I want to thank Mr. Neve for attending here today, because Amnesty International has a worldwide reputation in the area of human rights and on this particular topic.
When we stop to look at the periodic review, and we start considering what is being asked of Canada, what is being pointed out as our shortfalls, we see that Italy is talking about the use of tasers in Canada, Cuba is referring to our aboriginals and how they're disadvantaged. Norway seems to be following your recommendation to establish a process to deal with what comes out of the periodic review. The Netherlands is talking about the optional protocol. I was the person who moved the motion to study the UPR and make some recommendations, because I'm concerned about Canada's international reputation on the human rights file.
We've procrastinated on several significant protocols, OPCAT being the one that stands out to me. The cases of Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar are fairly prominent news stories. In some senses, Canada has been guilty of torture by proxy in cases like this. When the Canadian people hear this, it makes them take a step back, but that's a reality we're living with.
I hear coming from you a recommendation on ways to look at this protocol, the UPR, and to respond to it. Part of our problem is that we're facing a deadline for Canada's response on June 9 or 11. As far as this committee goes, it makes it difficult for us. I intend to bring a motion forward at the next committee meeting, and all members will have a copy. It will be about implementation, and I hope it's something we can move forward on.
Coming back to OPCAT, Canada was the country that led on this in the United Nations. Can you imagine why Canada wouldn't want to be part of it? We've heard rumblings. This committee heard presentations on it about two years ago, and it developed that the provinces were afraid to have our provincial prisons looked at from outside Canada. If that is remotely true, we have a serious problem.
I'd like your response.