First of all, I think it's context-dependent, because different governments are going to react in different kinds of ways. Of course, that's the job of diplomacy, to know whether or not it should be public or private diplomacy or what types of interventions would happen in any particular situation.
I would say, first of all—as I mentioned in my recommendations—I think the Magnitsky act, for those cases with the most gross violations of human rights, is a useful tool for Canada and for other governments.
I would also say that in places where there is openness on the part of the foreign government to try to implement the rule of law in a stronger way, there are a variety of things other governments can do, including supporting the implementation of training for judges and prosecutors and helping to review discriminatory laws against Christians but also any type of discriminatory law. In general these would go across any type of faith-based discrimination or discrimination against any type of marginalized or minority group.
Then I would also say, in terms of what we talked about, with regard to state actors either being directly engaged in persecution or not allowing impunity, that there are often roles for diplomatic or other types of foreign intervention to be able to support states in taking a better role there.
Finally, as I also mentioned, with regard to funding for groups that are able to be engaged on the ground and to do things directly in communities when that's a safe thing to do, then the funding of those groups plays an important and powerful role.