Thank you.
In fact that was recommendation number 6. I didn't read that paragraph because I was afraid I'd go over your time limits, but it's in our presentation. That was a reference essentially to the fact that it is our experience in dealing with the Canadian Chinese community across our country that there is a divergence of views in terms of how a Canadian government approaches foreign or trade policy in China.
What we've said in our brief is that, yes, there are those elements in the Chinese Canadian community that would applaud a very hardline, tough human rights approach first and sometimes only with China, but there are also other elements of that same community that have either a nuanced view or a very different view, where they would not want to see their government approach China on that basis.
What we are saying is therefore we shouldn't simply take silence as saying we are all on the same page, if we are to take a harder human rights first or only line. We're saying foreign policy must also reflect the plurality of opinion within that community, because there are elements in that community that would also favour perhaps a more traditionalist approach in terms of showing signs of progress, be they on human rights or political issues.
So what we're saying is let's make sure we're reflecting the plurality of opinion that we know from our context exists in the Canada-China community as we know it.