Thank you.
I came to the University of Ottawa three years ago. Previously I was a professor at the University of Montreal. I've been involved with civil society organizations--sometimes I feel forever--over those UN participation and human rights issues.
With due respect, I'll take my example from Quebec. Quebec was the first Canadian province that decided to show up in Geneva and share the experience of constructive dialogue over the monitoring of human rights treaties. Quebec was first, but it's not the case any more. Other provinces have decided to go and be part of the federal delegation. The UPR experience speaks for itself. As a province concerned with many fields of jurisdiction related to human rights implementation, Quebec as a province did not consult with its own civil society before the UPR, which we can assume is less complex than consulting with representatives from all over Canada.
Civil society, starting with La ligue des droits et libertés du Québec, had to insist on having a meeting after February when the delegation was back from Geneva. Basically there's documentation to show that Quebec's position is that it's accountable only to the Assemblée nationale, and it's piggybacking on federal decisions over the follow-up to UPR. I think it speaks for itself. This is one province, but I know that other provinces would take the same position on that. It belongs to the federal government when it suits provinces and territories not to be on board on issues related to human rights. This is nothing new under the sky for those of us who have been involved in that kind of process for two decades now.
That's the ping-pong game that I think should stop. When they're in Geneva, the federal government makes the point--and rightly so--of saying it is a provincial field of jurisdiction. When they come back home, the provinces tell you it's the treaty-making power, and the federal government represents the state, so there's not much they can do at the provincial level. Theoretically it doesn't keep the road, and politically it's not exactly productive.
How can we change it? We have to start with leadership and a different level of jurisdiction, sharing a common understanding of what it means to be accountable and promote consultation on human rights. Otherwise, with the next report produced in Geneva we'll have another example of the classic back and forth, everybody's responsible, but nobody's responsible for children's rights, torture, or civil rights.