The first part of your question was about pursuing human rights so it looks good for the media, but that Canada is primarily interested in economic issues with China. Let me respectfully disagree. We at the CCBC do not argue for one moment that Canada should not pursue with China and other countries its values surrounding human rights, democracy, and religious openings. The fundamental question is how do we do that? How do we advance that? What systemic bilateral instruments do we have in place? Can we put in better instruments? Have the old ones now come to the end of the road? If so, what do we replace them with?
So we're saying that we fully expect our government to pursue a human rights line with China. Past governments of both political persuasions that have occupied 24 Sussex have done that, so it's not a partisan issue; it's a bilateral and global issue. But we would suggest that speaking publicly about human rights in the absence of a relationship is not necessarily the way to advance success in human rights with also consequences in whatever commercial interests we have at stake.
I had the opportunity to be trade minister and was privy to meetings with our Prime Minister at the time and either the premier or president of China, and I can say to you very openly that all issues were discussed, whether they were economic, political, UN, WTO, global, and ultimately those tough issues on consular human rights cases. The Prime Minister of the time in my presence didn't speak in code language or in terms of briefs, but spoke quite openly with the President and Premier, saying, “There are cases where we have a very strong difference of opinion, and we want you to look into this. We expect you to look into this.” The interlocutors on the other side, the Chinese president or premier, did not go apoplectic because of the Prime Minister's utterings. In fact, they expected a democratic country like ours to raise those issues. But it was done in the context of a pretty good relationship, a mature relationship, in a context where you could also agree to disagree.
We agree to disagree in our respective families. We did it from time to time, as I recall, in our caucuses. It's sometimes healthy to air things out. The president or the premier of China would say at that point to the foreign minister, “Mr. Minister, I want you to look into those three cases raised by the Prime Minister.” That's what we needed to get things going.
So we should advance the cause of human rights in China and elsewhere. The question is how to do it in a way that is also sophisticated enough to show respect, in this case, for the Chinese. If you show respect, you are likely to get respect. Then you can advance the files, because I don't want to feel good about lecturing the Chinese on a human rights case, and wake up the morning after and find out that case is going backwards rather than forward.
The question is, how do we best advance that case? That's where we're coming from, and not saying whatsoever it's business at any cost, at any time, for any deal. Of course it's not, because that's not the way we live in Canada. And therefore we should also export those kinds of approaches and values, as I think we have, around the globe.