Thank you.
I certainly want to thank both of you for appearing before our committee today. I guess when we have people come to appear as witnesses before a committee, there are a couple of different reasons why we might have them. First of all, as a committee we want to understand the situation; we want to be educated on a certain subject; we want to know what's going on in your area of expertise and to get your experiences and to learn from them. But the other objective is to move us to do something. Certainly as a committee we want to understand and learn, but we also want to be provoked to action. I guess that would be one of my questions. What action would you want to see us take? You've already mentioned in response to Madame St-Hilaire's question that engagement by parliamentarians has been fairly positive. That is the driver of this thing primarily; governments sometimes go a little slower, or are hesitant and reluctant.
So what specifics would you like to see happen here in this committee? Canada does have somewhat of an historical relationship with the exiled leaders and the power they represent. But when we think about what's happening in Tibet and with the Buddhists, there are some countries that.... Maybe I'm wrong in assuming this, but I think India, for example, because of its proximity, has been very active on issues with Tibet. So I want more clarification as to what they do compared with what we do. The United States has come out very strongly on Tibetan Buddhist issues and on humanitarian violations with China and them. Some European countries—
We've done certain things; we've made the Dalai Lama an honorary citizen of the country. It's provoked discussion; some think it's been positive, but others think, what were we thinking when we did it? Those are the various opinions in the country, and maybe even in Parliament. But what specifically can the Canadian government do, in comparison with the actions other countries are taking?
I have one other question. You say that in your dialogue with China, you don't want to lead an independence movement; you don't want to do that; you want to preserve your culture, your language, and all those kinds of things. But you also say you would like some kind of local autonomy, some kind of local government there. What would that government look like? Would it be a government chosen by your religious leader? Would it have some principles of democracy? Would it be a bright light of democracy in a dark area? What would it look like?