The President and the Press: John F. Kennedy

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

AUDIO:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR1yXR2E_M8

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.   

You bear heavy responsibilities, these days, and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851, the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.   We are told the foreign correspondent  Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment.  A salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame.  Eventually terminating his relationship with the tribune and devoting his talents full-time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the Cold War.

If only  this Capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly.  If only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different.  And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account of obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press."  Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President versus the Press."   But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague, it was unnecessary for us to reply that this administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this administration.   

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called 'one-party press'.   On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press, except from a few republicans.  Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences.

I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20 million Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months, your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object, as I do, to pictures of one's golfing skill in action.   But neither on the other hand had he ever been a secret service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers, as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger.  The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some.

But the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years.  Whatever our hopes may be for the future - for reducing the threat, or living with it - there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security.  A challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge, imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President.  Two requirements that may seem almost contadictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril.

I refer , first, to the need for a far greater public information, and second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.  Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning, to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation, to re-examine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril.   In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy, in time of "clear and present danger", the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today, no war has been declared - and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion.  Our way of life is under attack.   Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe.  The survival of our friends is in danger, and yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security.  If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger" then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear, and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions.  By the government, by the people, bny every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.  

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means, for expanding its sphere of influence.  On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.  It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security.   And the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack, as well as an outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are, that this nation's foes, have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage.   That details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike.

That the size, the strength, the location, and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power.  And that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning.  Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items.  But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security.  And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer.  No public official should answer it for you.  No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will.  But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear, and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not command this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions I have said - and your newspapers have constantly said - that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline.  They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good.  I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news.  I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship, or any new types of security classifications.   I have no easy answer for the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one.

But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this county to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?"  All I suggest is that you add the question" "Is it in the interests of national security?"  And I hope that every group in America - unions and businessmen and public officials at every level - will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.  

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations.  Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war.  In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent.  But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation - an obligation which I share - and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people.   To make certain that they posess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well - the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutinity of his program.  For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition.  And both are necessary. 

I am not asking your newspapers to support the administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people.  For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your reader, I welcome it.  This administration intends to be candid about its errors.  For as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."   We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First  Amendment - the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution - not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" - but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news.  For it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security, and we intend to do it.

It was early in the seventeenth century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world.  The compass, gunpowder, and the printing press.  Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass, have made us all citizens of the world.  The hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all.

In that one-world's effort to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press - to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be:   Free and independent.

2011 Federal Election Policy Alternatives - A Look Back

2011 Federal Election 

These were the proposed Policy Alternatives as written April 2011 for the Surrey North May 2011 Federal Election, as posted on www.jamiescott.ca

 POLICY ALTERNATIVES

The most common question asked of me since I've entered this campaign is "What are your policies?"
I have tried to answer with an idea of what a Member of Parliament should be: A representative of the people, not hired to make decisions for them, but to implement the decisions that the citizens make, and bring any bills to the House that the people of Surrey, and the rest of Canada, want brought forward for a vote by all MP's in office.

If I was running for a position of decision-making power, like a Premier or Prime Minister, I would feel quite comfortable documenting every policy that I would be bringing into effect, and saying so well in advance.  I believe that the mandate of a politician is to do what he or she said they were going to do prior to the election, and that every subsequent decision that affects all should be decided by all.  But for those who want to confirm there is a different approach to doing things, we have provided a short list of policy alternatives which could be implemented quite quickly if the voters decided that this is the direction they would like our country to go.  These ideas are not policies.  They are intelligent suggestions which should be added to the discussions of how we'd like to improve our State.

When I say 'we', I mean the people who have approached me with their ideas to improve our current economic and political system, which would also adjust the social culture of our nation, Canada, the greatest country on earth.   Not for it's policies, but for it's people.

 TRUTH ALTERNATIVE

1. Truth:

Your politician should tell you the truth in all matters, at all times.  No exceptions.   The consequences of knowingly lying to the public would be immediate resignation, and I am prepared to provide a pre-signed letter of resignation in the event that I have deceived the public in regards to my official capacity as an MP.  This could apply to all members of government, at all levels. In addition, all elected officials could be required to submit to polygraph testing. This is no different that what is required of police officers, prison guards, and now even transit police.

2. Freedom of Information Requests:

We could end the practice of requiring expensive fees and lengthy delays for individuals and media requesting access to information. We could scan and publish every document signed and upload it online daily. No business, public or private, would be shielded from access to information in regards to taxpayers money.

 CRIME POLICY ALTERNATIVES

1. Crime: Instead of building more prisons, hiring more police or writing more laws, we could look at the root causes of crime and address them. Inequality and scarcity are the primary drivers of crime and stress in our society. Poverty is the greatest driver of both. We could implement social programs that aim at making education, which is the great equalizer, free to everyone.  We will promote collaboration over competition.
2. For our current prisons we could change the focus from one of punishment and "justice" to that of rehabilitation and education.  Prisons currently are nothing more than criminal factories, and incarceration should be used as a means to restrain citizens indefinitely until they have been taught how to interact with fellow citizens properly, rather than to use it as a tool to punish.  Sex-offenders released on parole could be outfitted with tracking chips, so that in the event that their conditions prohibit them from nearing a park or school, they could immediately be retrieved from society should they breach their conditions.
3. New laws could be passed only as a last resort.  Laws are only effective if enforced and for most laws it is not cost efficient to enforce them, so those in authority do not.  Unenforced laws should be purged from the books. Without the official removal of outdated laws, everything eventually becomes illegal.   People who are prosecuted under laws are tried more as object lessons to the rest of us than any real sincere drive to get us to change our behaviour.  If a technological solution exists, it should be tried first.  For example, rather than have a drinking and driving law, we could require an interlocking mechanism installed on each vehicle at the production level, thereby preventing the operation of a vehicle by someone who is inebriated.  This would also allow a driver who had few enough drinks to remain under the legal limit to still drive home legally and safely, as well as restoring the confidence in safe socializing in a pub environment and re-establish regular business for the restaurant and bar industry.  This would also eliminate the need for random roadside police checks, drunk-driving accidents, increased insurance costs, police overtime, costly court times and of course deaths caused by drunk driving.  This is an example of eradicating a crime so that it can no longer exist, as opposed to merely finding extra ways to crack down on it, as preferred by MADD.
4. Marijuana: We could legalize it and tax it like tobacco and alcohol. We could also encourage the start up of the hemp industry to produce textiles, plastics, fibres, food and medicine.


5. Border Policy: We could require all cargo to be visually examined and then scanned via X-Ray as it comes into or leaves Canadian ports and border crossings to stem the tide of cocaine and gun smuggling, along with human trafficking.

 MONETARY POLICY ALTERNATIVE

We could retire our national debt, which is owed specifically to private banks, by using the Bank of Canada to issue enough cash to buy back all government bonds held by banks.  This move swaps a debt instrument, which is interest producing, for cash, which produces no interest. You would then have to retire the bonds permanently, so that no inflation would result.  This would mean that there was no increase in the overall money supply.

Going forward, any borrowing would be done through the Bank of Canada at zero percent interest to the Canadian taxpayers.  We could increase the chartered banks reserve requirement to 100%, and all money would effectively be created through the Bank of Canada.  All money creation would be tied to productivity going forward to minimize any inflation.  All borrowing for infrastructure must then have a clear benefit to a majority of Canadians (i.e. transportation, building hospitals, improving access to services), which could be decided via verifiable on-line referendums.

The Canadian government is, conservatively speaking, currently paying 82 million dollars in financing costs to private financial institutions every day.  When the interest rate rises, and it will, so too will the amount we pay. What is the benefit to the Canadian people to pay these financing charges when we could borrow interest free from the Bank of Canada as was practiced from 1938 to 1974?  In 1974, our debt stood at $18 billion.  Today is it $560 billion dollars.  This is money that need not have been borrowed by our government.  It could have been printed by the Bank of Canada.  Today, only 3% of our nations money supply was issued by the Bank of Canada.  The other 97% was digitally created by chartered banks, and added to our overall money supply by way of loans.

Nearly all money in Canada is created on the spot as debt, owed to a private bank.  Our current system is not necessary and was not used prior to 1974 when our country's debt load was manageable.
This is unmanageable: http://www.debtclock.ca/

 EDUCATION ALTERNATIVE

We could lower the barriers to access higher education by fully funding it.  Knowledge could be shared freely, for the benefit of us all, rather than providing it only to those who have enough money to attain certain knowledge, or enough good credit to accumulate a lifetime of tuition debt.  We could build more schools by funding them with government created money to create jobs in construction, and then later for teachers.  The high school curriculum could include the study of our debt-based monetary system. We could offer comprehensive retraining programs and living support to the poor and unemployed to prepare them for new careers in our modern economy.

 SOCIAL POLICY ALTERNATIVES

1. Immigration: Could be maintained at sustainable levels to compensate for our lower-than-replacement birth rate.  Most importantly we could have programs in place to enable recognition of education and skills.  The Government of Canada in association with businesses should be signing mutual recognition treaties to facilitate the process in which newly landed immigrants can find gainful employment quickly in the a field of their expertise.  This would reduce the number of engineers driving taxis.
2. Homelessness: Rather than build wasteful subsidized housing like the Millennium Waters, we could channel that money into real building solutions such as those offered by www.twelve3.ca, and other such companies, which offer small, clean, efficient to heat and maintain units that cost approximately 20K to 25K each and can house one individual comfortably. You can group two or more together to accommodate families. This is a fraction of the price traditionally subsidized housing costs. The homeless can then be recruited to maintain the units and the grounds and start fostering a sense of community as they learn to live together and gain skills and confidence that will eventually allow them to move on to bigger and better things. Prime Minister Harper had proposed a $1.9 billion dollar subsidy over 5 years in which they worked together with communities to provide housing and homeless programs. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/homelessness/index.shtml $1.9 billion dollars, not including land costs, equals 76,000 dwellings. Based on conservative estimates, there is 150,000 homeless in Canada, some estimates are as high as 300,000.  That program alone could house fully half of them.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada) The annual cost of homelessness is 4.5 to 6 billion dollars annually.  That is 180,000 to 240,000 dwellings that could be built annually.  In two years maximum we could build a dwelling for every homeless person in Canada and still have plenty of money to fund various educational and back-to-work plans for the homeless.  We could end homelessness forever.  In two years.
3. Create a National Voluntary Aid Organization: To dispense aid in the event of natural disasters.  To work concurrently with our military and professionals.  This would be for men and women who want to help fight forest fires, help with floods, or work disaster relief in areas subjected to natural disasters of any sort.  This relief force would be voluntary.


4. Media and Press: Support a free media and press, including freedom from corporate influence resulting from media conglomerates, as well as government influence by promoting independent and alternative media.


5. Free and Open Internet: Make internet access a fundamental human right and at no time allow corporations or government to threaten the free operation of the internet, legislating a permanent ban on the idea of daily usage billing similar to that afforded to you via cable.  You do not pay for how many hours you watch TV, and the internet should be no different.  Specifically, it is the access to free knowledge which must be preserved for the greater benefit to the nation, by insuring that the populace is free and informed.


6. Long Gun registry: We could immediately cancel this money wasting initiative.  Instead of worrying about who has guns, focus on reducing the environmental factors that create a situation where one human being would shoot another.  Namely address inequality and scarcity with low cost housing, food and education.


7. Military: We should restore full funding to military veterans and ensure that a returning vet never goes without work, free education, or sees a food bank at any time in their life.  We should ensure that reservists who lose limbs are compensated at the same levels as full-time soldiers for limbs lost in battle. Currently, a reservist who loses both legs in war is compensated at a level less than half that of a full-time soldier for losing the same two legs.  This outcome, regardless of your perspective on war, is not acceptable.  These men have put their lives on the line for our country. Pay them all in full. 

 BUSINESS POLICY ALTERNATIVES



1. Repeal NAFTA: No more outsourcing of jobs across the continent or abroad. As a corporation, access to our resources, and our water, would require that Canadians are employed first, in full.
2. Fair Distributions of Productivity Gains: Since the 1930's productivity gains in the way of cost cutting due to technological automation and outsourcing have traditionally accumulated disproportionately to upper management and the shareholders, while workers have been laid off. The rising income gap between the rich and the middle class is as stark indicator of the unfairness of the current practice. Corporations need to realize that many of the ideas for these productivity gains come from, and are implemented by, these very same workers. So man hours should decrease and wages should increase as these gains are distributed in a more equitable fashion.
3. No More Bank Bailouts: Ever.
4. Plan now for a Post-Carbon Future: Oil production is declining and with China and India's economies heating up, the competition for petroleum products is going to drive up the prices to unsustainable levels.  Now is the time to start building the infrastructure we need now to reduce our dependence on oil in the future:
1. Invest in clean energy generation like tidal, wave, hydro, wind, solar, thorium and geothermal.
2. Reduce our dependence on dirty sources of energy like uranium, plutonium, coal, natural gas, and oil.
3. Focus on a steady state economy that promotes building a progressive infrastructure that enhances efficiency, lowers cost of living for ordinary citizens and establishes an excess abundance to life's necessities and is not driven solely by production for profit.
   • Enshrine as a right every citizen's entitlement to healthy food, clean water and clean air.
   • To this end promote the use of large scale hydroponics, vertical farming and permaculture techniques to enable the excess abundance of food for all of Canada's citizens.
   • Encourage the development of food production locally.
   • Invest in mass transportation, automated electric personal transit, the Shweeb human powered rail system (www.Shweeb.com), Zip Car, and cross country high-speed maglev rail that will revitalize this country like the building of the Trans Canada Highway once did.
   • Encourage business to allow telecommuting, flex hours and job sharing to cut down on travel and distribute energy usage more evenly through out the day.

 HEALTH CARE POLICY ALTERNATIVES


We could focus on preventative medicine over reactionary medicine to stop health problems before they start:


1. Provide clean air, clean water, and healthy organic food at low cost.
2. Build more hospitals with government created money to alleviate the strain on
the current health care system. This has the side effect of creating more constructions jobs and more jobs for Doctors, Nurses and administration.
3. Provide more incentives for Doctors to take up residency in our Northern communities.
4. Allow on-line automatic renewal of long-term non-narcotic prescription (ie: asthma refills) to free up medical professionals time to deal with more pressing health issues. Currently at least half of all medical clinic visits are for prescription renewal.
5. Authorize the use of medical marijuana, federally.
6. Provide incentives to employers that provide more generous vacation packages and leave of absence policies. Promote more time spent with families.
7. Genetically Modified Foods: We could propose an immediate scientific review conducted by an unaffiliated party to determine the long term and short term affects of ingesting GMO foods and to determine if GMO foods and unmodified foods are indeed "substantially equivalent". A moratorium on all GMO foods could be instituted until the study is completed. If the results are favourable, all GMO foods would be labeled as such to enhance consumer choice.



 POLITICAL POLICY ALTERNATIVES



1. Smaller government: We could abolish the unelected Senate and cut back on excess layers of government management, while preserving excess employees' jobs by creating an abundance of employment in the private sector.
2. Elected Officials Pensions: We could reduce pensions to match years of service. No more automatic full pensions for serving part of a term.
3. End the practice of voting your own raise: Regular citizens can't do this, so why should our elected officials? Salary increases would be approved only after receiving 75% approval from the citizens. This outcome could also be arrived at via an ongoing electoral system.
4. MP Spending: All transactions made by your MP would be public and available 24/7. Also, we could introduce a measure to cut costs by adopting web conferencing technology to eliminate costly flights to Ottawa when most parliamentary procedures can be executed from the within the boundaries of the riding.
5. Nationalize the oil deposits: These natural resource treasures belong to the people of Canada, not private enterprise.  We can use oil revenues to permanently enhance the standard of living for all Canadians.
6. Electronic Voting: We could adopt strict guidelines for Electronic Voting.  It could be as simple as a receipt issued to you with your vote, a unique record ID (record of your vote) or a unique anonymous ID, in which you can later go online, punch it in and see that your vote did indeed register for whom you thought it did.  If not, you have the receipt of your vote and you can take that evidence to the elections officer.  Without a receipt of some kind, electronic voting cannot be confirmed or relied upon.
7. Candidate Accessibility: Do you think politicians can govern better than all the residents of Surrey North?  Who knows better what's best for the community than the residents of that community?  There is no reason why you as a citizen should not be able to introduce bills into parliament using your representative as an intermediary.  This is a more efficient system than citizens initiatives and an MP could be required to support any citizens bill that gets majority support in his or her riding.
8. Remove the position of Governor from the Bank of Canada:  The goal would be to have the operations of the Bank under the guidance of an elected official whom we can replace, rather than a Governor, who is appointed by the Minister of Finance at the advice of the chartered banks Board of Directors with approval by the Governor in Council.  The Bank of Canada Act section 14 subsection (2) states that the Governor of the Bank of Canada can be forced to act in accordance with the governments wishes, but this section of the Act is toothless and really just for show.  Why would a Governor who is appointed by the Minister with approval of the Governor Council (made up of the Governor General and the Federal Cabinet) in consultation with the Bank's Board of Directors (who are appointed by the same offices, Minister of Finance and Governor in Council) act in opposition to the sitting government, past, present or future?  He wouldn't.  In fact, this layer of separation is more to protect the Bank of Canada from the wishes of the people than it is to protect against the wishes of the government.  Currently, with 7 year terms and total insulation from the voting public, a Governor can act with relative impunity.
These are a few of the hundreds of policy shifts the people of Canada could choose to make, which would dramatically alter the course of our nation, and provide a blueprint for freedom, democracy, prosperity and health, which people around the world would be eager to follow. 

Near-simultaneous installations of this type of system, worldwide, would result in world peace and a general improvement of all people, in all nations, whether they happen to be born in the industrialized world or the third world, so that eventually we could all be one world - equal, prosperous, and free.

"Once a nation parts with the control of its credit, it matters not who makes the laws. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." Former Canadian Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King