Dismissal of COMER’s lawsuit keeps Canada’s finances in hock to foreign interests

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

William Lyon Mackenzie King
(1874-1950) Prime Minister of Canada

 

On May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) lawsuit, which had been filed back in December 2011.

The lawsuit attempted to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, of making interest-free loans to all levels of government for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.

The action also constitutionally challenged the government’s accounting methods, accusing the government of hiding the true and total revenues of the nation, which were instead transferred to corporations and other taxpayers as tax credits.

Why was this lawsuit needed? Well, back in December of 1974, a closed door meeting at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) resulted in the foreign-owned BIS taking control of Canada’s finances. Since that fateful day, the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy have come to be increasingly dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests, which contravenes the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs note that the BIS, the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created in an attempt to keep poorer nations in their place, and this control has spread to the point that these financial institutions override governments and constitutional orders even in G7 countries such as Canada.

COMER also rejects the idea of a public-private Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has been proposed as a solution, arguing that the Bank of Canada, nationalized in 1938 during the height of the Great Depression, worked very well as Canada’s infrastructure Bank until 1975. 

In their press release about the dismissed lawsuit, the COMER is phlegmatic: at least the court case has publicized the extent to which Canada is not sovereign over its own finances, something that many of us did not fully understand. COMER plans to continue its quest to educate Canadians, and to return the control of Canadians’ money to Canadians and the Bank of Canada.

All the talk of Security and Security agencies in the press these days is a distraction–control of our own finances is the kind of Security that Canadians really need.

CUSJ President Margaret Rao sits on the Board of the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), established as a think tank in 1986 by William (Bill) Krehm and the late Dr. John Hotson.

6 thoughts on “Dismissal of COMER’s lawsuit keeps Canada’s finances in hock to foreign interests”

  1. The purpose of the Bank of Canada was never “making interest-free loans to all levels of government for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.”

    The mandate of the Bank of Canada is provided in the preamble of the Bank of Canada Act. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-2/
    It states that its purpose is to “regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada”

    COMER never presented any evidence for its claim that a closed door meeting at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) resulted in the foreign-owned BIS taking control of Canada’s finances. It remains just that, a claim unsubstantiated by any evidence at all. There is also zero evidence that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy have come to be increasingly dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests, which contravenes the Bank of Canada Act.

    The Bank of Canada has never acted as “Canada’s infrastructure bank.” It has always lent money to the federal government, but still lends money to the federal government the same way it did before 1974.

    • Hi John, Thanks for your comment. That is not my understanding, based on Joyce Nelson’s books Beyond Banksters and Bypassing Dystopia, which discuss the COMER lawsuit, among other things. I have passed your comment on to my colleagues for their input.

      Meanwhile, I can tell you that around 1974, the Government of Canada did not completely cease borrowing from the Bank of Canada; however, it did begin to borrow from the private sector at interest rather than creating money through the Bank of Canada interest-free. This change is what created the national debt which which we are still burdened.

  2. By the dismissal of this lawsuit by the Supreme Court it is pretty clear that the Supreme Court of Canada is not operating for the benefit of Canada or its people but rather for IMF itself. The ever growing national debt of over $600 billion is evidence enough that the current monetary system is not to the benefit Canada and its people. When confronted with this danger, why would a public servant not want to change it or do something about it? Due to other interests maybe? Not Canada’s?

    • Hi Ralph, I agree with you that the Bank of Canada needs to return to its original mandate. The national debt is one example of how Capitalism is running amok, but there are hopeful signs too, like the push for postal banking, and the resurgence of citizens’ groups like the Leap. I invite you to check out the COMER website. http://www.comer.org/join/index.htm – Cym

      • It is a myth that the original purpose of the Bank of Canada was ever making interest-free loans to all levels of government for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures. Those words appear in no government documents. Bank of Canada loans were never interest free, it has not lent to the provinces since the 1930s, and has never lent to municipal governments.
        The Bank of Canada Act allows the Bank of Canada to lend to the federal and provincial governments, but says nothing about the interest rate or purpose of the loans.

        • Thank you, Mr. Monroe, for your comment. You say that “Bank of Canada loans were never interest free;” however, more than one source states that they were effectively interest-free, but perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that this is achieved through bonds.

          The Green Party of Canada, in a proposal, explains it this way: “Instead of borrowing money at interest, the Canadian Constitution empowers the Government of Canada to issue money directly, as it already does in the case of the paper notes and coins in circulation, which only make up a very small percentage of the total money supply. The Bank of Canada Act also permits that institution to lend the government money interest-free. … [T]he Bank of Canada currently holds $64 billion in government bonds and treasury bills, and the interest that it earns is credited back to the government, effectively making it an interest-free loan.” https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention-2012/voting/motions/g12-p13

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.