I'm sorry that you seem to have interpreted my remarks as a shrug or a lack of concern, because that could not be further from the truth. Amnesty works relentlessly to respond to human rights violations in China and in Hong Kong. We have been very actively engaged around the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, including regular exchanges with their families discussing strategic possibilities. So I guess I would want to correct whatever reason you have to believe that we're not concerned about the situation on the ground.
I think I was trying to flag that, obviously, when deciding on what would be the most effective and constructive response and strategy going forward, it's vital that Canada be considering a range of consequences and implications. That includes, yes, whether there is a possibility that, if we do x, it may increase the risk for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. I didn't say that means don't do it, but that obviously is something that the government should be considering. We also should be assessing whether it is useful or effective for us to go it alone to do a particular measure or whether we should really invest our energy into getting some other partners so that it can be advanced in concert. It's all about—