Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Good.

[Dr. Christoph Benn]

That does not happen always and immediately, but we can recover at least about 50% of what has been identified as loss. Sometimes it's politically sensitive. You're sometimes dealing with political leaders. There have been court cases in these countries, but we do follow up on that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, that's good.

I want to talk a little bit about the cultural and religious challenges in some places. A little while ago I was fortunate enough to spend some time in Tanzania with a great organization called Results Canada, who in fact are sitting behind you in the room. One of the things that was interesting to me was that we were talking about diseases, and TB particularly, but also HIV/AIDS, and one of the things that we heard was that there is no connection between HIV/AIDS and homosexuality because homosexuality is illegal in Tanzania; therefore, it doesn't exist.

Using that as an example, how much challenge is there in some parts of the world with religious and cultural barriers to understanding the reality? How much of a challenge is that in some places?

[Dr. Christoph Benn]

It is quite a significant challenge. Homosexuality is strongly discriminated against in many countries, particularly in Africa, and it becomes particularly difficult if then some countries issue legislation, as you probably have followed, where they criminalize homosexuality. We had the examples of Uganda, Nigeria and others. Then, basically, you drive a certain part of the population simply underground and they will not even access prevention services and come forward for treatment, and you make the whole problem much worse. That is a significant problem.

The Global Fund has a role here. We always talk to those governments, but we do that in a diplomatic way because anything else would be interpreted as western dominance, and so on, and we have different cultural values. So you have to do that in a very sensitive way. We do engage those governments and point out this is not just a human rights issue, because there they say, “Oh, don't teach us about human rights,” but it is also a public health issue at the same time. Often you can maybe make that point more clearly and say this does not make sense from the public health point of view if you discriminate against a significant part of your population.

We always try to make those points, but we do understand these are deep-seated cultural prejudices, if you like.

[Svend Robinson, Senior Adviser, Parliamentary Relations, Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria]

Perhaps I could just add one quick point to that. There is an important role here as well for parliamentarians to play on this question because there are a number of international parliamentary organizations, whether it's the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in which you have an opportunity to engage with members of Parliament from some of these countries like Tanzania, Uganda and others.

I have found in my work with the Global Fund that it's trying to promote that engagement among parliamentarians. You can make a real difference just by raising some of these issues in a respectful but clear way with parliamentary colleagues at the international parliamentary level as well, and that's an area where certainly I know the former foreign minister, John Baird, really deserves credit. He really reached out not just to parliamentarians but to other government ministers and leaders as well, and Canada has really shown some leadership in that area, which you as parliamentarians, across party lines, can also promote in your work at the international level.

I just wanted to mention that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson.

We're going to move to Ms. Moore for five minutes

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions relate to drug resistance, particularly tuberculosis and malaria drugs.

There is a high resistance in Africa to chloroquine in the case of Plasmodium falciparum, which is the most fatal. There are some problems concerning the drugs. A lot of fake drugs are on the market. There is also the fact that people don't take them for the full course the treatment. And increasingly, foreign workers, including Canadians, go to work in Africa and don't take their preventive medicine because they don't want to experience the side-effects. These factors can contribute to this resistance.

There's another problem. The creation of new drugs to fight these diseases will not be profitable commercially because the target clientele would not be able to buy patented or more effective drugs. Having said that, there is very little research being done to develop new drugs.

Take tuberculosis, for instance. Treatment lasts six months. It is difficult to make sure that individuals will take the full course of drugs during that period and won't stop taking them to, say, give half to their sick child.

How does the global fund deal with resistance and the lack of research to create new drugs, particularly those for treating tuberculosis and malaria?

[Dr. Christoph Benn]

Yes, the whole question of resistance is a very important one. In your question you mentioned several challenges. One is that there is real criminal activity in some places where they produce fake drugs that are then brought onto the market. This is clearly criminal. This is, by the way, one reason we have this emerging resistance against malaria in Southeast Asia. The background is often that you have fake drugs brought onto the market there that lead to incomplete treatment and the development of resistance.

We actually have—that is, Global Fund together with the WHO and many other agencies, and also agencies such as Interpol—a global steering committee on exactly this issue of fake drugs and the criminal activities around them. This is beyond what we, the Global Fund, can do ourselves. Here you need law enforcement agencies, at the country level and the international level, to address the situation. But this global steering committee does exist, and it is currently chaired by a representative of the Global Fund.

That is particularly, I would say, relevant for malaria, because there is a big black market for malaria drugs. For tuberculosis the situation is a little bit different, because as I said before, the standard tuberculosis drugs are all drugs that were discovered 40 years ago. They are off patent. There's not much gain, if you like, in the black market for these. The reason for drug resistance there is more that people in institutions are incompletely treated.

Eastern Europe and central Asia constitute a big area in which you have emerging TB resistance—even more, I would say, than in Africa, for example, where the experience with our TB programs is relatively good. We call it a good outcome if 75% to 80% of the people who are started on TB treatment finalize it. This means that they are really cured after six months.

That's the best way to prevent TB drug resistance: complete and effective treatment. The issue is often more social, if you like, and that's why you have it particularly in eastern Europe. Prisons, for example, are a big breeding ground for TB resistance.

Yes, we do need more research. TB has been completely neglected, I would say, in terms of the development of new drugs. Recently this situation has changed a bit. There are now two drugs that have come to the market. This is the first time in more than 30 years that we have had new drugs that we can now use for the most dangerous drug-resistant forms. We would never use them for standard treatment. You have to be very careful with new drugs that you use them only where appropriate, so that you don't get resistance to these new drugs. But they are now available; you're absolutely right.

Research into TB and other neglected diseases is very necessary. The Global Fund itself does not invest in research, we have to say. That's much more a role for the Gates Foundation and government entities. But we have, of course, what we would call a pull factor. I mean that we incentivize research, because the companies know that if they develop these new drugs, there is an organization that can then pay for them. So that has an effect.

I think there is a pretty good collaboration between the Gates Foundation, the Global Fund, and others. Now we see more research into this and also into the more resistant forms, for all three diseases. It is a very important aspect, and particularly, as you mentioned, in the case of the malaria drugs, and how we can address that issue, together with governmental and law enforcement institutions in those countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to finish off with Mr. Trottier, sir, for five minutes.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

One of the core principles of the Global Fund is performance-based funding. I think it is a very strong, very powerful message to send. Billions of dollars are being spent. Ultimately, it's not countries contributing to the Global Fund; it's actually taxpayers. It's helpful for them to have it at a more tangible level.

Could you pick three countries to help people understand how this performance-based funding would work in practice? Maybe pick a star country that has shown incredible performance in some of these measurable things such as HIV infection rates or malarial infection rates, then maybe a typical country, and then maybe a country that has just not shown the performance.

What is the mechanism that kicks in, if they are not demonstrating the performance? How does the Global Fund deal with those cases? In the case of a country that has been a star performer, does the funding disappear, or does it focus on something else, maybe more on prevention rather than treatment?

[Dr. Christoph Benn]

Let me think of three examples, because then you will also see that the method of results-based funding will change, depending on the situation.

You're right that the Global Fund has always said we are a results-based funding organization. That applies across the whole portfolio, but then the capacity of the countries varies.

One of the very clear top star performers has been Rwanda, for many years. You can see this from the results. It is quite outstanding. There you have a coverage now of AIDS treatment, malaria treatment, and mosquito nets of 90% across the whole country—fantastic results.

But not only that. They have the systems, with accountability whereby you can have trust that they use resources well. This allowed us to change our whole funding model and to take results-based funding to the extreme. Rwanda now gets paid for results. That's rather new. You can't do it everywhere, but with Rwanda basically you have a contract; you say that these are the results you're going to achieve and we will pay you for verified results. That cuts out a lot of bureaucracy in between.

Rwanda can do this, and they are a pilot for us. We are now exploring that model with other countries, such as Ethiopia, that are also very high performers and where we can probably apply the same method.

Another country that has done very well and is now graduating is Thailand, for example. We've supported them for many years with good results and it has relatively good health systems now. They indicated that this is the last replenishment period for which they are expecting funding from the Global Fund, that from now on they can take care of it—their systems are strong enough—and they don't expect funding from the Global Fund. This, I think, is another very good example. Obviously, we're happy to see it when countries can graduate out.

Then you would have countries at the other end of the spectrum. One extreme, I would say, is South Sudan, a new country with extremely weak systems, where you could not practice what we do in Rwanda, in the sense that we really have to make sure we follow all the disbursements to the level. We cannot even disburse to the government. We usually use UN agencies, or international NGOs, sometimes the Red Cross. They are our partners on the ground. It's still results-based funding, if you like; I mean, we agree on certain targets and we hold them accountable for them. But there is much more hand holding. We cannot just say we will pay you for the end results. We have to follow every step on the way.

That would be the spectrum: the extremely high performers, such as Rwanda, Thailand, Ethiopia; then in the middle you would have the Zambias and Tanzanias and Kenyas; then you have the really very fragile states with very weak systems—Chad, Central African Republic, South Sudan. We have the challenge of adapting our system so that we still achieve results, but with different levels of oversight and accountability mechanisms.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Could you describe in South Sudan what the trend has been with infection rates in, say, the last 15 years? You're saying that you're still getting results. I don't know whether you have the numbers at your fingertips, or some illustrative notion of what is happening with infection rates in a country such as South Sudan.

[Dr. Christoph Benn]

It's still achieving results. That is true particularly for malaria, I would suggest, because we have had some successful bed net distribution campaigns. That's not too difficult. You don't need an elaborate health system for providing communities and villages with bed nets. They have an effect then on malaria, and we've seen it. It's much more difficult when it comes to, let's say, TB treatment or AIDS treatment, for which you have to follow up over months and sometimes years and establish your systems.

Even that is happening. I'm not saying it's not happening at all, but it's much more difficult because, simply, of logistics. The roads are not there. You cannot reach many areas. You have rainy seasons during which parts of the country are blocked. We then try to work with partner agencies such as the Red Cross, UNDP, and others who might have access to these regions that they help, and sometimes with international NGOs as well. But this is a kind of logistical nightmare sometimes under those circumstances. Still. I would claim that some reasonable results are achieved also in those countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

To our gentlemen here from the Global Fund, thank you, Dr. Benn, for being here and Mr. Robinson for being here as well. You have lots of hard-working civil society organizations that are always talking to us as members about the importance of what you're doing, so you have good partners all around the world. Thank you very much.

With that I'm going to suspend the meeting so that we can get set up for our next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Welcome, everybody. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our study is on the situation in Hong Kong.

I would like to welcome Martin Lee, who is with us today. I want to thank you for taking time to be here.

Gloria Fung is also with us. Gloria, you're with the Canada-Hong Kong Link, I believe. That's great.

Mr. Lee, maybe you'll tell us a bit more about yourself. I know you've been a lawyer, a legislator. You've started parties. You've been involved and very active on the human rights front.

For my colleagues, I'll mention very briefly that as far as being a champion of human rights, Mr. Lee has received numerous awards. He received the 1995 International Human Rights Award, by the American Bar Association; the Prize for Freedom, by Liberal International, in 1996; the Democracy Award, by the United States' National Endowment for Democracy, in 1997; the Robert Schuman Medal, in 2000, which Mr. Lee was the first non-European to receive from the European People's Party and European Democrats. Mr. Lee has been very involved as a champion of human rights.

We're looking forward to your giving us an update on what's going on in Hong Kong these days. After you've had a chance with your opening statements, we'll move around the room and have our members ask questions to find out more information.

Welcome, Mr. Lee. We're glad to have you here. I will turn the floor over to you for your opening statement.

[Martin C.M. Lee, Senior Counsel, As an Individual]

Thank you, honourable members, for having us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the wonderful weather you have organized for us.

Hong Kong is at a crossroads. If Hong Kong can proceed from now, according to the blueprint laid down for Hong Kong by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s, Hong Kong will have a bright a future, and I dare say so will China. If Hong Kong were to go down the slippery slope now, it will soon become just another Chinese city.

This is a very important point in our history, 18 years after the handover of sovereignty on July 1, 1997.

I have prepared a short brief for you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, so I won't go into that. I think it is important to look at Hong Kong. We must do so in the context of China and in the context of Canada-China relations. I will start by saying that there is no inconsistency between a good policy for China and Hong Kong, and your foreign policy of democracy, freedom, and human rights. They are perfectly consistent.

Some people think that if you want to have trade with China then you better be quiet on human rights issues, and so on. Let me say that this a wrong approach. China has no respect for any country that is in their pocket. China respects a government that believes in fairness. The two things are not inconsistent; China trade, and your concern for human rights and freedom and democracy for Hong Kong.

We have been promised by China that we would continue to enjoy all of the core values we had under British rule, for 50 years from July 1, 1997, without change. In order for that to happen both the Chinese and British governments agreed in their agreement, called the Sino-British Joint Declaration, that there would have to be a sea change in our political structure.

Under British rule the governor was appointed by the British government in the name of the Queen and sent to Hong Kong to govern us, without any prior consultation with the people of Hong Kong. Once he got to Hong Kong he would then appoint every single legislator in our legislature. Not only that, but he would preside in all the legislative council sittings. If any legislator were to appear to him to be troublesome then that guy would not be reappointed.

That system, that colonial structure, had to go according to the joint declaration, which prescribes that we would have an elected chief executive and an elected legislature. That is the only way, I will submit, that the people of Hong Kong could rule Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy. These are the words used by Mr. Deng Xiaoping when he said “one country, two systems”.

How could the people of Hong Kong rule Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy when the people of Hong Kong don't even elect their leader and all members of the legislature? That is the problem.

The basic law, which is our mini-constitution, spells out these promises of elected government in the joint declaration, in much greater detail in the basic law, by providing that 10 years after the handover, by 2007, we could have an elected chief executive and all members of the legislature. We patiently waited.

Beijing said, “No”. We waited for another five years hoping that by 2012 we could have it. Beijing said, “No,” again.

We had to wait until 2017, so said Beijing, before we could elect our chief executive by universal suffrage. If that went through successfully we could then, in 2020, elect all members of our legislature.

Unfortunately, after 10 years of waiting, Beijing decided on August 31 of last year that although Beijing would certainly allow Hong Kong people “one person, one vote” in the election of our next chief executive in 2017, when it comes to the nomination process, Beijing will call the shots. In other words, Hong Kong people will only be able to choose from among two or three candidates, all of whom will be preselected by a Beijing-controlled nomination committee. In other words, Beijing will pick puppet A, puppet B, or if we are lucky, even puppet C for us to elect.

This type of election certainly doesn't meet international standards. Of course, in Hong Kong, the joint declaration already prescribes that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies to Hong Kong. The basic law, our constitution itself, prescribes in article 26 that all Hong Kong permanent residents not only have the right to elect but the right to stand for elections. What was decided by Beijing last year was clearly contrary to all these promises. In fact, it is also unconstitutional. But I will not go into that until, perhaps, you ask me questions. It would take me too long.

Where do we go from here? The democratic legislators, who amount to more than one-third, have vowed that they would vote against any bill proposed by the government that is within the confines of the decision in Beijing on August 31. If they restrict the Hong Kong people's right to nominate the candidates in 2017, these legislators will vote against it. This particular bill, under the basic law, requires a special majority of two-thirds of all the legislators before it could pass. We have more than one-third, so we could block it. Are we going to block it, and if we block it, what happens next?

Everything remains to be seen because it would depend on the paramount leader of China, Mr. Xi Jinping. He has been seen to be amassing power unto himself. He was described by Time magazine last year as “Emperor Xi”. If he really wants power for the sake of power and to become an emperor, Hong Kong will soon become a Chinese city. But should he prove to be a reformer, having gotten power unto himself, then there is hope for China and hope for Hong Kong.

I hope the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament will speak up for us at this difficult stage. You have every moral obligation to do so because Beijing, in fact, appealed for your support when the joint declaration was first announced. Beijing wanted the world to support the joint declaration between Britain and China because Beijing was afraid that there would be too much emigration from Hong Kong if Hong Kong people had no hope in the future. The Canadian government, having been lobbied successfully by China to support the joint declaration, certainly has a moral obligation to the Hong Kong people when things are going wrong. You cannot be accused of interfering in China's internal affairs because China had lobbied for international support.

I will leave some time for my colleague.

[Gloria Fung, Director, Canada-Hong Kong Link]

Mr. Chairperson, honourable members of the standing committee, thank you very much for giving us this chance to testify on the critical situation in Hong Kong, and also on the importance of protecting democracy, autonomy, and also the rules of law in Hong Kong, which has some very deep and close connections with Canada.

Supporting the people of Hong Kong in defence of their human rights and also democratic rights is vital in building strong and respectful foreign policy in Canada. Canada has a stake in the current crisis in Hong Kong for four reasons.

Number one, as one of the countries endorsing the joint declaration signed in 1984, Canada has the moral duty to urge China to respect and honour what they have promised to the Hong Kong people in respect of “one country, two systems”; that is, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.

Number two, democracy, freedom, and rule of law are the backdrop principles of all our foreign policy. We are morally obligated to defend these basic civil rights of the Hong Kong people.

Number three, it serves our national best interests to defend the rights of our Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is Asia's most Canadian city, with 300,000 Canadians and with over 200 Canadian companies based there. Hong Kong is Asia's third-largest financial market. Without the rules of law, freedom, and civil liberties, there won't be any guarantee of a level playing field for Canadian-owned businesses or personal security for Canadians in Hong Kong.

Number four, there are very strong people-to-people ties between Hong Kong and Canada. Last year, numerous community organizations, student groups, and national organizations rallied to show their support to Hong Kong. The all-party motion of the House of Commons calling on China to respect international agreements was not only well received by Hong Kong people, but it will also have a positive impact on China in the long run. However, we all need to do more at this critical time for the people of Hong Kong threatened by the ongoing erosion of their basic human rights.

We therefore respectfully recommend, first, that the standing committee undertake a full study of the critical situation in Hong Kong and submit its report to Parliament to serve as reference in the formulation of government policies on this issue; and second, that the Government of Canada issue an official statement urging China to honour and respect commitments to the joint declaration, and the promise of universal suffrage to the Hong Kong people before the chief executive's election format is decided by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong in mid-2015.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to start our first round with Mr. Dewar from the NDP. You have seven minutes, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for their very clear, concise statements.

I want to start, Mr. Chair, by acknowledging the recent work of the U.K. Parliament, which tabled a report, and I just want to read what the report said. It's relevant to our discussion today. In that report on Hong Kong, they said:

The preservation of both the letter and the spirit of the Joint Declaration is crucial to Hong Kong's economic and business success....Recent debates over electoral reform have exposed deep divisions in Hong Kong and a wide divergence of expectations for its political future....In addition to debates on constitutional reform, we heard widespread concern that the autonomy, rights and freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law have been gradually eroded in recent years.... A free press and the right to demonstrate peacefully are essential to the functioning of a free society and are among the most crucial pillars upholding Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.

I couldn't agree more. Based on what we've heard today, particularly about Canada's role in acknowledging, with our good friends in China, the 1984 process that led to the 1997 agreement, I want to state that we believe, certainly as the official opposition and I think many of my colleagues around the table do as well, that we have a critical role to play, as Mr. Lee stated. We need to see Canada being a responsible actor, having good relations with China. All we're simply affirming is what was agreed to both in 1984 and in 1997, and for the way forward.

I'm interested because Mr. Lee did acknowledge, which I think is important, the trajectory of this. It's a very similar history to Canada's history, you know, having a governor appointed and then having appointees to a legislative body. We went through that in our history. He also said something very important, and it leads to my question. It was that Deng Xiaoping had the vision of this as leader of China, and it is in keeping with his vision that this agreement be honoured.

My question to Mr. Lee is this. We know that he's had pressure from officials, and just recently this past Monday, for his participation in the democratic protests, but I wonder if he could tell us what is happening on the ground with people in Hong Kong. It's been quiet for the last number of weeks, months even, and I want to get from him exactly what is happening on the ground. What can he tell us about how people are feeling and what people are doing to advocate for China, Beijing, and the officials to adhere to the commitment of both 1984 and 1997?

[Martin C.M. Lee]

The pan-democrats in the Legislative Council have reaffirmed their refusal to vote in support of any bill that will be presented to the Legislative Council based on the August 31 decision of last year. They have just affirmed this two days ago.

Of course, as far as the university and secondary school students who participated in this beautiful umbrella movement are concerned, they are now all back to university or schools, studying hard, I hope. These young people, having been baptized into democracy, have got in their hearts, each of them, the fire of democracy burning, and no iron fist is going to quench that fire in the future. That gives me great hope, because instead of old people like me continuing the fight for democracy, we now have a totally new generation, and of course it is Hong Kong's future.

I remember in the early days of this umbrella movement, young Joshua Wong, who just turned 18 at that time, said that he is going to fight for democracy for himself and the next generation. A young guy of 18 fighting for democracy for the next generation. When I heard that, I thought to myself, “I could now retire.” Instead of me fighting for him, he's now fighting for the next generation.

Yes, things have quieted down, but everybody is waiting for the government to produce a bill to the Legislative Council, which is going to happen maybe within the next month or two. However, the decision is going to be made in Beijing. Now that is the all-important thing, because if the Beijing leader, the paramount leader Xi Jinping, has the wisdom, commitment, and vision, he could well overturn what has been done during these 18 years, which is the Chinese government departing from the blueprint of Deng Xiaoping. He can certainly and easily bring us back to that blueprint.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chair, one of the things that I find interesting is that what was laid out by Deng Xiaoping before is an opportunity for the present government to be more progressive and enlightened than the predecessors. What we see is that this road map is allowing people to have a say, to vote, and to have the choice within—and it's really important to underline here—the two systems, one country.

It is a real opportunity if the leadership chooses to embrace this.

In the time I have, and maybe I'll leave this as a statement, I want to say how important what we heard from Ms. Fung and from Mr. Lee is. This committee, if we can, should do a follow-up to this and at least recommend to government what was recommended, that our government express its commitment to the 1984 agreement or the 1997 agreement, and that we are seized with that as a committee. Perhaps we can follow up with that after.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

[Gloria Fung]

I would also like to add some of my observations of the umbrella movement in Hong Kong.

This movement has been joined by people from all walks of life—men and women, young and old. The most amazing part is that a lot of young people have come forward to take ownership of the city. We always say afterwards that Hong Kong is never the same as before. Recently Canada-Hong Kong Link organized a sharing with the student leaders in Hong Kong. They told us that they want to spend their future time integrating with the grassroots and also educating the grassroots as to why it is so important for them to come forward to fight for genuine universal suffrage, instead of an electorate hand-picked by the Beijing government.

I think it's good if the committee can organize a full study of the Hong Kong situation in the future so as to enable more representatives from Hong Kong to share their views with all of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move over to Mr. Hawn for seven minutes, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ni hao and xie xie for being here.

I've had some contact in Edmonton with the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association. It's a very dynamic and profitable organization for both countries.

Mr. Lee, how much confidence do you have in Mr. Xi being the reformer that you hope he is? In the opposition legislatures in Hong Kong is there enough strength there to effectively vote against, or try to block, the legislation if he is not the reformer that you hope he is?