My non-expert view is that there is NO need to inform IRCC about being issued any new passport or travel document AFTER the application has been made. However, an applicant should bring any such documents, along with all those referenced in the application, to the interview.
FWIW -- Observations/Explanation about updating information generally:
This query offers an opportunity to examine and illuminate the question about -what- and -when- to update information while a citizenship application is pending. It is important to update information when that is required. But changes in circumstances do not necessarily mean information provided in the application has changed.
It is important to notify IRCC of certain information. But otherwise, generally the bureaucratic process tends to proceed best, with the least risk of
things-going-bump-in-the-dark, the less the process is tampered with, the more the process stays solidly inside the routine-processing lines.
Examples:
-- change in residential or mailing address should be promptly updated
-- change in employment does not need to be updated
Reminder: the applicant agrees to advise IRCC "if any information on this form changes before [the applicant] take the Oath of Citizenship."
As
@razerblade alludes, the issuance of a new passport after the date of applying does not really constitute a change to the information provided in the application. Similarly, a change in jobs does not change the information provided in the application.
The idea of informing CIC (my application was processed prior to the change to IRCC) that my passport had been cancelled, and that I had been issued a replacement, did not occur to me other than to be sure to present both passports, the cancelled one and the new one, at my interview.
While I had no problems, none at all let alone any problem due to this, that does NOT mean for-sure that was the proper way to do it. (As I have oft emphasized, what worked for one applicant ONLY indicates what CAN or might work, because it has worked, NOT what the rule is, NOT what will work for someone else let alone what will always work.)
In retrospect, nonetheless, my sense is that my approach was the proper way to go about it. I conclude this because (again, as
@razerblade alludes) the issuance of a new passport after the date of applying does not really constitute a change to the information provided in the application.
The relevant item in the current application is item 14. It explicitly references "travel documents during your eligibility period," instructing the applicant to "Tell us about all your travel documents and/or passports covering your eligibility period." A later issued passport, again as
@razerblade observes, is outside the eligibility period.
The relevant checklist item similarly instructs the applicant submit photocopies for travel documents and passports "
covering the five (5) years immediately before the date of your application." Here too, a later issued travel document or passport is outside that period.
General Observations About Updating Application/Applicant Information:
I have gone into detail regarding this, as to passports, to illustrate the reasoning process in deciding
WHAT information needs to be updated, and to some extent similarly
WHEN. The new passport situation seems to be an instructive example for how to approach
what or
when to update generally.
In many respects, historically, many applicants have had a tendency to NOT provide updated information when they should. This has especially arisen when applicants move, so that their residential address changes. A change in residential address, in the place where one lives, is information the applicant most definitely should update as soon as practical.
As others have noted, generally being forthright and forthcoming is the better approach, and it is better to err on the side of disclosure.
BUT citizenship application processing is a bureaucratic process and bureaucratic processing tends to go a lot smoother, tends to run into fewer problems, when there are NO wrinkles, and the risk of wrinkles tends to increase anytime there is some action taken on the file. There are, of course, certain necessary actions that must be taken. And this can include necessary updates. Again, change in address is the more obvious example.
Unnecessary updates to the file, in contrast, are an unnecessary risk.
Take note, for example, how often participants in this forum report a problem related to their address even though they have followed the procedure for updating a change in address. And that is an action on a file which should be about as routine as any.
Nonetheless, sure, it is probably better to err on the side of updating information UNLESS the applicant is fairly confident there is NO need to update.
Some detailed analysis:
MOST of the information in the application form is historical. It is established as of the date of the application. This kind of information does not change.
As already noted, for example, travel document information in the application specifically references the "eligibility period." No update is necessary for later issued documents (but be sure to bring to interview).
Similarly, the work history information is specifically about what the applicant was doing during the eligibility period. (Applicant should be prepared to disclose current work circumstances at the interview.)
Address history likewise. So any change in address does not require an update to item 10.a in the current application form. However, Item 7 is an open-ended question, so any change to the information in this item, including home address OR mailing address, needs to be updated.
PROHIBITIONS EXCEPTION (an important exception):
Item 16 is imprecise in a number of ways. As I have previously observed (other threads), it tends to indicate that if any of the situations applies to the applicant, that means the applicant is prohibited. That is not necessarily true. Some situations, such as convicted of an offence outside Canada, might apply but will not necessarily constitute a prohibition (if the offence is not one which is an indictable offence if committed in Canada); similarly, the situation "have you ever been" under a removal order might apply, but if that order was resolved in the applicant's favour, it does not constitute a prohibition.
Some may focus on the "are you now" language in parts of Item 16 to mean "now" literally as of the date of the application. NO, NO. Absolutely not. It is absolutely imperative for an applicant to notify IRCC if the applicant is arrested, charged, or convicted of an offence after applying and while the application is pending, right up to the day the oath is taken.
(Note: edit to resolve formatting problems.)
