Considering what is best for me might not be about what's best generally . . .
. . . (encouraging a perspective outside the narcissistic bubble)
This is not possible.
ALL scheduled oaths are to some extent contingent. At the least, after scheduling the oath and before the oath is actually taken, there must be another background clearance done, a GCMS check which includes criminal history name-record review/screening (at least name-record data based on RCMP and U.S. NCIC/FBI databases) . . . which might not be done until right before the oath. Remember, the grant of citizenship remains contingent on no prohibitions right up to when the oath is taken -- for example, a domestic assault charge or arrest for driving while impaired the night before, or even the morning of the day the oath is scheduled, will preclude taking the oath.
Moreover, to be filed under "be careful what you wish for . . . "
. . . this would likely delay the oath for a large number of applicants.
Apart from the background screening that must be done between scheduling the oath and actual administration of the oath (for all applicants), for some significant percentage of applicants there are various reasons why the oath may be scheduled subject to some additional step, so actually taking the oath is contingent or conditional. We don't know what percentage of those scheduled for the oath, among these applicants whose taking the oath is contingent or conditional, will generally still take the oath as scheduled versus those who will suffer cancellation. The probability is that the number who generally proceed to take the oath (condition or contingency resolved) is not just higher but a lot higher than the number whose oath is cancelled. Revising procedures to eliminate (as much as possible) contingent or conditional scheduling of oaths will have the impact of postponing the oath for ALL such applicants.
So, yes, that could in effect avoid the disappointment a smaller number will incur because of cancellations, but that will be at the expense of delaying the oath for many others. I suspect those whose oath is delayed, just to reduce the risk a small number of oaths are cancelled, will adamantly oppose such changes.
That is, many (if not nearly everyone) will prefer to be scheduled to take the oath SOONER even if there is a small risk they could be among those who end up disappointed by having their oath cancelled.
***Outside Canada exceptions -- see below
IRCC's use of generic and boilerplate communications is indeed problematic; it is probably a gross understatement to describe this as tending toward excessive use.
And it is particularly troublesome given the high percentage of clients for whom English (or French) is their second or third language, for whom complex communications based on templates steeped in boilerplate, and typically covering a range of alternative situations the client must sort through and figure out which applies to them, can be quite difficult to navigate despite being fluent in English (or French). Indeed, even though English is my first and primary language, and I am a professional writer and editor, with well over a quarter century of experience in publishing encyclopedic treatises about the law, in English, I more than occasionally encounter IRCC communications that pose significant difficulty figuring out just what it says. And yes, vagueness tends to be a big part of the problem.
That said, the *fix* can often be worse than the *cure* and especially so in terms of the cost-benefit impact. This probably looms especially large in this context, where the more or less generic notice of cancellation is what the client really needs to know, and that can be accomplished by sending a non-specific communication which should take a processing agent no more than a minute or so, at most, to execute. In contrast, to prepare individualized communications with details specific to the individual, that would add a considerable amount of time to each and every affected applicant, adding up . . . and given the very limited number of agents doing this work, this would likely contribute to further delays in processing timelines for all applicants.
The detailed notice will not accelerate anyone's timeline. At the cost of slowing timelines for many.
The detailed notice will not provide the applicant information they can use to make decisions. (***Outside Canada exceptions -- see below) The generic notice basically says:
you need to wait longer. How much longer will vary widely but more detail is not at all likely to illuminate much at all about how much longer.
And even if IRCC implemented a more detailed notice, the boundaries for what IRCC considers confidential information will preclude communicating information which might alert the client that their case is being referred for investigation, let alone any information about what sort of investigation or why.
Media matters . . . but if it ain't sexy, well, it ain't sexy.
May come across as raining on a parade, but sorry, the scheduled but postponed oath story is not likely sexy enough to get much media attention.
***Outside Canada exceptions:
The cancelled, postponed oath situation can have a bigger impact on applicants who are outside Canada pending the process. Since IRCC continues to require applicants to be IN Canada when taking the oath (with uncommon exceptions in extraordinary circumstances), cancellations can impose a significant burden on applicants who must accommodate international travel to participate in the oath, often on short or even very short notice.
The problem is that IRCC is unlikely to give this much consideration, much weight, in its practices and policy decision-making. There does not appear to be much interest in accommodating the applicant who is outside Canada.
