Absolutely, Madam Chair.
The reason I bring that up, and I won't get into the details, is to ensure that there is that ability for where exceptions need to be made. I think for all of us around this table—and quite often I think in Parliament—it's exceptions that become the debate point that defines the direction of public policy, whereas I think that the general trends are far better as the determining factor for what public policy should be, and exceptions need to be noted so that they can be accommodated.
Specifically when it comes to this amendment, we see a very pragmatic option: that the minister—and I have no doubt the processes that the minister would be able to create surrounding where the requirement for an in-person citizenship ceremony could be waived—would be entirely reasonable.
We have a democratic infrastructure in this country that ensures that there is the ability for the government, given the mandate to govern by the people, to ensure that something that can and should be taken as seriously as it is—that idea of citizenship.... When an exception is required, there would be that very straightforward ability to ensure that, without undue strain on an individual or a family, or whatever the case is, whether it be because of an illness or an economic circumstance, or a global pandemic.... We would see that those options can be offered in those circumstances as requested, because it gives the minister that ability. That's key, Madam Chair, because the minister is—