As I stated at the outset, this is not one of the areas on which the Institute has really focussed. We're in the process of bringing in other programs, for example, the Best Practices program, because some things work extremely well in one community, but are virtually unknown in others. We're trying to institute these practices on a Canada-wide basis.
For example—and I'll come back to your question after—the residents of Red Deer have clearly understood what it takes to attract and retain immigrants. Conversely, I've had discussions with Quebec residents who want to do the same thing, but haven't figured out exactly what to do. We want to institute a program where communities are twinned, so that small communities are able to attract and retain a larger number of immigrants.
We plan to do some research, not necessarily in this field, but on practices that don't work in Canada. We're keeping an open mind. The Lafontaine-Baldwin lecture series serves as an important forum for discussing that which is collectively good for Canada. On the international front, we've observed that people are interesting in knowing what works well for us.
For example, we hosted a delegation from the Netherlands that came here to learn about our system. That country is in the process of establishing an immigration and citizenship system somewhat similar to ours. We are actively working in these areas.
As for the Canadian diaspora, that's a unique, long-standing problem that presents itself in different ways. For instance, British communities have survived for centuries in Turkey. Situations like this are very difficult for governments to manage. It's a matter of determining if someone who has never lived in a country is a citizen and what obligations that citizenship entails.
That's why I stated at the outset that it would be interesting to hold a truly national debate, rather than an apolitical conversation, if I can call it that, on the nature of citizenship. For example, if we believe that citizenship entails certain obligations, what does that mean for Canadian citizens who do not live in this country? At the same time, we mustn't claim that only those living here in this country can become citizens.
As I see it, we must be very careful to avoid thinking about this in very narrow terms. The Europeans, for instance, are adversely affected by the fact that their definition of citizens is overly neat and tidy. They are incapable of dealing with the true complexity of the subject, with the fact very different cases can arise.