Is Canada Falling Short on Trade With China?

[bush_cheney2004]

good on ya for finding your kindred spirit - Jamie Glazov, who makes a case for the Canadian psyche needing "anti-Americanism" to identify itself.

Nobody should need Glazov to make such an obvious case. Mexicans don't have this problem.

Jamie Glazov who attributed Trudeau's foreign relationships to Trudeau's purposeful attempt/need to "stand-up" to Americans...

Right again...how else was he gonna sell the "uniqueness" Quebec?

Jamie Glazov, who severely criticized Chretien for his decision to keep Canada out of Iraq..... and ultimately attributed Chretien's "anti-American" position to being a protege of Trudeau.

This one doesn't matter in practical terms...Canada couldn't have done boo in Iraq. Still, Ignatieff agreed!

[waldo]

good on ya for finding your kindred spirit - Jamie Glazov, who makes a case for the Canadian psyche needing "anti-Americanism" to identify itself.

Nobody should need Glazov to make such an obvious case. Mexicans don't have this problem.

in your skewed view of Canadians do you offer any distinctions for degrees of your perceived anti-Americanism? Is any Canadian who dares question, oh, say… a segment of American foreign policy, for example… is that questioning Canadian given your anti-American basher labelling? It would seem overt – even subtle - displays of Canadian nationalism give you pause.

Jamie Glazov who attributed Trudeau's foreign relationships to Trudeau's purposeful attempt/need to "stand-up" to Americans...

Right again...how else was he gonna sell the "uniqueness" Quebec?

huh? Selling Quebec to who? To “English Canada”… based on (Glazov’s) stated purposeful attempt/need to “stand-up” to Americans??? Sorry, my crack research staff appears to be having difficulty deciphering this – could you please elaborate – thanks.

Jamie Glazov, who severely criticized Chretien for his decision to keep Canada out of Iraq..... and ultimately attributed Chretien's "anti-American" position to being a protege of Trudeau. This Jamie Glazov quote is particularly of note:

But Chrétien’s obsession with “standing up” to the Americans has led him, like many of his predecessors, to place Canada on the side of evil.

It’s disgusting and absolutely pathetic.

oh my! Glazov would equate anti-Americanism to being on the side of evil

yes, good on ya for finding your kindred spirit

This one doesn't matter in practical terms...Canada couldn't have done boo in Iraq.

practical terms? You still cling to some detached reality that your described Iraqi regime change has actually resulted in a safer America – a safer world; that your practical extensions, your bazillion dollar expenditures, the lost lives, the middle-east instability, the divided America - the tarnished America… that all your “practical terms” were worthwhile. In the face of your country’s shameful Iraq war, most Canadians have gladly accepted and embraced the symbolic Chretien act that kept Canada out of your Coalition of the Willing – the logical , rationale and correct Chretien act that had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, no matter how many different ways you’d like to spin it.

[Wild Bill]

In the face of your country’s shameful Iraq war, most Canadians have gladly accepted and embraced the symbolic Chretien act that kept Canada out of your Coalition of the Willing – the logical , rationale and correct Chretien act that had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, no matter how many different ways you’d like to spin it.

The "...logical, rationale(sic!)and correct Chretien act..." was to stay out of Iraq because after sending both our guys and our plane to Afghanistan it would have been ferociously embarrassing to Chretien to have the entire world see how poor and limited our resources had become!

It had nothing to do with some higher morality on Chretien's part and everything to do with the Liberals having turned Canada into a toothless tiger on the world "peacekeeping" stage, no matter how many different ways you'd like to spin it!

[waldo]

The "...logical, rationale(sic!)and correct Chretien act..." was to stay out of Iraq because after sending both our guys and our plane to Afghanistan it would have been ferociously embarrassing to Chretien to have the entire world see how poor and limited our resources had become!

It had nothing to do with some higher morality on Chretien's part and everything to do with the Liberals having turned Canada into a toothless tiger on the world "peacekeeping" stage, no matter how many different ways you'd like to spin it!

you appear to take exception with both the rational Chretien act and the Chretien rationale for the act…

oh snap! How could I have missed the part about Iraq being simply a peacekeeping initiative - notwithstanding your apparent zeal for preemptive warfare, which - of course - has no bearing on or relation with Canada’s traditional peacekeeping role.

[Topaz]

I, for one, can't stand countries that come down on China about its treatment of its people and at the same time doing business with them out the back door! So IF Harper really feels this way, than more power to him. BTW, I need help with this question... what south-east Asia country pays its citizens for being citizens of that country and I think the Prince of this country gave each of its people a car. The country is an island I think, and the palace is all in gold and I'm not sure if today its still the riches country in the world. I saw a documentary on this royal family some time ago but I can't rmember the name of the country. Any one know?

[bush_cheney2004]

in your skewed view of Canadians do you offer any distinctions for degrees of your perceived anti-Americanism? Is any Canadian who dares question, oh, say… a segment of American foreign policy, for example… is that questioning Canadian given your anti-American basher labelling? It would seem overt – even subtle - displays of Canadian nationalism give you pause.

Not at all....I would vigorously encourage such a display of Canadian nationalism, but free of a context and neurosis that can only do so in terms of the Americuns. Maybe even question your own foreign policy without exclaiming that "the devil made us do it".

huh? Selling Quebec to who? To “English Canada”… based on (Glazov’s) stated purposeful attempt/need to “stand-up” to Americans??? Sorry, my crack research staff appears to be having difficulty deciphering this – could you please elaborate – thanks.

Please don't shine me on....even a smart ass American like me knows what Trudeau's game was....just a variation of divide and conquer for political goals, starting with "multiculturalism" and ending with constitutional language rights that is still a wedge issue today. How is that for Clarity....heh heh.

practical terms? You still cling to some detached reality that your described Iraqi regime change has actually resulted in a safer America – a safer world; that your practical extensions, your bazillion dollar expenditures, the lost lives, the middle-east instability, the divided America - the tarnished America… that all your “practical terms” were worthwhile.

You are confusing means with will. A "tarnished America" is laughable in historical context, and easily dismissed as yet another quaint Canadian value, even as it bombed and killed locals around the world for "human rights". Regime change in Iraq was a stated American objective since 1991. Canadian forces were already deployed to Afghanistan (and Haiti for a short spell)...Iraq was out of the question save for a token blessing and military overflight rights for American airlift.

In the face of your country’s shameful Iraq war, most Canadians have gladly accepted and embraced the symbolic Chretien act that kept Canada out of your Coalition of the Willing – the logical , rationale and correct Chretien act that had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, no matter how many different ways you’d like to spin it.

Canada passing on Iraq was not anti-Americanism....hell, France and Germany did a much better job than did fence-sitting Chretien/Canada. PM Martin begged for a piece of the action in the way of oil services contracts after the invasion! So Bush tossed him a bone, mostly because of Canada's effort in A-stan.

Ducros and Parrish had more balls than Chretien when it came to anti-Americunism!

[xul]

Unless the political situation in China changes I suggest we should follow an old trick of business that has done well for me. When I get a "bad" customer who is either too rude and demanding or just not likely to pay his bill I tell him that I have such a long backlog that perhaps he should try somewhere else. Then I give him a competitor's card!

I'm just wondering why Mr.Harper isn't wise enough to see through the alleged Chinese scheme and make all such suggestions of his supporters here into his government's policy to protect Canadian interests...

[Wild Bill]

you appear to take exception with both the rational Chretien act and the Chretien rationale for the act…

oh snap! How could I have missed the part about Iraq being simply a peacekeeping initiative - notwithstanding your apparent zeal for preemptive warfare, which - of course - has no bearing on or relation with Canada’s traditional peacekeeping role.

You're dodging my point!

When we no longer have the resources to participate in such missions all the points you've made become moot.

We had nothing of substance to send to Iraq. Period. End of story.

[waldo]

You're dodging my point!

When we no longer have the resources to participate in such missions all the points you've made become moot.

We had nothing of substance to send to Iraq. Period. End of story.

you’re dodging my point!

discussions on the preparedness and capability levels for Canada participating in rogue nation preemptive warfare… is moot. Period. End of story.

[Argus]

It's not as simple as that. There was an interesting piece in Newsweek soon after the world was rocked by the news of the economic crisis.

"Everyone knows that China is a major power and our representation there is important. But right now, we need Beijing like never before. China is the key to America getting through the worsening economic crisis.... Economists of both the left and right agree that a massive fiscal stimulus is needed and that for now, we shouldn't be worrying about deficits. But in order to run up these deficits—which could total somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, or between 7 and 11 percent of GDP—someone has to buy American debt. And the only country that has the cash to do so is China.

Not actually true. It is true that China has seen to it that some of it's banks have become enormous, but the US can sell it's treasury bonds anywhere and everywhere - and does. This isn't like a normal creditor-debtor type relationship. The US does not apply for a loan and negotiate terms. It prints bonds and sells them at auction to institutions which buy them as investments. A while ago it was said that it was the middle east oil sheiks who owned most American debt, now some are saying it's the Chinese. It's really irrelevent. They can't call it in, and if they don't buy the bonds someone else will. Those bonds are sold everywhere because they are considered to be extremely secure.

China is definitely feeling the pinch, and have put their own economic measures in place, but the fact that American recovery is so dependant on China, puts them in a much better position. If China fails, the U.S. fails, and we fail. It's that simple. Many economists believe that they will recover before anyone else, simply because they have to.

I just don't see it. China mainly supplies the US, not the other way around, so it's more like if the US fails, China fails. The US can get goods anywhere, and it can get money anywhere. Ultimately, if it can ever address it's lunatic race to the bottom every election (vote for me and I'll cut your taxes - again!) it can just raise the cash by raising taxes.

[Argus]

Actually, I never felt human right in China is worse than Canada.

What an appalling level of ignorance. I suggest you educate yourself about the realities of life.

Yes, in China, media does not report something that Canadian media enjoy reporting. In Canada, it is just same. Some reports we can read in China we can not find here. It is also same in the US and UK.

Perhaps, but we don't shoot the reporter for reporting what we don't like, then march his family to a work camp.

The reason why some people think Chinese are "rude" is because the society there has more tolerance. At least they can THINK anything need not worry about be charged for hate.

Really? The Tibetans like to think they're a seperate people. The Ughurs think they should be able to retain their culture. The Falun Gong think they should be able to practice their religion.

The Chinese govenrment thinks it should execute anyone who thinks like that.

Maybe you believe you can think anything without difficulty because you're so unimaginative and have so bought into the government line that you never think anything they don't want you to.

[bjre]

Really? The Tibetans like to think they're a seperate people. The Ughurs think they should be able to retain their culture. The Falun Gong think they should be able to practice their religion.

I think only small part of Tibetan/Ughur lived outside China and Falun Gong are all backed by CIA and funded by money from CIA/FED.

[bjre]

Day trumpets trade opportunities with China

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...412?hub=QPeriod

International Trade Minister Stockwell Day is denying the Canadian government has changed its focus on China from human rights to trade, in an interview with CTV's Question Period.

In the past, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sharply criticized China's human rights record, leading to strained relations between Canada and China, the world's third largest economy.

Day suggested the media has overblown any ill will between the governments, and has been selective in its criticism.

The international trade minister also dismissed suggestions that Canada has lagged behind other nations in cultivating new trade ties with China.

Day isn't ruling out raising human rights issues in his meetings. He said even Chinese leaders themselves seem to be more open about the subject.

[xul]

The US does not apply for a loan and negotiate terms. It prints bonds and sells them at auction to institutions which buy them as investments. A while ago it was said that it was the middle east oil sheiks who owned most American debt, now some are saying it's the Chinese. It's really irrelevent. They can't call it in, and if they don't buy the bonds someone else will. Those bonds are sold everywhere because they are considered to be extremely secure.

Thanks heavens there were not a lot of Americans think by this way, otherwise they would elect THIS GUY as American President with several million HP Laserjet printers to issue THIS NOTEs for bailout of the banks while never worry about who would buy these notes.

Edited April 14, 2009 by xul

[eyeball]

I would have to say that America's finacial record is as scary looking as China's environmental record.

As for human rights... well, they're both super-powers that are well known for their propensity for being international troublemakers. Both should be on notice from Canada as far as I'm concerned for this very reason.

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for human rights... well, they're both super-powers that are well known for their propensity for being international troublemakers. Both should be on notice from Canada as far as I'm concerned for this very reason.

Notice from Canada? What would that look like? Would anyone care? Meanwhile, Obama notes the heroic environmental degradation to change tar sands into Yankee dollars.

[xul]

I would have to say that America's finacial record is as scary looking as China's environmental record.

As for human rights... well, they're both super-powers that are well known for their propensity for being international troublemakers.

I don't think Chinas should be considered as a so-called super-power like America, being a super-power there are a lot of thing it must have beyond having several trillion dollars notes issued by some almost bankrupt banks. Firstly it must have the intention of meddling other nations's business, about this I bet some Canadians here have more advantages of being elements of a super-power than most of Chineses have ; Secondly it must be in the lead of the world on most aspects which indicate a nation's strength and character, such as science and technology, liberal arts, economical and political system, education and eradication of poverty, ect. Considering all of these, China mainly is still a developing country, though exactly it is a big developing country, that means it can do something or has the influence that some medium ranked developed countries like Canada cannot do or have----understanding all of these is very important for Canadian politians to maximize their country's interests when they deal with the bilateral relationship with China.

As for human rights, I think if anyone who really wanted to stand for it not playing it to improve his votes, he'd better not be a national political leader such as a president or a PM something but merely be a unbenefited activist. I hate to involve in Canadian political parties's political smear, but doesn't anyone here think it is a bit cheeky if there is some king of some country says:"our policy is fine, we boycotted a Olympic games for standing on the high-ground of Tibetan human rights, meanwhile we successfully deliveried military helicopter engines to China for the perfect commercial marriage between improving our Royalist Party's donor's interests and improving Chinese riot police's mobility in Tibetan plateau. "

About troublemakers, if we define the term of troublemaker as "somebody who has no business here but he deliberately obstructs/wrecks/makes touble on others who legally have business here", we can easily judge who is a troublemaker in our daily life. For example, you and some your friends leased a school's ground playing a football game, some mobs who were expeled by the school messed your game up for they thought such activtiy could defame the school, they could be consider as troublemakers.

Edited April 14, 2009 by xul

[xul]

Anther matter about this issue that I want to say is--- this issue is less relative with the matter of those, such as "China and Canada who fears who", "China and Canada who needs who", "China and Canada who bigger than who"...ect. Has there anyone ever cousidered, even if China was a trifling small country, why would Canada need to conflict with China if the conflict was not good for Canadian interests? Just as if there is a guy driving a big car who meets another smaller car on a road, does everyone think it is wise if he crashes the small car by his big car just for fan or showing his car is "up" than something?

Never forgeting, this world is not only made of China and Canada two countries. In a multiplayer game, if you unnecessarily ensnarl into conflict with only single side and cannot settle the battle soon, you will lose more in the war than the loss in this single battle, any kid who play internet computer came can tell you this (and American has showed us about this in reality). If you are a CEO of a Canadian oil company and your main object is to sell you oil to America, the best way to achieve you goal is to invite some Chinese delegation to negotiate an oil pipe to China not to tell American you have messed up with all your other clients only counting on them.

[eyeball]

Anther matter about this issue that I want to say is--- this issue is less relative with the matter of those, such as "China and Canada who fears who", "China and Canada who needs who", "China and Canada who bigger than who"...ect. Has there anyone ever cousidered, even if China was a trifling small country, why would Canada need to conflict with China if the conflict was not good for Canadian interests?

Engaging with China has resulted in a more open society but not the government which is the real threat. Even worse I think our closer engagement with China has resulted in a more powerful less open government here. I think the CEO's and bureacrats we've sent to China and countries with similarily authoritarian regimes have come home with an appreciation for how easy it is to get business done when things like rights and accountability are given less weight and the less the better. Power is being concentrated into fewer hands in the world just like wealth is and the result will only accelerate the concentration of both.

I take the view that the more fundamental polarity between human beings is between those who govern and those who are governed - there can be no doubt who is the begger and who is the chooser. I would suggest that if push came to shove that all of our governments would identify with one another before they ever identified with us.

BC2004 points to Canada's failings and peculiarly implies these are accomplishments I should perhaps be proud of. Needless to say I'm not and more to the point I'm ashamed to say the reason for our growing number of failures is due to our engaging with some of the worst human rights and environmental offenders on the planet - we're becoming more like them ourselves by doing so. The really sad thing is how many apologists that authoritarians have managed to cultivate in North America - look at how many are quite comfortable with throwing 14 year olds into jail for life without parole or who defend the actions of the state when its complicit in the death of someone like Robert Dziekanski. I'm at a real loss for suggestions on what can be done about our descent other than subjecting our governments to...tyranny.

Edited April 14, 2009 by eyeball

[xul]

Engaging with China has resulted in a more open society but not the government which is the real threat. Even worse I think our closer engagement with China has resulted in a more powerful less open government here.

There is a joke: Before last election, all polls indicated that Harper will win the election, though still kept as a minority government. So should all his opposite parties boycott the election for this election could authenticate his electoral advantage once more?

What is a Policy? If Canada sells China a car that certainly can increase CO2 emission in China. Should Canada forbid all cars's export to China? A policy of a nation should be viable and practical, not only meets a certain theory or doctrine and totally ignores others.

I don't like to argue whether CPC have ever been changed because I don't care about that too much. I believe that if the majority of a country's people wants to kick their kings ass, they can always manage to do it without outside help. But there just are some cultural difference. If you works in a university, you will find that if a Chinese student wants buy something, he may probably save money first, then buy it---not like his western lectuers, buy it first, then struggle to pay the debts . If someone asked me, I'd say yes, CPC have been changed a lot, thought some parts of them haven't. It seems that Bushs have backed up me. (his temporary office was just on the half way between my home and my elementary school when he was in China in Mao's time as American ambassador, so I saw the American flag hanged out of his window twice everyday. I think any honest man who was in China then and came back in recent years will agree with me.)

But even if you were correct, anyone who truly understands what is humanrights(not merely a certain small group of people's rights ) will agree that, merely considering "engaging with China has resulted in a more open society"(that means 1.3billion people, 4 times of Americans or 40 times of Canadians) is enought to conclude that humanrights there has been greatly improved.

I think the CEO's and bureacrats we've sent to China and countries with similarily authoritarian regimes have come home with an appreciation for how easy it is to get business done when things like rights and accountability are given less weight and the less the better. Power is being concentrated into fewer hands in the world just like wealth is and the result will only accelerate the concentration of both.

CEOs go where the market is. For example, China car sales will exceed American at the first place in the world this year. Cuting wage costs is not the only purpose of these CEOs. If you ever went into a car assembly plant, you would find there were only few workers. Roberts do most jobs. If GMC has moved some of it factory to China, the true cause is it cannot compete with TOYOTA by shipping hundreds thousand of cars across Pacific Ocean to China from Canada. I bet the GM China facotry is the only plact of the corporation running on full time in the world these days.

I'm not a CEO beater. Most CEOs merely do what they are designed to do. Just like the "fair charge" in a soccer game, if you has signed the rule to enroll the game, you could not complain someday someone big ramming you down. Though the game players have the rights to ask for changing the rules---with a bit difficulty even if they know what they are looking for.

I take the view that the more fundamental polarity between human beings is between those who govern and those who are governed - there can be no doubt who is the begger and who is the chooser. I would suggest that if push came to shove that all of our governments would identify with one another before they ever identified with us.

Honestly, if everyone in the world is the perfect humanrights-being, that means everyone could have reached such high moral level of caring others just like caring himself, I'd say communism is the best system in the world like the "future-world" in some hollywood fantasy movies. But I'm afraid humans are just poor unperfect selfish creatures, and everyone is not just same. Some of men are smart, some of men are stupid; some are hard working, some are indolent; some can foresee things before they happen, some are blind even something have happened right under their noses... so achieving such a protocol is a bit difficult than Obama's "nuclear-free" world.

BC2004 points to Canada's failings and peculiarly implies these are accomplishments I should perhaps be proud of. Needless to say I'm not and more to the point I'm ashamed to say the reason for our growing number of failures is due to our engaging with some of the worst human rights and environmental offenders on the planet - 14 year olds into jail for life without parole or who defend the actions of the state when its complicit in the death of someone like Robert Dziekanski. I'm at a real loss for suggestions on what can be done about our descent other than subjecting our governments to...tyranny.

If I was a Canadian, I'd like to have BC2004 here. He just works like the magic mirror in the kids's story of Snow White---when the queen asked,"am I the fairest woman in the world?", the mirrow always anwers:"no, you are not...."

I'm not a woman, thinking such an answer is little annoying but it tells the truth.

Edited April 16, 2009 by xul