Let me take it from a different angle.
There's an argument about asserting human rights protections and a basic defence of statutory rules or norms that exist on the books in China itself—things like the language of instruction in the Tibet Autonomous Region. There are rules about ethnic minorities and about the language of instruction, which actually on paper look like they could be somewhat—“robust” might not be the best word—rigorous in ensuring that Tibetan is a language of instruction in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
What is your understanding from the GAC perspective of Chinese compliance with Chinese rules themselves as they're outlined in the Tibet Autonomous Region? The language of instruction is a critically important piece, not just for language activists like Tashi Wangchuck—and I appreciate that the government has made representations about that— but also for the Canada Tibet Committee that operates here and advocates for at least the observance if the laws that are on the books in China.
Can you comment on the language of instruction and that sort of strategy?