A summary by Connie Fogal,
The meeting took place at OISE on September 8, 2012.
The judicial process is not a unique tool to raise issues. The process arises out of the political reality of the time. It is a lightning rod. There is no such thing as a failure in a court application on matters of profound significance. The failure would be in not stepping up to raise issues.
The November 13, 2012, a motion was set for mid July originally but was adjourned by the court, which is good for the cause of the case because in summer no media would pick up on it due to summer slackness and holidays. By November they will be interested.
This motion of November 13 is not the case. It is the first hurdle in arguing the case. The first thing the government does is bring a motion to strike the case, i.e., get rid of the case. The government fights on procedural grounds. The government says: “You cannot bring the case,” “It is not for the courts to decide,” “If the court can decide, then the parties have no standing,” “If they have standing, there is no cause of action,” “If there is an action, it is so weak that it will fail.”
The government’s position is: there is no reasonable cause of action, the Charter of Rights is not engaged, the case is outside the court’s jurisdiction, the parties have no standing.
In constitutional legislation one needs to understand the underlying political evolution and analysis. Courts are the product of society. When globalization was not on the agenda, courts heard economic/financial cases regularly. They did not resist determining the issue in the 1950s and ’60s. The courts heard economic/financial cases easily, but now, with globalization, government is protecting against the arguments. Therefore, the courts are slow to respond. Today if one goes to court on an economic or financial issue there is resistance. The resistance we get is due to the “emperor’s” or “dictator’s” interest. Courts tend to follow.
The scope of the legal challenge: three issues are intertwined.
1. The government’s refusal to do with the Bank of Canada what it was set up to do.
In 1937 the Bank provided interest-free loans to the federal government, the provincial government and to municipalities, e.g., for public works, schools, hospitals, as long as the amount did not exceed 1/3 of the budget and it was repaid in one year. This practice stopped in 1974 when the Bank of Canada joined the Bank of International Settlements.
This first issue, then, is the government’s abdication of its constitutional duty to enforce and apply the legislation.
2. The failure of the Minister of Finance to direct the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada reports to the Minister of Finance on Bank of Canada meetings. If there is a dispute between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, with the approval of Cabinet, the Minister can direct the Governor what to do. The Bank of Canada is our bank, not the Governor’s.
3. Budgetary Process.
The ritual formality every year of the knock on the door of the House of Commons is a constitutional requirement. Parliament cannot approve spending for the fiscal year until the “Queen” explains to the MPs the agenda of what the money is to be spent on. If the MPs do not approve the budget, the government falls.
The origin of this principle is from sections 53 and 51 of the Magna Carta – that there shall be no taxation without representation.
The budget contains critical information from the Minister of Finance of what actual revenue is collected by government and what money is given back to taxpayers. This is important because if the Finance Minister says we have revenue of $200 billion dollars, but we need 240 billion dollars, then the deficit of $40 billion gets added to the nation’s debt.
However, the reporting is not accurate because the unrevealed practice is to transfer tax credits back to corporations which form a large part of the $40 billion deficit. This is important because if the MPs knew about the tax credits, they might not give the credits to the corporations and therefore not need a deficit.
The lawsuit is important because since 1974 when the Bank of Canada stopped issuing interest-free loans to our governments, as a country, we have been hooked by force on interest and debt that does not need to be there.
The deficit is what we pay in interest on accumulated debt. Since 1974 the federal government debt alone has risen to 1.1 trillion dollars.
The Bank of Canada lends to commercial banks at ¼ of 1%. The commercial banks then lend the money to the government and to the public at much higher rates.
This practice and policy is dictated by banks in Europe. We have relinquished our sovereignty to foreign private banks. This is a planned conspiracy detrimental to our sovereignty.
What’s Next, COMER?
By Judy Kennedy, We are at a point where a significant number of Canadians are now aware that our governments are beholden to the Kinder…