China'BOXED

[Securious]

[/color]



By Christopher Majka| November 2, 2012





It's now Halloween in Canada all year round. At every unexpected turn another grim apparition appears. The scream from one shock has barely faded when another ghastly spectre rises from the neo-conservative crypt of horrors to stalk the land, a headless, brainless zombie intent on political terrorism.



The faults of FIPPA



Today's abomination is called the China-Canada Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA). This investment agreement, which many commentators feel is at least as important as NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1993) in terms of its impact on Canadian trade, locks the country into a 31-year long pas de deux with a system that Andrew Nikiforuk calls "gangster capitalism." FIPPA has suddenly leapt like a full-fledged baroque horror out of the Machiavellian political backrooms onto the front stage of Canadian politics.



Writing in the Ottawa Citizen, Terry Glavin calls this "protection agreement" a "protection racket" that works like this:



"Beijing promises that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will regularize its bribe system and put the boots to China's subnational, provincial, county and municipal governments on behalf of Canadian companies, in the same way that the CCP's enforcers put the boots to everyone on behalf of Beijing's state-owned enterprises. So long as Canadian investors do as they're told, everybody gets along.



"To reciprocate, Ottawa promises that China's state-owned companies will be similarly exempt from any impertinence from the Canadian courts, from the provinces and from municipalities. Any backchat -- say, a law sensibly requiring that Alberta bitumen be upgraded and refined in Canada rather than pumped through Beijing-financed pipelines to awaiting tankers on the west coast -- and the upstarts can be punished with penalties assigned by special, closed arbitration tribunals in decisions beyond the reach of judicial review."



Although the NDP, Liberals, and Green Party are aghast at how this treaty is being railroaded through the House of Commons at breakneck speed, with virtually no parliamentary oversight, opportunity for examination by committees, expert analysis and testimony, or input from citizens, the real horror is a government that conducts itself in this way. In Stephen Harper and the triumph of the corporation state Frances Russell writes about the "open disdain for Canada's system of Parliamentary democracy" displayed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper who has thrown the country's democratic system "under the bus."



"The Harper government has turned parliamentary democracy upside down. The government doesn't answer to parliament, it requires Parliament to answer to the government. ... This led the director of the Constitution Unit at University College, London, to write: 'Canada's Parliament is more dysfunctional than any of the other Westminster Parliaments. No prime minister in any Commonwealth country with a governor general, until Harper, has ever sought prorogation to avoid a vote of confidence.'"



Missing the boat or selling the store?



This chamber of horrors provides a fitting backdrop for another lesson from The nine habits of highly effective resource economies: Lessons for Canada, published by the Canadian International Council (CIC) and written by Madeline Drohan. The fifth habit selected by Drohan is what she calls "Get on the global boat and cast wide trade nets." It provides a penetrating analysis of why trade is vital for Canada, and what kind of trade agreements are good -- and bad -- for the country. All trade agreements were not created equal and Canada can either be enriched and empowered, or sold down the river and swindled blind.



Canada has some natural advantages when it comes to trade. Our large reserves of natural resources, and our history of hewing wood and drawing water, place Canada 13th globally in goods exports (with a global market share of 2.5 per cent) and 18th in service exports (with a share of 1.8 per cent). This isn't insubstantial, but it's not stellar either given that the majority of Canadian exports (73 per cent) end up in just one market: the USA (in comparison, 34 per cent of American exports go to Canada).







However, our market share has been slipping badly over the past decade. The figure above illustrates the percentage change in export performance amongst the G-20 nations between 2000-2010. During that time Canada's market share has declined 40 per cent, the second worst amongst the G-20 nations (trailing only that of the United Kingdom, whose share has slipped 44 per cent). This decline is at the expense of the BRIC nations; Brazil (+ 45 per cent), Russia (+ 55 per cent), India (+ 125 per cent), and China (+ 173 per cent); and Turkey (+76 per cent) and Australia (+ 42 per cent).



The CIC report notes that there are several factors responsible for this dramatic decline:



1. The inflated value of the Canadian dollar (a.k.a., Dutch Disease), an economic phenomenon that the Harper Conservatives continue to deny exists (see Dutch Disease denial: Inflation, politics and tar);



2. Declining Canadian productivity; and



3. Most importantly from the perspective of the report, that Canadian trade is concentrated in slow growing economies.



Indeed, 85 per cent of Canadian exports go to the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, France, Belgium, and Italy -- all economies with average annual growth rates of under 2 per cent. Compare this with the BRIC nations: Brazil (3.5 per cent), Russia (5.5 per cent), India (7.5 per cent), and China (10.5 per cent). It would clearly benefit Canada to diversify its trade so as to be able to better connect to a wider variety of countries, and in particular, some of the economies where activity is currently strong. However, this is no panacea, and there are downsides (economic and social) in developing trade with nations where there is corruption, political repression, instability, or other problems. Canadian interests risk propping up un-popular or anti-democratic regimes.



However, as the CIC report makes clear, what is more important than whom Canada trades with, are the details of the trade agreements that it operates through, and how those agreements were concluded.



Not all trade agreements are created equal



In addition to NAFTA (with the USA and Mexico), Canada already has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Columbia, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile, and the European Free Trade Association in place and the implementation of agreements with Honduras, Panama, and Jordan expected soon. A dozen others are in negotiation including the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the 27 member European Union. There are 24 Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPAs). However, devils always dwell in details.



The CIC report focuses on a critical distinction that differentiates successes from sellouts:



"The interests of a small, open country like Canada are best served by the broadest possible agreement with the largest number of partners. This is true because in large negotiations Canada is more likely to achieve results that would probably elude it in one-on-one negotiations; because a multilateral deal opens many markets at once instead of one at a time; and because it sets global ground rules for trade instead of creating a patchwork of sometimes conflicting obligations."



With a global export market share of 2.5 per cent, Canada is not a trade superpower. In one-on-one negotiations with the United States, China -- or for that matter the European Union (Canada is negotiating CETA not as one nation amongst a club of 28, but as one very junior partner with the entire EU) -- Canada is a bit player with little leverage for its genuine interests to be accommodated, or to achieve reciprocity. In other words, we get steamrollered. Those countries with which Canada can negotiate equitable, reciprocal terms -- such as the recent free trade agreements with Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru -- tend to be equally small players on the global trade scene. Thus, the CIC report recommends that Canada eschew developing an overlapping patchwork of bilateral trade deals, and focus on multilateral or regional agreements that bring greater coherence to the market, open up larger areas of the globe, and put Canada on an equal footing with its trade partners.



The report's other main conclusion is that Canadian firms understand the changing nature of trade. Increasingly, it is not the case that companies produce a product "lock, stock, and barrel," but rather that they assemble goods and services in complex ways through what are know as value chains or value grids (also known as distributive or integrative trade). Companies can position themselves at the top of a chain (as Canadian manufacturers such as Research in Motion and Bombardier, or cultural producer Cirque du Soleil, have done) and/or plug specific goods or services into the value chains being assembled by others. If Canada wants to step beyond the traditional "hewer of wood and drawer of water" role that it has cast itself in, government and business need to understand the global value chains of their sectors, pro-actively take advantage of these, and be prepared to create imaginative new ones of their own.



Further FIPPA fibs



It's worth underscoring that little of the above good advice holds true in relation to the China-Canada FIPPA, an investment agreement, which it appears will have Canadians over a bitumen barrel. In recent days the debate on this FIPPA has reached the boiling point. Spearheaded by LeadNow.ca, almost 67,000 Canadians have petitioned Stephen Harper to reject the treaty. New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair has been adamant that "The Conservatives will not tie the hands of the NDP. We will revoke this agreement if it is not in the best interests of Canadians." Green Party leader Elizabeth May said that the treaty "threatens our security, our sovereignty and our democracy" and will turn Canada into a "resource colony" of China. Meanwhile, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae is protesting the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement and why it requires 15 years advance notice to withdraw from it when the term specified in most trade agreements is a year or less. Such secrecy, he said, "creates suspicion in the public that there's something to hide."



And FIPPA, doesn't only look like a rotten investment deal for Canada; it's principle function will be to even further enrich the über-elites of the Chinese Communist Party that control its web of mammoth State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). Back to Terry Glavin's article The Canada-China investment protection racket:



"While China's per-capita income hovers around that of sand-rich Turkmenistan, last year the net worth of the wealthiest 70 members of China's laughably named National People's Congress, by Bloomberg News' calculations, was $89.8 billion. China's nouveau riche know very well that the jig is up. Two surveys carried out in 2011 by China's Merchant Bank and by Shanghai's Hurun Institute found that roughly 60 per cent of China's millionaires are already preparing for emigration or are planning to leave the minute a chance arises.



"The Communist Party's princelings have been plundering the country so ravenously that China's financial institutions are starting to feel the shocks of capital flight. The China Economic Weekly reports that over the past 12 years more than 18,000 executives and officers of Chinese state-owned enterprises have been caught trying to flee with plundered funds. According to a study published just last week by the Washington, D.C.-based organization Global Financial Integrity, China's elites squirrelled $472 billion out of the country last year alone. This isn't socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is the Sopranos with Chinese characteristics."



If Canada is not to become complicit in the resource plunder of our own country, as well as the corruption and economic plunder of other states, we need to have a political administration that understands there are ethical dimensions to trade. That equitable and fair trade can enrich people and their societies and bring prosperity and stability, but that poorly conceived, unfairly structured, inadequately regulated, and inequitably distributed trade can ruin the environment, squander resources, destabilize the climate, undermine social structures, and enrich the power elites and transnational corporations at the expense of the other 99 per cent of humanity. Back to Winnipeg-based freelance writer Frances Russell who captures this perfectly:



"[Harper's] fixation with control and secrecy drives his government's relationship with the provinces, with whom he largely refuses to meet, as well as the negotiation and conclusion of trade treaties, which he signs with abandon, and with virtually no parliamentary oversight, consultation or debate allowed. In fact, elevating corporate rights over the rights of citizens and their democratic institutions seems to be the Harper government's core agenda."

[Securious]

TOKYO — Chinese patrol ships entered waters around a disputed island group in the East China Sea for a 14th straight day on Friday, in what analysts here called a sign that China had embarked on what appeared to be a new, long-term strategy for challenging Japan's control of the islands.





.While Chinese ships have sailed near the islands before, this is the first time since a recent flare-up began that they have plied the waters so consistently. Analysts say that suggests China is trying to wear down Japan's resolve in the dispute, and possibly even trying to chip away at Japan's claim of having effective control over the uninhabited islands established in part by its own maritime patrols.



"This is the beginning of a war of patience, a war of attrition," said Kunihiko Miyake, research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies in Tokyo. "This promises to be a long, long showdown in which China tries not to provoke Japan, but instead to discourage Japan from continuing to try to control those islands."



The Japanese Coast Guard said that on Friday six Chinese ships — four belonging to a maritime surveillance agency and two fisheries patrol ships — had entered waters claimed by Japan near the islands, known as the Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in Chinese. The coast guard said Japanese cutters intercepted the vessels, warning them by radio to leave.



The Chinese ships responded via radio that they were "carrying out valid operations in Chinese waters," according to the coast guard. It said the Chinese ships stayed for about two hours, coming as close as 14 miles to the largest island, Uotsuri, just outside the 12-mile territorial limit but well within the broader zone of economic control claimed by Japan.



Tensions over the islands intensified in recent months as the Japanese government announced it planned to buy three of the islands still owned by a Japanese citizen. While Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda of Japan said he had made the purchase to prevent the islands from falling into the hands of Tokyo's nationalist governor, China reacted with anger at the move, which it viewed as upsetting an uneasy status quo in which each side had avoided provoking the other.



The Japanese government's decision touched off angry street demonstrations in China in which Japanese businesses were ransacked and burned, and a continuing informal boycott of Japanese goods has helped depress Japan's overall trade performance and its gross domestic product numbers. While the Chinese government eventually clamped down on the protests, it has kept up the ship visits. Japan has responded by dispatching dozens of coast guard vessels to waters near the islands, where they are on the lookout for paramilitary ships and fishing boats from China as well as from Taiwan, which also claims the islands.



An economic stimulus package approved by Parliament last week will strengthen the coast guard by speeding up procurement of helicopters and seven more patrol ships.



Such a show of resolve has been uncharacteristic for confrontation-averse Japan, and taken in combination with the latest dispatch of Chinese ships has led some analysts and former diplomats to warn that the current standoff could drag on for some time.



A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, refused to say how long China would send its ships into waters around the islands. However, he said the Chinese surveillance ships were "completely justified," describing their maneuvers as "a normal part of their duty" in overseeing China's sovereign interests.



China also appears to be ratcheting up pressure by broadening its effort to use current and former senior officials to make China's case to the world. In a speech in Hong Kong this week, Chen Jian, China's former ambassador to Japan, took aim at the United States, saying its support of its ally Japan was encouraging what he called a return of Japanese militarism.



Other Chinese officials and news media have taken a similar view, blaming a swing in Japan to the nationalist right for the tensions. However, analysts in Tokyo, and some in the United States, say China has seized upon Japan's purchase of the islands as a pretext for pressing its longstanding claims.



They said that the continuing Chinese pressure has seemed to confirm a growing sense of Japanese insecurity over China's rising economic and military presence in the region, as well as the relative decline of both itself and its longtime protector, the United States. That nervousness has made Japan more willing to push back. "It is disingenuous to claim the Japanese caused this problem," said Kevin Maher, a former United States diplomat in Japan who is now a senior adviser at NMV Consulting, based in New York. "But this has been an eye-opening experience for people in Japan to see that the security environment in East Asia can be a dangerous place."



Japan's anxieties have also provided at least some opportunity for a small but vocal group of nationalists like Tokyo's governor, Shintaro Ishihara, whom many in Japan blame for starting the current flare-up with China by proclaiming in the spring that he would buy the islands.



Analysts said it was unlikely that China would go as far as attempting a forceful takeover of the islands. Rather, said Mr. Maher, the goal may be to try to undermine Japan's claims under international law that it wields effective control over them, while building a legal basis for making similar claims of its own.



China's motives appear to be partly economic: the Chinese economy's hunger for the petroleum and natural gas that scientists believe lie under the ocean floor surrounding the islands. Analysts also cited a Chinese desire for payback for Japan's brutal World War II-era invasion of China. China says Japan seized the islands from China in 1895 as a first step toward Japan's empire-building in Asia. Japan says it annexed islands that were not claimed by any nation.



The analysts said China may also have a military motive in claiming the islands, which sit in waters between China and Okinawa that the Chinese military would seek to control in the event of any conflict.



By deploying paramilitary ships, analysts said, both nations were being careful not to call in their navies, in order to avoid a dangerous escalation. Still, Japanese Coast Guard ships and many of China's surveillance ships are armed, leading to concerns that a miscalculation or human error by a single sailor could touch off a violent confrontation.



The United States has so far taken a neutral position on sovereignty over the islands, though it has said any Chinese attack on the islands would fall under the treaty under which it is bound to defend Japan. Mr. Maher said the United States should take a more active role by telling China to stop the pressure tactics.



"The Chinese are using intimidation and threat of force against our closest ally in the region," Mr. Maher said, "and this is not something that the U.S. should be neutral about."





Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Hong Kong.

[Securious]

LeadNow.ca's Matthew Carroll and SumOfUs' Emma Pullman. Two young Canadians delivered a petition with over 60,000 signatures to Ottawa this morning.  The petition was signed by Canadians who oppose a Canada-China investment treaty and a major takeover bid by a Chinese state-owned company of a Canadian energy firm.



The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA) is slated to be ratified within the next two weeks, though the Ministry of International Trade did not confirm a specific date as of today.



"FIPPA has gone from obscurity to national prominence in just a couple of weeks," said Emma Pullman, a campaigner with SumOfUs. SumOfUs is an advocacy group for sustainable business.





Canadians of all ages across Canada signed the petition, Pullman said. She recounted an email from a 78-year-old man who lived in Canada his whole life.



He wrote] Ed Fast, and I said, 'Is there going to be a technical briefing for MPs?' He said no. I said, 'Can I get a technical briefing for myself?' And he said 'Oh, sure, anytime.' It took a month to set up," May said.



"I think this whole thing is a travesty of democracy. I can't tell you how angry I am."



May spoke at a press conference in Ottawa this morning to present a petition with over 60,000 signatures from Canadians opposed to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA).



A Ministry of International Trade spokesman maintained that the federal government has introduced an "unprecedented approach to bringing international treaties to the scrutiny of the House of Commons."



"Contrary to their rhetoric, the Opposition had four opportunities so far to debate this treaty in Parliament. Each time they've chosen not to," he wrote.



He also maintained that the Canada-China investment agreement is "similar to the 24 other investment treaties Canada has signed with key trade and investment partners."



"We join countries such as New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan, who have all signed investment treaties with China on terms that are similar to or in most cases less favourable than the terms we have negotiated with China," he wrote.



But opposition MPs, international treaty experts and Canadian citizens have expressed increasing alarm at the potential implications of signing a major investment agreement with China, which has billions of dollars in natural resource investments.



Belgium is currently facing a $2 billion arbitration claim from China under a foreign investment protection treaty clause. The claim is filed by China's second-largest insurer, Ping An Insurance Group, against the Belgian government over the expropriation of a Belgian-Dutch bank.





The Canada-China FIPPA will be ratified after an Order in Council, which, according to the Government of Canada, is a "royal prerogative" requiring the Governor General's signing off on the treaty.



The Ministry of International Trade spokesman did not confirm a specific date the Canada-China FIPPA will be ratified.



Kinder Morgan rep won't rule out possibility of one million barrels a day for expanded pipeline Yves Engler on The Ugly Canadian, foreign policy, and climate change Council discusses 2040 Transportation plan and rezoning in DTES Hague tribunal to investigate Iran massacre of political prisoners First Nations lead the way in Victoria protest against pipelines and oil sands Related Content on the Vancouver Observer.



Chinese companies can sue BC for changing course on Northern Gateway, says policy expert Sustainability Beth Hong.  The biggest foreign trade treaty since NAFTA will come into effect on Nov. 1 for the next three decades. What does it mean for BC? 14 reasons why Canada-China investment deal needs more time, debateCommentaryGus Van Harten  An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of International Trade Ed Fast from an international investment law expert about his concerns with FIPPA.Canada-China FIPPA agreement may be unconstitutional, treaty law expert saysPoliticsBeth Hong  Giving China the right to sue BC if it changes course on Enbridge Northern Gateway could be unconstitutional, warns international investment law expert Gus Van Harten.Canada needs more democratic debate about future of China relations, experts sayAsiaBeth Hong  Canada is entering a brave new front in its relations with China, starting with a Canada-China foreign investment agreement pending domestic approval. Experts call for more democratic debate.Canada is the new Africa in China's quest for oilCommentaryMassoud Hayoun  What Africa can teach China about the CNOOC-Nexen bid.China's CNOOC set to buy Canadian energy giant Nexen for $15.1 billionBusinessJenny Uechi  The all-cash takeover deal of Nexen, if successful, would be China's biggest overseas energy acquisition to date.How LeadNow plans to fight the "stunning erosion of Canada's democracy"PoliticsBeth Hong  LeadNow executive director Jamie Biggar at his office in Gastown. Photo by Beth Hong for The Vancouver Observer Copyright 2012.China and Canada: where do we stand?CanadaAlexis Stoymenoff  Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit to China has put the spotlight on trade and foreign affairs. Here's an explainer on where we stand with the powerful Asian nation.FOLLOW US on TwitterBECOME A FAN on Facebook

[Securious]

[size=200]NDP Questions Extension

NDP criticizes Nexen review extension



NDP MP for Burnaby-New Westminster, Peter Julian speaks to reporters after Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Keith Ashfield spoke about the planned closure of Vancouver's Kitsilano Coast Guard station during a news conference in Vancouver, B.C., on Tuesday, June 26, 2012. (Darryl Dyck/THE CANADIAN PRESS)



 Ottawa on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS)



Related Stories

Ottawa will take more time to review Nexen takeover bid China's investment in oilsands a political migraine for Harper More Details

Minister of Industry Confirms Extension of Review Period CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Saturday, Nov. 3, 2012 9:42AM EDT

The New Democrats are criticizing the Conservative government's surprise announcement Friday to extend the review of a Chinese company's bid to take over Canadian oil producer Nexen.



Industry Minister Christian Paradis issued a news release Friday night saying the government was extending its review. until Dec. 10.



Under the Investment Canada Act, the federal government has to review the bid to determine whether the takeover would bring a "net benefit" to Canada. The initial 45-day review period has been set to end Nov. 10.



"Extensions to the review period are not unusual. In general terms, the Act provides an initial 45 days for the review, which can be extended for an additional 30 days," Paradis said in his release.



New Democrat MP Peter Julian laughed at the timing of the release. He tells The Canadian Press when politicians make announcements on a Friday night it's because they're scared of the public's reaction.



Julian says it appears the government wants to approve the controversial $15.1-billion deal, but is trying to buy time because of growing public opposition.



The New Democrats say the federal review process has already been too secretive. Julian suggested that with the review now slated to run until mid-December, the plan may be to quietly announce approval for the deal sometime during the Christmas holidays.



"I think the way this government works and its lack of respect for the public means that they're going to be looking to rubber stamp it sometime during the Christmas season, hoping that public reaction will blow over," he told CP in an interview.



State-owned China National Offshore Oil Co. (CNOOC) announced in July that it wanted to buy Calgary-based Nexen, which owns oil sands and shale gas. But immediately, concerns were raised about the idea of turning over Canada's precious natural resources to a Chinese state-owned company.



The NDP has said the proposed deal raises many questions, including whether CNOOC will protect jobs and keep Nexen's head office in Canada. As well, they say it's unclear how Canada's environmental standards will be enforced.



The NDP is also concerned about what the deal might mean for national security. Canada's spy agency CSIS warned in its annual report this year that foreign investment by state-owned firms can pose security concerns, though it didn't mention China specifically.



Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged the Nexen bid "raises a range of difficult policy questions."



CNOOC has already publicly pledged to keep Nexen's head office in Calgary, seek a listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange and place $8 billion of its assets under the control of Nexen's management in Canada.



It has also promised to carry on Nexen's social responsibility programs in Canada and around the world.



.



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-criticizes-nexen-review-extension-1.1023137#ixzz2BB3gAADc">http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-crit ... z2BB3gAADc">http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-criticizes-nexen-review-extension-1.1023137#ixzz2BB3gAADc

[Securious]

More from Environmentalist nutbar, Elizabeth May talking about Harpers sneaky Canada/China trade deal!

[Securious]

these peeps are making hay while the Conservative Government goes under over China. This is the party that will take over in Canada unless harper smartens up fast!, it senses victory. Harper needs to say no to China right NOW!

The MAI was in her speech..I was a witness in parliament when it was tabled. She is right on that one. And is on track to win over this isssue abut China too.

[Securious]

the message that he will send to the rest of the world is China cant be trusted nor should they capture Canada's resources for themselves. This will have a positive repercussion in that any other deal will be welcomed as it will be a fair trade deal with countries that reciprocate in kind...not a state owned conglomerate from a totalitarian communist system. See the difference!

[Securious]

More from Environmentalist nutbar, Elizabeth May talking about Harpers sneaky Canada/China trade deal!

[Securious]

[Romero]

Miners Could Have Been Trained Here Easily



If you don't think Chinese miners should be coming to British Columbia as temporary foreign workers in new coal mines, get ready to be really angry.



That's because the federal Conservative government will ratify a foreign investment agreement this week, ensuring even more Chinese takeovers of Canada's natural resources -- and jobs.



And if you doubt that China-owned coal companies had no choice but to import their own workers to B.C. because no trained, experienced miners are available, prepare to get downright furious.



The reason is simple. Neither the coal companies nor the federal or B.C. governments wanted to train Canadian workers -- even though it's nowhere near as hard as they claim.



Is longwall mining that rare and complicated? No. Is China the only source of longwall miners? No. Just the cheapest.



There's no excuse for importing temporary foreign workers given that it has been well known since 2007 that Chinese coal companies were planning on developing mines in northeast B.C.



And in 2008 a provincial task force recommended creating a new underground miner-training program to deal with an expected shortage.



But unlike in the U.S., absolutely nothing was done in B.C. to meet that need.



Instead, the governments of both B.C. and Canada and have abdicated their responsibilities.



And now the Conservative federal government is about to ratify the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China that will make such travesties even more common.



http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/30/BC-Chinese-Miners/">//http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/30/BC-Chinese-Miners/

[Securious]

on it already boy

[Securious]

[size=200]CSIS Warns Canada About China!![/size]



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/21/pol-parry-csis-nexen-warnings.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... nings.html">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/21/pol-parry-csis-nexen-warnings.html

[Romero]

on it already boy

Oh, I'm terribly sorry for agreeing with you on this issue and posting information you would appreciate. I didn't mean to get in the way of you posting the same thing twice for no reason.

[Securious]

[Gary Oak]

I found Martin Jaques book  When China Rules The World  very interesting and I recommend it