Dr. Sangay, I wanted to continue along a bit of a theme.
Hélène took one of my questions, so touché, Madam.
The issue of the reciprocation is an important one. It has been raised in different contexts by the Canadian Parliament and parliamentarians from many sides on a number of occasions. We had Mr. Pema Wangdu—again, Mr. Baimawangdui—here, and he said, “the door will only be more and more open to the outside world”. He also said, “I do believe that you...have a good chance” to go “to Tibet [and] have a look at it.”
I think what is frustrating is that we know there are Canadian-funded entities and Canadian-funded programs that exist in the TAR. I'll ask you two questions. Can you elaborate a bit on your response to Madam Laverdière in the context of a government, whether a Canadian government or any other government, that is having it funds delivered or is promoting projects on the ground in TAR and yet access isn't permitted...?
The second point is about the middle way approach. I'm glad you started with this at the outset, Dr. Sangay, because the more I learned about it, the more innocuous it seems, right? There are people who will characterize this as radical, revolutionary, independent, separatist ideas, and then when you understand it and read it, it is about mutual existence and mutual co-operation. It is about existing with Tibetan autonomy within a broader Chinese federation.
Like you said, it's very similar to many parts of the world, including what we have here in Canada. It's also a very peaceful initiative that was commenced by the Dalai Lama many decades before. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the notion of the middle way has been altered or is being interpreted in ways that characterize it vastly differently from the way I've just described it?
For the last point, Dr. Sangay, could you touch on the current status of what we call the “Sino-Tibetan dialogue”, that Chinese-Tibetan dialogue? You yourself mentioned that you'd been in Beijing. I understand that from 2002 to 2010 there were as many as nine different rounds of negotiations, and then those negotiations came to an abrupt halt.
Why did that abrupt halt occur? What can be done to resurrect that dialogue? Certainly, as Canadians, our diplomacy over a series of decades I think has always been about brokering dialogue between different communities on the planet. How can that dialogue be resurrected and what can parliamentarians do to help?
Thank you.