To clarify, in 2006 the convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the UN. It was open for signature in March 2007. Canada has signed the convention; we have not yet ratified it—it's a two-step process.
I think Canada's ratification of the convention is important for a number of reasons, one being that we were very actively involved in its development. Canada was a leader on really critical issues in the convention, in particular the issue of legal capacity. This convention introduces something known as supported decision-making, which is recognized internationally as a “made in Canada” concept. I think Canada's contributions to the international community in this regard and in a number of regards on the convention could be incredibly beneficial, both for Canada and for other countries.
Domestically, the convention, as I said earlier and actually in a bit of response to Mike's question as well, can provide us with a framework for the action that needs to happen here in Canada. I think the convention in many ways could become what was intended around a national disability act or Canadians with disabilities act. It provides a consistent format that would work well internationally. It puts us at the lead on the international stage. If you have a chance to read the convention when you walk through it, it really identifies that it's not just a rights-based entitlement document. It not only identifies that you have the right to education or the right to health care or the right to legal capacity, but it lays out the where, the why, and the how of those rights not having been realized for people with disabilities.
I think that provides us a really useful tool and can provide a great framework to move forward on legislation here in Canada.