Canada Sells High Tech......to China

[White_Unifier]

Their nineteenth century military tactics were less than successful. They may still see themselves as THE planet's great power, even though so much of the world passed them by hundreds of years, ago. China is not immune from hubris and crushing Tibetans may have imparted an inaccurate sense of military invulnerability to them.

You're right to a degree. That's why I'm not too concerned about Canada selling technology to China, at least in principle.

I might not be so fond of selling weapons technology to China though except maybe sporting equipment.

I recognize though that if Canada trades totally freely with Taiwan but then restricts the sale of high-level weapons technology to China, that could be politically problematic. One solution is to just sell it to neither side beyond assault rifles. A personal weapon can be democratizing in some cases.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I might not be so fond of selling weapons technology to China though except maybe sporting equipment

We'll sell them the secret to making good hockey sticks because the locally made ones cost ten times what they should.

 

[White_Unifier]

I might not be so fond of selling weapons technology to China though except maybe sporting equipment

We'll sell them the secret to making good hockey sticks because the locally made ones cost ten times what they should.

That's fine. Just not military weapon's technology for example.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Gentlemen:

This is the gov't allowing the transfer of military technology to one of our most dangerous potential enemies against the wishes of security agencies.

You can not really be this stupid.

The only thing stupid about my post is your reaction to it. I stated a simple fact and you act as if I contradicted you. BTW if the tech is so vital to national interests then why didn't the Yanks buy it?

 

[tay]

Gentlemen:

This is the gov't allowing the transfer of military technology to one of our most dangerous potential enemies against the wishes of security agencies.

You can not really be this stupid.

I'm not sure why you are calling these comments stupid.

I'm old enough to remember when the USA (Nixon (R))started cozying up to Communist China. The howls were endless -Better Dead then Red etcetera.

The technology transfer started a long time ago with microprocessor companies realizing how cheap the slave labour in China was and they figured profit over country was the route to go.

And then McDonnell Douglas/Boeing started making jets over there in the late 80's because China would not buy their planes unless they were made in China.

Funny how that one-way trade deal works for the West eh.

Anyhow, the West gave the blueprints of how they do things to the Chinese so why anyone is even remotely surprised that China has overtaken the West in every industrial aspect should not be shocked, unless they haven't been paying attention because the Chinese have lot's of access to all sorts of sensitive info.

I agree that handing another aspect to them is obscene but with a neolib government that is what you will get....

The Trudeau government’s decision to approve a Chinese takeover deal originally rejected in 2015 as too risky for national security marks a significant shift in Canada’s approach to Beijing, and may encourage China to invest more heavily in cutting-edge Canadian firms that might have been considered off-limits before, experts say.

Hong Kong-based O-Net Technology Group announced this week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet had given it the green light to purchase ITF Technologies of Montreal, a leader in fibre-laser technology. Applications for such technology include directed-energy weapons.

This represents a complete reversal in Ottawa’s attitude to this deal, which the Harper government in 2015 blocked after national security agencies warned them the transaction would undermine a technological edge that Western militaries have over China.

“If the technology is transferred, China would be able to domestically produce advanced military laser technology to Western standards sooner than would otherwise be the case, which diminishes Canadian and allied military advantages,” a national-security report by the Department of National Defence and CSIS said in 2015.

Liberal green light for Chinese takeover deal a turning point for Canada: experts - The Globe and Mail

 

[Colpy]

I'm not sure why you are calling these comments stupid.

I'm old enough to remember when the USA (Nixon (R))started cozying up to Communist China. The howls were endless -Better Dead then Red etcetera.

The technology transfer started a long time ago with microprocessor companies realizing how cheap the slave labour in China was and they figured profit over country was the route to go.

And then McDonnell Douglas/Boeing started making jets over there in the late 80's because China would not buy their planes unless they were made in China.

Funny how that one-way trade deal works for the West eh.

Anyhow, the West gave the blueprints of how they do things to the Chinese so why anyone is even remotely surprised that China has overtaken the West in every industrial aspect should not be shocked, unless they haven't been paying attention because the Chinese have lot's of access to all sorts of sensitive info.

I agree that handing another aspect to them is obscene but with a neolib government that is what you will get....

The Trudeau government’s decision to approve a Chinese takeover deal originally rejected in 2015 as too risky for national security marks a significant shift in Canada’s approach to Beijing, and may encourage China to invest more heavily in cutting-edge Canadian firms that might have been considered off-limits before, experts say.

Hong Kong-based O-Net Technology Group announced this week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet had given it the green light to purchase ITF Technologies of Montreal, a leader in fibre-laser technology. Applications for such technology include directed-energy weapons.

This represents a complete reversal in Ottawa’s attitude to this deal, which the Harper government in 2015 blocked after national security agencies warned them the transaction would undermine a technological edge that Western militaries have over China.

“If the technology is transferred, China would be able to domestically produce advanced military laser technology to Western standards sooner than would otherwise be the case, which diminishes Canadian and allied military advantages,” a national-security report by the Department of National Defence and CSIS said in 2015.

Liberal green light for Chinese takeover deal a turning point for Canada: experts - The Globe and Mail

Think outside the box.

Nixon opening China to the west was the greatest misstep made by anyone since Hitler invaded Russia.

China should have been, should be, isolated economically and contained militarily.

 

[darkbeaver]

Think outside the box.

Nixon opening China to the west was the greatest misstep made by anyone since Hitler invaded Russia.

China should have been, should be, isolated economically and contained militarily.

That's boxed thinking from the cold war era Colpy. Both options have been removed from possible actuation by those who would or could have implimented either or about twenty years ago , maybe, as it is now both are effectively impossible for the West even if the West was or ever was a an effective whole unit. IMO

Western economic and military superiority are now things of the distant past.
Climate change willl dictate the coming battles with food production leading the list of prizes to be had from any successful mass slaughter. Farmland south of 45 degrees N and north of 45 degrees S have been suggested as the most likely and favouable to sustain some sort of viable agricultural infrastructure with very little outside of those lines and that is the best case scenario in most of the stuff I've run accross. Who really knows?

 

[tay]

Think outside the box.

Nixon opening China to the west was the greatest misstep made by anyone since Hitler invaded Russia.

China should have been, should be, isolated economically and contained militarily.

Think outside the box? I'm not sure what your context is in using that phrase.

Many of us were stunned by Nixon and China and that kind of 'thinking outside the box' is killing us economically.

"I'm old enough to remember when the USA (Nixon (R))started cozying up to Communist China. The howls were endless -Better Dead then Red etcetera."



The Trudeau government is allowing Chinese investors to buy a Vancouver high-tech firm without a formal national security review even though Canada and many of its allies use the company's patented satellite communications technology for security, public safety and defence.

Hytera Communications of Shenzhen, China, is acquiring Vancouver-based Norsat International Inc., a company with military customers including the Pentagon that is also delivering a satellite communication system this year for the Canadian Coast Guard.
The government decided after a preliminary security screening that further examination of the deal was not necessary.

The government's handling of this takeover – after Britain imposed strict conditions on a similar Hytera acquisition – and several other recent approvals of Chinese investment in sensitive sectors suggest the Trudeau Liberals are less risk-averse than their predecessors to capital from China as they prepare for bilateral free-trade talks with the world's second-biggest economy.

In February, the Liberals approved the sale of a large B.C. chain of retirement homes to a Beijing-based insurance titan with a murky ownership structure, giving China a foothold in Canada's health-care sector. In March, they approved a takeover of ITF Technologies Inc. in Montreal – which the Harper government had blocked on the grounds it would undermine a technological edge Western militaries have over China.

Customers Norsat lists on its website include the U.S. Department of Defence, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Army, the Irish Department of Defence, the Taiwanese army, the aircraft manufacturing company Boeing and major journalism outfits including CBS News and Reuters.

A U.S. government official declined to comment on the takeover or whether the Trudeau Liberals consulted Washington.

Norsat says its technology is also used by NAV Canada, which operates the country's civil air navigation service. In January, Norsat announced a big order to supply its Globetrekker portable satellite terminals to a "combat support agency" for the U.S. Department of Defence.

Richard Fadden, a former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in an interview that he would have recommended a full-fledged national-security review.

"On balance, and still without details, I would likely have suggested a review out of an abundance of caution," Mr. Fadden said.
A formal security review would "reassure allies and tell the People's Republic of China we are always vigilant, even if ultimately the transaction is okayed," he said.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains defended the government's approval, saying it was decided in the security screening analysis that an in-depth security review by CSIS and the Department of National Defence was not necessary.

"There are measures under the national-security review that we are unable to share with the public but … if after an initial review we feel we need to further investigate, we do that," he told The Globe and Mail. "The point I am making is that we do not ignore any transaction."

Hytera, the Chinese buyer of Norsat, drew international headlines in March when telecom equipment giant Motorola filed a high-profile lawsuit against it. The Chicago firm accuses the Chinese company, once a distributor of Motorola products in China, of a large-scale theft of its proprietary technology.

Asked for comment on the Hytera acquisition of Norsat, a Motorola spokeswoman referred The Globe to its lawsuit and patent infringement claims, which allege three former employees of Motorola gave 7,000 documents to the company. "Hytera took a shortcut to entering the market for competing digital radio products, by pilfering Motorola-developed technology and intellectual property," Motorola said in a patent infringement complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in Illinois.

Hytera has rejected the allegations and said it believes it will be vindicated in court.

China has made no secret of its dislike of national-security reviews. When the Liberals came into office, briefing books prepared by the department of Global Affairs warned that China believes it has been "unfairly targeted" by such probes.

China's ambassador to Canada, Lu Shaye, told The Globe earlier this year, he considers national security reviews tantamount to trade protectionism.

All foreign takeovers of Canadian companies have a security screening analysis for their potential to harm national security, but a formal national security review is far more extensive. It is undertaken when the government decides a deal could be injurious to national security. A far-reaching probe would analyze the potential impact on Canada's defence capabilities and economic interests and investigate the impact on the transfer of proprietary technology outside Canada.

Asked why Mr. Bains skipped a review and approved the Norsat deal last week, Innovation department spokesman Hans Parmar said "following the extended screening process, there are no outstanding national-security concerns."

The government declined to explain its decision-making. It also declined to say whether Washington was consulted or signalled its approval of the transaction.

UBC professor Michael Byers, who holds a chair in global politics and law, expressed astonishment that Ottawa did not do a formal review.

"I find this incomprehensible because it is so clearly involves cutting-edge technology as well as Canada's most important security alliance," Prof. Byers said. "We have a Canadian company that is building satellite receivers for essentially the most advanced satellite system operated by NATO and the Chinese takeover of that company is not being subject to a national-security review."

He said a broader question is: "Do we want small and medium-sized Canadian companies that are engaged in cutting-edge telecommunications research and development to be snapped up by foreign companies that are essentially hollowing out Canada's aerospace and military industries by doing this?"

When Hytera made a bid for Sepura, a mobile digital radio equipment maker in Cambridge earlier this year, Britain – which has intervened in foreign takeovers on national security grounds only seven times in the past 15 years – imposed strict stipulations on its conduct after the acquisition to safeguard national security.

Canada has imposed no constraints, or undertakings, on the Hytera-Norsat deal.

Hytera is majority owned by Chinese billionaire Chen Qingzhou, but a Chinese sovereign wealth fund that Beijing owns, the National Social Security Fund, has more than 2 per cent.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...ttps://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

 

[Danbones]

"I find this incomprehensible because it is so clearly involves cutting-edge technology as well as Canada's most important security alliance," Prof. Byers said. "We have a Canadian company that is building satellite receivers for essentially the most advanced satellite system operated by NATO and the Chinese takeover of that company is not being subject to a national-security review."

now all your radios are belong to us

we keep them on a shelf over by the avro arrow

 

[tay]

An Ottawa-based think tank, with ties to corporate Canada and the federal government, is spearheading a campaign to persuade Canadians to embrace a free-trade deal with China.


As Canada’s negotiators ready for a third round of exploratory trade talks with China, the Public Policy Forum (PPF) is embarking on a two-year effort, bankrolled by major corporations, to change Canadians’ minds about bilateral trade with the world’s second-biggest economy.

Public-opinion surveys, conducted in April by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail, found nearly nine in 10 Canadians are “uncomfortable” with the idea of China’s large, government-controlled businesses gaining more access to Canada’s economy – an almost inevitable aspect of any free-trade deal. The poll also found that 66 per cent of respondents want Ottawa to link human rights to trade talks.

The first quarterly meeting of the PPF’S Consultative Forum on China takes place in Ottawa on Wednesday and includes executives doing business with China, leading pro-free-trade advocates from academia as well as the head of the Canada China Business Council. Ian Shugart, deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, will address the gathering. Two high-ranking federal civil servants sit on the board of the PPF, an organization that advocates policies to promote good governance.

The conference is closed to the media. Edward Greenspon, a former editor-in-chief of The Globe, was in a "flurry of meetings" and unable to comment, according to spokesman Carl Neustaedter.

“The discussion might be a bit different if there were media in the room, but that doesn’t mean at some point there wouldn’t be,” Mr. Neustaedter said. “But I think the group will probably talk about how will its findings and discussions be communicated.”

Even before it opened exploratory talks on a free-trade deal with Beijing, the Trudeau government had expressed concern in briefing notes, prepared by the department of Global Affairs last year, that Canadians are “ill-informed and negatively biased” in their understanding of China.

The PPF, which recently completed a federally commissioned report on the state of the media, laid out its plans for China in a background paper about the need to “write a more sophisticated narrative for Canadians” to catch up with Australia and New Zealand, which have signed free-trade agreements with Beijing.

“They have forged ahead with free-trade agreements and secured competitive advantages for their economies, universities and workers. Now, Canada is looking at following their path,” the PPF paper said.

“As part of any effort the Canadian government must gain a firm grip on Canadian views toward China. Any [free-trade] agreement with China will require a broad social and political consensus built on a solid foundation of support from different quarters.”

Mr. Neustaedter said the forum wasn’t trying to shape public opinion in favour of free trade with Beijing, but rather was seeking ways to engage with China on areas as diverse as the training of judges and the environment.

“I wouldn’t characterize it as everybody is for pro-free trade,” he said. “It is really about a wide engagement, a more nuanced engagement [rather than] simply pro or con, or human rights versus trade kind of thing.”

All of the people on Wednesday’s speakers’ list are known to be supporters of greater economic ties with China.

But Conservative MP Tony Clement said Canadians should be skeptical of the PPF’s efforts on behalf of Canada’s business establishment and the federal government.

“This organization is corporate Canada plus the Liberal Party in another guise,” Mr. Clement said. “They have a corporate and political agenda to have free trade with China, almost at any cost. I fear if they get their way, any complaints we have about human rights would be tucked under the carpet.”

The “prime” audience for the initiative is “the roughly half of Canadians who have not made up their minds and are open to weighing the arguments,” the background PPF paper said, while noting the challenges of overcoming Canadian apprehension about China.

“For Canada to muster persuasive arguments at home in an age where elites do not enjoy a monopoly means facing up squarely to the obstacles to a full flowered relationship while working to mitigate them.”

Among the companies funding the China effort are Teck Resources, Bank of Montreal, Manulife, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Canadian National, Ernst & Young, TimberWest and Canpotex.

The PPF background paper cited a number of surveys that suggest Canadians are open to free trade.

One of them was an Abacus Research survey conducted in 2016 that showed 46 per cent of Canadians said they could be persuaded to support a closer relationship with China. The poll was paid for by Teck Resources, a Vancouver-based mining company with significant investment from a Chinese sovereign wealth fund that answers to the Communist government. A wholly owned subsidiary of China Investment Corp. owns 17.8 per cent of Teck’s Class B shares and has control over 7.5 per cent of shareholder votes. A member of the National People’s Congress of China, Quan Chong, sits on the Teck board of directors.

Other polls cited were conducted for the Asia Pacific Foundation, which has published articles in favour of free trade with China.
China’s new envoy to Canada Lu Shaye has called on Canada’s corporate elite to “actively introduce and explain to the Canadian public” the benefits to the country of signing a free-trade deal.

In speeches to business groups, Mr. Lu has expressed concern about negative Canadian public opinion and media editorials about opening up the Canadian economy to China, especially state-owned enterprises that often act in the interests of Beijing and are known to steal high technology.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...y-canadians-on-chinese-trade/article35406698/

 

[Danbones]

After the last US election: polls?
Never trust polls

After the way the free trade we have now has already raped the country,
hey! lets do that again!

 

[Angstrom]

Gentlemen:

You can not really be this stupid.

I think it always has been obvious he was.

 

[tay]

Trudeau says no security risks in Chinese takeover of Canadian satellite firm

Justin Trudeau sought Tuesday to assuage public fears and political complaints that the Liberal government's decision to allow the Chinese takeover of a Canadian satellite technology company would compromise national security at home and abroad.

Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. is set to take over Norsat International Inc., which manufactures radio transceivers and radio systems used by the American military and Canada's NATO partners.

The private Chinese firm first made a bid for the Vancouver-based technology company in 2016, triggering a review under federal law to ensure Canadian interests weren't harmed in the foreign takeover.

Trudeau says no security risks in Chinese takeover of Canadian satellite firm | CTV News

 

[TenPenny]

That's the most idiotic thing ever. You can say goodbye to any military contracts this company has.

 

[tay]

An overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose the sale of two domestic technology companies with military customers to Chinese investors and believe these takeovers should be a top priority for national-security reviews, according to a new public opinion survey.

Despite these concerns, a poll by Nanos Research found a slight majority of Canadians favour the Liberal government’s pursuit of a bilateral free-trade agreement with Beijing. More than half of Canadians say the level of “friendliness between China and Canada is right.”

But the Nanos poll, commissioned by The Globe and Mail, shows that more than three-quarters of Canadians oppose Ottawa’s recent decisions to allow Chinese investors to buy two Canadian high tech firms that have developed military-edge technology.

“For many Canadians, they actually believe those transactions put Canada at risk,” pollster Nik Nanos said in an interview. “If the government continues to embark on this path, it will probably be a significant political risk for them.”

In June, the Liberal government approved the takeover of Norsat International by a controversial Chinese telecom giant without conducting a comprehensive national-security review, even though the Vancouver company sells its satellite technology to the U.S. military, NATO and other foreign defence forces.

The Pentagon announced last Monday it was reviewing all of its contracts with Norsat after members of the U.S. House of Representatives armed services committee and a congressional watchdog commission raised national-security concerns about the takeover by Hytera Communications, which U.S. rival Motorola has accused of a massive theft of its intellectual property.

In March, the federal cabinet also rescinded a decision by the former Conservative government that had blocked the sale of ITF Technologies to Hong Kong-based O-Net Communications, which is partially owned by the Chinese government. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service had opposed the takeover on grounds it would result in the transfer of advanced military laser technology to China.

The Nanos poll found 76 per cent of Canadians oppose or somewhat oppose the takeover of Norsat while 18 per cent support or somewhat support the purchase. Nearly four-fifths or 78 per cent of Canadians oppose or somewhat oppose China’s purchase of Montreal-based ITF Technologies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com///n...ll/article35531306/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

 

[selfsame]

The Trudeau government has approved a Chinese takeover of a Montreal high-tech firm, a deal that national-security agencies had warned Ottawa in 2015 would undermine a technological edge that Western militaries have over China.

China is not to be feared of. Their utmost purpose is to defend themselves not to attack others or to occupy countries; this is what I think after revising their history.
The Japanese are imperialistic and work to occupy and attack others .. but the Chinese they may not be !

 

[Vbeacher]

The only thing stupid about my post is your reaction to it. I stated a simple fact and you act as if I contradicted you. BTW if the tech is so vital to national interests then why didn't the Yanks buy it?

The US government is not in the habit of buying private companies. Unlike in China, American corporations are not controlled by and mostly owned by the government either. You realize that no Chinese based company does anything that is opposed by the Chinese government, right? If it tried it would be shut down immediately. Likewise if it refused any order, like say "We want to see this communications software that your company supplied to the US marines".

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The US government is not in the habit of buying private companies. Unlike in China, American corporations are not controlled by and mostly owned by the government either.

According to the Trumpublicans, they are.

 

[Vbeacher]

According to the Trumpublicans, they are.

And I should take my information and advice from morons?

 

[tay]

Campaign to get public behind Canada-China trade deal smacks of elitism


The campaign to sway public opinion behind a Canada-China free-trade deal is all proceeding according to plan, as long as the plan was to make it look like policy wonks, CEOs and government officials are plotting to tell ordinary Canadians what's best.

Maybe you can't draw a lot of lessons about Canadian attitudes to trade from U.S. President Donald Trump's election or the Brexit referendum. But it should still be clear you don't want to emulate the failed pro-EU Remain campaign, which fought against Brexit by commissioning thick policy briefs, getting business leaders to make strident warnings and generally looking like elitists telling ordinary folks what was good for them.

Here in Canada, the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa-based think tank, launched a two-year effort funded by big corporations to influence public opinion. It kicked off with a closed-door meeting of CEOs, business-lobby leaders and senior government officials like the deputy minister of foreign affairs. The meeting was co-chaired by PPF president Edward Greenspon, a former editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, and Kevin Lynch, vice-chair of the Bank of Montreal who was once Ottawa's most senior bureaucrat.

Tip: If you're trying to sway ordinary Canadians toward a trade deal with China, try not to look like you're starting a campaign with a secret meeting of the 1 per cent.

Chinese authorities aren't helping, either: Last week, Communist Party tabloid the Global Times scolded new Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, a politician still unfamiliar to most Canadians, for coming out against free trade with China. Nothing persuades Canadians that Beijing is benign like a state newspaper wading angrily into Canadian politics.

It's all a bit worrisome because a free-trade deal with China might – might – be an important thing for Canada's economy. Yet the politics could become entrenched before we even know what the nature of the deal is.

Canada is not Mr. Trump's United States, nor Britain, but the debate over free trade with China already has the potential to echo some of the populist America First and Brexit rhetoric. The Liberals are allied with a pro-China-trade business lobby and Conservatives portray them as elitists with an agenda who will trade away Canadian values and jobs.

Justin Trudeau's government is already fending off the notion they'll bend for Beijing, most recently over whether they should have applied more stringent security reviews to the takeover of Canadian tech firm Norsat. But they don't want to wade directly into the politics of free trade with China, not yet, so they've encouraged efforts like the PPF's.

Mr. Scheer, meanwhile, has rushed to a quick knee-jerk dismissal of free trade with China, considering he's a leader of the supposedly free-trading party. His expressed concern for human-rights and labour-standards clashes with the former Conservative government's arms sales to Saudi Arabia and trade deal with Honduras. China already locks up dissidents and Mr. Scheer still thinks it's important to bolster trade with Beijing, so why is he dead set against a trade deal?

To be fair, Mr. Scheer did allude to a real, important difficulty: A trade deal is supposed to provide guaranteed access to a country's market, and with China, it's hard to be certain of the guarantees.

Trade deals usually guarantee access through lower tariffs, giving foreign companies comparable rights to domestic ones, or harmonizing regulations. But the Chinese state controls so many corporations and so much of China's economy, and can quietly influence myriad decisions – if tariffs are eliminated, other barriers might keep Canadian goods out. Some Australians complain that's what happened after their trade deal with China took effect in 2015.

The economic question, then, is whether Canada can negotiate effective guarantees – it's not whether a deal with China is good, but whether it's a good deal. We don't know yet.

But it is doomed anyway if it is done the old way – negotiated in utter secrecy then sold as good for the economy by business leaders.

We've seen that fail. Too many people suspect that when CEOs say it's good for the economy, they mean their economy – and don't worry about the potential disruption to ordinary Canadians' lives. Forget moulding public opinion for now: Figure out what ordinary Canadians want out of a deal and how many, and who, might actually get it. Then you might have a real campaign.

To be fair to the PPF, it says it was trying to encourage discussion about complex issues led by some serious policy thinkers. But you can't really start the national conversation by gathering powerful advocates behind closed doors. That's more of a conversation stopper.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...e-campaign-smacks-of-elitism/article35532962/