From what I can gather, there was testimony from many different organizations, many of which are on the same page in saying that the dialogue either needs to be improved or that we need another instrument. Certainly I'm prepared to take that advice. We are not the human rights organization, and I will certainly yield the floor to those who perhaps have better ways to create those instruments. We would certainly support either an improved dialogue, which a number of countries have taken, or another instrument in its place. We don't think megaphone diplomacy is an alternative that is going to advance the cause.
The other thing I would like to say is that this is absolutely an opportune moment for real creative engagement on the whole issue of values. Never before in the history of the Chinese five-year plans have they dedicated so much political currency to the issue of building a harmonious society. I think there is concern that the huge gap that exists is potentially a source of instability. Stability is job one for many in that administration.
You see quality-of-life issues in that five-year plan—issues that we talk about in Canada. They are asking how to improve education, air and water quality, and health care for their citizens. I think there is a particular window of opportunity for engagement on a whole set of what one can say are social rather than commercial interests.
In terms of shared experiences and best practices—not that we're perfect—I think we do have a good story to tell. The question is how we engage the Chinese. They are quite well known for looking at various approaches, taking some on board, test-driving them, and either replacing them or fixing them or letting them be. I think there's a real opportunity to engage them, but to do so in a way that is preceded by a relationship, as I said, and I think as Paul enunciated, of real mutual respect and understanding that will allow those more difficult issues to be settled.