To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

GY expo photo gallery

The exterior design of the Canada Pavilion looks great and unique, but the exhibit inside is…

I traveled to Shanghai earlier to see the World Expo and my biggest disappointments came from the pavilions that have a close relationship with me. Hong Kong is my birthplace where I grew up, whereas Canada is my chosen home country. The pavilions of these two places are pretty disappointing.

Situated beside the China National Pavilion are the houses for its two special administrative regions – Hong Kong and Macau. The outline of the Hong Kong Pavilion is a rectangular glass building; the style is unassuming and exquisite.

The World Expo has over a hundred pavilions from around the world with very dramatic and extraordinary architectural designs. It appears that Hong Kong’s decision to play up the minimalist concept is a total failure, when the relatively small Hong Kong Pavilion is situated beside the bigger and more outstanding Macau Pavilion. At a quick glance, the Hong Kong Pavilion looks like an appendage to the Macau Pavilion.

Do you see that there is a Hong Kong Pavilion beside the Macau Pavilion?

The design of the Macau Pavilion is a giant rabbit lantern of the Mid Autumn Festival made up of modern glass walls. It’s traditional, Chinese and contemporary at the same time. To those who have played with rabbit lanterns when they’re a kid, it has a special warm feeling.

It’s unfortunate that the exhibition inside the Hong Kong Pavilion is as boring as its outlook.

Hong Kong has always been way ahead of Macau in every aspect of city development, but now, on the World Expo stage, Hong Kong is way behind its neighbour. It really makes you wonder what has happened to the former British colony.

Okay, let’s take a look at our Canadian Pavilion. Its wood-covered outlook design is impressive and can stand proudly beside pavilions of other countries. But the exhibits in the Canadian Pavilion are unsatisfactory.

Anthony Germain, the CBC China correspondent, told me that at the beginning of the Expo, our pavilion was one of the hottest buildings in terms of attendance but then the line-up has shrunk. This must be because of negative reviews from the attendees. There are pavilions where the queue gets longer and longer because of favorable reviews: the Saudi Arabia pavilion has a waiting time of eight hours!

Line-up to the Canadian Pavilion is way shorter, but after you pull through the wait under the sun, you realize that there is another long line-up inside the building.

While you’re waiting inside the pavilion, you can see a row of TV monitors close to the ceiling. Since the TV screens are a considerable distance away and quite small, and the volume is low and the surrounding noisy, you don’t know what is being played. When I was walking, I vaguely saw Dashan flashed onto the screens but he created no impact on people at all.

The entrance to the Canadian Pavilion, isn’t it “cool”?

Well, the first impression after you enter the Canadian Pavilion isn’t great. Then, when you finally get in to see the exhibit, you first see the bilingual logo of the pavilion and at the side is a world map which shows the location of the country. It also carries the theme of our pavilion, i.e. The Living City: inclusive, sustainable, creative. The colors of the display are white, grey and blue. It’s cool, but not “lively”; that is the impression our pavilion gives to its visitors.

The short film played is composed of slides: they’re huge, high-definition. The screen is 180 degrees wide and you’re watching it at a close distance. This is supposed to make a lasting impression on the visitors. However, what’s engraved onto the viewers’ mind is that Canada is a cold, serene place with very few people.

The film starts before dawn at a huge loading zone with only a few workers working. Then it’s an empty train station in the morning, with four kids running towards you. Another image is a lovely cemetery with blue sky, green lawn and trees…

The 180 degrees film projection is impressive, but it lacks humans in it.

Oh my goodness! Our pavilion is using our beautiful graveyard to promote ourselves to the people of China. This is quite a strange and inappropriate approach because death is not a subject the Chinese want to touch.

There’re other images, like a small theatre with more than half of the seats empty, or a coffee shop with only two patrons, or a northern lights evening scenery that has no people in it.

You call this “Living City”?!

Frankly, I didn’t see much in the way of “inclusiveness” or “reform and innovation” (the pavilion has translated the English word “creativity” to “reform” and “innovation”.)

The Canadian Pavilion not only does not illustrate one of Canada’s strengths — a multicultural, harmonious society with a vibrant Chinese community, it does not capitalize on such well-known persons like Dr. Bethune and Dashan to strengthen the tie between the Chinese people and Canada. In this sense, it is a failure.

The Chinese language and the graphics in the Canadian Pavilion are unfortunately not up to standard.

The designers of the Canadian exhibit have not thought about their target viewers and the design has not utilized the expertise and connections of Canadian Chinese. I have no doubt that if our pavilion hired a capable and experienced Chinese designer to assist or to advise the project, our pavilion would not be so miserable.

At the very least, the Chinese translation on the wall won’t sound like this: “Canada has many tens of common languages city.”

The $45 million that Canada spent to build the Canadian Pavilion has not been put to good use; a great opportunity to promote Canada to a great many Chinese people is lost.

Now I want to comment on the Korean Pavilion.

The design of the Korean Pavilion is inspired by its own characters. It’s traditional yet contemporary.

The design of the Korean Pavilion is based on the Korean characters; it’s outstanding and contemporary. It’s more eye-catching than the Japan Pavilion next door.

The Korean economy and culture have been developing rapidly in recent years. It appears that Korean is surpassing Japan in many respects.

Although Korean movie, television and music are very popular in Asia nowadays, it’s interesting to note that the Korean Pavilion has not used Korean pop culture as the selling point. It’s because Korean has a more direct and effective promotional theme: “We love China.”

This is the image you see at the entrance of the Korean

Pavilion; it’s warm and colorful.

On the stage of the Korean Pavilion, half of the time is used to perform traditional Korean music and dance. The remaining time is used to perform music composed by China’s composer Zheng Lucheng.

Mandarin is the language being spoken in the Korean Pavilion. On its walls, there are huge Chinese characters that illustrate the beauty of Chinese characters.

“A Chinese wind is blowing strong in Korea”

What struck me most was an exhibit called “An exhibition of the Chinese culture Koreans loved”. It states Koreans’ favorite Chinese food, tourist locations, historical figures, entertainment stars, movies, books…. It expressed Koreans’ love of Chinese culture. Its boldness is indeed amazing and I have no doubt the exhibit would leave a great impression on the people of China who would come to think of Koreans positively because of their ties with things Chinese.

As you can see, the themes of the Korean Pavilion and ours are quite the opposite. Theirs is warmth, human interaction, friendship and laughter; ours is cold ice and solitude.

The graphic design in the Korean Pavilion is very well done and reflective of its theme.

Koreans’ most favorite Chinese entertainment star is Jacky Chan, and the most influential Chinese historical figure is Confucius, both highlighted.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [GB] Canada doubles requirements of investor immigrant program (3)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

Last week on Sing Tao Daily I’d read two articles commenting on CSIS director Fadden’s remark on our politicians being controlled by China. I can’t help but write a response to them.

The Chinese community is a diverse society; it is normal and healthy to have different opinions on Fadden’s remark. I’m also eager to see opinions contrary to mine. Nevertheless, after reading Man Sze-tak’s column, not only am I disappointed, I also think he has abused the trust implicit in public media.

A news commentary should be based on fact; that is a pretty basic tenet. It’s indeed incredible that Man would write an article supporting Fadden based on a fabricated discussion transcript.

In his article published on July 20, Man fabricated a partial transcript of a parliamentary hearing in which Fadden brilliantly and wittily responded to the clumsy questions raised by several MPs. The absurd part of the writing is that the conversation quoted in Man’s article never occurred; it was fabricated by the columnist.

The fact is, what happened at the July 5 parliamentary hearing was quite the opposite of what Man portrayed. In reality, the MPs asked intelligent questions whereas Fadden dodged their questions.

Those who pay attention to Canadian news and follow the Fadden affair are aware of the parliamentary hearing with Fadden being grilled. Thus, many would be deceived by the article, thinking the purported transcript was that of the questioning that took place. It is incomprehensible to the readers that what the writer quoted was merely a fabrication.

A friend who has been following the Fadden affair told me that after she’d read the column, she went to the government website to listen to the recording of the hearing. When she couldn’t find the quoted conversation, she was angry and felt deceived.

This fabricated conversation between several MPs and Fadden not only deceived readers, it also ridiculed our members of Parliament, making them sound like fools while Fadden is portrayed as the master. This kind of writing is terrible and reckless. These are MPs who brought the Chinese community’s concerns to the parliament and held the CSIS chief accountable to the general public for his public remark. But they’re mocked by this Chinese pundit.

Canada’s parliament is the supreme institution of national public affairs. If a media deliberately fabricates transcripts of a hearing or information emanating from Parliament, it is an act of contempt to Parliament and the MPs who had spoken at the hearing.

One has to wonder why the columnist would write such an article. Is it to support Fadden? To mock the MPs who “dare to stand up”? Just to have fun?

Or, the columnist, who hides behind a pen-name, just wants to show that being entrusted to write as a columnist, he can write whatever he wants, even fabrications. Man Sze-tak is not the real name of the writer. Don’t ask me why a political pundit can criticize others responsibly without revealing his/her own identity.

For those who are entrusted to serve as pundits, they should comment to further the cause of justice and with a social conscience.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• Fadden’s problem now a PM’s (12)
• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• 2/3 Canadians want Fadden to name names (5)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

The Chinese language media has been giving wide coverage to CSIS director’s remarks which suggest that two provincial cabinet ministers and BC’s municipal politicians are being controlled by foreign government. Politicians from different parties (except the Conservative) and Chinese community leaders are all going after the director of CSIS.

This writer would like to provide nine reasons why Richard Fadden should resign or be fired.

Reason #1, Being untruthful

During the CBC interview, Fadden mentioned that he was in discussion with the Privy Council on this matter.

Fadden: “We are in the process of discussing with the centre how we’re going to inform those provinces…”

Mansbridge: “The centre being?”

Fadden: “Sorry, the Privy Council Office — the Prime Minister’s department.”

When the reporter asked Fadden specifically what he meant when he referred to “the centre,” Fadden answered he had brought the matter to the Privy Council. When the media verified the matter with the Prime Minister’s Office, the office issued a statement that it had no idea what Fadden was talking about. Then, Fadden issued the following retraction:

“I have not apprised the Privy Council Office of the cases I mentioned in the interview on CBC.”

This raises the question of Fadden’s truthfulness. When he said he had raised the matter with the Privy Council, was he deliberately deceiving the public?

Reason #2, Not following protocol

The fact, according to the words of Fadden, is that before he made the shocking remarks on national television, he had not reported the matter to the PMO or the Privy Council Office, nor had he reported to his superior, i.e. the public safety minister. It is indeed incredible that the head of CSIS would not discuss with or brief his superiors prior to making the public remarks. Thus, Fadden is putting his superior in an awkward position because it would be tough for the prime minister or the public safety minister to answer to the press.

Reason #3, Embarrassment to the prime minister

Just think about this: on the eve of the visit of a head of state invited by the prime minister, our intelligence chief delivered a shocker to the media accusing the visiting foreign leader’s country of controlling our cabinet ministers and politicians! Was Fadden trying to embarrass the prime minister, or the visiting president from China? Whichever way, it is astounding. I’ve never heard of such kind of laughing stock in any other country. Why should it be allowed in Canada?

Reason #4, Indiscretion on the part of an intelligence chief

It’s common sense that government officials, especially department heads, should be very careful about what they say. For the chief of CSIS, it’s even more important because what he or she says involves national safety or the safety and reputation of individuals. Not only has Fadden got a loose tongue, he also lacks alertness. (He said that when he was speaking, he forgot the CBC camera was rolling).

Reason #5, Making a cloud hang over immigrant communities

Foreign spies operating in Canada is nothing new. The duty of CSIS is to monitor and catch them. But it does not mean that Fadden can freely accuse cabinet ministers and politicians of being controlled by foreign government without providing specifics. Not only have his remarks put a cloud over politicians with an immigrant background, the loyalty of immigrant communities is also challenged. Canadians who have maintained a relationship with their birthplace and those who dedicate themselves to promoting cultural and economic exchanges with foreign countries of origin are now questioned as for their motives and loyalty. The CSIS director’s remarks also have a profound negative impact on Chinese-Canadians who work in government, universities, research institutes and some industries. They would face immense hurdles in their career because Fadden’s words would color the views of their superiors.

Reason #6, Jeopardizing national security investigation

If what Fadden said is true and CSIS is still investigating these cases, wouldn’t Fadden’s public remarks alert those being investigated and thus jeopardize the investigation?

Reason #7, Smearing a cultural institution and cultural ties

Fadden said the Confucius College is funded and controlled by a foreign country and it organized demonstrations against Canada’s China policy. Fadden’s remark showed his prejudice and attitude. His words have implicated the college’s teachers and students, as well as the institutions which cooperate with the college (BCIT, Coquitlam and Edmonton School Districts) as spies or persons being controlled by foreign government. The fundamental question is this: what is wrong with Confucius College promoting Chinese language and culture learning? China is merely following the model of institutions like the British Council, Alliance Francaise and the Goethe Institute. These foreign cultural institutions often operate in co-operation with or within their related consulate. So does our CSIS chief think that these foreign cultural institutes are also involved in spy work?

Reason #8, Outdated Cold War mentality

In the global context, Canada and China are not enemies. The two countries have just celebrated their 40th anniversary of friendship. China is also Canada’s second largest trading partner. When Fadden said “against Canada’s China policy”, what does that mean? To this very day, Canada has not recognized Taiwan, nor does Canada recognize the independence of Tibet. So what is Canada’s China policy that is so undesirable to “China spies”?

Conversely, for those people who advocate the independence of Taiwan and Tibet, would Fadden identify them as spies?

If we follow Fadden’s logic, with Canada receiving so many foreign students, teaching them English, western culture, democratic values and independent thinking, while so many of these graduated students and Canadians work in China and Hong Kong, aren’t they spies trying to influence China? Think about this: if the intelligence chief of China made such a remark, what would the impact be?

Indeed, Fadden’s kind of mentality had prevailed in the Cold War era. It is unfortunate that such kind of mentality still exist in our intelligence system.

Reason #9, Being unrepentant

The initial response from the Chinese-Canadian community to Fadden’s remarks was to invite him to a dialogue, and to ask for his retraction and apology. His appearance at Parliament’s special hearing has shown that he is unrepentant and he sees nothing wrong with his remarks. The CSIS director has kept the affair simmering and prolonged the political controversy.

The NDP and Bloc have stated that they will put forward a motion to demand the resignation of the CSIS chief while the Liberals are still procrastinating. Let’s see whether the Liberals would play the same trick as they do on the anti-HST issue, i.e. talk one way and vote another. For the governing Conservatives, if they insist on protecting Fadden, then people would wonder whether Fadden was merely following instructions from his master to embarrass the visiting president of China.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• Fadden’s problem now a PM’s (12)
• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• 2/3 Canadians want Fadden to name names (5)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

Recently, the Conference Board of Canada published a series of articles relating to immigration. One of them, written by Nick Nanos, talks about extensive polling on Canadian opinions regarding immigration. It has been widely quoted in the media that while Canadians approve of immigration, they generally want the numbers to stay the same.

What I didn’t realize until reading the original poll was that Mr. Nanos broke the polling sample down according to numerous criteria. One of breakdowns was party affiliation. This made me curious as to whether attitudes to immigration vary according to party affiliation.

I made summaries of four of the seven questions that Mr. Nanos asked respondents. In making the following tables, I collapsed “% agree” and “% somewhat agree” into one category. I did the same for disagree.

The results are as follows:

Question 1. Immigration is a key positive feature of Canada as a country?

Question 2. In 2008, Canada admitted 247,202 permanent immigrants. Do you think Canada should increase, decrease, or keep the same number of new permanent immigrants each year?

What these two tables indicate is that Liberals and NDP voters are 10% more likely than Conservative voters to support immigration, and are also more likely to support reducing the level of immigrants admitted to Canada. However, the difference does not appear to be great enough to say that this is a key difference between supporters of the three parties. As well, it is worth noting that the “Undecided Vote” seems to be much less enthusiastic about immigration than any of the parties’ supporters.

What were the answers to the other two questions?

Question 7. A Canadian citizen should be allowed to have another citizenship

The issue of multiple citizenship is a topic that is dear to many immigrants who do not wish to lose their original citizenship.  The results are similar to those of general impressions regarding immigration. Conservative voters are less likely than other voters to support Canadian citizens having another citizenship.  Interestingly, on this issue the Undecided vote leans closer to the Liberal position.

And finally,

Question 4. Governments should do more to help immigrants settle (e.g., language classes and labour market support)?

Not surprisingly, the answers to this question correspond to the general stereotype about how each side views government support in general. NDP voters are 11% more likely than Conservative ones to favor increasing the amount of assistance provided to new Canadians, while the Liberal voters are somewhere in between.

Once again, it is interesting to note that the “Undecided Vote” leans closer to the Conservative position.

These summaries provide just a snippet of the data available at the Conference Board of Canada website, and I recommend checking out the original poll to look at other factors such as house ownership, age, region, etc.

Please read Steven Meurrens’s blog.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)
• [GB] Canada doubles requirements of investor immigrant program (3)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

In the weblog, thecourt.ca, Allison MacIsaac has written about R v. Tran, 2010 ONCA 471, a fascinating decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The accused, Quang Hoang Tran, was accused of participating in four home robberies. During these robberies, the perpetrators ransacked the victims’ homes. In one robbery they confined an elderly woman, and in another they assaulted an 8 year old girl. In one extreme robbery, a dollar sign was signed into the man’s back with a knife, and a woman was sexually assaulted with a gun. Tran turned himself into police.

While being transferred from Hamilton to the Peel Regional Police department, Tran was assaulted by two police officers. They punched him in the ribs and face, and broke his jaw in two places.

Tran argued that his constitutional rights were breached. According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anyone whose constitutional rights have been infringed may apply to a court to obtain a remedy that the court considers appropriate.

There are numerous options to judges in cases like this. First, a sentence reduction is available. The second is a stay of proceedings, which is an indefinite suspension of judicial proceedings. Third, the court can do nothing.

Here, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings. Tran is now a free man.

From an immigration perspective, I find the decision extremely interesting because I wonder what effect it has on the desire of potential immigrants to select Canada as their destination country.

On the one hand, it shows that Canada does not tolerate police brutality. This will certainly be an attractive people for individuals coming from nations where such brutality is either common place or goes unpunished.

Yet, the decision is also likely to raise concerns about whether Canada is safe or not. In Tran, an individual who confessed to brutal crimes is now back on the streets. His victims are left knowing that because of police misconduct, Tran will go unpunished for the crimes he has committed. Some might consider this to be an derogation of justice, others a technicality. Would an elderly man considering immigrating to Canada want to go through with it knowing that if someone carved a dollar sign into his back they would be set free if the police broke the man’s jaw?

I’m very curious to hear from potential and recent immigrants on this matter. How does this decision make you feel about Canada?

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Canada doubles requirements of investor immigrant program (3)

Wealthy Chinese people looking to immigrate to Canada with their families have hopefully by now heard that the Canadian government has announced that it will temporarily no longer be accepting applications under the Canada Immigrant Investor Program (“IIP”). The IIP will resume accepting applications after the Canadian government introduces regulations this summer to change the program’s requirements.

The IIP has become an increasingly popular option for successful businessmen to immigrate to Canada. In 2009, approximately 10,000 people immigrated to Canada under the program.

The suspension does not affect those applications that were postmarked or received by a designated Citizenship and Immigration Canada office on or before June 26th. These will still be processed as normal.

However, those that have not yet been able to submit their applications will have to ensure that they meet the program’s new requirements when the program resumes.

Previously, an individual applying to immigrate to Canada under the IIP had to demonstrate business experience, had to have a personal net worth of CAD 800,000 (CN 5.2 Million), and had to be willing to make a CAD $400,000 investment (CN 2.6 Million) that would be returned after five years without interest. Under various financing options available, the actual amount that an applicant paid was between CAD 80,000 (CN 524,000) to 120,000 (CN 787,000). This amount essentially ensured Canadian permanent residence status.

Under the new IIP, the requirements have doubled. Participants must prove that they have a personal net worth of CAD 1.6 million (CN 10.4 million). As well, they must be willing to make a CAD 800,000 investment. There is no word yet from what the new financing options will be.

This is the first time that the Canadian government has changed the IIP since 1999. The Canadian government said that the reason for the changes is partially the strength of the Asian economy. At a time when personal incomes are falling across the world due to the recent recession, Asia, and China in particular, are bucking the trend. Indeed, in introducing the proposed changes, the Canadian government said that it believes that the number of wealthy individuals in Asia will surpass that of North America in the next few years. Given that Asians make up 80% of Federal Investor program participants, the Canadian government is obviously confident in the region’s continued economic resilience.

People that previously were seeking to apply under the original IIP that cannot afford the new requirements should be aware that there are numerous other options available. First, the Quebec Immigrant Investor Program is not expected to change its requirements for another few months. As well, immigrant businessmen are finding that provincial programs which require immigrants to commit to working in or operating certain types of business are attractive options. If done right, participants in provincial programs, such as the British Columbia PNP program, can immigrate to Canada much quicker than under the IIP. As well, they often begin making money as soon as immigrating to Canada. Anyone that can no longer afford the program that wishes to immigrate to Canada should immediately contact their immigration consultant or lawyer to learn more about these programs.

People that can afford the new IIP will also benefit from faster processing times. First, there will be less people applying because of the increased requirements. Also, once the IIP resumes, new applications will be processed at the same time as old ones. This means that people that are quick to apply under the new system will obtain their permanent resident visa very quickly.

However, these people, who have generally through hard work have overcome great obstacles to achieve their wealth, should be aware of a significant potential pitfall of the increased requirement. They should realize that they are going to have to disclose a greater amount of their assets to the Canadian government in order to prove their personal net worth. Given this, they are also going to have to pay more taxes to the Canadian government, which is increasingly starting to audit immigrant taxpayers.

Wealthy immigrants should thus consult with their account, immigrant consultant, or lawyer to learn about various legal tax mechanisms available to Canadian immigrants that will minimize their disclosure requirements. As well, they should discuss setting up trusts that will allow them to not pay tax on most of their income.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

On the eve of the visit by China’s president Hu Jintao, the head of Canada’s CSIS granted the CBC an unusual interview. Richard Fadden proudly disclosed that he is working to catch the politicians (including two provincial cabinet ministers) who are controlled by foreign governments. Fadden said two politicians of the provincial government and some politicians of municipal governments in British Columbia are working in collusion with foreign governments.

Fadden’s public remark immediately became major national news and it was on the front page of major English newspapers across Canada.

Many people are wondering about the motive behind Fadden’s remark. Some say it’s to distract the public’s focus on CSIS’ responsibility for the Air India bombing tragedy. Some surmise that this is Harper’s typical trick, to criticize China’s human rights record and espionage activities. Just a few days ago Harper said he was going to talk about human rights with the visiting China president. Now, we have his intelligence chief talking about “China spies” infiltrating our governments. Some also wonder whether this is not something cooked up by CBC to embarrass the visiting China president (a source said that Fadden had done the interview some time ago but it was CBC that chose the time to release it).

An interesting point to note is that Fadden only mentioned two provincial ministers and some civic councilors. He did not say that the federal government was implicated. Does it mean that the Conservative government really doesn’t have “China spies”? Or is it Fadden’s policy of “hands off” where his boss is concerned?

No matter what Fadden’s motive was, the content of the revelation itself is an important issue because Fadden’s charge is very serious indeed. However, not only did he not point out the persons in the provincial and civic governments that were involved, he provided neither facts nor specifics. More absurdly, he said the espionage activities were conducted legally.

But when several premiers and mayors publicly questioned Fadden’s remark (they said CSIS has never raised such issues with their governments), the CSIS director said he wanted to retract his comment. This is most unprofessional. The public are waiting anxiously to see how Prime Minister Harper, who always says he requires a high standard of public conduct from his staff, will handle his intelligence chief. Harper’s act should give some clues as to whether Fadden was acting merely on his own Initiative, or whether he was just following instructions.

Not only is Fadden’s remark unfair to the provincial and municipal governments who have good relations with China, it’s even more unfair to Chinese-Canadian politicians. The fact is that when these kinds of “China spies’ activities” are widely reported, the Chinese community and its organizations would all be hurt because their loyalty to Canada is being questioned.

Unless Fadden can provide concrete information about how our politicians are being controlled and what damage has been done to Canada, his words and thinking, reflecting the Cold War mentality, are outdated, especially when we’re referring to China.

First, defence, foreign affairs and immigration are all federal responsibilities, so how could provincial and civic politicians sell off Canada’s interests? More importantly, Canada and China are friendly countries and China Is not our enemy. This year witnessed the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. In addition, China is Canada’s second largest trading partner. So if politicians actively promote more exchange and trade between the two countries, what’s wrong with that? Like what MLA Jenny Kwan said to the English media, today’s China is a major economic force in the world. As an elected official who holds the portfolio of economic development, what’s wrong with her actively promoting cultural and economic exchanges with China?

As regards technology, China is no longer a poor and backward country. Today, the world’s most advanced computers, cellphones, etc. are mostly produced in China. For those who pay attention to China, the country has the world’s fastest train system and some of the most advanced alternative energy technologies. The decision to transfer technologies related to such equipment is not made by politicians; it is a business decision. Otherwise, how can the price of the most advanced iPhone 4 be merely US$299 a piece?

Fadden’s tactic is similar to that of the former bureau chief of CSIS, Michel Juneau-Katsuya. Last year, the former CSIS bureau chief of the Asia Pacific department released a book portraying the Chinese community and community organizations are nests of China spies. The writer was smart enough not to cite any names in his book to avoid legal ramification. However, the author and the publisher of the book were sued by Canada Association for Learning & Preserving the History of WWII in Asia (ALPHA) for libel. When the writer cannot substantiate his remark, the writer and publisher have to retract the book from the shelves and pay for court damages. And for the English newspapers which published excerpts of the book, they have publicly apologized and paid for damages to the community organization. Just think about this: for a former CSIS bureau chief to make up an allegation and spread damaging “China spy” accusations, isn’t that completely unprofessional and unacceptable?

Similarly, Fadden should be held accountable to the Canadian public for his public remark.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• Fadden’s problem now a PM’s (12)
• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

Gabriel Yiu

On April 26, the BC New Democrat Opposition and the Association for Chinese Culture Promotion of Canada jointly organized the BC-China Tourism Conference. The event was very well received. Debbie Chen, head of Fairchild Radio’s Mandarin News Section, told me that she was impressed by the high quality of the speakers and the speeches they delivered.

However, what impressed Chen most was that when she walked into the venue, she saw, among the over one hundred delegates, a good mix of Chinese and non-Chinese, and tourism professionals both local and from China.

Indeed, the conference has a varied representation made up of conference organizers, local and China travel agents, representatives from tourism authorities and airlines, personnel from hotels, business organizations and advanced education academies, as well as officials from several China provinces and Immigration Canada. I don’t recall coming across any conferences about China tourism on such a scale and with such diverse participation in the past.

What this reflects is the high regard for and keen expectation of the ADS on the part of the local tourism industry. As the renowned Chinese tour operator Hanson Lau said at the ADS roundtable organized by the New Democrat Opposition in January, what the ADS would bring is not carloads or busloads, but 747- planeloads of Chinese tourists. The conclusion of the roundtable was that Canada and BC are not ready for the ADS.

The BC-China Tourism Conference is the extension of the ADS roundtable in January. Ricky Li, president of the Association of Chinese Culture Promotion of Canada, who had attended the roundtable, thought it was very important and meaningful. He approached the NDP caucus and suggested joining hands to host a much bigger conference to further discuss the matter of tourism, hence the conference.

The one-day conference had two panel discussions. In the morning, it was “Tourism Opportunities and Challenges,” which focused on BC’s state of readiness, challenges and opportunities ahead, BC’s marketing strategy aboard, and the interests and expectations of tourists from China. Panel speakers are Rod Harris, former CEO and president of Tourism BC; Albert Tseng, president of Canadian Inbound Tourism Association – Asia Pacific; Pengfei Wang, vice secretary general of the Chang Bai Mountain Protecting & Development Management Committee (Chang Bai Mountain is China’s top leisure resort destination); Feng Fang, Vancouver liaison director of Guangxi Province Tourism Bureau and Qi Chen, assistant general manager of Beijing’s General Travel China. On the floor, Zhigang He, general manager of China Airlines, also joined the discussion.

In the afternoon, the topic was “Canada VISA.” A panel examined the Canadian VISA application process, issues and concerns encountered by both applicants and officials, and the experiences of other countries.

Panel speakers were Norman Hopkins and Dani Willets of the Citizenships and Immigration Canada, Richard Kurland of the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section) and Tongchao Wei, general manager of Beijing’s Uulvyou International Travel. On the floor, we had Kim Hood from the Tourism Whistler; Monica Xu, international education advisor from Douglas College; Kenny Zhang of the Asia Pacific Foundation and Glynnis Chan of Happy Times Travel and more.

Due to the limited space of this column, I would only comment on one of the discussion topics.

There is a common understanding in the Chinese community that it’s tough to obtain Canada’s tourist VISA in China. Some Chinese tour operators even said that if Canada doesn’t improve its VISA application system, the ADS would have little meaning because China tourists wouldn’t be able to obtain their VISA. Given this context, many people, including the Chinese media, are eager to learn how our immigration officials explain the VISA application situation in China, and whether the ADS would bring reform to the current system.

The CIC official first explained the criteria of VISA examination, then he asked the delegates to guess the success rate of travel VISA approval in China. Then, he proudly announced that the approval rate is 78% in the Beijing office, and 87% in Shanghai. Delegates, me included, were pleasantly shocked by the high successful rate because it contradicted our perception.

These are solid figures and there is no way they could be bogus. No wonder the two CIC officials were quite proud and satisfied with the travel VISA application situation in China. Indeed, if the successful rates are that high, there is no rush to reform the system.

Nevertheless, although the above figures are not bogus, they turn out to be problematic. The two Beijing travel operators stated that in China, travel agents advise their customers that if they haven’t visited Europe or US before, then they should not apply for a Canadian VISA because the refusal rate is very high. Once an application is declined, a mark will be stamped on the passport and it will then be difficult to obtain a European or US VISA. Based on such advice, travelers who apply to travel to Canada are often those who have already obtained a European or US VISA. No wonder the successful rate is high.

Clearly, the federal government needs not only to reform the China tourist VISA application and examination process, but also to review the way we measure “success”.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

I have two children. They both study in the public schools in our neighborhood. My elder daughter joined the school music band when she was at grade 5. She plays the trumpet. After getting into high school, she is still actively participating in the school band. The band goes on field trips and performs in different places every year.

My son is now at grade 4. Not long ago, my wife had a discussion with him about joining the school music band and the kind of musical instrument he would like to learn to play. It’s unfortunate that he might not get the same chance to get a music education like my daughter.

A few days ago, I bumped into the PAC chair of my son’s school. She looked sad and frustrated. She said due to the shortfall of education funding, the music band at my son’s school (as well as other schools) would have to be disbanded.

I must stress that when students join the school band, they’re responsible for buying or renting their musical instruments, and when they travel to perform in other places, the family has to pay for transportation and accommodation. The school band program doesn’t get much funding from the school board. Nevertheless, if the program is scrapped, it’s a big learning loss to our children.

Learning music is not just an after-school time-consuming hobby. Music is not only good for one’s soul, it’s also an important learning tool. When a group of students play music together, they acquire the skills of social communication, coordination, interaction and mutual support. This group experience is especially crucial when the youth in today’s world spend a great deal of their time alone on the internet and computer games.

Experts point out that music plays an important function in education. It is a kind of training in concentration, counting, listening, coordination and cooperation. Music also promotes a better understanding of languages, improves the ability to recall information, and creates an environment more conducive to learning in other areas.

A valuable educational program that doesn’t cost much has to be disbanded. No wonder parents are frustrated and angry. In the past week, thousands of parents, students and educators rallied against the shortfall of education funding and they condemned the Liberal government which caused the chaos.

The fact is, school music band is merely one of the items that would be cut in our school. If such a basic school program is cut, think how bad the funding situation is! ESL, special needs education, the library, youth counseling… and even the number of school days would be cut.

I have to say that the Liberal government is responsible for this mess. They have spent recklessly. They paid millions buying Olympic tickets for Liberal officials and their guests. Gordon Campbell’s projects are all grand schemes in hundreds of millions, and the estimates or budgets invariably overrun. The Vancouver Convention Centre expansion is a $300-400 million overrun. The BC Place retractable roof had an overrun of $200 million after the election and its work has not even started yet! Currently, the operating deficit for the Vancouver Convention Centre is tens of millions of dollars a year (whereas the Vancouver School Board funding shortfall is $18 million).

Several days ago the BC government wanted to make an announcement that they’re sending the Site C project for environment assessment. The Liberal press conference chartered five airplanes to fly officials, their cheering team and the media all the way to Peace River Valley to make the announcement. Simply to tell people that the project is to be assessed.

Whether our economy is good or in recession, the Liberal government has not provided sufficient funding for education. Every time when the funding formula is changed, it results in a cut in funding to school boards. What is even worse is that the Liberal government makes all sorts of decisions that will increase the cost of the school boards, like wage increases, MSP increases, carbon emission charge, hydro, etc. All these worsen the funding situation of the school boards.

The Liberal government say every year that they’re providing record-breaking funding for education but the statement is simply meaningless. In a capitalistic society, due to inflation and the increase of wages and expenses, if the education funding remains in the status quo or below inflation, it would mean the school board cannot maintain the same services as the previous year. In the past decade, the Liberals not only did not provide funding that kept pace with inflation, but they added many funding burdens. More ridiculous still, when things deteriorate to the current mess, the education minister tries to pass the buck and put the blame on the Vancouver School Board chair.

Although provincial government funding falls behind inflation, what they would get from taxpayers in various forms of taxes would see hikes way above the inflation rate. According to the BC budget released earlier, the provincial government is expecting to get more taxes from the public. Various tax revenues this year are expected to see a big jump: personal income tax revenue +6%, sales tax revenue (PST/HST) +9%, carbon tax revenue +34%, MSP +6%, liquor tax revenue +12%… whereas the funding for the Education Ministry has only added 1%.

The shortchanging of our education is totally unacceptable and the Liberals should be held responsible for the mess.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)

To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]

This week, former premier Vander Zalm launched the HST Initiative campaign. The Liberals are facing intense heat and Finance Minister Collin Hansen has decided to be on the offensive. He took his case to the media complaining that his opponents are misleading the public. It’s interesting to find out who is indeed misleading the public. Is it the Liberal government which pushes the HST? Or those who work hard to fight it? Let me set out a few examples so that the public can see the true face of the Liberals.

The finance minister told the Chinese media this week that after implementing the HST, a family of four with an annual income of $90,000 would pay an extra $178 HST on average. Hansen said that if a family pays more than $500, it means that family’s income is extremely high and there’re not many such families in our society.

A family that makes $90,000 a year pays only an extra $178 HST? Does the finance minister really think that the Chinese are dumb and can’t do sums? There are so many kinds of goods and services for which we need to pay an extra 7% because of the HST. How can the extra amount be that small?

Just the extra tax to pay on dining out and on coffee or tea would far exceed Hansen’s claimed amount.

For a working couple who lunch out four times a week, an average meal at $8 say, they have to spend $3,328 per annum; 7% tax on that is $233.

Suppose the couple eat their breakfast at home. With an average consumption of three cups of coffee a week, they spend $624 on coffee or tea annually; 7% tax on that is $44.

For a family of four to dine out twice a week, be it dinner or dim sum, average $50 per meal say, the expenditure is $5,200 per annum and 7% tax amounts to $364. A working couple who are busy at work, who might not have the time and energy to prepare dinner often, probably dine out more than twice a week.

In addition, there are lunches, drinks and snacks for the two kids, all subject to the extra 7% sales tax, not to mention dining out with friends and relatives, celebrations, birthday parties, and so on. Even if we exclude all these, just the figures cited already add up to $641 of extra tax.

Readers can use the following list to calculate how much their family would pay extra because of the HST. The Fairchild TV news documentary “26 Minutes File” calculated that for a Chinese family of five, it has to pay an extra $2,688.

The list includes: restaurant meals, fast food, prepared food, coffee shops, beverages, cable TV, internet, telephone, propane/natural gas, some groceries, snacks, dry cleaning, heating fuel, newspapers, magazines, vitamin, dietary supplements, non-prescription drugs, school supplies, animal feed, safety equipment, helmets, first-aid kits, life jackets, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, strata fees, home maintenance and renovation, insulation, energy equipment, new homes, health equipment, haircut, beauty salon, spa services, massage therapy, bicycles, car repair and maintenance, parking, taxi fares, bus fares, movies, theatre, museum, admission fees, membership fees, golf fees, skiing, hockey tickets, music lessons, concert tickets, painting, campgrounds, RV parks, fishing charters, moorage, resort packages, air tickets, real estate fees, accounting, architects, naturopathy, reflexology, physiotherapy, Chinese medicine, veterinarian, celebration meals, birthday parties, funeral services, and more.

How trustworthy is the Liberal finance minister? Here are some other pointers.

Hansen said that he never thought about bringing in the HST before the election. It was only after the election, when he saw Ontario bringing in the HST, that he made up his mind. However, a reporter reminded the finance minister that Ontario had already made the announcement in February. Why then did the Liberals still pledge in black and white during the May election that they wouldn’t bring in the HST? Hansen said that he hadn’t noticed the Ontario situation before the election.

What he said means that, between February and May, the finance minister had not read or heard through the media anything about the Ontario HST, and that his staff, aides and Liberal colleagues had not mentioned it to him. Do you believe that?

The fact is, the premier’s own think tank, the BC Progress Board, had submitted a report to the government on the implications of implementing the HST in BC, as early as in December 2008, i.e. five months prior to the election.

Another example: the Liberals have been saying again and again that the HST would bring the prices of goods and services down and consumers would benefit from it.

When the Liberals were criticized by the restaurant industry for breaking their election promise, Hansen said that even though restaurant meals would face a 7% increase in sales tax, since wine and liquor tax would be reduced from 10% to 7%, the difference to the dining patron would not be big.

The finance minister was once being asked this question: since the BC government charges 10% sales tax on wine and liquor and the combined HST would have the tax reduced to 7% (the federal 5% portion remains unchanged), does that mean that consumers will pay less for wine and liquor as a result of the implementation of the HST?

Here is Hansen’s answer. He said consumers will not pay less due to the HST because his government needs that revenue. What he would do is to raise the sale price of wine and liquor to make up for the reduced 3% tax difference.

The Liberals said businesses would lower their price to benefit consumers, yet the government would set a totally opposite example.

What is even more absurd is that consumers not only wouldn’t save money on wine and liquor, they would have to pay more! It’s because when the sale price is raised, the GST goes up with it!

By now, I think you will have a better idea how much you can trust this Liberal finance minister’s words.

—————————————

Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.

By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.

Related posts

• [GB] Shanghai Expo (0)
• [GB] How can a columnist use fabrications to support Fadden? (101)
• [GB] 9 reasons why CSIS chief should resign or be fired (3)
• [GB] Does party affiliation affect views on immigration? (7)
• [GB] Justice or rights? (6)