I am permanently for defending the truth. I can quote very similar examples of American firms operating in Africa and subjecting the workers to similar or worse, and that is in their own country. There have been convictions in Canada where farm labor using immigrants has been subjected to similar conditions. Labor investigators have found similar situations in the construction industry in Canada using immigrant labor fro Eastern European countries. The American news is constantly describing similar conditions among undocumented laborers. Is that 'forced labor' or 'abused labor' or just plain 'taking advantage of the disadvantaged'? Without unions, such conditions, even though illegal, would be a lot more common in Canada and America. In Brazil, there are currently 169 other companies in the same blacklist. Bear in mind, the abuses at this construction site, if it in fact they actually happened, were done right under the watch of the Brazilian government. And there is no reliable evidence that this activity, if it actually occurred, was sanctioned by the executives of the company itself, in China. Once BYD was informed of the conditions, it severed its relation with the contractor. And how about all of those American apparel firms that contracted production to firms in Pakistan and Bangladesh that used far worse labor conditions - none of them were 'locked out' of the American market.

There is a strong faction within China that has definitely strongly right wing. China is a 'no party' system, where factions of all positions form the ruling government. This is very evident in the ruling bodies of many of the provinces, where many 'Communist party' governance bodies are very right-wing in many aspects. But overall, the general push in China is to more leisure time and a better work-life balance in the major high wealth cities. Forced labor does not make sense in a country with more workers than jobs available.

But please, explain exactly what your notion is of 'forced labor' in China? How is it different from, say, the labor practices of the 'right to work' States like Alabama, where the wages in a lot of workplaces are basically poverty-level, there is no State limit on hours worked or State minimum wage, and you have to work to survive? I really do not believe that those shouting 'forced labor' really have any concept of what it is, and generally apply the term as a general 'talking point' against the opposition. 'Forced labor' and 'poor working conditions' are not the same. Unions think ALL non-union non-management jobs are 'forced labor', because the worker has no say in the working conditions.

In Alabama, if there were no federal labor law, there would be no law at all. https://labor.alabama.gov/Wage_and_Hour_Info.pdf

What about countries where, if you do not work, you do not live unless you either beg, or are a criminal, or you are in a family that can support you (i.e., without a job you are impoverished without a social safety net and starve to death)? Is that 'forced labor'? Like the typical right-wing talking point "You lazy indigent, either work or starve"? If you are paid, is it 'forced labor'? Otherwise, it is just 'slavery', not 'forced labor'.

There have been many instances of Canadians serving with the American armed forces.

That applies to the recruiter while in Canada, that does not pertain to the one being recruited.

The BNA act that formed the political entity called Canada was an Act of the British Parliament. It was so up until Trudeau Sr. brought the constitution back to Canada. Parts of what is now called Canada was founded originally by the French, other parts by the British, some allegedly by the Vikings, another part by the Knights Templar and even the Spaniards (if you follow such things as the Curse of Oak Island), but mostly it was the indigenous peoples that first populated Canada.

But nevertheless France and Spain are also part of the EU.

Actually, the benefit of it was that our 'constitution' was governed by the British in the BNA act, and it formed the basis of English-French (Quebec) debate, up until Trudeau Sr. brought the constitution back to Canada. THAT era made for some lively some political intrigue. Until then, Quebec could only seek 'constitutional' change through an Act of the British Parliament.

After all, Canada started as a British colony. The European roots go deep.

Interestingly, if this was the early 1900's, Canada could have been caught up in the entire Brexit thing. As went Britain, so went Canada, at the time.

Our entire first 100 years as a nation was European based. Please recall, up until the last few decades of our insistence, we were essentially a British colony.

If Africa can keep the American hands off the country, it will happen. Africa gets mega-huge amounts of sunlight, the perfect place for solar farms.

Canada using the Euro as its international trading currency? I wonder if the Americans will take it 'at par'?

And then there is Cuba. Conundrum after conundrum. Oh for the good old days when you could tell the bad guys from the good without a playlist.

Wait, in the 'good old days', there was Vietnam.