Thank you.
May I quote first a few lines from the report of the working group? This is from paragraph nine of the report:
Canada views the participation of civil society as an important aspect of the UPR process, and acknowledged the dissatisfaction expressed by civil-society representatives regarding the timing and nature of its UPR consultations. Canada is committed to engaging with civil society and intends to hold further consultations in follow-up to the UPR.
In your question, it seems to me there are two different aspects that have to be considered. The first one is what happened around the UPR process's first report? And then I can see where it's been a change for the bureaucracy. What I cannot see is what was the big surprise, because the way the report was built, most of the information was taken from previous assessments produced by the UN experts committee. So there were no absolutely new fields or understanding of human rights violations, or slow progress raised in that report.
The timeframe argument has to be handled carefully, I think. I'm saying that with respect, because it's true that it's not an easy job to do, to get everybody on board and produce a report for the UN. But what's really new in the process is the format, the forum, who's evaluating the report, but not the content. So I'm a bit skeptical about the timeframe argument.
Nevertheless, we have to look at the future. What I read here is that something wonderful will happen, there will be something new taken from the UPR experience. But before we go back to the UPR, we'll have to process other reports, based on the reporting timeline related to human rights treaties. The chances are that in six months we won't necessarily be looking at UPR any more; we'll be raising the same points about the classical treaty reporting system and again worrying about the fact that consultations are either late or meaningless.
Those are questions, but I don't think that the venue of the UPR explains everything, as far as accountability and consultation are concerned.
About the depoliticization of the UPR process, Canada was a strong and very useful promoter of the mechanism. One of the strong, basic arguments was that we will have a depoliticized process. We are not too sure at this point in time that the process is absolutely depoliticized or less politicized than the former Human Rights Commission. What we do know is that it seems most state members are on board, with more or less success, and I personally see that as good news.
Now, the fact that the Human Rights Council is using UPR to level the playing field is good news, but it doesn't mean that it puts us in a position to share a better understanding of what promoting human rights at home means, in the case of Canada.
Again, those are two different ways of approaching the experience of the UPR.