Thank you very much, both for your kind words and for your very incisive question.
I would only comment, in relation to some of the discussions about “human rights defenders” versus “prisoners of conscience”, that all human rights defenders arbitrarily detained abroad are prisoners of conscience under the definitions that were proposed, but not all prisoners of conscience are human rights defenders. I would assert that the definition of “prisoner of conscience” is broader and better suits the intentions of the bill and of Canada's human rights foreign policy.
I'll give you two concrete examples of cases we've worked on as an institution, which would be excluded if the definition were shifted from “prisoner of conscience” to “human rights defender”. First, we've represented members of the Baha'i faith, such as the Yaran, who are persecuted and imprisoned in Iran and Yemen, for example. They self-describe as prisoners of conscience. They do not engage in human rights defender activity. They would be excluded.
In another example, Canada has been an important leader when it comes to protecting LGBTQ persons. Just three days ago, a group of LGBT people were imprisoned in Russia. They would be excluded if the definition were changed to “human rights defenders”. People who are targeted simply for immutable characteristics and their identity would be covered under “prisoners of conscience”. They would likely not be covered under “human rights defenders”.