A new bigger cabinet for Canada or is it?

 

 

I watched the swearing of the 2019 Liberal Cabinet with some interest and some great disappointment.

First and most important the same old oaths of allegiance were made to the Queen of the Commonwealth rather than to the people of Canada. Two things on this. First, she doesn’t pay one single solitary penny (or now obsolete cent) towards those who are swearing allegiance to her or to her representative here in Canada who is also paid and a home is provided for by the people of Canada to whom she owes absolutely no allegiance. She is simply a figurehead.   Second, if these MPs are elected and paid for by the people of Canada why do they not consider us allegiance worthy?

As to the cabinet itself it was a huge relief to se that Freeland was removed from the Foreign Office which might indicate that Canada will once again have relationships with all countries, Clearly, Freeland has some very strong views about which countries were and are acceptable to Canadians and I would venture to say that she was wrong in asserting her own prejudices upon us all.  It was and is and should be very important to have some relationship with all countries, especially those with whom we have disagreements.  How will differences be solved if we have to use countries such as Italy for example to communicate our views?   Perhaps if Ms. Freeland had spent more time on diplomatic relationships with those countries instead of taking over trade agreements (really disguised investment agreements) when we had a Trade Minister perfectly capable of doing that job then we would have more friends and fewer enemy states. Our relationships to Russia, Iran, China and Venezuela to mention just a few depended entirely on her whims and prejudices and not necessarily the desires of the Canadian people.  Since we are trying for a seat on the Security Council again then we should have been making friends not exacerbating her enemies.  Her position as deputy PM fills me with concern.

Searching for ministers who had any ties to the west – Alberta and Saskatchewan really – is I suppose a political future reality, but in my view, those two provinces clearly banked on Scheer being elected and lost.  Too bad.  They will be looked after as they are still part of Canada but to pander to their needs when they are so clearly out of step with reality is nonsense.   Oil is different from bitumen, and bitumen is what is extracted from the tar sands not oil. CBC pundits such as Alison Redford and the ultra-conservative Christy Clark seemed to think that oil and gas is still the number one priority for Canada rather than developing clean alternatives asap.  I still have no word from any bitumen export promoters as to where these “new” markets are located.

When CN and CP were sold to private interests any clout with them disappears into corporate profit which is separate from the needs of the Canadian people.   Has everyone forgotten what happened after the Wheat Board was closed (against the grain farmers wishes) and then sold to the Saudis and so no-one ordered rail cars for the grain?  Now there is a strike based on personnel safety – which could end up with another Lac Megantic disaster if not taken care of – and those provinces are screaming for back to work legislation. Oh boy.

Another disappointment is that there will be no return to the use of our own public  bank – the Bank of Canada – to finance what we need as both the Minister of Finance and the PM are both puppets to the big banks, both domestic and international and their profits must be assured no matter how much it costs the people of Canada.

Then there is O’Regan who mishandled how many portfolios (3) s in the last parliament being given even more powers as Minister of Natural Resources of all things.  Must be nice to be a buddy to the PM what?   How he will deal with the likes of Kenny whose redneck, bigoted,white supremacist roots are plain to see will be interesting to watch. I expect him to retreat in tears very quickly.

Overall not a particularly impressing cabinet but I will wait to see what happens.

 

Jeremy

Propaganda? Well yes

23rd March 2018

Just by chance today I happened to watch part of a panel session on CPAC called: INVESTING IN CANADIAN INNOVATION.

 One of the members of the panel (an American scientist) asked Justin Trudeau to explain the Kinder Morgan Pipe Line and what emerged was the usual total bullshit about carbon taxes and the meeting of mythical targets set in Paris.

 Once again there was the spectacle of our PM stating that we had to find new markets around the Pacific for our Alberta Bitumen.   In theory that may be fine but in practice that is simply not possible.

 As I have pointed out to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, Justice and the Environment as well as Trudeau himself, we are controlled by NAFTA in particular Article 605 which states:

“Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

  1. the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

Clearly, we have no room to send any bitumen anywhere except to the USA.   Rachel Notley told the Economic Club of Canada in November of last year that the USA was a monopoly buyer of Alberta’s bitumen, and she should know.  This being the case how can we bypass the above article?   Even sending one thimble of bitumen anywhere except to our southern neighbour will trigger a NAFTA tribunal claim.  What this means is that we would construct a pipeline to Burnaby, ship that thimble, to say Malaysia, for the benefit of Alberta and then all of Canada will have to pay a NAFTA tribunal claim by the US based on Article 605.

 None of the above Ministers have offered any explanation of how they will avoid this issue, and I do not expect to hear from them until 2019, based on the timing of the occasional and eventual previous answers.

At the same time, Trudeau expounded again in vague terms about the money to be invested in ocean, fish and whale protection against a spill.   Once again, I am amazed and annoyed at his total ignorance of the fact that we are talking bitumen here, not oil, and any attempts at a cleanup in the event of a supertanker mishap such as recently happened in the south China Seas is doomed to failure.   Bitumen is heavier than water and will sink in clumps to the ocean floor, and the gases that make up the dilutant will escape into the atmosphere and depending on the site of the mishap will cause harm to all living things that breathe downwind.

I live on the southern tip of Vancouver Island and know that the winds in the Georgia Strait and the Strait of Juan da Fuca blow in all directions.  Thus, again depending on the site of the collision, Vancouver, Richmond, White Rock, Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Port Angeles and Sequim not to mention Victoria and the San Juan Islands could all be devasted.  Whales, sea lions, seals, gulls, eagles and many more flying birds and bees etc., will all suffer or perish as well.

I was refused permission to attend and address the so-called public hearings on the basis that I would not be affected.  This was to be expected from the Harper regime, but we were promised sunny days and sunny ways and what it appears we are now being promised is the possibility of mass poisoning.  From one who came to Canada to raise a family and now have 4 generations established here on Vancouver Island I thank you for your complete indifference to our health and wellbeing Prime Minister.

Is it worth it?  Are we willing to sacrifice all this and those living creatures simply to donate some extra money to the USA through a NAFTA tribunal claim, and a couple of bucks to Alberta?

Today two MPs from the area were arrested at Burnaby doing what they believe is right and supporting their constituents and first nations of the area in their refusal to grant permission to have this pipeline do irreparable damage to this beautiful land and coast which we are here to protect for our children and grandchildren and generations to come.

There are many things Canada has done which shame us such as the residential schools and the complete destruction of Libya; our undying support of The State of Israel no matter who they kill and our incompetence in managing our own financial affairs since 1974 and now this wanton act of submission to corporate greed is another example of where we could have done soo much better.

Sunny days – my aunt fanny!

Jeremy

Canadian House of Commons farce call Oral Question Period

 

 

 

Anyone paying any attention to the last couple of weeks of QP would be painfully aware that this section of the House of Commons proceedings is becoming increasingly farcical every day.

 

The opposition, led by their attack poodle Poilievre, are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Even to me, a layman with no economic or real monetary training or expert knowledge in this field, it is clear that Poilievre really wants to accuse the Minister of Finance of insider trading.   I am not a fan of this Minister in any way as he clearly does not have the interests of Canadian uppermost in his mind. His concept of having private investors own our infrastructure through his Infrastructure Bank of Canada whilst refusing to borrow from our own bank at low straight interest rates instead of compounding interest being paid to privately owned international banks and investors cannot have the best interests of Canadians in mind.  In that, he is not alone as every Canadian politician seems to be afraid of those same bankers and investors.

 

However, it seems clear to me that when the Liberals took control they made no bones about increasing the tax rate on the wealthy at the end of December 2015.

I do not own shares or stocks in any company and so I did not have to make any decisions but anyone who was smart enough to have money invested would realise that in January of 2016 their tax rate would increase therefore to sell shares prior to then and pay a lesser tax rate would seem very logical.  There was never any doubt in my mind that this would happen on January 1st 2016, and not as Poilievre assumed on 1st April 2016.

 

However the Conservative attack poodle made the same sort of misheaded assumption that he made when his government increased the number of members by 30 while he set about decreasing the ability of thousands if not millions of Canadian to be able to vote would assure the re-election of the Conservative Party of Canada to power – were he and they ever wrong.   Very bad assumption Pierre.   Incidentally, the claim and assumption that more MPs would increase Canadian’s representation in the House was a blatant lie.   Firstly those 305 members already there were not able to have their say on behalf of their constituents on two counts, 1) they simply did not have the opportunity to express their constituents views due to the sheer number of them; and 2),  every bill introduced by the Harper government was closed to “debate” almost before it was introduced and no amendments were allowed either in committee or at report stage.  

 

To waste soo much time trying to trap a Minister over something so asinine and in fact so typically conservative in thinking takes away time away from real questions they should be asking about, for instance, the desertion of our moral and fiduciary duty to our wounded veterans and our aboriginal peoples’ abject living conditions.   Why the money is not flowing for infrastructure at the rate promised, and the waste of money on the celebration of 150 years since our mythical confederation could well be the subject of sincere questions.

 

It is all window dressings to hide their complicity in the myth of a sovereign and democratic Canada and frankly, I am tired of it.

 

Perhaps one of them could explain to me just how we are a constitutional monarchy when the last Queen we actually had was Queen Victoria.

 

Event: The year, 1901. With Queen Victoria’s death, the repeal of Section 2 of the BNA Act came into force, deliberately leaving the Dominion of Canada without a Monarch. To this day the BNA Act repeal of Section 2 has never been re-enacted.

 

http://www.nephalemfilms.com/themyth.html

 

Don’t hold your breath on that one.

 

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

Why Not Canada?

Why not Canada?

One of the biggest problems that Canada has developed over the years is the reduction of income to the Canadian treasury.

We no longer have a national railroad when we used to have two.  We have no longer have a merchant navy fleet.  We basically have given away all our commons so carefully built from 1935 to 1974.  In itself this is bad, but we have also lost the revenue which they were created to produce. The less the country’s income the more is required of the working poor who cannot afford overseas hidey-holes.

We have idle steel mills in Ontario, idle saw mills and pulp mills in BC and Alberta, we have closed manufacturing plants all across Canada, we have GMO crops that half the world doesn’t want, and we have no real ability to refine our crude oil or even that gunk from Athabasca.

We have coal all over for manufacturing steel but instead we are shipping it off shore and buying the steel back; we have miles and miles of fertile soil in the prairies poisoned by GMO and toxic fertilizers; we have livestock so full of steroids or GMO grains that they are susceptible to disease:  we have manufacturing plants dead because we won’t produce things that we buy from overseas using our raw products sold at giveaway prices..  We have lost all the jobs that go with this and we need to get them back.

It is time to look to what we can do not what we have been told we must do to survive in the global market.  We have done it before and we can do it again.

This is not protectionism but survival and it is time we stepped up to the plate again.  We cannot successfully trade if we have nothing to offer but raw resources which will eventually run out.

Why not nationalize CP and CN again?  They must be making money and why are we allowing that money to go abroad.  We used to have people traveling by rail from small towns everywhere to market towns , now everyone has a car they can’t really afford and that are costly to maintain and run.   Mom and pop stores have been decimated and replaced by big box stores, almost all foreign owned.  We are told that this is the only way as it is the way of the global market.

We do not believe it has to be this way.

Canada has so much to offer not only to our own citizens but to the world and we will never be complete and sovereign as long as we do not use what we have.   Trade is essential but not at the prices we are being asked to pay.

It is time to say enough is enough and educate our young to work at something other than the texting keyboard on their cell phones.  Give them pride in what they can make and accomplish.

We have a huge diversity of ideas and abilities which are being squandered behind the counters of Timmy’s or MacDonalds.  We have a work force that is unprepared at this time to do the things we all need.  What happens when the baby boomers are replaced with a workforce which does not know  which end of a wrench to use, which lever operates the plough, what wood to use for a solid and fire proof door, or how to shingle a roof or even how to use welding torch?

We have the resources and the manpower and they are both going to waste.

Enough is enough and it is time to face the facts that as a nation we are broke, we need work for our young and we need industries and specially infrastructure owned by and for us all.

Mostly what we need is to rekindle the dream called Canada.

The Canadian Action Party knows all this and can and will make it happen.  You can join us in this venture or you can sigh and carry on the way you are carrying on now.  We would rather you joined us to make that difference in the life of all Canadians, particularly the coming generations.

 

Jeremy Arney

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