Canadian Politics Today

No, the least we can do is literally nothing.

Well next to nothing, this would be the least we could do. 

You've got to wonder why the objection to it. If it's functionally useless, yet extends an olive branch as a sign of reconciliation, why would anyone oppose this? That's what I want to know.

Why would you want to make an oath functionally useless? Why have an oath at all in that case. It isn't extending an olive branch, patronizing someone with something that has no meaning is just insulting.

Why would you want to make an oath functionally useless? Why have an oath at all in that case. It isn't extending an olive branch, patronizing someone with something that has no meaning is just insulting.

Look at the passage.

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen
of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I
will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including
Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my
duties as a Canadian citizen.

Emphasis mine.

They're simply recognizing in an official manner that the treaties with the indigenous peoples are law. It's giving notice to the fact that the indigenous peoples have treaties with us and that we must observe that. You, as someone who's never taken the oath but are a citizen, must observe that because the government you elect must observe its treaties. There's nothing you can do to change that. This simply highlights the unique relationship the indigenous peoples have with the country and it makes new citizens verbally acknowledge that relationship.

Here's the full report if you care to read it. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

Treaties are already law and Citizenship means you obey the laws of the country, period. It is just throwing someone a bone which means nothing.

And again, I have to wonder why the opposition to it when it is functionally the same whether it's in there or not. What do you have against the indigenous peoples' unique relationship being recognized?

I have a problem with any group being singled out for special recognition.

Which is exactly why the indigenous peoples need to be singled out for recognition, because they're not "any group."

That's just the way I see it. I don't think telling one group they are somehow special compared to other citizens is positive, it just leads to a sense of entitlement that is not good for anyone. I do believe we have to live up to our obligations as set out in our Constitution, laws and treaties.

It's not some decree that they're "special." It's an affirmation of their unique standing in our society. They're not like other citizens and their relationships to the state and the monarch is different.

Edit: You want them to simply be just another citizen of Canada and they're not that socially, historically, nor legally.

Yes and now newcomers to the country have to explicitly recognize that.

What don't you like about the test?