Canada/China Relations

[scribblet]

I said nobody was denying Harper voted against bill C-250. As well the bill wasn't as simple as you make it out to be. Nothing is black and white Norman, neither was that bill. You are simply pointing to the one line of the bill that makes Harper sound like a bigot, despite the fact the bill encompasses more then that.

Do you honestly believe that all people who were opposed to bill C-250 are raving socons. Even the ACLU would have been against this bill, and they are civil libertarians.

Nothing is black and white, nothing, and until you realize that you will get a better understanding of the world.

Black is white - up is down on here

Also agree with Argus.

[scribblet]

Trying again - back to the topic on hand China relations.

CBC reports:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/16/...ieff-china.html

Mr. Harper, I think, believes you can go to one of the greatest civilizations on earth, a superpower of the 21st century and give them a little lecture on human rights," Ignatieff told CBC News....

Ignatieff praised China for improving the economic and social rights of their citizens over the last decade.

"You have to give them credit for a fact not enough Canadians, I think, recognize which is over the last 10 years, the most important human-rights advance in the world has been the hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of absolute poverty," Ignatieff said."

Now hold on here, doesn't iggy lecture on human rights for a living?

Freedom House ranks China as a 7 for political rights and a 6 for civil rights (lower is freer)

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?p...mp;country=6941

[Mimas]

Give me a break! Harper's posturing is pathetic and he only did it to take the news away from Rona in Kenya.

So what's he going to do about the human rights violations there? Slap tariffs on Chinese goods? Penalize GOOGLE for censoring the internet in China? My arse! All Western governments talk about human rights violations but don't give a crap that Western companies bend over to help the Chinese government enforce limitations on free speech, information, etc. If Harper hasn't totally screwed things up just yet, he may succeed in selling the Chinese some Cando reactors if he crawls and begs them.

[scribblet]

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Civil libertarians have been getting after Harper for failing to go after Beijing for the release of Celil - and now he has. Harper said Canada values the freedom of its citizens more than it values trade.

Meanwhile China manipulates gov'ts by agreeing to do business with those who withdraw criticism of human rights in exchange for benefits. I guess gov'ts and people who once backed freedom and democracy are too willing to sell these ideals for the dollar. The Liberals did as much when they removed sanctions which had resulted from Tiananmen Square. IMO it took courage for Harper to take a prinicpled stand on these issues especially with a minority gov't.

http://robedger.blogspot.com/2006/11/ignat...our-values.html

Ignatieff: stand up for our values quietly

"Mr. Harper, I think, believes you can go to one of the greatest civilizations on earth, a superpower of the 21st century and give them a little lecture on human rights," Ignatieff told CBC News.

I question the judgment of anyone who supports the Iraq war on shaky human rights grounds, but is against merely publicly questioning China's human rights record.

I can not believe that the frontrunner for the Liberal party is telling the Conservative Prime Minister to stop raising such a public stink about an international human rights issue.

The Liberal Party is supposed to be the party of human rights.

I have to go lay down.

[Argus]

Give me a break! Harper's posturing is pathetic and he only did it to take the news away from Rona in Kenya.

How did Harper create this fuss? It seems to me it was created when the Chinese abruptly cancelled a meeting and the media said this was because the Conservatives were nagging about human rights.

So what's he going to do about the human rights violations there? Slap tariffs on Chinese goods?

I DEFINITELY would.

Penalize GOOGLE for censoring the internet in China?

I stopped using Google as a search engine.

All Western governments talk about human rights violations but don't give a crap that Western companies bend over to help the Chinese government enforce limitations on free speech, information, etc.

Western governments make a pretence of concern over human rights. Perhaps Harper is actually talking about them for real.

If Harper hasn't totally screwed things up just yet, he may succeed in selling the Chinese some Cando reactors if he crawls and begs them.

I have no interest in improving the nuclear technology of the Chinese Communists.

What was it Lenin said, something along the lines of "The capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them with."?

[Argus]

I can not believe that the frontrunner for the Liberal party is telling the Conservative Prime Minister to stop raising such a public stink about an international human rights issue.

The Liberal Party is supposed to be the party of human rights.

I have to go lay down.

"I put ze pepper on my dinner! Har har har!"

Chretien, laughing about how his government deliberately violated the civil rights of Canadians, including making numerous false arrests in order to avoid having his Communist Chinese guests see protest signs.

I have to say that one of the my big disappointments in the Conservatives is they did not immediately fire the commissioner of the RCMP and launch an investigation into how he allowed the Liberal government to use his people for the political intimidation of the government's political opponents. The Francois Beaudoin affair comes to mind, as well, where the RCMP tried to silence him and even have him arrested for embarrassing Chretien.

The Liberals, under Chretien, did not even respect human rights in Canada, much less show any concern for human rights abuses overseas.

[Drea]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

It is not up to us to determine the human rights in any given country. It is up to us to make sure our country makes money (sells resources).

Heck maybe they'll take our lumber and make it into wacking bats for punishing the population -- but that is not for us to determine.

There are alot worse countries than China. And China and it's emerging middle class is going to buy from somewhere -- I'd like for us to be their supplier.

I sell to people I don't like. I take their money because their money is just as good as the "nice" people's.

Money is the bottom line.

[jefferiah]

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

[sharkman]

I don't know, do we really need to? We are only 30 million, a pretty small economy in the world. I think we could do just fine with trade to the Pacific Rim nations except those whose human rights violations we disagree with. And China is pretty much raping the environment to boot.

They have been stealing military technology, bullying Taiwan and Tibet and pretty much pirating anything they please. Not a country that one would trust.

[Argus]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

Our trade balance with the Chinese is lop-sided, to say the least. We export mostly raw materials(about $7b), and we import manufactured goods(about $25b)

Chinese imports undermine our own manufacturers, and China routinely violates all international trade laws, from mislabelling to using slave labour to counterfeiting.

China sells finished goods abroad, but they don't like to buy them. If Bomardier, say, gets a contract to supply trains in China it will be required to go over there, build a factory, teach local workers, and then build the trains there. They will then be heavily pressured to re-invest what profits there are in China. If they want further contracts they'll go along.

This helps Bombardier's bottom line. But it does not much help Canada.

How about we make a deal with China? They want to sell electronic goods, etc., here, they come here and build factories. Elsewise, get lost.

[Drea]

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

Of course we have to beg!

When one of my sales leads cancels an appointment I don't give up. The onus is on the salesperson (Canada) to sell the product. The onus is not on the customer (China) to take the first step. In the face of rejection, a salesperson makes follow up calls, sends free hockey tickets, whatever it takes to get "in the door" and promote the commodity.

If I waited for the customer to make the buying decision without my input I woudn't be much of a sales rep!

We have commodities to sell and need buyers to buy them

[scribblet]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

It is not up to us to determine the human rights in any given country. It is up to us to make sure our country makes money (sells resources).

Money is the bottom line.

I hope you remember that next time someone suggests we go into Darfur, Somalia or any other country the U.N. or NATO wants us to help with to restore human rights etc.

[jefferiah]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

Our trade balance with the Chinese is lop-sided, to say the least. We export mostly raw materials(about $7b), and we import manufactured goods(about $25b)

Chinese imports undermine our own manufacturers, and China routinely violates all international trade laws, from mislabelling to using slave labour to counterfeiting.

China sells finished goods abroad, but they don't like to buy them. If Bomardier, say, gets a contract to supply trains in China it will be required to go over there, build a factory, teach local workers, and then build the trains there. They will then be heavily pressured to re-invest what profits there are in China. If they want further contracts they'll go along.

This helps Bombardier's bottom line. But it does not much help Canada.

How about we make a deal with China? They want to sell electronic goods, etc., here, they come here and build factories. Elsewise, get lost.

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

Of course we have to beg!

When one of my sales leads cancels an appointment I don't give up. The onus is on the salesperson (Canada) to sell the product. The onus is not on the customer (China) to take the first step. In the face of rejection, a salesperson makes follow up calls, sends free hockey tickets, whatever it takes to get "in the door" and promote the commodity.

If I waited for the customer to make the buying decision without my input I woudn't be much of a sales rep!

We have commodities to sell and need buyers to buy them

Let's reserve begging for better customers.

[Drea]

Let's say that all countries in the world were "bad" concerning human rights, except for Canada.

Who would we sell our resources to? Would we just keep them to ourselves and have our own people starve?

If your a-hole neighbour (the one who beats his wife and kids) comes over during your garage sale, do you refuse to sell him your old lawnmower?

[Drea]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

Our trade balance with the Chinese is lop-sided, to say the least. We export mostly raw materials(about $7b), and we import manufactured goods(about $25b)

Chinese imports undermine our own manufacturers, and China routinely violates all international trade laws, from mislabelling to using slave labour to counterfeiting.

China sells finished goods abroad, but they don't like to buy them. If Bomardier, say, gets a contract to supply trains in China it will be required to go over there, build a factory, teach local workers, and then build the trains there. They will then be heavily pressured to re-invest what profits there are in China. If they want further contracts they'll go along.

This helps Bombardier's bottom line. But it does not much help Canada.

How about we make a deal with China? They want to sell electronic goods, etc., here, they come here and build factories. Elsewise, get lost.

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

Of course we have to beg!

When one of my sales leads cancels an appointment I don't give up. The onus is on the salesperson (Canada) to sell the product. The onus is not on the customer (China) to take the first step. In the face of rejection, a salesperson makes follow up calls, sends free hockey tickets, whatever it takes to get "in the door" and promote the commodity.

If I waited for the customer to make the buying decision without my input I woudn't be much of a sales rep!

We have commodities to sell and need buyers to buy them

Let's reserve begging for better customers.

You're obviously not in sales. You'd be fired.

Difficult customers make sales people better at their jobs (I love a challenging customer -- it hones my skills)

[sharkman]

Let's say that all countries in the world were "bad" concerning human rights, except for Canada.

Who would we sell our resources to? Would we just keep them to ourselves and have our own people starve?

If your a-hole neighbour (the one who beats his wife and kids) comes over during your garage sale, do you refuse to sell him your old lawnmower?

Could you come up with a scenario that a little bit more realistic? Why worry about crossing that particular bridge when our own provides so many challenges?

There is much more to selling our goods abroad than simply being a good salesperson.

Argus you make good points. When China wants to trade fairly they can give us a call.

[Drea]

Yah and I'm going to sit in my office all day and wait for customers to come to me.

I'll make tons of money! I'll sell all my products! All I have to do is wait for the customer to decide to buy.

It is sales. We have resources, we need to SELL them. This is how we make money. We don't make money if we don't have buyers. Period.

IMO who cares what the customer does in his own country? I am a selfish, capitalist I guess.

[normanchateau]

Nancy Hughes Thomas is President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce representing more than 170,000 Canadian businesses. Here's what she thinks of Harper's performance on China:

- The Harper government has put in a poor performance on the international trade front and must make it a ''priority,'' the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said Thursday in Vancouver.

"Like it or not, trade is absolutely vital to Canada and there are major concerns about the current situation." Anthony said. "Canada needs the same sort of presence in China that the U.S., Australia and other global competitors have." she said.

Source:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...38d&k=77834

Harper had no problem supporting permanent criminal records for possession of a few grams of marijuana because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem voting against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem abandoning Kyoto because he assumed environmentalists would not vote for him. But when he's attacked by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he'll soon be left with no one to vote for him except so-cons and militarists.

[Canadian Blue]

Harper had no problem supporting permanent criminal records for possession of a few grams of marijuana because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem voting against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem abandoning Kyoto because he assumed environmentalists would not vote for him. But when he's attacked by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he'll soon be left with no one to vote for him except so-cons and militarists.

Wow, everything is so simple. It must be that simple with regards to every single issue. Kind of like how the Liberals would alienate the west because they knew the west would never vote for them.

Most average Canadian's aren't a part of a special interest group Norman. So lets wait till the next election.

[normanchateau]

Harper had no problem supporting permanent criminal records for possession of a few grams of marijuana because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem voting against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem abandoning Kyoto because he assumed environmentalists would not vote for him. But when he's attacked by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he'll soon be left with no one to vote for him except so-cons and militarists.

Most average Canadian's aren't a part of a special interest group Norman. So lets wait till the next election.

One knows that the Conservatives are in deep trouble when even the 170,000 member Canadian Chamber of Commerce is dismissed as a special interest group by their supporters.

[normanchateau]

Harper had no problem supporting permanent criminal records for possession of a few grams of marijuana because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem voting against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem abandoning Kyoto because he assumed environmentalists would not vote for him. But when he's attacked by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he'll soon be left with no one to vote for him except so-cons and militarists.

Most average Canadian's aren't a part of a special interest group Norman. So lets wait till the next election.

And of course so-cons and militarists aren't special interest groups.

[Canadian Blue]

One knows that the Conservatives are in deep trouble when even the 170,000 member Canadian Chamber of Commerce is dismissed as a special interest group by their supporters.

Do you honestly think 170,000 members are going to all vote Liberal.

And of course so-cons and militarists aren't special interest groups.

Socon isn't, militarists I'm guessing mean's soldiers. Well I don't mind supporting the conservatives since they support the troops and are giving us the money to do our job.

Besides, why do you keep on trying to sidetrack the thread with your obvious hate for Harper.

Whatever happened to that zero tolerance policy for partisan trolling?

[normanchateau]

And of course so-cons and militarists aren't special interest groups.

Socon isn't, militarists I'm guessing mean's soldiers. Well I don't mind supporting the conservatives since they support the troops and are giving us the money to do our job.

I don't mind supporting the troops and giving them money to do their job either. But Harper's appointment of a defense industry lobbyist to the position of Minister of National Defence was pandering to special interest groups.

"Controversial Cabinet selection

Though somewhat muted by the higher profile issues in the namings of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to the cabinet, the posting of O'Connor to the position of Minister of National Defence by Prime Minister Harper was met with controversy. Harkening back to ethics and accountability issues including a promised crackdown on lobbying and reforms to lobbying legislation [2] that Harper raised during the 2006 federal election, O'Connor's employment as a lobbyist for several major defence industry companies including some of the world's largest military contractors, such as General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Airbus as recently as 2004 was seen by many as peculiar. Some feared that with the posting the minister would often be dealing with the very companies for whom he advised for and assisted in soliciting defence contracts; seemingly putting him in constant peril of conflict-of-interest issues[3]. However, the aim of the Accountability Act is to prevent people from moving from government to lobbying, and not the opposite as was the case with O'Connor

There were potential conflict-of-interest issues early in his term as one of the first major issues the Conservatives pledged they would sort out is the replacement of the Forces 'tactical airlift' fleet. One of the most prominient companies bidding for the contract to replace the present fleet of C-130 Hercules Turboprops is Airbus S.A.S. for whom O'Connor worked as a lobbyist until February 2004, lobbying the former Liberal government to purchase the airplane that would become the Airbus A400M for its tactical airlift fleet."

[jbg]

IMO, regardless of the level of "human rights" ... we need to trade with China. Just like we need to trade with the USA.

We need money -- we have resources to sell.

It is not up to us to determine the human rights in any given country. It is up to us to make sure our country makes money (sells resources).

*snip*

Money is the bottom line.

Then don't lecture Israel on the "rights" of Palestinians.

[Argus]

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

Of course we have to beg!

When one of my sales leads cancels an appointment I don't give up. The onus is on the salesperson (Canada) to sell the product.

Even when the product brings no profit?