Thank you. Why don't I take them in reverse order?
Clearly federalism is a challenge. In our view it's not a barrier, but unfortunately for far too long it has been accepted as a barrier. That's why we—not just Amnesty International, but organizations across the country—have been pressing for this moment, this important moment of Canada's engagement with the international human rights system, as an opportunity for us to signal determination and will to develop a better, more coordinated, more transparent, and more effective approach to implementing human rights obligations within a federal state. We think it can be done. We think there are lessons to be drawn from other countries. We're not the only federal country in the world, of course. Every federal state is structured a bit differently, but there are many lessons to be drawn from other states.
It's not the only issue we grapple with within our own federalism as well. Certainly thinking across the public policy spectrum, I'm sure there are issues everyone would agree are perhaps better dealt with in a federal structure than others, but lessons can be learned from looking at some of those other fronts as well. That's why we think it should be among all the issues that are in front of Canada right now and coming out of this review. That's the one that really deserves priority attention—to really devote some time, energy, and resources to developing and putting in place a new process.
I think the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture is a prime example. Canada has been working on the possibility of ratifying that important new treaty for six years now—an important treaty that's meant to prevent torture around the world. We've not yet signed onto it, thus we can't even push, cajole, or encourage other countries where torture is a real concern to sign on, because we haven't done so ourselves.
With respect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I think you'll note it is one of the most common concerns and recommendations that was raised by a whole range of governments, including allies and friends of Canada, including many other countries that have indigenous populations. They are all expressing concerns about Canada's opposition to the declaration and are all calling on Canada to reverse its position and to agree to support the declaration. You're right that because it's not a treaty there's not a formal process within the UN for Canada to go back and change its vote. I think the model would be to follow what Australia recently did. Australia, similarly, is a country that had voted against it, but has had a recent change of position and has decided to support it. That was done through very high-profile public statements made by Australian political leaders, making it clear both domestically and internationally that Australia now supports the declaration.
Lastly, with respect to whether there's been progress over the last few months in dealing with some of the issues, I don't think any of us were necessarily expecting that in that window of time, between the February review and June when Canada submits its report, that we'd see substantive work on some of the human rights issues. We're looking for some sign that a very thoughtful, and we would have hoped, much more public and politically accessible process of discussion about those recommendations and considerations among the 68 of which ones the government feels more inclined to accept and which ones not. NGOs had a one-day meeting with some federal government officials about this. That's the extent of dialogue or discussions that have happened between February and June. Unfortunately it really wasn't as much, or certainly not as high-level as would have been merited, given the importance of the issues. There has also been an e-mail inbox that people are welcome to send messages and recommendations to. But that's been the extent of the exchange and dialogue between February and June.