Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses today. Having been to Hong Kong on a couple of occasions, I can readily relate to what I've heard today. So thank you for that.
Mr. Tiberghien, in the reference document you submitted to this committee, you made the following recommendation:
In its official response to the situation in Hong Kong, Canada should stand by the principles of rule of law, the protection of human freedom and rights, and the orderly process set out in the Basic Law. It should also continue to encourage restraint and the absolute importance of sticking to peaceful means, including in the government response.
As I am sure you know, the NDP made a motion in the House of Commons that was passed unanimously. The motion basically referred to the same principles, such as exercising restraint during demonstrations, respecting the existing agreement, the “one country, two systems” principle and a meaningful and constructive dialogue on electoral reform.
In your opinion, are there other means that the Government and Parliament of Canada could use to express support for these matters of principle that affect human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong?
Despite the very positive tone you have used before this committee, I believe you said that the people who govern Hong Kong should be competent, autonomous and patriotic, all at the same time. But that seemed impossible to you.
Is that the case, and why?