Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Communist Party of China about to become one of the biggest landowners in British Columbia


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,057 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

China Investment Corporation Eyes BC Forests, Spells FIPA Danger

Posted Image

The China Investment Corporation(CIC), one of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds, is set to become a powerful landowner in British Columbia if a $100 million deal with Island Timberlands, the second-largest owner of private forests in the province, goes through. The Ancient Forest Alliance (AFA) is concerned that closure of the deal, especially in light of Canada's pending ratification of the Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement(FIPA), could have negative consequences for protection of BC's treasured old-growth forests, forestry jobs, and the rights of First Nations, according to an AFA press release.

“The Communist Party of China is about to become one of the biggest landowners in British Columbia if this deal goes through," said Ken Wu, executive director of the AFA.

"In light of the proposed Canada-China investment treaty, this could be at the expense of BC’s environment, forestry workers and First Nations,” said Wu, adding, “Chairman Mao’s spirit is seemingly being channelled by Chairman Harper these days, as it’s hard to see how this proposed agreement will be a net benefit to Canadians.”

Chinese investment in Canadian resources has taken on a new significance since the Harper government announced the possibility of entering into a strict trade agreement with China. The deal, an investment treaty with a 31 year lifespan, would strongly dissuade municipal, provincial and federal governments from making any decisions that might affect the profit margin of Chinese investors.

"The China-Canada FIPA would allow Chinese investors in Canada to sue the federal government for lost profits due to new regulations, taxes, and environmental laws enacted federally or provincially. This would undercut the ability of future federal and provincial governments to enact new regulations or policies that might result in a lawsuit by Chinese companies which are accountable to the Chinese government," says the press release.

The Harper government has yet to ratify FIPA, but the consequences of the trade deal have gained new significance after the rushed approval of China's takeover of Canadian oil-producer Nexen. Although Harper promised the sell-out of Canadian resources to foreign state-owned enterprises signals the 'end of a trend and not the beginning,' he did not mention that such acquisitions will continue and that all such sales occurring under a $330 million mark will receive no federal review.

If Island Timberland successfully deals with China, the CIC will own a 12.5 percent in Island Timberland's 254,000 hectares of private forest land on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Under the banner of FIPA the deal between the CIC and Island Timberlands could have significant consequences for how those forests are managed. The Ancient Forest Alliance is calling on the government to establish a $40 million annual "park acquisition fund to purchase and protect endangered ecosystems on private lands." BC has not had an acquisition fund of this kind since 2008.

“While private land trusts are vital for conservation, they simply don’t have the capacity to quickly raise the tens of millions of dollars needed each year to protect most endangered private lands before they are logged or developed —only governments have such funds,” stated TJ Watt, Ancient Forest Alliance campaigner and photographer. “More than ever, considering the potential future difficulties to strengthen environmental laws on private lands under FIPA, the BC government must fund the purchase of the last endangered old-growth forests on private lands before they are logged.”

According to the Ancient Forest Alliance, the combination of FIPA with Chinese investment in BC forests could prove disastrous for the conservation measures needed to ensure responsibly stewardship of the land.

Among other possible concerns, the AFA saysthe Island Timberlands sale, when considered in tandem with FIPA, raises these immediate concerns:


- The future obstruction of "new regulations or taxes to curtail unprocessed 'raw' logs from being exported from BC to sawmills in China and abroad."

- The undermining of "stronger Forest Protection regulations on private forest lands."

- The move away from the establishment of a "Forest Land Reserve" which mirrors other popular conservations strategies such as the "Agricultural Land Reserve."

- The obstruction of "implementation of First Nations land-use plans and shared decision making measures that may require legally-binding orders from the BC government to protect sacred sites, important cultural use sites, and natural resource areas."


Communities across Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, where Island Timberlands holdings are located, are fighting the company's plans to harvest in the region, suggesting the area's unique and highly-prized ecosystems should warrant the land a no-go zone. Island Timberlands should forego logging in these "forest hotspots" and practice "community, ecosystem-based forestry standards" elsewhere.

The company temporarily halted logging plans earlier this month on Cortes Island after protestors blocked operations. The island's community members are currently raising funds for the purchase of a 250 hectare "Children's Forest" that will be protected from future logging.

In a recent interview with trade investment lawyer Gus Van Harten, he told DeSmog that FIPA is preparing Canada "to play the role of the supplier of raw resources to feed the Chinese industrial machine. We will have difficulty competing with Chinese manufacturing because of the extremely low cost of labour in China."

He added, "The real economic benefits is not taking the resources out of the ground, it's adding value by manufacturing the resources and then exporting the manufactures."
http://www.desmogblo...lls-fipa-danger




What is FIPA? Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement

Red Carpet for China

So what is the Canada-China Investment Treaty? Simply put, it is the most significant trade agreement signed by Canada since NAFTA. Only this time our “partner” is the communist government in Beijing, an authoritarian regime with an appalling record on human rights –and it isn’t getting better. This deal requires that Chinese government-owned companies be treated exactly the same as Canadian companies operating in Canada. Once in force, it lasts a minimum of 15 years. If a future government wants to get out of it, a one year notice is required – and even once the treaty is cancelled, any existing Chinese operations in Canada are guaranteed another 15 years of the treaty’s benefits.

1. Open bar for Chinese state-owned enterprises

The Canada-China Investment Treaty means easier takeovers of Canadian assets, especially in the resource sector. In the context of the possible takeover of Nexen by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), it is crucial that we collectively pause to consider the wisdom of granting Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) such an easy access to our natural resources.

2. The right for China to claim damages over Canadian laws

The Canada-China Investment Treaty allows Chinese companies (including state-owned enterprises) to sue the Government of Canada over decisions that can limit or reduce their expectation of profits. In treaty language, this is called “tantamount to expropriation.” China can claim damages against Canada for decisions at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level. Even decisions of our courts can give rise to damages. The damage claims start with six months of diplomatic negotiation. If that fails, damage claims move to arbitration – behind closed doors.

3. Secret hearings

The Canada-China Investment Treaty would allow Chinese investors to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Special arbitrators would take the decisions. These arbitrators, unlike judges, do not have secure tenures or set salaries. Their decision cannot be subject to judicial review. And the arbitrations are to be secret. Even the fact they are happening is to be secret.

4. Limit right to be heard

Only the federal government is allowed to take part in the arbitration process. Provincial governments or Canadian companies, even if their interests are affected, do not have the right to voice their concerns during the arbitration process.

5. China’s obsession for secrecy

The Canada-China Investment Agreement makes Chinese lawsuits secret . At any time, we will not know if we are being sued and who will decide the case. We will not know what our government is saying on our behalf. We will not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions. This is a complete U-turn for Canada who has always insisted on complete openness in investor-state arbitration, for example when signing the Canada-US-Mexico free trade deal.

6. Restrictions on our use of our own resources

The Canada-China Investment Treaty requires that if, in the future, Canada wants to conserve natural resources (fisheries, water, oil, uranium, forests -- everything is covered), and reduce Chinese access to these resources, we are only allowed to do so to the extent we limit our own use of those natural resources.

http://www.greenpart...top-the-sellout



Chinese seek stake in BC forestry company as FIPA decision looms

Posted Image
Photo of Cortes Island Forest by TJ Watt courtesy of Ancient Forest Alliance

Potential impacts of a $100 million dollar deal between China Investment Corporation (CIC) and Brookfield Asset Management Inc, the majority shareholder in Island Timberlands (IT), have made headlines internationally and alarmed activists in British Columbia. The story was first reported in early November by the Wall Street Journal.

South China Morning Post reported upon it more recently, quoting activist Zoe Miles.
Island Timberlands intends to clear cut a forest Cortes Island residents say they cherish, but so far the community has stopped IT from proceeding.

The industrial scale forestry IT proposes for Cortes Island “gives the corporation all of the profit at the expense of the community," Miles said.

Because IT is exporting raw logs to the Chinese market, as opposed to finished products, Miles said residents will be left with a "devastated ecosystem" and no long-term benefits for locals.
“What we see is that they appear to be far more interested in making a deal with China than they do with the local community, and so, to all appearances, their priority is profit over local benefit,” Miles said.

Islanders want to work with the forestry company to “create a new model that everyone can benefit from and that creates local jobs as well as preserve the integrity of the ecosystem and that they can still make a profit from."

Neither the CIC sale nor the Canada-China FIPA agreement have gone through yet, Kenneth Wu, executive director of the Ancient Forest Alliancesaid.

“And in fact, I think the ratification of FIPA has been stalled by a massive public outcry, including among the Conservative voting base,” he said.

“Many of the activists are pushing for stronger forest practice regulations... to ensure essentially that eco-forestry standards and community standards are implemented on those lands. They’re not anti-logging. They want to see sustainable logging. But the ability to get new laws to strengthen the forest practices standards could be jeopardized," Wu said.

If FIPA is ratified by the federal government, he cautioned, the trade agreement will protect Chinese investors, and allow them to sue for the potential lost profits as a result of new environmental laws, such as a tax for exporting raw logs to Chinese or American mills.

He said such a move would make it difficult to create policies that would respond to the vision of “sustainable forestry” articulated for Cortes Island and other sites.

Relations with First Nations

Weakened regulatory abilities and local resource control aside, the AFA also cautions that the Canada-China FIPA and CIC’s Island Timberlands buy-in could hinder negotiations with First Nations over land-use planning. It could also destabalize joint decision-making, as well as the push to create a “Forest Land Reserve” designation that would protect specific forest areas from development.
For some Cortes Island residents, these possibilities are part of a longer struggle over forest resources. Rick Bockner, himself a professional woodworker, moved to Cortes Island 21 years ago with his two daughters. He was on the island in 1991 when islanders fought Macmillan-Bloedel over what he notes are many of the same trees.

“The difference is that in 1991 those logs probably would have been processed locally. And these days with the provincial government aiding and abetting the corporations in exporting raw logs to foreign markets, we’re finding that there’s no benefit locally from any of this activity, and it’s a sticking point for us,” he said.

Island Timberlands was contacted but did not provide a comment before deadline.

http://www.vancouver...-decision-looms



Reasons to worry about the Canada-China trade deal

Canadians feel uncomfortable about the proposed Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement with China. Tens of thousands of people who probably didn't know what a FIPA was before the end of September have sent letters to their MPs asking that it be torn up.

Many of them are worried that China-based corporations will be able to use the generous investment protections in the FIPA to challenge environmental, public health or conservation measures in Canada.

There are reasons to worry. In fact, there is a large and growing body of case law under existing bilateral investment treaties that Canada and other countries have signed proving that environmental and other non-discriminatory regulations are vulnerable to disputes from foreign investors claiming their profits were unfairly compromised by an otherwise legitimate decision.

As the Harper government seeks to increase Chinese investment in Canadian resources (tarsands, natural gas, mining) and related infrastructure projects, it's important that we understand how the FIPA will affect our ability to set limits on, or effectively regulate, this new activity.

'Fair and equitable' treatment

The FIPA and similar treaties contain guarantees of so-called minimum standards of treatment, or fair and equitable treatment, which arbitrators in investor-state disputes have interpreted much more broadly than the governments who signed the treaties intended. This has been the case in a growing number of disputes related to mining or energy projects that have faced delays or cancellations due to environmental concerns, the rights of indigenous people and local opposition.

There are also protections in the FIPA against so-called indirect expropriation, where a policy or measure that applies equally to all investors, regardless of nationality, has been found to unfairly expropriate the profits of a foreign firm. Several good examples of how these excessive corporate protections have been abused come from investor lawsuits under the FIPA-like rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but there are many international cases as well.

Canada already has paid about $170 million in fines or settlements under NAFTA investment disputes. In one of those cases, a U.S. toxic waste disposal firm was awarded about $6 million when a ban on PCB exports to the United States was found to have violated the firm's minimum standards of treatment, and to indirectly expropriate their profits. This ruling was a direct contradiction of Canada's treaty obligation to discourage trade in toxic substances so their disposal can be handled domestically.

A more recent case brought by a U.S. energy firm against Ecuador, in which the government was charged $1.8 billion plus legal fees by an arbitration panel, offers a sobering example to Canada as it contemplates ratifying this FIPA with China.

As the U.S. government watchdog Public Citizen summarizes it, in that case, Occidental breached a 1999 contract with Ecuador that granted the firm rights to explore and extract oil from a section of the Amazon but with some conditions -- among them a requirement that Occidental not portion off any of its claim to other companies. This was a part of Ecuador's energy laws designed to give the government control over who can invest in the sector.

But in 2000, Occidental ignored the contract (and the law) by auctioning off part of its Amazonian claim to an Alberta firm, AEC. A government audit in 2004 found that Occidental had not received proper government authorization for the transfer and the project was seized. The U.S. firm went quickly to arbitration under a U.S.-Ecuador investment treaty.

The panel award, released on October 5, said that Ecuador had breached the treaty's rules on minimum standards of treatment. It decided that 'fair and equitable treatment' should go beyond international law as practiced by states -- the definition Canada insists is strong enough in the FIPA with China -- and that "any penalty the State chooses to impose must bear a proportionate relationship to the violation which is being addressed and its consequences."

Arbitration panels in other cases have claimed that "idiosyncratic" decisions by governments, or decisions that went against the firm's reasonable expectations based on public or private discussions, can breach an investor's minimum standards of treatment. (Consequently, European Union negotiators are pushing for this kind of broad definition of fair and equitable treatment in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, negotiations on which could conclude very soon.)

It's not difficult to imagine a situation in which a Chinese firm finds a similar breach of its rights based on delays, cancellations or alterations to pipeline or tarsands projects, considering the many public assurances from the Harper government about these projects moving ahead smoothly.

"Idiosyncratic" moves by provincial governments -- to seize a greater share of the profits from these projects, for example, or to better regulate for environmental protection -- could also violate the FIPA guarantees, despite Canadian assurances that these standards of treatment relate to international law only. In fact, a recent multi-billion dollar investor-case against Germany resulted in the City of Hamburg diluting its environmental rules on a coal-fired power plant, putting the health of the adjacent Elbe river at greater risk.

In the end, it will be up to an arbitration panel to decide what is and is not legitimate public policy, with expensive consequences.

Why was there no draft report?

Instead of taking this risk seriously, an environmental assessment of the China deal ignores it outright. For this and other reasons, the Council of Canadians, ForestEthics, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and other groups claimed the environmental assessment process was insufficient in their submissions to the government which were due November 11.

The final version of the government's assessment was posted surreptitiously online in mid-October. It says that "the Canada-China FIPA ensures that the Parties retain the ability to regulate in the public interest, including with respect to environmental issues," and that the FIPA "will not inhibit Canada's ability to develop and implement environmental policies."

As we've just seen, both statements are highly misleading. So is the suggestion that foreign investors in Canada "are subject to the same laws and regulations as domestic investors, which include laws aimed at protecting the environment." Time and again, even non-discriminatory measures that treat foreign and national firms equally are disputed as violations of one bilateral investment treaty or another, including NAFTA. This paradoxically results in better treatment for foreign firms than local firms under the global investment arbitration regime.

Also problematic in the environmental assessment is the strange claim that "the FIPA is not expected to generate significant economic or environmental effects in Canada." The confidence that a new investment treaty with China will have no impact whatsoever, as well as the absence of public comments in 2005 and 2008, led the government to skip a crucial part of the assessment process -- the writing of a draft report based on a deeper examination of the potential environmental impacts in the initial assessment.

Any assumption in 2005 that Chinese investment into Canada was not going to change markedly would not have held up in 2008, when it was clear that Chinese firms were expanding their investments globally, including in Canada and especially in energy and resource projects. The government, therefore, had a responsibility to carry out stage two of the environmental assessment process by producing a draft report. Instead, it moved directly from an initial to final environmental assessment without revisiting its earlier assumptions or actively seeking public input.

No effort to engage the public

Another fundamental reason to do another assessment is that there is much more public, political and First Nations concern about the FIPA now than there was at the time of the original environmental consultation in 2005, or the subsequent comment period on the initial assessment report, which was published online in 2008.

This isn't surprising since we only saw a complete FIPA text at the end of September this year. By not giving the many unheard voices adequate time to respond, the government would be violating the second objective of the environmental assessment process, which is "to respond to the environmental concerns expressed by the public."

The Framework "contains a strong commitment to communications and consultations throughout each (environmental assessment) of a trade or investment negotiation." This commitment is neglected by the government's shotgun ratification process, which left no room to discuss or debate the FIPA in the House of Commons and only a one-hour briefing for MPs during a single trade committee session.

By choosing expediency over rigorous study of the FIPA, the government ignored the broader intent of the cabinet directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, which says that assessments of trade agreements should serve "to strengthen accountability and provide greater public confidence that federal government decisions are being made in full awareness of the potential environmental impact."

The government's failure to consider how recently the public became aware of the FIPA, with its 31 years of protection for often controversial investments in resource and energy projects, has undermined public confidence in the government and the treaty-making process itself.
That confidence could be regained through holding another, more comprehensive environmental assessment of the FIPA with a much more active public engagement, and the possibility of altering or cancelling the treaty if it is found to be not in the public interest. Ratification of the FIPA with China must be postponed until this new assessment has taken place.

http://rabble.ca/blo...rade-deal-china




Edited by key2thecup, 20 December 2012 - 02:52 PM.

  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!


#2 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,457 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

I cringe at the thought of anything Canadian being sold to China. Look at what they do to their own country and people.
  • 4

#3 Bombastik der Teutone

Bombastik der Teutone

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,998 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

Red Dawn begins
  • 0

179zig.jpg

Credits to Discord for the Signature

 

iqbl75.jpgCDCGML St.Louis Blues Rosteriqbl75.jpg

 

 

"You dream to score your first goal in the NHL. You dream to be here, first of all. To score a hat-trick, that's just an added bonus.Josh Jooris"

 


#4 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

*
POPULAR

Can't we march on parliament and publicly lop Harper's head off already?

I'm tired of this Nazi, how in the hell did he get re-elected? It's like Bush getting re-elected, only I thought Canadians were smarter than that....
  • 7

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#5 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,177 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:27 PM

Harper's short term gains will be all of our long term pains.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#6 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,646 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:19 PM

I have never understood 'that Harper appeal'.
  • 0

#7 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,646 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

I know that he wins elections, I just don't know how.
  • 0

#8 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

I know that he wins elections, I just don't know how.

The susceptibility of the populace to marketing, plus the way the US funnelled money into foreign elections, explaining the Blair, Merkel, Berlusconi, Calderon, and Sarkozy effect all around the same period.

At any rate, I hope this somehow gets canned. China is seeking more tangible assets and ridding of their US bonds which will become toilet paper soonish. Whichever country bends over and sells it to them, may whatever conjured-up deity save them.

Edited by zaibatsu, 20 December 2012 - 04:36 PM.

  • 1

#9 kurtis

kurtis

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,526 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:11 PM

People voted for this tool. Now where stuck with him... Sigh...
  • 0
Posted Image

#10 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,665 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

The susceptibility of the populace to marketing, plus the way the US funnelled money into foreign elections, explaining the Blair, Merkel, Berlusconi, Calderon, and Sarkozy effect all around the same period.


Huh?

Blair was the head of a centre-left party. He was elected 4 years before Bush.

Berlosconi served his first term as Prime Minister in 1994, 7 years before Bush got into power.

The rest were elected sometime in the 8 years of Bush's presidency, but when countries have elections every few years, you'd expect that.
  • 0

#11 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,053 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:29 PM

Hmmm... I don't like Harper either, but i'm pretty sure the material in the OP is heavily-biased.


Companies are allowed to sell a share of their company to investors, are they not? In this case it's 12.5% (Wow.)
  • 0
Posted Image

#12 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:32 PM

I don't understand what the big deal is. So what if one company buys shares of another company?

China is a good business partner, just look at the wonders they've done for Africa.
  • 0

#13 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

I don't understand what the big deal is. So what if one company buys shares of another company?

China is a good business partner, just look at the wonders they've done for Africa.


yeah or Tibet or Cambodia or Burma?  You are being sarcastic right?

Edited by Langdon Algur, 20 December 2012 - 05:41 PM.

  • 3

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#14 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,959 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:59 PM

yeah or Tibet or Cambodia or Burma? You are being sarcastic right?


What happened in Cambodia and Burma? Was it as worst as the United States did to Iraq and Afganistan? Just askin.

Please don't hate guys, blame our government for not stepping things up and letting things get owned by the Chinese.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#15 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

I have never understood 'that Harper appeal'.


I'm sorry, but is that a naked chick playing a guitar in your sig?
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#16 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

Hmmm... I don't like Harper either, but i'm pretty sure the material in the OP is heavily-biased.


Companies are allowed to sell a share of their company to investors, are they not? In this case it's 12.5% (Wow.)

This is just the same leftist screed about free trade we saw with NAFTA and other such trade agreements.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#17 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:17 PM

yeah or Tibet or Cambodia? You are being sarcastic right?


Sarcastic? not at all. China has spent billions upon billion of $$$ to build schools, hospitals, highways, hydro electric dams, railways, all over Africa. 10's of Billion $$ committed to building more infrastructure. African ppl love China. The average person living on the Continent has benefited greatly from China's investments and modernization of Africa.

Tibet is a part of China, hostile countries have attempted to cause discourse there. Tibet is no small place, its almost 1/3 of China.

They've spent enormous amount of treasure to modernize the region, $4 + Billion on train from Beijing to Lhasa alone. They've spent 10's of billions on infrastructure and are in the process of spending $15 Billion on clean energy projects in TAR.

side note, Can't wait to do the Beijing to Lhasa train trip, I've visited Dharamsala, next on the list is Potala Palace.
  • 0

#18 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:55 PM

I cringe at the thought of anything Canadian being sold to China. Look at what they do to their own country and people.


But you don't care about the opposite?
  • 0

#19 Donky

Donky

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,687 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:53 PM

China is already a major player in the BC forest industry. This is just and extension of that trend.

I would be more concerned if they brought in Chinese management and workers and displaced the Hell's Angels as the major player in the logging camps on Vancouver island..... B)
  • 0
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”-Sinclair Lewis

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."-Albert Einstein

#20 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,219 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

Better the Chinese Commies than the American Re-thug Neo-con GOP .. 'nuff said? .. :rolleyes:
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#21 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,748 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:53 PM



They're after our precious bodily fluids!

Edited by Ghostsof1915, 20 December 2012 - 08:53 PM.

  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#22 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,057 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

But you don't care about the opposite?


Don't be fooled into thinking FIPA will open up China to greater Canadian investment. It's still ridiculously difficult for a Canadian to open/run a business in China than it is for a Chinese investor here. They will be the benefactors in this deal.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!


#23 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:35 PM

Don't be fooled into thinking FIPA will open up China to greater Canadian investment. It's still ridiculously difficult for a Canadian to open/run a business in China than it is for a Chinese investor here. They will be the benefactors in this deal.


They, or us? We're getting useless dollar-store-quality trinkets already from China. Anyone want to tell me how much lead is in baby powder, or how much radiation in your Christmas toys?

It's a joke how we so openly allow Chinese goods into our homes out of economics (it's cheaper), but anything more and WHOA it's Chairman Harper at work. We as Canadians have much better leverage in establishing trade with China than our southern neighbours, and I would like to see this work out.
  • 0

#24 KoreanHockeyFan

KoreanHockeyFan

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,697 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 07

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:00 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

#25 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,665 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:31 PM

But you don't care about the opposite?


China does not play by the same rules. It's pretty easy to build investment capital when you have no environmental or employment standards. They also don't allow foreigners to invest in their economy freely.
  • 1

#26 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:51 PM

[left]



What is FIPA? Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeyLmUbvKqY


A couple of more years with Harper and Canada would have its name changed to China. This guy will destroy Canada.
  • 0

Posted Image


#27 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,057 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:23 AM

China does not play by the same rules. It's pretty easy to build investment capital when you have no environmental or employment standards. They also don't allow foreigners to invest in their economy freely.


Ya that's the point Im making, and they're horrible human rights violations. Lack of democracy and citizen rights, yet we preach about them on the world stage.

This isn't about private Chinese citizens investment in Canada, this is about state-run communist Chinese takeover's of our resources, while we are legally blindfolded by FIPA.

Edited by key2thecup, 21 December 2012 - 12:26 AM.

  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!


#28 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,646 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:05 AM

I'm sorry, but is that a naked chick playing a guitar in your sig?

That is no ordinary "chick" my friend.

That is a young Brigitte Bardot!!
  • 0

#29 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,646 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:08 AM


Edited by Keke Mortson's helmet, 21 December 2012 - 08:14 AM.

  • 1

#30 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

What happened in Cambodia and Burma?  Was it as worst as the United States did to Iraq and Afganistan?  Just askin.  

Please don't hate guys, blame our government for not stepping things up and letting things get owned by the Chinese.


In Cambodia, the Chinese gov't openly supported the Khmer Rouge which was responsible for one of the largest genecides in human history.More recently, the Chinese gov't voted down UN sanctions and provided arms to Burma's oppresive gov't who as part of a military dicatorship are responsible for arresting opposition MP's including the democratically ellected leader, murdering protesters, journalists and monks, and shuting down the freedom of the press.In other news, the Chinese gov't also sentenanced a high school teacher to one year of 're-education' for warming the public the school construction in his area was corrupt and not sismetically safe. Over 7,000 schoolrooms collapsed in the course of the Sichuan earthquake killing at least 5,000 and injuring 15,000 more.
  • 0

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.