Hi Cockerel1

You said

"When I first came to this country in 1967, I asked myself “How can a country, with so little population (less than 23 million at that time), have such a modern infrastructure over such a vast area of land, and the people be subject to taxes so much less than European countries?”

Having arrived here from a much smaller country (UK), with a much larger population (50 million plus), and a heavier tax burden than most, it was a pleasant surprise to also understand, that unlike European countries. Canada had no debt and was admired all over the world for its approach to government spending"

To understand is to look back to the Bank of Canada, and it's emergence as a 'public utility' in 1938. it gave the govenment the right to 'borrow' money from it at virtually no interest, and any interest was repaid to the BoC (ie. 'we the people'). There was still borrowing from private banks, although the BoC at times was creating in excess of 50% of total currency and credit.This figure is now at about 2%.

Without the need to repay private banks the usurous rates of interest, the taxes paid went much further than now. Canada was able to fund itself more effectively, through WWII, and after, with the creation of the socalized medical system, St. Lawrence Seaway, CMHC and other public infrastructure.

Fast forward to about 1974. Canada makes a deal with IMF to borrow our currency from private banks, instead of the Bank of Canada. (I'm still tryiing to figure out which Finance Minister was responsible. There were two that year, John Turner and Chretien. I have my suspicions. At that time, the federal debt was $18B.

Fast forward again to the 1993 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199312_05_e_5944.html#0.2.L39QK2.DVW2PL.2FGQFE.OAl), specifically chapter 5

"5.41 The cost of borrowing is the third area that affects the annual deficit. In 1991-92, the interest on the debt was $41 billion. This cost of borrowing and its compounding effect have a significant impact on Canada's annual deficits. From Confederation up to 1991-92, the federal government accumulated a net debt of $423 billion. Of this, $37 billion represents the accumulated shortfall in meeting the cost of government programs since Confederation. The remainder, $386 billion, represents the amount the government has borrowed to service the debt created by previous annual shortfalls."

So, over 10 times the shortfall is required to pay back this loans, when the BoC could have created the credit at virtually no interest. They didn't.

Why not?

My favorite line though is:
"5.14 Experts will, of course, realize that there are complexities we did not touch on, but we hope that they will agree that there are significant barriers to dealing with them until there is a better and more widespread level of understanding."

So...from 1974 till 1992, the amount borrowed to meet shortfalls in funding roughly doubled the debt to 37B, but the interest (and interest on interest) is what added massive amounts.This money is not spent for the benefit of any canadian, nor does not pay down debt.

What sovereign nation in it's right mind would borrow it's own currency from private banks at compound interest when it has the right, and I would argue duty, to create the currency? (rhetorical question).

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit,
it matters not who makes the nations 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