Musselman: A covenant, not a grant: Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return

Odd commentary that suggests the author doesn’t fully understand the current process and requirements. Certainly, the header “asks too little in return” is one that I share but his specific recommendations in many respects are already in place (e.g., there is already a written attestation of the oath, which is of course a binding, albeit unenforced except through abiding by Canadian laws).

And always telling, when a lawyer states changes “cost little,” that they don’t appreciate the operational details and complexities (just as is the case for policy makers occasionally with C-3 being the latest example):

Canada is changing quickly, and the strain shows. Police-reported hate crimes targeting race or ethnicity have risen for six consecutive years, hate crimes targeting religion remain well above their 2020 level, and Canadians’ trust in one another has fallen from 54 per cent in 2013 to under 44 per cent today. These problems have many causes, and naturalization policy is clearly not the primary one. The issue is not immigration itself, but whether the process by which immigrants become citizens asks enough of them, and of us, in return.

Canada’s citizenship process asks immigrants to pass a test, pay a fee, and meet residency requirements. What it does not ask is the one thing that matters most: that they recognize Canada’s constitutional order as binding, conduct themselves within it, and take part in civic life through legitimate channels. That should worry us.

Since 1995, Canada has replaced the citizenship judge — who once interviewed every applicant — with a twenty-question multiple-choice test that can be easily memorized. The oath ceremony now often happens alone on a screen. An immigrant can clear every stage of naturalization without ever being asked to demonstrate that they understand, much less accept, the constitutional order and civic responsibilities of the country they are joining.

That is a mistake, and an avoidable one. Citizenship should be treated as a covenant, not a grant — a mutual bargain, not a gift with no strings attached. Canada offers immigrants membership in one of the world’s most prosperous, stable, rights-respecting societies. In return, it is entitled to ask that they recognize the country’s constitutional order as binding, resolve disagreements through Canada’s own institutions rather than import quarrels from abroad, and take part in civic life through legitimate channels. None of that means policing what anyone believes — only how they act.

Naturalization is the only moment Canada has real leverage to secure that covenant: the one point when an immigrant is actively asking the state for something. Once the oath is sworn, the leverage is gone. Yet Canada’s process checks residency, fees, and test scores — never recognition, conduct, or participation. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has even stopped tracking how many permanent residents goon to become citizens, in favour of measures that only show whether paperwork is moving.

A COVENANT, NOT A GRANT

Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return. Other countries offer lessons, but none are perfect. The Netherlands built a genuinely substantive citizenship test, but let it fall unfairly on its most vulnerable applicants. Germany keeps its knowledge test modest and does the real work through a signed Declaration of Loyalty to the country’s constitutional order. Britain made its test harder without making it meaningful — a UK parliamentary committee has called it a “bad pub quiz.”

Canada has taken none of these lessons to heart. Ottawa should (my comments in italics):

• Tell applicants, from their very first contact with the citizenship process, what recognition, lawful conduct, and civic participation require — not wait until the oath to explain it. The website focuses on basic eligibility requirements and citizenship process, which then lead to the more substantive issues of rights and responsibilities. Arguably, could have a short intro on the importance and general substance.

• Rewrite the outdated Discover Canada guide around Canada’s constitutional order, not trivia and heritage narratives. Kind of funny reading this as Discover Canada, the 2009 study guide which, with some controversy, dramatically increased such references compared to the earlier guide, A Look at Canada. Is important for the guide not just to be a dry legal text but to capture some of the history and geography that help newcomers understand Canada better. Not all trivia.

• Require a real recognition interview for every applicant, not just the small minority who currently trigger one. Unrealistic, given the annual numbers. The test was introduced in 1995 given the impracticalities and costs of interviewing all applicants at a time when numbers were half compared to the present.

• Restore in-person citizenship ceremonies and rewrite the oath, with a signed declaration, to name what Canada actually requires. Agree on making in-person ceremonies the default (currently about half of all ceremonies). Current wording of oath covers the basics but certainly room for improvement but requires legislation. Applicants sign a written attestation already.

• Make IRCC report to Parliament on whether permanent residents are actually choosing to become citizens — not merely on how fast their applications move. This used to exist but was meaningless as the performance standard was not xx percent within 5-9 years since landing but from any period. Data published during regular census periods which has been informative. Agree should be in annual plan, but focus needs to be on recent immigrants.

Canada naturalized more than 359,000 people in 2024–25 alone. Every one of them passed through a process that never required them to demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities that come with the Canadian passport they now hold. That moment, once gone, cannot be recovered. The reforms proposed above cost little and could be implemented quickly. What Canada cannot afford is to keep treating citizenship as paperwork to process rather than a covenant worth keeping.

Mark Musselman is a Toronto-based entertainment lawyer and PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

Source: A covenant, not a grant: Canada’s citizenship process asks too little in return