Self Administered Oaths!

[xf2278389393]

That there are those who are willing to falsely swear allegiance is no surprise.

Those people do exist but they are very rare and usually associated with certain unfriendly foreign regimes. Requiring applicants to swear the oath before an authorized official is not going to stop them, that's what the security screening process is for.

To be clear, despite many (including some major media outlets) describing proposed regulatory changes as implementing a self-administered oath,
the February 2023 proposed changes to the Citizenship regulations governing the administration of the oath required to become a Canadian citizen did not provide for what many would consider self-administration, but rather would empower the Minister to implement means for the administration of the oath outside the presence of specific authorized individuals (usually a Citizenship Judge).
Meanwhile, even if the proposed changes had been adopted, the grant of citizenship would still require actually taking the oath of citizenship. As the background information for the proposed revisions stated:

Swearing an oath to respect the laws of a country or swearing an oath of allegiance to a country, whether online or in-person, is intended to be a meaningful step towards belonging, community, and an attachment to a country.​

​

​

It would still have required applicants to take the oath, correct, but they could have done this at home, without the presence of any official, and then confirmed that they have done this by checking a box on a form. Hence, the term self-administered, which is the term the proposed regulations used. Maybe read the proposal again here, https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-02-25/html/reg1-eng.html
It clearly says "self-administered". That means you do it yourself, nobody else is there to watch you.

Re Claims that the Oath of Citizenship is "much ado about nothing:"

. . . and other nonsense like the "Oath of Citizenship is a mere formality, nothing of substance."

It is a formality - a formal requirement to be granted citizenship at the end of the process. I am not saying that there is nothing of substance in the oath. But if you have lived in Canada for three years and you haven't been working for some evil foreign government, plotting to overthrow Canada by violence, you have pretty much been doing everything this oath is about for that period of time. Actually saying the oath is at that point nothing more than a formality.

It is those who characterize this as being about "an opportunity to showcase their undying love for an old man as hard core fans of the monarchy" who are the disingenuous.

I agree. It is not meant to be an opportunity to do that. The oath has nothing to do with the monarch as an individual. Unfortunately some people don't realize that.

The oath is about confirming one's belief in the rule of law and democracy. It could have been worded better, for example, like the one Australia uses nowadays, to make that more clear.

To be clear, by the way, Canada is NOT a monarchy.

Yes, Canada is a (constitutional) monarchy, i.e. a state where the head of state is a monarch (in whom executive power is vested in trust to be excercised by a democratically elected government within the parameters of a constitution). It is not a republic, which is a state where the head of state is democratically elected out of the population.

 

[dpenabill]

It would still have required applicants to take the oath, correct, but they could have done this at home, without the presence of any official, and then confirmed that they have done this by checking a box on a form. Hence, the term self-administered, which is the term the proposed regulations used. Maybe read the proposal again here, https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-02-25/html/reg1-eng.html
It clearly says "self-administered". That means you do it yourself, nobody else is there to watch you.

Perhaps you could benefit from reading the proposed regulation again (which I linked). There is no mention at all in the revised regulation (which, while it was proposed with the expectation it would be adopted, at this stage it is clear it is NOT going to be adopted let alone implemented any time soon, or even in the foreseeable future) to a procedure allowing individuals to "self-administer" the oath.

There are indeed multiple references in the regulatory impact analysis statement, in comments addressing background and the regulatory analysis, in describing the changes, to allowing applicants to "self-administer" the oath, but as I addressed (clearly enough to be understood by anyone reading to comprehend rather than criticize), "despite" the many descriptions of the changes as implementing a self-administered oath, the proposed regulation "did not provide for what many would consider self-administration." Rather, it was about implementing a "secure online solution" to the means by which the oath could be taken.

What was contemplated, as described in that impact statement, rather clearly envisioned the development and implementation of infrastructure which would facilitate an online or virtual oath. Which, as I noted, would likely not be very different than the current online oath procedure from the perspective of the new citizen taking the oath.

That is, much like the current online procedure, the person invited to take the oath would engage in a virtual or online procedure, a "secure online solution," which would include explicitly taking the oath. And NO, this would not be accomplished by just checking a box on a form (again, to be clear, EVEN if the proposed changes were adopted, which again is NOT likely, not anytime in the near future). That is, in particular, NO, it would not be enough for the individual to declare they had taken the oath. To become a citizen an individual (with exceptions) would need to take the oath, either in an in-person ceremony, or via a "secure online" means.

However, the revised regulation would also require the individual taking the oath in an online procedure to also "sign" a form affirming they have taken the oath.

(That noted, it is worth recognizing that affirmations made by checking boxes on a form TOGETHER with signing an affirmation, such as what is required in regards to the prohibitions in the citizenship application, are legally substantive and subject to the criminal penalties for false swearing which are more severe than merely false information.)

Many have speculated what caused this proposed regulation to not be adopted. There were certainly scores and scores of comments expressing strident opposition posted in the formally docked comments (which can be read at the link I provided in my previous post).

Apart from those, however, it could simply be that as proposed this was seen as giving the Minister powers that would be far too broad. The proposed change did indeed give the Minister very broad authority, virtually unfettered, to implement the "means" by which the oath may be administered. I suspect the Governor in Council may indeed have had reservations about replacing the current regulations (which I also linked in my previous post) with such a wide-open grant of power to the Minister.

Yes, Canada is a (constitutional) monarchy . . .

While some Canadian government information refers to the form of government in Canada as a "parliamentary democracy" and some does indeed refer to it as a "constitutional monarchy," and more than a few might quibble about the boundaries of what constitutes a ceremonial role relative to what constitutes actual power, there is no doubt that NO king or queen reigns as a power in Canada. Any suggestion otherwise is further disingenuous distraction.

The Proposed Revision of Regulations Governing the Oath (a verbatim copy of the proposed regulation):

Amendments

1 Section 17 of the Citizenship Regulations footnote1 and the heading before it are repealed.​

​

2 Sections 19 to 22 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:​

​

19 (1) Subject to subsection 5(3) of the Act, a person who is at least 14 years of age on the day on which the person is granted citizenship under subsection 5(1), (2) or (4) or 11(1) of the Act shall, on the invitation of the Minister, take the oath of citizenship, whether in or outside of Canada,​

(a) by the means that are made available or specified by the Minister for that purpose; or​

(b) before the Minister, a person who is authorized by the Minister in writing to act on the Minister’s behalf or a citizenship judge.​

(2) A certificate of citizenship shall be delivered to a person who has taken the oath of citizenship.​

20 When a person takes the oath of citizenship under subsection 19(1), they shall sign the form made available by the Minister, certifying that they have taken the oath.​

​

21 The Minister, a person authorized by the Minister in writing to act on the Minister’s behalf as well as a citizenship judge may be the person before whom any person who has been granted citizenship can take the oath of citizenship, and, in such case, the Registrar shall make all necessary arrangements for the purpose of the taking of the oath.​

​

3 The portion of section 24 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:​

​

24 Subject to sections 19 to 21, any oath, solemn affirmation or declaration that is made for the purposes of the Act or these Regulations may be taken before​

​

4 Subsections 31(2) and (3) of the English version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:​

​

(2) No fee is payable in respect of the taking of an oath of citizenship.​

​

(3) No fee is payable in respect of the taking of an oath, or the administration of a solemn affirmation or statutory declaration where it is administered by a person employed by His Majesty in right of Canada.​

 

[xf2278389393]

The Governor in Council is just a fancy way of saying the cabinet, meaning in practice primarily the responsible minister who proposed this and secondarily the Prime Minister. The Governor Governor can't say no. Only the prime minister or a vote of the whole cabinet if that's how it was dealt with, could have overwritten this. I suspect no formal decision was ever made, they just went back to the drawing boards. On average, regulations take 18 months to develop.

Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy (not to be confused with a parliamentary monarchy) are two different types of things. The former is the form of state, the latter is the way government (the administration of the state) is organized. There are many republics who are parliamentary democracies. A state is either a monarchy or a republic but that says nothing about how it is governed.

"Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development."
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html

The king reigns (hold sovereign power in trust) but doesn't rule (govern). Of course, the king that's being referred to is a juridicial or legal person created by the Constitution Act, with the incumbent officer holder who is styled as king merely giving this, otherwise faceless, corporation a face. If the officer holder dies, everything legally continues on as if nothing happened. That's only possible with juridicial/legal persons; if "the king" was the natural person whose face you see, you'd have a new state upon his death.

 

[dpenabill]

At the risk of addressing out-of-context cherry-picked phrases from general government information about the history and culture of Canada . . .

The king reigns (hold sovereign power in trust) but doesn't rule (govern).

The "king reigns" but does NOT rule, does not govern?

Did I mention, in regards to there being no doubt that NO king or queen reigns as a power in Canada, that any "suggestion otherwise is further disingenuous distraction?" I did. It is.

I edited the post of mine that you have taken umbrage with, to clarify that the sentence you have gone to quite some length to challenge, "To be clear, by the way, Canada is NOT a monarchy," would be more complete phrased "To be clear, by the way, Canada is NOT governed by a monarchy." Perhaps I should have employed even more words and said "the country of Canada is NOT governed by a monarch."

But pushing aside distractions, the point being made, which was responsive to what was at best a misleading characterization of the oath of citizenship as a "mere formality," and "much ado about nothing," was that the requirement to swear or affirm an oath in order to become a Canadian citizen (pursuant to a Section 5(1) grant), is considered an important part of the process and for new citizens is intended to be a meaningful step towards belonging, community, and an attachment to the country, this country, to Canada. And in contrast, it is not intended to be a declaration of fealty to the person who is king or queen . . . and NOT, as you framed things, "an opportunity to showcase [the new citizen's] undying love for an old man as hard core fans of the monarchy."

Meanwhile, speaking of clumsy phrasing and further disingenuous distraction

A state is either a monarchy or a republic but that says nothing about how it is governed.

Says "nothing" about how a state is governed eh. So its relevance here is what?

I asked my granddaughter who lives in the State of Minnesota (yes, in the U.S., unfortunately; I still love her nonetheless), if that state is a monarchy or a republic, and while I could not see her face (she's a ways away), I can nonetheless easily picture the wince when she responded "hunh?" I confess I chuckled and said "never mind, just a distraction."

The Governor in Council is just a fancy way of saying the cabinet, meaning in practice primarily the responsible minister who proposed this and secondarily the Prime Minister.

"Just a fancy way of saying . . . "

Not sure how this is relevant either. Another at best misleading characterization and distraction. Wandering into a tangent parsing the scope of duties and powers vested in the Governor General, and the particular mechanisms and influences determining when the Governor in Council will issue an "Order in Council" (such as one adopting a proposed regulation, including provision for its implementation) based on the recommendation of the responsible Minister, does not illuminate why this proposed revision of the regulations governing the oath of citizenship was not adopted as expected (to be in effect by June 2023). As I noted, apart from scores of reasons as to why not, expressed in the officially documented comments, the scope of power it would have given the Minister being seen as overly broad could easily be among the reasons.

To be clear, whichever persons were dictating the outcome (and no, there is near zero likelihood that King Charles was consulted), the Governor in Council has NOT approved the proposed regulation and, again, at this stage, approaching a year past when the proposed regulation was expected to take effect, it appears that proposed regulation will NOT be adopted. I do not know this for sure, that is that it will not be adopted, but NO is the appropriate answer to the OP's query "Is this likely to be implemented?" No, as in not likely. Even though possibly.

I do not know if IRCC is in the process of exploring and potentially drafting another proposed revision of the regulations. Even if another proposed change is in the works, it is probably safe to say that whatever changes will be made, from the perspective of those required to take the oath the procedure will most likely be akin to the current virtual/online oath many now take.

In this regard it is worth remembering how extensively the governing statutes, the Citizenship Act, mandate taking the oath. There are exceptions, as usual. But there should be no doubt that within the statutory and regulatory scheme of law governing the grant of citizenships under Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, the oath of citizenship is no mere formality but rather an important part of the process pursuant to which non-Citizen Canadians (PRs) can become a citizen of Canada.

 

[xf2278389393]

Did I mention, in regards to there being no doubt that NO king or queen reigns as a power in Canada, that any "suggestion otherwise is further disingenuous distraction?" I did. It is.

I edited the post of mine that you have taken umbrage with, to clarify that the sentence you have gone to quite some length to challenge, "To be clear, by the way, Canada is NOT a monarchy," would be more complete phrased "To be clear, by the way, Canada is NOT governed by a monarchy." Perhaps I should have employed even more words and said "the country of Canada is NOT governed by a monarch."
[...]
Says "nothing" about how a state is governed eh. So its relevance here is what?

"Not governed by a monarchy" makes little sense because, as I said, monarchies are a form of state and not a type of government. The only case when you would likely see a monarch govern is that of an absolute monarchy in which there is no elected government, although it is possible that the governing could still be delegated to a person other than the monarch. A monarch is just that, a head of state and with very few exceptions, such as in the elective monarchy of the Holy Sea/Vatican City state which is an absolute monarchy, has no involvement in government.

But pushing aside distractions, the point being made, which was responsive to what was at best a misleading characterization of the oath of citizenship as a "mere formality," and "much ado about nothing," was that the requirement to swear or affirm an oath in order to become a Canadian citizen (pursuant to a Section 5(1) grant), is considered an important part of the process and for new citizens is intended to be a meaningful step towards belonging, community, and an attachment to the country, this country, to Canada. And in contrast, it is not intended to be a declaration of fealty to the person who is king or queen . . . and NOT, as you framed things, "an opportunity to showcase [the new citizen's] undying love for an old man as hard core fans of the monarchy."

That is not how I framed it. I said other people (which includes the Monarchist League of Canada) might see it that way. That is not how I see it. We both agree that the oath is not about allegiance to an individual, so just move on.

I asked my granddaughter who lives in the State of Minnesota (yes, in the U.S., unfortunately; I still love her nonetheless), if that state is a monarchy or a republic, and while I could not see her face (she's a ways away), I can nonetheless easily picture the wince when she responded "hunh?" I confess I chuckled and said "never mind, just a distraction."

It's probably a failure of the education system there. In any event, the subnational U.S. state of Minnesota is clearly a republic that's governed by a presidential/gubernatorial democracy. Canada and its provinces are monarchies with a representative democracy governing but the cities/municipalities in Canada are republics with a municipal form of government.

Not sure how this is relevant either. Another at best misleading characterization and distraction. Wandering into a tangent parsing the scope of duties and powers vested in the Governor General, and the particular mechanisms and influences determining when the Governor in Council will issue an "Order in Council" (such as one adopting a proposed regulation, including provision for its implementation) based on the recommendation of the responsible Minister, does not illuminate why this proposed revision of the regulations governing the oath of citizenship was not adopted as expected (to be in effect by June 2023). As I noted, apart from scores of reasons as to why not, expressed in the officially documented comments, the scope of power it would have given the Minister being seen as overly broad could easily be among the reasons.

The Governor General is just the viceroy of the King, acting solely on the advice of the cabinet. By convention, her job is simply to nod her approval when a bill or regulation is brought to her, The only instances when she would be free to ignore a Minister's advice is if contrary advice is received from another Minister of the Crown. So not only is there zero chance that the king wasn't consulted, there is zero chance the Governor's General personal opinion played any role.

In this regard it is worth remembering how extensively the governing statutes, the Citizenship Act, mandate taking the oath. There are exceptions, as usual. But there should be no doubt that within the statutory and regulatory scheme of law governing the grant of citizenships under Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, the oath of citizenship is no mere formality but rather an important part of the process pursuant to which non-Citizen Canadians (PRs) can become a citizen of Canada.

The oath requirement isn't even listed as one of the grant requirements in section 5:

Grant of citizenship
5 (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who

• (a) makes application for citizenship;
• (b) [Repealed, 2017, c. 14, s. 1]
• (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has, subject to the regulations, no unfulfilled conditions under that Act relating to his or her status as a permanent resident and has
  • (i) been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days during the five years immediately before the date of his or her application, and
  • (ii) [Repealed, 2017, c. 14, s. 1]
  • (iii) met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of three taxation years that are fully or partially within the five years immediately before the date of his or her application;
• (c.1) [Repealed, 2017, c. 14, s. 1]
• (d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;
• (e) if 18 years of age or more but less than 55 years of age at the date of his or her application, demonstrates in one of the official languages of Canada that he or she has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and
• (f) is not under a removal order and is not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20.

The grant is the decision made by a citizenship official as the minister's delegate to approve the application for citizenship.

The oath requirement is only mentioned in section 3(1),

3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

• (c) the person has been granted or acquired citizenship pursuant to section 5 or 11 and, in the case of a person who is fourteen years of age or over on the day that he is granted citizenship, he has taken the oath of citizenship;

It is worded in a way that the person has already been granted citizenship and in order to accept the grant anyone fourteen years or older just has to take the oath of citizenship that same day (or in practice any subsequent day when the grant is still valid). A formality couldn't be expressed in more clear terms.

There used to be times long gone when foreign nationals in England or the early colonial days weren't bound to the jurisdiction of the Crown and could only be dealt with in the courts of their own sovereigns unless that sovereign had a treaty with the Crown allowing the Crown to try the foreign national. However, that was never the case in Canada from the time of Confederation forward. To see the act of taking the oath as anything more than a formal requirement of acceptance but as a substantive sacrifice would be to deny that the rule of law and democracy are normal and need to be respected by non-citizens as well.

 

[dpenabill]

"Not governed by a monarchy" makes little sense because, as I said, monarchies are a form of state and not a type of government. The only case when you would likely see a monarch govern is that of an absolute monarchy in which there is no elected government, although it is possible that the governing could still be delegated to a person other than the monarch. A monarch is just that, a head of state and with very few exceptions, such as in the elective monarchy of the Holy Sea/Vatican City state which is an absolute monarchy, has no involvement in government.

I cannot see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread, regarding whether the proposed changes in regulations governing the oath of citizenship are likely to be implemented allowing for the oath to be "self-administered," or the tangent regarding what that would mean . . . in regards to which it is simply NOT true, as you claimed (in multiple posts), that this would mean just checking off a box in a form.

Thus, what would "make little sense" is further diving into the nuances of political science, let alone parsing the degrees of governing power a "monarchy" might have, recognizing (as just one example among scores of other monarchies) that notwithstanding the establishment of a parliament in England in the 13th century, various monarchs in England did indeed have extensive governing power, albeit not absolute power, until at least well into the 17th century, and continuing to exercise substantial powers of governing until late in the 18th century if not into the 19th century. Not to mention numerous European and other monarchies well shy of being an "absolute" monarchy, reigning with actual governing power well into the 19th century.

But it must be stated that your interpretation of Section 3(1)(c) in the Citizenship Act is also NOT at all accurate.

The oath requirement is only mentioned in section 3(1) . . .

It is worded in a way that the person has already been granted citizenship and in order to accept the grant anyone fourteen years or older just has to take the oath of citizenship that same day (or in practice any subsequent day when the grant is still valid). A formality couldn't be expressed in more clear terms.

Not only is that an inaccurate interpretation of that provision, or at minimum a distortion of its effective meaning, that provision is NOT the only reference to the oath requirement in the Citizenship Act. Not even close. In fact the requirement to take the oath is referenced at least a dozen times, not the least of which is in Section 24 which prescribes that where required to take the oath, the person must swear or affirm it as prescribed and in accordance with the regulations, Section 13.2(1)(b) which refers to those who must take the oath to become a citizen and prescribes that if they fail to take the oath as specified, their application may be treated as abandoned, and Section 5(3) which refers to circumstances in which the Minister may waive the requirement to take the oath.

Make NO mistake, unless otherwise excepted (such as minors under the age of 14), those qualifying for a grant of citizenship pursuant to Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act do NOT become a Canadian citizen UNLESS, and NOT UNTIL, they have taken the oath.

I am not a Canadian lawyer, and I am not qualified to second-guess the precise interpretation or meaning of particular terms or phrases in a statutory provision, such as the phrase "the person has been granted" citizenship in the first of the two conditions that must be met to be a citizen as defined by Section 3(1)(c) in the Citizenship Act, but no particular expertise is necessary to recognize that this provision clearly means that to become a naturalized citizen of Canada, that is to be someone who is a citizen as defined by 3(1)(c), requires BOTH:

-- a decision to grant citizenship pursuant to either Section 5 (which of course includes subsection 5(1) as well as other subsections) or Section 11, AND​

-- having taken the oath of citizenship​

That is, whatever the phrase "the person has been granted" citizenship means, the grant itself is NOT completed, not effective, unless the individual has sworn or affirmed the oath as prescribed.

This is affirmed in numerous actual cases in which PRs have been approved for a grant of citizenship and scheduled to take the oath, who did NOT become citizens because for this or that reason they did not take the oath, including many who were blocked from taking the oath, some of the latter just before the scheduled oath ceremony itself.

Among the more common (albeit not all that common) situations reflecting this are PRs who left Canada while their citizenship application was in process and remained outside Canada so long as to fall short of being in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation prior to taking the oath. While this has mostly happened during periods when processing timelines went insanely long, it has also happened to some bogged down in extraordinarily long non-routine processing. Some of these have been PRs who needed a PR Travel Document to return to Canada and their application for a PR Travel Document was denied due to the RO breach. Others were subject to RO enforcement inadmissibility proceedings upon their arrival at a Port-of-Entry and subsequently not allowed to proceed with taking the oath. Some were just excluded from those taking the oath when they appeared as scheduled at the oath ceremony.

A more common example is the approved applicant who gets charged with an indictable offence prior to taking the oath. (Here too, while many have been so affected, this is not all that common since most PRs on the path to becoming a citizen do not commit criminal acts.) An arrest for domestic assault or driving while impaired, even just the day before the individual is scheduled to take the oath, will constitute a prohibition precluding them from taking the oath, precluding them from becoming a citizen (for as long as they are subject to a prohibition).

Both of the above situations, and other circumstances in which individuals have been scheduled for the oath have subsequently precluded from taking the oath, and thus did not become citizens, have been discussed with references to both official and authoritative sources many, many times in this forum.

So, it bears repeating: Make NO mistake, unless otherwise excepted, those qualifying for a grant of citizenship pursuant to Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act do NOT become a Canadian citizen UNLESS, and NOT UNTIL, they have taken the oath.

And again, there is no prospect of a change in regulations and procedure pursuant to which the requirement for taking oath will be satisfied by merely checking a box in a form. At the very least, if not taking the oath attendant an in-person ceremony, taking the oath will involve engaging in a secure online procedure.

Outstanding Questions Re Possible Changes to the Oath Requirement:

The only outstanding questions of significance, about possible changes to the oath requirement, are whether IRCC will propose and the government adopt a regulation pursuant to which the Minister modifies the means for taking the oath which will

(1) allow taking the oath online while the individual is outside Canada, and/or​

(2) allow individuals to engage in the oath taking procedure online without scheduling​

 

[xf2278389393]

There aren't really degrees of monarchies. A state is either a monarchy or a republic. The system of government, which by neccessity involves the degree to which the head of state is part of the government, is independent of the state. This is because you have to distinguish between the state and its administration. There have certainly been systems of government in monarchies in the past, so-called parliamentary monarchies, where the monarch would have still had actual political power although not neccessarily excercised personally on a day to day basis, but they are pretty much non-existant today. Thereotically any form of government (whether it involves rule by one, few or many) can exist inside either a republic or a monarchy. You asked how is it relevant; well, it became relevant when you said that Canada wasn't a monarchy in response to me referring to its little fan club which does exist. Canada is a monarchy that's something we have to acknowledge, wether we like it or not, especially since a considerate number of Canadians were previously noted in a survey to be ignorant of the former queen being head of state and especially if you want to change it.

Of course, nobody who is required to take the oath becomes a Canadian citizen until they have taken the oath. Just like a title deed does not transfer a property until it is delivered and a last will does not become effective until it is in the legally required form, a grant of citizenship does not confer citizenship until it is accepted by taking the oath. That does not mean that delivery of the deed (or release in the electronic system of Ontario) or the will form requirement are more than a formality. I would argue that even substantial compliance with the oath requirement is sufficient to confer citizenship; e.g. if a person dies while reciting the oath and before signing the oath form, that person would probably be found by the court to have died as a Canadian citizen, which could be important if the deceased has a child thereafter. I infer this from the fact that while applicants are currently watched to confirm their compliance, nobody checks whether they are saying the exact words and citizenship is conferred even if some words are mispronounced or inadvertantly ommited. This is in contrast to the substantive grant requirements, especially the physical presence requirement, in section 5(1) which require perfection.

If something is "secure" and "online", then all that means is the transmission of the information through the Internet is encrypted by a key of sufficient length. A form with a checkbox accessed through HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure or HTTPS (which is technically HTTP over Transport Layer Security) is a secure online procedure. Whether that's what IRCC had in mind is debatable. In any event, any secure online solution, whether it involved recording a video or audio recording of yourself or just checking a box to confirm, would have been progress. It is clear in any event that the regulation would have allowed the oath to be taken and confirmed without an authorized official being present and that they were planning something along those lines.