Talk:Bank of Canada

message: Shaun courtice (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *From Peter Johnson [04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulation 

message: I have assessed this as a Start Class, as it is thorough, but has far too few references for it content and importance. If proper references were added, it would probably be a B Class article. I have rated it as high importance, because I feel that it is of vital importance to understanding Canada and that most readers would have some understanding of it. Cheers, CP 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: The whole paragraph on inflation and how it is measured is POV to such a degree that, as it is right now, it is useless. I have removed it. Shanebratt (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation (POV) 

message: *This article is very confusing when it comes to ownership. It begins with stating that it is a "private" bank, proceeds to mention that it is a "special kind of Crown Corporation" (owned by the queen), and then states that it is "fully owned by the government." These are three completely contradictory statements which only serve to cloud the truth. Which of the three is it? Neurolanis (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing and explaining this. I am obviously not an expert in these matters. I wonder, since these shares are under the control of the prime minister, if this gives him personally complete control over the Bank of Canada? He is holding his shares on behalf of Her Majesty, but in many ways the queen is just a symbol and has little real authority in our country since the Constitution Act of 1982. I would think that its control would be in the hands of Parliament itself, not specifically its elected leader. He is just a prime minister, after all, not a president. Neurolanis (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Owns It? 

message: So the Bank began operations began operating 11 March 1935. This site says the bill creating the Bank received Royal Assent 3 July 1934. When was the bill actually introduced...?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the beginning... 

message: The sentence,
"with the remainder (95%) being "created" by commercial banks through the process of fractional-reserve banking",
should better read,
"with the remainder (95%) being "created" by commercial banks through the process of bank lending (loans create deposits)".
Just a suggestion.
Sincerely,
William.
WjtWeston (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Any increase in a central banks' balance sheet that is created out of thin air and is not the result of an investment of capital or the issue of new currency -- must be termed quantitative easing.  Therefore, the Bank of Canada's increase in 2008/09 by definition is quantitative easing.  
What does central bank economic theory/or an audit, call this type of balance sheet increase then?  What are your thoughts?
Note, the recent 2011/12 40% increase in the Bank of Canada's balance sheet was from an investment by the government is not quantitative easing in the normal sense becasue this was not created out of thin air by the central bank.  (It's still quantitative easing but not -- as the government received no money for these bonds/ BUT the debt did increase; whereas in quantitative easing the government does receive cash/bank credits for the bonds and is not a debt increase, but this is not the issue of the edit made to the Bank of Canada wiki article.) The government created new bonds out of thin air without receiving payment for the bonds and gave these bonds to the Bank of Canada -- and as this debt is still owned by the government, they own the Bank of Canada, the deficit was not increased to do this fancy bookwork/trick.  
The question is what does one term the increase in 2008/09 in the Bank of Canada balance sheet -- if not quantitative easing?  Yes, it was a troubled asset relief program, but where did the funds come from to do this???  --184.69.101.180 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In quantitative easing the central bank still buys securities. I'm not aware of a way to increase a central bank's balance sheet without creating currency to pay for assets; that's the essence of open market operations. I'm not familiar with this program you're describing at the Bank of Canada. Can you link a source? Lagrange613 19:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Unless you can find a reliable source backing your interpretation it's hard not to see this as what the government claims it is: a rainy-day fund, or anyway a facility that lets them establish a rainy-day fund quickly. It is certainly not quantitative easing, because, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't change the money supply. And I still have yet to understand why this justifies your characterization of the 2008–09 bailout as QE. What you really need is a reliable source for that. Lagrange613 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I said that the prudential liquidity program doesn't increase the money supply. The 2008–09 bailout did, but that alone doesn't make it QE. Not every action that increases the money supply is QE. For example, in normal times a central bank will regularly use open market operations to buy securities to push down interest rates. This increases the money supply but is not QE. Nor is it QE every time a central bank creates money, by the same argument. Your inability to produce a reliable source calling the 2008–09 bailout QE means that Wikipedia can't call it QE. Which is good, because it's not QE. Likewise, the CBC article you linked does not even contain the phrase "quantitative easing" and therefore can't be used to justify a claim that the prudential liquidity program is QE. Which is good, because it's not QE. Lagrange613 03:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

text: It appears the Bank of Canada "got" the money for the securities the same way it and every other central bank "gets" its money: by creating entries in the ledgers of the securities' sellers. This is what happens in open market operations, and it's what happened here. That part is not out of the ordinary. It's what central banks do. Lagrange613 19:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

text: No, an open market operation is "creating entries in the ledgers of the securities' sellers". That's for expansionary monetary policy. For contractionary policy, the central bank performs the inverse operation, selling securities it has and debiting the buyers' accounts. The money does not (and does not need to) "come from" anywhere, because the central bank is the authority that issues and removes money from the financial system. That money then gets multiplied by banks through fractional-reserve banking. QE is just a special case of expansionary monetary policy when interest rates are near zero. There are processes other than QE in which money is created. The creation of money is not the defining characteristic of QE. Lagrange613 23:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  choosing a term to describe the  increase in the  Bank of Canada balance sheet 2008/09 

message: Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily Dias:
I read under this section that: "It is important to distinguish between the right to "issue money," which is the right of the Bank of Canada, and the ability to "create credit," which, through legislation and regulation enacted by Parliament, is largely done by commercial banks through the issuance of loans. While all of Canada's money is created by the government through deficit spending, if "money" is thought of as the combination of issued money and bank-created credit, then presently, the Bank of Canada "issues" less than 5% of Canada's money, with the remainder (95%) being "created" by commercial banks through the process of fractional-reserve banking.[19]"
But it seems to me that if the Bank of Canada simply deposits credits into bank accounts or government, the Bank of Canada is creating credit, just like the Federal Reserve. It may be that banks do this as well, but the original credit as money comes from the Bank of Canada. Sooooo...I'd say this isn't exactly accurate. The proof would be to show that the Bank of Canada doesn't create credit at all when issuing money. 
Saludos,
70.72.45.131 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roles and Responsibilities 

message: I suggest to add to that Article Wikipedia Infobox an item about the ownership of the Bank of Canada. Most other Articles about Banks or Financial organisations include such item. Also in my personal experience this is one of the most frequent question and misconception during various debates. There is also frequent confusion in the media about that present Bank of Canada ownership. Adding that information to the Infobox could potentially clarify that and facilitate friendly discussions. Here is a suggested concise draft for discussion. With reputable sources.
 Canadian Crown corporation
Francewhoa (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Ownership to Infobox 

message: Disclosure: I work for the Bank of Canada. We note that the following sentence has been added to the first para of the article: "The bank is owned by Rothschild."
This is not accurate and should be removed from the article. As the article states, " In 1938, the bank was legally designated a federal Crown corporation. The Minister of Finance holds the entire share capital issued by the bank."
Here is the record of the inaccurate addition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_of_Canada&type=revision&diff=804472833&oldid=803841126
--Beades (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information in page 

message: "The contract to produce the banknotes has been held by the Canadian Bank Note Company since 1935."
I find this a little misleading as while true (especially now) it has been not been the exclusive provider.
BA International (Giesecke+Devrient) also produced these banknotes up until the polymer changeover.Closure Announcement, 2012
I don't think this is important enough to change at the moment but if the Intro gets reworded or a banknotes section gets added, this is something that should be kept in mind.EatingFudge (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banknotes 

message: "The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada."
So saith the article, citing the Act, but of course, this is due for an update, as Canada now has a king rather than a queen. This will involve nothing more than amending the word "Her" to read "His", of course. Shall we do this forthwith? I've just had a look at the online text of the Act — and that has itself not yet been modified. Does that indicate that the law still reads thus? Or rather, did it automatically change with the Queen's death and the King's accession and they just haven't updated the website yet? It will begin to look truly silly after a while, if it doesn't already. What's to be done? Kelisi (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forthcoming update