I agree that a hybrid type of solution makes the most sense, including some names where family members have agreed to it—those individuals are perhaps very public already in the public sphere—while including the number of others who are being advocated for. For example, it would be to just say that in China the Minister of Foreign Affairs is actively advocating for the release of these three said individuals, as well as six other detainees who will remain anonymous.
Having that type of information and content is really important for us. We have none of that at the moment. We have the “Voices at Risk” guidelines, but we have no real sense of when Canadian missions and officials overseas are actually meeting with prisoners or requesting to monitor trials. None of that data currently exists. That's the type of information we need.