Sleazy Sell-Out. “Sunny Days”. The Bank of Canada

Sleazy Sell-Out. “Sunny Days”. Part II


                 The Bank of Canada

 Written by Robin Mathews   April 2016


We have come upon a brilliant example, here in Canada, of what Anthony Hall calls “imperial globalization” and “the terror economy” (Earth Into Property, McGill-Queen’s, 2011.) Those are terms which describe the move to ‘world government’ by increasingly unregulated (and increasingly criminal) global Capitalism backed by U.S. imperial military might.

The example is The Bank of Canada.  The alleged stripping of essential sovereign powers from it on behalf of “international” organizations and private banks has led to a (now four year long) case being conducted in the Federal Court of Canada. Spice is added to the mix by the reported behaviour of prime minister Justin Trudeau in the context, and by the apparently shifting position of Federal Court judge, the honourable Justice James Russell. ....

Of Justice Russell’s latest decision Rocco Galati, lawyer for COMER in the case, expresses surprise – saying the judge has “inexplicably reversed himself from the earlier decision” and that “he blatantly erred…”, and more.  (All Quotes from Rocco Galati are from Page 1, COMER, Jan/Feb 2016).
[Readers who refer to the Wikipedia entry for the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform will read that “COMER’s claims have been struck four times by the courts” and that in his February 8, 2016 ruling Justice James Russell concluded of the COMER plaintiffs that “they have no scintilla of a cause of action that this Court can or should hear”.  Plainly Rocco Galati is of a different mind – making the case one of especial interest.

The document filed by the plaintiffs (COMER, William Krehm, Ann Emmett) to begin the case, in 2011, is at once courageous and definitive of the present “dissolving sovereign condition” among many national communities falling victim to the  de facto government of globalizing private Capital. 
Since the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau (in 1974) the quiet, (secret?), apparently collegial, apparently acceptable transfer of power over The Bank of Canada has gone, apparently, to foreign entities (that meet in secrecy) and to private banks. The discontinuance of interest-free loans to Canadian governments is, apparently, an expression of that shift in power. That process of change has been conducted by officers of The Bank of Canada and the Canadian cabinet “responsible” to the Members of Parliament representing the people of Canada. 

Until the beginning of the COMER case, most Canadians knew nothing of the change. (How many MPs had been informed?) Canadians knew nothing about Cabinet members and officers of The Bank of Canada silently, knowingly or unknowingly, being  (the COMER case suggests) complicit in the alienation of Canadian sovereignty in the working of The Bank of Canada.  In essence, the change has removed a fundamental function – the Bank of Canada as an interest-free lender to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments for “infrastructure” and “human capital expenditures” (hospitals, etc.).

Put in the very simplest terms – there is no reason whatsoever that the Bank of Canada’s power to make interest-free loans to Canadian governments for infrastructure and human capital spending should be in any way curtailed or ended.  And so the whole process has to be highly suspect -involving international entities, gigantic profits for private banks, and a huge unnecessary, increasingly high national debt forced on the Canadian taxpayer.

The COMER case against Her Majesty the Queen, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, The Bank of Canada, and the Attorney General of Canada is intended to restore full Canadian authority to The Bank of Canada and – by doing so – to liberate its powers as a significant servant of governments in Canada (federal, provincial, and municipal) to satisfy needs,  interests, and rights of Canadians as meaningful citizens of Canada.

The brilliance of the COMER move has been matched by what one might call the concerted effort by Canadian governments (Conservative – led by Stephen Harper, and, now, Liberal – led by Justin Trudeau) to erase the case.  It has been matched, too, by the apparent determination of the Conventional Press and Media to prevent Canadians from knowing about the court action.
Rocco Galati suggested (when the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper was in power) that he believed government was influencing press and media to keep knowledge of the case from the Canadian public. And now what - under a Liberal government? No change apparently.  As late as April 2, 2016, for instance, The National Post (and many other Post Media publications) published Andrew Coyne’s piece of some thirty-five column inches on the question of Deficit Spending – “The risky business of deficits”, (p. A4).  That is a subject directly related to the COMER case and to the use of The Bank of Canada’s power to lend at no interest for infrastructure projects.
Andrew Coyne writes as if The Bank of Canada and the COMER case don’t exist.

Coyne’s behaviour, seems to be matched by the reported behaviour of prime minister Justin Trudeau.  My informant assures me that film footage exists of a few questioners trying to ask Justin Trudeau about the Bank of Canada matter.  I am told that Trudeau moves out of reach, ignores the questioners, and moves away to avoid facing the questions and the questioners.  I have not seen the footage.
Whatever the truth of that matter, since the transfer of power from the Conservatives to the Liberals on October 19, 2015, “government” lawyers have continued fighting the Bank of Canada case … and …  have not slackened in their determination to quell any attempt to return the Bank to its independent, interest-free loaning policy. 

When the Conservative government was in power, Justice James Russell considered whether the COMER complaint might be heard – and sent it away to be amended, having struck parts of it.
Rocco Galati suggests in his statement about the subsequent decision of Justice James Russell on February 8, 2016 [the Liberal government having gained power] that Justice Russell “inexplicably reversed himself from the earlier decision”.  Mr. Galati reports that “In his earlier decision he [Justice Russell] had refused to strike large portions of the claim” and was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.  Mr. Galati claims Justice Russell “effectively overturned the Court of Appeal decision …contrary to law” and “blatantly erred” in regard to the nature of Declaratory relief.
Mr. Galati has already filed an appeal (March 3, 2016) to the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the COMER case, and he is prepared to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.  We are about to see (but not hastily!) how Justice James Russell’s actions hold up under further scrutiny. Clearly a very sharp difference exists about the “justiciability” of the wrong alleged in the COMER action … about, that is, its very legitimacy as a matter to be considered by the courts. [The fact that the Bank of Canada did provide interest free loans to governments in Canada over many years, and then stopped without any public discussion is not in question.]


When a claim is “struck” by a judge, he or she is not saying that no wrong has been committed.  Rather, it is a statement that the court is an institution whose abilities, powers, and processes prevent it from confronting and providing a remedy for the alleged wrong brought before it – which may be obvious and egregious (as in The Bank of Canada matter).

In the meantime, the ultimate remedy may be political. Already the Canadian Action Party (and I believe others) has declared for political action to return full lending power to The Bank of Canada. That determination must be made known so widely that a government not willing to act to restore full powers to The Bank of Canada will lose its majority and be banished to the shadowy, impotent sidelines … where it clearly belongs.

Written by Robin Mathews


_______________

The Straight Goods

Cheers Eyes Wide Open