D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

Free-Trade 2


Exploratory Free-trade talks

Exploratory free-trade talks between the PRC and Canada were announced on September 22, 2016. Of course, in Canadian accounts it is referred to as Canada-China exploratory talks while in Chinese accounts it is referred to as China-Canada exploratory talks. The author though consistently refers to it as China-Canada because Canada is not dealing with an equal, but a superior in terms of strength--overwhelming strength. In the same way, he refers to the FIPA agreement between the two nations as the China-Canada FIPA Agreement which was ratified by China on its national day of October 1. What does "exploratory" though mean in the phrase exploratory free-trade?

Canada's moral stance and strength has already been negated or compromised in exploratory free-trade talks because discussion of human rights has been excluded from future free-trade discussions. Apparently, trade is trade which means it trades away or treads on human rights. One may argue rather persusively that the human rights cases of Sun Qian and Chang and Lu have not been pursued vigorously because China and Canada are in the midst of exploratory free-trade talks.

These human rights and rule of law cases have become peripheral in the grander scheme. In the specific case of Chang and Lu, a commercial trade issue has been blown out of proportion to become a criminal issue. This is not a sterling example of what free-trade may bring. It is a non-sequitor to argue that free-trade will help to clarify matters in this "rare case". This case is not atypical but typical. In these exploratory free-trade talks it seems that China is the talker and Canada is the listener (an obsequious one) with regard to human rights and to trade.

As reported in the CBC news, "Trudeau touted Canada and China's "renewed" relationship, which would allow for honest, regular engagement on issues that were important and perhaps the source of disagreement between the two countries." This honest, regular engagement is exploratory. These are not free-trade talks, but rather exploratory free-trade talks. Their exploratory nature was emphasized to a member of the Conservative government in Alberta who asked a question about free-trade talks. The Tory's question was summarily dismissed with the reply that these are not free-trade talks. In other words, they explore--Tory. However, exactly what they are exploring is uncertain because the talks are held in secret.

The author argues that there is little exploratory about these talks. The Liberal government has been gung-ho about free-trade from day one. They are not looking for reasons to pull out of exploratory talks due to major differences. On the other hand, they are looking for any and all reasons to conduct free-trade talks.

It may be appropriate at this point to discuss the words 'compare' and contrast as they are defined in English. The author does not know about their definition in French. Most people consider 'compare' and 'contrast' to be opposites like the words 'black' and 'white'. However, they are not opposites in a strict sense. In the Oxford dictionary 'compare' means to consider major similarities while the word 'contrast' means to consider major differences and minor similarities. What significance does this have for free-trade talks?

Since the Liberal government may already have considered free-trade as a fait accompli as it entered exploratory free-trade talks it is looking at major similarities between Chinese and Canadian views about free-trade. It is not considering what it regards as minor differences which would involve non-trade issues such as human rights. The Liberal government is also comparing major trade similarities with China and not contrasting minor or major trade dissimilarities.

For example, the government is ignoring the fact that about 40% of Chinese industry is state-owned and controlled. It ignores the circumstance that the Chinese effort toward market reform has stalled. Furthermore, the government mistakenly believes China has already achieved a market economy determined freely by supply and demand. At what cost and risk is trade going to be doubled?

Mao Yushi--a Chinese liberal economist who was made famous for his theory of maximum allocation--eloquently argued that China is not moving toward a market economy. In an early paper written in 2011 he basically said that reform and opening of the Chinese economy is in peril. Those views are even more poignant today if they could be heard from Mao, but he has been silenced. The Unirule website running since 1993 was closed in January of this year, his blogs were silenced and he was placed under house arrest two weeks after exploratory talks between China-Canada in Ottawa ran between April 24-28 and during the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing. There are too many indications of contradictions in these circumstances.

The Chinese want to fund major infrastructure projects in Canada by providing low-interest loans through state-owned and controlled companies to prop up those industries while frowning on any circumstances in which the Canadian government tries to protect its own sovereignty, territory, environment or indigenous peoples. The Chinese will not accept the recent government announcement that Canada will deal nation to nation with the indigenous peoples. China will not accept that the indigenous peoples are a nation because it would then have to accept the same situation in its own country with regard to its minorities.

The word "exploratory" is also used to keep these talks secret from Canadian public scrutiny. Canadians know very little about what has transpired in them over the last nine months. They have to wait so to speak for the birth of the baby of free-trade talks. It would not be surprising if the birth announcement was July 1st or the 150th anniversary of Canada. If that were the case then it would also be a signal that Canada is "pivoting" away from free-trade with the United States and its military protection while that country celebrates its independence day on July 4th.

All of this is too symbolic. Symbolism does not replace substance. Human rights are as subtantial as trade. Human rights are not ethereal, but real. A real baby is born with inalienable rights. Those rights are not traded away. They are not subordinate or subservient to trade suggesting minor differences. They are not hyphenated as in free-trade. Humans are born free and unhyphenated.

If free-trade talks are announced on July 1st or shortly thereafter it is encumbent on the Liberal government to call an election in the same breath. Canadians have been silenced during exploratory free-trade talks except for consultation in a symbolic survey of little importance. Consultations are usually done verbally as when a sick patient consults a doctor in a consultation room. The author did not answer questions posed in this antiseptic survey but prefers to express his views publically and through a vote in a Federal election.

Historically, Canadians have expressed their opinion on free-trade through elections for more than the last 100 years. Free-trade with China is of no less importance than free-trade with the United States. One can posit that it is more important because China is run by an authoritarian system based on one man in one party, has rule by law, exhibits uncontrolled corruption, represses human rights and arrests civil rights lawyers.

There is another historical perspective that is relevant when considering exploratory free-trade talks. Canada has long been a nation of explorers. However, Sir John Franklin was not one of them as he was British. He led the doomed, British, exploratory expedition to find the Northwest Passage in 1845 to further trade with China and India.

Today, Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. This assertion is reinforced in the FIPA agreement through specific references to territorial sovereignty based on international law. However, the Chinese definition of territorial sovereignty in the agreement is vague and generally defined. It refers to claims based on international law and domestic law. Technically speaking, for example, it could refer to China's territorial sovereignty claim to the South China Seas.

Outside of the agreement it is known that China claims the Northwest passage to be an international one. This presents a conundrum of Gordian knot proportions. How can a free-trade agreement between China and Canada be negotiated before this problem is resolved? Remember that the China-Australian FTA which Canada wants to use as a model was ratified before the South China Seas issue became prominent. Only if the Northwest Passage issue has been successfully resolved in the secret, exploratory free-trade talks to the satisfaction of Canadians can Canada proceed with free-trade talks.

Canada cannot rely on the American view of the passage because the Americans claim it is an international passage like that through the South China Seas. Canada has no navy or airforce capable of enforcing its claim to the Northwest Passage as do both of the super powers. Canada has words and words don't make much of a sword. That is why Canada needs two aircraft carriers, support ships and icebreakers stationed at ports in the Atlantic and Pacific respectively.

Speaking of national security, Canadians are angry when the Liberal government allowed a Chinese concern to buy O'Net. "Both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of National Defence issued warning in 2015 against allowing the sale." However, the government allowed the sale on March 27, 2017 during the exploratory free-trade talks. The giveaway to the Chinese was not 'talk' nor "exploratory". It was a free giveaway in terms of trade and national security.

It is doubtful whether Canadian intelligence services would have allowed a sale even if Canadian companies had been allowed to buy a comparable Chinese company which specializes in the destruction of satellites through missile technology. That technology was demonstrated a short while ago. Instead, to compound the error, the government has allowed the sale of Norsat International Inc. which specializes in satellite communication technology for security, public safety and defence. Military customers include the Pentagon.

Canadians experience revulsion at the sale of Norsat without a formal, national security review and through kowtowing to China's disallowance of trade protection with regard to national security and defence issues. If this sale is allowed without due diligence of a security review then it will redound to the infamy of and robound on the integrity of the Liberal government.

It is the author's opinion that the Harper government made an error in three aspects. First, there is the political aspect with regard to Canada and China. Canadians reviled the ratification of a China-Canada FIPA for many reasons too numerous to list. With regard to China the entire government's China policy was ripped to shreds (and for that matter the previous Liberal government's) with the arrest of Bo Xilai whom they believed was a reformer. It seems that Prime Minister Harper was the last foreign dignitary to have met him before his arrest. Second, there is the trade aspect. The Harper government turned a blind eye to counterfeit goods exported into Canada from China and Hong and then re-exported to the United States. This has been a particular irritant to the Americans. Their value varies anywhere from $20 to $30 billion dollars a year. Third, there is the strategic aspect. Harper harped on Canada's territorial sovereignty in the Arctic, but it was largely symbolic, for example, with the search for the Erebus and Terror. Our own navy was in shambles like those wooden ships. At the same time, he allowed the PRC to define its territorial sovereignty in general terms and based on both international and domestic law so that conceivably it could apply to the the Northwest Passage. Finally, a FIPA agreement with Japan was neither continued to be explored nor finally drawn up.

In turn, the Trudeau government has made an error in three aspects. First, in political terms the last thing the government wanted to do before the last election was to talk about free-trade with China, but now look where we are! It also does not seem anxious either to call an election on the issue if free-trade talks are conducted in order to establish a mandate. In addition, the government has sidled up to an authoritarian leader whose market reform policies have stalled. With regard to the trade aspect it has not sued the Chinese government under the FIPA agreement to further the release of Chang and Lu, to express dissatisfaction with a trade case morphing into a criminal case and to protect Canadian icewine from being counterfeited in China. Third, there is no official connection voiced by the government concerning the strategic implications of a free-trade policy and the Northwest Passage which Canada regards as sovereign territory but the Chinese regard as an international passageway. Finally, the government has initiated exploratory free-trade talks with China rather than Japan.

The author does not have time to go into the advantages of exploratory free-trade talks with Japan in this analysis. It is merely stated that Japan is Canada's largest Asian trading partner. It is mentioned that Japan’s economy currently ranks third in terms of nominal GDP. It is observed that Japan has great access to both markets of China and the United States. It is discernible that Japan seeks to expand internationally rather than regionally. It is evident that Abe is taking important steps to revive Japan's economy and to change its constitution with regard to its military. It is believed that Japan respects issues concerning human rights, the environment, indigenous peoples, democracy, rule of law and intellectual property.

It is patently obvious that if the government wishes to support the international liberal order established since the end of the Second World War that it is done through Japan rather than China. You have chosen the wrong country in Asia thus opening Canada to unlimited risks and limited benefits. You have exploratorily talked us into a quagmire. You are metaphorically pandering to the panda.

D.卡尔顿 罗西



Chinese premier, Trudeau announce exploratory free-trade talks

Proposed extradition treaty continues to raise questions over human rights in Chinese legal system

CBC News

Sep 22, 2016

Last Updated: Sep 25, 2016


Exploring new spaces for private economic development text record _ a basket of mind

Mao Yushi



Chinese premier, Trudeau announce exploratory free-trade talks

Proposed extradition treaty continues to raise questions over human rights in Chinese legal system

CBC News

September 22, 2016



To be free land or not to be free land?

The exploratory talks of free-trade are in progress. Canadians have no way of knowing what they are about in detail even though some of the talks were held in Canada. However, Canadians do know the talks were not about human rights. We know this fact because we have been clearly told what the talks were not about. Both sides ostensibly delinked free-trade and human rights.

It is the opinion of the author that the Liberal government has already made a determination to pursue free-trade with China before the exploratory talks began. The exploratory talks are not confirming whether or not Canada should have free-trade with China. On the contrary, the talks only resolve how the country of Canada "could" proceed with free-trade with China. This explains in part why priority has not been given to the Sun Qiao and John Chang and Ms. Lu cases which involve entrepreneurial millionaires. It is a non-sequitor to claim that free-trade will help to define the rights of entrepreneurs. Instead, priority has been given to the Xiao Jianhua case who is a billionaire, controlled over a trillion in funds and was tied closely since 1989 with a one-party Chinese system.

Recently, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland gave a major, foreign policy speech. It surprised many that China was not mentioned. Certainly, China was not referred to when she said "We have to strike out on our own somehow, with democratic partners that share Canadian values. "

However, David Mulroney who was a former Ambassador to China expresses a different view of Freeland's omission of China in her foreign policy speech. "The statement is rooted in classic Liberal foreign policy, which blithely assumes that the world needs more Canada. It's actually going to get more China," David Mulroney wrote in an email to CBC. "It's not evident we've done the hard thinking about the priorities and trade-offs required of us to survive and thrive in a world in which China's reach and influence are expanding."

The author might express this somewhat differently. The world does not need for Canada to have a seat on the Security Council of the UN as favoured by Freeland. What Canada needs is to ensure its own security, sovereignty and territory from incursion by authoritarian regimes whether they be Russian or Chinese.

Generally, Canadians identify themselves by saying that they don't have an identity. On the other hand, Canadians intuitively define themselves by what they are not. Canadians have said "We are not Americans eh". They may come to say under free-trade with China "Are we Chinese 呢?"

Executive Director Sarah Kutulakos of the Canada-China Business Council describes the situation of Lulu Winery owner John Chang who was arrested for smuggling in what was a customs case as "rare". In contrast, D. Carlton Rossi describes it as a common situation as it is representative of "rule by law" rather than "rule of law". It is a system wherein one is guilty and must prove one's innocence and where one's lawyers may be thrown in jail. It is unclear in the Sun Dawu case if the government's concept of "original sin in the religious sense applied. "Zhang Houyi, researcher of the Institute of Social Studies under the CASS, says many practices such as speculation , which was deemed illegal two decades ago, are not a crime today since the law has changed with time. China revised its Criminal Code in 1997, wiping off crimes linked to the highly centralized planned economy." In his Analects, Confucius once quoted a saying that was apparently common among the people as follows: "He who sins [tsui] against heaven has none to whom he can pray."

Charles Burton's expert advice expressed in a recent Globe and Mail article is worth reading. The title is called "Free-trade talks with China: Proceed with caution." He says "Ottawa's commitment to promote Canadian values abroad, in particular to defend the rights of Chinese citizens in China, cannot be based on tacit compliance with Chinese political imperatives that are inconsistent with the universal norms of human rights".

The author invites Professor Burton to explain exactly what he means when he says "The hard truth is that Beijing doesn't really need a free-trade agreement with Canada. If this is true (and D. Carlton Rossi does not doubt it) then exactly why does the Chinese government want free-trade with Canada? Canadians would do well to pay attention to any answer he may provide. It could be all you need to know about free-trade or what may be a means to other ends.

In part, it seems to the author that the Chinese are more interested in an extradition treaty. Isn't it true that Ambassador McCallum said to the effect that if the Chinese wish to talk about extradition during the exploratory free-trade talks then Canada will listen? Weren't the talks done at the same time that Sun Qian and John Chang and his wife were held in detention in China and the names and addresses of prominent Chinese-Canadian citizens wanted by the People's Republic of China for corruption were published? In short, isn't it hypocritical of both sides to say that free-trade and human rights are delinked?

It also seems to the author that free-trade is China's way to extend sovereign territory. Look at the language of the FIPA agreement. Canada will not formally recognize China's claim to the South China Seas, but in the FIPA agreement China's general definition of territory does not match Canada's specific definition. The FIPA agreement could very well be interpreted to be a tacit acceptance of China's position on the South China Seas. Will the definition of sovereignty and territory in a China-Canada Free-trade agreement match that of the FIPA agreement?

How on earth will Canada defend its sovereignty in the Arctic if its potential China free-trade partner regards the Arctic as an international passsageway or perhaps its own through bullying? It is probable that China will want to establish a port in Churchill, Manitoba under the guise of trade as it has done in Australia much to the chagrin or mortification of Australian security experts. The NDP representive for Churchill has called for nationalization of the port to protect it from exploitive American interests. The author calls for nationaization of the port to protect it from Chinese interests as they will use their access to the port to bolster their views of the passage.

The author also calls for nationalization of Canada's rare earth companies to protect them from purchase by China's monopoly of the rare earth industry. "China holds a commanding monopoly over world REE supplies, controlling about 95 percent of mined production and refining," James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence" in 2013. If Canada wishes to develop its own solar panel and wind turbine industry in addition to electric cars then it requires the heavy rare-earths like dysprosium and terbium.

While "indium" is not in the rare earth metals category (although it is a necessary requirement for the solar panel industry) the author is well aware of how a Chinese concern controls the world's largest supply of indium through a Canadian company and just sits on it. He is aware because he owned shares in the company. However, you cannot nationalize this property for a free land unless you withdraw from the FIPA agreement. Do our negotiators even know where the deposit is? Are they confident in Chinese assurances that the deposit of indium, tin and tungsten will be mined and processed through sustainable development?

The Chinese also want access to our fresh water. At the moment, they may want to build water intensive industries such as semiconductor or steel manufacturing in Canada. In the future, they will want drinking water. However, one must note that the Canada-Unites States FTA of 1988 excluded water. It is anticipated that China will want water to be included in a China-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. If Canada which is country of 36 million were to sell water to a country like China of 1.3 billion for its use in Canada or consumption in China then it would quickly deplete its resource of fresh water.

Isn't it also true that the state-owned enterprises of China may push for infrastructure projects in Canada such as a high-speed rail transportation system across Canada. At the same time, though, China will claim its economy is a market economy under the rules of the WTO. There are too many contradictions between what China says and what China is and this is just an example.

Finally, China does not want Canada as an end, but as a means to gain entry into the United States and to gain dominance over it. On July 12, 2014, Su Bin who was owner of a Chinese aviation company called Beijing Lode Technology was charged with industrial espionage for allegedly breaking into U.S. computers and stealing information about Lockheed's F-22 and F-35 fighter jets and Boeing's C-17 transport plane key between the years 2009 and 2013. China wanted an extradition treaty with Canada so that individuals like Su Bin would not be extradited to the United States. It should be noted that Su Bin was arrested five weeks before the Garratt's detention for espionage. Kevin Garratt was convicted on ludicrous espionage charges ostensibly because he pushed bibles and fed the hungry. The allegations against the Garratts were widely seen as a retaliation and bargaining tactic after Canada arrested Su Bin.

Today, the author was gobsmacked over the Liberal government's decision to allow Hytera Communications of Shenzen to acquire Norsat International Inc. No formal national security review is required even though "Canada and many of its allies use the company’s patented satellite communications technology for security, public safety and defence." Again, this decision indicates to the author that the government is commited to free- trade with the Chinese and is blithely naive and blissfully ignorant about security concerns. What specific concession did Canada get for this approval in its secret talks?

The Canadian government "wants" a free-trade agreement with China, but Canada does not "need" it on Chinese terms. Benefits provided by free trade with the United States accrued mainly in times of a lower Canadian dollar. These benefits may not accrue to Canada under a free-trade agreement with China since the latter has what might be termed a dirty float of its currency.

It would be better to forget about a free-trade agreement with China and instead pursue a strategic agreement with Japan to develop Canada's natural resources with the help of low interest Japanese loans. Canada also needs to strengthen its navy to protect its sovereignty by purchasing two carriers from the Japanese--one with helicopter capability and the other with fixed wing aircraft capability. It may also be possible to request financing from Japan rather than an infrastructure bank.

D.卡尔顿 罗西



B.C. winery owners on trial in China is ‘very rare’ outcome of Asia trade, business council says

Maura Forrest

May 30, 2017


Chinese views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Document seeks forgiveness for 'original sin'

China Daily

Meng Yan

February 09, 2004


Exploring new spaces for private economic development text record _ a basket of mind

Mao Yushi



Free Trade Talks from February 20 to February 24, 2017

Canada-China FTA Talks to Begin in February 2017 Could Have Massive Implications on Water

by Brent Patterson

January 01, 2017


Free-Trade talks with China: Proceed with caution

The Globe and Mail

Professor Charles Burton

June 05, 2017


Japan's New Helicopter Carrier: Bad News for Chinese Subs?

Japan now has all the building blocks to field a powerful carrier strike group.

By Franz-Stefan Gady

March 28, 2015


Liberals waive security review for Chinese takeover of high-tech firm


OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Jun. 08, 2017


What about China? Observers surprised Asia doesn't play more prominently in Freeland speech

'The statement ... assumes that the world needs more Canada. It's actually going to get more China'

Susan Lunn, CBC News

Jun 07, 2017




                                                       Canadian Canola

                                      Canola Dockage

In a previous essay called "What was the Canola dispute about? 1. the author commented on the canola trade dispute between Canada and China at the end of August 2016. It appeared to most that the isssue was about "dockage" or unwanted material in the canola shipments to China and the potential loss of $2 billion worth of trade. In addition, there was the human rights issue of a single Canadian arrested on trumped up charges. Our trade representative at the time who was Chrystia Freeland certainly thought so. Why would that be the case?


                             Patti Miller and Chrystia Freeland

It is not surprising since an international trade representative would normally see matters as a trade issue which needed a solution. She had been raised on a farm which raised canola near Peace River. During the negotiations she asked her father to send a sample of canola to her so that she could show it at the meetings. She said that she understood the "absolute importance" of the two countries' trade relationship, which includes billions of dollars worth of canola shipments. There was also the third issue of the arrest of Kevin Garrett which she would have been interested in because of her background in public service, rights and the family's background in Europe.

However, the author was raised in a different environment at a different time. His father had served his country as a volunteer throughout WWII and defended our system of values. After the war he served the community as an upaid elected member of the public school board for twenty-five years. He was also a member of every community organization including the local Liberal Party. As a universal donor he gave his blood more than 75 times. His living was made at a nickel refinery where his son also worked. Therefore, his son has a similar outlook on life in terms of community service and work.


                               A corn grinder at Kenneth City

The author was not raised on a farm, but rather lived on a farm since 2003 at the Dawu Group in Hebei Province. The Dawu Group served the community through employing local peasants, building a hospital, establishing a grain business among other activities. Its leader Sun Dawu put people ahead of profits. He also established a private constitutional enterprise system which has evolved between 2004 to the present day with elections every two years. It is not surprising therefore that the author appreciates not only an agriculture business of the people, but also civic service.

The author did not see the negotitions as solely an issue of dockage or leftovers worth nothing or in terms of $2 billion of trade. Rather, he saw the primary issue was human rights. You may remember that the Chinese negotiators neither wanted to talk about dockage nor human rights. The reason was that the Chinese linked the two issues. Their hidden agenda was to degrade the human rights' issues which Canada values.

China had earlier demanded that dockage be reduced from 2% to 1%. If it wasn't reduced then it would not accept shipments of canola from Canada. It so happened that our international trade representative was very familiar with canola. That was not a coincidence for the Chinese. They wanted her talking about the absolute importance of canola and not the absolute importance of human rights. They also wanted human rights' matters concentrated on one individual (whom they had imprisoned) and not on the general situation of human rights in China. For future free-trade negotiations they wanted trade and not free individuals or people.

If one is not familiar with the Chinese mind it may be very difficult to understand them. As a teacher of English the author instructed the Chinese how to "imitate" Western thought patterns. Westeners generally think in patterns of three. For example, it takes three things to make a series. In turn, the author taught himself to think in binary terms like the Chinese. For example, the yin-yang symbol traditionally expresses parallel flows of increasing and decreasing.

The Chinese negotiators saw the issue as unwavering, twin pairs of opposites (non Daoist). On one hand, there was dockage worth nothing and at the other extreme was $2 billion worth of a commodity. On the other hand, they valued human rights as nothing (equivalent to dockage) and lack of liberty as everything where people are treated as a commodity. It appears most Canadians were unaware of this linkage. They saw the apparent issues rather than the real issue.

In the past, Canada had exported canola under contract to China which was 98% canola seed. It was near perfect. There was only 2% dockage. The Chinese demanded that it be more perfect. The seed had to be 99% pure: they apealed to scientific materialism. Don't forget that one is talking about a seed that Canadians invented decades earlier. Canadians found this requirement difficult if not impossible to meet.

Basically, though, the Chinese were subtlely equating the canola and dockage issue to human rights. It was recognized that Canada had an excellent record on human rights, but it was not perfect. For example, native Canadians have historically been treated abysmally in terms of human rights. It is very difficult for Canada to increase its record by 1% to eliminate human rights' abuses or dockage so to speak. If there were 98 people out of 100 who enjoyed human rights then it would be difficult to increase that by one person (an innocent prisoner convicted of espionage) unless concessions were made.

The Chinese wanted the Canadian representatives to contrast the lack of human rights in China. If 98% of people in China do not enjoy human rights under an authoritarian regime then it would be very difficult to reduce that level by 1%. It is dictated, therefore, not to talk of human rights in either China where the canola negotiations took place or in Canada which has entered exploratory free-trade talks. In other words, trade may be free but the freedom of people or persons who enjoy full protected human rights is of no concern. It has no commercial value. Human rights are equivalent to dockage and people are reduced to objects.

D.卡尔顿 罗西


P.S. The author suggests that Canada co-operate with Australia through an agreement whereby all canola seed is refined in Canada and Australia through infrastructure projects thus eliminating dockage. This would allow both Australia and China to send a higher end product to China at higher prices. It would also mean that neither Australia nor Canada can be held hostage at a future time by China over the dockage issue. Canada and Australia do not want to be played against each other in any matter at any time: for example, the building of their embassies in Beijing.


Canada ‘a long, long’ way
from China extradition deal: McCallum

Nathan VanderKlippe

BEIJING — The Globe and Mail

Apr. 03, 2017
Extradition aside, Mr. McCallum described how Canada could energetically pursue a deal with much broader importance, a free-trade agreement with the world’s second largest economy. The Trudeau government has yet to formally commit to negotiations, though a second round of exploratory talks is scheduled for later this month and public consultations are under way.

If the Prime Minister commits, Mr. McCallum said, there is no need to take 10 years to complete talks, as China and Australia did. “If we want to do it, we don’t want to take forever to do it. And we have a template that Australia has provided us.”


December 20, 2015 Chinese-Australia Free-Trade Agreement (ChAFTA)


While an extradition agreement may be a long, long way off according to Ambassador John McCallum it appears that a China-Canada Free-Trade Agreement may be sooner than anticipated by most Canadians if the Australian template is used. If a Free-Trade Agreement is pursued after exploratory talks then it is encumbent on the Canadian government to hold an early election on this issue as it was done by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who is a liberal conservative now consulted by the Liberal government regarding free-trade and previous government administrations throughout Canada's long, long history. If an election is not held then Canadians should regard a free-trade agreement as an issue of Freeze-Trade.

Freeze-Trade: D.卡尔顿 罗西 2017年4月11日 copyright


                                            Greg Wood

Australian former High Commissioner - "Trade with China: Proceed with caution"

March 31, 2017

"It’s too early to say what, if anything, the FTA will deliver, trade-wise. Australian exports to China are actually down.  .  . . Beggaring belief, a Chinese firm with military connections was allowed to take over the management of our northernmost port of Darwin.  .  .  . If Canada is to draw one conclusion from Australia’s experience, it’s for political leaders to take the Canadian people with them, openly, in advance."

Bilateral trade had grown rapidly before Australia and China concluded a free-trade agreement (FTA). It’s negotiation was undertaken in great haste: the former Abbot government set itself a deadline and imprudently met it. The scope, complexity and intrusiveness of these so called “trade” agreements is becoming ever wider, their societal reach more profound. In Australia, what hasn’t kept up is the public (or parliamentary) consultation, and drawing out in advance the implications and likely consequences.

In crude terms, the deal in the FTA was that in return for limited improvements in our market access into China, Australia relaxed vetting of Chinese investment in Australia. That’s a sensitive trade-off.


Canadians are perturbed about rising house prices in major cities across the land. They perceive the proximal cause is foreign speculation. Today, it is reported that the number of homeless--particulary among native Canadians in Vancouver-- has incresed dramatically. In Toronto, if the the author recalls correctly there are 46,000 empty homes or should one say "ghost homes".


                         Canadian Embassy in Beijing

China Free Trade Agreement
won't lead to jobs growth

The Sydney Morning Herald

Paul Malone

September 5,  2015    

According to legend, back in the 1980s both Australia and Canada had problems building their embassies in Beijing. The Canadians quite properly took their dispute to the Chinese Courts.

Visiting China, Australian Minister Nick Bolkus went on Chinese television applauding the Chinese for building the Great Wall in a few years and remarking that such people could complete the Australian embassy by Christmas.

The Chinese pulled out all stops to build our embassy while the Canadian construction dragged on for years.


Basically, China played Australia against Canada with respect to the construction of embassies. While a China-Australia Free-Trade Agreement may be used as a template for Chinese Canadian free-trade negotiations and there is a close resemblance and connection between Australia and Canada in terms of the economy, commonwealth and democracy; nevertheless, Australia may be regarded as a competitor of Canada.  For example, they compete on the export of canola to China. Is Canada really going to use the template of a competitor?


Most Canadians ‘uncomfortable’ with prospect
of free trade with China

China Watch Canada

By Levon Sevunts 

April 11, 2017

Almost nine out of 10 Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of deepening economic ties with China, and two-thirds want the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to tie any future trade deal with Beijing to progress in human rights, according to a new public opinion survey.

Chinese officials are also vehemently opposed to linking any free-trade deal to human rights performance.

However, the Nanos poll shows that 66 per cent of those surveyed believe Canada should link human rights to free-trade negotiations. Only 21 per cent said human rights should not be linked.



Who Cares About Nanos Polls?

Government surveys are what is important, aren't they?

Eighty-eight percent is not a lucky number for the Liberal government, but it certainly is a lucky number for the Communist Party. A free-trade deal does not serve Canadians except to serve their heads on a platter, but it does serve the same liberal interests who supported the now imprisoned Bo Xilai and his Mafia-like lieutenant and the current autocrats, plutocrats and Communist Party of the PRC. It would not be surprising that those individuals and organizations in Canada which are familiar with China and its human rights violations show a significantly higher disapproval rating than 88% on free-trade with China. It appears that Trudeau's populism is a veneer and if recognized it may eventually degrade his popularity if not corrected. 

It has been understood by most economists that one can only have free-trade with the liberalizing of economies. It is true that the nascent marijuana industry will be liberalized in our country.  However, liberalizing other industries such as lumber and dairy products in Canada may only be achieved if it is forced upon Canada by American protectionist policies. The establishment of an infrastructure bank whose proposed structure in an omnibus bill cannot be considered part of economic liberalization since it cannot be adequately debated and it preempts the Bank of Canada's social responsibility to fund zero interest loans for infrastructure.

Obviously, the Chinese economy has not liberalized. In January, the website of UNIRULE and the blogs of Mao Yushi (China's foremost liberal economist) have been shut-down with the implication that they are pornographic. There is no evidence to suggest that state-owned enterprises are declining in size or importance. On the contrary, the Chinese ambassador's recent comments on non-interference in state-owned takeovers of Canadian industry suggest state-owned enterprises and state-friendly enterprises such as Huaxia are thriving.

To me when I see that I can buy an all steel shovel in Dollarama for only $4.00 it can mean only one thing--dumping of steel products in Canada by a state-owned Chinese enterprise. This hurts our domestic steel industry and its workers which the author was a part of as a member of the United Steel Workers. It also hurts our forestry industry and its workers since the handle is usually made of Canadian hickory.

However, if the Canadian government were to solely categorize this as trade protectionism then it is mistaken. It is a resistance to free-trade with a China that stomps on human rights in its own country and which will bring that attitude and approach to Canada. It will ride roughshod over our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our environment, our native peoples, our provinces and municipalities, our labour laws, our women's rights, our religion, our sovereignty and our protection. It will overwhelm Canadians and Canada with numbers as it has done so in Xinjiang Province, Hong Kong and Tibet.

Canada was not overwhelmed with Syrians and welcomed them.
However, China is different. It may be an apocryphal or real story, but it is said that a foreigner criticized the Chinese leadership for its human rights' record. To paraphrase the response it was something like "Would you like to take in a million Chinese to save them?". Do not think you are saving the Chinese because the first to come will be sympathetic to the Party. Think about saving Canada and Canadians. The Canadian government set an exact target for Syrians. What are your exact targets for Chinese students, workers, immigrants and visitors?  Let Canadians decide how many is too many?  Will Canada balance its trade deficit with China before it enters into free-trade negotiations with China? Will Canada balance state-owned Chinese enterprise in Canada with private enterprise investment in Canada just as it should balance its trade deficit? 

D.卡尔顿 罗西 



            International Opposition to Dumping Practices of China

Rethinking China’s non-market economy status beyond 2016

Australian opposition to China's 'market economy status'


Most of the early recognitions of China’s market economy status were a precondition for the trade agreement with China. Among those countries, Australia is one of the frequent users of anti-dumping measures. Australia granted China a market economy status in 2005, in the course of the FTA negotiations, expecting that the benefits of an improved access to Chinese market would outweigh potential losses from reduced dumping duties. As a result, without adequate trade defence measures, Australia has been struggling with a surge of imported products from China.


Ambassador John McCallum has said that Canada will use the China-Australian free-trade agreement as a model for any negotiations. However, Australia's recognition in 2005 of China as a market economy was premature. Many Chinese products of state-owned firms have been dumped on the duped.

Canada is particularly concerned with dumping in areas of cellulose pulp and steel. In effect, export of wind turbines to Canada would be export of steel. Chinese steel turbines steal Canadian steel jobs.

It goes without saying that China will not enter into free-trade negotiations with any country without recognition of itself as a market economy. In other words, this is a deal breaker.
Ambassador Lu Shaye has characterized China's state-owned companies as benign. "China's state-owned enterprises are not evil, but a baby-sitter who cares peoples' life." Chinese Liberal economists would disagree with that assessment and describe them as an impediment to market reform and the goal of a market economy. 

Canada is concentrating on more trade with China. However, currently, it has a trade deficit with China. What makes the Canadian government  think that it can successfully negotiate a treaty that narrows the trade deficit rather than widens it. The emphasis should be placed on balanced or "fair-trade" with China rather than "free-trade".

D.卡尔顿 罗西 


Free-Trade 3