Have to give them a 1 - not one investment reported that is a direct result of these trips. But I guess the trip to Paris could do something???

Based on the information I have to go one, it looks like we have had no one sign on the dotted line to do any training in PG or anywhere near here for the 2010 Olympics. Unless info is being kept quiet, I would have to rate the accomplishment as a zero .... however, if I have to start at 1, so be it ... a 1 it is. I reserve the right to change that upwards when we hear otherwise sometime down the road. Just in case the Cross Country team from Costa Rica decides to train here.

;-)

As far as bringing business to PG from China. I look at that in a bit of a different way. Getting business from China is not restricted to pre 2010. The Chinese are pretty smart and have a tough decision as to where best to put their money. I understand that it takes a long time to develop a relationship through building trust. So, there is still work to be done and I do not know, again, what is going on behind closed doors.

So, based on what is out there in the public eye, and based on understanding how long such a process of building a relationship takes, I would give it a 2 at the moment.

BTW, if the Chinese hockey team were to come to train in PG, would that get points under both categories? *grin*

Can we use zero??

Oh, one thing I would like to add.

We must remember that in the business of putting together proposals for service or goods providers, one typically has to spend time as well as money to put those proposals together and submit them to potential customers or clients. Obviously such proposals are not won by all who submit. Only one proponent is awarded the contract.

In some businesses, one has to put in 10, even 20 proposal on average for everyone which ends up in a contract. That is the cost of doing business.

So, just because these two efforts do not end up with some sort of results, does not mean we ought to stop such efforts. We might want to, however, be more judicious about where we place such efforts or what approach is best to capture certain types of investors.

China is a good place to look, in my opinion. Torino was not such a hot place to look. However, I do not know whether we are approaching the Chinese opportunities in the best possible ways.

My vote. (tears) They are wasting my tax dollars in areas where the private sector should do their own digging. What has happened to free enterprise?

Cheers

Sorry I can't even go up to a 1 on any of these...
I as a resident and yes taxpayer of Prince George think I am gettting ripped off and taken advantage of by....
well we all know who.....

I don't have enough information to even post a vote.

That may be because the Mayor has done a poor job of marketing his successes. Or, we have not seen any fruit yet.

Either way, I would like to know what the expectations were in the first place? What was the purpose of the trip? Chester

I agree with Chester, I don't have enough information to post an opinion, but Owl raises a good point, efforts in Tofino don't make alot of sense, but whatever inroads we can establish in China may be worth the effort.
And what were the expectations around those trips? Just curious.

First question: I give it a 1. Not because it bore no fruit, but because the strategy was flawed from the start. The assumption was that if you kissed the Chinese they would make you rich with jobs and trade. The facts are the Chinese are strategic and have investments of their own which they wish to promote that are in direct competition with our planned shipping route through Northern BC via the port of Prince Rupert. Our trade, will ultimately be, and strategically should be for export so that we are assemblers of the end funnel of trade that competes directly with Chinese trade with a North American advantage and a resource advantage. Fancy trips to China are for the exporters in Chicago and the corporate headquarters, when our polticians should be focused on local competitive infrastructure enablers.
Up em to a 2 because they did gain momentum for the Port idea indirectly scoring a point.

Second question: They can't get more than a 1 because there is no plan much less a realistic and tangible local plan. They should get a negative for fronting for VANOC a fleecing that we in the North will pay for in our own lost infrastructure share of the funding pie. Make that a double negative for holidaying on the city tax dollar in Turin while our inland port container competitors from Edmonton where in Prince Rupert shaking hands after our city backed out due to scheduling conflicts (a fancy tqax payer funded report should cover for that one I guess

Queston three: I think I'm on to you. Are you hinting at something? lol