Perhaps I could answer it by saying one of our concerns is that the mass detentions to date that we're aware of, with the exception of this recent change to the law, haven't been as a result of any due process whatsoever. Therefore, rule of law doesn't really enter into it. We're looking very closely at the recent change that was made to the law that may govern some of the camps but not others.
In terms of the judicial system in China, this is an area where Canada and China have a long history of co-operation and exchanges, they understand our system better, and we seek to understand their system better. It's fair to say, however, that the Chinese judicial process is very different, as you underlined, from Canada's, particularly with regard to the independence of the judiciary and checks and balances.
It varies, depending on whether the issue at hand is protection of human rights or commercial disputes. However, that's a question where, frankly, I would be happy to give you more information on our assessment of a judicial system that is indeed very different from Canada's, but in which there has been some development recently more in the direction of having courts that we in Canada wouldn't understand to take an independent view of the issue at hand.
As I said, that's strictly with regard to particular aspects of the law. On human rights, the gist of our intervention today and our testimony is that we are very concerned that none of what has happened in Xinjiang recently with regard to mass detentions is in any way the result of a judicial process. It has been detention without an appearance in a court or an opportunity to appeal, any sort of appearance before a Chinese court.