China'BOXED

[Securious]

well know this, our political system is a contrived and engineered sham

[Securious]

way back just before the 60's China was being prepared to enter the world economic arena The US and Canada would play a role.Then it was referred to as the Pacific Rim economy. I was around then to see it emerge.

[Securious]

way back just before the 60's China was being prepared to enter the world economic arena The US and Canada would play a role.Then it was referred to as the Pacific Rim economy. I was around then to see it emerge.

Preparing for the post-Mao era or they thought they could convince Mao to water down his rigid ideological beliefs?

Yes and No Kissinger,Trudeau, Nixon et al were working on the same platforms then for their masters, even though Nixon hated Trudeau. Pierre had no problem with it as he was taught the benefits of a totalitarian state, a fascist state, from his masters at Brebeauf College, Montreal. Sorry for mispelling name.

[Securious]

http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/trudeau.html">http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/gove ... udeau.html">http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/trudeau.html



Pierre Elliot Trudeau was an alumni at that college as is son. Justin [ooops! more of the same folks] Hope that answers some of your Q's Shen Li.

[Securious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_Jean-de-Br%C3%A9beuf#Notable_alumni">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8 ... ble_alumni">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_Jean-de-Br%C3%A9beuf#Notable_alumni



Look up Justin Trudeau 1980's I believe, at this college while your at it.



I lifted this...



"When Trudeau resigned in the spring of 1984, after almost 16 tumultuous years in power, and moved the family from Ottawa to Montreal it was a massive adjustment. That fall, Justin turned up at College Jean-de-Brébeuf, the same elite private school his father had attended more than 45 years before. He was 13, the son of a public figure who was as much reviled as loved, and on the wrong side of every political argument in a francophone high school. And to cap it off, he insisted on riding a unicycle to school. "You can imagine how that went over," Marc Miller, a friend since Brébeuf days, now a Montreal lawyer and member of his campaign team, says wryly. "But we were a group of oddballs."

[Securious]

Justin's Inner Circle [important to note]



http://canadianawareness.org/2012/10/justin-trudeaus-interesting-inner-circle/">http://canadianawareness.org/2012/10/ju ... er-circle/">http://canadianawareness.org/2012/10/justin-trudeaus-interesting-inner-circle/

[Securious]

[size=200] Huawei Issues Will Not Go Away!!![/size]



http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Columnists/Jonathan+Manthorpe+Chinese+telecom+giant+Huawei/7376100/story.html">http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Col ... story.html">http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion/Columnists/Jonathan+Manthorpe+Chinese+telecom+giant+Huawei/7376100/story.html

[Securious]

an about face..hmmm



 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-says-national-security-in-relationship-with-china-is-important-1.993209">http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-say ... t-1.993209">http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-says-national-security-in-relationship-with-china-is-important-1.993209

[Securious]

If China is such a hostile nation why then do business with your enemy...DUH!



http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Harper+says+Canada+must+weigh+national+security+trade/7380945/story.html">http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html">http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Harper+says+Canada+must+weigh+national+security+trade/7380945/story.html



even to ponder it, is mucho stupido

[Gary Oak]

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2012/10/5/chinese-strawberries-sicken-11200-german-children.html">http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/201 ... ldren.html">http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2012/10/5/chinese-strawberries-sicken-11200-german-children.html



     If someone in China gets caught for doing something like this it could result in a death sentence as in the melamine scandals. But sending poisoned food to Germany who also is a country that they haven't taken over is a victory for them.

[Securious]

Canada should heed warnings of 'cyber Pearl Harbor,' security experts say



 By Jordan Press, Postmedia News October 12, 2012  



U.S. Air Force personnel in the Air Force Space Command Network Operations & Security Center on July 20, 2010. (Rick Wilking/Reuters)OTTAWA — The escalating threat of cyber attacks requires a rethink in the government's security priorities, experts and opposition critics said Friday in the wake of a stark warning from the American defense secretary about potentially devastating Internet-based threats.



Leon Panetta warned his own nation Thursday that businesses needed to better protect their own systems, as does government, to prevent a "cyber Pearl Harbor" – a cataclysmic cyber attack that would take down large parts of North American networks and be more devastating than the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.



Panetta's warning comes after concerns raised earlier this week in Canada about potential Chinese spying through state-backed telecommunications firm Huawei, and the country's ability to secure information after Sub.-Lt. Jeffrey Paul Delisle admitted he took secrets from a secure facility using a USB key.



Experts say it isn't merely the loss of information we should worry about, but the threat of hackers turning off our systems altogether, a move that could shut down drinking water services, derail trains or even release toxic chemicals.



"(Cyber security) is really everyone's problem, really everyone who is connected to the Internet," said John Aycock, an expert on malicious software and cyber security who works at the University of Calgary. But, he added, "I think everyone is still struggling with it because computer security is very hard. Our computer systems are very complex."



While the timing of Panetta's speech may be political — the Obama administration is trying to pass a cyber security bill — his call to other countries comes two weeks before Canadians find out how well their government has done on the cyber security front.



On Oct. 23, the auditor general's fall report will disclose the results of an audit on whether the federal government works with provinces, territories and businesses to protect critical infrastructure against cyber attacks.



Panetta said Thursday the Obama administration has made cyber security a top talking point in meetings with American allies.



A spokeswoman for Public Safety Canada said the Canadian government has made changes to the way it manages cyber security breaches and potential threats, referring to the now two-year-old cyber security strategy, although she wouldn't go into details citing security concerns.



"Cyber security is an ongoing responsibility that needs to keep pace with evolving threats.  That's why the government of Canada is continuously working to enhance cyber security in Canada by identifying cyber threats and vulnerabilities, and by preparing for and responding to all types of cyber incidents to better protect Canada and Canadians," department spokeswoman Jessica Slack said in an email.



"The government of Canada recognizes that protecting critical infrastructure from cyber threats is a global issue, and we treat it as such. We're working closely with our partners in the critical infrastructure sector and international allies to ensure we progress together. This is the main focus of the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre, which provides advice to owners and operators of vital systems outside of the federal government and coordinates the national response to cyber security incidents."



Hackers have successfully cracked government systems. Earlier this year, a so-called "denial of service" attack took down the parliamentary website. In 2011, foreign-based hackers using servers in China hacked into Treasury Board and Department of Finance systems looking for personal and financial information. Panetta even admitted that hackers have been able to crack American government systems and denial of service attacks have taken down websites for a number of U.S. government agencies, including the FBI.



How well the government does in the cyber security department isn't clear because the Commons defence committee can't receive secret information, said Liberal defence critic John McKay. Only Privy Council members can do that, and not everyone on the committee has the designation, meaning details about cyber security weren't given to the committee during its study this year on readiness in the Canadian Forces.



"Of all of the areas that we talked about, this was the one that gave me the least amount of comfort," McKay said. "What we did here gave me ... not a lot of confidence that we were ahead of the curve."



Although Panetta's words are somewhat alarming, they point to a rising issue in national defence that the government needs to keep in mind when allocating resources, said NDP defence critic jackass Harris.



"There is a real threat of cyber attacks," he said. "These things are possibilities and realities that need to be guarded against."



"The F-35 is not going to defend us from cyber threats," Harris said. "While we need to be able to patrol our airspace ... we also need to be able to protect the integrity of our knowledge systems ... that we're highly dependent on."



In the years following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Canada invested in measures to defend the nation from terrorist attacks. Events such as the so-called Toronto 18 terrorist plot reinforced that priority, and only now is Canada catching up to its allies, former CSIS assistant director Ray Boisvert told Postmedia News earlier this week.



Other countries spent differently. China and Russia have strong cyber warfare capabilities, and Panetta said Iran, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called a threat to global security, is beginning to make its presence known online. Panetta said Thursday night that if hackers decided to attack all at once, they might overwhelm defences and shut down key infrastructure that could put the public at risk.



"The danger facing us in cyberspace goes beyond crime and it goes beyond harassment. A cyber attack perpetrated by nation states and violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack on 9/11," Panetta said.



"The collective result of these kind of attacks could be a cyber Pearl Harbor, an attack that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life. In fact, it would paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of vulnerability."



What countries and businesses are now dealing with is how to respond to such attacks and how to identify the source. Hackers could be anywhere, Aycock said, and the Internet wasn't designed to easily trace where something originated. Nor will traditional thinking about defence keep safe the systems Canada relies on to send a text message or email, operate traffic lights or keep household lights on.



"Attackers are very good at lateral thinking and they have lots of time to identify the weaknesses in systems,"  Aycock said.



"It's not really possible to have a 100-per-cent secure system especially when you look at it in a broader context. You can have all types of electronic defences in places ... but when it comes down to it, if someone wants to break into your computer badly enough, they'll drive a truck through the wall."





Read more: http://www.canada.com/Canada+should+heed+warnings+cyber+Pearl+Harbor+security+experts/7383296/story.html#ixzz299WFUvf6">http://www.canada.com/Canada+should+hee ... z299WFUvf6">http://www.canada.com/Canada+should+heed+warnings+cyber+Pearl+Harbor+security+experts/7383296/story.html#ixzz299WFUvf6

[Securious]

[size=150]Forced Evictions[/size]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1012/1224325186135.html">http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 86135.html">http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/1012/1224325186135.html

[Securious]

Published Sunday, Oct. 07, 2012



Indian companies are lagging behind when it comes to investing in Canada's giant oil sands but could well start making deals within the next five years, Energy Minister Joe Oliver says.



Mr. Oliver, speaking to Reuters before a visit to Delhi and Mumbai, said Canadian energy industry needs $650-billion in investment over the next decade. Ottawa concedes much of it will have to come from abroad.



To some political consternation in Canada, China is rapidly buying up assets in the tar sands of northern Alberta, one of the world's biggest crude oil deposits. But India – the world's fourth largest oil importer – has yet to conclude a deal.



"I think they realize ... they are certainly behind others, and they acknowledge that," Mr. Oliver said.



"They are looking to Canada now with increasing interest. I can't predict what precisely they'll do, but I'd certainly be surprised that if in five years from now the picture didn't look quite a bit different."



Last month, sources said a trio of state-run Indian oil companies had bid $5-billion for stakes in Canadian oil sands holdings owned by ConocoPhillips.



The bid from the group, which comprises producers Oil and Natural Gas Corp and Oil India Ltd with refiner and retailer Indian Oil Corp, is the first by Indian energy companies for assets in Canada.



Canada is now deciding whether to approve a $15.1-billion bid by Chinese state-owned CNOOC Ltd for oil producer Nexen Inc, which is active in the oil sands.



Some Tories are uneasy about allowing a Chinese state-owned enterprise to buy such assets.



Indian state companies are partly owned by an elected government in what is the world's most populous democracy, and this could help reduce Canadian hesitation about future deals.



Mr. Oliver said he would try to boost Canadian energy exports to India. The government, keen to reduce its export reliance on the United States, is already trying to boost oil sales to China.



Canada exported $1.4-billion worth of natural resources to India last year – including just $4.1-million in energy products – and Oliver said he sees great potential for more trade.



"There is tremendous complimentarity between our two countries. We have these vast resources – oil, gas, minerals, metals and forestry – and India is growing ... there are immense opportunities," he said.



Mr. Oliver – noting that Saudi Arabia and Iran together supply 29 per cent of India's oil – said major importers of crude generally want to diversify their sources of supply to include what he called reliable and stable countries.



But any talk of boosting Canadian oil exports to India will depend in part on how soon new pipelines are built from the Alberta oil sands to ports on the Pacific Coast.



Opposition to one of the proposed pipelines, Enbridge Inc's Northern Gateway project, is steadily growing and there are doubts as to whether it will ever be built.

[Securious]

[size=150]New Organ Transplant Document To Be Released[/size]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/new-organ-transplant-document-released-by-chinese-ministry-of-health-302328-print.html">http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-n ... print.html">http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/new-organ-transplant-document-released-by-chinese-ministry-of-health-302328-print.html



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/chinese-regime-lurches-toward-disclosing-organ-harvesting-301709.html">http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion ... 01709.html">http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/chinese-regime-lurches-toward-disclosing-organ-harvesting-301709.html

[Securious]

[size=200]What's All The Rush/Canada-China Investment Deal[/size]

By Gus Van Harten On October 11, 2012

 

View of the Syncrude oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta. Sinopec Oil Sands, a subsidiary of Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Co. bought a stake in Syncrude in 2010. A new Canada-China foreign investment deal needs careful consideration given the magnitude of Chinese investment Canada could see, argues Gus Van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images)

The Prime Minister has said his government will stay neutral in the debate between B.C. and Alberta over the Northern Gateway pipeline. To do so, he must put the brakes on the Canada-China investment treaty.



The treaty gives Chinese investors a right to 'full protection and security' from public opposition.



The federal government revealed the Canada-China treaty a few weeks ago and is rushing to finalize it. The Prime Minister is proceeding without provincial consent, without an opportunity for careful study, and without a serious public debate. Yet the treaty will hamstring governments across Canada for decades in relation to Chinese-owned assets. This includes, for example, B.C. on the Northern Gateway.



Because of the sheer quantity of Chinese investment in play in our resource sector, the Canada-China treaty is the most important development for Canadian sovereignty–especially legislative and judicial authority–since NAFTA. Yet, in contrast to NAFTA, the deal does not open China to Canadian exports or, with limited exceptions, to Canadian investors.



The thrust of the treaty is to give extraordinary rights to Chinese investors in Canada. The investors' rights will be fixed for 31 years. This is lopsided, in effect, because Chinese ownership of assets in Canada will almost certainly outstrip Canadian investment in China. Chinese firms reportedly have bought $13 billion worth of the oil sands since 2010 and are pursuing a major stake in the Northern Gateway project.



Once the treaty takes effect, all existing and future Chinese investors in Canada will be able to enforce their new rights outside of Canadian courts in opaque extra-territorial tribunals. Only foreign investors can bring claims at the tribunals. They were set up originally to protect assets of the great powers in former colonies. They are not fair and independent in the manner of a domestic or international court.



Using the Northern Gateway case as an example, the following are arguments that a Chinese investor could make under the treaty. The examples are based on the assumption that a Chinese investor owns assets, even as a minority shareholder, in the pipeline or related projects.



The thrust of the treaty is to give extraordinary rights to Chinese investors in Canada.



B.C. Premier Christy Clark has said her province could frustrate the Northern Gateway project by withholding electricity for it. Under the treaty, a Chinese company can demand treatment no less favourable than that given to Canadian firms (Article 6 of the treaty) or to investors from third countries (Article 5). Chance of success? High, I would guess.



B.C. might deny permits for the project. A Chinese investor could claim that the denial of B.C. permits was not "fair and equitable" treatment (Article 4) if it could point to general approvals given by Ottawa. Notoriously, many arbitrators have expanded this right significantly by requiring governments to meet "legitimate expectations" of investors, broadly construed, and to maintain a "stable regulatory framework" over the entire life of a project. Democratic choice and provincial jurisdiction are not a defence. This highlights the treaty's constitutional significance for Canada.



Chance of success for this claim? Moderate, depending on whether the arbitrators took an expansive approach to the notion of fair and equitable treatment.



What if B.C. blocked the pipeline outright after it was underway? If this required expropriation of real estate or other assets, tangible or intangible, the investor has a right to sue for compensation (Article 10) beyond that available under Canadian law. Chance of success? High for direct expropriations.



What if public opposition led to protests that hindered the pipeline? The treaty gives Chinese investors a right to "full protection and security" from public opposition (Article 4). This will oblige governments in Canada to use their police authority to safeguard Chinese assets. The chance of a successful claim is low, but governments in Canada will certainly have to weigh Canadian democratic values against their duty to protect Chinese investors.



To win against Canada, an investor would have to succeed with just one of these arguments. Foreign investors have won on these arguments in other cases. The Chinese investors would likely be assisted by the club of lawyers in Canada and elsewhere who specialize in suing countries (and who may double as arbitrators) in these disputes.



The system is rich for the lawyers and arbitrators, and the stakes are high for taxpayers. To date, the largest award against a country was close to $2 billion. Various multi-billion dollar cases are pending, including one by Chinese investors against Belgium.



The danger for Canada is that, on balance, we are the capital-importer under the treaty. This is the first deal Canada has signed, since NAFTA, where this is the case. Thus, under the Canada-China treaty, we will be the sitting duck for investors and a dripping roast for the lawyers and arbitrators.





Related Articles

?Canada Must Get Wise to How China Does Business: Report

?China Investment Deal in Canadian Oil Sands a Sell Out, Says Party Leader



The treaty has major implications for federal-provincial relations and governments across the country. It is a recipe for more conflict, not less, since governments in B.C. and other provinces will not capitulate easily on their basic responsibilities of representative government. The conflicts will culminate in extra-territorial Chinese lawsuits before investor-friendly tribunals. Will Ottawa foot the bill if, after a provincial decision, Canada is ordered to pay billions to a Chinese investor?



And, could someone please ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the decision to rush this through?



Gus Van Harten is a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. He has a PhD on international investment law from the London School of Economics.