Exploding "bath bombs, balls and fizzies"

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that at least 13 people have been injured by exploding bath balls, also knows as bath bombs and bath fizzies.

A buildup of carbon dioxide blows the caps off the jars of Spa Factory's Aromatherapy Fountain kits and Spa Factory's Bath Benefits Kits.

Health Canada acknowledged the products were sold in Canada and are in the process of gathering information and will be issuing instructions for consumers regarding the recall. Both agencies agree that comsumers should stop using the products immediately.

These products were sold between August 2008 and January 2009, at Target, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and toy stores across the U.S. and cost $13 U.S. for the Bath Benefits Kit and between $30 and $50 for the Aromatherapy Fountain.

"The purple caps on the recalled products are found on Spa Factory's Bath Benefits Kit (model 37836), Deluxe Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain (model 37908), Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain (model 37837), Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain (model 54892) and Spa Fantasy Aromatherapy Fountain (model 54857) "

quote source: CBC.ca

The importer of the Chinese product is JAKKS Pacific Inc. of Malibu California and they have recalled 516,000 of the kits so far and are offering replacement caps with vent holes.

CBC.ca goes on to say, "After testing potential solutions, we found that placing two small holes in the caps adequately allows all built up pressure to escape, thereby preventing the caps from flying off," the company said on its website. "

I found the website http://www.jakkspacific.com/ and the Spa Factory section, but didn't find any information about the recall, even when I did several searches on their site using as many key words as I could think of ....

If you've purchased the product or you have questions or concerns'
You may contact the company at — 1-877-875-2557 (toll-free, North America only) or 1-909-594-7771 x560 — Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Pacific Time (GMT – 8), excluding holidays.

You may write to the company at:
JAKKS Pacific, Inc.
21749 Baker Parkway
Walnut, CA 91789

Source: CBC.ca

Canada Garlic Made in China?

After weeks of searching for Canadian garlic instead of the readily available Chinese variety, we were delighted to come across Canada Garlic brand and purchased a 2.2 pound (1 kg) bag.

Today I took a couple of pictures to include in this blog post and discovered that it is actually a product of China.



Here's a bit about Canada Garlic, as posted on their website:
"Canada Garlic is the largest garlic grower, importer, packer, distributor and processor of garlic in Canada." they also state, "Our priority is customer satisfaction and we believe that working hand-in-hand with our customers allows us to better understand and meet or exceed their expectations."

Well, understand this: My expectations are simple. If the product represents itself as a Canadian made or grown item, that is what I am laying my money down for.

A product with the name "Canada Garlic", based in Mississauga, Ontario, with a website called www.GarlicCanada.com, is representing itself as Canadian selling Canadian produce but has the audacity to sell a product of China. I feel deceived, disgusted and outraged that we can't even count on honesty from our produce suppliers.

Buyer beware is the bottom line.

Mailbag Response From Our Readers

January 23, 2009 4:45:11 PM
re: Canada Garlic
http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/products/1774141/Organic_Garlic_Can.html
This didn't come from me but if your interested look more into Canada Garlic. They sell processed product that is "product of Canada" but its all done in China.

February 4, 2009 12:40:32 PM
A reader sent me a message using our contact form, to let me know that I can purchase Canadian garlic from a Saskatchewan company called M & M Garlic. This is their website address: www.MMGarlic.com
Thanks for the information :)

Congratulations Mr. President

Today I witnessed the making of history.
The inauguration of the 44th president of the United States of America and with it, the promise of a new beginning for America and it's northern neighbour, Canada.

"Starting today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America"

President Barack Obama,
Inaugural speach
Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Congratulations President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama

The Walmart Effect

Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs
June 26, 2007 | EPI Issue Brief #235
by Robert E. Scott

China?s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this growing deficit eliminated 1.8 million U.S. jobs (Scott 2007). The world?s biggest retailer, U.S.-based Wal-Mart was responsible for $27 billion in U.S. imports from China in 2006 and 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2006. Wal-Mart?s trade deficit with China alone eliminated nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs in this period.

The manufacturing sector and its workers were hardest hit by the growth of Wal-Mart?s imports. Wal-Mart?s increased trade deficit with China eliminated 133,000 manufacturing jobs, 68% of those jobs lost from Wal-Mart?s imports. Jobs in the manufacturing sector pay higher wages and provide better benefits than most other industries, especially for workers with less than a college education.

China has achieved its rapidly growing trade surpluses by purchasing more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills and other government securities over the past few years in order to artificially and illegally reduce the value of its currency and thereby lower the cost of its exports to the United States and other countries. It has also repressed the labor rights of its workers and suppressed their wages, making its products artificially cheap and further subsidizing its exports. Wal-Mart has aided China?s abuse of labor rights and its violations of internally recognized norms of fair trade behavior by providing a vast and growing conduit for the distribution of artificially cheap and subsidized Chinese exports to the United States.

China trade and U.S. job loss

Exports support jobs in the United States, and imports displace them. However, an increase in exports will not support the creation of new jobs if, for example, a domestic firm exports parts that used to be shipped to a domestic auto assembly plant, and those products are used to build cars that are then sent back to the United States.1 Thus, the net effect of trade flows on employment must be based on an analysis of the trade balance. This Issue Brief calculates the employment impacts of growing trade deficits by using an input-output model that estimates the direct and indirect labor requirements of producing output in a given domestic industry. The model includes 200 U.S. industries, 86 of which are in the manufacturing sector.2

The model estimates the labor that would be required to produce a given volume of exports, and the labor that is displaced when a given volume of imports is substituted for domestic output.3 The job losses presented here represent an estimate of what total employment levels would have been in the absence of growing trade deficits.4

U.S. exports to China in 2001 supported 189,000 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have supported 1,190,000 jobs, as shown in the bottom half of Table 1. Therefore, the $84.1 billion trade deficit in 2001 displaced 1 million jobs in that year. Job displacement rose to 2,763,000 in 2006. Growth in trade deficits with China has reduced demand for goods produced in every region of the United States and has led to job displacement in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Source: Economic Policy Institute

Winter Bites 2009

It’s time to give winter a kick! WindsorEats.com invites you to a week long event, the first of it’s kind in Essex County.

From January 18 to January 24, 2009 diners can visit any Winter Bites participating restaurant and indulge in a 3 course meal of an appetizer, entrée and dessert for only $25.

Each restaurant will offer a unique Winter Bites menu where diners can select from 3 appetizers, 3 entrées and 2 desserts.

Prix-fixe menu events have been done with great success in cities like Chicago, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. It was time to bring that same concept to Windsor.


Participating restaurants include:

Bamboo Catering Co.

Cafe Morena

The Chop House

The Gourmet Emporium

Mancuso's Trattoria

Mazaar Lebanese Cuisine

Mezzo Ristorante & Lounge

Mick's Irish Pub

Per Bacco Ristorante

The Pour House Pub

Thai Silk

Three...A Tasting Bar

World Marathon Ethiopian

WindsorEats is celebrating 5 years of success in 2009 by hosting events throughout the year. Since their launch in June of 2004, WindsorEats.com has become the leading guide to food and dining in Windsor and Essex County promoting all the region has to offer to thousands of visitors every month, throughout the world.

So get out, kick those winter blues in the butt and head out for Winter Bites for great deals at great restaurants!

Reservations are recommended to ensure a seating upon your arrival. The $25 3-course meal is per person and does not include beverages, taxes or tip.

Visit http://www.windsoreats.com/winterbites

Is Corporate Canada Being Hollowed Out?

Mergers and acquisitions
Is corporate Canada being 'hollowed out'?
Last Updated May 27, 2007
CBC News

The recent spate of foreign takeovers of familiar Canadian companies has turned up the heat on a familiar debate in this country — whether such takeovers are desirable, and if not, what should be done?

The federal Liberals have called for a three-month moratorium on approvals of all foreign takeovers of Canadian firms. The federal New Democrats have called for an emergency debate on the issue. The governing Conservatives, pointing out that there are conflicting views on this subject, promise to review Canada's competition policies.

And it's not just politicians who've been weighing in. Union leaders and public policy groups of all stripes have also made their views known. So, too, have some of the biggest names in Canada's business community.

Gord Nixon, the CEO of Royal Bank, raised his takeover concerns during his recent address to shareholders at the bank's annual meeting. "We have not only seen the disappearance of major Canadian household names, but the loss of Canadian presence in industries where we have long had traditional strengths."

Dominic D'Alessandro, the CEO of Manulife Financial, worried in his address to shareholders that "we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs."

Not so fast, says Don Drummond, the chief economist at TD Bank. He wrote in a recent op-ed piece that "the facts don't warrant the hysteria that the Canadian economy is being sold out."

As part of his argument, Drummond cited a recent study done by the Institute for Competitiveness & Productivity, which called the hollowing out argument a "myth." It acknowledges that some of Canada's corporate stars have indeed been bought out, but argues that Canada has created many more global leaders. To give a sense of the debate, here are excerpts from the Institute's report, as well as from the address by Manulife's CEO.

The following is an excerpt from an address to shareholders given May 3, 2007, by Dominic D'Alessandro, president and chief executive officer of Manulife Financial Corp.

'I believe that ownership matters a lot' I'd like to touch upon … the extraordinarily large numbers of Canadian companies that are being acquired by foreign interests.

In 2006, more than 100 of our public companies were taken over, and the list includes some of the oldest and most well-established companies across a broad spectrum of industries, everything from hotels to retailing, to metals and mining. And the trend continues.

I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs.

I think we ought to have a vigorous debate about the extent to which it matters whether or not ownership of our economy resides in Canada or elsewhere. As you probably all know, I believe that ownership matters a lot. It matters not only for economic reasons but, more importantly in my opinion, for our own sense of self esteem and pride in our country.

It may surprise some of you to hear me express misgivings about foreign ownership given that our own company has successfully invested — and been welcomed as an investor — in so many countries around the world. My concern is not rooted in any chauvinism or in any antipathy towards foreign investment. Far from it. I happen to believe that globalization is a very positive development and that trade and investment across borders is to be encouraged. Canada benefits mightily from being "open for business" and we mustn't do anything to change that.

Manulife president and CEO Dominic D'Alessandro listens to a question during the company's annual general meeting in Toronto on May 3, 2007. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) My concern stems from the fact that the world is awash with capital and that the consolidation trend in many industries will inevitably continue. We are a small country with a relatively small population. Canadian companies typically aren't of a size to be global players. All too often, decisions affecting the future of important firms and the communities that they sustain are made solely with a view to the short-term financial consequences. I find it particularly bothersome that so many of our natural resource companies — which I would argue represent unique and irreplaceable assets — are now owned elsewhere.

I know that I am touching upon a very delicate subject here and that for many people, particularly some economists and other "big picture" types, any suggestion that the "markets" should be other than totally unfettered is an anathema. I appreciate, too, that even under the best of circumstances, our ability to shape our destiny will always be in question. But, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, or at the very least, debate the matter.

So what are some actions that we might consider taking? Well, what if we were to consider the feasibility of adopting ownership restrictions for certain sensitive sectors of our economy that would be similar to those that now apply to our financial institutions? After all, I would argue that it is a demonstrable fact that public policy regarding the ownership of our banks and insurance companies has served the country well; there is no shortage of competition in the financial services sector and the services available to Canadians are as comprehensive and as affordable as exist anywhere in the world. It is also a virtual certainty that absent the ownership restrictions all of these institutions, that we are all so proud of, would be owned elsewhere. Might it not be the case then, that such an ownership policy could be usefully extended to other sectors of our economy?

Securities regulation is another area where some useful debate could be undertaken. Many feel that Canada now has the most bidder friendly environment in the world and that this may not always be in our country's best interests. Under our rules, shareholder rights plans — also know as takeover defences or "poison pills" — fall away after a very short 60 or 90 days, leaving the target company's board with far too little time in which to explore alternatives.

On announcement of a bid for control of a Canadian public company, financially savvy buyers have the virtual certainty of knowing that a change in control transaction is highly likely to succeed, absent competition or anti-trust issues. These investors quickly acquire significant amounts of the target company's stock. The result is that for all practical purposes, the board is left with no choice but to accede to a takeover.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mergers/hollowed-out.html

The ABC's of Offshoring

Offshoring is in a sense an extreme form of outsourcing, applied in the context of globalization. Outsourcing refers to a decision by a company to have some activities conducted outside the company – activities that are necessary to its operations, but not considered strategic or related to its distinctive strengths.

The concept of offshoring can be understood more or less narrowly. In the narrow sense, offshoring refers to the transfer of production capacity from a site within a country to a site in another country, and then importing for national consumption the goods and services that had previously been produced locally. Offshoring must not be confused with the relocation of companies and the location of production and investments abroad. Companies are relocated when the production site is moved to another country in order to be closer to that market and sell the product there. As for the location of production abroad, this is a form of foreign investment. The present paper interprets offshoring in the narrow sense of the word only.

Offshoring is actually a very old practice, which economists refer to as the specialization of labour. However, improvements in the transport of merchandise, the development of free trade, access to qualified and cheap labour, and above all the huge growth in telecommunications have accelerated offshoring so much that it now includes trade in services and has become one of the cornerstones of the global economy. Some observers have even gone so far as to say that offshoring is simply a new form of international trade.

The specialization of labour is now increasingly becoming a kind of “vertical” specialization by country for each stage of production, and this trend will increase in the future. This specialization has already seen the emergence of companies devoted to a specific stage of production, and the existence of international companies that locate different stages of production in different countries.

Frédérique Sachwald(5) has noted that the fragmentation of production processes is characteristic of modern economies. Instead of specialization in a product within a given country, we now have specialization at each stage of production within a given industry. This fragmentation has grown since the 1980s, and emerging countries are now gradually increasing their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks, including design and some development work. In short, offshoring increasingly goes hand in hand with globalization.

source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0459-e.htm

Team Canada is Gold

Congratulations Team Canada on your fifth straight championship win
Thanks for bringing the gold home and good luck in the 2010 tournament in Regina and Saskatoon.

We're proud of you on the ice and your heartfelt rendition of our national anthem, "woo" and all!