I'm not comfortable saying categorically what the answer to that question would be, because I would just remind the members of the committee that the update to our approach, our recalibration of relations with China, actually had a number of different tracks. To be very specific, there were resolutions to trade issues, access for canola, etc. There were discussions on those tracks. There were discussions about how we move forward. The moving forward was about taking what had been an existing strategic partnership that was broad and ambitious and dated to a different era, and saying, “What can we do to make it fit for purpose and focused in 2026?”
There were no preconditions in the sense that you are asking. There were interests. It was in our interest to say that our ability to move forward in a relationship with China needs to have a security table. It needs to have an opportunity for us to talk about issues of human rights.