Although I was born a Canadian citizen, I have taken the citizenship oath many times.  As a member of the Ontario legislature I was invited to numerous citizenship ceremonies in my community.  There, our local citizenship court judge would encourage all Canadian citizens present to join in as she administered the oath to the new citizens as group.No one ever checked whether this additional group of oath takers were actually Canadian citizens — it didn't really matter.  The oath was the last step in a long and involved process and anyone who tried to take it under false pretences would not automatically become a citizen simply by saying a few words.Citizenship ceremonies are surprisingly relaxed. Whenever I attended a swearing-in ceremony, I gave every new Canadian an Ontario pin and a certificate in a handsome (if I do say so myself) cardboard folder.  If they wanted, they could have their picture taken with me (not many ever did).I never encountered anyone at these ceremonies with a niqab or other religious face covering.  I doubt that anyone would have really cared, particularly if they understood that the citizenship judge had the discretion to privately verify the person's identity while respecting their religious beliefs.This was the case in Canada until 2011 when the rules suddenly changed.  Judicial discretion vanished and those taking the oath were required to publicly show their faces even if they felt it was contrary to their faith. When the federal court recently found these rule changes were inconsistent with legislation that established the oath, the government introduced a bill to amend the legislation.Canadians need to understand the extraordinary nature of what our government has done.  We are a country that is committed to accommodating religious differences except under the most serious circumstances.  Through this legislation, the government has set the limits of religious accommodation at an alarmingly low level. Serious stuff.The principle of religious accommodation is actually quite straightforward (the practice can get complicated). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which Canada is a signatory) puts it well: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”Until recently citizenship judges seemed to manage to accommodate women in niqabs. The judge in our community allowed anyone who claimed to be Canadian to take the citizenship oath.  What has changed to threaten the “public safety, order, health, or morals” or “fundamental rights and freedoms” of other Canadians? Obviously the government must have an overwhelming reason for the new law.The problem is that they don't.A survey of comments by the key political actors involved in defending the decision, including the prime minister, comes up with only three rather weak arguments.The first is that the niqab is not truly part of the Muslim faith, and that it is sexist.Is it just me, or is there something horrifying about a group of politicians trying to “define” the practices of a particular religion within our society? Yes, there is a disagreement within the Muslim community about the wearing of niqabs. The fact that a critical mass of Muslims in Canada associates it with the observance of their faith seems sufficient to classify this as a legitimate religious practice.The second, to quote Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is the “that's not the way we do things” argument.  As Multiculturalism Minister Tim Uppal put it: “Canadians expect that new citizens should show their face when swearing or affirming the Oath in community with others.” (This one combines nicely with the argument that the practice of wearing niqabs is sexist.)Unfortunately, this is not about what the majority “expects” or likes. Minorities are specifically given legal protection to guard practices that the majority might dislike or find unconventional.Which brings us to the final argument: taking a citizenship oath with a niqab is inconsistent with Canadian values — an argument the prime minister used recently in Quebec during a Saint Jean Baptiste Day speech.The fact Canada Day was only a week ago makes this argument even more surreal. It was literally impossible to read Canada Day editorials, columns, letters to the editor or interviews and not see constant references to Canada as an accepting, tolerant and diverse nation that welcomes newcomers.Those are Canadian values. Which is why this issue matters.Although the federal court estimated that these rules only affect about 100 women a year, the implications are much more profound.  This is about the way we accommodate different faiths. This is about how we welcome minority groups to our country. Ultimately, this is about the type of Canada we want.John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department.  John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.