Not everything is liberal vs conservative, so don't make this about something it's not.
If IRCC holds oath ceremonies a day or week after DM, then I doubt we would be having this conversation. The practical question is this: given IRCC's incompetence through COVID, do people prefer to sign their oath immediately after DM, or wait months for the ceremony along with tens of thousands of others in the same DM boat. And the reasonable answer is, to each their own.
Some couples get married with 300 guests and a plated wedding banquet with a live band, others couples sign a document in City Hall with a friend or two wishing them well. Neither type of wedding tells us much about how much in love either couple is. We should similarly stop judging the Canadianness of a new citizen, based on their preference for the oath.
>what the Canadian government chooses based on what the consensus of ALL Canadians prefer.
For some things, consensus matters more than convenience. For other things, convenience matters more than consensus. Give people a choice whenever possible, that's what a liberal (lower case) democracy should strive for.
I make no effort to state what the law should be.
What the law is, and how it is changed, who can change it, and whose vote counts, dictates how things work and how that can be changed.
It has been decades since I engaged in politics much beyond casting a vote in municipal, provincial, and federal elections, with an occasional exception for particularly local issues (I have done some NIMBY stuff, figuring if those in the neighbourhood do not advocate against bad stuff, and for good stuff, who will).
My participation here focuses on how things work. Not how they should work. Of course how things work includes how changes can be made. And who can make them. Lots of misinformation about this gets repeated here.
Even though I have been here, in Canada, more than two decades now, and a citizen for a third plus of that, I am no arbiter of "
Canadianness" and offer no judgments on that score. And will not be baited into that.
That's another strawman stretch in this forum. No one here expressing their view about how significant or important the oath ceremony is, what it means, is judging anyone's "
Canadianness." After all, Canadians do not have a monopoly on the principles and values advanced by what the law prescribes regarding the oath ceremony. Not even the affirmation of allegiance to Canada's Queen, who spends very little time in Canada and is far better known as the Queen of other countries, like Great Britain, is particularly Canadian let alone about judging a person's "
Canadianness."
I recognize what is unreasonable well enough, and bullying as well. No advanced degrees in sociology or psychology necessary to note the
slings and arrows permeating topics like this, rife with ad hominem and unfound aspersions, so casually and frequently cast by the usual suspects.
And, occasionally joined by others.
I've paid more taxes in the past 6 years than the average Canadian would pay in their lifetime.
Perhaps this backhanded derision aimed at Canadians was an exception. That offense (at best vulgar bragging although more likely grossly hyperbolic if not an overt lie -- noting that data analysis shows the average Canadian family spends nearly 39 thousand dollars a year in taxes, which adds up in the course of a "
lifetime"), however, was deeply connected with the all too common
what's-in-it-for-me approach to weighing the value of living in Canada, with a disproportionate emphasis on monetary advantage. Economics matter, of course. But there is far more to living a good life than what can be read on a balance sheet.
"Not everything is liberal vs conservative, so don't make this about something it's not."
If you do not recognize the influence the Conservatives have relative to immigration, and how issues like this tend to get blown way out of proportion on that side of the aisle, and so easily become fodder for anti-immigrant agendas, and how this can impact future changes in the law, best I can do is suggest you look at some recent, very recent history . . . like some draconian measures the Liberals repealed following the last Conservative government, such as grant citizenship including an "intent to reside" in Canada requirement, and the provisions allowing the government to revoke citizenship for certain crimes (even if the citizen was born in Canada), the requirement to spend at least four years present in Canada to become a citizen with NO credit for time working in Canada before becoming a PR, and so on and so on. The prospect of a near future Conservative government looms large, and it could very easily be one well to the Right of Stephen Harper, and many of us saw and went through what he did. And are familiar with what pushes their buttons. That side of Canada is real. Serious. And not our friend (at least not the friend of most immigrants).
That said, my point was merely that those expecting a change in the law should recognize the influence the Conservative side of the aisle has and anticipate how that can affect what kind of changes might happen.
