Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations and their presence.
Mr. Kovrig, I think your presentation is clear on the fact that an agreement is good, but there still have to be strict conditions. You actually said as much in a recent interview. On Pamela Wallin's podcast, you said that diplomatic dialogue was desirable, but that we still had to be careful not to let everything in.
In your answers to previous questions, you were able to expand on your thoughts about the areas and sectors. In your introduction, you talked about high technology. Then you said that critical minerals, energy infrastructure, artificial intelligence and defence supply chains were all things that involve a risk.
In that same interview, you also said that dialogue with China could not simply be treated as a neutral dialogue, a technocratic dialogue, and that silence on sensitive issues would often be interpreted as agreement, as if we were turning a blind eye to those issues. I'm thinking, for example, of the massive violation of human rights, including forced labour. I introduced Bill C‑251 to counter this phenomenon and emulate the American model, which works. During the second hour, we'll hear from a representative of the Uyghurs, and we can talk about this again.
Is Canada too silent and lacking proactivity on these issues?