Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understood the question. It was just to make a general point, as motions are being tabled during the hearing.
In response to the member's question about whether the department has done a study with regard to people's participation online, I'd like to take an opportunity to correct the record about what the regulatory proposal actually is. It's been mis-characterized in the media and through some of the concerns we've heard publicly but also during these hearings.
The proposal is to maintain citizenship ceremonies. I'd like to be clear that we agree: Citizenship ceremonies are important and they will continue.
Secondly, the proposal is to give citizenship applicants the choice in terms of how they wish to proceed with their ceremony. The first choice that applicants would need to make under the proposed regulatory change is whether they wish to take the oath at a ceremony, as now. That's really important to emphasize. It would be the choice of the applicant. Where they're wanting to do that participation in person, as they do now, and where a connection may be an impediment, that choice will be for the applicant to make.
The second choice that will be available to applicants is whether they would instead take that oath online. There could be many good reasons why people may need to make that choice. We heard of some of them at the previous hearing. Those electing to take their oath online would have the ability to participate in their ceremony once again but at a later date, so that they're not falling behind in terms of their access to citizenship.
In terms of the “why” of this proposal, as we've heard, there are some who may not be able to afford to travel a distance to participate at a ceremony in person. There are some who may not be able to afford to take a day off work. We know that affordability is an issue for many out there.
Thirdly, in terms of accessibility, we have options now, but the Government of Canada needs to do better. This proposal is really looking to give people who may need better options of accessibility—for reasons of disability, for reasons of debilitating illness or for other kinds of reasons that may require accommodation—an avenue where they don't have to make a case to an official and ask for an exception to be made so that they can have a virtual ceremony or some other accommodation to enable them to be citizens and to be like everyone else who can make it to a ceremony, in person or virtually, with a dedicated service channel for them. That's what an electronic oath would provide, in addition to those options to continue to participate at ceremonies to take the oath, as is currently the case.
In summary, we haven't had to do the type of study that the member asked about. I'm grateful for the question. Once again, the proposal is to offer that choice to our clients in order to better meet the needs of a variety of circumstances in cities and in rural communities across this great country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
