Kellie Leitch seems to be having the time of her life. Her cockamamie idea to screen potential immigrants for “anti-Canadian” values has put this relatively unknown Conservative leadership candidate on the front pages of major newspapers. If you subscribe to the old “any publicity is good publicity” adage, it doesn't really matter that much of the coverage has been profoundly negative.I have enjoyed much of the discussion, especially as it has moved from Ms. Leitch's bizarre screening ideas into a robust debate over the very existence of “Canadian values” and what they might look like in a diverse country.Something, however, is missing.Although most commentators have condemned Leitch's plan, few have challenged its underlying assumptions — assumptions that seem to start with the idea of the supposed natural superiority of Canadian ideas over those of newcomers. That notion may account for some of the support for Leitch's proposal in a recent public opinion poll.The story goes something like this: The world has many countries. Canada stands out due to our progressive, tolerant and — let's face it — better way of doing things. The term “better” is of course used advisedly, as one of our country's many quiet strengths is its humility. Other countries are not so lucky: They are full of people who are not nearly as progressive and often have an unenlightened take on how the world should work. They can't always help it because their societies tend to be dominated by oppressive dictators and cultures that are based on regressive religious theories and practices.One of its numerous attributes is that Canada loves to welcome newcomers to its shores. Its population is small and aging and it needs to inject new blood into the economy to prosper. Yes, many immigrants and refugees bring backward views — the source of Kelly Leitch's proposal. Right-thinking Canadians, however, recognize that by basking in the progressive nature of Canadian society, most newcomers will gradually embrace all that is wonderful about our nation, and if they don't, their children certainly will.There is actually a kernel of truth to this notion. We have much to be proud about our country and there is nothing wrong in expecting newcomers to integrate into a society in a way that respects our freedom, openness and acceptance. Although we take pride in our multiculturalism, our national cohesion does require the adoption of some common values that we hold important. I also recognize that there are regimes, cultures and individuals throughout the world that hold beliefs and values that are downright wrong.But let's not fool ourselves, we have not found Nirvana north of the 49th parallel. Despite our successes, we still struggle with a host of issues and tensions that have no easy solutions. Nor are we alone in facing these challenges. Other countries find themselves involved in similar struggles. And as hard as it is for us to swallow, we don't necessarily hold a monopoly on good ideas. Believe it or not, there are other people and cultures that also have important perspectives on how to build a better society — views that may challenge our own.What if we simply listened?Not undertake some radical wholesale change to the nature of our country, but simply ask newcomers how they might do things differently and why. It might be a tough conversation but if we were willing to truly engage in real dialogue it might be instructive. It might cause us to think critically about ourselves. It might cause us to question aspects of how we function as a nation. Who knows, it might even change us for the better.No, I am not suggesting that we should embrace views that advocate violence or are misogynistic or homophobic. What I am saying is that if we don't want a society divided into “us” and “them,” then right from the start we need to start seeing newcomers as having more value than simply supporting an economy plagued by an aging population. We need to start identifying one of the strengths of our immigration system as the addition of new voices to our national debates and discussions — voices that may be worth hearing.Stephen Harper's record in this area is dreadful. He of the niqab debate, barbaric cultural practices hotline and “old-stock Canadians” quip sowed discord and suspicion. But as much as I hate admitting it, in a 2007 media interview recently quoted by Jennifer Ditchburn in Policy Options, he captured the spirit of what I am trying to say: “I know there's a popularly expressed view that immigrants come here and they should change to suit the country. I think they overwhelmingly do,” Harper said. “But I think the fact is our country also consciously changes somewhat for new immigrants and new cultures, and I think that's a successful model.John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario cabinet minister currently serving as the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. Milloy is the editor of, and a contributor to, Faith and Politics Matters (Novalis, 2015).