Canadian Election party leaders debate 7th October 2019

As a result of the CBC discussions about this debate and their continuous nauseous talks about winners or loosers I felt obliged to communicate this to them:

Leaders’ “Debate” Debacle.

You have been asking viewers what they thought of the event on Monday 7th October 2019 and after watching you devote soo much time to trying to make it much more than it was I decided to give you my thoughts.

The Format was designed to be a failure; after all, do you know any politician or religious guider who can be really succinct? You invited confrontation but did not give enough time for it to develop from either protagonist so why bother? You also had a leader of a party with no elected members in the last parliament and very little chance of even obtaining party status this time around.

I would classify this as a discussion of the climate as it was introduced into every topic and the real problem of pollution was hardly mentioned.  The largest carbon-sequestering agents are either very sick in the case of the oceans, or diminished by massive cutting or burning of forests.   Yet the bigger threat to mankind – and all other species – is the rollout of the 5G networks the damage from which will make environmental problems immaterial and will perhaps give the earth a chance to recover from the most invasive species it has ever known. Not even mentioned either through ignorance or fear of the communication corporations and their monies.

It was also painfully obvious that not one of those so-called leaders was even aware that the trillion-plus national debt was caused by failing to use the bank of Canada to finance our needs.  In 1974 when the Bank of Canada was turned into an inflation watchdog instead of a source of finance our national debt – owed to ourselves by the way – was a mere $22 billion, and today it is very nearly $1.3 trillion owed to international banks and investors.  There was not a leader on the stage who even considered that, in their efforts to explain how they would pay for anything, they would restart the use for which the Bank of Canada was created. When you consider what we created, built and paid for with the Bank of Canada then today’s problems are very small potatoes.   Today’s money-raising is through increased taxes or cuts…very innovative.

In your follow up programming you have asked some people, many pundits etc., to explain who was the winner and if they had changed their minds about which leader they would vote for thereby taking us further away from the concept of democracy.   The purpose of an election may I remind you, as you seem to have forgotten, is to elect a representative to our parliament, not to elect a dictator. How many times did you ask people which leader they would vote for when that name is not even on the ballot in 337 ridings? What are you promoting here?  Clearly you are in favour of the waring party system which has got us into this mess and gives us one dictatorship after another instead of the democracy so often falsely claimed to exist in this country.

As for the winners – there were none, yet the losers were very definitely the people of Canada who were promised a momentous event and got a dud squib.

 

Jeremy

 

Is a new privately owned Canadian Infrastructure Bank treason?

Press release sent out on 12th May 2017 with copies to every MP Canada’s dysfunctional democracy has in it’s parliament.

Infrastructure Bank of Canada

 

There is no doubt in my mind that this bank is not in the best interests of the people of Canada, but is a huge boon to the supporters of the Liberal (and maybe even the Conservative) party of Canada.

 

How anyone in their right mind and being, as they so often claim, “representatives of the people of Canada”, can conceive that a bank created and supported by financial entities only concerned with making a profit for themselves whilst taking over the major infrastructure projects at  both federal,  provincial  and municipal levels as being in the best interests of not only Canada but also the Canadian people is beyond my comprehension until I realise that those who support such a venture are indeed traitors to Canada.

 

We have the means and the ability through the Bank of Canada, designed to bring dividends to Canada instead of rapidly increasing debt to all levels of Canadian governmental institutions, to provide both Canada and Canadians with all they need to return to being a prosperous country again.   However  both this government and the previous one are, or were, hell bent on taking Canada into a position of complete subservience to the large banking and corporate interests. Such concepts as sovereignty and democracy mean nothing to them, and those MPs who support them are not worthy of being called Canadians even though they are gladly feeding at the federal trough, and will no doubt benefit well from supporting such a bank.

 

I have no doubt that there will be huge tax concessions to all international and domestic entities which invest in this venture whilst the ordinary Canadian will continue to be taxed heavily on any small profit they make from employment, investments,  savings and more, as well as paying user fees,  to pay for the profits to be derived by this monstrous and totally unnecessary bank.

 

If it is so important to have a referendum on the way we vote, why is it not important to have a referendum on the way we give Canada away?   Where are people like Scott Reid on this subject?  As he is such a stickler for the importance for Canadians to have their say (which they actually had in the election of 2015) on election reform why is he not arguing for such a referendum on this bank?  Could it be that democratic and sovereignty matters are now strictly subjective subjects for theoretical debate and no longer apply to Canada or Canadians?

 

Our elected representatives are failing us with a completeness which proves how broken our system of government has become.

 

There is no logic for Canadians in this bank.

 

There is no profit or benefit for Canadians in this bank.

 

In our 150th year since the original confederation of a mere 4 provinces, augmented later by the eventual creation and addition of more provinces and territories, our so called federal government is handing the whole kit and caboodle over to unelected entities which have no respect for or responsible to Canadians.

 

WHERE IS THE MANDATE FOR SUCH TREASON?

 

WHERE IS THE ANGER FROM CANADIANS?

 

IT REALLY IS TIME FOR CANADIANS TO HAVE THEIR SAY IN OUR DYSFUNCTIONAL AND UNDEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENT.

 

LET’S GET AT IT WHILST WE STILL HAVE A COUNTRY.

 

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party.

Sidney BC

250-216-5400

Order of Canada

Ms. Julie Dickson

Officer of the Order of Canada

 

I was waiting for a plumber to show up to fix a clothes washer problem and was idly watching CPAC when the Order of Canada awards ceremony was taking place.  This was the edition that was celebrating 50 years of these awards, and CPAC aired it on 14th March. 2017. 

 Whenever I see these things I am fascinated by what people have done to receive such awards, from medicine to schools to athletics and even to politics and civil service, to drama, writing, artists and even sometimes humour.

 It was today that I learned that Ms. Julie Dickson was to be awarded with Officer of the Order of Canada, which it great for her and I am sure well earned.  However, when I heard what she had done I was somewhat puzzled, then annoyed.

 You see Ms. Dickson has been a proponent of banking instability since 1980 but really since 2002 at which time she was a member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and remained so until 2006.

 By now I was a little more than interested, I was beginning to get intrigued and annoyed at the same time.

 For those who do not know the Basel 1, 11 & 111 agreements are simply banking agreements between privately owned central banks and have nothing to do directly with the various countries whose private central banks have signed these agreements. 

 So how does Canada fit with this group of private central banks, when our Bank of Canada is publicly owned?

 It fits because in 1974 when the Bank of International Settlements was started to protect the financial interests of the private central banks around the world, but principally in the US and Europe, from the publicly owned banks which were not gouging their governments with compounding interest rate credit loans.   Gerald Bouey who was the Governor of the Bank of Canada in 1974 when the BIS came calling, had the unmitigated gall to sign on a publicly owned central bank to a privately-owned banking agreement without the approval of either the owners of that bank or that of the parliament of Canada.  Some claim that it was all Pierre Trudeau’s fault, but according to Paul Hellyer, who was part of his cabinet, the government had no knowledge of the agreement being signed.   I imagine they found out when they saw the huge increase in interest rates, and should have immediately removed Bouey and cancelled the agreements, but they did not and thereby their complicity in the problem we have today.

 OK so what does this have to do with Ms. Dickson you may well ask?

 It would appear that in 1980 she won her MA in Economics from Queen’s University, and went directly to the Finance Department of Canada, working her way up till 2007 where she became Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), under the direction of the then Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty.

Clearly, they must have been a good fit because neither of them, both supposedly economists, could see that economically it made so much more sense to use the Bank of Canada rather than obtaining international credit at higher compounding interest rates to fund Canada’s needs.   Between them they sort of muddled through the 2008 international financial fiasco, and managed to assist Canada’s banks to survive with huge donations via the CHMA during the election of 2008  all the while claiming that there was not and would not be a banking problem in Canada….Remember that?

 From 2014 until now she is a member of the Supervisory board for the European Central Banks, and so you can be sure that any efforts to re employ the Bank of Canada for Canada’s use is definetly against her job.

 It is also ironic that the Bank of International Settlements which started the road to our high National debt by seducing Gerald Buoey in 1974 are now issuing a warning that our national debt is too high.  Maybe they fear we will renege on our debt and they will not get their unearned compounding interest …!

 I congratulate Ms. Dickson on a job very well done by her, even though it goes entirely against both my grain and the wellbeing of Canada, and I have trouble in understanding how someone can be awarded such an honour when she has spent her entire working life depriving Canadians of the use of their own bank, thereby increasing our national debt from $22 billion or so in `1974 to todayt over $1 trillion..

 Could it be that the owners of the Canadian National debt are now stepping in to  tell us how to reward their faithful servants with such awards as the Order of Canada? Is that possible? 

 Alice’s looking glass strikes again.

 Go figure.

 

Jeremy

A vision turning into a nighmare

Just a few days ago, I was driving along Lochside into Sidney, BC and stopped at a shoreline watching area to enjoy the large fluffy white clouds and the strange shapes they were creating 0ver the San Juan Islands, and the mainland – Washington State USA at that point.  The sun was shining on them and their whiteness was exaggerated by that.   As the sun slowly sank over the western horizon these clouds lost their glint and started turning grey and dark.   Time to move.

 On my way home I was thinking about what I had just seen and I realized it was a sort of metaphor for Canada since the 1930s.

 In 1974 our world was rosy. We had a small national debt we owed to ourselves, we had been through 40 years of growth and prosperity (even after the end of WW2 which we paid for our share ourselves) with very little inflation and the world was looking good.  The sun was shining on Canada as in our white clouds over the San Juans and their magnificent shapes.

 However greedy and powerful men both here at home and internationally saw the potential of Canada and wanted a piece of the pie so to speak.  At the behest of the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements was created to protect the interests and profits of the various privately owned central banks of countries around the world, and a series of agreements was created for this protection.  Basel 1, 11 and 111 are not international agreements between countries as most people thought or still think but are private banking agreements to which Gerald Bouey, then Governor of the Bank of Canada 1974,  signed our publicly owned bank into the first of those agreements.  He had no mandate to do so from either the government of Canada or the Canadian people, but I can only assume he was rewarded in the usual manner.   From that point on our national debt has spiraled out of control, no longer owed to ourselves but owned by international banks and investors.  

 In my metaphor the white clouds over the San Juans are losing their glow now

 Over the last 40+ years successive governments, most particularly of some form of conservatives, have signed Canada into multiple deals they call Free Trade deals, starting with the Canada/USA FTA and currently being crowned with the CETA with Europe.   This CETA is the first one that has been openly called an economic agreement, that’s what the “E” stands for, but it is the culmination of years of false Free Trade deals all of which have been designed to allow investors from overseas to claim damages from our Federal government through a corporate tribunal if ANYTHING we do stops them from making a perceived profit from dealings in Canada.  This anything includes laws, or regulations to protect either our environment or our workers and their jobs.  Not only that but Canadian corporations have discovered that if they incorporate in Delaware USA (cheapest place in North America) it allows them to take advantage of NAFTA.   $130 million donated to Abitibi Bowater by Stephen Harper in a perfectly defendable claim against Newfoundland & Labrador that he chose to ignore, and $250 currently being claimed by Lone Pine Power of Calgary.

 By now the white clouds of the metaphor have turned very grey and I leave and head home. 

 Canada meanwhile has been put into a box where our sovereignty is given to international corporations which now control our very country, not only through our monetary debt to them but through our so called “FREE TRADE DEALS” 

 Free?  I think not!

 The current version of a Liberal government is in fact a complete duplicate of the Stephen Harper regime intent on signing away more of our rights and indeed even wanting to take privatization further than even Libertarians could have dreamed about.  Our publicly owned Bank of Canada is to be replaced by a privately sponsored Infrastructure Bank of Canada which will have to give away control of anything in which it invests so we Canadians will have to pay user fees in order to satisfy the need for profit to those banks and investors as well as the compounding interest of our ever-increasing national debt.   Now our prime minister is looking to sell of our airports and sea ports to private operators so the cost of using them both will increase exponentially, and will of course be covered by more user fees.

 By now I am home and it is getting much darker with no sunset to light up the horizon and I am left wondering how “sunny days and sunny ways” had disappeared so soon and left us with a dictator who could exchange masks with Stephen Harper (as shown in that cartoon a few months ago), and no-one would notice the difference.

 It really is time for a peaceful revolt not only for Canada but also in BC where we are desperately in need of a legislature not controlled by the mining, development, housing and oil and gas interests.

 Unfortunately, I didn’t sleep very well that night, thinking of my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

 

Jeremy

Black Clouds over Canada

VERY BLACK CLOUDS ARE REPLACING “SUNNY DAYS”.

 This last month we have been presented with our worst fears about the so called “sunny days” government of Canada.

 We understood that sunny days and sunny ways meant that we had elected a government that was willing to listen to us and work with us and for us.   That concept was refreshing and even a little encouraging despite some inherent reservations.

 Yes, we saw a balanced cabinet, yes we saw an initial change in the atmosphere in the House when it convened to pass some immediate tax relief for the upper “middle class” – really how many Canadians are actually in the “middle class” bracket?   For those on CPP and OAS or those struggling to make $40,00 per year it was a completely meaningless exercise.

 But what has happened since then to give Canadians the idea that we are important, that we matter, that indeed we even count as far as this federal government is concerned?

 Well, there has been consultation on election reform held assiduously around the country and with thousands of people making presentations to the special committee.  Since the conservatives have been insisting on a referendum first (not sure on what as the vast majority of Canadians want a change) and now the NDP are going to support that, so maybe there is little chance of there being any development by 2019. Good tactics by the Cons so they can say: “See he didn’t keep this huge promise!”   How does maneuvering like this serve the Canadian people?

 TPP consultations were held to supposedly allow Canadians to express their views, but in fact the committee was presented to 95% by corporate sponsors with a smattering of individual views expressed so a foregone conclusion was reached in a flawed process.

 The aboriginal people of Canada were promised much for education, housing and health but is the money flowing or are consultations still preventing that from happening?

 The cracks are therefore beginning to appear.

 Questions in November and December of 2015 by yours truly about the Bank of Canada and the construction of the Infrastructure Bank were brushed off or simply ignored.

Then we have the CETA, a dodo bird like investment agreement, revived by the creation of a European court of unknown jurisprudence to replace corporately controlled tribunals and signed in Belgium with still some reservations within Europe and some huge hurdles to be passed there; but here in Canada our Government will gladly give the “farm” away to Europe. Our provinces will go along with it because they are being bribed by the federal government with compensation for losses.  Will these compensations be annual or one time and who is going to pay for them?   It is unclear but either way it is a sellout of our country and surrender of our sovereignty to international corporate whims and profits.  Sunny days?  Right!  

 Did you vote for this?

 How many Canadians are aware that we have our own public bank, the Bank of Canada designed and mandated to finance infrastructure (and more)?  A bank used between 1935 and 1974 to finance the period of the greatest growth and prosperity in Canada’s history?   A period of low inflation and low national debt?  It is generally thought that Trudeau senior was responsible for the change from the BOC to international bank loans, but in fact it was the then governor of the BOC, one Gerald Bouey, who agreed to the BIS demands and agreements. At that time our National debt was a mere $22 billion owed basically to ourselves through our own bank.  Today that debt is over $1 trillion and growing with a tail of compounding interest rates that are in fact the largest payment any federal government has to make every year.

 Trudeau junior, instead of reinstating the Bank of Canada as our primary source of finance, along with his corporate Minister of Finance is going to create a new privately owned bank. The Infrastructure Bank of Canada.  The necessity for this bank does not exist, but the need to surrender our commons or rapidly diminishing resources to the corporate world apparently does.  The result is that investors in this new bank will expect a profit worthy of their investment which means a 7-9% interest, most likely compounding at that. The only way this interest can be paid is to surrender the ownership of the infrastructures created or repaired to the Infrastructure Bank which will charge for the use either by tolls, usage fees or entry fees.  Thus the commons such as roads, bridges, water, sewage, garbage collection and recycling will then be owned by corporate interests through the new bank. One wonders how this will work when and if CETA comes into effect and Europeans can compete with the Infrastructure Bank for the right to provide those services.  Can you imagine the court claims?

 In comparison, the Bank of Canada charges a minimal rate without any ownership claims and when their expenses have been paid it returns a dividend to the government, or at least it used to when it was being used to carry out the mandate created by the Bank of Canada Act of 1935.

 We can blame Stephen Harper for his desire to destroy Canada expressed in 2006 or Justin Trudeau for the continuation of that path , or we can blame ourselves for allowing them to do what their corporate masters tell them to do.

 Who benefits from turning Canada into a corporation controlled state?   You can be sure that the answer is not the people of Canada, or at least not those who are part of the so called 99%.

 If this is what you want for your children and grandchildren, then you will be happy. 

If you do not want this then look to the Canadian Action Party which has steadfastly stood not only for the return of the Bank of Canada as our source of finance, the protection of our commons and our environment but also for the people of Canada. 

We have no corporate ties and are only answerable to you.

 

Join us at http://www.actionparty.ca and have you say in the future of Canada.

 

Jeremy Arney

 

Canada’s Fall economic update, or how to follow Alice through the looking glass

Fall economic Update by Minister of Finance for Canada in the Canadian House of Commons 1st November 2016

 At approximately 1524 in the update the Minister of Finance announced this, and I quote from Hansard:

“Our communities need to keep people and goods moving. Our most vulnerable citizens need housing. Our kids need and deserve clean air and clean water. Our country needs long-term economic growth.

To solve these challenges, we need to think even bigger. We need reliable partners. Canada’s pension funds and institutional investors around the world have world-leading expertise and they are eager to make big, long-term investments in Canada.

I am happy to announce that the Government of Canada is establishing a new Canada infrastructure bank, through which at least $35 billion will flow to help us undertake transformative projects that might not otherwise get built. This bank will allow us to create thousands of jobs, get more projects built, and attract $4 to $5 in private capital for every tax dollar invested. That is progress.”

Then at 1525 or so this:

“Decades from now, when my kids tell the story of when their dad was finance minister, I want them to be able to look back and see our government’s first year in office as the year Canada began on the path towards a new, modern economy. We are well on our way”.

Now I am a simple man, not a lawyer, not a financial expert nor an economist; I have worked hard all my life to provide for my families and sometimes even myself. I simply cannot understand how anyone who claims to listen to the Canadian people, who claims to have the best interests of Canadians uppermost in his mind, and is looking to get the approval of his own children, can be so blind to the economic reality facing him.  He is privatising the entire infrastructure of Canada, from the federal, provincial and indeed to the municipal level.  The profits will not come to Canada for the benefit of Canadians but will go instead into off shore bank accounts.

 IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?

 This bank, as he so blatantly stated, will be a private bank, owned and financed by corporate interests and the pension funds.  These investors will expect a profit in the neighbourhood of 7% – 9% or they will not invest.  Who will be paying this profit?  Why the Canadian people of course, or lets correct that, it will be the middle and lower earning Canadians, as the top earners are the ones who will be investing in this bank for profit and no doubt will find loop holes and write-offs to eliminate their share of taxes which would otherwise help to pay for this gross mismanagement of Canada’s wealth.

There is another aspect to this and that is CETA should it ever actually become a reality, because this bank could in fact stop profits from European banks which might like to invest directly in some of our projects, or make loans to our municipal or provincial governments. Not being able to do so at profit will give them the opportunity to take Canada to a European court of doubtful jurisprudence which will then dictate our laws to us and of course fine us. Wonder how much money the Minister has allowed for that and where he will get it from.

 Canada is in the enviable position of owning its own bank already, a public bank called the Bank of Canada which was responsible for financing the greatest period of growth and prosperity Canada has ever know, from 1935 to 1974.  Look at the history of financing our part in WW2, having the largest merchant navy in the world, the St Lawrence Seaway, CPP, healthcare, what used to be called Unemployment Insurance, Trans Canada highway, railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools – the list is almost endless and after all that and with minimal inflation we had a national debt in 1974  of just $22 billion basically owed to ourselves!

 Today, according to the World National debt clock, our national debt is over $1 trillion and rising fast.  

 What does the Finance Minister have to say about using the Bank of Canada?  I quote from part of a letter sent to me by one of his staff in reply to my letter concerning the refusal of this government to use of the Bank of Canada, and querying how the infrastructure bank mentioned in one of the leaders’ debates in 2015 would be financed:

 “It is sometimes suggested that the Government of Canada should fund part or all of its debt by borrowing from then Bank of Canada, rather than by borrowing in private sector markets. The Government does not support this approach, as it would require the Bank to create new domestic currency, which does not create any additional wealth.

In fact, the experience of many nations has demonstrated that relying on domestic currency creation to finance government expenditures results in excessive inflation.

While some inflation is desirable to ensure price stability, too much inflation can adversely affect economic growth.  Furthermore, excessive spending and domestic currency creation often lead to a misallocation of scarce resources.”

There is so much inherently wrong with these two paragraphs, but I will simply ask how can anyone really understand the logic of turning a publicly owned bank from a mandated money supplier (Bank of Canada Act 1935) and even a dividend payer to the Minister of Finance, into a simple and toothless inflation watchdog?  The logic of this is beyond me and all I can think is that the current politicians, none of whom support the mandated use of the Bank of Canada, have somehow listened to the siren calls of the big international banks and investors, and believe their call over the needs of their constituents and indeed Canada.

 The fight to stop COMER from  taking the Bank of Canada, the Finance Minister and Government of Canada to court to force them to return to using the Bank of Canada continues, with appeal after appeal from the government in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.   How can they be right when we are heading further and further into an abyss since we stopped using the Bank of Canada.

 Now we know for sure that this Liberal Government is actually as bad as or even worse than the previous Harper regime, and although they claim to listen to the people of Canada, they do not.

 At least we knew that Harper wanted to destroy Canada as he said would in 2006, but this government is racing to out Harper Harper.

 Shame on them all, and shame on us for not fighting them tooth and nail. 

 Unlike the Minister’s wealthy children looking back in pride at their daddy’s perfidy, our children, grand children and great grand children will ask us the question: “Where were you when Canada was sold?”

 

Jeremy Arney

 

 

There must be something in the water in Ottawa

1st September 2016

Here we go into Alice’s looking glass again with Justin and Bill to my complete amazement, disgust and lack of approval. Seeking their god(s) approval I suppose and talking us further into the rabbit hole of debt.

The Infrastructure Bank of Asia?

We are going to invest in this?

Apart from the currency of choice how is this different from the IMF and their rapacious interest rates?

Canadian Infrastructure Bank?

We are going to create one of our own?

I saw no money set aside in the 2016 Budget for these two banks so by what sleight of hand will the money be created?

I have no problem with investing in Canada.

I have no problem with using the Bank of Canada to create money for that investment; but I do have an enormous problem with borrowing money from international banks and investors to create an unnecessary bank for our infrastructure, and borrowing money to invest in a foreign infrastructure bank, on which we will be paying compounding interest rates.

We knew that Harper’s Government, acting as if it was the Government of Canada, did not have a single economist among their ranks, and they only managed to come vaguely close to balancing the budget by selling Canada’s assets at bargain basement prices, and really had no clue how to finance anything. The fact that the Liberals promised to invest in Canada instead of selling it off originally indicated to me that they had some plan and at least one economist in their midst.

Oh boy was I wrong!

At the Canadian Action Party we believe this:

What is physically possible, desirable and morally right, we can make it financially possible through the Bank of Canada.”

With the exception of the Libertarians every other registered but unrepresented Canadian Political party also believes this, but those parties which have representation in the House of Commons believe that we should be increasing debt instead to international banks and investors, paying them compounding interest rates to boot. The payment of the interest on our national debt is the single largest payment Canada has to make year after year and still this government of ours wants to increase that debt and the increasing interest payments. There is no way to realistically leave our children any sort of future in this country if we continue with this height of absurdity.

Our grand fathers created and left us with the Bank of Canada, something some 70 cities and counties and 8 or so States in the USA want to replicate by having proposals for creating public banking on their November Ballots this year; and yet there is no political party represented in our House of Commons which can see the value of what we have and is actually still mandated to do what it did so well from 1935 – 1974 when out national debt was $22 billion owed to ourselves through the Bank of Canada. Today our national debt stands at over $1, trillion with compounding interest owed on that to international banks and investors.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada

Tell me this makes sense.

Tell me that the MPs of Canada have not been subdued, threatened or bribed in some way to accept this on behalf of their children.

Tell me that you agree with this increasing and absolutely unnecessary debt.

Tell me that you agree with these infrastructure banks when we already have our own Bank of Canada which can do all these things here at home much more efficiently and cheaply .

Tell me that you want these problems of national indebtedness to be passed on to your children.

But better than that tell me that you want the stooges in Ottawa to start using their heads instead of their fears and act on behalf of their employers…you…and engage the Bank of Canada again to exercise it’s mandate to finance Canada’s needs.

Whatever hopes I entertained that we would see change with Justin Trudeau and his Liberals and their sunny days and ways has evaporated like the dew on a summer morning.

Jeremy Arney

Bank of Canada v Liberal Infrastructure Bank

To the Right Honourable Mr. William Morneau, 

Minister of Finance for Canada

Dear Mr. Morneau,

I thank you for the electronic letter 2016FIN428702 sent to me by Veena Bhullar (Senior Special Assistant –Operations) , in response to the section on The Bank of Canada from my letter to the Prime Minster of 25thNovember 2015.

First let me say that I do appreciate a response from your office but I have some serious problems with the content of the response.  I quote paragraphs two and three in particular to start with:

“It is sometimes suggested that the Government of Canada should fund part or all of its debt by borrowing from then Bank of Canada, rather than by borrowing in private sector markets. The Government does not support this approach, as it would require the Bank to create new domestic currency, which does not create any additional wealth.

In fact, the experience of many nations has demonstrated that relying on domestic currency creation to finance government expenditures results in excessive inflation.While some inflation is desirable to ensure price stability, too much inflation can adversely affect economic growth.  Furthermore, excessive spending and domestic currency creation often lead to a misallocation of scarce resources.”

Para #2

Are you seriously suggesting that the experience of “growth” in Canada between 1935 and 1974, including financing our part in WW2, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans Canada Highway, CPP, Our National Heath system along with a myriad of social services among so many other things, did not lead to growth and wealth of the country and the Canadian people?   It is completely obvious the private banks and investors of the world were angry that we were doing so well and that they were not making a huge profit from it, thus the creation of the Bank of International Settlements and its accompanying Basel agreements; through the signing of these agreements we gave them the right to gouge us with compounding interest rates as we started to borrow on credit from them. Your suggestion that the creation of national debt in 1974 of $22 billion owed basically to ourselves through our own Bank of Canada creating money to be spent into the economy is not preferable to the over $1 trillion currently owed to international banks and investors at that aforementioned compounding interest rate, based I might say on a series of computer strokes credit.    But you are right, the creation of new domestic money printed by the Bank of Canada to be spent by the government for the benefit of the people of Canada does not make money for the banks and international investors, even though it will benefit all Canadians, and indeed all our businesses too.  Sad that you cannot accept the Bank of Canada as a good thing for Canada, and essentially for our sovereignty as well.

Para#3

Please provide me with the names of those countries which own their own bank and have fallen into the path of excessive inflation through government expenditures.  I could give you many examples of countries which do not own their central bank which have fallen into that trap, (the UK and USA to mention just two), and offer instead the example of North Dakota a state of the USA which owns its own bank and thrives with no compounding interest debt to outsiders and no deficit in their budgets.  It should also be mentioned that Libya owned its own bank and was threatening to help create a Bank of Africa to be jointly owned by the African Nations and as a result of this threat to the IMF  we helped to destroy that country completely and allowed the IMF to establish a private central bank in place of the Libyan people owned bank.  Libya is now in financial ruins and complete chaos politically and socially. That is what happens when  private central banks get mad at potential lost profits..

As I mentioned above the concept that creation of money by the Bank of Canada to be spent into the economy (particularly for the people’s benefit) did not create excessive inflation between 1935 and 1974 and, is not creating inflation even now in North Dakota so that argument is spurious and very weak.

How will using the bank of Canada to finance our needs lead to misallocation of scarce resources?

 I would refer you to Paras #4 and 5:

“Since 1991, the Government and the Bank have jointly agreed that the central objective of monetary policy should be for the Bank to target an inflation rate of 2%. This is the best contribution monetary policy can make to solid performance.

Canada’s policy of low, stable and predictable inflation has served Canadians extremely well. This policy has contributed to creating a more stable economic environment relative to that of previous decades and has allowed households and businesses to make better long-term financial plans.”

Surely this government cannot believe that increasing the national debt from 22 billion owed to ourselves at a low flat rate interest, to close to or over $1 trillion today at a compounding interest rate owed to outside and private interests is an improvement.  Do you really think that households can make long-term plans when they are not sure if the breadwinners will even have a good job job next week? Or that business can make those same long term plans when they have no idea how long they will be in business, or when they will be bought out by foreigners and closed down. When, during the last decade, our manufacturing was sacrificed for bitumen production from Alberta, and the price for that bitumen feel through the floor our economy became as unstable as is our looney leading me to question the concept of “a more stable economic environment.”

No Mr. Morneau, I cannot believe or accept that the best use of the Bank of Canada is to simply be an inflation watchdog.

To move to another topic, I understand that this government intends to create an Infrastructure Bank. I have some questions about this.

What will it be called?

Who will own the bank?

Who will finance it?

Will there be an Act of Parliament to create it? (If the answer is yes, why would it have any teeth as the Bank of Canada Act has been ignored since 1974 and your government shows no signs of obeying the mandate created in 1935, as clearly stated in Para#1)

Will this new bank be subject to the Basel agreements?

Will this bank’s activities cause us to be challenged by the investments agreements already in place through a myriad of so called free trade deals and the CETA and TPP? (Yes I know these are under a different ministry but they refuse to answer my questions) because those multi million/billion dollar awards will affect your budget.

Which Ministry will administer this new bank’s activities or will it be a joint venture?

Will there be consultations with Canadians to determine if this extra national debt is acceptable to us?

 

Finally what is the point of this new Bank when we already have the Bank of Canada mandated to do this work? And how will the activities of this new bank not adversely affect inflation as you claim would the use of the Bank of Canada?  Surely if this bank is to operate on credit only supplied by international banks and investors at compounding interest rates that will drive our national debt through to the $2 trillion mark very quickly.

 

I cannot condone what your government is planning as I do not believe it is in the best interest of Canadians or Canada.

 

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party

 

 

Letter to Justin Trudeau about TPP and Bank of Canada

Dear Justin Trudeau,

 

May I as the interim leader of the Canadian Action Party congratulate you and your party on your success on 19th October 2015 due largely to the enthusiastic vision of hope and a bright future you portrayed for the country.

 

It was with great pleasure that I heard you say to your caucus:

“Regardless of the committee you’re on, the roles you have, regardless of party demands, regardless of everything else we do, your one job that you cannot ever forget is to be a strong voice in service of the people who sent you here.”

 

This was music to my ears as the Canadian Action Party has always agreed with this but have taken it a step further to say that we will represent all our constituents not just those who elected us. It was very refreshing to hear you say these words and this leads me to this.  On 19th October you and your party were elected to govern Canada on behalf of all of us not just those who voted for you, and therefore we as a whole country should be listened to and consulted on matters of national importance.

 

Since the government of New Zealand finally released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership, I have been slogging though it paying particular attention to Chapter 28 which is entitled Dispute Settlement. 

What is particularly striking in this chapter, written largely by the international corporations that were invited to consult on this TPP, is that now any corporation within the TPP area can ‘pile on’ with any other corporation which makes a claim against perceived profit loss due to laws or regulations which might hinder that profit. This is done through something called third party:

“third party means a Party, other than a disputing Party, that delivers a written notice in Accordance with Article 28.13 (Third Party Participation)”

Article 28.13: Third Party Participation

A Party that is not a disputing Party and that considers it has an interest in the matter before the panel shall, on delivery of a written notice to the disputing Parties, be entitled to attend all hearings, to make written submissions, to present views orally to the panel, and to receive written submissions of the disputing Parties. Such delivery shall occur no later than 10 days after the date of circulation of the request for the establishment of the panel pursuant to Article 28.7.2 (Establishment of a Panel).

 

Whereas in previous investment agreements, disguised as  trade deals, dating back to the Free Trade Agreement between Mulroney’s Government and that of Ronald Reagan, only the corporations of the two countries in the agreement could launch a financial attack upon the taxpayers of the other country, now we have multiple corporations from multiple countries jumping on each claim.  This means that we simply cannot afford any laws or regulations that would offend any corporation anywhere in the Pacific Rim area.  Simply and astonishingly ridiculous.  Or as stated in the Vienna Convention On The Law of Treaties signed at Vienna 13 May 1959 Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation, “(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.”

 

It is also manifestly plain that this is nothing to do with a free trade zone as there are tariffs, quotas, import and export licenses, side deals, side agreements and many other impediments to a real free trade zone involved in this TPP agreement, all of which could lead to a dispute if a corporation (with third party hangers on) decides it can and should appeal to yet another monetary award panel due to perceived profit loss. Remember no court of law either domestic or international is involved here. Simply international corporate lawyers deciding how much should be awarded. This is simply a gold mine for corporations at the expense of tax payers of all the countries involved.

 

On page 1-3 of Initial Provisions and General Definitions, under Section B, Article 1.3 General Definitions there are three definitions which throw this entire agreement into the area of the ridiculous, even treasonous, typical of the last ruling regime in Canada.
national means a natural person who has the nationality of a Party according to Annex 1-A(Party-Specific Definition) or a permanent resident of a Party.

person means a natural person or an enterprise

person of a party means a national or an enterprise of a Party

 

To those of us who are aware that we are all actually natural persons, but with careful and considerable forethought that natural person state has been altered over the last few decades as Canadians have been, and are now being, created into artificial people by our government without the rights of natural persons. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to expect us to accept that a corporate entity from one of the members of the TPP countries has been granted the status of a natural person with all the rights and privileges granted to natural persons, whilst we are not regarded in the same light by our governments. We are simply numbers expected to obey all laws and regulations without question and subject to fines and or imprisonment for failing to do so, but must also pick up the tab for those entities who attack our country for monetary gain..

 

The Canadian Action Party and I agree that this TPP scam should not be ratified and that all investment agreements dating back to and including the FTA with the USA should be scrapped and real trade deals signed in their place.

 

Point I am trying to make here Mr. Trudeau is that you will be globe trotting in the next few months to basically announce to the world that Canada is back as a sovereign country with the intent to be a real player for the people of the world, with the desire to help and be a country that can be relied on to be a good neighbour not a pugilistic war monger looking for a fight.   Is that your intent? I hope so.  Point is how can you do this if at the same time you are signing away our sovereignty and ability to make our own laws and regulations to corporations which care not one whit about people anywhere, only for their bottom lines.  This is what you will be doing by allowing Canada to be part of a faulty corporate investment deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership. 

 

The second point I want to bring up at this time is that both I and the Canadian Action Party applaud your intent to invest in Canada. Austerity never has been and never will be the way to prosperity in fact it leads to the opposite for the people of any country except those at the very top. 

I, and the Canadian Action Party, trust that as you will be using our own bank – the Bank of Canada – to finance these investments at a very low flat rate of interest rather than international banks and investors at a compounding interest rate.

As I am sure you are aware your new government is now under court attack by the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) due to the Bank of Canada not being used as mandated by the Bank of Canada Act of 1935; you could not do better than to use this incredible jewel we, the people of Canada, possess to return us to prosperity, and receive a dividend from our bank at the same time.   Of course by doing so we will be in line for review panel challenges from corporate banks and investors all over the world because they will lose a very lucrative golden egg.  This is another reason why the Canadian Action Party would excuse Canada from all those investment deals which would enable such challenges on how we finance our own country.

 

I wish you well, and trust that you will bring about that change you often talked about, scrapping TPP and using our Bank of Canada would be two excellent ways to start.

 

Jeremy Arney

Bank of Canada slips into its new niche.

So here we go again, not that it has really stopped since 2006, but since 2011 the Canadian administration BS and bafflegab has gone hip high to an elephant.

 

On Wednesday 21st January 2015 the Bank of Canada confirmed again that it is now nothing more than an inflation watchdog. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has even proudly claimed that that is the Bank’s #1 priority  when he said on November 4th 2014, Standing Committee on Finance in response to a long garbled question by James Rajotte, and I quote from Hansard

 

“Tying that to the second half of your question is very important. The Bank of Canada has only one goal, and that’s to keep inflation on its target within a timeframe of around six to eight quarters. That’s our horizon of flexibility.”…..Hansard with my highlights.

 

 

Any economist, or for that matter teenager, knows that if you reduce your income and increase your expenditures you are heading for financial disaster. Regretfully there does not appear to be an economist (or anyone even with the acumen of a teenager) in the ranks of the present administration as they have from day one reduced Canada’s income by drastically cutting corporate tax rates, minutely cutting personal tax rates, reducing GST absolutely unnecessarily, increasing personal taxes by a thousand mini cuts such as  tariff increases etc., and their lavish expenses have skyrocketed. We need 30 more very expensive MPs , $16 dollar glasses of orange juice or million dollar ferrying of a security limo for presidential PM use in India to give just a few examples, in the same way we need holes in our heads. 

Well hold on Arney there was a melt down in 2008 wasn’t there?

 

Yes there was and it was categorically denied by the Harper government. During the 2008 election $75 billion was donated to our Canadian banks through the CMHA even while Harper and Flaherty were trying to say we were immune from the problems coming fast and hard at the rest of the world and claiming that our banks were rock solid!  This eventually topped out at a whopping $114 billion in 2009.

 

Two months later whilst still saying there wasn’t a problem Harper had to prorogue to avoid being defeated in the House and removed from power. He still could not see a problem!

 

So yesterday there he was answering questions about the economy and admitting that the price of oil was in fact costly to the Canadian bank account (Which bank are they using for their accounts by the way or are they all getting a piece of the pie)

 

So the price of oil has gone down substantially. Why? Not because it is now cheaper to extract it from the ground, transport the oil to refineries and turn it into a burnable fuel. No it’s because there is more oil available then there is a need for. A glut. Wonderful.

 

So will the price come up again? Most likely because the oil companies are too big to fail, and too blind to see the writing on the wall, and administrations such as that in Canada today will probably throw money at them that should be going to vets, seniors, the homeless, to help charities not cripple them, the infrastructure and the provinces.   Very likely that this is what will happen with Harper’s government because they are not interested in the health, fortune, wellbeing or standard of living of any Canadian who is not a card carrying CPC member and even they are often lumped in with the rest of us and told to fend for themselves.

 

Our manufacturing output is down because corporations like, CAT, Navistar (transport truck manufacturer), Kellogg’s, PACCAR( Kenworth and Peterbilt makers), Steelco, Alcoa, etc., have left the Canadian scene along with their lost jobs, union pensions and taxes.   I also understand that Bombardier are seriously contemplating moving lock stock and barrel to Mexico soon.   Now that one will really hurt.

 

So, is all lost?   Depends on how well the new ”UN”fair elections act works for the administratio with the extra tools they have given themselves to steal their 4th election in a row later this year.

 

If everyone in the country becomes registered to vote and obtains the necessary ID, then acts upon that right to vote no matter how much there is disruption at the voting places caused by the CPC scrutinizers who will try and create massive lineups and delays and make non CPC voters give up in disgust, we can get a real peoples’ government back. This distruption will be done with the aid of something called bingo cards which will tell them when their own supporters have voted and allow them to start causing a ruckus to prevent anyone else from voting.

 

If we believe that we all have the right to vote in spite of Harper’s government efforts to take that away from us, and exercise that right we can and will get rid of the worst Prime Minister, and his government, that Canada has ever had, and start the job of rebuilding what was once a nation to be believed in.

 

Of course I would want everyone to vote for the Canadian Action Party where we have Candidates as we are probably the only party which specifically wants to represent our constituents to the HOC not the HOC to our constituents. Where our MP votes will be free and caucus meetings an exchange of ideas not relaying dictums from above. Where the Bank of Canada will again be used to finance Canada’s needs at little or no cost and manufacturing jobs will return home instead of leaving for Mexico or somewhere else where labour is cheap and the products reflect that.

 

A country where once again Canadians can be proud to be part of it, and proud to help rebuild a country to help the world not cause wars, civilian deaths and destruction as in the case of Libya for instance. A nation whose standard of living was so far ahead of ours under Ghadafi until we destroyed everything he had built for his people from the safety of the air in the name of maintaining a no fly zone, turning them back into the stone age; where no government now exists and contestantly mercenary bands are fighting for control; where raping and civilian killings continue at pace, and their state owned bank has been replaced by  central bank sponsored by the IMF.

Some democracy we created there!

 So welcome Bank of Canada to your new role as inflation watchdog. Rest well for when we call on you to return to and fulfill your real role in Canada.

Join the movement to recover Canada in 2015.

Vote for CAP or anyone who will represent you to Ottawa, not Ottawa to you.

 

Jeremy Arney