Scrap the oath ceremony

[tusharnayyer]

Well, the sample here shows more in favour of the choice. Where are even hints of your "majority"?

I too appreciate the opportunities this country has given me. Very much so. Those opportunities include a "backdoor to the US" and "making $$".

As to who has the authority to change anything, if you don't mind, I will go with what the minister of immigration (And his expert advisors on such matters) has to say, instead or rants by random punters on random websites.

Like wise sir, likewise .

 

[funloving]

The sentiment you express is common. It was readily apparent at my own oath ceremony that the majority there were very much into the ceremonial character of the event; as I noted before, 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.

Beyond that, however, the current law requires such a ceremony, and in particular mandates (using the "shall" term) that the ceremony "emphasize the significance of the ceremony as a milestone in the lives of the new citizens," and that the oath be administered "with dignity and solemnity," and that the ceremony also "promote good citizenship, including respect for the law, the exercise of the right to vote, participation in community affairs and intergroup understanding."

That's current law. Regulation 17 which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-246/page-2.html#h-952206

It is also current law that adult grant citizenship requires (again using "shall") a person "take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge." Regulation 19, same link.

The Minister may be exploring options to revise the procedure, but as the Minister is well aware (whereas, in contrast, more than a few here appear to not be), the Minister has no authority to unilaterally change the law. Whether the Governor in Council, which in practice means at the least a directive from the Prime Minister, will entertain let alone actually change the law (such as to allow a sort of self-affirmation oath executed in writing), or even amend the Regulations to facilitate a temporary procedure to relieve the backlog, is difficult to predict. The Minister can push for it. But it is not the Minister's decision alone.

And IRCC has NO administrative authority to revise the procedure.

I have not seen any reliable polls, but it is highly unlikely that as many prospective new citizens would elect to forego participating in such a solemn event as some have hyperbolically asserted here (someone claimed 99%). However, to be clear, what is required is not their choice alone, but is what the Canadian government chooses based on what the consensus of ALL Canadians prefer. While my personal sentiments are way away from those in the Conservative party, I am not blind. In both of the last two elections more Canadians voted for a Conservative MP than voted Liberal (even though in both elections the Liberal Party won enough ridings to form the government with the support from the NDP and Green party), and as this week's shake-up in the Conservative party illustrates, even someone as conservative as Erin O'Toole appears to not be conservative enough for those Canadian voters. I do not have a crystal ball and do not predict the future. But one does not need to be a prophet to apprehend the impact the Right is having in Canada. And it is blaring rather loudly on the streets of Ottawa these days.

In any event, some may tout their own views while dismissing yours as significant to "you" . . . but it is far more likely theirs is the fringe view. I have personally seen a large room full of immigrants who emphatically agreed with you. And encountered many, many, many more Canadians who think it is important to impress on new citizens the solemnity and seriousness of taking an oath to Canada. In contrast, in participating in this and other similar forums for more than a decade, I have seen no more than a handful of unruly, typically rude, typically narcissistic, rather often belligerent, dissenters who generally focus on what they want, what is best for them, and fail to see much beyond their own myopia.

They implemented the Oath Ceremony on video calls, which was not a practice defined in the constitution, right?

 

[dpenabill]

They implemented the Oath Ceremony on video calls, which was not a practice defined in the constitution, right?

Correct; indeed, as far as I am aware the Constitution makes no mention of video based events at all.

Not sure how that relates to the discussion. The Constitution directs very little about immigration or granting citizenship, much like most matters of government. Does not even directly address the granting of citizenship at all.

It does govern the fundamental principles and procedures for how the government adopts law, including such things as what is a required quorum in the House of Commons, the role of the Senate in the legislative process, provisions governing Royal Assent to legislation adopted by Parliament, and so on.

Of course video conferencing has been used and applied in numerous contexts governed by presence requirements for many years. I am not sure when video conferencing was initially approved for appearances before a magistrate or judge in judicial proceedings, such as has been commonly done for incarcerated individuals appearing in certain criminal proceedings, but this has been routinely done for many years.

But in any event, IRCC has been conducting both knowledge of Canada tests and oath ceremonies virtually, that is in an audio-video format using telecommunications, for some time now. I previously referenced the difference in the law governing knowledge of Canada tests versus that governing the oath:

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 elaborate further in that post. For reference here again is a citation to and links for the relevant law, as prescribed in the Citizenship Regulations (which again, the Minister does not have the power to change unilaterally, but of course can make the case to the Prime Minister to follow the applicable legislative process to enact changes):

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 provisions 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.​

​

Edit to Add, In Case I Overlooked . . .

Perhaps your query was intended to note that there is nothing in the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, which requires the government to provide video conferencing oath ceremonies. If that is what you intended to note, that in effect there is no Charter right to take the oath via video, that is also correct.

I was surprised to see that IRCC is considering making virtual online knowledge of Canada testing a permanent practice, but there are reports, including information from within IRCC (sorry I cannot put my cursor on the source at the moment), that this is indeed being seriously considered.

But there is no fair procedure right under the Charter requiring IRCC to adopt such practices.

 

[trendtrader]

The minister under section 22 of regulations can authorize anyone to administer oath for eg. a citizenship officer who takes decision on a particular file. Further, section 19 is subordinate to section 22 of the regulations.

 

[funloving]

Correct; indeed, as far as I am aware the Constitution makes no mention of video based events at all.

Not sure how that relates to the discussion. The Constitution directs very little about immigration or granting citizenship, much like most matters of government. Does not even directly address the granting of citizenship at all.

It does govern the fundamental principles and procedures for how the government adopts law, including such things as what is a required quorum in the House of Commons, the role of the Senate in the legislative process, provisions governing Royal Assent to legislation adopted by Parliament, and so on.

Of course video conferencing has been used and applied in numerous contexts governed by presence requirements for many years. I am not sure when video conferencing was initially approved for appearances before a magistrate or judge in judicial proceedings, such as has been commonly done for incarcerated individuals appearing in certain criminal proceedings, but this has been routinely done for many years.

But in any event, IRCC has been conducting both knowledge of Canada tests and oath ceremonies virtually, that is in an audio-video format using telecommunications, for some time now. I previously referenced the difference in the law governing knowledge of Canada tests versus that governing the oath:



I elaborate further in that post. For reference here again is a citation to and links for the relevant law, as prescribed in the Citizenship Regulations (which again, the Minister does not have the power to change unilaterally, but of course can make the case to the Prime Minister to follow the applicable legislative process to enact changes):

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 provisions 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.​

​

Edit to Add, In Case I Overlooked . . .

Perhaps your query was intended to note that there is nothing in the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, which requires the government to provide video conferencing oath ceremonies. If that is what you intended to note, that in effect there is no Charter right to take the oath via video, that is also correct.

I was surprised to see that IRCC is considering making virtual online knowledge of Canada testing a permanent practice, but there are reports, including information from within IRCC (sorry I cannot put my cursor on the source at the moment), that this is indeed being seriously considered.

But there is no fair procedure right under the Charter requiring IRCC to adopt such practices.

The following is also mentioned under 19 (2) "Unless the Minister otherwise directs, the oath of citizenship shall be taken at a citizenship ceremony."
So, if the minister wants to introduce new process to reduce the waiting time in these unprecedented times, he can do that without going through to the long process to change the wordings of the constitution.

 

[dpenabill]

The minister under section 22 of regulations can authorize anyone to administer oath for eg. a citizenship officer who takes decision on a particular file. Further, section 19 is subordinate to section 22 of the regulations.

While Regulation 22 allows for the Minister to authorize an exception to Regulation 19 in particular cases, that is ONLY as to WHO administers the oath. So, where Regulation 19 states the person must "take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge," Regulation 22 allows the Minister to authorize someone other than a Citizenship Judge to administer the oath, thus allowing in the particular case for a person to "take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before" an individual who has been authorized, in writing, to act on the Minister's behalf.

No particular expertise in statutory construction necessary to recognize the limited scope this has relative to the discussion here.

I suspect, nonetheless, some may press an interpretation suggesting the Minister could authorize individual applicants to "act on the Minister's behalf," a so-called self-authorized administration of the oath. There is plenty of judicial interpretation regarding the scope of authority that can be exercised by a Minister's delegate to categorically dismiss that proposition. Whatever "options" the Minister is considering (which no one here has offered so much as a hint of a reliable source regarding, so it is difficult to address any actual propositions under consideration), the prospect that applicants will be given written authorization to "act on the Minister's behalf" is about as far-fetched as they come.

Which is not to close the door on possible work-around procedures, including potentially temporary measures to facilitate backlog reduction. But again, for all the noise about the Minister considering "options," no concrete proposition has been described here let alone referenced with a reliable source.

In the meantime, this topic is about eliminating the necessity of taking "the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a Citizenship Judge" or, in a particular case where authorized in writing by the Minister, before another person authorized to "act on the Minister's behalf." To do that, the Regulations governing the administration of the oath would need to be changed.

No need to change the Constitution. Parliament could eliminate grant citizenship altogether without changing the constitution.

 

[trendtrader]

No particular expertise in statutory construction necessary to recognize the limited scope this has relative to the discussion here.

Actually the example that I suggested would indeed obviate the necessity of having a ceremony whilst the backlog is tackled by IRCC without resorting to any legislative exercise. So it is relevant to the discussion here. Again it can be made entirely optional.

 

[Gondal27]

Does IRCC going to introduce digital oath to finish the backlog as stated by minister?

 

[dpenabill]

For clarity:

Actually the example that I suggested would indeed obviate the necessity of having a ceremony whilst the backlog is tackled by IRCC without resorting to any legislative exercise. So it is relevant to the discussion here. Again it can be made entirely optional.

eg. a citizenship officer who takes decision on a particular file.

This will still involve actually taking the oath before a properly authorized official. A ceremony . . .
. . . be that for many at a time or one at a time.

It may facilitate more oath ceremonies in a given period of time, and thus help to reduce the backlog, but only incrementally faster than the current process . . . it would be comparable to appointing more Citizenship Judges to conduct more oath ceremonies.

Moreover, that is assuming the government's legal departments conclude the Minister can broadly authorize such an exception without duly assessing and applying the Regulation 22 exception for each individual case (the latter would actually slow the process not speed it up). Maybe. Maybe not.

But since it would still involve actually taking the oath before a properly authorized official, thus a ceremony, it has a limited scope relative to the discussion here about scrapping the oath ceremony . . . that is, whether IRCC (for sure not) or the Minister (not unilaterally) can eliminate the formal procedure requiring applicants to take "the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a" a Citizenship Judge (or, if the Minister so authorizes in writing, before another person authorized to act on the Minister's behalf).

 

[salem10]

Just question here. It might be some how related. My daughter (adult) is special needs person who can’t talk or understand oath. How she can participate in oath?

 

[armoured]

Just question here. It might be some how related. My daughter (adult) is special needs person who can’t talk or understand oath. How she can participate in oath?

Did she get an exemption from the testing and language requirements? (I don't know the answer to your question, I'm asking for separate reason)

 

[salem10]

Did she get an exemption from the testing and language requirements? (I don't know the answer to your question, I'm asking for separate reason)

When I sent our application, she is under 18. So she is not required to do test. I did my test and waiting for oath update.
I sent all medical reports in the application including she needs special accommodations.

@dpenabill

 

[Seym]

@salem10 the best course of action would be to contact IRCC regarding this.
They will tell you if there's any need for a medical opinion so they can accommodate your daughter's needs and waive a given citizenship requirement (here, the oath).
Usually, a proof is needed for special needs, like the test skip @armoured asked you about, so, this should be similar...

Cf this for more details : https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/decisions/waivers-medical-opinions.html

 

[i6evx5e8]

Citizenship (by naturalization) is a privilege. No one is forcing anyone to apply for citizenship.

 

[luvtrump]

Citizenship (by naturalization) is a privilege. No one is forcing anyone to apply for citizenship.

There are many things you cannot do because you dont have that privilege therefore you have no choice but to apply.