That's a fascinating point. I had never focused on that.
Since you raise it, I think that's part of what I'm talking about. We haven't really had the discussion about citizenship. If we did, many of the things you are struggling with here would fall into place more easily. You'd say, oh, that falls in there. That makes sense because now we have a theory of citizenship that includes these people who were excluded, as opposed to saying, well, there's a problem; let's just change a line or something. I think there's room for some thought.
We have an idea of citizenship that is so complex in Canada, it's very important to try to expand it. I don't know of another country that accepts the idea that at the same time we stay the same and we change.
In many ways, you can find the principles of Canadian democracy in Louis-Hyppolyte LaFontaine's address to the electors of Terrebonne in 1840. I pulled out a couple of things, which I could give to your chair, and they can be photocopied for you. LaFontaine made a statement on immigration in 1840, and this is the basic document that led to democracy in 1848. You could take that paragraph, and most people would think it was written by you today. There is a theory underneath what we're doing, but it's not evoked sufficiently.
We don't really talk enough about how not only immigrants change and stay the same when they become citizens, but other Canadians change and stay the same when immigrants become citizens. It's a constant metamorphosis of what it is to be citizen and a person who is very stable and yet changing all the time.
I don't think most Canadians understand that we're now one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world. If I were to make one criticism of members of Parliament, it would be that you use the words “new country” too much—maybe not you, but others. It should be taken out of all speeches.