The case of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture is a little baffling. It is rare to see a case that starts out as rumour and then becomes logical, because, we are told, we don't know precisely why some provinces would object, in particular, to the requirements relating to prison inspection. This is a very uncomfortable situation, in terms of democracy, because we don't know. If we know, we might be able to concede to some of the reservations expressed by certain provinces, but we don't know. The confusion defies both logic and Canada's international commitments, and that in itself is a failure and an affront to the promotion of human rights.
On the question of the treaties that have been ratified, the protocols to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention itself are good examples. I do not have a magic formula that would instil greater respect for human rights conventions in the Canadian government, but we can say this. Is this not proof that we must give this new tool, the Universal Periodic Review, the complete attention it requires, and do the same in terms of monitoring the treaties that have been ratified? So it is an additional tool, not a substitute tool. As good optimists, we can hope that two oversight mechanisms rather than one will at least facilitate dialogue regarding violations of existing treaties, although the dialogues are different in nature. In the case of the Universal Periodic Review, Canada is in dialogue with the international community of States. In the case of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, the dialogue is with a committee of independent experts. We must therefore look to this new combination as our hope for higher compliance rates.
You are right, Mrs. Thi Lac, when you say that for some time we have not had particularly glowing results in Canada in this regard.