Certainly you put an interesting perspective on citizenship and the issues related to it. It's certainly insightful. Even though we face a lot of challenges, it also presents itself as an exciting opportunity for us to accomplish perhaps some uniqueness to the solution into who we are as Canadian citizens.
I found that appearing at the citizenship ceremony and then having a social aspect after where we intermingled to be quite touching and more moving than I would have expected it to be. It certainly has that element to it. There is a bonding that takes place. And when you speak to the new citizens and interact with them, it certainly also identifies some of the unique obstacles, if you want to call them that, that they face and the challenges they have.
Proceeding beyond that in terms of round tables and further discussion I think is a good thing, and certainly it will help us along. I know that there are of course needs for fixes. I know my colleague, the Honourable Andrew Telegdi, doesn't pass up an opportunity to pinpoint those and sharpen the points for us to see.
I sense from you that although there is a desperate need for a fix, we should do it in a principled way and not rush ourselves into a short-term, knee-jerk reaction, but look at it more on a long-term basis. Certainly the charter compliance is something that would be hard to argue against. But it would take a bit of doing to ensure that the act was done properly, to see that it was indeed compliant.
I know that we've talked a bit about what it means to be a citizen, what the privileges or rights might be, what the responsibilities might be, and whether there are various definitions that might be involved. You mentioned building maybe a national consensus and perhaps the principles of it. In what type of forum would you see this taking place? What type of structure or administration might you set in place to evoke that type of consensus or principles that might be the underpinnings for where the future Citizenship Act might go?