their definition of functional is completely wrong
November 2020 - Citizenship Application
- Thread starter mrmrtn
- Start date
siddharthbala
Hero Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 474
- Visa Office......
- CPC-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5241
- App. Filed.......
- 08-07-2016
- Doc's Request.
- 28-12-2016
- AOR Received.
- 10-12-2016
- Med's Request
- 06-12-2016
- Med's Done....
- 14-12-2016
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 12-04-2017
- VISA ISSUED...
- 28-04-2017
- LANDED..........
- 14-09-2017
From what I recall reading on if the judicial system has any sort of mandate, it seems to be a bit of a conflicting message where some are not issuing directives on vaccination, but at the same time are saying that the judges and their staff either are vaccinated or 'on target' for fully vaccinated status.
The only other reasons I can think of are:
a) Ongoing prioritization of Afghanistan refugees/Not enough manpower: All well and good, but this is also like a variation of the joke "How many X does it need to screw in a lightbulb?' except in our case it's more "How many IRCC officers do you need to coordinate/conduct and oath ceremony or an in-person test?"
b) Lack of space to organize oath ceremonies or testing: As an excuse, this is categorically weak, because:
I) (As mentioned earlier) Indoor guidelines for fully vaccinated people are now clear across most provinces in the country. Existing spaces continue to remain available at government facilities to allow this (as they did pre-pandemic).
II) All they would need to do at this point is ask for proof of vaccination status before segregating those that have not been vaccinated/had only one dose to continue down the digital path and allow those who did get vaccinated to attend in-person ceremonies/testing.
All in all, really baffling - @BuzzBuzz seeing as you received your oath date - do you know if it's going to be digital or in-person? I'm guessing the dates that some people have received all the way out in March have a strong likelihood of being 'in-person' ceremonies, but wanted to ask if you've seen/heard otherwise.
I hope it will be in person, but unfortunately I feel it's going to be online. Just checked their website, it still says "To keep everyone safe, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has cancelled all citizenship ceremonies until further notice". December is almost there, but who knows........From what I recall reading on if the judicial system has any sort of mandate, it seems to be a bit of a conflicting message where some are not issuing directives on vaccination, but at the same time are saying that the judges and their staff either are vaccinated or 'on target' for fully vaccinated status.
The only other reasons I can think of are:
a) Ongoing prioritization of Afghanistan refugees/Not enough manpower: All well and good, but this is also like a variation of the joke "How many X does it need to screw in a lightbulb?' except in our case it's more "How many IRCC officers do you need to coordinate/conduct and oath ceremony or an in-person test?"
b) Lack of space to organize oath ceremonies or testing: As an excuse, this is categorically weak, because:
I) (As mentioned earlier) Indoor guidelines for fully vaccinated people are now clear across most provinces in the country. Existing spaces continue to remain available at government facilities to allow this (as they did pre-pandemic).
II) All they would need to do at this point is ask for proof of vaccination status before segregating those that have not been vaccinated/had only one dose to continue down the digital path and allow those who did get vaccinated to attend in-person ceremonies/testing.
All in all, really baffling - @BuzzBuzz seeing as you received your oath date - do you know if it's going to be digital or in-person? I'm guessing the dates that some people have received all the way out in March have a strong likelihood of being 'in-person' ceremonies, but wanted to ask if you've seen/heard otherwise.
@siddharthbala also I am thinking they might keep everything online because not everybody is vaccinated, imagine how much work they will have to do to schedule and reschedule everything again (not vaccinated people, vaccinated, double vaccinated, you can't just force people to get vaccinated, so some of them obviously will be arguing) + new applications and applications from previous years + you have to shift already scheduled oath ceremonies lol So you kinda have to manage it but who knows..... In my opinion, maybe it's better for IRCC to keep everything online, until pandemic is over (probably another year) and it's less work for them, but if you have a lot of free slots online and offline for almost the same time let's say, and requirement is that you have to be double vaccinated for in person ceremony, then why not haha you can quickly switch to online one if you don't want to get vaccinated and get you citizenship at almost the same timeframe. I obviously prefer in person ceremonies!
Last edited:
Is online and in person having the same capacities?
I believe that, online will be lesser in number when compared to in person. Isnt it?
The online ceremony is about 18-20 ppl based on messages and videos I saw, when in-person was about 50-70. I assume that the bottleneck is the number of citizenship officers or judges and their ability to run many zoom meetings per day.
siddharthbala
Hero Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 474
- Visa Office......
- CPC-Ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5241
- App. Filed.......
- 08-07-2016
- Doc's Request.
- 28-12-2016
- AOR Received.
- 10-12-2016
- Med's Request
- 06-12-2016
- Med's Done....
- 14-12-2016
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 12-04-2017
- VISA ISSUED...
- 28-04-2017
- LANDED..........
- 14-09-2017
I agree, it certainly seems that way and I prefer in-person ceremonies too (because then I get to invite family and friends to be a part of it
) - it is just rather unfortunate, given how inefficient it is, scale-wise. Given that vaccine mandates now exist across most workplaces throughout the country, I'm actually less worried about those that would willingly throw a fit about getting the shot because they have bigger problems. I think Zoom's participant limits (with their large meeting license) is something like 500 - 1000 people. Though I think a more manageable size is closer to the 100 people mark. What I've personally found is that limits don't come into play if the meeting is one-way (think an online corporate presentation or webinar) - at that point, it's reasonable to have up to a 1000 because only one side (the host) is talking, everyone else is not actively participating. It breaks down real quickly when you have two-way communication, at which point there's always going to be someone that either doesn't go on mute (until they're forced to by the host through their panel) or has audio trouble, etc. Additionally, tracking to make sure all the modified 'ceremonies' that would constitute the 'oath' having been taken successfully is difficult beyond a certain number of people (especially if you cannot see them clearly on the webcam because they're all super tiny on the screen).
By comparison, in person it becomes a lot easier to manage (even in a socially distanced environment) if anyone is acting up and arguably much faster to run - think back to how efficiently your COVID vaccinations were run, for example. The Zoom calls are actually more inefficient for this kind of thing than an actual in-person ceremony would be, in my opinion - I see their necessity due to the pandemic, but it's not practical in the long term; this only adds to my puzzlement at them continuing with the practice when they should be moving to in-person oaths as soon as they are able to do so safely.
It's not the limitation of a Zoom account, it's the limitation of a procedure. They accommodate a small number of participants because they check your documents, you will cut your PR card on the camera, repeat words after the judge etc.
I still can't understand why we are not allowed to upload a video record of the Oath ceremony and send it to them. We did the same for the test. If IRCC needs witnesses or publicity, they can post a video on YouTube or elsewhere
Also there are only 9-10 citizenship judges available across Canada and some of them working part-time.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/citizenship-commission/profiles-citizenship-judges.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_judge
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/citizenship-commission/profiles-citizenship-judges.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_judge
Why are there only 10 judges?
There seems to be bottlenecks at every stage of the process.
Maybe there were reasons why the process was structured this way, but there should ideally be a frequent review of the processes to ensure whether it is relevant and make adjustments accordingly - to make the entire process more efficient and transparent - if IRCC wants to make it better, that is.
I know, totally agree! I have no idea, they should get at least 10 judges for the province, just to move things faster.
Pandemic has created a backlog, I understand. Even otherwise the PR grants are increasing and by extension (though not one to one) the Citizenship applications will also increase. 10 for the whole country (post pandemic) also seems less.
I think immigrants has more contributions than citizens as they bring more money and their initial settle down cost more than citizens. Because of this pandemic they are priotirizing more who can contribute financially more to the society. It's all my speculation though. I dont even know what is their priority and if we are not then why it's not transparent. For now just having conversation with you guys and keep this thread alive lol
True! "I think immigrants has more contributions than citizens as they bring more money and their initial settle down cost more than citizens" - capitalism as it's finest haha