be publicly disclosed.”

In other words, Bank of Canada direct lending to the federal government could be done in exceptional circumstance and only to address short-term cash requirements. The last loan of such type was in 1961.

There are good reasons for this policy. If the Bank were to finance government programs, the monetary base of the financial system would expand and interest rates would no longer follow a path consistent with keeping aggregate demand and supply in the Canadian economy in balance.

The result would be a significant increase in inflationary pressures throughout the Canadian economy. In effect, such a proposal would inflate the debt away, substituting an inflation tax on Canadian households in place of the debt-servicing obligations of the government. Such outcomes would be incompatible with the goal of monetary policy, which is to maintain an environment of low and stable inflation at 2 per cent.

Regarding your question about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) may wish to contact them or visit their website. Please note that the BIS has no influence on the decision-making process for Canada’s monetary policy. The Governor of the Bank of Canada serves on the BIS Board of Directors and he is the current Chair of the BIS Audit Committee and former Chair of the Consultative Council for the Americas. Maintaining strategic working relationships with our international colleagues is an important part of the Governor’s role. Regular, open dialogue with our counterparts across the world provides us with invaluable insight into the global economy, helping us deliver on our mandate to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canadians.

We are not in a position to respond to your questions about fiscal policy or the debts of federal or provincial governments. You may wish to consult with your local MP or MLA on those questions.
.
For further information on the Bank’s roles and responsibilities and relevant economics concepts, please see our backgrounders section of our website.
.
I hope you will find this information helpful.
.
Kind regards,

2. Thoughts On The Response

(1) The Bank for International Settlements “allegedly” has no impact on Canadian monetary policy. However the BoC Governor sits on the BIS Board of Directors and is the head of the Audit Committee. Interesting.

(2) The Bank of Canada no longer funds Government spending in order to avoid inflation. Yet, would the spiraling debt cycle (over $1.2T paid, and $700B in debt) cause Government spending to eat away taxpayer dollars? This seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

(3) The source of borrowing didn’t change? This is a lie. The Bank of Canada used to lend the money (of course it had control over the money once). Now the money is “borrowed” from private sources.

(4) How does purchasing debt from foreign powers and foreign interests, instead of using the Bank of Canada, help Canadians? Remember, about 30% of the national debt is held by foreigners.

(1) https://www.bankofcanada.ca
(2) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1010004801#timeframe
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements
(4) https://www.bis.org
(5) https://www.bis.org/about/member_cb.htm
(6) https://www.bis.org/bcbs/organ_and_gov.htm
(7) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp
(8) https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
(9) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/frt-trf/index-eng.asp

Posted on

IBC #5: Globalist Approved Talking Points On Banking

(The Bank for International Settlements)

(The Basel Committee)

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

(Will Abrams explaining the money system)

1. Context For This Article

Are you being given straight answers about National and Provincial debts? Or are you being fed globalist approved talking points?

This article will help you identify
Sections 3-8 cover the typical talking points that globalist politicians, bankers, and media allies will spout off to an unsuspecting public.

2. Ignore Bank For International Settlements

In 1934, the Bank of Canada Act was passed, which created the Bank of Canada. After this, the Federal Government was required to make no-interest loans to help fund infrastructure and social services throughout the country.

Even though money was borrowed from the Bank of Canada, the debt did not rise, since we were printing our own money. This help true for nearly 40 years.

Then in 1974, Pierre Trudeau had Canada join the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. The reasons for this were never made clear. The reason the public was told was “inflation control”, but that was never explained. Now Canada, instead of creating its own money, was forced to borrow money and pay interest to outside banks, and often foreign banks. That’s right, outside parties were effectively “printing” Canadian currency and then lending it back to us. Unsurprisingly, the debt skyrocketed from $18 billion in 1974 to almost $700 billion in 2019. And this doesn’t include debt for Provinces, or Crown Corporations.

Now, when asked about central banking, it is best to change the subject. Focus on how other parties are wasteful, and that you will do a better job. If the above facts are mentioned, it will lead to awkward follow-up questions.

3. Make Hysterical Claims About Inflation

Inevitably people will ask about fiat banking. They will want to know why we allow foreigners to print our money, which we then purchase while paying interest.

At this point, it’s best to use scare tactics about uncontrolled inflation, and fiat/central banking being needed to counter act this. If the person asks for specifics or data, pivot again. Tell them that inflation would be much worse if we don’t have this system in place.

4. Focus On “Deficit”, Not Debt

A common diversionary tactic is to focus on the “deficit” and not on the debt. When pressed on this, slick politicians will dodge the issue skillfully.

Remember, the debt is the total amount of money owed, while the deficit is just the shortfall of a certain period (typically a year). Politicians routinely say they will “erase the deficit” within a certain period of time. But all that means is that the nation (or province, or state) will no longer be adding to its debt.

The debt previously accumulated will still be there, and will still be generating interest payments every year. That is what they often don’t want to publicly admit.

5. Focus On “Servicing” The Debt

Another sleight-of-hand is to avoid the words “paying down the debt”. Instead, tell people about “servicing the debt”.

Why? Because paying down the debt implies that it will be finished at some point. Obviously, that goes against the globalist agenda of having payments come out forever. Servicing, however, simply means being able to pay the interest. Servicing can also be in the form of raising the debt obligations.

Remember, you want people to think you want the debt to go away, without actually making it happen.

6. People Don’t Care About This

Rocco Galati taking the Government to court (on behalf of COMER) was an extreme example, but a serious one. People do care about the financial health and sovereignty of Canada. They don’t want outsiders, including foreign banks and foreign powers holding us hostage.

Instead, be dismissive. Repeat the talking point that fiat/central banking has nothing to do with the debt, and that no one cares about it. It’s not just environmental propaganda which these tactics can work on.

Nobody cares about central banking.
Nobody cares about it.
Nobody cares.

7. Divert Attention To Other Things

If all of the above fail, divert the conversation to something else altogether. Focus on the debt and fiscal irresponsibility of previous governments and administrations. Point out the debts left behind (while ensuring not to mention WHY those debts exist in the first place.

Perhaps someone dressed up in blackface, or was allegedly sleeping with a teenager. Maybe someone has made comments about abortion you can take out of context. Could be that a prominent person or a relative has a drinking or drug related scandal. There are plenty of ways to distract from real issues.

Also, find a minor and totally unrelated issue to get people worked up about, such as legalizing marijuana, or complaining about supply management. The sheep need to be distracted from what is really going on.

8. Summary Of Diversionary Tactics

Tactic #1: Ignore the Bank of International Settlements, Basel Committee, and fiat banking altogether unless pressed on it.

Tactic #2: If you are pressed on the above subjects, immediately repeat the claim that abandoning this system will lead to hyper inflation. Use Venezuela or Post-WW1 Germany as examples.

Tactic #3: Make sure you are talking about eliminating the deficit, and dodge the question of the overall debt.

Tactic #4: If pressed on the overall debt, make reference to “servicing” the debt, rather than paying it off completely.

Tactic #5: Be dismissive of the issue altogether. If further confronted about the predatory nature of central banking, deflect. Say that people don’t really care about the issue.

Tactic #6: Finally, divert the conversation to completely other topics entirely. This will hopefully confuse and distract people enough for them to stop caring about it.

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1010004801#timeframe
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements
(3) https://www.bis.org
(4) https://www.bis.org/about/member_cb.htm
(5) https://www.bis.org/bcbs/organ_and_gov.htm
(6) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp
(7) https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
(8) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/frt-trf/index-eng.asp

Posted on

IBC #4: Response From Finance Department Questions On National Debt

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

(If data hard to see, written information in Section #4)

(Will Abram explains the issues here)

CLICK HERE, for response from Elections Canada

1. First Email Back

Hello ****,
.
1) Budget documents going back to 1995, they are available here: https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
2) The Debt Management Reports and Fiscal Reference Tables may be useful. I am still looking to see if I can find more. You may want to try reaching out to the Bank of Canada for more information.
.
Regards,

2. Second Email Back

Hello again ****,
.
After asking around, here is what I was told regarding your second question:
.
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
.
For more information, you may also wish to review the Debt Management Report 2017-2018 (e.g., Chart 9) at https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp.
.
Hope this helps.
.
Regards,

3. Information On Debt Summary

This chart, and the information from it is provided by the sources which the Ministry of Finance has provided here.

Chart 1
Snapshot of the Federal Balance Sheet, as at March 31, 2018
Unmatured debt
.
Market debt
$704.3 billion
.
(marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, and foreign currency debt)
Market debt value adjustments and capital lease obligations
$16.9 billion
.
Other liabilities
.
Pensions and other liabilities
$281.4 billion
.
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$154.8 billion
.
Total Liabilities $1,157.4 billion
.
Less financial assets
$398.6 billion (cash, reserves, loans)
.
Net debt
$758.8 billion
.
Less non-financial assets
$87.5 billion (capital assets)
.
Federal debt
$671.3 billion (accumulated deficit)

4. Looking At The Debt Tables

Recent report is here. See page 9.

The staff was helpful enough to direct me to this table, and hence, the data within it. Now, let’s see how much interest or “Public Debt Charges” we have been paying off since 1966.

Year Interest ($Mil) Cum. Since 1966
1966-67 1,162 1,162
1967-68 1,286 2,448
1968-69 1,464 3,912
1969-70 1,694 5,606
1970-71 1,887 7,493
1971-72 2,110 9,603
1972-73 2,110 11,703
1973-74 2,565 14,278
1974-75 3,238 17,516
1975-76 3,970 21,486
1976-77 4,708 26,194
1977-78 5,531 31,725
1978-79 7,024 38,749
1979-80 8,494 47,243
1980-81 10,658 57,901
1981-82 15,114 73,015
1982-83 16,903 89,918
1983-84 20,430 110,348
1984-85 20,430 110,348
1985-86 27,657 138,005
1986-87 28,718 166,723
1987-88 31,233 197,956
1988-89 35,532 233,488
1989-90 41,246 274,734
1990-91 45,034 319,768
1991-92 43,861 363,629
1992-93 41,332 404,961
1993-94 40,099 445,060
1994-95 44,185 489,245
1995-96 49,407 538,652
1996-97 47,281 585,933
1997-98 43,120 629,053
1998-99 43,303 672,356
1999-00 43,384 715,740
2000-01 43,384 715,740
2001-02 39,651 755,391
2002-03 37,270 792,661
2003-04 35,769 828,430
2004-05 43,384 871,814
2005-06 33,772 905,586
2006-07 33,945 939,531
2007-08 33,325 972,856
2008-09 28,269 1,001,125
2009-10 26,652 1,027,687
2010-11 28,610 1,056,297
2011-12 29,038 1,085,335
2012-13 25,533 1,110,868
2013-14 24,729 1,135,597
2014-15 24,207 1,159,804
2015-16 21,837 1,181,641
2016-17 21,232 1,202,873
2017-18 21,889 1,224,762

Note: This only applies to interest payments on the NATIONAL debt. The Provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, have been piling on their own debt.

To be fair, we can largely exclude the payments before 1974, which is when Trudeau Sr. forced fiat banking on Canada. That would remove $14,278M. leaving Canada with $1,210,484 in interest paid as of 2018. $1.21 trillion, just in interest (or public debt charges).

Although I didn’t get names of specific bond holders, it was not a total loss. Our debt is bought an sold, just like a collections agent would do, and about 30% is sold to foreign buyers.

5. No Political Will To End Debt

Although political parties pay lip service to the idea of balancing a budget, they tap-dance around the idea of paying it off.

Why though? If merely “balancing the budget” means paying interest payments forever, why is that all that is talked about? Why is this open-ended drain on the public purse not discussed?

Anyone who has ever held a credit card knows that it is senseless to let the charges keep accumulating. Eventually, the interest and fees will exceed the cost of the initial charge.

So why DON’T politicians want to get rid of our debt? Are these “interest” payments really a form of money laundering? Are they being told (or paid off) not to get rid of the debt?

6. Reason Behind The Debt: PRIVATE Borrowing

The idea of dumping central (fiat banking) is never brought up. Even so called “deficit hawks” never address the reason of why this exists is the first place. They never talk about the Bank for International Settlements, nor do they discuss the Basel Committee.

In 1974, Pierre Trudeau changed Canada’s monetary system, and did so without a democratic mandate. Since the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, the Federal Government had effectively been borrowing money from itself. This meant that interest payments amounted to the Canadian public being paid. See PART 1 of the series for more information.

However, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing from private lenders. Quite simply, we now have to pay other parties, instead of ourselves.

The reason for doing this has never been made clear. Vague claims have been made about stability of currency and inflation control. But a cause-and-effect has never actually been demonstrated. Nor has any benefit been shown that would counter the endless repayments, and ever growing debt.

And while this article is aimed at the Federal Government, the Provinces do not get a pass. More on them in another article.

7. Who’s Pushing For Continuation Of Scheme?

Remember this quote from the Ministry of Finance. Though specific people, institutions and parties were not named, it is reasonable to assume that this is a profitable business. After all, it is buying and selling — and reselling — national debt on the open market.

Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.

Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.

The Ministry has been contacted again asking for specific names. If they won’t release any, then perhaps a freedom of information request will be needed. However, it’s unwise to drop names without any proof.

It’s reasonable to believe that the people profiting the most from this scheme are the ones pushing to keep fiat going. If any specifics are provided, they will be added as an update.

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1010004801#timeframe
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements
(3) https://www.bis.org
(4) https://www.bis.org/about/member_cb.htm
(5) https://www.bis.org/bcbs/organ_and_gov.htm
(6) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp
(7) https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
(8) https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/frt-trf/index-eng.asp

Posted on

Int’l Banking Cartel #3: Federal Reserve, End The Fed (US)

(30 minute documentary on US Federal Reserve and deficit spending)

(60 minute video “Fiat Empire”)

Central banking, and private government loans were addressed a previous case for Canada. Also, the COMER Case 2011-2018, (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) was outlined.

This article covers a similar topic, but the American experience, with their Federal Reserve. We will detail an organization called “End The Fed”, which is dedicated to ending this practice.

This is what happens when you:

  • Stop backing your currency by gold
  • Allow a private bank to generate currency
  • Surrender your debt to outside interests

But hey, it regulates interest and inflation. It is good for consumers, so we are told.

1. What Is “End The Fed”?


This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.

The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.

Why Should I Care?
Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.

If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.

End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.

2. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act


(From page 15 of 112)

DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
(A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
(i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
(I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
(II) 6 percent; and
(ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
(B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.

Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:

5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation

Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.

3. Blog Article From End The Fed


This is a blog entry, on reserve banking, worth a read.

Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.

So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.

This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.

Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.

4. Fractional Reserve Banking


US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.

In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:

In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.

Bank Deposit Total Percentage required
Under $15.2M 0%
$15.2M to $100.2M 3%
Over $100.2M 10%

Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.

Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.

5. US Federal Debt


This is very unpleasant to read, but is needed.

End of Year Debt (billions) Percent of GDP
1930 16 18%
1935 29 39%
1940 43 50%
1945 260 114%
1950 257 89%
1955 274 65%
1960 286 53%
1965 317 43%
1970 375 35%
1975 533 32%
1980 908 32%
1985 1,823 42%
1990 3,233 54%
1995 4,974 65%
2000 5,674 55%
2005 7,933 60%
2010 13,562 90%
2015 18,151 99%
2020 (est) 24,057 106%

-Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
-Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
-Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
-Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
-Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
-Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
-National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.

6. Who Owns Federal Reserve


(From USA Gold article)

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).

Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.

7. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve


There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.

Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

8. System Will Collapse


As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.

This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.

Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.

In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.

The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.

But at some point it will.

(1) http://endthefed.org/
(2) http://endthefed.org/websites/
(3) https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Federal%20Reserve%20Act.pdf
(4) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp
(5) https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/fractional-banking/
(6) http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
(7) https://www.cjrarchive.org/img/posts/BloombergFOIwin.pdf
(8) https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
(9) https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-3305974
(10) https://www.usagold.com/cpmforum/who-owns-and-controls-the-federal-reserve/

Posted on

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) Case, Bank Of Canada

An update on this is coming soon.
It’s time to go through this again.

1. From COMER’s 2011 Press Release

The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.

The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

The gist of the press release, and of the Claim overall, is that Canada’s banking system has been hijacked and usurped. As such, it is controlled by foreign entities such as the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.

As was outlined in the last article, Canada’s banking “was” effectively turned over. The result is that Canada, instead of loaning money to itself, is now borrowing from private banks. As such, it is being bled dry.

In fact, COMER’s claims can be easily validated by online research. The question for the Court to decide: is this actually legal?

2. Ruling Striking Out Statement of Claim

[5] The core elements of COMER’s Claim can be reduced to three parts:
1. The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.
2. The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.
3. These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.

The Pronothary summarizing the main issues the Plaintiffs raise

Discussion
[41] Against these competing positions, it must be remembered that the test for striking an action is a high one. The action must be bereft of any chance of success and as noted above just because it is a novel cause of action it does not automatically fail.[26]

[42] The Supreme Court of Canada has recently summarized the principles to be applied on a motion to strike. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.,[27] the Chief Justice, writing for the Court made the following observations regarding a motion to strike:

17. The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of [page 67] success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

. . .

21. Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised [page68] on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

What we can gain from this is that striking out a Statement of Claim is something that must be done cautiously, and only when it is plain and obvious that there is no chance to succeed.

Some of what may be “struck out” now, may in fact later be the basis for new laws, so the Courts should exercise caution and not jump to conclusions.

[30] The Crown further contends that COMER’s claim is outside this Court’s jurisdiction as it fails to meet the three-part test set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v. Miida Electronics Inc.[21] In ITO, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in the context of an admiralty action. The Supreme Court determined that jurisdiction in the Federal Court depends on three factors:
1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament.
2. There must be an existing of body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be a “law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 [page 766]

[57] The jurisdictional issue raised by the Crown engages the three part test set out in ITO as discussed above. The Crown argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain tort claims against Federal authorities.

[58] However, pursuant to sections 2, 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act, the wording is sufficiently wide to capture these types of claims against federal actors and Crown servants. It is therefore not plain and obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain claims seeking declaratory relief as here.

One of the major contentions is that the Government alleged that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to even hear the case. The Pronothary took a different view. However, there were other problems which ended with this.

[71] There is ample authority in this Court and in the jurisprudence generally that where a claim has some kernel of a legitimate claim it should not be tossed aside but permitted to be amended to determine if the clam in law can be cured.[45]

[72] Given that the Claim, in my view, is not justiciable, leave to amend will not cure the defects. Leave to amend is therefore not granted.

The case was thrown out on a motion to strike. However, that will not be the end of it. The Plaintiffs would appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court.

3. COMER Appeals Dismissal


(See here.)

The striking out (without permission to amend) was appealed to a Justice of the Federal Court. This was a partial victory, as the dismissal “was” upheld, but it allowed the Plaintiff’s to file an amended Claim. This would be another “chance” to get it right.

4. COMER Tries To File Again


(See here.)
After the Justice of the Federal Court upheld the dismissal (but giving leave to amend the Statement of Claim), COMER appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Government cross-appealed.

In short, the Plaintiffs were trying to get the dismissal overturned entirely, while the Government tried to remove the clause to allow COMER to file an amended Statement of Claim.

The Federal Appeals Court panel (3 Justices) threw out both the appeal and cross-appeal.

5. COMER’s Amended Statement Thrown Out


(See here.)

[66] In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].

[67] The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.

[68] The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

[69] The Plaintiffs also remind the Court that the line between fact and evidence is not always clear (Liebmann v Canada, 1993 CanLII 3006 (FC), [1994] 2 FC 3 at para 20) and that the Amended Claim must be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above, at para 10.

Plaintiffs arguing that the Defendant has not actually met the burden to strike out a Statement of Claim. However, the Justice decides differently.

[137] In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.

[138] The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to 91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.

The Justice Rules that the original problems are left unfixed. As such, the case is thrown out. This time, there is no leave to amend, so if this is to continue, it must go back to the Federal Court of Appeals.

6. Return to Federal Court of Appeals


(See here.)

[9] The essence of the Federal Court judge’s reasoning for striking the amended statement of claim is summed up at paragraph 144 of his reasons: It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and declare contested legal rights.

[10] The appellants assert that the opinion so expressed is wrong in law. In support of this proposition, they essentially reiterate the arguments which they urged upon the Federal Court judge and ask that we come to a different conclusion. Counsel for the appellants focused his argument during the hearing on the issue of standing and the right to seek declarations of constitutionality. It remains however that, as the Federal Court judge found, the right to a remedy is conditional on the existence of a justiciable issue.

The Federal Appeals Court believes that COMER is still asking for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the FCA still believes that no justiciable issue has been raised.

7. Supreme Court of Canada Declines To Hear Case


(See here.)

The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, which means it is legally over. It would have been nice to have some actual reasons included. However, due to the volume of cases it receives, rejected applications generally don’t receive them.

Despite repeated rejection by the Courts, the questions about the changes in banking policy were never really addressed. Does giving control of our central bank to foreign powers break the law?

This is supposedly a “political” issue, but no politicians are willing to talk about it.

As of now, Canada is still borrowing money from private banks, as opposed to ourselves. We are racking up huge levels of debt that we shouldn’t be.

(1) http://www.comer.org ARCHIVE
(2) http://www.comer.org/content/SupremeCourtDecision_4May17.htm
(3) http://www.comer.org/content/COMER_CourtCasePressRelease.pdf
(4) http://comer.org/content/COMER_CourtProceedings5Dec2012.pdf
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc855/2013fc855.html
(6) http://comer.org/content/COMER_Appeal24April2014.pdf
(7) http://comer.org/content/COMER_FederalCourtDecisionApr2014.pdf
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca312/2016fca312.html