Stubel01: "Because the LOI is only an LOI and not a signed contract. "

In regard to that last assertion:  "only and LOI and not a signed contract", I have to differ with you at least a little.  I suppose it depends on whether you are viewing it from the Chinese perspective or from the Canadian perspective.

The article: 

China LOI and MOU: Don’t Let Them Happen to You

"Just about the only time an LOI or an MOU should be used is when the parties need to set out specific steps that will be taken to complete due diligence for a specific transaction. In this case, such a document should be treated not as an LOI or an MOU, but rather as a due diligence contract. The U.S. party should understand that it will be held liable if it does not perform strictly as required in the contract.

In all other settings, an LOI/MOU should not be used. The risk is high and there is no compensating benefit. A unilateral term sheet is the normal alternative and that is generally acceptable. However, the principle of good faith will still apply even in this case; once negotiations have begun in China, the rule of good faith applies. If no contract is ultimately concluded, then the risk of Article 42 damages is always there. For this reason, if no contract is concluded after negotiations have begun, the foreign side should carefully document the reasons and should provide those reasons in writing to the Chinese side.

Not only can signing an LOI or an MOU cause you all sorts of legal problems in China,"

The entire article is linked:  https://www.chinalawblog.com/2015/11/china-loi-and-mou-dont-let-them-happen-to-you.html