Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:04 pm

From a former bank owned investment dealer, employee who was fired for filling out an OSC survey and putting his honest opinions into it about abuses that he saw against the public:

"The beyond immoral and unethical ideals, cultures and predation proprietary sales practices of our CDN Chartered Banks are protected again and again and again and . . .

The CDN Chartered Bank FCAC Regulator's Report on aggressive sales tactics was weakened after our GOC Minister of Finance — and the banks themselves — got to review drafts of the Report" ... -1.5091115
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:02 pm

From a senior citizen victim of financial abuse by TD, who has written literally hundreds of letters over a period of perhaps a decade, getting "rinsed and washed” round and round and round by the thousands of paid handmaids to the financial system....all pretending to be public protective servants.

As an observation of the questionable pre-release of the FCAC Report on Bank Sales Practices being given to the Banks for vetting before public release, in case you are not aware, here's some info that raises the perception questionable conflicts of interest that were hinted with your today CBC investigation airing.

Lucie Tedesco has been the FCAC Commissioner for five years and recently had her appointment extended to June 4th 2019 and unless there is another extension she will be leaving the FCAC just as another very important review of bank practices will be delivered to the Federal Government.

Here is the issue - Last October Lucie was appointed to the Board of Directors of Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) as an Independent Director.
it just so happens that IIROC is a Self-Regulated Organization (SRO) substantially financed by the banking industry.
Here is the IIROC bio of Lucie - ... rdbio.aspx

When Lucie was asked who in the Federal Government would be presented with the upcoming FCAC review report of the banking "Complaints Handling Process", she replied that her understanding was that the report will be submitted to the minister and will then be published and both activities may be executed simultaneously or a few days apart.

As I have previously brought to your attention, the FCAC originated and guided "Complaints Handling Process" can involve thousands of dissatisfied Complainants because the banks control the formal Step One, Step Two and Step Three of a five step complaint handling ritual. The only recourse for a Complainant after their complaint is rejected at Step One is to hire a lawyer. Compare this situation where the alleged Accused can just indiscriminately thumb their nose, reject valid complaint and steer the Complainant to the Step Two, which is the Accused's management. They in turn can then also unjustly reject the complaint and steer the Complainant to the Step Three bogus bank self-appointed internal "Ombudsman". ... omplaints/

There are two issues here -
The FCAC Commissioner who has the responsibility to protect financial consumers interests and yet she is on the B of D of IIROC who as an SRO their job is also to protect consumers but they also financed by the banks.
(The fact that the FCAC are supposed to be independently impartial and yet they allowed the banks to influence the final FCAC report on banks sales practices speaks volumes about the perceived reasoning and impartiality of the FCAC)

2. The FCAC can invoke all kinds of escape excuses when asked about their sources of information that they can quote in their reports. This is a problem because we are concerned that, in connection with the FCAC review of the bank "Complaint Handling Process", the FCAC have said they are conducting a survey (public opinion research) on Canadians’ views of the "Complaint Handling Process. This will include the views of Complainants. They also said, they are not planning on issuing media requests for public comments. They say they will be speaking directly with complainants about their experiences. This research approach for gathering statistics is very narrow considering that the "Complaint Handling Process" First Step at the six banks must have recorded well over 10,000 cases "opened up". This figure is based on the Step Three bank internal "Ombudsm(e)n" publishing "Open Up" arrival figures of 3,000 in 2017.

We cannot wait until the report is published and then be aggravated because the report dilutes the severity what is happening with the present bank "Customer Handling Process' that has its first three steps controlled by the banks.

You do not have to take this situation as just my personal opinion. There are several well informed advocates who I'm sure could contribute to a very earth shaking exposé that is needed to stem this abuse of the consumer. (You already know some of them)

If you want to have an initial discussion, please let me know and I will give you my phone number.

Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:59 pm

From a member of the Small Investor Protection Association of Canada (

Just five months prior to the first CBC GP expose series on the scandalous behaviour occurring in our banks the FCAC released a glowing report on our banks. "The FCAC's report indicates that the agency has observed, "Strong market conduct" among federally regulated financial services firms, such as banks and insurers. Specifically, the FCAC's compliance efforts uncovered 'no major or systemic concerns." ... s-insurers

The Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, Lucie Tedesco at the Annual Industry Session in 2017, publiclystated “Consumers can be confident that, in Canada, their interests are safeguarded by the laws, regulations and frameworks in place to protect them.” “I can tell you, as Chair of the International Financial Consumer Protection Organization that the Canadian financial protection regime serves as a model for others around the world”

They were oblivious to the breaches of ethical conduct occurring that bank employees came forward to expose. Not just pushy sales, but not obtaining informed consent and forging documents to meet unrealistic sales targets!

The FCAC's regulatory role needs to be brought into the 21st Century. It is time, not just for a review of the banks but also of the FCAC itself. CBC GP is correct to point out that there appears to be 'cozy' relationship between the government, the banking industry and its watchdog.

We stated then and we repeat it again now in light of CBC’s latest report that it unacceptable for our Government to rely upon the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to objectively do the required review needed.

Thanks to CBC Go Public, the bigger contextual picture is finally emerging for the Canadian public.

Canadians are losing their savings due to fraud and wrongdoing by a financial services industry that does not put clients’ best interests first, regardless of our laws or rules and regulations.

In Canada, it appears possible to defraud tens of thousands of clients for up to a decade under recent No Contest Settlements, similar to a DPA by paying fines to evade admitting responsibility and court action.

It is essential that Governments act:

· to revise Statutes to ensure that all firms and individuals offering investment advice are held to a fiduciary standard regardless of their titles.
· Those tasked with over-viewing industry conduct must be impartial, willing and capable of effectively punishing those who persist in unfairly harvesting Canadians savings. They must levy appropriate financial fines and incarceration when warranted.
· Victims must be paid restitution without having to turn to costly civil litigation.
· Canada is in dire need of an ongoing informed, independent and thorough assessment of financial regulation. An Independent Consumer Protection Agency would greatly improve the governance of financial regulation and would help compel regulators to act in the public interest by giving a viable voice to public concerns.

With so many well paid regulators across Canada tasked with consumer protection mandates, the question arises why is it left to CBC Go Public to break these stories?

The implications here for Canadians are enormous. Given the potential extent of continuing financial harm to Canadians, it is essential that our Government takes positive action without undue delay.

It must not be Caveat Emptor in a relationship that is based solidly on trust.

Canadians are entrusting their hard-earned money, savings and futures with what should be trusted institutions and individuals.

On behalf of all Canadians, SIPA calls on our Government to do what all Canadians should rightly expect:

· To immediately launch a Public Commission of Inquiry and to change forever attitudes towards consumer rights in the financial services marketplace.
· To establish an Independent National Investor Protection Agency with the sole mandate to protect the Canadian public.

It is just the right thing to do.
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:10 pm

Screen Shot 2018-12-29 at 9.59.55 PM.png

Bank regulator's report on aggressive sales tactics weakened after government — and banks — reviewed drafts

Documents reveal 'cosy' relationship between the government, the banking industry and its watchdog

Erica Johnson, Enza Uda · CBC News · Posted: Apr 10, 2019 8:00 PM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago

Public policy researcher Ken Rubin looks through drafts of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's report on bank sales practices, which he obtained using Access to Information. (Andrew Lee/CBC)

Last year's report from Canada's banking regulator about aggressive sales tactics underwent several drafts that eliminated proposed protections for consumers — edits that were made after the regulator sent early versions to the federal Finance Department and the big banks.

Internal documents from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) — obtained under Access to Information and provided to Go Public — show that some recommendations for action were weakened or removed
, including a proposal to require that banks work in the best interest of consumers.

Another key edit was the addition of a line saying the review did not find "widespread mis-selling" by the banks.

It all paints a picture of the "cosy" relationship between the country's six big banks, the agency that's supposed to regulate them and the federal government, said Paul Thomas, professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.

"[The banks] have disproportionate access and perhaps disproportionate influence."

Political scientist Paul Thomas says the banks are 'well-heeled, well-connected and have a traditional working partnership with the government of the day.' (Jaison Empson/CBC)
The report was prompted in part by months of reporting by Go Public, in which hundreds of current and former bank employees said they were pushed to upsell customers to try to meet sales targets.

Some described feeling pressured to do such things as mislead customers about credit card fees and mortgage rates, forge signatures on credit card and loan insurance products and secretly increase lines of credit.

GO PUBLIC'We are all doing it': Employees at Canada's 5 big banks speak out about pressure to dupe customers
GO PUBLIC'I will do anything I can to make my goal': TD teller says customers pay price for 'unrealistic' sales targets
At the time, the banks told Go Public that they act in the best interests of their clients, and that employees are expected to follow various codes of conduct.

'More to it than meets the eye'

The documents were obtained through Access to Information by public policy researcher Ken Rubin, who asked for draft copies of FCAC's report on sales practices at the big banks, and related correspondence.

The regulator's review focussed on BMO, CIBC, RBC, Scotiabank, TD and National Bank.

It found that banks encourage employees to sell products and services and reward them for sales success. But FCAC also said it did not find evidence of widespread harm to consumers.

Although FCAC staff interviewed 600 bank employees, and reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents and 4,500 customer complaints, the report did not name a single bank or quote from any of the interviews.

"When I saw the March [2018] report, I said, 'There's more to it than meets the eye,'" said Rubin, one of Canada's most prolific practitioners of federal Access to Information requests.

Draft sent to banks

Thomas found it particularly interesting that the regulator sent a draft of its report to the very banks at the centre of its eight-month review.

"[The banks] have greater power, more influence than other actors in the policy field of banking," he said. "It's a fact of life."

Sending the banks a draft copy is a big concern for consumer advocate Duff Conacher.

"You don't share … the evidence you gathered," said the co-founder of Democracy Watch and adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa. "That evidence is the basis of your conclusions as to whether the law has been violated."

More than half the pages of a draft of the report obtained via Access to Information had words or entire sections redacted. (Andrew Lee/CBC)
The banking regulator told Go Public it sent the banks a draft report so the financial institutions could "identify factual errors."

Read the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's full response to Go Public
"If the agency wanted to check the facts in the report … they could have just sent them those facts," Conacher said.

In a subsequent draft, a line was added pointing out that banks are "in the process of enhancing their oversight and management of sales practices risk." It's not known who proposed adding that line.

Go Public asked the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) whether it requested a draft copy of the report.

CBA spokesperson Mathieu Labreche sent an email that did not respond to that question, writing,
"The Canadian Bankers Association and its member banks regularly communicate and meet with supervisory bodies, including the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, as part of the normal course of the oversight process."

Banks' responses redacted

The internal documents also include dozens of pages from the big banks, which appear to be responses to the regulator's draft report.

Go Public is not able to know their contents — including the date they were written, or who wrote them — because entire pages were redacted under an Access to Information exemption that protects commercial interests.

The documents also reveal that the banking regulator supplied a draft to Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his department three months before publicly releasing it last year.

Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher says the finance minister should not be given the opportunity to provide input on the banking regulator's findings before they are released to the public. (David Richard/CBC)
Conacher says the regulator, purportedly an independent agency, should not have given the minister and his department a chance to vet and comment on its report.

"It's inappropriate and improper for a minister to be looking at the draft conclusions of a law enforcement agency," he told Go Public. "That means decisions could be made on the basis of politics, not on the basis of the facts and the law."

Been wronged? Contact Erica and the Go Public team
One of the most significant edits to the initial draft that was sent to the finance minister was the addition of a finding on Page 1 that says, "FCAC did not find widespread mis-selling during its review."

"It's hard to say … exactly what happened," said John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a consumer organization based in Ottawa.

"The language seems to belie the rest of the report, which goes into some detail about how sales practices — which are a little unseemly — can be performed."

Finance Minister Bill Morneau's office received a draft of FCAC's report three months before it was released to the public. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
Go Public requested an interview with Morneau, but his spokesperson, Pierre-Olivier Herbert, said the minister was unavailable.

In a statement, Herbert did not respond to Conacher's criticism that it ought to be considered inappropriate for the minister to receive a draft report from the banking regulator.

A Finance Department spokesperson said it is routine for financial sector agencies to share documents for comment and to confirm facts.

Access to Information exemptions

Go Public received various versions of the banking regulator's report, including several versions of the original draft, a revised copy after it went to the finance minister, and the final report.

Sentences, recommendations or conclusions are redacted in several drafts, based on an exemption in Canada's Access to Information Act that allows the head of a government institution to refuse to disclose any advice involving the institution or a federal cabinet minister.

The exemption applies to advice or recommendations that occur at a ministerial level, essentially to allow confidentiality in the policy-making process.

Big banks under investigation by financial watchdog
GO PUBLICCIBC financial adviser 'stunned' that federal investigation found bank customers not widely upsold
Go Public asked the minister about additions made after he had received a copy.

In an email, Morneau's spokesperson wrote, "the Minister's office did not provide comments or request any edits to the FCAC's report. The findings in the FCAC's report are entirely their own."

However, the documents indicate that Morneau's department made at least six comments on the first draft of the report, including about changing parts that say the regulator will introduce certain reforms to the regulator "proposes" them.

Most of the comments from the department are redacted.

"The biggest thing is there were three recommendations saying banks should be 'required' to make changes," Conacher said. "And those were all changed to 'suggestions' that the banks should do some things.

"Suggestions are meaningless, if you're actually trying to solve a problem. The banks don't have to do anything."

The whole process is submerged. It's not transparent
- Paul Thomas, professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba
The draft sent to the minister's office included a line saying, "Require banks to work in the best interests of their customers." The line didn't make the final version of the report.

Some other language that was critical of the banks — such as a line saying that banks "lean disproportionately in favour of a sales driven culture" — was also dropped before the report was published.

Banks lobbied government 165 times

Go Public checked the lobbyist registry to see how many times the banks or their umbrella group, the CBA, lobbied government officials, senators, MPs — including Morneau — the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and FCAC during the 12-month period between when the regulator announced it was conducting a bank review and the date it released its report.

Between March 15, 2017, and March 20, 2018, the big banks and the CBA lobbied a total of 165 times.

In the month leading up to the release of FCAC's report, the CBA met with the regulator's deputy commissioner, Brigitte Goulard, four times — including the day before the report was published.

Lobbying is legal, but those who do significant amounts of it are required to file a record with the lobbying commissioner, who then makes the information public online.

Ken Whitehurst of the Consumers Council of Canada says cash-strapped consumer groups need more support to participate fully in policy discussions around consumer protection. (Gary Morton/CBC)
"The banks — because they're an important economic asset to the country — have to be listened to," said the University of Manitoba's Paul Thomas. "They have greater power, more influence than other actors in the policy field of banking. It's a fact of life."

As a comparison, Go Public asked four consumer advocacy organizations how many times they had the ear of lawmakers and banking watchdogs during the same period.

In total, they had fewer than 10 meetings with policy-makers and FCAC to discuss the sales practices of banks, they said.

"It's extremely concerning to us, of course, that consumer groups are not more meaningfully supported to participate in these important conversations," wrote Ken Whitehurst, executive director of the Consumers Council of Canada.

"The council continues to have serious concerns about the resources available to facilitate meaningful consumer representation at not only FCAC but across government concerning consumer protection."

More transparency needed

Thomas says after combing through the various versions of the bank regulator's report, the relationship between the banks, the government and the banking regulator can be difficult to figure out.

"The whole process is submerged. It's not transparent," he said.

"If it hadn't been for Access to Information requests, we wouldn't know the extent to which the banks were given a certain privileged status in this process."


Erica Johnson
Investigative reporter
Erica Johnson is an award-winning investigative journalist. She hosted CBC's consumer program Marketplace for 15 years, investigating everything from dirty hospitals to fraudulent financial advisors. As co-host of the CBC news segment Go Public, Erica continues to expose wrongdoing and hold corporations and governments to account. ... -1.5091115
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:49 am

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 9.02.51 AM.png

From -Peter Sommer June 19, 2018
Thornhill, Ontario

To -Ms. Lucie Tedesco - Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Ms. Brigitte Goulard - Financial Consumer Agency of Canada

Do Government Watchdogs protect everyday citizens?

Dear Ms. Tedesco and Ms. Goulard,

“Lucie Tedesco and Richard Bilodeau made it explicitly clear in their FINA testimony that they have no mandate to deal with actual laws as affecting deceptions and active bad faith acts that are imposed on clients. They admitted that the 4500 grievances from staff, who object to being asked by management to unfairly exploit clients, were not used in the March 21 report that FCAC gave to Minister Morneau”- (SIPA Canada). So what was the basis of their decision?

Why do these huge unethical loopholes, lapdog Commissioners, and weak penalties continue? Because federal politicians wrote the rules for themselves, chose the Commissioners, and decided not to have any penalties for violations! The Prime Minister and provincial premiers have the power to give jobs to whomever they want to run government agencies that enforce laws (including the courts), and run government programs. Thousands of people are hand-picked by the PM and premiers in secret, without any review or checks on their power – they even get to choose the people who enforce the laws that require themselves, and their Cabinet ministers, to be honest, ethical, open and waste-preventing!
What type of nonsense and governing is this? How fair, reasonable and just is this? One set of rules for the rich and powerful and one for the regular everyday citizen. Why and how do these people get away with it?

 Morneau cleared by ethics commissioner – June 18, 2018
 Ethics commissioner investigating Morneau's sponsorship of pension bill
 Trudeau says 'sorry' after watchdog finds he broke ethics rules
 Morneau sees no conflict with C-27, despite ethics watchdog's concerns
 EXCLUSIVE: Morneau using ethics loophole to maintain ownership of shares in family business
 Ethics czar clears Morneau over sale of shares
 Morneau, Tories swap numbered-company barbs as ethics saga continues[/b]

Not many people have had the “fortunate” opportunity to get sued by a company that they had no contractual relationship with, were never served and then had a default judgment ruled against them which caused numerous bank accounts to be garnisheed 7 years ago which are still garnished to this day. This became the catalyst to 4 more law suits that were filed because of a malicious situation created by a vindictive plaintiff. I would not wish this on my worst enemy but this is exactly what happened to me and is still ongoing. This is not the ideal way to learn about the wrongs of our legal system that no longer works for the average person as stated by our own Chief Justice. This also taught me about our banking system and the role that the government should be playing but they totally abuse this duty. Seeing I lost everything I ever owned because of this, I have had hours upon hours and years upon years to delve into and research the flagrant abuse of power by those who control our legal system, our banking system and our government who are without doubt all in collusion with each other as per the above.

The above case forced me into a banking problem which gave me the opportunity to see the very worst of our banking system as well. The CBC discovered that banks are using unethical sales practices to sell products that customers do not want or need. Even though thousands of customers and employees have come forward agreeing that this is happening, the banks and the government vehemently disagree. Would you expect anything different seeing they are in collusion with each other? The banks don’t give a damn about their customers, they are just a means to a greedy end while making absurd profits at the expense of their customers. The banks will put up one roadblock after another in order to avoid responding to customer’s complaints, hoping that they might die first before they have to deal with the problem.

You need to wonder who controls who, does the government control the banks or do the banks control the government?

It does not take much research to see and understand that it is the banks that control the government. One does not need to look much further then what is currently going on with our Finance Minister, Justin Trudeau’s friends and the many other politicians regarding the offshore banking scandals and others.

One just has to look at how the chair of The House of Commons Finance Committee, who is known to defend the privileged, handled the KPMG – Isle of Man off shore banking affair by doing absolutely nothing, as opposed to his US counterpart who put executives of KPMG in jail and fines were levied to the tune of a half a billion dollars for doing the exact same thing in the US. Why did Canada do nothing? Who were they protecting?

This is the same House of Commons Finance Committee that is currently looking into the CBC’s report on the unethical sales practices of Canadian banks which will once again probably achieve absolutely nothing other than show that the government is going through the motions.

We started to hear reports like, “So far, there has been no evidence of systemic misconduct at the major banks”
- 22/8/17.

The Finance Minister is resisting making key changes, claiming that the, “bank watchdog agencies are fine as is.” No, Mr. Finance Minister, they are not close to being “fine as is.” Again we just have to look at the news media everyday to see what this same Finance Minister, has done, is doing and will continue to do unless a completely independent bank watchdog is put in place to stop the banks and the government’s shenanigans. (Nov 23, 2017 - Morneau sides with shareholders, not Canadian Workers in Sears closing).

“Effective regulation is required to ensure that banks do not abuse the interests of their customers in the pursuit of profit. Unfortunately, those mandated with protecting the Canadian public have repeatedly failed to do so. Consumer protection in Canada suffers egregious problems that can and must be fixed. When it comes to regulatory power, Canada is a lightweight and processes for dispute resolution are fundamentally flawed.”

This behaviour of the banks, the legal system and the government do not seem to concern most citizens as long as it does not affect them directly. This is because they only get to see part of the big picture on rare occasions. Things are very different when you get exposed to all of this at one time because you get a front row seat to see the corruption that exists and how the general public suffers while senior executives and the “higher ups” get away with “murder.” Listen to what Senator Elizabeth Warren had to say about the wrongs of the US legal and banking systems. Unfortunately this is exactly how it is in Canada as well, if not worse.
Listen to her speech here.

Corporate America places their personal agenda for greed ahead of its customers, all the while presenting a public façade of social, community responsibility and awareness, while the customer is greeted by silence, avoidance, indifference if not open hostility! Banking and dishonesty go hand in hand. Banking culture is likely to fuel bad traits such as greed and dishonesty. Accusations that the world of banking is corrupt are common, but now scientists have actually proven that banking breeds dishonesty.
Read Here: Banking turns people into rotten cheats.

Shame on you, TD Bank, for your shallowness, your insensitivity, your hypocrisy and most substantially, your greed! As Ed Clark past President and CEO of TD Bank said after he retired, “if you start a business model that says, my clients aren’t my clients, they are really counter-parties that I can make money off shouldn’t be surprised if you end up with a culture that is a greed culture that really doesn’t do the right thing all the time...” To listen to this conversation click here.

The solution is relatively simple if those in power really wanted to look after the people first before looking after themselves. It is basic human decency to NOT be abused by persons who are in positions of trust or authority.

A proper complaints process has to be set up and be administered by a completely independent group of people without ties to the government or the banks. Their findings must be enforceable and they must have the power to fine the banks for improper and unjust enrichment, as they have in England through The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Below are 43 of the 72 people I have written to, some more than once, about the above matters. Not one of them has had the common decency or the courtesy to respond. Silence is the norm because those who have something to say about these matters will stay silent for fear of reprisal by their peers. They all know that all of the above including the legal system is badly broken but they also know that there is no benefit, financially or otherwise for them to make these changes. They all seem to be one big happy family. Those left off the list did respond, such as Jody-Wilson-Raybould - Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, Thomas Cromwell Retired Supreme Court Justice and a few others.

From the Federal Government
Justin Trudeau – Prime Minister
Beverley McLachlin - Chief Justice
Bill Morneau - Minister of Finance
Jessica Prince - Senior Policy Advisor for Justice Canada.
Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) Ottawa
Ontario Judicial Council (OJC)
From Banking Associations and Watchdogs
Terry Campbell - President Canadian Bankers Association Darren Hannah, Vice-President, Canadian Banking Association Jeremy Rudin - Superintendent of Banking
Lucie Tedesco – Commissioner Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)
Brigitte Goulard - Deputy Commissioner FCAC
Wayne Easter - Chairman of the House of Commons Finance Committee
Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP MP initially proposed hearings into the practices of Canada's big banks Dan Albas - Conservative MP part of bank hearing
The Banking Ombudsman - ADRBO
From TD Bank
Edmund Clark - Past President and CEO TD Bank
Bharat Masrani - CEO TD Bank
Daria Hill - Media Relations, Corporate & Public Affairs TD Bank
Brian Levitt - Chairman of the board TD Bank
Norie Campbell - currently Group Head and Chief General Counsel, TD Bank Group
Colleen Johnston - Group Head Marketing and Corporate & Public Affairs TD Bank Group, retiring 2018 Melissa Tzimas – Manager Customer Experience TD Bank
Tim Hockley - Group Head Canadian Banking TD Bank (now TD Ameritrade)
Ellen Patterson - currently Executive Vice President and General Counsel, TD Bank Group
Michael Rhodes - Executive Vice President, TD Bank Group and Head of Consumer Banking, TD Bank US, Leo Salom - currently Executive Vice President, Wealth Management, TD Bank Group
Alison Ford - Media Relations, Corporate & Public Affairs,
Mohammed Nakhooda - Media Relations, TD Bank Group
Gillian Manning - Head of Investor Relations
Riaz Ahmed - Group Head and Chief Financial Officer, TD Bank Group
Greg Braca - currently President and CEO, TD Bank, America's Most Convenient Bank,
Mark Chauvin - Group Head and Chief Risk Officer
Ajai Bambawale - will become Group Head and Chief Risk Officer, TD Bank Group, February 1, 2018
Teri Currie - Group Head, Canadian Personal Banking, TD Bank Group
Bob Dorrance - Group Head, Wholesale Banking, TD Bank Group, CEO & President, TD Securities
Paul Douglas - Currently Executive Vice President, Canadian Business Banking,
Frank McKenna - Deputy Chair, TD Bank Group
Legal Department - TD Bank, TD Ombudsman’s Office
Some examples of further abuse by TD Bank and there are thousands more
October 2017, Bal Brach, CBC News reported more cover ups and refusal by TD to do the right thing.
“TD Bank customer frustrated with fraud investigation leaving him owing thousands”

From the Ontario Government
Yasir Naqvi - Attorney General of Ontario
Charles Sousa - Minister of Finance Ontario
From the Legal World
The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) – various people

“Three TD Canada Trust bank customers who claim they were the victims of fraudulent credit card and debit card transactions are accusing the bank of denying their claims without a thorough investigation”
“TD Canada Trust offered Mr. X a "one-time goodwill" gesture in the form of $2,569.68 but Mr. X declined, arguing that more than $5,000 went missing from his account. (CBC News)”
“The bank refused an interview with CBC News, but in a statement said "TD's fraud investigations team thoroughly reviews all reported customer fraud claims in a fair, equitable and transparent manner."- Who do they think they are kidding? "They did the minimum criteria that they had to prove to not pay me the claim and then just walked away" Mr. X said. "I think it's a little insulting to get that offer, to be honest."
A second case reported on the same day states, “When CBC News inquired about this case, the customer was contacted by the bank within days and was told she would not be responsible for the charges if she agreed to a settlement which included not discussing her case publicly” – why?
TD did the same to me twice after going to the TD Ombudsman's Office and ADR. I have never yet to this day got a response from TD as to why they made me the 2 insulting offers which in effect was really a bribe. This seems to be standard procedure for TD. What is TD scared off by going public? Is it their reputation or are they more concerned about making less profit? After living through this nightmare with the banks and the problems caused, the following animated video depicts exactly how our banking system works which is condoned by the legal system and government Watch here.

Below are a few comments made by the public about the collusion, conspiracy and secrecy regarding the government and how little it does to protect the public in favour of the banks. Why does this government need so much SECRECY about their investigation into the banks? This should bother everyone.

“The need for such secrecy on the part of our elected government clearly is an indication of something dreadfully wrong and possibly of a criminal nature going on in our Canadian banking system for why else are Canadians being kept in the dark by our elected government in this matter that involves the peace and security of OUR MONIES”.

“Surely such need on the part of this elected government for need of such secrecy on their part, now points to something of a greater wrong and possible criminal nature going on in the Canadian banking system for why else and for what other possible reason could there be for this elected government to keep this matter SECRET from the people of Canada”

"Liberal MP Wayne Easter, chairman of the committee, said it's important that Canadians trust the FCAC to look out for their interests" Kind of hard to trust them when they refuse to do real investigations. Refuse to take action against banks. Refuse to release reports. Refuse to even tell you anything about the complaint you filed. Refuse to name banks found guilty of a "crime". Pretty much the only thing they agree to do is tell us to go away.

The letter referred to above was written to both you Ms. Tedesco and Ms. Goulard on June 1, 2017 almost a year ago. Based on the above and the attached, is it any wonder that people do not have faith in lame watchdogs?

I have also attached in PDF format a letter that was written to Mr. Wayne Easter on May 23, 2017 because it was already a full gone conclusion that both the FCAC and the Finance Committee would find nothing really wrong with the CBC report because they have to protect the banks. The banks say “jump” and the government and their watchdogs say, “how high?”
Sincerely, Peter Sommer
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:27 pm

Screen shot 2012-04-30 at 2.15.06 PM.png
Canada's biggest banks accepted tens of billions in government funds during the recession, according to a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

video [url] ... JBa_l0w7AQ
Canada's banking system is often lauded for being one of the world's safest. But an analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada's major lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously believed.

Macdonald examined data provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the big banks themselves for his report published Monday.

It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak. That works out to $3,400 for every man, woman and child in Canada, and also to seven per cent of Canada's gross domestic product in 2009.

The figure is also 10 times the amount Canadian taxpayers spent on the auto industry in 2009.

"At some point during the crisis, three of Canada's banks — CIBC, BMO, and Scotiabank — were completely under water, with government support exceeding the market value of the company," Macdonald said.

"Without government supports to fall back on, Canadian banks would have been in serious trouble."

During October 2008 and June 2010, the banks combined to report $27 billion in profits on their balance sheets.

CMHC mortgage program aided banks
One of the most well-known ways in which policymakers helped the banks during the crisis is through a $69-billion CMHC program whereby the housing agency took mortgages off the balance sheets of big Canadian banks. In contrast with other support facilities, all of the funds granted by the CMHC were through selling assets (in this case mortgages) to the housing agency. They were not funds that had to be paid back.

The CMHC has provided the aggregate total of how much was given out, but has yet to release specifics on which banks sold how much to them, and when, the CCPA says.

When asked for comment in reaction to the CCPA report, the Canadian Bankers Association noted that the $69 billion that Canada's big banks sold into the CMHC program is in fact only 55 per cent of what was allocated for the program.

"Many of the mortgages were already insured and therefore, created no additional risk for the government," the CBA noted in an email to CBC News. The CMHC estimates that by the time the program is wound up, it will have generated $2.5 billion in profit as those mortgages are paid off, the bankers' group noted.

Calling the CCPA report "completely baseless," Department of Finance spokesperson Chisholm Pothier noted that the mortgage program has already generated more than $1.2 billion in net revenues for the CMHC's coffers.

But Canadian lenders also dipped into a program set up by the U.S. Federal Reserve aimed at providing cash to keep American banks afloat. CIBC and BMO took almost $3 billion each out of the fund, RBC and TD took out $8 billion and Scotiabank drew down almost $12 billion, the CCPA report found.

'These funding measures were not put in place because banks were in financial difficulty.'
—Canadian Bankers' Association
That data came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which released it publicly. But Macdonald's analysis found that Canadian banks got a comparable amount — $41 billion — from Bank of Canada facilities, an agency that has been far less transparent in sharing information.

"Despite Access to Information requests for the data, the Bank of Canada refuses to release it," the CCPA report states.

"The federal government claims it was offering the banks 'liquidity support,' but it looks an awful lot like a bailout to me," says Macdonald. "Whatever you call it, Canadian government aid for the country's biggest banks was far more indispensable than the official line would suggest.

(advocate comment: it appears, after much observation, that bankers and politicians have a rather incestuous relationship, whereby they both manage to benefit each other, at the direct expense of the public. I trust that this will reveal itself in ways that illustrate a criminal breach of the public trust, and that one day we will advance our society and our legal (and political) system to a point where financially abusing the public is no longer "tolerated". I could be wrong, for sure I am misguided in my thinking. But one has to hope)
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:52 pm

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
John F. Kennedy

............and of course any government that lies, cheats and betrays its people has to be very afraid and potentially violent when threatened.

Canada spends $6 billion on overall police , $511 million on CSIS (secret police) and only $16 million (only three, one thousandths as much as spent on ordinary police) on the RCMP IMET major economic crimes unit. It wants to catch YOU, it just does not want anyone to catch or even look at THEM and their top friends.

Despite figures that suggest that financial crime by trusted criminals is equal to or larger than the damages done by each and every other crime in the country combined.

Police spending figures from Justice Canada and Stats Canada web sites , and annual reports from CSIS and RCMP
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:44 am

No Canadian bank bailouts? Says who?

10 December 2009
Institutional brokerage staff at Canada’s bank-owned investment dealers are in line for a record payday this month. And I see in my morning DTM offering that one of the justifications of this largess is that the public pursue was not used to keep our large financial institutions afloat during the recent global financial crisis, unlike the USA or United Kingdom:

Government officials noted yesterday that the situation in Canada is very different from that in Britain, adding there was no need for a bank bailout here.

It is a matter of some national honour that Canada’s bank’s didn’t receive direct capital injections from the government. That much is true.

But what isn’t true is that the banks survived the past twelve months without extradordinary financial support from the federal government and the Bank of Canada.

Between September 2008 and March 2009, Canadian banks reduced their holdings of domestic residential mortgages from $486.1 billion to $434.9 billion according to Bank of Canada stats; on a net basis.

Where did those mortgages go, you ask? Did 10% of Canadian homeonwers sell their homes and move into rental accomodation enmasse during a six month period?

Of course not. The federal government created a unique program through CMHC specifically targeted at allowing Canadian chartered banks to move tens of billions of dollars of assets off of their balance sheets. The reason? Canadian banks couldn’t raise sufficient and/or cost-effective funding from their traditional sources – primarily other global financial institutions – and needed Crown intervention to keep the wolf from the door. By mid-November 2008, the federal government had agreed to take $75 billion of mortgages from Canadian banks.

Assuming the risk-weighting of these assets was 20%, the feds essentially put $15 billion of capital into the Canadian banks that participated in the $75 billion CMHC program. Even Finance Minister Jim Flaherty agrees:

“At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada�s financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding,” said Minister Flaherty.

How is “stable” “long term funding” from CMHC any different than the pref share offerings via the American TARP program, other than the fact that Canadian taxpayers didn’t receive any purchase warrants on Canadian bank shares as compensation? Let’s not forget, the TARP was originally designed to take assets off U.S. bank balance sheets so as to free up capital.

The Canadian government also took steps in October 2008 to guarantee medium term lending in an effort to underpin the inter-bank lending market (see prior post “Political expediency trumps free market” Nov 3-08).

I’m all for paying teams what the market will bear (see prior post “Media new battle ground in I-bank bonus season war” Nov 25-09). But this heads I win, tails you lose bonus madness can’t be justified by the “lack” of a federal bank bailout.

There is ony a subtle distinction between injecting capital into a bank and relieving it of assets so that it can avoid a capital injection. Kind of like your Dad temporarily buying your bike from you when you ran out on money in University, and then selling it back to you six months later when you were flush from a summer job.

The notion that Canada’s “free market” took care of itself over the past 15 months is poppycock.

(disclosure – we own BMO, BNS and TD in our household)

Read more: ... z1dtKdTLEQ
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:34 pm


Ottawa Misleads on Canadian Bank Bailouts
written by Erik Andersen
Submission to the Minister
by Erik Andersen
Dear Chairman; it is now being said publicly that Canada’s banks were never given “bailout” help by the Federal Government. As recently as this morning on a CBC Early Edition interview out of Vancouver, a guest made this assertion and Mr. Cluff let it go unchallenged.
On October of 2008 Prime Minister Harper publicly announced that “Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.”

On November 12, 2008, another $50 billion allocation was announced. The official text was; “The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through CMHC under this program”.

By this program the commercial banks loaned money to the federal government so that it in turn was able to purchase the above mentioned mortgage pools. Do you and your fellow Members not consider this to be a “conflict of interest” transaction at the minimum?

Mr. James Rajotte
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance

Sixth Floor, 131 Queens Street

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6

Ref; Federal Financial aid given to Canadian Chartered Banks

A report by Bloomberg dated January 23, 2009, indicated the government had pledged as much as $200 billion in this matter.

Regardless of the modifiers, the above record of financing activity clearly indicates that the citizens of Canada traded cash money that had to be borrowed (think or our deficit) for the purchase of “insured mortgages” that the world has come to recognize as code words for “toxic assets” or “liars loans”. By this program Canadians have lessoned the financial risk burdens of the shareholders of our banks. Also, by this program Canadians have enabled our banks to engage in foreign acquisition such as the purchase of Commerce Bancorp of new Jersey by TD Canada Trust; the Alabama National Bancorp by Royal Bank’s subsidiary RBC Centura; the ABN AMRO leasing division by the Royal Bank; etc.

Apart from the staggering conflict of interest condition this program represents it still constitutes a “bailout” as most Canadians now understand the word to mean.

As parliamentarians and particularly as members of the Finance Committee, please correct the public misconception that the Government of Canada did not “bailout” Canada’s banks when in fact we all still own $75 billion of their valueless paper.


Erik Andersen

Cc Standing Committee on Finance

Jean Crowder, MP

Robert Oliphant. MP

Chris Bowers; Publisher of the Shingle

James Daw; Journalist

Toby Sanger; Economist
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:12 am

citing reasons like "timeliness" the TD becomes another bank who has decided to walk away from an independent dispute resolution process for the industry. This industry expert knows from experience that the truth behind the move is that OBSI was offering customers a fairer settlement process than what this bank was willing to accept. If you are a customer of this firm, you must know that they are NOT following best practices for treating customer complaints, and they have hired yet another industry handmaiden to ensure customers might not have full fairness..

National Post
TD bank exits national ombudsman

National Post
Theresa Tedesco, Financial Post

Oct. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Oct. 27, 2011 3:08 AM ET

Toronto-Dominion Bank will no longer resolve disputes with aggrieved bank clients through the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI).

Effective Nov. 1, all new cases involving TD's personal and commercial banking customers in Canada will be handled through ADR Chambers Banking Ombuds Office (ADRBO), the bank announced Wednesday. ADRBO, a privately operated mediator, will provide independent services to banking customers who do not agree with the responses and recommendations made by TD's internal ombudsman.

Canada's second-largest bank, which is among a group of major financial institutions agitating for an overhaul of OBSI, says its decision to quit the national mediator of last resort stems from the bank's desire to find "ways of improving customer experience and particularly problem resolution and response times."

While OBSI will continue to work on TD's existing files - about 40 to 50 in total - all new complaints will be handled by ADR Chambers starting next month.

The departure marks the second time a major Canadian bank has relocated its dispute-resolution business away from OBSI in favour of ADR Chambers. Royal Bank of Canada, the largest in the country, was the first to exit OBSI for its banking dispute resolution three years ago.

"We are concerned about the length of response times," explained Paul Huyer, TD's internal ombudsman, said in an interview. "We watched the way ADR handles RBC cases and over time we came to the conclusion that they are better than OBSI, as much as 50% faster response on straightforward cases."

A spokesman for OBSI questioned TD's motives. "TD has never raised timeliness as a problem in OBSI's handling of banking complaints, so we are surprised to see that given as the reason for their departure," said Tyler Fleming, a spokesman for the not-forprofit mediator.

Mr. Fleming also defended OBSI's track record. "We consistently exceed our standards for the length of time it should take to resolve a banking complaint. For straightforward banking complaints, it takes less than 60 days on average to investigate," he said.

TD's move is the latest salvo in a long-running battle between some of the country's largest banks and brokerages and OBSI.

Created in 1996 to review complaints by small businesses against chartered banks, OBSI is the only independent dispute-resolution provider in the financial-services industry. Its mandate expanded in the past decade to cover all unresolved grievances.

As arbitrator of last resort, OBSI resolves disputes between the 600 participating banks and investment firms and their customers if an agreement can't be reached between them.

However, while the major banks and credit unions participate on a voluntary basis, the investment industry - brokerages, and mutual fund companies - joined OBSI on a mandatory basis in 2002 as required by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) and the Mutual Funds Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA).

But there has been tension building between the industry and OBSI in recent years. Troubled by the growing number of consumer complaints filed against them, the length of time to resolve the disputes and the steadily increasing damages being awarded to clients, investment dealers are demanding changes to OBSI's governance structure to make it more transparent and accountable.

Earlier this year, RBC Capital Markets Ltd., TD Waterhouse and Manulife Financial Corp. filed an application with IIROC, the national self-regulator overseeing investment dealers and equity trading, for an exemption from the mandatory provision that requires them to resolve disputes through OBSI.

Representatives from the firms met with senior secur-ities regulators in May when they requested - and were subsequently denied - an application to opt out of funding and using the mediator's services in favour of using private dispute-resolution firms of their choosing.

That application to opt out was denied by IIROC and the MFDA last May. Since then, the dealers and OBSI have been working to sort out their differences.

"We agree with the regulators that one single, independent dispute service is preferable and that should be OBSI," Mr. Huyer said. "We're committed to work with regulators and OBSI to improve the service and reform it."

OBSI's Mr. Fleming said although the ombudsman is "encouraged that TD has come out in support of OBSI as the single, independent disputeresolution service for investment complaints," he called the bank's decision to withdraw from OBSI for banking complaints "puzzling."
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:12 pm

banksters.jpg (10.71 KiB) Viewed 32260 times
Canadian bank bailout total touches $186 billion

2 December 2010
News item: Big Five banks tapped Fed for $111 billion funds during financial crisis

I’m reminded of Bill Clinton’s infamous line: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” Thanks to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the proverbial blue dress has now been found.

It was about a year ago that I wrote a post about the $75 billion financial assistance program that the Canadian government provided to the Canadian banking fraternity between September 2008 and March 2009 (see prior post “No Canadian bank bailouts? Says who?” December 10-09). Not that the program wasn’t vital to stabilizing the domestic banking system, but I was annoyed about the crowing that “Canadian banks didn’t need any help”.

The disclosure this week from the U.S. Fed is remarkable (via the Globe and Mail), and we’ve now learned that the U.S. government provided an additional $111 billion of financial assistance to Canada’s five largest banks. That’s on top of the $75 billion Canadian government capital relief program via CMHC.

A pseudo injection of $186 billion of capital — in the form of transferring assets to governments in exchange for cheap cash — seems like a whack of money for an industry that obstensiby required no public support during the recent financial crisis:

There is ony a subtle distinction between injecting capital into a bank and relieving it of assets so that it can avoid a capital injection. Kind of like your Mom/Dad temporarily buying your bike from you when you ran out on money in University, and then selling it back to you six months later when you were flush from a summer job.


Read more: ... z1b4CoDkxP
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:27 pm

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

NEWSFLASH OBSI In Critical Condition
Canada: Banks Stomp OBSI to Near Death

“In a shocking news development, we get word that a gang of extremely large, powerful and petulant banks have stomped the current Ombudsman for Investments to near death”!

In investigating the disturbing allegations we, like most Canadians, are confused as to why such large and powerful beasts would suddenly turn on such a small, frail, and youthful position.

For those requiring more background, the OBSI is the “ombudsman for banking services and investments”. This position was formed in the late 1990s when rumours were heard about a rampaging group of banks beating up small business owners and stealing their lunch money. No charges were laid as the surviving small business owners were hesitant to risk future lunch money. In 2002 the OBSI added the investment industry to its mandate; attempting to provide fair resolution to small retail investors who wondered how their current lunch money and future lunch reserves (RRSPs) had seemingly disappeared from their investment accounts. Of course many of these nest eggs were “prudently” invested by the gorillas in the Investment industry including of course the bank gang.

Many speculate that adding the investment bullies to the mandate of the ombudsman was short-sighted. Like a British police constable, the ombudsman carries no weapons when confronting these wild marauding gangs. Apparently the governments of the day felt that moral suasion and a proper upbringing would keep the gangs in line. Unfortunately, it would appear that power and greed have tilted the scale away from any fear of public condemnation. The large powerful bank investment firms appear to actually believe that whatever they do is always correct and any opposition is to be immediately crushed!

In fairness, it appears that the ombudsman did not even get his weapon (public disclosure) out of his holster before he was set upon. Despite clear warnings of the dangers, the ombudsman actually thought he was a respected friend of the gangs and appears to have walked into the back alley willingly and without back-up. One can only wonder at his surprise when the organized criticisms began raining down on his unprotected skull. Early word from investor advocates familiar with the case is that the ombudsman was guilty of having his own opinion on both the veracity of the banks documents and the claims made by the banks commissioned sales forces. Indeed, some have actually charged the ombudsman with talking to investors who lost their savings and in several radical cases, believing the word of a lowly common client over that of the banks commissioned sales person.

Medical staff tells us it will be some time before we know if the ombudsman will survive his injuries. While the powerless neighbourhood watch (investor advocates) keep a vigil at the hospital bedside of the ombudsman; the power, wealth and sheer overpowering influence of the gangs continues to threaten any recovery. Amid rumours that the gangs are looking at appointing their own “gang controlled” ombudsman to fill the void they are attempting to create; government and regulatory officials appear to be keeping a very low profile. Apparently the gang is so powerful even the government is leery of challenging their tantrum.

Back to you in the mainstream media for our next follow up on this troubling story......


Posted by Mike Macdonald at 2:53 PM
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:17 am

http://progressivepolitiques.blogspot.c ... %20bailout

To the Contrary, Canada DID Bail Out Her Banks
Canada bailed out its banks.

What!?, you say. Us? But we have 'regulated banks'; and didn't Mr. Harper say that we didn't have to “bail out the banks?”

He said it alright. It's also true that we have no bill passed in parliament that is comparable to TARP.

So how did we do it?

$75 billion in government allocated money went to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to purchase mortgages from the banks in the fall of 2008. The CMHC is a crown corporation akin in purpose and function to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The allocations increased government borrowing to $89.5 billion in 2008-2009 (compared to $13.6 billion in 2007-2008)

What's more, the CMHC increasingly insures high-risk mortgages with money borrowed from the banks themselves—meaning the taxpayer takes all the risk by way of the CMHC. Combining mortgage insurance and mortgage backed securities owned by the CMHC (fancy terms meaning if the people find themselves unable to pay en masse, the government would have to pay for the crown corp's shortfall) rings up to over—wait for it—$500 billion. This is substantially up from the CMHC's $100 billion in securitization back in 2006.

Other significant actions by the CMHC in recent years have been to reduce the required down payment to 0%, and increase amortization (how long one has to repay a mortgage) to 40 years! This makes it far easier for people to purchase houses they simply won't be able to afford.

So what really happened dear reader? We effectively bailed out our banks by purchasing mortgages through a crown corp. What's worse: the foundations have been laid for a future crisis to be even worse.

I feel it's crucial you know and understand these fac ts. This is what is going on under the Conservatives. The crisis that should have been the death bell for unsustainable real estate finance seems more like its C-section birth.

Further Your Knowledge AND PLEASE COMMENT!:

“Canada's Good Bank Myth”, Murray Dobbin, The CCPA Monitor Volume 17 No. 3, July/August 2010
“CMHC Growth Fuels Worry Over Risk” By Boyd Erman and Tara Perkins, The Globe and Mail, October 16, 2009
“CMHC Annual Report” ... AR2009.pdf
“Canada's $75 Billion Bank Bailout” by Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization, January 25, 2009 ... &aid=12007
Wikipedia: ... orporation
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Too big to prosecute, our bankers

Postby admin » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:40 pm


2010 and Canadian Banks: bigger not better?

Information started to trickle out in 2010 suggesting that all is not well in the Canadian banking empire. Consider this:

More and more of Canadian bank expansion is targeted for the US. Are they over invested in the US?

A new research report by Deutsche Bank Research shows that Canadian banks are in worse shape compared to other developed market banks based on the Borrower Concentration ratio. This ratio measures the diversification of banks’ foreign exposure across other countries. Put another way, this measure identifies those countries that have overly-concentrated their lending on specific regions or countries. Source: SeekingAlpha or as a PDF doc.1951.
As a result Canadian banks may be getting too big to fail: see MarginalRevolution or as a PDF doc.1941.

Think this is just theoretical? Who knew before it leaked out that at the height of the financial crisis Canadian banks were concerned enough about their situation that they secretly took over US$ 100 billion in TARP emergency payments from the US Federal Reserve; see Slater G& M 2010 canadian banks and TARP or as a PDF doc.1953. The Canadian banks made no disclosure to their own investors. Were the Canadian Minister of Finance and Bank of Canada aware at the time? Did they advise Canadian securities commissions? Did any of these government bodies consider if Canadian investors were entitled to know? ... 3/236/1/1/
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: absolute power corrupts absolutely, Our Canadian Banks

Postby admin » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:37 am

Which of the Six Big 6 Banking Houses Was the Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?
These aren't nice folks; their collective rap sheet includes fraud, sex discrimination, collusion to bribe public officials... even laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels.

read the post at ... ate_outlaw
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests