It has been a long time since I have talked to him, but I still clearly recall going to school with Mark Rowswell. In China he is much more commonly known as “Da Shan”, or Big Mountain. Mark is not only Canadian, like myself, but also comes from Toronto, my home town.

I met Mark while attending classes at Beijing University. As fellow Canadians in a place with many more Americans and other foreigners, we, of course, got to know each other. It turns out that his parents lived near lived near my parents, in the quiet suburb of North York, around Don Mills and Finch.

It was clear very early that Mark was gifted at learning Mandarin. Apart from his BA in languages from the University of Toronto, he spent the time to hang out on the streets of Beijing, near our university, to talk to the locals. Over time he had picked up some pretty guttural Beijing Hua. He could switch it on and back to standard Mandarin like a light switch, which was amazing.

While Mark had inspired me to run to the Beijing Foreign Language Institute in order to purchase a Beijing Hua dictionary, colloquial Beijing Hua never stuck with me. I still speak with a very standard Dongbei accent, albeit with an unconscious trailing ‘r’ on many words. The Dongbei people I meet find it odd.

One thing about Mark was his dedication to studying Mandarin. He took classes in the Zhongwen Xi with other native Chinese students. He studied hard to keep up. There were few students that studied harder than Mark.

One night a group of us were chatting in our dorm when Mark came by. He told us about his idea of learning Xiangsheng from a famous Xiangsheng master. Which Xiangsheng master would spend the time to teach a student, much less a foreign student? He told us he had, with the help of friends, already found a Xiangsheng master, and that he was taking classes. The goal was to practice for the New Year’s Festival.

He told us about his Xiangsheng costume. He went to his room get it. He returned dressed in a long dark green silk dress, the ones seen in old Chinese movies. His sleeves were large at the openings. The quality of the material was excellent. Mark told us that such costumes were difficult to find in Beijing and were expensive. As Xiangsheng newbies at the time we had a good laugh at his costume and wished him very well.

A recent news article stated that Mark had just become a new Canadian cultural ambassador to China. I would counter that Mark has been Canada’s cultural ambassador to China for a good twenty years. He is a truly nice guy, fun to be around and quite normal by any measure. Yet his Mandarin stands head and shoulders over any other foreigner I have heard, including myself.

Mark’s curiosity and dedication to China is unquestionable. While we were evacuated to HK during the Tiananmen incident, Mark went just a little south of Beijing and stayed with locals. When I returned to China in August, Mark was nonplussed: He had never left China. There was no risk to foreigners, he said, and he was correct.

When I returned to China in 2008 I turned on the TV to find Mark teaching Chinese the English words for officiating soccer. I saw his face on shopping bags and on billboards. It was interesting to see Mark’s face 15′ high. I also saw Mark lead the Canadian Olympic team for the opening games in Beijing. Was that not part of his ambassador role?

As a Chinese Canadian I will never stick out like a white foreigner in China. In China Mark Rowswell attempts the impossible: To be a native Chinese in China and he does a good job of it.

And because he asked, my Mandarin is quite good. I love this editorial cartoon.

The more the US has access to cheap oil, the more they will waste it. Overall I think the US and therefore the World would benefit by more expensive oil prices. This also applies to us Canadians. While we all talk conservation and environmental protection, I see way too many SUVs and other large vehicles transporting one driver, and a lack of motivation to fund and build mass transit. I hope that gas prices will double and therefore match that of Europe. ]]> http://dontai.com/wp/2011/11/22/hows-your-mandarin-editorial-cartoon/feed/ 0 http://dontai.com/wp/2011/09/08/lights-of-america-led-light-bulbs-walmart/ http://dontai.com/wp/2011/09/08/lights-of-america-led-light-bulbs-walmart/#comments Thu, 08 Sep 2011 21:45:32 +0000 dontai http://dontai.com/wp/?p=3927

Lights of America LED bulbs 2025LEDE12-65k claim 40 watt bulb equivalent and 30,000 hr life. Real world says 25 watts equivalent and maybe 1,000 hrs. Do not buy this junk.

Browsing through Walmart here in Toronto, Canada, I stumbled upon some LED light bulbs on sale. From a company named “Lights of America”, they have a smaller base for use in a chandelier. Regularly $5.50CAD, they were going for $2.00CAD. Labeled “Made in China”, I hesitated. I could buy them, research them, and if necessary, return them if I was not happy. The results of research were that these LED light bulbs are junk and should be returned. They not only do not live up to brightness claims, but also only last a max of 1,000 of their claimed 30,000 hours of use.

My experience is that light bulbs made in China do not last long, especially the compact florescent ones. LED is a new technology, giving off no heat and is safe to dispose. They also last much longer than CFs. These comparisons, however, assume the bulbs are properly made.

It did not take a long search on Google, after fishing through all the web sites that sell these bulbs, to find some very negative reviews. Intriguingly, the company “Lights of America” was being charged by the US Federal Trade Commission, for fraudulent claims. Their claim that their 1.5 watt bulbs are as bright as a 40 watt incandescent is in dispute. Light output is closer to a 25 watt bulb than 40. More critically, their supposed bulb life of 30,000 hours has been tested to yield an actual figure of no more than 1,000 hours.

In the FTC’s original complaint against Lights of America, Inc. and its two principals, filed in September 2010, the agency charged that since 2008, Lights of America has overstated the light output and life expectancy of its LED bulbs. The agency also charged that Lights of America misled consumers about how the brightness of its LED bulbs compares to traditional incandescent lights.

At the court’s direction, the FTC’s amended complaint details where and when the challenged claims were made, and alleges that specific testing contradicts many of the defendants’ claims. For example, defendants claimed that certain bulbs lasted 30,000 hours, but U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) testing found that they lost as much as 90 percent of their output after only 1,000 hours. The amended complaint also alleges additional facts to show that the individual defendants controlled the company and knew, or should have known, about the practices the FTC is challenging.

Here is the original FTC charge:

The FTC alleges that in many instances, Lights of America’s LED bulbs produced significantly less light, as measured in lumens, than the company claimed in its promotional materials. For example, one bulb was promoted as producing 90 lumens of light output, but Lights of America’s own tests showed it produced only 43 lumens.

Also, in many cases, Lights of America deceptively compared the brightness of its LED light bulbs with incandescent bulbs, the FTC alleges. For example, the firm claimed that one of its LED lantern bulbs could replace a 40-watt incandescent bulb. However, while the typical 40-watt incandescent bulb produces about 400 lumens, the Lights of America LED bulb produced only 74 lumens.

Moreover, the FTC complaint states that in many instances, Lights of America’s LED bulbs would not last as long as the company’s promotional materials said they would. In one case, for example, the firm said that one of its LED recessed bulbs would last 30,000 hours. Independent tests, however, showed that the bulb would not last as long as claimed because it lost 80 percent of its light output after only 1,000 hours.

While I find the use of LEDs very compelling, it is difficult to justify the price of $2.00CAD for the bulb. LEDs are in general expensive to buy, and therefore LED bulbs reflect this. These LED light bulbs use 20 LEDs, which means each LED costs about $0.10CAD each. This is by far much cheaper than buying good quality LEDs individually.

Overwhelmingly the reviews of Light of America LED bulbs is terrible. Junk. The nerds at CandlePowerForums support their junk claim with some meaningful numbers. I do trust that they know what they are doing. PhysicsForums says much the same. Several people have received recall notices from Costco offering refunds. Walmart will only refund bulbs that are not already burned out. The two year warranty from LoA requires you to pay for postage back to California, which is more expensive than the actual bulb. The LoA warranty is bogus.

The Lights of America web site does not even mention these chandelier lights, even though they are sold throughout the US and Canada. The packaging also does not mention lumen ratings. It is all very sneaky and I do not want any part of it. Their web site also makes no mention of their legal troubles with the Federal Trade Commission. Nor is there any resolution or steps taken to help customers.

I am very disappointed in the 40 w equiv. 1.5 Watt LED bulbs I got from Walmart. They put out very little light. More like a 15 watt standard bulb. No where NEAR a 40 watt like they claim.

First off, they last about a month before going out. Walmart was ok about taking those back since I kept the packing and receipt but the ones that failed after 95 days they wouldn’t accept even though the package says if the bulb fails within 2 years take it back to the retailer OR send it back to lights of america. Well, Walmart says the packing can say that but it doesn’t fall within their return policy so they won’t take them back. If you try to get lights of America to replace them the will charge you in shipping the amount of a new bulb so is that really under warranty if they are ripping you like that? After buying 8 bulbs, 7 are already out. 2 of those failed after only an hours use or less (turning on the light about 3 to 4 times at most). I know LED will be the way to go in the future but right now, they don’t put out enough light and don’t last very long due to the manufacturing process. Lights of America should be ashamed. They really have a gimmick going with their 2 year return policy. It is far cheaper and better on the environment using standard bulbs until they get this technology down a little better. Bulbs that last a few clicks of the light switch fill up a land fill faster than the 100 year old bulb technology that last 2 or 3 years

source

Given all the terrible reviews of dim light and short bulb life I think the best thing is to return them and get GE CFs. In the future LED technology will improve and prices will go down. Today you simply buy LED junk.

In the late 1980s the Beijing University foreign student’s dorm was called Shao Yuan. It was a “U” shaped structure with 3 sections, 6 floors, each housing about 100 students. Each building had a guard on the first floor. The guard asked all Chinese to sign in. He also manned the single telephone for 100 students.

Foreign student dorms were two to a room. Each student had a bed, a desk, a bookcase and a small closet for clothes. Not much else could fit into the room. The beds and bookcase was painted metal. The bookcase and closet were wood. The floor was concrete with rock aggregate, polished smooth. Life was simple. Few students has refridgerators or washing machines. Electric fans were common, because there was no air conditioning. Cooking was prohibited but was common. Washrooms and showers were communal, two per floor. Hot water was always available, as the boiler was beside the showers. Heating was hot water radiator under the window, which doubled as a clothes dryer. There was a small window above the door for ventilation. Life was simple but adequate.

Chinese student dorms were much different. Each building had about 5 floors, about 14 rooms per floor, 6 girls to a room, or about 400 students. Each room had 3 bunk beds. There were two desks for six students. No bookcase or closet. Students for each bunk stored their belongings under the bottom bunk. The floor was simple concrete. Washrooms were communal, 2 per floor. Showers were in another building, on specific days and at specific times. Hot water was a 5 minute walk outside to the communal boiler. Masters students had two to a room, and doctoral students had their own rooms. Heating was hot water radiator under the window, which doubled as a clothes dryer. There was a small window above the door for ventilation.

In the Chinese dorm, their bed was where personal items were stored. Many had built small shelving for books and small items. Most had their beds screened off for privacy. Living was crowded but acceptable.

Beijing University foreign student dorm, 2011. Two students to a room.

Of course the contrast between the two dorms was striking. Today the difference is about the same. The foreign student dorm room has not changed much. There is internet access and private phones now. Refrigerators are common, as is air conditioning. The furniture is a bit more upscale, but overall the quality of the room is comparable.

Beijing University Chinese student dorm, 2011. Four students to a room.

Today’s Beijing University Chinese dorm room has some significant changes. There is now only four students to a room, when before there were six. Each student has their own desk, upon which there is a small bookcase as well as upper cabinets. The floors seem to be plain concrete. Compared to 20 years ago, Chinese students now live much more comfortably.

More shocking is the text in the article outlining recent additions to the Beijing University foreign student dorms:

Guo claimed that the [Beijing] university has made a lot of improvement to their foreign students’ dormitories during this summer vacation. They have renovated the swimming pool, the bowling center, KTV rooms, the gymnasium and the billiards room. While the foreign students are enjoying the new, well-conditioned dormitories, the Chinese students are living in the old shabby dormitories with plank bed (no mattress), and no air-conditioner. Guo also called for improvement and equal treatment for the Chinese student in her post.

When I was at Beida there were tennis courts in front of the dorms. In the basement there was broken exercise equipment and table tennis tables, usually dominated by North Korean students. Now they have a swimming pool, bowling, singing rooms and billiards? Wow, this is a shocking change. While I can see the addition of internet and air conditioning, the rest is above and beyond. I wonder how much they pay for their dorm per month. According to a comment Beida foreign students pay 2,400RMB/month, compared to 700RMB/year for Chinese students.

RenMin University foreign student dorm, 2011. Two students to a room.

I would hate to be the Grandpa telling my Grandkids that when I was young I slogged through 3′ of snow and walked 10 km just to get to school. In this case, foreign student dorms were very comparable to today in 2011. Chinese student dorms have been vastly upgraded.

Chinese made paper shredder, no brand name nor factory, model number WMC6X, irreparable because of this cheaply made plastic gear. While there were many metal parts in this paper shredder, the gears driving these metal parts are plastic? Who decided this? What a waste of resources, not to mention cheating the consumer. Photo 3x macro.

Sure there are many excellent Chinese made products, but they are drowned out by an ocean of cheap quality junk. It irks me madly when I use a product for a short period of time, only to have it break. Usually the product experiences regular wear and tear use, not abuse. When I take it apart to try to fix it, I often find critical components are made of cheap plastic. These components are hidden from the consumer, who only finds out when it breaks for no good reason. These products are giving China a bad name. Such is the case of a paper shredder kindly given to us by a neighbour. Premature breakage of products is a waste of natural resources, cheats consumers and is plain and simple bad for the environment. I hate it.

My neighbour was kind enough to give me her paper shredder. This one was a no brand name, no factory name, Made in China, model number WMC6X. It is slow and could only shred 6 pages at a time, which is Ok for our family. She bought a faster and more expensive model. The Little Weed and I started shredding paper. After a couple minutes the shredder would heat up and shut down. Once cooled down it would resume working. A couple of days goes by and while shredding we hear a thunk and the shredding mechanism refuses to move while the motor is running. I begin to take it apart to find out if the shredder had slipped a belt or something else, such as a paper jam.

What I found was disappointing. The motor’s main axle was connected to the shredder’s transmission and subsequently to the shredding teeth. The shredder’s transmission was completely made of cheap plastic gears. The reason the shredder stopped working was because the first gear directly connected to the motor had destroyed itself, thereby decoupling the motor drive from the rest of the transmission. The shredder was therefore irreparable.

The shredding teeth mechanism was made of metal and was in pristine condition. Who was the smart one that decided the transmission gears should be made of cheap plastic?

All I could think of is what a waste of natural resources. We spend the resources to make this product, ship it across from China to Canada, only to have it fail prematurely due to a couple of cheaply made plastic gears? Now we need to dispose of it? By this method we will pillage Mother Nature and Mother Earth very quickly, short changing our children and grandchildren. Who is the winner here?

Defective paper shredder, no brand name nor factory, model number WMC6X, Made in China, broke because they used cheap plastic gears. What a waste of natural resources.

I am unsure who to blame. Do we, as North American consumers demand and therefore receive products as the cheapest price possible, even if it quickly breaks? Are these paper shredders designed by North American engineers to a price point, rather than a quality standard? Do we blame the Chinese factory for skimping on quality in order to maximize their profit? Either way, these shoddily made products are a waste of money for consumers and a waste of natural resources for the whole Earth. We need to work better and smarter if we want to have a future as bright as our past.

I have traced the model number of this shredder down to the Aurora Office Equipment Company Shanghai, SHANGHAI, E237840, 388 JIANXIN RD, JIADING DISTRICT, 200000 SHANGHAI, CHINA. Please do not buy their products, as they are badly made. Apparently Ace Hardware carries them under the Aurora brand name. This company is connected to the Aurora Group of Taiwan.

Parking Costs in China's large cities is becoming prohibitive. And so it should. Too many cars in a city reduces the quality of life for everyone.

Anyone who has recently visited China and Beijing knows that there are too many cars on the streets, thus clogging the free flow of traffic. Gone are the days of riding a bicycle. Public transit is the only way to get around, but buses are just as slow as cars. Beijing has started a lottery for potential new car buyers, which helps. The solution may lie in a scarcity of parking spaces. If you have no parking space you have no place to park your car.

I had thought that China was pretty smart when I saw that most people ride their bicycles to commute. To my dismay cars have taken over Chinese roads. Contributing to air pollution, high crash rates and a reduction in commute times for people, this is not progress in a positive direction. I have no issue with Chinese people buying cars, but when it reduces the quality of life this must stop.

Maybe the solution will come about from a scarcity of parking spots. Most people in Beijing live in apartment buildings, with limited parking. These parking spots have become much more expensive as more people want to buy a car.

Interestingly the diagram above shows Beijing’s housing costs to be 22,310 RMB/ sq M. Since 1 sq M = 10.76 sq ft, this amounts to 2, 073 RMB/ sq ft. At 7 CAD to 1 RMB, this converts to $296CAD/sq ft, very similar in cost to inexpensive housing in Toronto. Parking spots are separate in China. The average parking spot in Beijing costs 140,000 RMB, or $20,000CAD. This cost is included in most apartment buildings here in Canada, though can be priced separately in new condos.

Federal Court of Canada Logo

It has been a long time coming, but Chinese fugitive Lai Changxing has finally been deported from Canada. His case took 12 years and went right to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land. The twists and turns in this case are numerous. The conclusion of this case is also interesting. The Canadian Consulate in Beijing posted the court results in English on Sina Weibo, a Twitter equivalent in China, but was deleted two days later, presumably not by the original posters. A link was posted to direct readers to the court ruling, and this was also deleted. Here is the court ruling, in full. This court ruling was somewhat difficult to find for me, being inconveniently not indexed by Google. Still I was able to find this Federal Court decision online and in full. The contrast between the Chinese and Canadian legal systems has never been more striking.

I am unsure why the Great Wall of China and censors would want to delete content from a Sina Weibo account, even though it is still available and easily read on the Internet. Would not greater openness show the fairness of the Chinese legal system? I am unsure. The contrast of legal systems has been noted by mainstream media. While mainstream media reported on the Federal Court ruling, none cited the original document. The original document is an interesting read.

I am skeptical of the Chinese Government’s assurances of fair treatment, but realize that incarceration and the legal systems have many differences between China and Canada. While I doubt China will publicly execute him, there is no guarantee of any other human right. Different countries have their different laws.

Federal Court / Cour fédérale

Date: 20110721
Docket: IMM-4373-11
Citation: 2011 FC 915

Ottawa, Ontario, July 21, 2011

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

BETWEEN:

LAI CHEONG SING
Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondents

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

I. Overview
[1] The detention of an individual in a society and the reasons for such detention constitute a means by which to analyze the nature of justice or the lack thereof in that society.

[2] Just as a society can be judged by history in its application of the rule of law and due process, so can it also be judged by the evidence of its prison conditions and detention facilities.

[3] The rule of law and due process are the hallmarks of the values which Canada cherishes. Although the cost of such are high, they are no higher than the very values for which Canada strives and holds dear.

[4] For Canada, as per the jurisprudence pleaded, democracy is a constant work in progress for which it strives. Its values, enshrined in its Constitution, with its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, are a bulwark against a tide of pressure held back mindfully and steadfastly by the executive and legislative branches of government as policy and legislation, respectively (as demonstrated in all of the previous proceedings in this case) and, as nothing more than but simply interpreted by the judicial branch of government. These are the rudiments or the very leitmotif for which Canada stands, not as a cosmetic throw-away for public relations purposes, chosen at a whim as demonstrated in regard to evidence in respect of certain countries, for certain ends, for which the costs are always calculated but the values of which are either ignored or forgotten.

[5] The evidence before the Court demonstrates that China’s treatment of Tibetan monks and nuns (whose leader, the Dalai Lama received an honorary Canadian Citizenship as conceived and presented by the executive and legislative branches of this government), that of 2010, recent Nobel Peace Prize winner in detention, Mr. Liu Xiaobo (whose treatment, in his prison cell, in serving an eleven-year sentence for subversion, has only slightly improved after receiving the prize), Falun Gong and certain Christian practitioners and those of other religions, as well as common criminals, are all subject to similar treatment. They are detained together indiscriminately. All of which is accepted as emanating from recognized governmental and non-governmental sources.

[6] It is for these reasons that Canada requested strict, clear and unequivocal assurances from the Chinese Government in respect of the Applicant, Cheong Sing Lai, a fugitive from the Chinese justice system, who has been in Canada since 1999 and who is now under a deportation order. These assurances have now been received. It is assumed that the assurances of the Chinese Government, as per its written promises, will be kept, as the Chinese Government’s honour and face is, and will be, bound and kept respectively, by the monitoring for the lifetime of the Applicant and, eventually, in time to come, in the reason for his eventual passing, as to whether it be natural or otherwise, recognizing fully well, the age and current state of health of the Applicant (as per medical monitoring measures, also outlined in the assurances).

[7] In regard to the validity of the assurances of the Chinese Government, a proverb often related in ancient China puts it well.

[8] A child, who, once, wanted to outwit his teacher, asked his teacher, “Is the bird which I have in my hand alive or dead?” The child thought if the teacher answered, “The bird is alive”, he would crush the bird; and, if the teacher would say it is dead, he would let it live. The teacher answered with a great understanding for both the child and the bird, “The life of the bird is in your hands, my child”.

[9] So it is with the Chinese Government’s assurances. The life of the Applicant is in the Chinese Government’s hands. The outcome remains to be seen as with the bird. The assurances are present. A new contractual government to government climate has been created by the assurances. They augur hope for a different way to be taken, in a newly unfolded path to which the Chinese Government’s signature has been officially affixed for the commitments undertaken. The future, yet, to be seen by both countries and others, will stand as witness to the outcome.

II. Introduction
[10] The Applicant is a criminal fugitive from the Chinese justice system and has been in Canada since August 1999. The Convention Refugee Determination Division [CRDD] found that the Applicant is excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” by Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention and is not a “Convention refugee” (CRDD decision, undisturbed by the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and leave denied by the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC]). The Applicant applied for a limited Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] as a person in need of protection on the grounds set out in subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The first PRRA decision was set aside by this Court and sent back for re-determination. On July 7, 2011, a Minister’s delegate determined that the Applicant is not a person in need of protection. The Applicant is now scheduled to be removal ready from Canada on July 22, 2011. The Applicant seeks an Order staying his removal from Canada.

[11] The Respondents oppose this application to stay the execution of the deportation order. The Court agrees with the position of the Respondents only due to the Chinese Government’s recent diplomatic assurances to the Canadian executive branch of government. The Applicant did not, in his particular case, establish the necessary criteria to obtain a stay of execution of the deportation order.

[12] In particular, due to the assurances of the Chinese Government, the Applicant has not raised a serious issue with respect to the PRRA decision. The Minister’s delegate reasonably determined that, based on extensive review of country condition documents, evidence relating specifically to the Applicant, the diplomatic note and extraordinary written assurances provided by the Government of China to the Government of Canada (which the Canadian government authorities also understand as ensuring that the Applicant lives out his lifespan, neither tortured nor killed; thus, an undertaking for years to come) ensure that the agreement keeps face with its official promises. According to the assurances, the Minister’s delegate believes that the Applicant will not be executed or have his death arranged while detained or imprisoned in China, and is not at risk of torture, cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

[13] With respect to irreparable harm, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate a risk based irreparable harm. His allegation of risk of return to China was extensively considered in his refugee claim before the CRDD, the subsequent judicial reviews and appeals of the CRDD decision and the PRRA determination.

[14] The balance of convenience favours the Minister in view of the statutory mandate to enforce removal orders as soon as reasonably practicable. The Applicant is a fugitive from justice who has been in Canada since 1999.

III. Background
[15] Mr. Lai Cheong Sing, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was born on September 15, 1958.

[16] In early 1999, Chinese authorities received information that a large-scale smuggling operation was taking place in the city of Xiamen in Fujian province. As a result, the Chinese authorities conducted an investigation called the “4-20 Investigation” and discovered a massive smuggling operation allegedly headed by Mr. Lai, his wife, Ming Na Tsang, and the Yuan Hua group of companies.

[17] On August 14, 1999, upon learning that the Chinese authorities were looking for them, the Lai family fled China and travelled to Canada on Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports. The Lai family entered Canada as visitors with status.

[18] In June 2000, Mr. Lai and his family made refugee claims at an in-land Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC] office in Vancouver. Their refugee claims were referred to the CRDD.

[19] On September 18, 2000, a conditional Departure Order was issued against Mr. Lai.

[20] On June 21, 2002, the CRDD determined that Mr. Lai and his family were not Convention refugees under the former Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I-2, after a lengthy hearing of the refugee claim over a period of 45 days. The CRDD found Mr. Lai excluded from the definition of Convention refugee by Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention as there are serious grounds for believing that he has committed serious non-political crimes in China of bribery, large scale smuggling, fraud and tax evasion. The CRDD also considered “inclusion” and determined that Mr. Lai did not meet the definition of Convention refugee.

[21] Mr. Lai filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the CRDD decision. On February 3, 2004, Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court upheld the CRDD decision and dismissed Mr. Lai’s application for judicial review (2004 FC 179). On April 11, 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Lai’s appeal of Justice MacKay’s decision (2004 FCA 125). Mr. Lai’s application for leave to appeal to the SCC was dismissed on September 1, 2005 (SCC File No. 30988).

[22] On November 10, 2005, Mr. Lai made an application for a PRRA under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

[23] On March 15, 2006, the PRRA Officer rendered a decision. As this was the first time Mr. Lai had an application for that of a protected person under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, the Minister’s delegate considered all of the evidence before the CRDD and Mr. Lai’s PRRA submissions. The Minister’s delegate refused the PRRA application and determined that Mr. Lai is not a person in need of protection.

[24] Mr. Lai filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA decision in Federal Court. On June 1, 2006, Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson granted the stay of removal pending the outcome of the judicial review application of the PRRA decision (2006 FC 672).

[25] On April 5, 2007, Justice Yves de Montigny of the Federal Court allowed Mr. Lai’s application for judicial review of the PRRA decision. The PRRA decision was set aside and sent back for a re-determination by a new Minister’s delegate (2007 FC 361).

[26] In May 2009, Ms. Tsang departed Canada voluntarily and returned to China. All of Mr. Lai’s children, Chun-Chun, Chun Wai and Ming Ming also departed Canada in April 2009 and February 2010 and November 26, 2010 respectively. The PRRA applications of Chun-Chun and Chun Wai were declared abandoned.

[27] By decision, dated July 7, 2011, a Minister’s delegate refused Mr. Lai’s PRRA application and determined that he was not, on a balance of probabilities a person in need of protection, and unlikely to be subjected to cruel, unusual punishment or treatment or torture.

[28] On July 8, 2011, Mr. Lai was served with the PRRA decision and reasons and notified by the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] that his removal would take place shortly.

[29] Mr. Lai’s removal was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, July 12, 2011; an interim stay was granted until July 22, 2011, at noon (Vancouver time), by Order of Justice Michel Beaudry, dated July 11, 2011.

IV. Issues
[30] To obtain a stay of removal, an applicant must establish all three prongs as set out in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302, 11 ACWS (3d) 440 (FCA):

1. whether there is a serious question to be determined by the Court;
2. whether an applicant seeking the stay would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted; and
3. whether, on the balance of convenience, an applicant seeking the stay will suffer the greater harm from the refusal to grant the stay.

[31] The test for a stay is conjunctive and an applicant must satisfy each branch of this tri-partite test.

V. Analysis
A. Serious Issue
[32] Mr. Lai has raised the following issues in the underlying judicial review application of the PRRA decision:

a) An apprehension of bias;

b) Minister’s delegate’s findings regarding the diplomatic assurance and compliance mechanisms were unreasonable.

a) No Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

[33] Mr. Lai argues that the decision-maker is not an officer of the PRRA unit but a “Minister’s delegate” and, therefore, is not independent from the Minister.

[34] Pursuant to section 6 of the IRPA, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has delegated PRRA Officers and certain officials of CIC at National Headquarters, including the Director of Case Determination, to make PRRA decisions. The decision-maker in Mr. Lai’s PRRA application is the Director, Case Determination of the Case Management Branch at the National Headquarters of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC – Instrument of Designation and Delegation, Operational Manual, IL3, Column 52).

[35] The Minister’s delegate considered Mr. Lai’s submissions on bias and determined that she would be assessing and weighing all of the information before her based on her own independent decision-making with an open mind.

[36] The test for a reasonable apprehension of bias, set out in Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically, and practically – and having thought the matter through, would conclude, that it is more likely than not, that the Minister’s delegate decided Mr. Lai’s PRRA fairly.

[37] An informed person, after reading the reasons setting out the delegate’s independent analysis, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that the Minister’s delegate decided Mr. Lai’s PRRA application fairly; the Minister’s delegate considered Mr. Lai’s submissions, examined and analyzed the evidence, and had arrived at an independent decision; and, certainly, did not mince words in regard to her reflections on the Chinese legal system as per the evidence before her.

b) PRRA Findings Were Reasonable

[38] The standard of review for PRRA decisions when considered in their entirety is that of reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR 339).

[39] The nature of the decision of a Minister’s delegate warrants significant deference on judicial review. Where there is nothing unreasonable in the PRRA decision, there will be no serious issue for the purposes of a stay application. In this case, the Minister’s delegate’s decision was reasonable and does not warrant intervention by this Court (Tharumarasah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 211 at para 6; Bhalru v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1259 at para 24).

[40] As held by Justice Yvon Pinard in Weerasinghe v MCI, (January 22, 2004) IMM-10240-03, in order for a Court to substitute its assessment of risk for that of previous decision-makers, an applicant must provide clear and convincing evidence which would suggest that the Court ought to engage in this exercise. The same logic applies to a Minister’s delegate. Mr. Lai has not provided clear and convincing evidence of error and, therefore, has not raised a serious issue. Mr. Lai is ultimately asking this Court to substitute its opinion on risk for that of the Minister’s delegate. Absent compelling evidence due to the Chinese Government’s specific assurances accepted by the Minister’s delegate as valid, the Court will not do so.

[41] In assessing the application, the Minister’s delegate has set out how she considered the evidence and the conclusions that she drew from it. Her reasons are clear and also indicate that she did not fetter her discretion. She unmitigatedly described the Chinese legal system in regard to the matter in very clear and unequivocal terms, excerpts of which are quoted and discussed below.

[42] Mr. Lai argues that the serious issue raised in the underlying judicial review application is whether the Minister’s delegate’s findings are reasonable regarding the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the diplomatic assurances that the Applicant will not be tortured and whether those mechanisms are adequate.

[43] The Minister’s delegate considered and weighed all of the evidence before her; she considered the issue of whether it is more likely than not that Mr. Lai would be subjected to torture or mistreatment in China. The Minister’s delegate referred to the expert evidence as well as country condition documents. She found that the Chinese authorities in this case would not find it necessary or desirable to subject Mr. Lai to torture after his return to China.

[44] In her reasons, the Minister’s delegate, herself, specifically, made the following findings regarding the assurances against torture:

i. Assurances against torture contained in March 2011 would not be adequate in circumstances where authorities would otherwise rely heavily on the practice of torture as the United Nations Special Rapporteur has indicated that only assurances that include invasive monitoring and apply to a whole prison population would be sufficient; however, Mr. Lai does not find himself in circumstances where authorities would otherwise rely on the practice of torture;

ii. Criminal Procedure in China is flawed by Canadian and international standards, but has improved significantly since the changes to criminal procedure of the late 1990s. In Mr. Lai’s case the March 2010 specific assurances provide some additional safeguards which will help to ensure that Mr. Lai is treated in a manner that would not shock the conscience of Canadians; (It is recognized by the Court that Mr. Lai’s brother Lai Shui Quiang, and his accountant, Chen Zencheng, died in prison of unexplained causes.)

iii. A life sentence for Mr. Lai would not shock the conscience of Canadians, be degrading to human dignity or be disproportionate to a valid social aim and consequently would not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Reported prison conditions, in and of themselves, do not amount to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; (The Minister’s delegate was reflecting on the Chinese Government’s assurances in this regard.)

iv. Mr. Lai is unlikely to be tortured because he does not belong to a vulnerable group, because disincentives to torture exist in Chinese law, because torture does not appear to have occurred to other Yuan Hua group accused and because of the late stage of the investigation of his crimes. Mr. Lai is also unlikely to have his death “arranged” while detained/incarcerated;

v. Mr. Lai will not be executed should he be returned to China and is unlikely to have his death arranged while detained or in prison. On a balance of probabilities, Mr. Lai is unlikely to be subjected to cruel, unusual punishment or treatment, or tortured.

[45] The US Department of State – 2010 Human Rights Report: China, is subsequently quoted in the reasons of the Minister’s delegate at page 59:

Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and criminal offenders were generally harsh and often degrading. Prisoners and detainees were regularly housed in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation. Inadequate prison capacity remained a problem in some areas. Food often was inadequate and of poor quality, and many detainees relied on supplemental food and medicines provided by relatives. Some prominent dissidents were not allowed to receive such goods. Adequate, timely medical care for prisoners remained a serious problem, despite official assurances that prisoners have the right to prompt medical treatment.

Article 53 of the Prison Law mandates that a prison shall be ventilated, allow for natural light, and be clean and warm. However, in many cases there were inadequate provisions for sanitation, ventilation, heating, lighting, basic and emergency medical care, and access to potable water.

Forced labor remained a serious problem in penal institutions. Many prisoners and detainees in penal and RTL [re-education through labour] facilities were required to work, often with no remuneration. Information about prisons, including associated labor camps and factories, was considered a state secret.

[46] There are no special institutions for political or religious prisoners. Nowhere does the country condition information suggest otherwise. Political prisoners and those interned for religious practice and common criminals are all housed in the same institutions.

[47] The sourcing of the US Department of State Report is indicated in the Overview to the Country Reports. That Overview states:

The Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international organizations, and published reports. The initial drafts of the individual country reports were prepared by U.S. diplomatic missions abroad, drawing on information they gathered throughout the year from a variety of sources, including government officials, jurists, the armed forces, journalists, human rights monitors, academics, and labor activists. This information gathering can be hazardous, and U.S. Foreign Service personnel regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse, monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk, such as political dissidents and human rights defenders whose rights are threatened by their governments.

Once the initial drafts of the individual country reports were completed, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in cooperation with other Department of State offices, worked to corroborate, analyze, and edit the reports, drawing on their own sources of information. These sources included reports provided by U.S. and other human rights groups, foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations and other international and regional organizations and institutions, experts from academia, and the media. Bureau officers also consulted experts on worker rights, refugee issues, military and police topics, women’s issues, and legal matters, among may others. The guiding principle was to ensure that all information was assessed objectively, thoroughly, and fairly.

(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/frontmatter/154328.htm).

[48] The US Department of State Report then is multi-sourced. The authors of the US Report would have taken into account the UN Report. The Report of the UN Special Rapporteur, in contrast, is single-sourced. The UN Special Rapporteur was reporting only what he saw on his pre-arranged visits to ten facilities. The UN Special Rapporteur was not reporting on prison conditions generally but only on that which he was shown; thus, what he specifically “found” at the ten facilities to which he had made pre-arranged visits. The Minister’s delegate preferred single source information (Decision at p 58). Yet, nevertheless, the assurances in themselves are a counterweight on which the Minister’s delegate reflected in her decision.

[49] As is discussed in the written material of the Applicant, the detention facilities and treatment of prisoners of the following groups are similar to the treatment of common criminals: Tibetan monks and nuns, the current, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and other religious practitioners. External monitoring of Chinese detention facilities is not permitted except through pre-arranged visits, and China does not publish information in respect of its detention facilities. Prisoners, once released, are reticent to speak of prison conditions while in China for fear of revictimization. No evidence indicates that there are separate detention facilities for any of the groups listed. All prisoners are housed together indiscriminately, and, therefore, all, are subject to the same conditions.

[50] Based on a review of country condition documents, the Minister’s delegate found that certain vulnerable groups were disproportionately affected with respect to incidents of torture in detention which is not uniform across the prison population. These vulnerable groups or “typology of victims of alleged torture and ill-treatment” were identified by the Special Rapporteur on torture as Tibetans, Uighurs, political dissidents, human rights defenders, Falun Gong practitioners, sex workers, and other persons (HIV/AIDS infected persons and members of religious groups) (Decision at pp 63-64; Excerpt from Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Decision at p 69-71).

[51] The Minister’s delegate also assessed the treatment and torture of “common criminals”, since Mr. Lai does not fall into one of the “vulnerable groups”. The Minister’s delegate found that, during times of police crack downs on crime, there are increased reports of torture to coerce confessions. The Minister’s delegate also found that the main motivation behind torture of criminals appears to be at the investigation stage to force a confession instead of obtaining other types of evidence (Decision at p 67).

Diplomatic assurances
a) Torture

[52] The Minister’s delegate accepts that the diplomatic assurances, even as renegotiated, would not be sufficient in themselves to remove the likelihood of torture. She writes: “these assurances do fall short of a thorough monitoring mechanism necessary to ensure an inmate is not mistreated in custody where those in authority are determined to do the inmate harm” (Decision at p 39). She later writes that it is the access of Canadian officials to the cell of the Applicant promised in the diplomatic assurances, that “would mitigate any risk of abuse” [Emphasis added] (Decision at p 51).

[53] In regard to torture, the delegate finds, on a balance of probabilities, it is unlikely to occur. She makes this finding not based on the assurances alone, but based on other evidence as well. Nonetheless, assurances form part of the consideration. The assurances in her view do not ensure that there will be no abuse, but they do significantly mitigate the risk of abuse.

[54] The above issue was raised in a certified question by Justice de Montigny: “If there is a risk of torture in an individual case, what are the requirements that an assurance against torture should fulfill to make that risk less likely than not?” As one can see, one answer the Minister’s delegate gave to that question was cell visits. Cell visits then do diminish the risk of torture recognizing the word, honour and face of the Chinese Government is on the line.

b) The Death Penalty and Fair Trial

The assurance of Court attendance

[55] The Minister’s delegate relied on the assurances for the procedural safeguards which the Chinese Government provided. She wrote: “these assurances are most valuable in terms of the procedural safeguards they provide Mr. Lai … I note that criminal procedures, similar to the commitment on death penalty, are more easily verifiable as compared to whether or not torture has taken place” (Decision at p 40).

[56] The notion that criminal procedures or the death penalty are easily verifiable is difficult to ascertain. The death penalty and criminal procedure assurances suffer from the fact that the courts in China are not public and Canada cannot do otherwise but solely rely on these rare exceptional assurances that have the commitment of the Chinese Government.

[57] It is recognized that a judgment by the Supreme Court of China, that a person sentenced to death, is not issued as a public document; nor is the actual execution of the sentence. The country condition information shows that death penalty statistics in China are shrouded in secrecy. Many non-governmental organizations and governments have called on China to make available death penalty statistics. Such calls would be unnecessary if Supreme Court death sentences were issued in public documents. If they were public documents, death penalty statistics could be calculated simply by tabulating Supreme Court judgments.

[58] According to the Minister’s delegate, the assurances provide “[p]ermission for a Canadian Embassy or Consular official to be present at his hearing” (Decision at p 50). What the assurances actually specify is that “[w]hen the court holds open hearings of LAI Changxing’s criminal case of alleged smuggling under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Canadian side may send embassy or consular officials resident in China to attend the hearings” (Decision at p 14).

[59] The Minister’s delegate accepts the argument that a monitoring mechanism for torture is necessary because torture happens behind closed doors.

[60] The revised assurances from the Government of China do not say that Canadian embassy or consular officials will be given permission to attend the trial of Mr. Lai, but only that these officials will be given permission to attend “open hearings” of the criminal case of Mr. Lai. The Government of China could declare the trial of Mr. Lai closed, deny access to Canadian officials and respect the assurances; however, the assurances, received as valid by the Minister’s delegate are accepted as substantial in that the Chinese Government, according to the Minister’s delegate’s decision, will allow the necessary monitoring of Mr. Lai while he is in detention (Decision at p 14).

[61] The Minister’s delegates writes: “there is the possibility that Mr. Lai’s case could be characterized as a “state secrets” case” but fails to draw the consequence from that conclusion that Canadian officials would not be able to rely on the assurances to sit in on his trial (Decision at p 53).

The assurance of access to a lawyer

[62] A primary challenge Mr. Lai faces in respect of a fair trial in China is finding a lawyer willing, and able, to take instructions from him. He can find a lawyer; however, that lawyer will be instructed by the Communist Party and not Mr. Lai. Without the Chinese Government’s assurances, if a lawyer, bold enough to take the position that Mr. Lai would want him to take, would find himself in a potential precarious situation; and, again, it is only due to reliance on the specific assurances that the Minister’s delegate does find adequacy, recognizing the significant nature of the Chinese Government’s specific commitment to Canadian Government authorities in this regard.

[63] This case has been highly politicized, generating many statements over the years by Chinese political leaders. These statements have assumed the guilt of Mr. Lai. The political leaders of China consider Mr. Lai to be the country’s number one fugitive and, it is assumed that all the evidence will be brought forward due to the assurances given to the Canadian executive branch which is deemed acceptable to the Minister’s delegate.

[64] The reasoning of the Minister’s delegate that Mr. Lai would get a fair trial is predicated on a conclusion of his guilt. The Minister’s delegate reasons: “I acknowledge that politically-directed verdicts can be a problem in China but in Mr. Lai’s case there would appear to be no need for the government/the “Party” to direct a verdict. The evidence of criminality, as accumulated by the 4-20 investigators is significant” [Emphasis added] (Decision at p 52).

[65] The response of the Minister’s delegate to the submissions of counsel that a lawyer for Mr. Lai in China will not be able, at trial, for political reasons, to raise the defenses Mr. Lai wishes to raise the following. She writes: “if Mr. Lai is returned to China he will most likely be convicted of bribery and smuggling” (Decision at p 52). Although the notion that only the innocent need fair trials is untenable, it is again, due to the extraordinary assurances in this specific case that it is acceptable to the Minister’s delegate, on account of the Chinese Government’s commitments on this core issue.

[66] This Court did review the Minister’s delegate’s reasons in their entirety with a view to understanding what the Minister’s delegate decided. The Federal Court of Appeal emphasized this point recently in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Ragupathy, 2006 FCA 151, [2007] FCR 490:

[15] Although trite, it is also important to emphasize that a reviewing court should be realistic in determining if a tribunal’s reasons meet the legal standard of adequacy. Reasons should be read in their entirety, not parsed closely, clause by clause, for possible errors or omissions; they should be read with a view to understanding, not to puzzling over every possible inconsistency, ambiguity or infelicity of expression.

B. Irreparable Harm

[67] In order to satisfy the second branch of the Toth test, the onus is on an applicant to establish the existence of risk of harm that is not speculative or based on a series of possibilities. An applicant must satisfy the Court that the harm will occur if the relief sought is not granted (Molnar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 325 at para 15; Akyol v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 931 at para 7).

[68] Mr. Lai has failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm if he were returned to China. He argues the following irreparable harm:

a) The serious issues raised in the underlying PRRA judicial review application is linked to the irreparable harm; and

b) The same allegations of risk of harm put forth in his PRRA application.

a) No Serious Issue to Establish Irreparable Harm

[69] Mr. Lai links his “irreparable harm” argument to having established a serious issue in regard to risk, and as he has not established a serious issue, his irreparable harm argument fails due to the specific assurances which, to the Minister’s delegate, are assurance enough as they are interpreted as safeguards.

[70] Irreparable harm does not automatically follow that of a serious issue, if a serious issue is established in the case of a PRRA judicial review application. In Onojaefe, the Court held that the simple presence of a serious issue arising out of a risk assessment in a PRRA is not automatically determinative of the issue of irreparable harm. The serious issue identified may not necessarily meet the test for irreparable harm, and deference is owed to the Minister’s delegate, trier of fact, with respect to risk (Onojaefe v MCI (May 10, 2006) IMM-2294-06 at paras 13-16).

[71] Even if this Court were to find there is a serious issue to be tried, the Court would then have to consider whether that serious issue raises clear and convincing evidence (not speculative based on a series of possibilities) that Mr. Lai would suffer irreparable harm if removed to China at this time. None of the issues, due to the Chinese Government assurances, raised by Mr. Lai, amount to clear and convincing proof of risk necessary to support the “irreparable harm” portion of the tri-partite test for a stay.

b) Alleged Risk of Return to China

[72] With respect to the alleged risk of return to China, Mr. Lai has made the same allegations of risk in his refugee claim before the CRDD and PRRA application. The CRDD finding was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The SCC denied Mr. Lai’s application for leave. This Court has held that an applicant’s narrative that the CRDD has found to be not credible, cannot then serve as the basis for an argument supporting irreparable harm. Mr. Lai has provided no evidence in support of his stay motion that he would now be at risk upon return to China, due to the specific assurances provided (Molnar, above, at para 15; Akyol, above, at para 7; Nalliah v Canada (Solicitor General), 2004 FC 1649, [2005] 3 FCR 210 at para 27).

[73] Furthermore, it is apparent that Mr. Lai has been negotiating his return to China with the Chinese authorities. This willingness to engage in negotiations to return to China belies the alleged risk of return to China.

C. Balance of Convenience

[74] The balance of convenience in this case favours the Respondents. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is mandated by statute to enforce the removal order as soon as reasonably practicable. Mr. Lai is also under a statutory obligation to leave Canada immediately once the removal is enforceable (subsection 48(2) of the IRPA).

[75] The IRPA (s 48) requires that the Minister of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness enforce a removal order as soon as is reasonably practicable (Akyol, above, at para 12). Only in exceptional circumstances will a person’s interests outweigh the public interest. As the Federal Court of Appeal in Tesoro v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 148, [2005] 4 FCR 210, recently explained: “[i]f the administration of immigration law is to be credible, the prompt removal of those ordered deported must be the rule, and the grant of a stay pending the disposition of legal proceedings, the exception” (Decision at para 47).

[76] Mr. Lai arrived in Canada in August 1999 and has remained here since. He has had full access to Canada’s immigration processes and has been found to be excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” and is “not a person in need of protection”. The CRDD conducted an extensive hearing into his refugee claim and concluded on June 21, 2001 that he was excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” by Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention for there are serious reasons for considering that he committed the serious non-political crimes of large scale bribery and smuggling outside Canada before he was admitted to Canada. The CRDD decision was upheld by the Federal Court on March 19, 2004 and the Federal Court of Appeal on April 11, 2005, with leave to appeal dismissed by the SCC on September 1, 2005. Mr. Lai submitted his PRRA application to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Minister’s delegate carefully considered his application and provided a thorough, well-reasoned PRRA decision on July 7, 2011.

[77] In Mr. Lai’s situation, his family members, who accompanied him to Canada, have already returned to China voluntarily.

[78] A stay of removal is an “exceptional remedy”. In Tesero, above, Justice John Maxwell Evans heard a stay of removal in the Federal Court of Appeal and held that if he had determined that the removal of this serious criminal would cause “irreparable harm” for reason of family separation (which he did not find), then he would have dismissed the stay for having failed the arm of the “balance of convenience test” for prompt removal must be the rule, and the granting of a stay, the exception. Justice Evans held:

[47] … if I had determined that Mr. Tesoro’s removal would cause irreparable harm, on the ground that the effects of family separation were more than mere inconveniences, I would have located the harm at the less serious end of the range, and concluded that, on the balance of convenience, it was outweighed by the public interest in the prompt removal from Canada of those found to be inadmissible for serious criminality. If the administration of immigration law is to be credible, the prompt removal of those ordered deported must be the rule, and the grant of a stay pending the disposition of legal proceedings, the exception.

[79] Mr. Lai is a common criminal fugitive from the Chinese justice system who has had full access to Canada’s immigration processes over the last eleven years and has been found not to be at risk if removed to China on the basis of extraordinary assurances received and held as valid by the Minister’s delegate; therefore, the balance of convenience does not favour further delaying his removal, but favours removing him at this time (Selliah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 261 at paras 21-22).

VI. Conclusion
[80] Due to the Chinese Government’s assurances and the reasons for acceptance of those assurances by the Minister’s delegate, Mr. Lai has failed to satisfy any of the three criteria of the Toth test required for an order to stay the execution of a valid deportation order issued against him, the stay is dismissed.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay be dismissed.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4373-11

STYLE OF CAUSE: CHEONG SING LAI v

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINSITER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

MOTION HELD VIA TELECONFERENCE ON JULY 21, 2011 FROM OTTAWA, ONTARIO AND VANCOUVER, B.C.

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER: SHORE J.

DATED: July 21, 2011

ORAL AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

David Matas

FOR THE APPLICANT

Helen Park

Jan Brongers

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
David Matas, Solicitor
Winnipeg, Manitoba

FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec

The Wong or Huang family crest approved and recognized by the Canadian Government

In yet another display of cross cultural friendliness the Canadian Government has officially approved the coat of arms for the surname “Wong” in Cantonese, or “Huang” in Mandarin. These are cultural displays of affection that bring Canada and China together. I wholeheartedly approve.

Wong or Huang is the seventh most common Chinese surname according to the 2006 census. There are a lot of Huangs in the world, and not they have a legitimate Canadian coat of arms or family crest.

The Canadian Heraldic Authority is part of the office of the Governor General which has the power to grant armourial bearings in Canada. source

The Governor General of Canada (French [masculine]: Gouverneur général du Canada, or [feminine]: Gouverneure générale du Canada) is the federal viceregal representative of the Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. As the sovereign is shared equally with 15 other independent countries in a form of personal union, as well as with the ten other jurisdictions of Canada, and resides predominantly in her oldest realm, the United Kingdom, she, on the advice of her Canadian prime minister only,[1] appoints the governor general to carry out most of her constitutional and ceremonial duties for an unfixed period of time—known as serving at Her Majesty’s pleasure—though five years is the normal convention. Also traditional is a rotation between anglophone and francophone incumbents. Once in office, the governor general maintains direct contact with the Queen, wherever she may be at the time. source

I think the crest is quite lovely looking, taking queues from both Canadian and Chinese tradition. Kudos to the Wong Association of Ontario for their hard work. The Panda, Dragon and Phoenix represents China and the Polar Bear, Rocky Mountains and red maple leaves represents Canada. The phoenix is holding a mace. There is a predominance of red and yellow.

The Chinese phoenix is a symbol of peace and prosperity. The mace held by the phoenix honours members who served in the Canadian Armed forces or elected office. The panda’s pickaxe represents those who worked in BC’s gold mines. The bear’s hammer honours those who worked on the Canadian National Railway. Waves at the bottom represent water and migration.

Addendum: Canadian Wongs get their own crest I could not find a web site when I posted this article and I cannot find one now. They do have an address and a phone number: Wong Kung Har Wun Sun Association, 303 Spadina Ave, Toronto, ON M5T 2E6, Canada, 416) 977-3426. Gordon Wong is the chairman. Just make sure you have the right Chinese character. There are two common surnames for “Wong”: Yellow (now with the above crest), and King. Make sure you are the right Wong and not the wrong Wong.

Freshly squeezed orange juice is so much better, and way more expensive, than tetrapacked or frozen

Growing up, orange juice was a valued commodity in our family, in that it was rare on our table. Orange juice was expensive to buy and my family could not afford it on a regular basis. While we were “encouraged” to drink water in actuality we had no choice. For this reason, I provide orange and apple juice to our Little Weeds. To me orange juice is a daily reminder of the importance of the small things in life. In a revelation of sorts I set up a taste test of freshly squeezed vs cartoned orange juice (OJ) for the Little Weeds. It was no surprise that they were able to identify which one was freshly squeezed, and also no surprise which one they preferred. Freshly squeezed orange juice is so much better in taste than cartoned orange juice. You really cannot believe all the marketing and packaging of products, as they can warp your life perspective.

The randomness of life continues. I happened upon a glass juicer on sale at a garage sale here in Scarborough/Toronto, Canada. With no moving parts and all glass construction, this tool screams “old school”. A couple of months before on a whim we purchased a plastic juicer, where the freshly squeezed juice runs down to a cup attached below. It is difficult to wash and just Ok to use. The glass version is much simpler, does the job and is easier to wash. Simple but effective, is this glass juicer, just the way I like it.

The Little Weed could not wait to get home to try it. As we usually have fresh oranges in the house, he was soon happily grinding orange halves into juice. It is hard work. Two oranges, with some effort, yields a delicious cup of freshly squeezed orange juice. The taste and quality simply cannot be matched when compared to any packaged orange juice in the grocery store, no matter how fancy the packaging. The taste is in the tongue, unequivocally, and with certainty.

My lesson to the Little Weeds were many. Firstly, there is value in some of the old ways. Modern is not necessarily better. While cartoned OJ is convenient and available year round, there has always been a better product out there, known to everyone from the beginning of time. Oranges picked off the tree, cut into halves and squeezed will give you a much superior product.

Quality has its costs, one of which is increased effort. In this modern age of convenience, some kids will not make any type of significant effort. If it is too hard, takes too long or takes too much effort, they would rather do without. I suppose there have always been these types of personalities, but this has never and will never be tolerated in this family. The Little Weed takes the time and effort to manually juice two oranges in order to get a cup of OJ because he feels it is worthwhile. I as a parent can spout whatever parental verbiage until my mouth runs dry, and without a positive outcome, but he must convince himself. Freshly squeezed OJ has done this for him. I do help him by washing the oranges and halving them, and cleaning up after, be he does the squeezing.

This is not to say that cartoned OJ does not have its place, as it clearly is popular with our family. Squeezing OJ takes time, which cannot be done in the morning. It is so convenient to open a carton and pour.

There is also a increased cost for fresh OJ. On sale, a 1.8L carton of OJ will cost ~$2.00CAD, or $1.10CAD/L. Our local Chinese grocery store sells a 5lb bag of Florida oranges for $3.00CAD or $0.60CAD per pound. One 5lb bag give us about 12 oranges, or 6 cups of squeezed OJ. One cup of squeezed OJ is about 200ml, so 6 cups gives us 1.2L, or $2.5CAD/L. Freshly squeezed OJ is therefore 2.3 times more expensive than cartoned OJ on sale, and you have to take the time and effort to squeeze it yourself. Cartoned OJ is clearly cheaper to serve. This week the 5 lb bag of oranges has increased to $3.60/bag, or $3CAD/litre. Cartoned or frozen OJ can be bought on sale and stored in a freezer for a long time, decreasing the overall unit cost per litre.

I recall working for a high level executive at a large Canadian bank, Jeff Chisholm, who asked for and received a large pitcher of freshly squeezed OJ each and every morning. At the time I found it excessive, but now I see the wisdom of his ways. That only took me a decade! Some lessons come slowly.

On our last trip to China, I also looked for OJ. They also had tetra pack OJ, but the taste was dreadful. It did not taste like OJ at all. I recall making such a judgmental thought and then reminding myself that I was in China and should be happy to find any non-toxic liquid that might proxy for OJ. I would not trust any packaging in China, so we taste and eat everything with some doubt as to its origins.

Links:
-Not so sweet: Even “100 percent pure” orange juice is artificially flavoured
-Frozen Orange Juice Grades in Canada
-Hating Old South Orange Juice New Packaging
-Purchasing Orange Juice for Your Family

The B2M Institute Summer Camp is wildly popular because it is well run, the kids have a great time, it keeps the kids busy from 09:00 to 16:00 and because there is no registration fee. Grants from the Federal government and sponsorship by the Toronto District School Board and others, allows this magic to happen. lunch is provided to all kids, and the food is excellent. Sometimes my Little Weed would return home bragging about the lunch he had at summer camp. Maybe I should up my game plan for family food prep?

As a business analyst I enjoy analyzing the workflow of complex processes, and registration for a summer camp, while seemingly simple, can become complex due to certain human traits, some of them laughable now, but while you are in line they are not as funny. The registration is as follows. Before the end of day school, forms were sent around to parents. Parents were to fill out the form and return them to their public school, where they would be collected. You arrive on the starting day of camp. The organizers have all your info and you’re ready to go.

The intent of the preregistration, I believe is that it simplifies the first day of camp, identifies that only kids that go to the Toronto District School Board get admitted, and it gives the camp organizers precious time and information for forward planning. Registration the start day of camp for over 500 people would be total chaos. The Toronto District School Board is a major sponsor of the camp.

Last year registration took 2.5 hours in a very hot and unventilated high school, even though the kids were preregistered. I was not the only parent grumbling about the lack of organization. They eventually got it right.

This year registration took one hour, and I arrived about 30 minutes before the start of registration. Thus, there has been marked improvement in the registration process since last year. Still this year there were still many issues, some of which are the responsibility of the organizers, Boys 2 Men Institute, and some of which are the responsibility of the parents.

Many kids missed the preregistration of camp, causing havoc in the parking lot. It is difficult to determine on exactly is to blame, so there is blame all around.These issues include:

• Parents not reading the form and following directions: If parents were more interested in their kids and knew about the camp, they would have called the school and ask about the camp in advance. Camp registration forms for the little Weed’s school only went out on the second last day of school, after I called the organizer and asked him how to register. Parents did not read their form, which clearly stated the forms were to be returned to the school. Instead parents brought the form to the first day of camp and are told they would join a waiting list. In actual fact their kids will not attend camp. All 300 spots are already filled with those kids who followed the registration process.
• B2M Institute did not provide sufficient forms for each school and more importantly, did not provide the school administrators with processing instructions. Our school administrator had no clue as to the purpose of the form. no written documentation was provided and administrators were clueless as to the process. Further more, 25 forms for over 180 kids is not sufficient. I had to phone the school, go into the school office, read the form, identify that this was the Boys 2 Men Institute summer sports camp, and phone the camp administrator to seek clarification as to how to register. He asked what school I was calling about, and my call started the ball rolling. A week later and on the second last day of school, forms were sent home to parents. Organizationally, this was too little too late, leaving precious little time for parents to comply.
• The registration form by B2M was clear, easy to fill out and had written processing instructions included. On the negative, when the forms were sent out to parents, this form looked physically different from the first form I filled out, had different schools, but looked like last year’s form. As a parent I was confused enough to contact the B2M administrator yet a second time to ask him if I needed to fill this form out again. Consistency of the form would have been better. The second form was the better, because the form was shorter and left camp instructions for parents (start time and date, location of camp) after the form was ripped off and handed into the school. The first form took up the whole page, was to be completely handed in and left no information about the camp to parents.
• The B2M administrator was quick to return my call and emails. This is very good, and he clarified the process quickly.
• While the camp is held in unilingual English, 95% of attending kids are of Chinese background. Many of these parents do not speak much English and would have difficulty with the form. I, however, do not lay blame on the B2M Institute, but on the parents. We live in Canada. The camp is held in English. Either have the child read the form in English or find someone that can help you with the form. B2M Institute has no moral obligation to translate the form into multiple languages. They are a charity, not the civil service.

Today, the first day of camp and registration day, was more chaotic than necessary. Much of the problem was with the preregistration issues, but many were due to the parents. The B2M Institute handled it as best they could.

• The B2M Institute administrator blocked the door to all parents, letting in only 20 kids and parents at a time. This is excellent crowd control. He also told people trying to cut the queue to line up, at the END of the queue.
• The B2M Institute administrator was collecting forms for all the kids that missed preregistration. This is good because it gave the parents direct feedback, input and acknowledgment that the form was received properly. Parents and kids dispersed, reducing the size of the lineup. Unfortunately he was also telling them that all 300 spots for kids were already filled by preregistered kids.
• The B2M Institute administrator was also trying to explain the process to many parents, but was not able to explain himself because parents largely spoke Chinese and he spoke English. Nor did he acknowledge that there was any language issue. When a Chinese parent offered to translate he stated that no help was necessary. The reality is that not everyone speaks English sufficiently to understand the registration process, so a Chinese translator would have been very helpful.
• With no explanation forthcoming to the Chinese parents that they could understand, Parents with forms in hand continued to stay in line, not knowing that could not register their kids that day. I could see them getting more impatient and angry. A healthy and happy mood there was not.
• Do Chinese people not know how to join a queue? They certainly do. Even with other Chinese parents giving explanation, many Chinese parents tried to jump the queue and push themselves in. Some were able to push themselves in, bypass the B2M Administrator, only to be blocked inside the building because their kids were not preregistered. While I admire their persistence, there was no way their kids were getting in without the proper registration process. Simply being pushy and rude to those around you may work elsewhere.
• The traditional way for Chinese parents to jump the queue is as follows: Look at the line and try to identify a friend. Engage your friend in Chinese. Hopefully your friend will invite you into the line. If others complain that you are queue jumping and they speak to you in English you feign that you do not understand English. If you are told to not queue jump in Chinese, you tell the Chinese person to mind their own business. Because of this Chinese trait the queue gets fatter and more funnel shaped the closer you get to the entry.
• A more innovative way to jump the queue is to engage the B2M Administrator at the door. As he is explaining in English you feign you do not understand and push your way into the line. Once others see that this tactic does work, a flurry of other parents from the queue all try to do the same thing, again making the queue more funnel shaped. While it worked for a few parents, the B2M Administrator wisened up and told these parents to go to the back of the queue.
• I really do not think that language was the issue today. Parents did not or could not preregister their kids, and the result was chaos. A Chinese mob mentality was starting to occur. Selfishness showed its ugly face, as it has for the last 3 years of registration day. We are human.

With a little more forward planning, project management and a touch of Chinese translation the registration process and Registration Day could be more streamlined. Thankfully parents did not revolt, though I know some of them wanted to. Each year gets a little better, but they seem to be a little slow in learning their lessons. While there was a marked improvement over the previous two years, further improvement is required.