Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Neuer, my question is going to be for you, but I hope you'll indulge me for a moment.
We're hearing a dangerous idea take hold that Canada should accept the world as it is, rather than strive for what we want it to be. My fear is that if we accept the world as it is, we accept the imprisonment of dissidents in China, the aggression of Russia and the brutality of Iran, and we accept that abusers can sit on bodies like the UN Human Rights Council and shape the very rules they violate.
Canada has never been at its best when it lowers its expectations to match the worst actors on the global stage. We have been at our strongest when we challenge injustice, not accommodate it. If we trade principles for convenience, we don't stabilize the world but legitimize its worst behaviours. Canada must not manage decline, but lead with conviction.
The world, to me, means that we engage in trade negotiations, international relationships and protecting the interests of Canadians. We can't turn a blind eye for economic expediency. In this new world order, do you believe Canada could better ensure that its trade investments or diplomatic relationships do not directly or indirectly enable forced labour, particularly in regions where human rights violations are happening today?
In your view, is this the line between pragmatic diplomacy and moral concession? How should human rights proponents understand the world as it is?