I don't believe this is true, or not exactly. Please show specifically where this right is enumerated and termed as such.
I hope you are legally literate because I am. You are correct that "right" is a legal concept, and that is precisely what applies here. Section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act states that the Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who meets the prescribed criteria. In law, "shall" imposes a mandatory obligation. It removes ministerial discretion unless there is a specific lawful ground for refusal, such as security concerns, criminality, or fraud, as outlined in the Act itself. This is what distinguishes a statutory right from a privilege. A privilege can be withheld at the discretion of the granting authority. A statutory right, by contrast, must be granted when the legal conditions are met. It is not discretionary. The fact that Parliament can amend the law in the future does not change the fact that under current law, eligible permanent residents have a right to citizenship once they fulfill all requirements and are not inadmissible. It is a legal right enforceable under administrative law principles. If the Minister were to arbitrarily deny citizenship to an eligible applicant, the applicant could seek judicial review and obtain a remedy. That confirms it is not simply a government benefit or service. It is a right tied to a legal obligation. Calling it both a right and a privilege may sound rhetorically balanced, but legally speaking, that is incorrect. Citizenship under section 5(1) is a statutory right with conditional eligibility, not a privilege that can be arbitrarily granted or withheld.
Almost exact same time line like me. I am also waiting for LPP. From which office did you receive test email ?
Let’s take a step back, and I hope you don’t take this personally. You seem to be focusing on one word of mine out of the entire context. As I’ve already explained, I used "privilege" purely in a practical sense and not in relation to legal constitutions or anything of that sort. The right you mentioned is absolutely correct, but that law can be viewed as a conditional one. The reason is that an unconditional right, like freedom of speech, is granted by the Constitution. I don’t want to burden the many people here who might not be interested in this topic, but at the same time, I believe we should all understand our rights, how to interpret them, and how to avoid breaking any law or constitutionally granted right of others.
Finally wait is over!!!! Received Oath letter today, oath scheduled for June 10th, 2025 but it shows oath not started on portal. Any advise why is that?
A friend of mine went through something similar. The tracker should update in a few days. No need to worry!
Agree that your depiction of this as a statutory right is correct - not a charter right, but a statutory one. Mea culpa for misphrasing.
There are, I believe, multiple definitions of privilege. Including rights granted (eg right to vote); an exemption from a burden or requirement (e.g. residency obligation); etc - in these cases compared to status of a permanent resident. I don't say this to be argumentative, just that being a citizen does convey benefits, and I don't believe it's incorrect to call those privileges, whether by strict definitions or colloquial.
Yup, it's absolutely a privilege to be able to become a Canadian citizen by naturalization—the fact that Canada makes it so easy to do that once you got PR is itself a privilege PRs in Canada has and should be grateful for. Not every country makes it so easy for, or even allow you to become a citizen by naturalization (China is an example).
I have the same time line with scarborough office....waiting for LPP ....just in progress more than 2 months
