That's a challenge for any OECD instrument that requires ratification. If you're just dealing with conventions and best practices you don't need ratification. You don't have to come before these committees and so on. Where you do, the parliamentary procedures in all jurisdictions will slow down that process, because it becomes not just soft laws, and most of the OECD's work is.
You're quite right. For example, the convention that we adopted to fight corruption back in 1997, the bribery of foreign public officials, actually came into being when Canada ratified it, because Canada took a certain critical mass. I can't remember the number, 14 or 15, whatever. Then it continued over the years to be ratified at different times by different countries, because that, unfortunately, is the nature of our processes. Here, I think the pressure will come from the G-20 and the review mechanisms that are in place. The compliance with the undertakings will be audited regardless of whether the agreements have been ratified by Parliament. I could be wrong on that, but I think that would be the case. When the government has signed a taxation and information exchange agreement--called the TIEAs, or whatever they are--when that happens they will then go on the list. That list is usually published when those particular countries will be examined by an independent team.