Ladha: Save citizenship ceremonies – Red Deer Advocate

2023/03/23 Leave a comment

Yet another editorial against the change:

Citizenship ceremonies are emotional and personal experiences, especially for those of us New Canadians who had the privilege of participating in one. Now the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has given notice that they were contemplating an end in-person citizenship ceremonies in favour of a “secure online solution.” In-person ceremonies could still be arranged upon request, but subject to a delay.

I still remember the citizenship ceremony that I had to attend when I proudly became a Canadian citizen in 1975. Dressed in my Hugo Boss suit, I was with my wife and son, all of us dressed up in our finest, lined up with New Canadians of all backgrounds, happily showing off the Canadian flags.

When the time came to sing the newly memorized national anthem, I was so emotional that my eyes welled up with tears. Every Canada Day, I still have visions of my touching and heart-breaking citizenship ceremony experience, and thankful prayers to Canada for providing a happy, wonderful, and prosperous life. Yes, Canada, I haven’t been disappointed.

I am horrified the government is proposing to abolish this special welcoming in-person citizenship ceremonies with an administrative online box and do away with a group singing “O Canada.” The government brief also notes that the new system will prevent the inconvenience of new citizens having to book time off work to make the ceremony. What a concession!

The fact that Canada, the most friendly and welcoming nation in the world, would resort to a computer-oriented system to announce that immigrants are now citizens is appalling and upsetting. Ceremonies in everyone’s life, be it a birthday or a retirement party, play an important part, signifying a milestone in their lives.

A former minister of immigration under then Prime Minster jean Chretien, himself an Argentinian immigrant to Canada, was so upset that he wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Star, calling it “an insult.” “For years, my parents would recount how momentous and meaningful (the ceremony) was. Why would government want to rob future citizens of this feeling of attachment?”

Another prominent defender former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson who came to Canada as a refugee from Japanese-occupied Hong Kong and presided over a few citizenship ceremonies herself as an Officer of the Order of Canada, said she was “horrified” by the proposed change.

Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee famous for founding the Nova Scotia-based chocolatier Peace by Chocolate, described Canadian citizenship ceremonies as “the magical rituals that bring together everyone (new and old citizens) to celebrate the true meaning of the Canadian dream.”

“We cannot afford to lose the significance of this celebration of belonging nor can we diminish the value of Canadian citizenship,” he added.

Credit should, however, be given to the government for moving a notch forward towards truth and reconciliation of indigenous peoples by officially recognizing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, and the obligation of all citizens to respect the treaties between the Crown and Indigenous nations.

The new oath now includes “Indigenous, Inuit and Métis rights, and will help new Canadians better understand the role of Indigenous peoples, the ongoing impact of colonialism and residential schools and our collective obligation to uphold the treaties.”

“Canada’s Oath of Citizenship is a commitment to this country—and that includes the national project of reconciliation. This new Oath now includes Indigenous, Inuit and Métis rights, and will help new Canadians better understand the role of Indigenous peoples, the ongoing impact of colonialism and residential schools and our collective obligation to uphold the treaties. This is an important step on our shared journey of reconciliation,” said Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

“The new language in Canada’s Oath of Citizenship is a concrete step forward on rebuilding relationships with Indigenous peoples as it responds to Call to Action 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is so important that new Canadians understand the rights and significant contributions of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.”

The new language of the oath reads: “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

All Canadians and would be citizens should protest the proposal to replace citizenship ceremonies with something tantamount to “dial a citizen” method. Becoming a citizen by ticking the “Make Me A Canadian” box from anywhere is an impolite method of becoming a citizen of one’s country.

Mansoor Ladha is a Calgary-based journalist and author of three nonfiction books: Off the Cuff, Memoirs of a Muhindi: Fleeing East Africa for the West and A Portrait in Pluralism: Aga Khan’s Shia Ismaili Muslims.

Source: Editorial: Save citizenship ceremonies – Red Deer Advocate

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Oaths, trust and Canadian democracy

2023/03/22 Leave a comment

Interesting they left out the oath of citizenship.

The government’s proposal to allow self-administration of the oath (“citizenship on a click”) was raised at CIMM 20 March by the Conservative vice-Chair Redekopp, who requested that the Minister and officials be invited to the committee to explain the reasons for the change.

Redekopp also called for in-person ceremonies to be the default, with virtual only in limited circumstances.

Hopefully this broader discussion at the political level, along with the almost universal opposition in most media and social media to date, will result in the government abandoning this ill-advised proposal.

My apologies for using this post as a means to raise the citizenship oath again!

Occasionally, the Oath of Allegiance to the sovereign enters the news cycle.  Most often, it is raised in the popular debate of whether Canada’s constitutional ties to the monarch as a head of state are anachronistic. For some office holders it’s cast as a kind of “conscientious objection” to the concept of a monarchy. But these views are grounded in confusion.

What’s in an oath?

Privy Councilors, Supreme Court Justices, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, among others, all take an oath of allegiance to the King or sovereign, the person who embodies the Crown.  But when an officeholder swears allegiance to the monarch, they aren’t committing to a personal, or even a political, belief in the principle of hereditary office.  Taking the oath is an acceptance of the legitimacy of our constitutional system – one in which the Crown heads each branch of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.

Like it or not, the monarch is the legal repository of all authority of the Canadian state (although most of his powers are exercised by the Governor General). A minister is a minister of the Crown and exercises power only in its name. In formal terms, prime ministers and their cabinets are merely advisors to the Crown, such that decisions of Cabinet acquire the force of law only as acts of the Governor in Council.  If nothing else, this puts prime ministers in their place.

Does an oath matter in practice?

It’s easy to think of the oath of allegiance as something purely symbolic and as such dispensable. Our prime minister sometimes appears to think so. But oath takers put their integrity on the line, and a blithe attitude towards such “symbols” contributes to the toxic cocktail of declining trust in our public institutions and legitimacy.

Recent revelations of China’s interference into Canada’s last two federal elections as well as related intelligence leaks by unnamed intelligence sources to the Globe and Mail and Global News have shown how vulnerable our institutions can be, including the public service tradition of speaking truth to power.

One of the extraordinary things about the system to which a Canadian officeholder swears allegiance is the deep well of conventional, which is to say mostly unspoken, rights and obligations that it taps into.

To take one example of these deep historical roots, when William Cecil, principal counsellor to Elizabeth I for 40 years, entered her service she required three commitments from him:

that you will not be corrupted with any manner of gift, that you will be faithful to the state, and that without respect of my private will, you will give me that counsel that you think best.

In less than one sentence Elizabeth required a commitment to honesty and avoidance of conflict of interest, to acting in the public interest, and to speaking truth to power. Much of the content of our public service code and conflict of interest act is a less pithy and eloquent codification of these three centuries-old principles.

Incidentally, Elizabeth committed herself to a reciprocal confidentiality, such that what Cecil confided in her he should “assure yourself I shall keep taciturnly therein.”

Truth to power: A reciprocal commitment

Elizabeth’s commitment to her counsellor reminds us that oaths by office holders can carry reciprocal, if unspoken, commitments on the part of the Crown. Being obliged to speak truth to power, for instance, implies a commitment by the Crown not to mete out punishment for truths it doesn’t want to hear.

Unlike whistleblowing protections that afford those who risk personal career harm or injury by bringing to light unlawful behaviour for fraud by governments, the oath requires its keeper to give fearless advice even when the receiver is likely not asking for it.

In the case of alleged leaks of intelligence information to the media by unnamed officials, there is much we do not know.  We do know that the RCMP is investigating and will determine if the Secrecy Act has been breached.  We also may never know the granularity of the information provided to the prime minister and officials in his office.  We can assume, however, that the office holders providing the intelligence briefings were obligated to provide “fearless advice” on the nature of the threat and likely means to mitigate such threats.

A key question is, was the information leaked to media materially the same or different from the material used to brief the prime minister and his office?  How thorough was the advice?  Did the Prime Minister’s Office acknowledge receipt and take a different course than was recommended (which is their democratically elected prerogative).  Alternatively, was the information and advice provided limited or perhaps even diluted?

If the latter, then “fearless advice” is being undermined.  The intelligence sources who leaked the information may be prime candidates to test the level of reciprocity that comes with an oath of allegiance: To serve faithfully, honestly and fearlessly and to be shielded (protected) from potential political or career reprisal.

Acknowledging the authority, you seek to exercise

Many people think the Westminster system, including the concept of the Crown, is one of humanity’s greater achievements. Readers are under no obligation to agree. But if you want to participate in the exercise of the Crown’s authority – even for the purposes of seeking its abolition – you must acknowledge it. Legally speaking, when and if the monarchy is ever abolished in Canada, it will be by and with the assent of the monarch.

When we dismiss oaths, we blithely toss away the richness and gravitas of the Canadian state, for the sake of a glib confusion.

Stephen Van Dine is the former Assistant Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Karl Salgo is Executive Director of Public Governance at the Institute on Governance.

Source: Oaths, trust and Canadian democracy

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Citizenship oath at the click of a mouse would cheapen tradition, Tory critic

2023/03/20 Leave a comment

Nice to see the opposition raising the issue as this change requires a political discussion. Sent my Canada Gazette submission to both the Conservatives and NDP, with no reaction from the NDP to date.

Hard to take Minister Fraser’s assertion that “they will still have an opportunity to participate in an IRCC-organized citizenship ceremony shortly after they complete their citizenship” seriously when the main rationale is to reduce the number of ceremonies to save a minuscule portion of the cost of the citizenship program. The inclusion arguments are more of a smokescreen than substantive.

Clearly Minister Fraser doesn’t understand and appreciate how powerful the ceremonies are to new Canadians (and many existing Canadians) in terms of meaningfulness and sense of belongin:

The Conservative immigration critic says a proposal to allow people to become a Canadian citizen with the click of a mouse “cheapens” an otherwise special moment for newcomers.

“Citizenship by click is not citizenship,” said Calgary MP Tom Kmiec.

“They’re really cheapening citizenship purely for political motivation, to reduce their backlogs.”

The federal government is seeking feedback on a plan to let people take the Oath of Citizenship online, rather than attend an officiated ceremony.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser first floated the idea in January 2022 as a way to speed up processing times, which would have someone “self-administer a digital oath by signed attestation, and celebrate their citizenship at a later date.”

Yet the proposal published in the Canada Gazette late last month would instead allow someone to skip the ceremony entirely.

Fraser did not specify why the proposal had changed, nor who came up with the idea. But he said COVID-19 created a backlog that even virtual ceremonies can’t quickly clear.

“For those people who choose to do an online self-attestation, they will still have an opportunity to participate in an IRCC-organized citizenship ceremony shortly after they complete their citizenship,” Fraser said on Friday, in his first public comments on the proposed regulatory change.

Fraser added that those who have waited years for citizenship would be able to take their oath faster under that process, and he rejected claims it would cheapen the moment.

Kmiec said the ceremonies are a big deal for people like him who were not born Canadian. Kmiec, who immigrated from Poland, still recalls taking his oath in 1989, and said the tradition shouldn’t be diminished as a way to deal with an administrative backlog.

“These are very low-cost events; these are mostly retired civil servants, serving judges and ex-judges who do the actual ceremony,” he said.

“The way they’ve done this tells me that they’re embarrassed by it, because I’d be embarrassed by it too.”

Kmiec argued the backlog stems from Liberal incompetence in administering programs, rather than the pandemic. He is also critical of the lag after newcomers they take the oath, at which point they relinquish their permanent-residence card and await their citizenship certificate in the mail, which can be used to apply for a passport.

“There are some process changes they could do to actually make people’s lives easier,” he said.

In any case, Canada’s former director-general of citizenship and multiculturalism, Andrew Griffith, said the department should have issued a press release about the proposed change instead of “trying to slip it by.”

Griffith retired after a career with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Canada’s foreign service, and said the phrasing in the regulatory proposal and the lack of public-opinion research suggests it’s aimed at reducing costs rather than making things more convenient for applicants.

“It’s driven by the desire to reduce, if not eliminate, ceremonies, virtual or physical. And it’s pretty explicit,” he said.

“One gets the impression as a former bureaucrat that maybe the officials who had to draft the stuff weren’t really that keen.”

Griffith noted that the 1946 Citizenship Act explicitly called for ceremonies that instil the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, as Canada carved out an identity separate from Britain following the Second World War.

“It’s really an abuse of the process, because it goes against the grain of what the Citizenship Act was designed to do,” he argued. “It really goes against one of the fundamental objectives of citizenship.”

The comment period on the proposed change closes on March 27.

If approved, the changes to the citizenship regulations would come into effect at early as June, at a cost of about $5 million.

Source: Citizenship oath at the click of a mouse would cheapen tradition …,

Un serment de citoyenneté en ligne déprécierait le rituel, soutient l’opposition

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , ,

Opinion | Canada’s citizenship ceremonies aren’t bureaucratic …

2023/03/16 Leave a comment

More commentary. Haven’t seen any supporting the change apart from some tweets:

Having been born in Canada, I’ve never had to participate in a citizenship ceremony to affirm my Canadianess. I have partaken in the process in other ways. I’ve been privileged to write letters to the government on behalf of friends who were on the path to becoming Canadians. I’ve attended ceremonies both personally and professionally, and always felt proud to have been there to welcome our newest citizens.

So when I read last week that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was considering moving away from the in-person swearing in as a way to reduce a three-month backlog for ceremonies, I was suitably aghast.

While it may be old-fashioned, there is power in ceremony and in this ceremony in particular. It’s a tangible moment that marks a transition, whether it’s a conversion of convenience or the fulfilment of a lifelong dream. It’s an experience shared with all those who’ve become citizens since 1947. It’s about becoming something new, something different. It’s about belonging, about knowing that Canada can be your home now and forever. You are now a part of Canada, and no one can take that away from you.

I get that it can be inconvenient to take time off work and drag the kids out of school to attend. I get that for some, acquiring Canadian citizenship is no more momentous than buying a new toaster. I get that swearing an oath of citizenship in your living room is no less binding than doing it in a nondescript government office. I get all that, but by ditching the in-person ceremony, something important would be lost — something that a tick box on a computer screen could never replace.

At the ceremony, you’re surrounded by strangers who’ve come to this country from all across the globe. They may be refugees fleeing war. They may be migrants seeking a better life. They may be family members of those already here. It’s entirely possible that the only connection that you have with these people is that you all happened to be in the same room on the same day.

Then something magical happens. You all recite the oath and all become fellow Canadians.

The rituals around becoming a citizen aren’t some bureaucratic nonsense like getting your driver’s licence renewed. They are something with real meaning. It’s meant to be special. It’s meant to be an occasion. It’s meant to shared with the community.

So if the government really wants to clear the backlog, it can do what’s been done in the past — deputize Order of Canada recipients to preside over these ceremonies. Who better to welcome new Canadians to the family than some of our country’s best and brightest?

Sometimes traditions need to change or evolve because they’re no longer fit for purpose. That’s not the case with the citizenship ceremony. Joining Canada is a special moment and deserves to be treated as one.

Gordon Cameron is the group managing editor for Hamilton Community News, The Sachem and The Glanbrook Gazette.

Source: Opinion | Canada’s citizenship ceremonies aren’t bureaucratic …

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Nelson: Gaining Canadian citizenship is more than just about ticking the box

2023/03/14 Leave a comment

From rural Alberta, another voice opposing the change. Too much anti-Trudeau vitriol but fundamentals on oath administration sound:

The greatest gift any country can confer is citizenship.

So why is it any surprise, given the ongoing ineptitude involving virtually every branch of our federal administration, that Canada is considering turning such a remarkable moment into something akin to tying your laces?

In fact, if a proposal by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is accepted, becoming a citizen will take even less time than needed to actually fasten your shoes. All it would entail is ticking an online box on a federal website.

No longer would you swear a solemn oath before a judge alongside other assembled proud recent immigrants from across the globe. Nope, you can get it done during a commercial break while watching a hockey game on TV. Won’t that feel oh-so special?

Maybe that’s how our current government sees this country. After all, Justin Trudeau’s administration has spent years apologizing for all sorts of perceived wrongs committed by Canada over the past century. It might therefore reckon becoming an actual citizen of such a dubious land shouldn’t be cause for public celebration.

Well, they’re wrong. So wrong they should hang their collective heads in shame.

Becoming a Canadian citizen, 38 years ago, remains a major highlight in my life: the poignancy of that day in Edmonton, following the required three years as a landed immigrant, remains a proud memory. It’s doubtful I’m alone in that sentiment.

Of course, given the recent track record of our federal government, this sad ‘tick-the-box-and-become-a-Canuck’ plan arises from yet another virtue-signalling boondoggle – one guaranteed to end in confusion and disarray once exposed to the light of day.

OK, according to the latest government figures, there are 358,000 citizenship applications outstanding, with some of those folk waiting more than two years for a ceremony.

Why such a backlog? Well, in his usual preening manner, our prime minister announced immigration levels to Canada would be boosted to such an extent that by 2025 we’ll accept 500,000 newcomers a year.

No doubt Trudeau gets some figurative gold star from the UN for this: yet the fact we can’t process such huge numbers remains an unmentionable and inconvenient truth.

Therefore, is it any wonder fewer and fewer immigrants even bother becoming citizens at all? According to Statistics Canada: in 2021, about 45 per cent of permanent residents in Canada for less than 10 years hadn’t taken citizenship. In 2001, it stood at a much lower 25 per cent.

So, why are more newcomers unwilling to commit to Canada? After all, they picked up sticks and came here in the first place – a huge, life-altering choice to make.

Is Canada becoming simply a country of expediency? Or are those continuing assaults upon our good name and once-stellar reputation, from those supposedly representing us, eroding our national brand?

Add in the organizational chaos facing enthusiastic would-be Canadians resulting in years of delay and it becomes a toxic mix of disengagement.

The official response is promoting a ‘tick-the-online box’ solution.

Such crass make-do is shameful. This is the best country on the planet, populated by a diverse bunch of Homo sapiens, somehow finding joy under sunny skies, even if it’s -20 C outside.

This remains, as always, next year country: the horizon beckons and the past is exactly that: the past. Leave it at the entrance door.

It’s time the federal government realized becoming a Canadian citizen isn’t akin to finding some loose change down the sofa. It’s a remarkable gift to bestow and one that should be suitably celebrated.

Source: COLUMN: Gaining Canadian citizenship is more than just about ticking the box

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Citizenship Oath on a Click: My Submission

2023/03/13 Leave a comment

My submission in response to Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 8: Regulations Amending the Citizenship Regulations (Oath of Citizenship)

General 

The planned change risks weakening the meaningfulness of Canadian citizenship by allowing the oath to be administered by a “non-authorized person” and thus citizenship ceremonies to be reduced if not eliminated in number.

The notice is lacking in any serious analysis apart from some generalities around potential cost and time savings. 

Given that the proposal focuses on cost savings due to a reduced number of ceremonies, one would expect, at a minimum, estimates of the number of applicants who would avail themselves of “ceremonies on a click” and the consequent number of reduced ceremonies. 

There is no analysis on the impact on the sense of belonging and attachment that moving to “ceremonies on a click” will have on new Canadians, nor is their any consideration of the historical context or the will of Parliament. It appears that no public opinion research was conducted regarding this proposed change as none is mentioned in the notice. 

This proposal has been widely criticized in commentary by myself and Senator Omidvar, former Governor General Clarkson, former Immigration Minister Marchi among others. These public commentaries, and the comments they have generated, need to be included along with formal comments like this one.

Issues

While IRCC has correctly focussed on modernization of the process such as e-applications, e-tests and an on-line application tracker in order to facilitate the process for applicants, in other areas it has weakened the meaningfulness, integration and sense belonging of becoming a citizen. The move to virtual citizenship ceremonies, needed during the pandemic, has less power and significance than in-person ceremonies, as anyone who has attended both can attest.

The proposed change would further weaken the act of becoming a citizen by eliminating or at least reducing the need for citizenship ceremonies, an objective explicitly stated in the “benefits and costs” section.

It is also against the wishes of Parliament, expressed as early as the first reading of the original Citizenship Act on October 22, 1945, when the then Secretary of State, Paul Martin Sr. spoke of the importance of citizenship ceremonies, stating that the legislation would:

“by appropriate ceremonies, impress upon applicants the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship” (House of Commons Debates, October 25, 1945, p. 1337 and s.38, Citizenship Act, 1946.)

Mr. Martin went on to state that new Canadians must:

“be made to feel that they, like the rest of us, are Canadians, citizens of a great country, guardians of proud traditions and trustees of all that is best in life for generations of Canadians yet to be … [and] have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interest as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning: “I am a Canadian.”” (House of Commons Debates, October 25, 1945, p. 1337)

At second reading, Mr. Martin reiterated that where ceremonies were taking place for Canadian ‘naturalization’ (which occurred prior to 1947), these ceremonies “have made a deep impression upon every new Canadian who has obtained Canadian naturalization.” He added that is was the Government’s “determination under the statutory provisions of this bill to frame regulations that will make these ceremonies more than ordinary procedure, and one of a memorable character.” (House of Commons Debates, April 2, 1946, p. 505)

Mr. Martin understood the importance of a ceremony to welcome new Canadians into the Canadian family and our practice of public ceremonies has been emulated by other countries who emulate the benefits of what we have been doing. It would be a betrayal of those who preceded us to do away with citizenship ceremonies.

Background

The section focusses on the oath and ceremony as meeting the formal legal requirement and is silent on the broader implications on welcoming and belonging that citizenship ceremonies provide. There is no mention of public opinion research on attitudes towards citizenship ceremonies. 

Internal research and evaluations are similarly not mentioned. The 2013 IRCC Evaluation of the Citizenship Awareness Program noted: 

“Although newcomers have various reasons for getting their Canadian citizenship, the evaluation found that practical reasons, such as getting passports, ranked below more intangible reasons linked to their social integration, highlighting a role that promotion can have in creating a sense of belonging and permanency for newcomers to further encourage uptake.”

The 2020 Evaluation of the Citizenship Program also indicated that the “evidence suggested that wanting to feel fully Canadian and to make Canada their permanent home are primary motivators,” along with the need to “implement a new approach for the knowledge requirement, which could include a revised study guide and additional tools.” 

Public commentary in the media and social media indicate significant attachment to public ceremonies, whether in-person or virtual.  Again, there is no reference to the original will of Parliament that ceremonies take place and that:

“Since the passage of the Citizenship Act in 1947, Canadian citizenship policy has embodied two distinct objectives: i) to encourage and facilitate naturalization by permanent residents; and ii) to enhance the meaning of citizenship as a unifying bond for Canadians.” (2013 Evaluation)

Description

IRCC is essentially arguing that becoming a citizen in front of an authorized person along with other to be Canadians is not worth a few hours of their time? Seriously? 

The experience that I and others have while attending citizenship ceremonies is that the ceremony is a very significant moment in the immigration and citizenship journey for them, their families and friends. This more than compensates for a few more months of processing time.

Again, the lack of public opinion research on this proposed change is telling, as this is one of the few public moments in the immigration, integration and citizenship journey, and one of the few positive experiences with the process.

Regulatory analysis—Benefits and costs

The aim is clearly cost reduction through the holding of fewer citizenship ceremonies:

“Consequently, it is expected that participation in ceremonies would be lower than it is currently, and there would likely be fewer ceremonies overall. Therefore, the Government of Canada would save costs, as the proposal would likely reduce the number of ceremonies the Department would be required to arrange.”

Tellingly, there is no data on the recent average costs of holding citizenship ceremonies, both in-person and virtual. And there are no estimated numbers of the reduction of citizenship ceremonies that would be needed to cover the ongoing costs of $5 million over 10 years. This amount is negligible in relation to the overall budget of the Citizenship Program.

Similarly, there are no  estimates on the number of persons who would likely choose this option and the consequently reduced number of ceremonies. This information, and the underlying assumptions, should be stated in the notice (the government of the day did so with respect to the 2014-15 increase in citizenship fees).

But more than the financial benefits and costs, this change fundamentally diminishes the symbolic and celebratory aspects of citizenship by eliminating the most significant part of the process of becoming a citizen, being among others from around the world who are taking the next step in their immigration and integration journey.  As Paul Martin Sr. said in 1946, we need ceremonies and they must be these “more than ordinary procedure, and one of a memorable character.”

There is no discussion on this most fundamental aspect of this change, nor acknowledgement of how this shift will affect applicants and their sense of participation and belonging. Citizenship is not a drivers license or health card; it is the means of having a secure home, of have the right to vote and participate in decisions regarding the present and future of Canada. 

Trying to justify these changes on inclusion grounds, given processing and ceremony time savings, misses the most important and fundamental inclusion which is the ceremony itself, with all its rituals and symbolism and welcome it provides.

With no public opinion research or consultations cited in the notice, likely that none was carried out, yet we know from commentary to date that this change is highly controversial.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Will IRCC report on the expected up to three months processing time separately? Unlikely, so we will never know whether these savings were realized.

Will IRCC publicly report on the number of persons self-administering the oath and those in ceremonies on an annual basis as part of the department’s annual departmental plan and results report? Given the weakness of IRCC’s current reporting on the citizenship, and given no commitment is made in the Gazette, unlikely. 

Recommendation

IRCC should abandon these proposals and maintain Canada’s proud tradition of meaningful public citizenship ceremonies.

However, should IRCC proceed in this ill-advised change, several commitments need to be made:

  1. IRCC needs to include breakdowns between the number of new Canadians self-administering the oath and those participating in public ceremonies in its annual departmental plans and result reports;
  2. IRCC needs to share publicly any internal targets in terms of ceremony reductions in order to assess the impact of the change; and,
  3. IRCC needs to commit to public opinion research on the experience of new Canadians who self-administer the oath and those who participate in ceremonies, an interim public report two-years after the change comes into effect (June 2025) and a further public report five-years later (June 2028)

Finally, as it was Parliament that originally directed formal ceremonies to take place, Parliament ought to review any actions by IRCC that undermine the will of Parliament.

Please consider providing your views to the Government through the Gazette process: https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-02-25/html/reg1-eng.html

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Keenan: Citizenship should be marked by a more meaningful ritual than just a mouse click

2023/03/10 Leave a comment

Another commentary against the change, proposing a more expansive approach to citizenship ceremonies and their importance as ritual:

If there’s one thing that’s become clear from the whole kerfuffle over a government plan to replace citizenship oath-swearing ceremonies with the tick of a box on an online form, it’s that many of us feel there’s real value in a real initiation ritual. 

I probably don’t need to repeat the arguments that have been well articulated by others: making it akin to the “I accept the terms and conditions” formality of social media sign-ups “cheapens” the whole process, as the CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship told the Star; “the act of swearing allegiance to one’s country before a citizenship judge is a powerful, and moving ceremony,” wrote Sergio Marchi, who was initiated in such a ceremony after immigrating from Argentina before becoming Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and presiding over many other such ceremonies; those ceremonies “were some of the most moving, joyful, and meaningful events I have ever attended,” wrote Rev. Mark McLennan on our letters page. Amen, amen, amen. I agree.

A few years ago, I was invited to participate in such a ceremony at Fort York — members of the community of existing citizens like myself joined round-table discussions with citizenship candidates being sworn in that afternoon to discuss what it means to be Canadian, what we valued about this country, what we felt about our rights and obligations. Then we witnessed the swearing of the oath that made this group formally a part of our country’s membership — and we were invited to also swear the oath to reaffirm our own allegiance. As someone born in Canada, it was the first time in my life I had ever spoken those words, or ever done anything to actively confirm my own citizenship. For the new citizens, it was an important, joyful milestone day marked by a powerful ritual. But it held great meaning for me too, prompting some welcome reflection and gratitude — not just for being able to witness the ceremony for others, but being able to participate in it myself. 

I wonder if, instead of Tinder-izing the process into a quick swipe-and-send, we should further cement this powerful ritual as a right of passage available to all Canadians, including those who are automatically Canadian citizens by birth.

In the Catholic faith tradition in which I was raised, children become members of the religion through baptism soon after birth, in a choice made by their parents. But at adolescence, they are invited to participate in a confirmation ceremony where they make their own choice to join the church as adults — a process that includes an elaborate preparation course and an elaborate ceremony usually presided over by a bishop or cardinal. 

In the Jewish tradition, there’s a similar and perhaps more widely known tradition in the bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah, in which members of the faith — usually born into it — have an elaborate coming-out ritual and celebration to mark their maturity as people and members of their community. Other faith and ethnic communities around the world have related ceremonies of adult initiation, or coming of age, from the Amish rumspringa to the Japanese seijin-no-hi to the Filipino debut.

It feels like Canada could use a similar ritual marking an embrace of mature citizenship, even for those who are already citizens. It could be a moving, joyful, meaningful event for them for many of the same reasons it is for new Canadians. 

Birthright citizenship, in Canada, is an important part of our legal and cultural tradition in itself, of course — the rights and obligations of citizenship extend to natural-born Canadians automatically, they are not contingent on any action they need to take or oath they need to swear, and I don’t think they should be. But it would be nice, I think, and potentially powerful, if all of us (those from here and from away alike) were invited to participate in ceremonies where we recognize and formalize our connection to our country ourselves, acknowledging and embracing what many of us inherited by accident of birth even as others are going to great lengths to obtain the same status. This process — optional, but maybe expected — could be build into the curriculum (or extracurricular schedule) of schools alongside civics lessons. It would be an educational opportunity — much needed if reactions to those periodic “could you pass the citizenship application test” stories that go around are any guide — as well as a chance to both reflect on and celebrate what citizenship means.

The click-a-box modification to the existing process was apparently proposed as a way to clear pandemic-induced backlogs in citizenship ceremonies. But my own sense is that one important thing the pandemic taught us — to repeat a theme I wrote on only recently — it’s that a lot of our life tasks can be accomplished online from home, but that much of life is less full and meaningful if we do everything that way. During the long period of isolation, most of us sorely missed the public ceremonies of weddings and funerals and graduations, and learned just how pale an imitation attending by video conference is. Rituals are powerful, they imbue the things they recognize with significance, marking important occasions and decisions and milestones in our memories and for our communities.

Many of us seem to recognize that citizenship initiation deserves a public in-person ritual. Maybe instead of streamlining that process into meaninglessness, we should expand it so more people get to experience its meaning. 

Source: Keenan: Citizenship should be marked by a more meaningful ritual than just a mouse click

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Rahim Mohamed: Trudeau has degraded the value of Canadian citizenship 

2023/03/10 Leave a comment

More commentary opposing the proposed change to the citizenship oath. Overly partisan in its narrative, the 2015 election was not “the niqab election” but driven more by the desire for change, the “barbaric tip line” and the uncertainty that citizenship revocation meant to many.

The usual simplistic mischaracterization of the post-modern comments of Trudeau. Canadian identity is more of a civic identity than one based mainly on ethnic origin, although Canadian institutions were shaped primarily by British and French Canadians, which of course continue to evolve and are influenced by more newly arrived groups (and have been increasingly influenced by the original Indigenous inhabitants).

And equally simplistic is blaming the recent steep decline in citizenship take-up rates on PM language neglects that this trend pre-dated the Liberals, the shutdown and slow recovery 2021-22 of the citizenship program due to COVID and other factors:

The 2015 federal election, which saw the Stephen Harper-led Conservatives fall to defeat after nearly a decade in power, is still known in some circles as “the niqab election.” It was, after all, the Harper government’s protracted legal battle to prevent Muslim women from wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies that effectively framed the race.

The drawn-out litigation, which dragged into the campaign, allowed the ultimately victorious Liberals to drive home the narrative that Harper’s team was using the issue to capitalize on latent anti-Muslim sentiment in pockets of the electorate (i.e., Quebec). Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau masterfully cast himself as an inclusive foil to the Conservatives, campaigning on the aspirational (and tautological) refrain, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

These numbers conveyed a broad national consensus that citizenship ceremonies were not just a mere bureaucratic box-ticking exercise, but rather a meaningful rite of passage for all new Canadians — one that necessitated a certain manner of dress and decorum. The niqab, a restrictive garment rooted in a sexist culture of oppression, was self-evidently improper attire for a ceremony to become a member of a liberal, egalitarian society.

So how, in the years since then, have we reached a point where new Canadians may soon be able to finalize the process of becoming citizens by, quite literally, ticking a few boxes on a government website?

Per a notice published last month in the Canada Gazette, proposed amendments to Canada’s citizenship regulations could allow applicants to “self-administer” their oath of citizenship through a “secure online solution without the presence of an authorized individual.” In other words, new Canadians would log in to a secure government website where they would be directed to click a button to agree to “faithfully observe the laws of Canada.”

In a few months’ time, the process of formalizing one’s Canadian identity could look virtually identical to the process of becoming an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church. What on earth has become of our country?

As has been something of a pattern lately, Canadians have arrived at the bottom of an entirely foreseeable slippery slope. “Click here to become a Canadian citizen” is merely the logical endpoint of the postmodern vision of Canadian identity that Justin Trudeau articulated all the way back in 2015.

Throughout the 2015 campaign, Trudeau held firm to the position that the sole criterium for being a Canadian was holding a Canadian passport — not even taking part in a terrorist plot targeting Canadians could disqualify a passport holder from membership in the national community. Before the year was out, he would tell the New York Times that, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” which he claimed was the world’s “first post-national state.”

Given Trudeau’s open (and vocal) nihilism toward the very concept of Canadian identity, it’s hardly surprising that his time as prime minister has coincided with a precipitous fall in national pride. By the end of 2019, more than four-in-10 Canadians said they felt more attached to their province than to the country as a whole. This included majorities in Quebec, Alberta and Atlantic Canada. (In 2013, majorities in all provinces outside of Quebec reported a greater sense of belonging to Canada than to their province).

Following last year’s Freedom Convoy protests, national media outlets ran think pieces debating whether the Canadian flag was a “racist” hate symbol. Just a few weeks ago, Canadian R&B singer Jully Black was widely applauded for changing the lyrics to “O Canada” to “our home on native land” in her rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star Game.

If this is how Canadians themselves view the Great White North, it shouldn’t come as a shock that newcomers aren’t exactly clambering to become citizens. Over Trudeau’s time in office, the percentage of permanent residents who go on to become citizens has fallen by nearly a quarter, dropping below 50 per cent in 2021.

The Trudeau government is looking to reverse this trend with technology. A more enduring solution may be to remind permanent residents why they should want to be Canadian in the first place.

The great niqab debate of 2015 wasn’t just about facial coverings — or even the place of Muslims in Canada. It was, more foundationally, a proxy battle pitting two visions of Canadian identity. Trudeau’s postmodern and tautological vision won out; today, the term “Canadian” is virtually meaningless.

We can’t say we weren’t warned.

Source: Rahim Mohamed: Trudeau has degraded the value of Canadian citizenship

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

FIRST READING: Save the #citizenship ceremonies! 

2023/03/09 Leave a comment

Summary of some other commentary criticizing the move. Haven’t seen any commentary favouring the change although a small minority in comment sections and social media are in favour given “promised” reduction in processing times:

Amid news that the federal government is mulling an end to in-person citizenship ceremonies, a cross-section of prominent Canadians have emerged to denounce the “terrible” and “horrifying” idea.

“This is without question a terrible idea,” wrote former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi in a tweet last week. “The ceremony is deeply meaningful and the reasons for removing it given here are bureaucratic and puerile.”

On Feb. 25, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration first gave notice that they were mulling an end to in-person citizenship ceremonies in favour of a “secure online solution.” In-person ceremonies could still be arranged upon request, but subject to a delay.

Rather than swearing allegiance to the Crown in front of a citizenship judge, new Canadians would simply check a box online. Presumably, the “online solution” would also do away with a group singing of “O Canada.”

According to immigration officials, phasing out the ceremony was suggested purely as a way to relieve a three-month backlog in finalizing citizenship applications.

“Recognizing that more can be done to further improve client service and processing times … the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced that the Department would begin pursuing the necessary changes to allow for self-administration of the Oath of Citizenship,” it wrote.

A brief also noted the inconvenience of new citizens sometimes having to book time off work to make the ceremony. “Many clients have to take time off work to attend citizenship ceremonies, and this time off is not necessarily paid by employers,” it reads.

“It is a bad idea to do away with citizenship ceremonies. A very bad idea. The opposite of efficiency,” novelist John Ralston Saul wrote in a statement last week.

Some of the most vocal defenders, however, have been foreign-born Canadians whose own citizenship began with the swearing of an oath.

Sergio Marchi is an Argentinian immigrant to Canada who eventually served as minister of immigration under then-prime minister Jean Chrétien.

“For years, my parents would recount how momentous and meaningful (the ceremony) was. Why would government want to rob future citizens of this feeling of attachment?” wrote Marchi in an op-ed for the Toronto Star.

The former minister also called it an “insult” that the ceremony would be phased out merely in the name of expediency. He noted that when similar backlogs piled up under his tenure, the department began deputizing Order of Canada recipients to act as citizenship judges.

“In-Person Canadian citizenship ceremonies are the magical rituals that bring together everyone (new and old citizens) to celebrate the true meaning of the Canadian dream,” reads a Monday social media post by Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee famous for founding the Nova Scotia-based chocolatier Peace by Chocolate.

“We cannot afford to lose the significance of this celebration of belonging nor can we diminish the value of Canadian citizenship,” Hadhad added.

Former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson came to Canada as a refugee from Japanese-occupied Hong Kong, and would preside over a few citizenship ceremonies herself as an Officer of the Order of Canada.

In a column for The Globe and Mail, Clarkson said she was “horrified” by the proposed change.

“The idea that Canada, which is perhaps the most successful immigrant nation in the world, would resort to a machine-oriented way of saying that you are now a citizen, is egregious,” she wrote.

Right up until the end of the Second World War, Canadians were considered British subjects and all citizenship rituals and protocols were dictated by the U.K.

But the 1946 passage of the Citizenship Act first demarcated Canadian citizenship as a distinct entity from that of the U.K. One of the more unique aspects of the bill was its provision that new Canadians should attend “appropriate ceremonies” in order to impress upon them the “responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.”

This is not a universal practice. While the United States maintains a similar swearing-in ceremony for new citizens, in many countries naturalization is a more bureaucratic process done without any official pomp.

The centrepiece of the Canadian ceremony is the Oath of Citizenship. After some modern refinements over the years, it’s now a 64-word recitation pledging allegiance to King Charles III, the “laws of Canada,” the “Constitution” and “the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.”

Ironically, the Department of Immigration is looking to phase out citizenship oaths at a time when pledging allegiance to Canada has never been easier. 

With many citizenship ceremonies made virtual during COVID-19, thousands of new Canadians have already finalized their citizenship by speaking into a webcam.

However, it’s still against the law to deliver the oath by phone.

“Administering the Oath over the phone is not in keeping with the legislation,” reads an official guide for new Canadians living in remote areas.

Source: FIRST READING: Save the citizenship ceremonies!

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

Griffith and Omidvar: Canadian citizenship by individual click? That’s not a good idea

2023/03/08 Leave a comment

Written jointly with Senator Omidvar:

The federal government’s recent proposal to allow applicants to self-administer the citizenship oath instead of being required to do so before a citizenship judge or equivalent undermines the meaningfulness and significance of becoming a Canadian citizen with fellow new Canadians.

Citizenship ceremonies are one of the few special moments in which the federal government can connect with new Canadians and celebrate their becoming Canadian and furthering their integration journey.

From experience attending ceremonies and taking the oath, we know the impact on new Canadians is real and meaningful, as it is on existing Canadians in attendance. Having citizenship conferred is not transactional, unlike obtaining drivers’ licences, health cards or passports. Citizenship allows for political participation through voting and being able to run for office and thus directly influence the future direction of Canada.

The proposed change continues a trend of diminishing the value of Canadian citizenship in practical aspects. There has been the ongoing massive shift to virtual citizenship ceremonies, prompted by the pandemic but expanded (99 per cent since April 2020). As well, there is no updated citizenship study guide despite plans for one more than three immigration ministers ago.

The government justifies the proposed change on operational and financial grounds and is silent on the policy implications regarding integration of new Canadians. The previous government was similarly silent on the implications of its quintupling of adult citizenship fees in 2014-15, which we now know has resulted, along with other factors, in a significant drop in naturalization rates.

The current government is explicit that cost savings will come primarily from reduced citizenship ceremonies, both physical and virtual.

It is striking that a government so attuned to the importance of reconciliation and recognition of past and current injustices and the concerns of particular groups, can be so blind to the power of citizenship ceremonies to bring people of diverse origins together to celebrate them becoming part of Canadian society with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. And arguing, on inclusion grounds, that the change will save applicants two hours of ceremony time misses this broader aspect of inclusion.

Arguably, with pandemic measures largely over, the government should revert to in-person ceremonies as the default option, as these provide a greater sense of community and connection than virtual ceremonies.

The government, early in its mandate, made significant changes to residency and language requirements to improve inclusion, and more recently, changes to the oath of citizenship to recognize Indigenous and treaty rights. Reducing processing and ceremony time are insignificant in comparison.

We know from the recent Statistics Canada and the Institute for Canadian Citizenship analysis that naturalization has declined dramatically from 60.4 per cent in 2016 to 45.7 per cent in 2021, five to nine years after landing, reflecting a combination of factors, including the pandemic and high citizenship fees. A substantive inclusion measure would require the government to implement, at least partially, its platform commitment in the 2019 and 2021 election platforms to eliminate citizenship fees.

Citizenship provides a mix of personal and public benefits.

Applicants personally benefit from the security citizenship provides in terms of mobility and voting rights and the ability to run for office. Canadian society benefits from the “common bond for Canadian-born individuals and naturalized Canadians alike, signifying full membership in Canadian society.”

The proposed change highlights how the government treats citizenship as a service transaction rather than a substantive unifying and integrating process to help new Canadians feel fully part of Canadian society.

Andrew Griffith is the former director general for Citizenship and Multiculturalism and is a fellow of the Environics Institute and of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Sen. Ratna Omidvar is an independent senator from Ontario.

Source: Griffith and Omidvar: Canadian citizenship by individual click? That’s not a good idea

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →