THC posted:

Polls show the "people out here" (who exactly?) are vastly outnumbered by the rest of us who understand what a terrible idea it is to ship raw bitumen to China.

Whiskey Sours posted:

I might be willing to support Northern Gateway if it was transporting synthetic crude instead of diluted bitumen. I'm a little bit nihilistic regarding global warming, but exporting dilbit is bad for the economy and the environment. At least you can clean up an oil spill.

Hal_2005 posted:

What the loving poo poo is this nonsense. Please cite the difference in cleanup procedures for PSC and dilbit. Do you realize both share the same line capacity on the Clipper and Keystone Leg? Seriously. Who the gently caress feeds you this misinformation and how do you ever become remotely empowered to say such dumb poo poo as a fact to even a comedy internet website like SA.

Hal_2005 posted:

What the loving poo poo is this nonsense. Please cite the difference in cleanup procedures for PSC and dilbit. Do you realize both share the same line capacity on the Clipper and Keystone Leg? Seriously. Who the gently caress feeds you this misinformation and how do you ever become remotely empowered to say such dumb poo poo as a fact to even a comedy internet website like SA.

The entire exporting to Asia argument is no more then 2 native bands rent seeking, just like Mackenzie Valley. It even says as such in the ruling rejection by the courts. Furthermore, you do not ship "raw" bitumen anywhere, for various problems which are far too complex for this thread, but mainly due to dry bulk logistical concerns.

Pixelante posted:

Sometimes I think the cumulative knowledge of participants in this thread is wikipedia with a lot of broken links and inconsistent citation methods. I dunno if wiki editors are this prickly, though.

I'm only here to attach the last pokemon page, however. Gotta keep that signal/noise ratio at mutually assured destruction, just the way we like it.

namaste faggots posted:

Let's regale ourselves with legendary tales of burning down the white house and rescuing all of rwanda

quote:

Metro Vancouver mayors reject replacement of Massey Tunnel with 10-lane bridge

The mayors of Metro Vancouver have rejected the provincial government's plans to replace the George Massey tunnel with a 10-lane bridge.

It's the first time the mayors, who make up the Metro Vancouver Board, have spoken out collectively against the $3.5-billion crossing.

The decision came as the board released a report assessing the impact of the bridge on the region's traffic congestion and the environment.

"History has demonstrated the world over, you can't reduce congestion by simply building more roads," said board chair Greg Moore in a written statement.

"This project represents an expansion of car-oriented infrastructure and diverts crucial funds from transportation projects that support the regional growth strategy."

The board said that while it understands the need to reduce traffic congestion along the busy Highway 99, it questions how the $3.5-billion bridge would resolve those issues.

Moore said the board would prefer to see a smaller bridge with more lanes dedicated to public transportation.

He also expressed concerns about charging drivers to cross the bridge, which would leave commuters without a toll-free route.

The report highlights the following issues:

- Insufficient consideration of alternatives to a ten-lane bridge.
- Lack of integration into the regional growth strategy and transportation network.
- Ecological disruption to the Fraser River estuary, an important habitat for salmon and birds.
- Impacts on Metro Vancouver infrastructure, including water mains and sewer lines.
- Recreational and ecological disruption on Deas Island Regional Park.
- Downloading of major expenditures onto local governments for road improvements.
- Negative effects on transit ridership and affordability.
- Insufficient consideration to climate change and air quality.
- "We are genuinely concerned about the possible impacts of bridge construction, roadway improvements, tunnel removal and possible future dredging which could impact between $500 million to $1 billion in regional infrastructure and assets," said Metro Vancouver utilities committee chair Darrell Mussatto.

The board said it was also concerned about a lack of public consultation on the project.

It said it will send a letter to the province about the report and its analysis, highlighting its concerns.

The province announced plans last December to replace the aging George Massey Tunnel with what would be the largest toll bridge in the province.

Transportation Minister Todd Stone argued the bridge would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing unnecessary idling and would save commuters up to 30 minutes a day of travel time.

The three-kilometre bridge will connect Richmond and Delta across the Fraser River.

Construction is expected to begin in 2017 and would take about five years.

quote:

Massey Tunnel replacement squeezed to ensure premier gets hard hat moment

VICTORIA — The latest news on the plan to replace the Massey tunnel with a 10-lane bridge sees the B.C. Liberals in a bit of scramble to get the multibillion-dollar project underway before the provincial election.

“Province seeking qualified firms for Massey replacement,” said the headline on the press release Tuesday, atop news that the government was asking would-be builders to step forward in fairly short order.

The first and only scheduled information meeting is July 7 according to the official request for qualifications (RFQ). Prospective respondents will then have until Aug. 3, just under a month to assemble their bona fides and make their submissions.

This for a project that entails designing and building a high-level 10-lane bridge over the Fraser River between Delta and Richmond, widening 24 kilometres of adjacent freeway to include HOV lanes, and then removing the existing four-lane tunnel so as to eliminate one obstruction for deep-draft vessels entering the river.

Respondents to the RFQ also have to demonstrate an ability to operate and maintain the bridge over 30 years, as well as put up $750 million as their share of project financing during the construction phase.

And to underscore the tightness of the time frame, consider that the government itself missed the deadline for delivering the business plan for the project by 18 months, promising it would be released in the spring of 2014, not actually publishing it until the end of last year.

Nor does the time squeeze end with submissions. The documentation released Tuesday indicates that the government intends to winnow the qualified bidders down to three within another six weeks or so, then begin the detailed back and forth on technical, financial and other considerations on the 30-year concession agreement.

The list will be winnowed to a preferred bidder in the spring of 2017, with the two dropped bidders being in line for $2 million in compensation for their troubles. Target deal for signing off on the deal is summer 2017.

The latter date appears contrary to the political timetable set down by Premier Christy Clark when she announced the replacement plan for the tunnel following the last election.

Her stated intention was to have construction underway before British Columbians went back to the polls in May 2017, a goal the Liberals have restated more than once.

“Construction will begin on schedule in early 2017,” Transportation Minister Todd Stone told reporters (twice) at last December’s release of the project business plan.

With the government not slated to sign off on the deal with the prospective designer and builder until at least a month or two after the election, I wondered what that would do to the Liberal vow to get a start on construction beforehand.

Not to worry, I was assured by a government representative. The ministry itself will be engaged in enough site preparation and other work to qualify as a start on construction. So the premier will have her hard hat moment. That, at least, one can take to the bank.

Other aspects of the project are more murky. The Liberals continue to tout the cost at $3.5 billion, but have provided no breakdowns. The bridge will surely be tolled, same as the Port Mann, and the government estimates that maybe 11,000 vehicles a day will divert to the Alex Fraser Bridge to avoid paying.

But remembering how badly the government underestimated toll avoidance, traffic diversions and the break-even point on the Port Mann (the latter by a dozen years), it would be nice to have more in-depth points of comparison for the Massey replacement.

Perhaps those who enter the bidding process will have a better idea. For “a restricted access data website with background data relating to the project is available” to those who sign the requisite confidentiality agreement.

What sorts of things will the government be sharing with prospective builders that it won’t be sharing with the public? Mainly information on access points to the tunnel and other matters best kept secure, I was told. Those respondents who do gain access to the restricted website are sternly cautioned not to share anything with those not on the inside.

“Respondents are not to communicate, including by media releases, web or social media postings, or interviews, and are to ensure their team members, including their respective contractors, subcontractors, directors, officers, employees, consultants, advisers, representatives and agents, and all other persons associated with any of them, do not communicate, in respect of any part or parts of the project or the competitive selection process, with the media or the public unless the prior written consent is obtained.”

If any reporter even asks for an interview, “respondents are to promptly notify the Transportation Financing Authority,” that being the provincial Crown corporation overseeing the project.

Otherwise the request for qualifications mainly sets out the information that has to be included in those submissions due Aug. 3, along with standard cautions against conflict of interest, lobbying, and collusion.

There’s also a boilerplate warning that the government reserves the right to make last-minute changes or walk away from the project altogether. Which is about as likely as Christy Clark announcing she’s having second thoughts about Site C.

As for calls from those stung by the TransLink referendum for the Massey replacement to be put to a vote, there is one of those on the schedule for May 9, 2017. Meaning, of course, the ultimate referendum, a provincial election.

Constant Hamprince posted:

Happy Canada day you wonderful hateful piece of garbage

Femtosecond posted:

Happy Canada Day

Every single mayor in Metro Vancouver, except one, the Mayor of Delta, is opposed to the new $3.5 billion 10 lane bridge that the Province wants to build in the region. It doesn't seem like that happens often, that Provincial infrastructure funding is unappreciated and unwanted by a municipal government. Well I guess the mayors would want that cash, but they've done enough research to know that the bridge isn't going to help their communities and they need more public transit money.



The BC Liberals are unmoved though. They seem set to accelerate the time line and get this thing started before the election.

PT6A posted:

Amalgamate Vancouver into Canada's first nuclear weapons testing facility, IMO.

Femtosecond posted:

The BC Liberals are unmoved though. They seem set to accelerate the time line and get this thing started before the election.

The Globe and Mail posted:

Canada to join arms trade treaty, but will not raise export controls
STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 30, 2016 1:54PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 30, 2016 11:42PM EDT

Canada is joining a global treaty aimed at regulating the arms trade, but the federal government still will not bring in measures that would make it more difficult to ship military goods to a country with a dismal human-rights record, such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria or China.

Those three countries ranked among the top 10 destinations for Canadian military goods in 2015.

The Arms Trade Treaty is a global effort to rein in the unregulated international arms trade and it obliges states to track arms exports and ensure they are not used to carry out human-rights abuses, including terrorism. It entered into force in 2014, but the former Conservative government balked at signing it, saying Canada’s export regime was already among the “strongest in the world” and citing concerns, dismissed by arms control experts, that it might affect firearm owners. More than 80 countries have already ratified the treaty and close to 50 more have signed but not yet ratified it.

Canada will officially accede to the treaty in 2017, Ottawa announced Thursday, and, as part of this process, will formalize the screening system it has used to evaluate arms exports since 1986 and legally oblige the government to conduct the assessments.

Federal officials were clear, however, that Ottawa believes it does not have to raise its standards, saying once again that Canada already has among the “strongest export controls in the world.”

Ottawa will also begin regulating the opaque business of arms brokering by Canadians. Federal officials currently don’t know how many Canadian brokers are operating or where they are based. Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion said he will consult with businesses and non-governmental organizations before producing that legislation.

The Canadian Commercial Corporation, the government’s defence export corporation, could be considered an arms broker because it arranges sales of military goods to foreign buyers. The Liberal government was not able to immediately answer whether the Canadian Commercial Corporation would be targeted by new regulations – measures that could affect its ability to market arms around the world.

Mr. Dion was not available to answer questions Thursday at the treaty announcement.

A senior government official who was designated to answer questions on signing on to the 2014 Arms Trade Treaty, but only on the condition the official was not identified, said Ottawa believes it already has sufficient restrictions on arms exports.

“Canada already has some of the strongest export controls in the world which means that we already meet the vast majority of the obligations under the arms trade treaty,” the senior official said in a briefing.

“In a real sense, this treaty was designed to bring other countries – many of whom have no export control regimes in place – up to the high standards that Canada and our like-minded allies already apply through our robust export control regimes,” the official said.

The Canadian government said joining the treaty reflects Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitment to work with other countries and would help bring about a “more transparent and accountable arms trade.”

It’s also promising easier-to-read and more detailed annual reports on military exports that will be published by May 31 the following year. Ottawa will now tell Canadians how many applications for military exports it denied each year – a figure that as recently as January, 2016, it told The Globe and Mail it was unable to provide.

Officials couldn’t say whether Canada might begin releasing to Canadians specific details of arms sales as Sweden does. The Scandinavian country names the companies and transactions behind major defence and security goods exports each year.

The Canadian government’s reports on arms exports are merely sum totals of military goods sales to each country by category without details about which companies or specific items are involved.

The government official said Canada remains concerned about shielding the identity of defence exporters but will consult with industry about whether more details of arms shipments might be released. “Canadian practice has been to date … to protect commercially confidential information.”

Arms control advocates welcomed the Liberal decision to accede to the United Nations-sponsored treaty, but said they’re leery about whether this will change much.

“But if recent practice is a predictor of what is to come, then there is still a lot to be desired in terms of Canada’s export control regime,” said Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, a disarmament group that is an agency of the Canadian Council of Churches and tracks arms shipments.

“There’s a huge gap between lofty rhetoric and actual practice with regards to arms control. It’s not the first time they’ve promised increased rigour and transparency and yet they continue to shield basic facts about major arms deals,” Mr. Jaramillo said of the Liberal government.

“Rigour has to mean something.”

In recent months, the Liberals have rejected an opposition motion to establish parliamentary oversight of foreign arms deals and refused to reveal whether Mr. Dion approved a shipment of military goods to Thailand, ruled by an undemocratic junta since 2014 coup, when he was asked to make a decision in early 2016. In April, Mr. Dion quietly issued export permits for the vast bulk of a controversial $15-billion deal to sell weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. His decision was the most crucial step in Canada’s arms-control screening process and amounted to a judgment call that Saudi Arabia, notorious for human rights abuses, will not use the combat machines to commit them.

The Liberals had long insisted their hands were tied by the Conservative government’s decision to sell the vehicles to Riyadh. But records obtained and published by The Globe and Mail last year show Global Affairs staffers saying that export-permit approval is the stage at which Ottawa really sanctions shipments. In 2014, the department undertook an initial review of the deal to check for “red flags.” It found none but Debbie Gowling, a senior official in the export-controls division, reminded colleagues in an e-mail that there was no guarantee that the sale was officially approved by Ottawa until actual export-permit applications were processed.

quote:

How to fix Canada’s innovation conundrum
Start by removing some of the policies that shield Canadian companies from competition and give them less incentive to innovate

In its inaugural budget, the federal Liberal government vowed to develop a bold, new innovation agenda as the centrepiece of its strategy to bolster long-term economic growth. This was the right call, not only because it plays well—who would disagree with Canada becoming “a centre of global innovation?”—but also because innovation-driven productivity growth is unequivocally essential for our future prosperity.
My recent paper on the subject, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), explains why this is so. Quite simply, Canada can no longer rely heavily on previous sources of growth—like a trade boost after signing onto NAFTA or a commodity-price boom—that have masked its innovation problem.

That leaves us with improving productivity—working smarter. Productivity figures can be disaggregated into three components: workforce quality; capital deepening; and what economists call multi-factor productivity, essentially the know-how in combining labour and capital, i.e. innovation. Compared to the U.S., Canada has done relatively well in recent years on the first two elements, but dismally on the last. In fact, innovation-driven productivity improvement has made virtually no contribution to Canada’s growth since 2000.
MORE: The ‘brain hacks’ that could lead to better productivity

How can Canada turn this around? For many years the mantra has been to increase business research and development (R&D). However, despite generous tax credits and a myriad of direct funding programs, business R&D as a share of GDP has fallen since peaking in 2000. There is no reason to believe that more of the same will get us from here to there.

The answer to a turnaround lies in a better understanding of what motivates business decisions. The Council of Canadian Academies concluded in a 2013 study, that “Canadian firms have been as innovative as they have needed to be,” doing business in “a low-innovation equilibrium.” A lack of competitive pressure in many key sectors of the Canadian economy has provided the basis for this seemingly rational response.
Business profits as a share of GDP have been higher in Canada than the United States over the last three decades—suggesting that many Canadian companies have until now done relatively well without innovating.
Today, the key questions are: Will Canadian businesses respond to the urgent need to focus on innovation-based strategies? And what can public policy do to facilitate the transition?

MORE: Why Canada’s real economic challenge is innovation

Building on the 2011 Jenkins Report on innovation, my paper makes three broad recommendations.

First, systematically review trade, investment and regulatory policies that have served to inhibit competition in Canada and reinforce the low-innovation equilibrium. For example, ownership restrictions in key sectors like telecommunications and airlines inhibit competition in those sectors and increase the cost of doing business in Canada.

Second, emphasize demand-side instruments such as smart regulation and government procurement that can be designed to incentivize innovative responses, while protecting the broader public interest. For example, going beyond the current token effort at stimulating business innovation through creative government procurement contracting, like the U.S. and other countries, would allow Canadian companies to develop new products and processes for global markets.

Third, rebalance supply-side instruments by de-emphasizing business R&D support relative to other key elements, such as enhancing workplace skills, de-risking growth financing, and reinforcing innovation ecosystems involving sectoral and regional clusters. Building on pilot initiatives in each of these areas into full-blown programs would help high-growth firms scale-up more rapidly and increase the probability of remaining based in Canada.
By following this approach we would broaden innovation policy from a longstanding, almost singular, focus on R&D to a more challenging, but more rewarding, multi-faceted micro-economic agenda. It’s more challenging because various interests would resist changes to the status quo, but it will be more rewarding because that will be what it takes to make Canada a centre of global innovation.

Andrei Sulzenko is a former senior assistant deputy minister of policy at Industry Canada. He is the author of Canada’s Innovation Conundrum: Five Years after the Jenkins Report, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (irpp.org).

ductonius posted:

The part that makes the least sense about the bridge is where do they think those 10 lanes are going to go? Vancouver isn't going to widen Oak Street, or build a new Oak Street Bridge, or build a highway along Marine. Even if Richmond decides to make Hwy 99 four lanes on each side you're still going into a bottleneck at Oak which will gently caress everything up. I can see replacing the tunnel because it cuts off that highway as a TDG and/or oversized cargo route, but 10 loving lanes is a bit much. Does Metro-van really need the second and third largest cable stayed bridges in North America?

It only makes remotely any sense if you're trying to connect land in Tsawwassen to Metro-van for suburbanization and at the same time hand a huge plum project to your bridge developer friends.

Oh, wait, I get it now.

quote:

Meantime, new bus lanes are being built on the north side of the tunnel for a so-called rapid bus service in both directions, and the province’s $20 million investment in seismic upgrades will extend the life of the tunnel “for easily another 50 years,” said Falcon.

Improvements have also been made to the counterflow lane technology, Falcon said.

Building a new span over the South Arm would only be a temporary solution, he said.

“Vancouver, of course, has made it very clear that they’re not interested in improving the Oak Street Bridge corridor. So you basically make a very large investment to move the choke point down a little bit further to the Oak Street Bridge.”

Drunk Canuck posted:

Hmm where's that article that was good for a rebuttal here


http://www.umontreal.ca/climat/engl/index.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142

Yup, I trust loving Albertans to give a clear unbiased attitude towards the tarsands.

namaste faggots posted:

quote:

That leaves us with improving productivity—working smarter. Productivity figures can be disaggregated into three components: workforce quality; capital deepening; and what economists call multi-factor productivity, essentially the know-how in combining labour and capital, i.e. innovation. Compared to the U.S., Canada has done relatively well in recent years on the first two elements, but dismally on the last. In fact, innovation-driven productivity improvement has made virtually no contribution to Canada’s growth since 2000.

wikipedia posted:

Multifactor productivity measures reflect output per unit of some combined set of inputs. A change in multifactor productivity reflects the change in output that cannot be accounted for by the change in combined inputs. As a result, multifactor productivity measures reflect the joint effects of many factors including new technologies, economies of scale, managerial skill, and changes in the organization of production.

Femtosecond posted:

Under his watch as Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon upgraded the tunnel and only planned an eventual twinning to 6 lanes.

Guy DeBorgore posted:

Pipelines don't actually have much to do with climate change except that they've become a symbolic rallying-point for environmental activism. How much does it really matter to global CO2 emissions whether Canada exports 3M bbl/day or 3.3M bbl/day of oil? It doesn't, but it gives Green Party types something to get mad about that doesn't directly impact anyone geographically close to them, which is handy if you like the activist lifestyle but don't want to risk offending anyone you personally know.

I'm glad we're engaging in petty regionalism on Canada Day tho that seems only appropriate.

Guy DeBorgore posted:

Pipelines don't actually have much to do with climate change except that they've become a symbolic rallying-point for environmental activism. How much does it really matter to global CO2 emissions whether Canada exports 3M bbl/day or 3.3M bbl/day of oil? It doesn't, but it gives Green Party types something to get mad about that doesn't directly impact anyone geographically close to them, which is handy if you like the activist lifestyle but don't want to risk offending anyone you personally know.

I'm glad we're engaging in petty regionalism on Canada Day tho that seems only appropriate.

Angry Diplomat posted:

Whatever else we may believe, I'm sure we can all agree that coal power is a crock of radioactive poo poo. Let's find some common ground before we degenerate into celebratory squabbling

PT6A posted:

True.

Also, nuclear power is cool and good and we need more of it, as well as additional research into how to make it more efficient and cheaper. If you disagree, you are wrong. That's the way to kill fossil fuels and halt global warming.

Helsing posted:

vyelkin posted:

Helsing posted:

I love economists.


This is supposed to sound scientific but when you actually look at definitions of multi-factor productivity you realize that it's essentially a residual category standing for "all the parts of the economy we don't really understand". Which is funny because it usually accounts for a huge part of economic growth.


Of course saying "multi-factor productivity" sounds much more rigorous and scientific than saying "a dozen different factors we don't entirely understand but which we think in one way or another influence output".

Femtosecond posted:

The BC Liberals are unmoved though. They seem set to accelerate the time line and get this thing started before the election.

Guy DeBorgore posted:

I didn't mean that post the way you guys took it. Maybe we can all agree on three things?

a). Coming down hard on the oil sands would be good for Canada in the long run but really bad for the west in the short run,
b). No government is going to do that because they don't want to deal with AB and SK while they're going through a painful detox process,
c). The only meaningful nationwide environmental policy we'll ever have is to die of lung cancer and alcohol poisoning before global warming gets too bad

quote:

I wanted to make this exact same post, every economic indicator is misleading sometimes but productivity especially is total bullshit. Politicians and talking heads love it because it sounds intuitive and they don't have the time to look at it too closely.

quote:

IIRC the natural resources industries are a big part of the reason why our productivity numbers are so low but I don't remember why that would be.

toe knee hand posted:

It worked for Site C!

Leofish posted:

https://twitter.com/StatCan_eng/status/748954703468306432

The flag is so important, we had an intern photoshop a CG flag onto a stock photo of the sky to prove it.

It's not like you can find one of those things anywhere.

quote:

China Refusing to Recognize Canadian Citizenship of Travellers, Reports Say
NDP MP Jenny Kwan calls reports of China's visa policy 'a major shift in practice.'

The federal New Democrats are demanding action from Ottawa after hearing the Chinese government is refusing to recognize Canadian citizenship when granting visas to those with roots in Hong Kong or Mainland China.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said she is sending a letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion after speaking to travel agents in Toronto and Vancouver who report Beijing is denying Canadian citizens of Chinese origin the right to obtain visas using their Canadian passports.

Instead, they are reportedly being issued travel documents as Chinese nationals, which means they won't have the protection of the Canadian embassy while travelling in China.

Kwan said until June 2, Canadian citizens born in Hong Kong or Mainland China could choose to travel as Chinese nationals or Canadian citizens. Now Beijing is apparently forcing them to travel as Chinese nationals.

"It's a major shift in practice from what it used to be and is of big concern to people," she said.

Even Canadian citizens born here to Chinese parents must apply for Chinese travel documents if they have not travelled to the country as Canadians before, Kwan said.

One Toronto travel agent, who spoke to The Tyee on the condition of anonymity, said his company arranges visas for visitors to Mainland China. Applications have been denied for people born in Hong Kong, Mainland China, or Taiwan, the agent said. The Beijing government has also denied visas to Canadian-born children of Chinese origin parents, he said.

The rejections have come with notes directing the applicants to go to a Chinese consulate in person to apply for travel documents.

Many people have opted to cancel their trips to China rather than travel as Chinese nationals, said the agent.

Tightening controls?

China expert Charles Burton, a professor at Brock University, said the move appears to be part of Beijing's attempt to tighten control globally to mute dissent against the ruling regime.

Burton pointed to a recent case of a Hong Kong bookseller with a Swedish passport who was arrested in Thailand and sent to China for "interrogation" as an example of Beijing's actions.

He said the reported policy would be in line with China's policy of considering anyone with Chinese heritage as subject to Beijing's authority.

"I think it does have a chilling effect on people of Chinese origin who felt that acquisition of foreign citizenship gave them a degree of protection," Burton said. "It goes against international law; it's part and parcel of China's refusal to acknowledge the authority of international regimes in general."

He said the policy could be considered discrimination because Beijing is issuing visas based solely on people's ethnicity.

Burton said Canada must raise the issue with China at the highest levels.

The revelations come four weeks after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a tantrum when a Canadian reporter in Ottawa asked him about China's detention of Canadian citizen Kevin Garratt, aggressive moves in the South China Sea, and the disappearances of merchants in Hong Kong selling books critical of the Chinese government.

Following the outburst Ottawa faced criticism for its declaration of plans to deepen ties with China.

Global Affairs Canada said it was aware of the visa situation and intends to raise the issue with Beijing, but would not grant an interview with Dion.

** Story update, June 30: Since NDP MP Jenny Kwan's initial complaint, the Chinese embassy in Ottawa has issued a statement saying it has not changed its policy, but gives no explanation for why it was asking people to apply for Chinese travel documents.

"It should be noted that we welcome visit to China by Canadians of Hong Kong origin," read the statement. "There is no such a thing as China tightening its travel document-related policies."

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hong Lei also addressed the issue in his regular press briefing in Beijing.

Kwan released a statement in response suggesting that people who had problems apply once again and to bring the full Chinese statement from the Chinese embassy with them when they do.

namaste faggots posted:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/06/30/China-Refusing-to-Recognize-Canadian-Citizenship-of-Travellers/


tl;dr canadian citizenship is worthless

happy canada day fuckwads