I certainly would underscore many of the things Paul just touched on.
There are a couple of points. First, I think we could, we should, and we can pursue warm relations both on the political and on the commercial front. I think that's entirely possible. That should be our pursuit, and that would be in keeping with the traditional foreign policy stance vis-à-vis China and many other countries. Politics, commercial relations, human rights, and global multilateral partnerships and issues are at stake. It's really about engagement. It's first about building the rapport, the relationship, the chemistry that will then allow the vast bureaucracy, particularly on the Chinese side, to hopefully function in a positive way.
I still believe that the marketplace is becoming a bigger self-determinant of how business gets done. In countries like China, governments still play a huge role, particularly in the sectors and on the projects that Paul touched upon in his original presentation. On those major contracts, governments do have a say and a sway.
In addition, we are facing increased competition, not less. Again, the whole world is in China. It's not like it was in the 1970s, when we were the first country from the west to open diplomatic relations with China. The whole world is seeking both political and commercial relationships.
We've had examples in the past. While it's very difficult to measure, in the 1970s, for example, the French sold a fleet of Mirage planes to Taiwan, and there was severe commercial backlash. French consulates were closed; contracts were cancelled. People say they lost the inside track on providing China the nuclear reactor, which in the end went to AECL from Canada. It wasn't until they signed a ban on weapons sales to Taiwan that those commercial relationships were put back in good standing.
It's also very difficult to measure, because if someone is asked to pay, how do you know that company A, B, or C is paying for that original reason? The Chinese, like any other country, aren't going to spell it out for you. If you talk to Canadian business people on the ground in China, they are concerned and anxious that we have a political relationship that provides a positive context. So we shouldn't test whether this is going to happen in any tangible way for Canadian companies, because I think it's Canadian jobs and investment that are on the line.
The last point I was going to draw your attention to, Mr. Chairman, is that there are more than just commercial implications of a bad political relationship. My argument is what does it do for advancing human rights? My position and the position of the CCBC is that if you don't have a relationship in which you can discuss these tough issues, and if the Chinese think that a country is lecturing them, and then if we don't have engagement, how do we hope to advance the cause of human rights? There are more than just commercial consequences. There are the consequences of not moving human rights files forward. That's why, in the balance, we should be doing both and showing results on both fronts.