Scrap the oath ceremony

[MrChazz]

I totally agree with you

The person who started thread is being disrespectful. A guy does not even try to adopt Canadian culture and traditions. Soon cry babies will try to cancell test and then BG check and everything.

If somebody does not like something, there are other countries on the planet where there is no oath.

Nonsense. Especially when the minister for immigration is already considering the idea that people simply sign a form and get on with things.

Note carefully: The suggestion is to do away with the ceremony, not with the oath.

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding the technicalities . . . for those interested in the more weedy aspects. To emphasize that, indeed, to "scrap the oath ceremony" is NOT within the power of IRCC, and it requires an act of Parliament to make it otherwise.

Bias disclaimer: Must acknowledge that personally I may have some bias about this subject, a bias apparently strong enough to overcome my general disfavor toward regal or religious impositions (yeah basically, ideologically, I'm a commie), since my own oath ceremony was a deeply moving experience shared with several dozen people from literally all around the world, whose celebratory excitement and joy was deeply embedded in and expressed throughout the ceremony, and it was one of the most important events and best days in my life, me being one of those who can emphatically proclaim that coming to Canada is worth it (for me). And I get it if anyone questions how could I be a commie and yet relish the act of affirming allegiance to a Monarch . . . but that's a philosophical tangent, in part a bit about Maoist contradiction, for another forum, another day.​

It’s high time IRCC scrap the oath ceremony. It’s completely pointless and an utter waste of time for both the applicant and IRCC.

FYI - IRCC can't change it. They don't have the authority.

Changes to citizenship act require a bill to be approved through the Parliament of Canada. There are multiple steps to this process, including readings and voting. The bill would need to be put forward and supported by one party and then have sufficient support within other representative parties to pass.

I don't think so. Why would the Citizenship Act would have to be changed? The act does not have a requirement for an oath ceremony. All it says is that a person must make the oath, and, in principle, that can be done in writing.

For clarity: @scylla was responding to the proposition that "IRCC scrap the oath ceremony," and accurately pointed out that IRCC does NOT have the authority or power to do that. I will add that neither does the Minister.

@scylla further pointed out that any changes to the Citizenship Act require an Act of Parliament, and briefly described the process, followed by a link which explains it in detail, rather than enumerate details about what that means (as I am wont to do, in contrast, making my posts much longer).

In contrast, @MrChazz inaccurately (way off) states that "All [the Citizenship Act] "says is that a person must make the oath."

Even if that erroneous statement is interpreted or understood assuming it is referring to all that is stated in the Citizenship Act in regards to the "oath" (recognizing that the Citizenship Act obviously says and covers far, far more), it is nonetheless way off . . . leaving aside, as well, whatever "make" the oath means . . . I will assume "takes" the oath was intended, since among other things the Citizenship Act says about the oath, it explicitly references taking the oath.

For further clarity, in addition to scores of references to the oath in the Citizenship Act, the key provision limits being a citizen (under adult grant citizenship process) to persons who have "taken the oath of citizenship," as prescribed by Citizenship Act Section 3(1)(c) ( https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-81636 ).

Thus, apart from all the other references in the Citizenship Act to the oath, there is NO doubt: IRCC does NOT have the authority to scrap taking the oath as a requirement to become a naturalized citizen as an adult (there are ways of becoming a citizen that do not require taking the oath, such as being born in Canada; naturalized citizens under the age of 14 do not need to take the oath).

In short: Taking the oath is explicitly required by the Citizenship Act and, as @scylla pointed out, IRCC cannot change this.

Can IRCC change the manner in which the oath is taken? NO. Here too, an Act of Parliament would be necessary for IRCC to have the authority to change the manner in which the oath must be taken.


More into the weeds, for any interested . . .

Manner of Taking the Oath to Become a Canadian Citizen:

Part I The Way It Is:

@diljitdosanjh's proposition is to "scrap" the oath ceremony. Since the manner in which an oath is taken is inherently a formal, solemn procedure that is ceremonial in nature, this seemed to be about eliminating the requirement to take the oath itself. This is a proposition that surfaces in this forum from time to time. It is of course an unrealistic, no chance of it happening in the foreseeable future, proposition. And, as noted, that would require an Act of Parliament (not just action by Parliament, but the formality of enacting an Act of Parliament).

@MrChazz asserts that @diljitdosanjh's suggestion was not about doing away with the oath, but just about the "ceremony."

Probably not. Note, in particular, the nature and meaning of "oath" itself incorporates an element of solemnity and gravity at the least suggesting, if not mandating, a procedure significantly more formal and serious, essentially ceremonial, than a mere written affirmation. The Citizenship Act itself refers to the "ceremonial procedures" performed by Citizenship Judges and as far as I can find the only ceremonial procedure implicated in Citizenship Act is the administration of the oath. No stretch in statutory construction necessary to conclude that the many references to the oath in the Citizenship Act means a formal, solemn, ceremonial procedure.

That interpretation or construction is further implicated in the Regulations governing the "ceremonial procedures" of Citizenship Judges, and the oath of citizenship, in the Citizenship Regulations. See Regulations 17 and 19, respectively, here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-246/page-2.html#h-952206

And make no mistake, there are some fairly specific requirements governing the ceremony attendant the grant of citizenship.

Part II Revising The Way It Is:

Perhaps the OP's proposition is intended to merely be a suggestion that the manner of taking the oath be revised . . . that the formal act, the procedure for taking the oath, not be a "ceremony," that rather there be a less ceremonial procedure. Perhaps allowing the oath be taken by making a written affirmation, as suggested by @MrChazz.

Again, IRCC also does NOT have the power or authority to make any such change. Again, as @scylla noted, an Act of Parliament would be required to give IRCC such authority. The manner in which the oath is administered is explicitly governed by Regulation, which requires a legislative process which, while not as onerous as revising statutes, is not within the power of IRCC to do and involves strict formalities that render making such changes difficult and political, well outside the scope of the bureaucratic and administrative purview of IRCC.

In regards to the suggestion that, "in principle," the oath "can be done in writing," there is no support for that proposition in the current law.

Current law mandates that the oath of citizenship "shall" be taken at a citizenship ceremony. (Regulation 19)

An exception to taking the oath at a citizenship ceremony is allowed IF "the Minister otherwise directs" (which may be the authority for currently allowing the oath to be administered virtually, although I believe these are still described or characterized as a "ceremony"). For Section 5(1) grants of citizenship, there is no such exception, however, to the requirement that a person "take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." (Noting, again, that IRCC does not have any power to change this; nor does the Minister have such authority.)

OVERALL: It is clear that the law mandates (allowing for some exceptions) that "the oath of citizenship shall be taken at a citizenship ceremony." In regards to what that means, Regulation 17 states the

ceremonial procedures to be followed by citizenship judges shall be appropriate to impress on new citizens the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a citizenship judge shall, during a ceremony held for the presentation of certificates of citizenship, emphasize the significance of the ceremony as a milestone in the lives of the new citizens, . . . [and] administer the oath of citizenship with dignity and solemnity​

That is the current law. IRCC has NO authority to change this. Odds of legislative action to substantially revise this are remote.

 

[MrChazz]

Regarding the technicalities . . . for those interested in the more weedy aspects. To emphasize that, indeed, to "scrap the oath ceremony" is NOT within the power of IRCC, and it requires an act of Parliament to make it otherwise.

Bias disclaimer: Must acknowledge that personally I may have some bias about this subject, a bias apparently strong enough to overcome my general disfavor toward regal or religious impositions (yeah basically, ideologically, I'm a commie), since my own oath ceremony was a deeply moving experience shared with several dozen people from literally all around the world, whose celebratory excitement and joy was deeply embedded in and expressed throughout the ceremony, and it was one of the most important events and best days in my life, me being one of those who can emphatically proclaim that coming to Canada is worth it (for me). And I get it if anyone questions how could I be a commie and yet relish the act of affirming allegiance to a Monarch . . . but that's a philosophical tangent, in part a bit about Maoist contradiction, for another forum, another day.​

For clarity: @scylla was responding to the proposition that "IRCC scrap the oath ceremony," and accurately pointed out that IRCC does NOT have the authority or power to do that. I will add that neither does the Minister.

@scylla further pointed out that any changes to the Citizenship Act require an Act of Parliament, and briefly described the process, followed by a link which explains it in detail, rather than enumerate details about what that means (as I am wont to do, in contrast, making my posts much longer).

In contrast, @MrChazz inaccurately (way off) states that "All [the Citizenship Act] "says is that a person must make the oath."

Even if that erroneous statement is interpreted or understood assuming it is referring to all that is stated in the Citizenship Act in regards to the "oath" (recognizing that the Citizenship Act obviously says and covers far, far more), it is nonetheless way off . . . leaving aside, as well, whatever "make" the oath means . . . I will assume "takes" the oath was intended, since among other things the Citizenship Act says about the oath, it explicitly references taking the oath.

For further clarity, in addition to scores of references to the oath in the Citizenship Act, the key provision limits being a citizen (under adult grant citizenship process) to persons who have "taken the oath of citizenship," as prescribed by Citizenship Act Section 3(1)(c) ( https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-81636 ).

Thus, apart from all the other references in the Citizenship Act to the oath, there is NO doubt: IRCC does NOT have the authority to scrap taking the oath as a requirement to become a naturalized citizen as an adult (there are ways of becoming a citizen that do not require taking the oath, such as being born in Canada; naturalized citizens under the age of 14 do not need to take the oath).

In short: Taking the oath is explicitly required by the Citizenship Act and, as @scylla pointed out, IRCC cannot change this.

Can IRCC change the manner in which the oath is taken? NO. Here too, an Act of Parliament would be necessary for IRCC to have the authority to change the manner in which the oath must be taken.


More into the weeds, for any interested . . .

Manner of Taking the Oath to Become a Canadian Citizen:

Part I The Way It Is:

@diljitdosanjh's proposition is to "scrap" the oath ceremony. Since the manner in which an oath is taken is inherently a formal, solemn procedure that is ceremonial in nature, this seemed to be about eliminating the requirement to take the oath itself. This is a proposition that surfaces in this forum from time to time. It is of course an unrealistic, no chance of it happening in the foreseeable future, proposition. And, as noted, that would require an Act of Parliament (not just action by Parliament, but the formality of enacting an Act of Parliament).

@MrChazz asserts that @diljitdosanjh's suggestion was not about doing away with the oath, but just about the "ceremony."

Probably not. Note, in particular, the nature and meaning of "oath" itself incorporates an element of solemnity and gravity at the least suggesting, if not mandating, a procedure significantly more formal and serious, essentially ceremonial, than a mere written affirmation. The Citizenship Act itself refers to the "ceremonial procedures" performed by Citizenship Judges and as far as I can find the only ceremonial procedure implicated in Citizenship Act is the administration of the oath. No stretch in statutory construction necessary to conclude that the many references to the oath in the Citizenship Act means a formal, solemn, ceremonial procedure.

That interpretation or construction is further implicated in the Regulations governing the "ceremonial procedures" of Citizenship Judges, and the oath of citizenship, in the Citizenship Regulations. See Regulations 17 and 19, respectively, here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-246/page-2.html#h-952206

And make no mistake, there are some fairly specific requirements governing the ceremony attendant the grant of citizenship.

Part II Revising The Way It Is:

Perhaps the OP's proposition is intended to merely be a suggestion that the manner of taking the oath be revised . . . that the formal act, the procedure for taking the oath, not be a "ceremony," that rather there be a less ceremonial procedure. Perhaps allowing the oath be taken by making a written affirmation, as suggested by @MrChazz.

Again, IRCC also does NOT have the power or authority to make any such change. Again, as @scylla noted, an Act of Parliament would be required to give IRCC such authority. The manner in which the oath is administered is explicitly governed by Regulation, which requires a legislative process which, while not as onerous as revising statutes, is not within the power of IRCC to do and involves strict formalities that render making such changes difficult and political, well outside the scope of the bureaucratic and administrative purview of IRCC.

In regards to the suggestion that, "in principle," the oath "can be done in writing," there is no support for that proposition in the current law.

Current law mandates that the oath of citizenship "shall" be taken at a citizenship ceremony. (Regulation 19)

An exception to taking the oath at a citizenship ceremony is allowed IF "the Minister otherwise directs" (which may be the authority for currently allowing the oath to be administered virtually, although I believe these are still described or characterized as a "ceremony"). For Section 5(1) grants of citizenship, there is no such exception, however, to the requirement that a person "take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." (Noting, again, that IRCC does not have any power to change this; nor does the

< more blah blah blah deleted >

Another lengthy 10,000-word essay that does not say much. But to the extent that you are so concerned, you should address all that to the minister; apparently he does not know what he is talking about . Perhaps he is relying on the following (and other parts that indicate that the ceremony, but not the oath, can be done away with).

"19(2) Unless the Minister otherwise directs, the oath of citizenship shall be taken at a citizenship ceremony."
Citizenship Regulations (justice.gc.ca)

The oath is now taken only in citizenship ceremonies because the minister has apparently not directed otherwise.

The minister seems to be relying on a plain understanding of that bit of English---that he can "direct otherwise"(i.e. that the oath of citizenship need not be taken at a citizenship ceremony). But, hey, we have experts like you around! Please set the minister straight! He certainly seems to think that he can "direct otherwise"!

 

[MrChazz]

Taking the oath by merely signing a document is coming. And without new legislation. This year.
I will be back here to remind of the preceding statements you (especially Mr. Expert) when it happens!

 

[atzquebec]

I am for, for the Oath ceremony. Looking forward to it, when its my turn.

 

[Das67]

Taking the oath by merely signing a document is coming. And without new legislation. This year.
I will be back here to remind of the preceding statements you (especially Mr. Expert) when it happens!

Most of them here said it was impossible to take the test online because of this or that, it was impossible to take the test and do the interview online while being outside Canada but guess what it all happening now. I will be happy to just sign a document if IRCC allow me to do it, doing that does not mean I don't love and respect this country.

 

[anton1990]

Taking the oath by merely signing a document is coming. And without new legislation. This year.
I will be back here to remind of the preceding statements you (especially Mr. Expert) when it happens!

Mr. Expert first you need to talk about another promise - waving application fee for citizenship application. Where is it?

Signing a document is another BS.


I like the oath and it is important part of being Canadian

 

[MrChazz]

Mr. Expert first you need to talk about another promise - waving application fee for citizenship application. Where is it?

Signing a document is another BS.


I like the oath and it is important part of being Canadian

One more time: Try and read a bit more carefully, or work on your comprehension of the English language. Nowhere has any suggestion been made to eliminate the oath.

 

[dpenabill]

Another lengthy 10,000-word essay that does not say much. But to the extent that you are so concerned, you should address all that to the minister; apparently he does not know what he is talking about . Perhaps he is relying on this:

"19(2) Unless the Minister otherwise directs, the oath of citizenship shall be taken at a citizenship ceremony."
Citizenship Regulations (justice.gc.ca)

The minister seems to be relying on a plain understanding of that bit of English---that he can "direct otherwise"(i.e. that the oath of citizenship need not be taken at a citizenship ceremony). But, hey, we have experts like you around! Please set the minister straight!

Apparently you ignored my reference to, citation of, link, and quote of Regulation 19(2), including the specific language you quote.

And apart from the Minister's authority clearly being an EXCEPTION to the rule, as mandated by Regulation (which the Minister does not have unilateral authority to change), the Minister does NOT have the authority to otherwise direct or to not comply with the Regulation 19(1) requirement to

"take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge"​

Which in itself is a formal, solemn procedure that is ceremonial in nature (simply the meaning of "oath"). And, there is NO hint, none, the Minister could adopt a written affirmation to replace the formality of the oath by "swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge."

As for forecasting the future, @Das67 is blatantly misrepresenting what any of the members of this forum above said about online tests and such. Maybe some other forum participants, very few, said it was "impossible," but none of those above, and not me. One grows weary of the deliberate distortions.

But that comment does bring up the possibility of transient measures to address temporal contingencies, and thus the prospect that the Governor in Council (which in practice requires the Prime Minister's concurrence) could approve interim procedures to facilitate backlog reductions.

For now, for an adult to obtain naturalized citizenship in Canada, one of the requirements continues to be taking "the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." And neither IRCC nor the Minister have authority to change this. And it there is virtually no prospect that IRCC or the Minister will be given authority to change this. Predicting what Parliament or the Governor in Council will do is more difficult.

Try and read a bit more carefully, or work on your comprehension of the English language.

By the way, what is "make the oath" anyway? And where does it say that in the Citizenship Act?

 

[MrChazz]

Apparently you ignored my reference to, citation of, link, and quote of Regulation 19(2), including the specific language you quote.

And apart from the Minister's authority clearly being an EXCEPTION to the rule, as mandated by Regulation (which the Minister does not have unilateral authority to change), the Minister does NOT have the authority to otherwise direct or to not comply with the Regulation 19(1) requirement to

"take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge"​

Which in itself is a formal, solemn procedure that is ceremonial in nature (simply the meaning of "oath"). And, there is NO hint, none, the Minister could adopt a written affirmation to replace the formality of the oath by "swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge."

As for forecasting the future, @Das67 is blatantly misrepresenting what any of the members of this forum above said about online tests and such. Maybe some, very few, said it was "impossible," but none of those above, and not me. One grows weary of the deliberate distortions.

But that comment does bring up the possibility of transient measures to address temporal contingencies, and thus the prospect that the Governor in Council (which in practice requires the Prime Minister's concurrence) could approve interim procedures to facilitate backlog reductions.

For now, for an adult to obtain naturalized citizenship in Canada, one of the requirements continues to be taking "the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." And neither IRCC nor the Minister have authority to change this. And it there is virtually no prospect that IRCC or the Minister will be given authority to change this. Predicting what Parliament or the Governor in Council will do is more difficult.



By the way, what is "make the oath" anyway? And where does it say that in the Citizenship Act?

Forward all that to the minister!

 

[Das67]

Apparently you ignored my reference to, citation of, link, and quote of Regulation 19(2), including the specific language you quote.

And apart from the Minister's authority clearly being an EXCEPTION to the rule, as mandated by Regulation (which the Minister does not have unilateral authority to change), the Minister does NOT have the authority to otherwise direct or to not comply with the Regulation 19(1) requirement to

"take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge"​

Which in itself is a formal, solemn procedure that is ceremonial in nature (simply the meaning of "oath"). And, there is NO hint, none, the Minister could adopt a written affirmation to replace the formality of the oath by "swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge."

As for forecasting the future, @Das67 is blatantly misrepresenting what any of the members of this forum above said about online tests and such. Maybe some other forum participants, very few, said it was "impossible," but none of those above, and not me. One grows weary of the deliberate distortions.

But that comment does bring up the possibility of transient measures to address temporal contingencies, and thus the prospect that the Governor in Council (which in practice requires the Prime Minister's concurrence) could approve interim procedures to facilitate backlog reductions.

For now, for an adult to obtain naturalized citizenship in Canada, one of the requirements continues to be taking "the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." And neither IRCC nor the Minister have authority to change this. And it there is virtually no prospect that IRCC or the Minister will be given authority to change this. Predicting what Parliament or the Governor in Council will do is more difficult.



By the way, what is "make the oath" anyway? And where does it say that in the Citizenship Act?

The point of my comment was, they didn't scrap the test but they found a way to administrate the test to stay compliance with the citizenship act. They won't scrap the oath but they will find a second way ( first one is the online ceremony) to administrate the oath ( looks like they are already thinking about just signing a document) while staying compliance with the citizenship act, and yes people here ( not in this thread but this forum) said it was impossible to take the test online and was even impossible to taking it while being outside of Canada.

 

[MrChazz]

The point of my comment was, they didn't scrap the test but they found a way to administrate the test to stay compliance with the citizenship act. They won't scrap the oath but they will find a second way ( first one is the online ceremony) to administrate the oath ( looks like they are already thinking about just signing a document) while staying compliance with the citizenship act, and yes people here ( not in this thread but this forum) said it was impossible to take the test online and was even impossible to taking it while being outside of Canada.

I hope that in the meantime they will make the virtual oath ceremony more efficient so that larger---much larger---numbers can be processed in each session. As it is, quite a bit of the ceremony appears to be taken up with "symbolic" stuff that was probably OK with in-person ceremonies but has dubious worth online.

 

[dpenabill]

Forward all that to the minister!

The Minister (unlike you it is all too blatantly apparent) is undoubtedly well familiar with these Regulations and relevant provisions in the Citizenship Act, and basic English (still wondering what you meant by "make the oath," since you have deigned to put on a language police badge and criticize others about their English comprehension), and moreover actually understands what these mean. Including what swearing or solemnly affirming an oath means and entails.

The point of my comment was, they didn't scrap the test but they found a way to administrate the test to stay compliance with the citizenship act. They won't scrap the oath but they will find a second way ( first one is the online ceremony) to administrate the oath ( looks like they are already thinking about just signing a document) while staying compliance with the citizenship act, and yes people here ( not in this thread but this forum) said it was impossible to take the test online and was even impossible to taking it while being outside of Canada.

There is no shortage of unfounded hyperbolic declarations, here, from just about every direction, but much of it tends to come from those employing abusive ad hominem.

There have been plenty of strawman characterizations against forum participants who have made reasonable efforts to civilly discuss issues; this has been part of a pattern distorting, exaggerating, or outright misrepresenting posts expressing contrary views about various subjects. Like the views some put forward about how IRCC should handle the growing backlog due to Covid, mischaracterized as you have again, characterizing those views as asserting it was "impossible" to do this or that. Again, I do not doubt that some, emphasis on some in the rather FEW sense, some forum participants said it "was impossible to take the test online," but if you go back and review those topics you will find that is NOT representative, NOT what many, nowhere near a significant percentage of forum participants said.

So let's be clear about what YOU posted, about those commenting HERE in favour of continuing to require an oath ceremony. Verbatim:

Most of them here said it was impossible to take the test online . . .

Most of them (and me for sure) allow searching by user name. Nope. We did not say it was "impossible" to take the test online. You were clearly attempting to dismiss and disparage what I and others have said about the oath on the basis of a false accusation. To be genuine and honest would mean owning it or retracting it.

As I noted, your comment did bring up the possibility of transient measures to address temporal contingencies (like dealing with a pandemic), and thus the prospect that the Governor in Council (which in practice requires the Prime Minister's concurrence) could approve interim procedures to facilitate backlog reductions. (Or do so through the appropriate legislative amendments or enactments.)

And in regard to online tests, that in turn, to dig into the weeds again some, helps illustrate the difference between what IRCC can do, or what the Minister can direct done, versus what changes in procedure require legislative amendment or enactment.

As noted, not only has IRCC implemented online testing for knowledge of Canada, but it allows applicants to take the test while they are physically located outside Canada.

In contrast, while online oath ceremonies have been implemented, the applicant (actually "candidate" at this stage) must be IN Canada when taking the oath.

The difference is that to change the procedure for taking the oath, to allow it to be done online by a person outside Canada, would require a change in the Regulations. Which, again, IRCC does not have the authority to do. In contrast, the Regulations do not have any provision which limits the administration of the test to persons IN Canada. So IRCC was able to implement this change without need for legislative amendments or enactments. Consider Regulation 15 (here https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-246/page-1.html#h-952181 ) which governs the test, compared with Regulations 19, 20, and 24 (all here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-246/page-2.html#h-952206 ), which when read in conjunction (including the statutory provision referenced in those Regulations) requires the oath, for Section 5(1) grants of citizenship, be taken by a person IN Canada, swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge.

I realize many are not much interested in such details. But for those who are curious, this explains why it is that IRCC can (and does) allow persons to take the online test while they are abroad, but not the oath. The decision to allow one and not the other is not arbitrary or random. IRCC does not have the power or authority to allow (for Section 5(1) adult grants) taking the oath while outside Canada.

And likewise, even if the OP was suggesting only the elimination of the "ceremonial" aspects of the oath (even though it was more likely suggesting eliminating the oath altogether), neither IRCC nor the Minister have authority to sidestep the requirement to take the oath "by
by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge," not without a legislative amendment or enactment.

 

[prash42]

My family and I enjoyed the oath ceremony, and we celebrated with a festive lunch after it was done, while singing O Canada. Our kids loved it when the judge said she was herself an immigrant... in her words "Indian by heritage, British by birth, and Canadian by choice!"

But just make the ceremony optional... what's the big deal? This one-size-fits-all obsession over symbolism is a bit odd. Some of us are into it, others not so much.

 

[MrChazz]

My family and I enjoyed the oath ceremony, and we celebrated with a festive lunch after it was done, while singing O Canada. But just make it optional, what's the big deal? This one-size-fits-all obsession over symbolism is a bit odd.

Indeed. Here is the statement:

"Moving forward, we are exploring an option for those who wish to self-administer their Oath by signed attestation, and celebrate their citizenship at a later date. "

First, it is for "those who wish". And for people who want the warm fuzzies of a ceremony, that can be be had "at a later date". That should satisfy reasonable people. But not for the Taliban types with "I feel I must have the oath ceremony, and, therefore, so must everyone else" ....