China'BOXED

[Securious]

Gary, he likes to razz you..

[Securious]

[size=150]Asian Shares Take A Dump[/size]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE88901C20121022">http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessN ... 1C20121022">http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE88901C20121022

[Securious]

[size=150]Canada Puts Pressure On Chinese Companies[/size]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578070460656733992.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 33992.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203400604578070460656733992.html  this is as stated above a political device to give the Canadian public a little sugar to allow the medicine to be poured down our throats as distatstful as it is. Letting the purchase of one of Canada's premier oil companies to be bought by our enemy, is the way I see it to. Sneaky eh!

[Obvious Li]

What say you about this development...??? i think it should be reviewed by somebody beforehand...not sure who though...the opposition in Ottawa is just to stupid and incompetent to analyse it's implications.....maybe the Frazer Institute or CD Howe institute



Michael Den Tandt: Conservative plan would tie Canada to China in hush-hush elopement



Canada and China are about to become, if not economic bedfellows, then a serious courting couple, given to public displays of affection. Are we ready for this?



With a population of 1.4 billion and gross domestic product of $7.2-trillion, the latter growing at nine per cent annually, China is on track to surpass the United States as the world's pre-eminent economic power by 2020. Canadian firms have barely begun to tap the immense Chinese market. The reverse does not apply.



In 2011, according to foreign affairs department data, Canadian firms exported $16.8-billion worth of goods and services to China. Chinese exports to Canada were worth three times that. The lopsidedness extends to investment: Canadian direct investment in China was worth about $4.5-billion in 2011. Chinese investment in Canada was more than twice that, at $10.9-billion.



This explains the Harper government's zeal to ease and secure Canadian business access to the Chinese market. And it's not enough that we be in the market, goes the argument: We need protection from the vagaries of the Chinese system, which, from a governance standpoint, is a horror show.



It's a fair point: whatever one may think of China's politics, its rise is locked in. China requires raw materials and energy and Canada has them in abundance. To ignore this, particularly given the economic quagmire in Europe and fitful growth in the United States, would be foolish.



President Barack Obama's politically motivated decision last January to shelve the Keystone XL pipeline further tipped the scales, giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper all the pretext he needed to finalize an investment pact with China, despite reservations within his party's grass roots. reason one why Obama is a cocksucker



The deal had been in the works, on and off, for 18 years. Negotiations were wrapped up in February. Harper and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed off Sept. 8 in Vladivostok. The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) has since been tabled in Parliament. After a mere 21 sitting days, it comes into force.



Here's where things get sticky. This deal has not been debated in the House, let alone more broadly across Canada. There has been thus far, a total of one hour of committee time devoted to its study. Yet once in place, it cannot be abrogated for fifteen years. Once notice is given, it expires within one year – in theory. Article 35 states that, as regards any investments made "prior to the date of termination," the agreement remains in place for an additional 15 years – extending its practical span to 31 years, at minimum. (scary shit)



Another clause that jumps out: A signatory "may not require that an enterprise of that Party... appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions." Forget about requiring Canadian representation, for example, in the executive suite of Calgary-based Nexen Inc., following a proposed $15.1-billion takeover by China's state-owned energy firm China National Offshore Oil Co.



There is a provision in Article 7 to allow for such a requirement, for a corporate board of directors, but with this rather gigantic disclaimer: "provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment." Determining this, of course, could be a subject of dispute – which is where this gets trickier still.



For the dispute-resolution process may occur behind closed doors, at the discretion of the "contracting parties." Tribunal awards, reads Article 28, "shall be publicly available, subject to the redaction of confidential information." But "to the extent necessary to ensure the protection of confidential information, including business confidential information, the Tribunal may hold portions of hearings in camera."



Redaction and in-camera hearings are troubling enough, in a system founded on transparency. But these arrangements may presumably involve Chinese state-owned firms – not just Nexen, if that deal is green-lighted next month by Ottawa, but others that my follow. Such companies are, according to former Canadian Security Intelligence Service director Ray Boisvert, not profit-making ventures in any sense Canadians understand. They are strategic organs of the Chinese Communist party.



I remember the great Canada-U.S. Free Trade debate of 1988. The country was transfixed by it for months and an election was fought over it. That deal involved a friendly democracy and our greatest ally. This one, which is potentially as far-reaching, has been concluded with virtually no public debate. It involves the rising strategic adversary of our greatest ally. And it is already creating pressure on the Harper government to approve the Nexen deal, which polls show a majority of Canadians oppose.



The reason is simply this: How can Harper say no to Nexen, and still say he wants China to buy Canadian? For evidence, see reaction to Industry Canada's nixing of Malaysia state-owned Petronas's $5.9-billion bid for Progress Energy, at three minutes to midnight Friday. Already the Harper government is being accused of hypocrisy. And Canada has no FIPA with Malaysia.



Eyes-wide-open economic engagement with China clearly is in Canada's interest. But pushing it through in a ferocious hurry, out of the public eye, clearly is not. That something so far-reaching would be imposed, almost entirely without debate, is mind-boggling.

[Gary Oak]

mostly because it is either bullshit or if it is true it speaks to a time gone by...china today is so much different to china of the "great revolution" times.....every asian country has a story of terrible things that happened during desperate times.....they are not proud of it, nor ashamed of it...during ww2 European people that were starving did many similar things.....so what....how can you say you would do different until you are in that position...me i can be honest.....i would do anything necessary to survive...period.

   "It's either BULLSHIT " That's really cool , I never thought of that. Well Coolio, you go right ahead and not know anything until you are really smart and cool. This is a bit of history that is not known and  as I am sure the coolios that don't need to know anything to be cool don't need to know these things. I find the topic interesting. So Coolio, if you don't like knowing history as it isn't cool enough for you then don't read it at all and be a dumb fuck until you a super cool. I really don't want to hear what coolios who don't want to know anything think anyways as coolios are stupid fucking assholes. You know nothing of Chinese history. I have read Chinese history for many years. History isn't cool for coolios of course. Go play some cool video games, smoke crack and fuck off Coolio

[Securious]

 Canada and China, BFFs]



  By Michael Den Tandt,

 Postmedia News October 22, 2012 12:53 PM





Chinese President Hu Jintao (R) shakes hands with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird (L) as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper looks on before their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. They all kiss for the camera...[joke]



REUTERS/Diego Azubel

Canada and China are about to become, if not economic bedfellows, then a serious courting couple, given to public displays of affection. Are we ready for this?



With a population of 1.4 billion and gross domestic product of $7.2-trillion, the latter growing at nine per cent annually, China is on track to surpass the United States as the world's pre-eminent economic power by 2020. Canadian firms have barely begun to tap the immense Chinese market. The reverse does not apply.



In 2011, according to foreign affairs department data, Canadian firms exported $16.8-billion worth of goods and services to China. Chinese exports to Canada were worth three times that. The lopsidedness extends to investment: Canadian direct investment in China was worth about $4.5-billion in 2011. Chinese investment in Canada was more than twice that, at $10.9-billion.



This explains the Harper government's zeal to ease and secure Canadian business access to the Chinese market. And it's not enough that we be in the market, goes the argument: We need protection from the vagaries of the Chinese system, which, from a governance standpoint, is a horror show.



It's a fair point: whatever one may think of China's politics, its rise is locked in. China requires raw materials and energy and Canada has them in abundance. To ignore this, particularly given the economic quagmire in Europe and fitful growth in the United States, would be foolish.



President Barack Obama's politically motivated decision last January to shelve the Keystone XL pipeline further tipped the scales, giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper all the pretext he needed to finalize an investment pact with China, despite reservations within his party's grass roots.



The deal had been in the works, on and off, for 18 years. Negotiations were wrapped up in February. Harper and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed off Sept. 8 in Vladivostok. The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) has since been tabled in Parliament. After a mere 21 sitting days, it comes into force.



Here's where things get sticky. This deal has not been debated in the House, let alone more broadly across Canada. There has been thus far, a total of one hour of committee time devoted to its study. Yet once in place, it cannot be abrogated for 15 years. Once notice is given, it expires within one year – in theory. Article 35 states that, as regards any investments made "prior to the date of termination," the agreement remains in place for an additional 15 years – extending its practical span to 31 years, at minimum.



Another clause that jumps out: A signatory "may not require that an enterprise of that party... appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions." Forget about requiring Canadian representation, for example, in the executive suite of Calgary-based Nexen Inc., following a proposed $15.1-billion takeover by China's state-owned energy firm China National Offshore Oil Co.



There is a provision in Article 7 to allow for such a requirement, for a corporate board of directors, but with this rather gigantic disclaimer: "provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment." Determining this, of course, could be a subject of dispute – which is where this gets trickier still.



For the dispute-resolution process may occur behind closed doors, at the discretion of the "contracting parties." Tribunal awards, reads Article 28, "shall be publicly available, subject to the redaction of confidential information." But "to the extent necessary to ensure the protection of confidential information, including business confidential information, the Tribunal may hold portions of hearings in camera."



Redaction and in-camera hearings are troubling enough in a system founded on transparency. But these arrangements may presumably involve Chinese state-owned firms – not just Nexen, if that deal is green-lighted next month by Ottawa, but others that may follow. Such companies are, according to former Canadian Security Intelligence Service director Ray Boisvert, not profit-making ventures in any sense Canadians understand. They are strategic organs of the Chinese Communist party.



I remember the great Canada-U.S. Free Trade debate of 1988. The country was transfixed by it for months and an election was fought over it. That deal involved a friendly democracy and our greatest ally. This one, which is potentially as far-reaching, has been concluded with virtually no public debate. It involves the rising strategic adversary of our greatest ally. And it is already creating pressure on the Harper government to approve the Nexen deal, which polls show a majority of Canadians oppose.



The reason is simply this: How can Harper say no to Nexen, and still say he wants China to buy Canadian? For evidence, see reaction to Industry Canada's nixing of Malaysia state-owned Petronas's $5.9-billion bid for Progress Energy, at three minutes to midnight Friday. Already the Harper government is being accused of hypocrisy. And Canada has no FIPA with Malaysia.



Eyes-wide-open economic engagement with China clearly isn't..[me] in Canada's interest,and pushing it through in a ferocious hurry, out of the public eye, clearly is not either. That something so far-reaching would be imposed, almost entirely without debate, is mind-boggling.



Aren't we in fact, aiding China's "Rise" to dominate us and the world..think about it. [more me]

Harper & The Conservative Party risk losing the next federal election on this one topic: Over-Friendliness to Communist China, the giving away of our most precious resource to our enemy. Establishing a Chinese Communist 5th column on energy [over NEXEN] in Canada.

[Securious]

Harper hasnt shown the spirited and sincere energy that one with a serious interest in looking for partnerships [diversifying our markets]and building Canada's energy market, would see. One trip here [India] and a little trip there [Brazil] thats it! They exist but it must be reciprocal, and it takes time..so what's he doing about it/NOTHING!

This isnt the leadership I elected to parliament at all, Harper fails for me! On the other hand I will hold my nose and vote the party back in as ther are talented people in that party, all good potential leaders.

[Securious]

Harper can take a queue and a prod from him

[Securious]

The company says it interviewed 100 Canadian miners, but found none qualified. (iStock)The B.C. Federation of Labour is calling for the suspension of temporary foreign worker program permits for a coal mine in northeastern B.C.



The BCFL wants the provincial and federal governments to investigate concerns over the hiring of 200 Chinese workers to work in an underground coal mine near Tumbler Ridge.



Concerns include how the workers were recruited and whether or not Canadian miners were given a fair chance to work at the mine first.



HD Mining International, the company developing the coal mine, received 300 applications and interviewed nearly 100 Canadian workers, but none were qualified to work in the mine, said vice-president Jody Shimkus.



"We require temporary foreign workers because we are introducing a highly mechanized form of long-wall mining to the province. There's currently no active long-wall mining going on in Canada or B.C.," Shimkus said.



Shimkus said all the Chinese workers are employed with their parent company in China.



The BCFL has said it is skeptical of the claim that there are no skilled miners to work underground in Canada. ]rights of Canadian [/b]and foreign workers are being upheld.

[Gary Oak]

This hiring imported Chinese miners reeks of a scam. Why only Chinese miners ? Chinese mining is notorious for avoidable disasters. What are they up to ? Why are they being devious ? They have other motives this is for sure. Why isn't our government pursueing this ? My experience in with Chinese is that whenever you sense they are up to something they are. Whenever you sense that they don't want you to ask something then you ask that something as they will think you are stupid if you don't and if you do ask the question that you feel they don't want you to ask then sure they will hate you but at least they will respect you. As Chris Patton wrote in his superb book East And West  "there is nothing in Chinese culture that says that you can't question them when you feel they are trying to cheat you" It is my experience that when you sense that they are up to something then you are 100% right

[Securious]

5th Column, simple!

[Securious]

[size=200]Feds Are Committing To Cyber Security BigTime[/size]



...a little late arent they?! [me]



Feds commit $155M to boost cyber security

 By Jessica Murphy, Parliamentary Bureau



Wednesday, October 17, 2012





Vic Toews, Canada's Public Safety Minister, speaks to the media at Algonquin College in Ottawa Oct 17, 2012. (ANDRE FORGET/QMI AGENCY)

 

 related stories



Energy firm hit by cyber attack



Feds pressed over Huawei security risk



Tories call for review of grant to China-owned com



Huawei says it remains committed to Canada



Fed worker accused of hacking



OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is warning Canadians their cyber security is at risk and is channelling federal money to beef up defences.



But the minister refused to name-and-shame our enemies lurking in cyberspace.



On Wednesday, Toews announced $155-million over five years to shore up the government's IT infrastructure and improve its capability to track and stop cyber attacks.



"Businesses and governments want to ensure critical infrastructure and services in Canada are not disrupted and sensitive commercial information - information that often translates into jobs for Canadians - is fully protected," he said, adding Canada is also expanding its collaboration with the U.S. on the issue.



U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently warned his country was at risk of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" attack on its networks, with his officials later pointing to China, Iran and Russia as major sources of potential danger.



Earlier this month, a U.S. congressional committee singled out Chinese telecom giants Huawei - which operates in Canada - and ZTE as posing cyber espionage threats.



But the Conservative government has kept mum one who is behind recent cyber breaches in Canada.



"There's no question some countries are more of a threat than others," Toews said.



"(But) I don't think that's going to serve any particular purpose for me calling out any particular country at this time. I'm certainly aware of where threats come from and we're constantly being briefed by our allies on developments in that respect."



Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae called on Toews to discuss cyber security in a "transparent" way.



"No one should be shy about identifying these criminals," he said.



Both the Canadian treasury board and finance departments had a massive security breach in 2011 - among the 80 data breaches of its computers reported by the feds last year. The attacks were linked to serves based in China.



Security analysts maintain failed telecom Nortel was the victim of cyber espionage from the Chinese.



Telvent - an energy industry giant in Alberta - also recently admitted to being hacked, an attack linked by some experts to the Chinese.

[Securious]

[size=200]Presidential Candidates Do 'The China Topic Slither'[/size]

be afraid..[me]



Calm reaction in China to U.S. debate

Calum MacLeod, USA TODAY





Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks about China during the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. ,



Some said it presented a negative view of China

Live coverage on Chinese-language TV was limited

Both candidates mentioned Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property

1:28AM EDT October 23. 2012 - BEIJING –In China, some viewers reacted calmly as they listened to Monday night's U.S. presidential debate.



Some said that it presented a negative view of China and dismissed the statements by President Obama and GOP rival Mitt Romney as expected campaign rhetoric.



"No matter who takes office, their policy toward China will be similar to today's, especially in the trade area, because the main theme of the relationship is still cooperation, not confrontation," said Jin Yinsong, a Beijing-based investment adviser for China Jianyin Investment Securities, a large brokerage.



China was the final topic of Monday night's debate, but the timing, about 10:20 a.m. local time, and the lack of full, live coverage on Chinese-language TV channels limited viewers and immediate reaction.



"Chinese officials will be satisfied by the debate, as the China topics were trade and currency, and neither candidate mentioned human rights, so it was quite friendly towards China," said Hu Xingdou, an economist at the Beijing University of Technology, who watched on CNN, available at many hotels but not in private homes.



Given the track record of U.S. presidential candidates, talking tough on China, then acting more moderately once in the White House, the government in Beijing appears to have grown more accustomed to getting bashed in the U.S. election season.



"If Romney wins, he will likely have to change his plan of labeling China a currency manipulator, like previous candidates, or China may react in ways that hurt the U.S. economy too," said Hu, who scored the debate an Obama victory. "The Communist Party has always preferred the Republican Party, as Mao once said, as they focus on free trade, while the Democrats are more likely to raise labor rights, etc."



China should not be labeled a currency manipulator, as "the government has made great efforts on market regulation, and loosens the control day by day," said Jin, the investment adviser.



"I don't think China is a cheater in international trade, it's only an election strategy to contain China," he said. "Made-in-China is not the reason for America's unemployment."



Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property and counterfeiting of U.S. goods are long-standing problems, mentioned by both candidates.



"But in recent years, China has developed a lot of our own technology. We learned first, then surpassed our opponents," countered Gong Chen, a software engineer at a large local firm in Beijing. "America is the best in software in the world, they also see the progress China has made, so they are afraid of and blame ZTE and Huawei. I don't believe these two companies are spies. They just take a proportion of the U.S. market, and the U.S. is not kind to them because of various complicated reasons," said Gong, who insists China is attaching more importance to intellectual property protection.



On the booming micro-blog service Weibo, Chinese Internet users offered diverse comments. One said that whoever wins will implement sanctions on China, so China must impose countermeasures to achieve greater development, wrote Li Shaochong, an entertainment agent.



Sports anchorman Huang Jianxiang, who live-blogged the debate, was swung by the sound of the candidates. "I like Obama a little more because Romney's voice is a bit dry and shriveled, I feel he was not calm enough," he wrote.



Official reaction is likely to be similar to what was offered after the second debate, which was said to be "a vanity fair for China-bashers competing to flex their muscles on China," said a report last week on state news agency Xinhua, "offering up talking points that have less to do with China than with the continued competitiveness of the world superpower."



U.S. politicians should "embrace China's rise and acknowledge that engaging with China will amplify win-win results, but scapegoating, isolating and vilifying China will hurt both sides," according to the report.



Offering reassurance on Chinese plans, China will not become a "hegemonic power," wrote Chen Xiankui, a professor at Beijing's People's University, in the state-run Global Times newspaper Monday.



Reinforcing comments made by Chinese President Hu Jintao in May, Chen promised China will be "a new kind of great power in the 21st century," one that "doesn't enter into rivalry with other countries, that can create a win-win situation with the West and develop alongside other parts of the world, and that rises peacefully as a developing Asian socialist country with Chinese characteristics

[Obvious Li]

mostly because it is either bullshit or if it is true it speaks to a time gone by...china today is so much different to china of the "great revolution" times.....every asian country has a story of terrible things that happened during desperate times.....they are not proud of it, nor ashamed of it...during ww2 European people that were starving did many similar things.....so what....how can you say you would do different until you are in that position...me i can be honest.....i would do anything necessary to survive...period.

   "It's either BULLSHIT " That's really cool , I never thought of that. Well Coolio, you go right ahead and not know anything until you are really smart and cool. This is a bit of history that is not known and  as I am sure the coolios that don't need to know anything to be cool don't need to know these things. I find the topic interesting. So Coolio, if you don't like knowing history as it isn't cool enough for you then don't read it at all and be a dumb fuck until you a super cool. I really don't want to hear what coolios who don't want to know anything think anyways as coolios are stupid fucking assholes. You know nothing of Chinese history. I have read Chinese history for many years. History isn't cool for coolios of course. Go play some cool video games, smoke crack and fuck off Coolio

lol@garyoak.com......now slowly, repeat after me....."i am not an idiot" "i am not an idiot" "i am not an idiot"......there now does that feel better......there's is no doubt that i am cooler than you big guy...but that's not the point here......you made some grand claims, that you secretly heard about third or fourth hand,  about some chinese people, from some time in history, that ate their relatives. Too which i replied it was either bullshit (an old wives tale) or happened in a prior period in chinese history when things were a lot different.......don't know what you see that is coolio about those statements or concepts.....did you here the one about chinese mothers sexually stimulating their sons in school so they could focus better on studying...i've heard that one a million times...now you have another reason to fear the chinese..........they are sexual deviants as well as cannibals............hahahahahahahhaha



freak show....... feak show......freak show....coming to a town near you

[Securious]

2012 campaign



[size=200]How the Chinese See China-Bashing[/size]



By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Jasmine Zhao on October 23, 2012



In the final presidential debate Monday night, China was mentioned 35 times. Repeating a line he's used throughout the campaign, Mitt Romney charged China with keeping the value of its currency artificially low. He said he would label the country a "currency manipulator" on his first day in office. "China is both an adversary," Romney said, "but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules." Obama emphasized how he's increased the number of trade cases the U.S. has filed against China at the World Trade Organization. (For a history of tit-for-tat trade cases filed between the U.S. and China, check out this cool graphic.)



So how do the Chinese see all this China-bashing? To find out, we translated a selection of news stories from Chinese state-owned media.



On Sept. 14, Xinhua, the government-owned news agency, lashed out at Romney's currency manipulator remarks in a news analysis piece by Liu Chang:



"Merely aimed at scoring cheap political points in an election season, U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney once again blamed China's currency policy as the root cause for the excruciatingly high jobless rates

in the United States. ... Such blaming-China-on-everything remarks are as false as they are foolish, for it has never been a myth that pushing up the value of China's currency would be of little use to boost the chronically slack job market of the world's sole superpower, not to mention to magically turn the poor U.S. economic performance around."



In late September, Obama used a campaign stop in Ohio to announce a trade case against China. The U.S. accuses China of providing $1 billion in illegal subsidies for exports of cars and car parts. An article in the Global Times, a Chinese state-owned newspaper, ridiculed the case as a political maneuver without merit: "Almost no media believes that Obama will save American jobs by filing WTO complaints. More critics suggest that his primary goal is to keep his own presidential post."



Right after the second presidential debate, CCTV, China's state-owned television network, ran this article on its English-language website. Surprisingly, it takes a negative view of U.S. companies that have outsourced jobs to China: "Romney needs to understand that Apple (AAPL) products being assembled in China is not something that China should take pride in or even appreciate. Foreign companies are able to outsource manufacturing jobs to China because of the country's hard-working and low-paid workforce. This outsourcing maximizes the companies' profit margins, but leaves China with meager profits and massive pollution problems. ... It seems Obama takes a more objective view on the dilemma facing the U.S. manufacturing industry, as he admitted that some low-paid and low-tier jobs will never return to America."



Wang Guan, a correspondent in CCTV's new Washington bureau, says he feels it's his job to remind his audience back home to take U.S. politicians' attacks on China with a grain of salt. "We know that the U.S. presidential candidates often say one thing during the campaign and do another when they become presidents," Guan told CCTV viewers in August.



Reporting on the debate this morning, CCTV took note of how much the candidates talked about Washington's relationship with Beijing: "In order to gain more votes, President Obama and candidate Romney are talking about China again."