Well, let me begin with the question of which treaties. In the course of the UPR there were probably somewhere in the range of six to eight treaties that came up that governments called on Canada to ratify. We certainly wouldn't disagree with any of those recommendations. I think among all of those treaties there are two that perhaps should be at the top of the list simply because we know these are two that Canada has been actively looking at already, such that much of the work has been done, and in our view, therefore, now is the time to cross the finish line and ratify them.
One is the optional protocol to the convention against torture, which just came up and has been actively under review for about six years now. The other is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol. Canada signed the convention, but has not yet ratified it. We know there are discussions going on within the federal and provincial governments with respect to that very important treaty. It's a groundbreaking treaty dealing with what is often the most overlooked human rights issue on the world stage, and that is the plight of persons with disabilities.
I'm going to decline to choose among the 68 recommendations because it's an impossibility. I shouldn't say that. I'm not going to totally decline. I'm going to highlight one, which is the one that I've been talking about in my presentation as well, and that is the recommendation about a better approach to implementation. The reason I want to highlight that one is that it is absolutely our view--and this is shared by indigenous peoples groups and NGOs right across the country--that if we got that right, if we had a better, more effective, transparent, accountable implementation process in Canada that really brought the federal, provincial, and territorial governments together in a better way around human rights issues, all of the other issues to a certain degree would start to take care of themselves. There would be a better, more reliable system to turn to with respect to disability rights or concerns, or refugee issues, or women's rights, or rights of indigenous peoples. That is the one that we would prioritize. That's not to suggest that the others aren't of concern, but that one is the tip of the iceberg, in our view.
Yes, we are concerned that leadership is an issue here. We're very proud of the positions Canada took over the last several years in pressing for the universal periodic review, number one, to be adopted. That wasn't easy. There were very difficult UN debates at the time. Many countries obviously wanted to either defeat it or weaken it and ensure that if it were adopted by the UN, it would not be an effective process, it would be toothless. We didn't get the perfect process, but we got a process in the end that we think can deliver some real improvements within the UN human rights system.
But Canada's continuing leadership matters. If we don't come sailing through our own review having demonstrated absolutely the best possible approach, then the strength of our voice when it comes time to push and criticize and encourage other countries with respect to their UPRs is that much diminished.
Lastly, with respect to a timeline around reform, and particularly this issue about reforming the approach taken to implementation, Amnesty International and other groups have been calling for reform for a good eight to ten years now. So we're well into that timeline, in our view. But looking over the coming year, we would consider this to be a crucial year, the time between June of this year and June of next year, which would be the one-year anniversary of Canada's UPR report's being finalized. In our view it would be very important to be able to demonstrate some significant progress--for instance, during that one-year timeframe to convene the ministerial meeting on human rights that we think is so long overdue, which in itself could start to become a catalyst for a lot of the other work that needs to happen.