What happened to ‘click once for Canadian citizenship’? The government has (quietly) thought twice

Nice to see that all the efforts from many to stop this hair-brained initiative paved off (quoted):

The Immigration Department has quietly shelved a controversial plan that would have allowed new citizens to take their citizenship oath on their own with a click on the keyboard.

“There is no self-administration of the oath in Canada,” the department said in an email in response to a Star inquiry for an update about the plan. “Implementation of the self-administration of the oath is not actively being pursued at this time.” 

In February 2023, the federal government published the proposed change in the Canada Gazette as part of the modernization and digitalization of immigration and citizenship processing.

The self-attestation option was meant to reduce citizenship processing time and cost, and make it more accessible, because ceremonies are generally scheduled on weekdays during working hours. It was supposed to be launched in June that year. Unlike in a virtual citizenship ceremony, there would be no presiding official.

However, a chorus of prominent Canadian leaders, including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former Liberal immigration minister Sergio Marchi and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, came out to voice their opposition. Critics feared this would further dilute the meaning of Canadian citizenship.

“It’s a fundamental downgrading of understanding of what Canadian citizenship is about and how meaningful it can be,” said Andrew Griffith, a former director general for the federal Immigration Department, who had organized a petition to Parliament opposing what he calls “citizenship on a click.”

“It’s not a driver’s licence. It’s actually something that has some meaning. It gives very significant rights to people, so it shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

While Griffith welcomed the news, he is troubled that the government did not officially note in the Gazette that it had dropped the plan or at least publicly stated a change in policy. The Gazette is the official government publication to inform the public about new and proposed regulations, statues, orders-in-council and appointments. 

“There’s always that risk particularly at a time when the government’s trying to find money, that somebody might revisit it, we’ve got the authority here, we can do that,” said Griffith.

“At least have a press release saying that, ‘After thinking about it carefully, given the importance of the incident, blah, blah blah, we’ve decided against this approach.’”

During the pandemic, citizenship processing time doubled from the prior 12-month service standard, prompting immigration officials to bring in virtual citizenship ceremonies in April 2020. Since then, more than 20,600 virtual ceremonies have been held before a citizenship judge or a presiding official online; processing time is down to 13 months. 

Last year, 2,045 virtual and 1,417 in-person citizenship ceremonies were held. From January to August this year, there were a total of 2,382 citizenship ceremonies, including 1,162 virtual and 1,220 in-person events.

In its email to the Star, the Immigration Department said officials conducted an analysis after public consultation on the self-administration of the oath. It took into consideration the “client experience journey,” measures related to the integrity of the process and “commitment that citizenship ceremonies remain an important part of Canadian tradition.”

“The Government of Canada is committed to continue delivering meaningful, celebratory and inclusive in-person and virtual ceremonies while offering clients a choice” between taking their oath in person or virtually, it said.

The department said it has been moving toward a more “integrated and modernized” working environment to help speed up application processing. Expanding citizenship ceremonies, tests and interviews to an online format was part of its goal of bringing efficiencies and simplifying the citizenship program and process, it added.

The department also said it is “actively” working on updating its citizenship guide, a project that started shortly after the Liberals returned to power in late 2015 when Justin Trudeau became the prime minister. Liberal Mark Carney has been prime minister since March.

The current citizenship guide, last revised in 2012, still uses some outdated information about the country and is short on the Indigenous history and the information about residential schools that were promised. The guide is studied by citizenship applicants, who must pass a knowledge exam as part of the requirement to become naturalized citizens.

Officials said they have engaged a wide range of partners to ensure the revised study guide represents all Canadians and people living in Canada as best as possible, including Indigenous Peoples, minority populations, women, francophone and Canadians with disabilities.

“These extensive consultations will ensure that the guide is historically accurate, more balanced and inclusive of the people that make up this country and its history,” the department said, adding that it has not set a launch date for the new guide.

Currently, the Canadian citizenship application fee is $649.75 for adults over 18 years old and $100 for minors.

Source: What happened to ‘click once for Canadian citizenship’? The government has (quietly) thought twice

Citizenship Oath Self-affirmation Canada Gazette feedback: Using LLM and ChatGPT

Prompted by the thorough analysis by Nora Sobel of Red River University of feedback to the government’s proposal to allow for self-affirmation of the citizenship oath (“citizenship on a click”) as well as my earlier more informal analysis, it is interesting to note the respective conclusions.

My take, remarkably good in this example in terms of summarizing the main comments and the relative weighting of comments. ChatGPT’s conclusion reads partly like a general comment calling for “thoughtful implementation that preserves the integrity, symbolism, and inclusiveness of the citizenship oath” while stating a hybrid option as being the most broadly acceptable (i.e., a policy recommendation based on trying to please both groups rather than the essence):

From Sobel:

The analysis identified that a substantial portion of the online comments that supported the new regulations were reflective of specific experiences of the individuals submitting their opinions, especially related to decreasing the time of the citizenship process and increasing flexibility for participating in the citizenship ceremony.

On the other hand, a substantial portion of the online comments that opposed the new regulations were more general and connected to broader political matters, including the importance of the citizenship process, avoiding devaluing Canadian citizenship, respecting Canada, improper process for change in the regulations, improper reasons for change in the regulations, and concerns about the possibility of fraud.

The analysis also uncovered several alternative solutions proposed by participants with distinct positions about the regulations that could build a consensus about this public policy related to the Oath of Citizenship process. Some of the most common proposals were related to identifying a larger number of appropriate authorized officials to be present in the citizenship ceremonies, increasing the options of dates and times offering citizenship ceremonies, and advocating and legislating for paid work time for new Canadian citizens attending the citizenship ceremonies.

In addition, the analysis of the online comments showed another opportunity to build consensus given the common understanding between Canadian-born and not Canadian-born participants that the citizenship ceremony presents a high value for Canada, and that one of the main purposes in this ceremony should be to honour new Canadians.

Google’s LLM:

The provided text contains public feedback and commentary regarding a proposal to alter the process for taking the Canadian Oath of Citizenship, specifically suggesting allowing for self-administered online oaths without an official present. Many respondents support the proposal, citing the potential for reduced waiting times and increased convenience for applicants. Conversely, a significant number of comments strongly oppose the change, arguing it diminishes the importance and solemnity of becoming a citizen and should remain a meaningful in-person ceremonyto foster a sense of community and allegiance to Canada. Concerns about potential fraud and the devaluation of Canadian citizenship were also frequently raised by those against the proposed changes.

ChatGPT (only source cited is Canada Gazette notice, i.e., Sobel’s article not used)

Summary of Canada Gazette Feedback on Proposed Changes to Citizenship Oath Administration

The proposed changes to the Canadian citizenship oath aim to modernize the process by allowing individuals to self-affirm or declare the oath using a computer, without the physical presence of a citizenship official. This initiative is part of a broader effort to streamline administrative procedures, reduce costs, and improve accessibility.

Key Themes from Public and Stakeholder Feedback:

  1. Support for Accessibility and Efficiency: Many respondents welcomed the proposed changes as a positive step toward improving accessibility, especially for individuals in remote areas, those with disabilities, or with scheduling constraints. The digital approach was seen as a cost-effective and time-efficient solution.
  2. Concerns About Integrity and Symbolism: Some stakeholders expressed reservations about the potential erosion of the ceremonial and symbolic aspects of the citizenship oath. Concerns were raised about the importance of the shared experience and the presence of an official to lend solemnity and legitimacy to the process.
  3. Recommendations for Safeguards: Several submissions advocated for built-in safeguards to ensure the authenticity and security of self-administered oaths. Suggestions included secure digital platforms, identity verification protocols, and post-oath follow-ups.
  4. Call for Hybrid Options: There was a general consensus among some stakeholders for offering both virtual and in-person options to cater to diverse preferences and circumstances. Flexibility was emphasized as key to balancing modernization with tradition.
  5. Cultural and Emotional Significance: Feedback underscored the deep cultural and emotional significance of the oath ceremony for new Canadians. Respondents highlighted the importance of preserving a sense of community and recognition in the citizenship process.

Conclusion:

While the majority of feedback reflected support for the proposed modernization efforts, there remains a clear call for thoughtful implementation that preserves the integrity, symbolism, and inclusiveness of the citizenship oath. A hybrid model with robust safeguards may be the most broadly acceptable path forward.

Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

While I will never know what role the petition I launched against the self-administered citizenship oath played, nice to see that Minister Miller has shelved this idiotic proposal. Article behind paywall so if anyone has access please share:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s department has shelved a proposal for click-box citizenship following a public outcry. The department in a briefing note said it accepted Canadians attached profound meaning to publicly swearing allegiance to Canada in person, a legal requirement for new citizens since 1947: “I do not agree with this interpretation where the oath of citizenship is only a formality.”

Source: Gov’t Shelves Click-Box Oath

New immigration minister says one-click citizenship oath still worth considering [No, it’s not]

Latest public statement by the Minister:

The new immigration minister is still considering a controversial option to allow new Canadians to take their oath of citizenship with the click of a button, but there are no immediate plans to implement it, he said Monday.

The government asked for public feedback in February about the idea to allow new Canadians to skip a virtual or in-person ceremony and opt instead to take the oath with the click of a mouse.

Consultation documents posted online say the new regulations were expected to come into force in June 2023, but the government has been mum about its plans since then.

The department is still mulling it over, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said Monday, and he thinks it’s a good idea.

“You don’t want to take these moments lightly, but we do need technological options,” Miller said on his way into Question Period. 

“The department has been criticized, rightly, for not being adjusted to the 21st century and that option is one I think that we should preserve.”

It’s particularly important for people who live in remote or rural communities, who shouldn’t have to drive long distances to swear their oath, he said. 

Earlier this year, then-immigration minister Sean Fraser pitched the idea as a temporary option to help work through backlogs of people waiting for their citizenship. 

The change is expected to save people up to three months of processing time, the government consultation documents said. 

The responses to that consultation offered mixed views on the idea: some called it a forward thinking approach, while others thought it would degrade the value of in-person ceremonies. 

The department said in a statement Monday that the comments will “inform the next steps and the development of implementation plans.”

“I’ve heard from Canadians and advocates of the importance of actually being in person. I’ve also seen the importance of virtually, when there’s no question about someone’s loyalty or citizenship or oath or the seriousness he should take the Canadian citizenship,” Miller said Monday. 

“It’s about keeping the options open in the 21st century.”

Miller said he’s administered the oath three times since taking over the immigration file during the summer cabinet shuffle, and recognizes that preserving an in-person option is “paramount.”

“We have to we have to obviously preserve those.”

The government expects in-person participation will drop even more once the one-click option is introduced, and there would likely be fewer ceremonies overall.

Conservatives have vowed to oppose the measure over concerns it would “cheapen” the citizenship oath.

The government wants to “reduce it all to a click on a website or an app as if citizenship were no more than consenting to terms in a contract,” Conservative immigration critic Tom Kmiec said in a statement Monday.

“The Trudeau Liberals are abandoning this special tradition and reducing our citizens to a bureaucratic number.”

During the pandemic, the government added the option to allow people to pledge their allegiance to Canada in a virtual ceremony, and the practice has continued. 

“We saw a firefighter in B.C. that was able to do it on the fly,” Miller said, and suggested the option should remain. 

“I think we need to maintain those.”

Even with the virtual ceremonies, there were still 68,287 people in the backlog as of July 23, waiting to take their oaths and enjoy all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

Source: New immigration minister says one-click citizenship oath still worth considering

Link to petition opposing the change: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4511

Letters to Globe Editor on the Change to Self-Administered Citizenship Oath

Of note, letters in response to the Globe’s excellent editorial, What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony. Opportunity for Minister Miller to make his mark and reverse this counter-productive proposal:

Stand on guard

Re “Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath” (July 21): As is often the case, the bottom line is an influential factor for discouraging prospective Canadian citizens from having in-person swearing-in ceremonies, although the government prefers to highlight the speeding up of the procedure.

The government also wants to spare employees from having to take unpaid leave to attend. This should not be an issue. If voters in a national election are allotted three paid hours to do their duty, the same should be the law for citizenship ceremonies.

How underwhelming to sit at one’s computer, alone, after all the work entailed to pass the test, no one with whom to celebrate. Where is the government’s sense of occasion?

Ann Sullivan Peterborough, Ont.


I am appalled by the idea that our citizenship ceremonies should be reduced to a click on one’s computer.

I became a citizen at the age of 26. It was a proud event. I was born in a country where such things are important and respected, just like the flag.

There, the flag was treated with great respect and only hoisted for special days or events, then taken down at sundown. It really bothers me to see a row of faded Canadian flags at a car lot, a car with two flags to protest whatever or a homeowner proudly hoisting a flag, but only to see it faded and torn years later.

Another national symbol going down the drain. I am a proud Canadian. It hurts.

Vince Devries Ladysmith, B.C.


I became a naturalized Canadian many decades ago.

Because I was already a British subject, I swore an oath in a bureaucrat’s office, signed documents and I was done. As time went on and I attended friends’ public ceremonies, I developed a strong feeling of having been shorted.

A public ceremony, I think, would have made me feel more Canadian more quickly.

R. A. Halliday Saskatoon


My memory worsens by the day. But, although it happened decades ago, I will never forget my citizenship ceremony.

I recall the interesting mix of people who were there that sunny day in Vancouver. There was the smile and raised eyebrow of the citizenship judge when, feeling flustered, I told her that Canada Day was July 4. Immediately knowing my mistake, I said sorry. I became a Canadian.

As a retired university teacher, I know that nothing compares with the in-person experience. If that is true for birthdays and weddings, it is equally true for the life-changing event of becoming a citizen.

Richard Harris Hamilton


I arrived in Canada in 1968. Immediately after the required five years of residency, I applied for citizenship.

I remember my ceremony well. In those days, we were each given a Bible on which to swear allegiance to the Queen. It was the New Testament, and being Jewish I was not able to swear on it.

I asked if there was an Old Testament, and there began a good deal of searching. I was about to stop them, I would just affirm, but then a copy was placed into my hands.

With great pride and a swelled heart, I pledged my fealty to my new country and liege.

Michael Gilbert Toronto

Source: Trudeau’s cabinet shuffle plus other letters, July 28

What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Timing is interesting, one day after Themrise Khan’s op-ed dismissing the ceremony and oath, almost being used as a foil for this editorial:

The federal government will at some point this year allow new citizens to skip the ritual of mass swearing-in ceremonies and instead let them take the citizenship oath alone at home, on a secure website, with no authorized individual overseeing them, simply by ticking a box on their computer screen.

It’s a move Ottawa says will help eliminate a backlog of 358,000 citizenship applications (as of last October), reduce by three months a processing time that can stretch two years – double the published service standard – and spare low-income working people the difficulty of taking an unpaid day off in order to be present at a ceremony.

It’s part of a broader government effort to accommodate a surge in citizenship applications. In a fractious world, a Canadian passport is increasingly desirable. Ottawa says applications more than doubled between fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2022, rising to 243,000 from 113,000.

With immigration surging under the Trudeau government to as high as 500,000 people a year, the demand is only going to keep growing. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is hoping to process 300,000 citizenship applications this fiscal year, a 34 per-cent increase over the previous year.

To do that, it has already moved the application process online. And it has made the oath of citizenship an almost entirely virtual experience. Of 15,457 swearing-in ceremonies involving 549,290 applicants since April, 2020, Ottawa says 15,290 were video calls.

And now the government wants to go one step farther and reduce the final step to becoming a Canadian – taking the oath of citizenship – to something akin to agreeing to the terms of service on a smartphone app.

That’s one step too far. While it is obvious that the case can be made to allow some applicants in urgent circumstances to take the oath online, gaining Canadian citizenship is too important to be voided of all ceremony for the sake of convenience.

Ceremonies and rituals matter. They unite communities around various milestones – momentous days on the calendar, births, graduations, marriages, anniversaries and deaths – and in doing so reinforce shared values.

The moment of becoming a new citizen is among those milestones. Arguably, gathering to mark it is as important as the taking of the citizenship oath itself.

For new Canadians, the ceremony signals the end of a long and at times arduous journey from emigration to permanent residency to taking the citizenship test to becoming a full citizen. It’s a chance to celebrate with friends and family. Many who’ve been through it will tell you how much it meant to them to sing the national anthem as a citizen for the first time, in a room surrounded by others like them.

The ceremony is just as important for the host country. An in-person ceremony is a chance for the federal government to show its appreciation for the people who’ve chosen Canada. It also serves as palpable recognition of the immense value that immigration holds for this country, and signals to those already here how welcome the newcomers are.

Above all, the in-person nature of the ceremony reinforces the idea of Canada as a community of people who share the same values – something that won’t happen in the cold isolation of the internet.

Ottawa absurdly hopes that its proposal will reduce the demand for in-person and online ceremonies (which will still be optional), and thereby save it a few dollars.

That is a robotic, unthinking cost-benefit analysis. So is Ottawa’s argument that its plan will cut a few months off the waiting time for taking the oath.

If Ottawa wants to speed up the citizenship process, it should find ways of doing it without eliminating the citizenship ceremony. It is trying to save a small amount of money at the expense of a critical moment of human connection.

Ottawa should instead limit the click-here-to-officially-become-a-Canadian option to specific exceptions. The same goes for the online video option. The government needs to get citizenship judges out of their basements and bring back the in-person ceremony for the vast majority of cases.

Canadian citizenship is precious. So is the willingness of people to seek it out.

These are things that deserve a sense of ceremony and grandeur. They should not be reduced to the equivalent of checking a box to add fries to your order.

Source: What we all lose when we lose the citizenship ceremony

Yakabuski: Cliquer pour devenir Canadien

Good column in Le Devoir (only commentary to date in French media that I have seen):

La fête du Canada ne se déroule pas de la même façon partout au pays. À l’extérieur du Québec, dans la plupart des communautés, les cérémonies de prestation du serment de citoyenneté sont organisées dans le cadre des célébrations locales planifiées pour accueillir des immigrants récents dans la grande famille canadienne. Ces cérémonies, remplies d’émotion et de patriotisme, servent à rappeler aux natifs du Canada la chance qu’ils ont d’être nés ici. Certes, des cérémonies de prestation ont aussi lieu au Québec. Mais elles sont rarement aussi médiatisées que dans le reste du Canada, où les journaux et les bulletins de nouvelles télévisés en parlent abondamment.

Beaucoup d’experts en immigration considèrent que la cérémonie de prestation du serment constitue une étape indispensable dans la formation de tout bon citoyen et dans la création, chez ces nouveaux venus, d’un sentiment d’appartenance au Canada. En 2021, le serment a été modifié afin d’inclure une obligation de la part des nouveaux citoyens de reconnaître et de respecter les droits ancestraux issus des traités signés avec les peuples autochtones, en conformité avec l’une des recommandations de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation. « Le serment de citoyenneté du Canada est un engagement envers ce pays — et cela comprend le projet national de réconciliation », avait expliqué le ministre de l’Immigration de l’époque, Marco Mendicino.

Les nouveaux Canadiens doivent aussi jurer d’être fidèles au roi Charles III. Contrairement à l’Australie, qui a modifié son serment de citoyenneté en 1994 pour enlever toute référence à la Couronne britannique, le Canada continue d’exiger que les nouveaux venus promettent d’être loyaux au locataire du palais de Buckingham. En 2015, la Cour suprême du Canada a refusé d’entendre l’appel de trois résidents permanents qui avaient prétendu que l’obligation de prêter serment au monarque violait leurs droits à la liberté d’expression et de religion. Ils avaient été déboutés devant la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, qui avait déclaré que la référence au monarque était purement « symbolique », celle-ci évoquant notre « forme de gouvernement et le principe non écrit de démocratie » qu’il sous-tend.

Or, voilà qu’Ottawa s’apprête à permettre aux résidents permanents de prêter leur serment de citoyenneté en cliquant simplement sur une case en ligne sur le site Web d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC). Plus besoin de prononcer le serment à voix haute devant un juge. Cliquez ici, et vous deviendrez Canadien.

La proposition, dont on n’a presque pas parlé au Québec, a créé un tollé ailleurs au Canada. « L’idée selon laquelle le Canada, qui est peut-être le pays au monde ayant eu le plus de succès en matière d’immigration, pourrait recourir à un moyen automatisé pour dire “vous êtes maintenant citoyen” est odieuse », a déclaré plus tôt cette année l’ancienne gouverneure générale du Canada Adrienne Clarkson, elle-même arrivée au pays comme réfugiée en 1942. L’ancien maire de Calgary Naheed Nenshi, fils d’immigrants musulmans d’origine tanzanienne, tout comme l’ancien ministre libéral de l’Immigration Sergio Marchi, né en Argentine, ont dénoncé publiquement la démarche d’Ottawa.

Andrew Griffith, un ancien haut fonctionnaire à IRCC, a même lancé une pétition — parrainée par le député conservateur Tom Kmiec, lui-même immigrant polonais — qui somme le gouvernement de Justin Trudeau de « renoncer à permettre l’auto-administration du serment de citoyenneté » ainsi que de « rétablir la primauté des cérémonies en personne et de réduire à 10 % la proportion de cérémonies virtuelles ». Ces dernières ont pris leur envol durant la pandémie. Mais certains experts, comme M. Griffith, croient qu’elles ne devraient se substituer aux cérémonies en personne qu’en cas d’exception.

La continuation postpandémie des cérémonies virtuelles tout comme la proposition de permettre l’auto-administration du serment sont des réponses aux arriérés à IRCC. Le ministère n’arrive plus à traiter les demandes d’immigration et de citoyenneté dans des délais raisonnables. Des résidents permanents approuvés pour devenir citoyens doivent attendre environ 19 mois avant d’être convoqués à une cérémonie de citoyenneté.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, Sean Fraser, vise à réduire l’attente en autorisant l’option de l’auto-administration. Mais M. Griffith se demande si une partie du problème ne découle pas du fait que les seuils d’immigration sont déjà trop élevés pour l’appareil gouvernemental. Plus de 1,2 million de nouveaux résidents permanents sont arrivés depuis trois ans, alors qu’Ottawa cherche à hausser le seuil annuel à 500 000 ou plus dès 2025. Si la plupart de ces nouveaux résidents permanents ont pour objectif de devenir des citoyens canadiens, l’auto-administration du serment deviendra incontournable. IRCC peine déjà à répondre à la demande. Imaginez ce que sera la situation dans cinq ans.

Ce n’est là qu’une des raisons pour lesquelles la politique d’immigration du gouvernement semble déconnectée de la réalité. Dans une étude publiée cette semaine, l’économiste chez Desjardins Randall Bartlett avance qu’il faudra encore plus d’immigrants pour contrer les effets du vieillissement de la population canadienne dans les années à venir. Mais il ajoute un gros bémol. « Comme la croissance démographique continue de faire grimper les prix des maisons et de miner l’abordabilité à court terme, le gouvernement fédéral doit tenir compte de cette situation dans sa politique d’immigration, en particulier en ce qui concerne les résidents non permanents. Sa politique d’immigration doit s’accompagner d’actions immédiates pour augmenter l’offre de logements. » Or, rien n’indique qu’Ottawa s’apprête à agir en ce sens.


Après tout, on ne peut pas construire des maisons en un clic.

Source: Cliquer pour devenir Canadien

Khan: Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath

An activist, linking citizenship to her “white saviour complex” perspective or ideology, largely disconnected from how the vast majority of immigrants feel about the ceremony who consider it a celebration, not just a “mandatory administrative task.”

Her reasoning essentially extends the government’s proposals to its logical conclusive, purely an administrative procedure to provide security and facilitate travel, with no impact on inclusion and sense of belonging. While anecdotes and the imperfect evidence we have suggests the opposite.

On the oath, of course, she has a point.

One of the better reader views in the comment section:

Can a feeling of national belonging be delivered with just a click of a mouse? That’s the question at the heart of the controversy around Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s plan to allow new citizens to tick a box online rather than take a verbal or in-person oath. The aim, the government says, is to reduce the backlog and simplify processing.

But a former senior immigration official has presented a petition to the minister, calling for Ottawa to revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies as the default, arguing that they “provide a unique celebratory moment for new and existing Canadians.” The more than 1,000 signatories worry that one-click citizenship will undermine new Canadians’ sense of belonging, as in-person ceremonies are meant “to enhance the meaning of citizenship as a unifying bond for Canadians.”

I too was excited for my own citizenship ceremony, having seen many colourful and happy pictures of Mounties, members of Parliament and a burst of Canadian flags before my day arrived. The reality, though, was underwhelming: an assembly-line process and a boring speech in a staid government building, followed by an oath to a monarch, before we were rushed out so the next batch of new Canadians could be shepherded in. There were no Mounties or MPs, as is the case with the majority of such ceremonies, making it less celebratory and more administrative.

I felt greater elation when I finally held my passport in my hands. The Ethiopian guard at the passport office gave me a knowing smile as he saw me holding back my tears. I’ll always remember that smile. The ceremony, not so much.

But both approaches – the “one-click” and the in-person – are problematic in the context of today’s immigration regimes. One reason is that these “ceremonies” often feel like expressions of a white-saviour complex, by which all systems in former colonial countries – even ones that have become more diverse, like Canada – are influenced by their white colonizer origins: it is the white-saviour host that decides who gets in, when and how. In a postcolonial world, the assumption within the host society is still that anyone seeking a new life here will be “saved”, but only if it deems it appropriate. This attitude is more about making the host country feel good, than it is about the significant sacrifices that immigrants must make in creating a new life for themselves.

We should celebrate the culmination of what is often a hard journey from permanent residency to citizenship. But when the celebration denies the daily reality of the lives of racialized Canadians and the discrimination they face, an hour-long state-sponsored festivity is hardly a solace in the long run.

The oath is also controversial. Much has been said about how it reaffirms a monarchy that engaged in destructive colonial practices in Canada and around the world. Many Canadian immigrants come from such former colonies. Why should they have to profess loyalty to Britain’s hereditary leaders?

And the notion of belonging that is at the core of citizenship means different things to different people. What those objecting to the one-click approach may not realize is that immigrants have to take the oath to receive our passports. As such, it doesn’t feel like a celebration – it feels like a mandatory administrative task. That the government is suggesting digitizing the oath also confirms this; that approach may help simplify IRCCs bureaucratic complexities, but why even include it, if its value is largely superficial?

Canada’s immigration policies, procedures and practices are hardly perfect; they have faced flack for their modern-day inefficiencies, historical discrimination and the department’s self-admitted racial bias. While Ukrainian refugees have been able to enter Canada quickly, with a fast-track for citizenship, the same cannot be said for Afghans, Syrians or Haitians also fleeing conflict, but made to wait in life-threatening circumstances, or left without any shelter or support on the streets of Canada. In this context, it feels almost impossible to celebrate.

There is actually no need for a ceremony, or even a symbolic oath of citizenship, verbally or through a click; we become citizens once we have cleared the highly cumbersome administrative process. By that point, new Canadians have paid their dues, with interest, to prove we belong in this country, and most of us do it with genuine respect because we see Canada as our home. Celebrating that sacrifice and achievement doesn’t happen in a citizenship ceremony or with an oath. Instead, it would be more worthwhile to focus on a more pragmatic, inclusive and equitable approach to immigration in Canada.

Themrise Khan is an independent policy researcher in global development and migration, and the co-editor of White Saviorism in International Development. Theories, Practices and Lived Experiences.

Source: Khan: Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath

John Ivison: The Liberals are too eager to erode the singular power of the citizenship oath

Powerful commentary against the proposed change permitting self-administration of the citizenship oath:

I have vivid memories of taking the oath of Canadian citizenship 18 years ago, a humbling, life-changing experience.

The day before the ceremony, I was looking down on the House of Commons from the press gallery with vaguely anthropological interest in a curious but distantly related species.

The day after being welcomed to the Canadian family with a roomful of wide-eyed new arrivals, the sense of detachment was gone, replaced by a common purpose, summed up in the citizenship certificate that bound me to uphold “the principles of democracy, freedom and compassion which are the foundations of a strong and united Canada.”

That is the experience that the government wants to deny to a future generation of Canadians, who will be asked to take the oath of citizenship by clicking a box online in order to save a few bucks.

In January, Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) Minister Sean Fraser said his department would begin making the necessary changes to allow self-administration of the oath. This would replace the requirement to take the oath in person before a citizenship judge, along with a room full of other new Canadians, which has been the law since 1947.

The reason, according to the government’s explanation in the Canada Gazette, is that citizenship applications have doubled in recent years to around 243,000 in 2021/22, and are set to keep rising as we move towards the Liberal immigration target of 500,000 newcomers in 2025. During the pandemic, citizenship tests migrated online, which, in the second half of last year, accounted for around 90 per cent of all ceremonies. In April, Fraser said his department was holding 350 virtual ceremonies a month.

The government has been delighted by the time and cost savings and says self-administration will save people roughly three months between taking their citizenship test and officially becoming Canadian.

The Liberals say that they will always maintain in-person ceremonies. The government says it doesn’t track how many people asked for an in-person ceremony and didn’t get one. But if self-administration of the oath is adopted, it says it expects fewer people to attend a ceremony and for there to be fewer ceremonies overall.

Andrew Griffith, a former director general at IRCC, said the anticipated savings of $5 million is only a small portion of the cost of administering the oath. Much greater savings in time and money could be made by focusing on administration and processing efficiencies prior to the citizenship ceremonies. “This actually does matter,” he said of “the rare positive celebratory moment in the immigration journey.”

There are some things that transcend bureaucratic efficiencies, and the citizenship ceremony is one of them. It is about a sense of participation and belonging, the culmination of a long and often difficult immigration process.

The minister’s press secretary said in an email that the intention is to make public ceremonies available for those who request them. “Those who choose to do an online attestation will still have an opportunity to attend an IRCC organized citizenship ceremony,” said Bahoz Dara Aziz.

But it is clear that the government would be happy to let the ceremonies wither on the vine.

The minister and his department are starting to get a sense of a backlash as prominent Canadians, including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, ex-Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi and former Liberal immigration minister Sergio Marchi, have argued that the government is robbing future citizens of a deeply meaningful moment. Nenshi said the reasons are “bureaucratic and puerile.”

The public comments during the consultation process, which were overwhelmingly hostile, suggest many Canadians agree. “This proposal takes what should be one of the most meaningful things a person will ever do in their lives and equates it with ordering a new pair of underwear from Amazon,” wrote one person (commenters’ names were removed before the feedback was made public).

A petition has been launched in Parliament (petition e-4511), where people can sign up and urge the government to support the in-person ceremony as a unifying bond for Canadians.

The petition urges the government to reverse the trend of moving the oath online by limiting virtual ceremonies to 10 per cent of all citizenship events.

Fraser can hardly be immune to the power of the argument in favour of in-person ceremonies. He swore in nine new Canadians on Canada Day in front of 41,813 baseball fans at a Toronto Blue Jays game at the Rogers Centre this year, with the crowd joining in a noisy rendition of the national anthem.

There is a magic to the tradition that goes beyond a pledge of allegiance to the King and the Constitution.

Before becoming a citizen, I remember feeling it was vaguely treasonable to forsake the land of my fathers and adopt the common sympathies of another nation.

Yet, it was strangely comforting to be in a room with 50 or so others from all over the world, who were, in all likelihood, wrestling with their own doubts.

Qualms quickly turned to elation on being called to receive my citizenship certification in front of friends and family.

There was something extraordinary about watching all those newcomers experience true patriot love for the first time as citizens by singing O Canada.

I feel sorry for my future countrymen and women if that time-honoured tradition is replaced by the click of a mouse.

Source: John Ivison: The Liberals are too eager to erode the singular power of the citizenship oath

Why Canada’s ‘citizenship on a click’ is proving controversial

Star coverage of the petition opposing self-administration of the citizenship oath:

Andrew Griffith says he used to drop by a citizenship ceremony whenever he felt depressed or frustrated at work.

The former director general at the federal immigration department says seeing new citizens walking the stage, being greeted by a uniformed RCMP officer and congratulated by a citizenship judge, reminded him of the importance of his work at the citizenship and multiculturalism branch.

“This is the one time that you actually get recognition for all that hard work and all that patience. Most people remember their citizenship ceremony,” he said.

“It’s like graduating from high school or university or other such moments. I think it really helps people have a sense of belonging and attachment to Canada.”

It’s why Griffith says he finds it troubling that the federal government is going to allow new citizens to take their citizenship oath online and on their own with a click on the keyboard rather than having to declare their loyalty to Canada before a citizenship judge.

In February, the federal government published the proposed change in the Canada Gazette. It is part of the modernization and digitalization of immigration processing in this country.

It said the online self-administration of the oath is expected to reduce the current citizenship processing time by three months and make it more accessible, because ceremonies are currently scheduled mainly on weekdays during working hours. According to the immigration department website, there are currently 308,000 citizenship applications in the system and the processing time stands at 19 months.

A chorus of prominent Canadian leaders, including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former Liberal immigration minister Sergio Marchi and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi have voiced their opposition to the plan.

It has also prompted Griffith to start a petition to the Parliament, sponsored by Conservative immigration critic Tom Kmiec, demanding the government abandon the proposed change permitting what he calls “citizenship on a click.”

“There’s something meaningful about becoming a citizen. Citizenship is more than just sort of the paper process of having a Canadian passport and all the rights and responsibilities of Canadians,” he said. “It actually matters to the country. It matters to social inclusion, and I think it matters to all immigrants.”

During the pandemic, citizenship processing time doubled from the prior 12-month service standard. Officials brought in virtual citizenship ceremonies as of April 2020.

Since then, more than 15,290 of the ceremonies have been held online in front of an authorized official, generally a citizenship judge.

Kmiec, MP for the Calgary Shepard riding, said the government is trying to eliminate the backlog, but doing it at all costs.

“You click a button and you click your terms of reference the way you do it on your iPhone or on your Samsung. There’ll be no application that would be delayed, right? That’s why they’re doing it,” said Kmiec, who came to Canada from Poland with his family in 1985 and became a Canadian citizen in 1989.

“Why should these new citizens who pass their test and have all the time be robbed of having a special symbolic ceremony that’s required under the Citizenship Act?”

If the goal of the change is really to improve flexibility and accessibility for new citizens, Kmiec said, immigration officials should consider holding more citizenship ceremonies after hours or on weekends. An in-person ceremony should be made the default option, and virtual ceremonies are used only as a last resort, he added.

“You only get to swear an oath once in your life to Canada. That should be done in person. It should be a special ceremony. The government should honour you in this way,” said Kmiec. “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that they had to appear at a citizenship ceremony to become a citizen of Canada. Never.”

More than 700 comments were left on the notice of the citizenship change published in the Canada Gazette during the consultation period that ended in March.

Jenny Kwan, immigration critic for the NDP, says she, too, recognizes the significance of the in-person ceremonies but said people should have the option to do it online and that the proposed change would strike a balance.

An immigrant from Hong Kong, Kwan came to Canada with her family in the 1970s when she was nine. While she recalled the family’s excitement at their citizenship ceremony, she also saw the stresses her working-class parents experienced to make it to the event.

“They had to take time off work and we were a low-income family. For them to have missed work, it meant that they lost a day of income. And for a family of eight who’s struggling to survive, and for my parents to put food on the table, that was a big deal,” said Kwan, whose mother worked as a dishwasher and father did multiple part-time shift jobs to support the family.

“In offering alternatives for people to have their citizenship oath taken, I think this is an important consideration. I think that should be offered for new Canadians so that they can choose what is the best option for them.”

However, both Griffith and Kmiec say they fear many new citizens would simply opt for the self-attestation option given the convenience to do so.

“Of course, that’s the easiest thing to do. If they told you you’re going to have to wait maybe a few weeks and we’ll send you a paper copy, before you accept it, you’d say, ‘No, give me the digital,’” said Kmiec.

“You’re not going to pay much attention to it. You’ll just click the button and you’ll carry on.”

The online petition is open until Oct. 10 and must collect at least 500 signatures during that period. The Clerk of Petition would then validate the signatures and issue a certificate so it can be presented in the House. The government must then respond to the demand within 45 days.

“Depending on the quality of the response, I’m going to follow up with the minister. I’m not going to let this go,” Kmiec said.

Source: Why Canada’s ‘citizenship on a click’ is proving controversial