@CaBeaver : Not returning expired or cancelled passports is indeed the rule for a number of countries. This example illustrates why it is often a mistake to extrapolate what will happen for someone based on how things went or worked for any particular individual or even group of individuals.
I realized that I might have an issue with the proof of residency... problem is, my passport expired last April, and I got it renewed at the consulate.
But they took back the old passport when delivering the new one.
So, how will I prove that I haven't left the country during the past years?
This is NO WHERE NEAR the issue it was in the past. If you apply with a decent margin over the minimum, maybe wait a little longer than most might, and if everything else is in good order in your application, this should not cause much of a problem, if any problem.
You should be OK.
By the way, presenting a passport never was proof that the applicant had not left the country. It was, and continues to be evidence (having less weight now than in the past), evidence which can be considered in multiple ways. But since Canada is a country which is very easy to exit or enter without for sure having a record of that entered into an individual's Canadian records or a particular travel document carried by the individual, even when passports were more regularly stamped for entry into Canada and other countries, and for some countries also stamped upon exit, the passport was still not proof of the applicant's travel history. It was merely evidence considered in conjunction with other evidence. And, actually CIC/IRCC were more focused on looking for inconsistencies or incongruities between information in the passport and other information provided by or known about the applicant.
Passports are simply no longer as important in evaluating and weighing the evidence regarding an applicant for citizenship.
You should be OK . . . but of course that depends on all the other pieces being in place. And, as I noted, maybe wait a little longer than most to apply (to my view most should wait at least a month extra before applying). If everything in your application is in order, and your work and address history make sense for who you are, and there is nothing out of place or inconsistent or incongruous in your information and history, no reason for IRCC to doubt your travel history for example, like the vast majority of qualified applicants you should not encounter problems. You will need to explain, in the application, why you cannot present all passports, but you have an explanation for that.
IF for some reason you are asked for additional evidence showing you met the physical presence requirement, which is called RQ (Residence Questionnaire), there are now various types of RQ and the extent of the requests will depend on what kind of questions IRCC has, how much concern IRCC has about the completeness and accuracy of your reported presence in Canada, including travel history. As long as you have kept the usual records people keep these days, those should be sufficient to provide an adequate response to any such requests. That is, personal records as to where you live, where you work, financial records, and such. Odds are you will NOT need to present such evidence, or "proof," but that is the sort of evidence, or proof, that IRCC might ask for and which will typically suffice . . . except in the obvious situation, such as where IRCC has reason to apprehend the applicant has made misrepresentations or otherwise cannot be trusted.
Some Additional, Longer Observations (for this subject, proving presence in Canada, generally)
:
If for some reason (more than just not having the old passport) IRCC has concerns about whether the applicant met the physical presence IN Canada requirement, the "proof" the applicant will be asked to provide is not about proving the applicant did not leave Canada, or did not leave Canada any other times than those reported by the applicant in the travel history.
It is very difficult to prove a negative. And applicants are not expect to. And, moreover, what the statute requires, what will show an applicant has met the presence requirement, is proof of being IN Canada.
Travel history is no where near the proof many seem to think it is. Sure, if the travel history is for certain known, that will show for sure how many days the applicant was IN Canada. But that is a big IF.
That conclusion depends on the INFERENCE the individual was actually IN Canada all the days between a known date of entry and the next reported date of exit. What will prove the applicant did not leave (and/or return) to Canada during that period of time is evidence the applicant was actually physically present IN Canada those days.
Fortunately, IRCC does NOT require applicants to affirmatively submit evidence to prove each day they were actually in Canada. Indeed, for the vast majority of qualified applicants, and in particular for applicants IRCC sees no reason to question or doubt that the reported travel history is in fact complete and accurate, IRCC does in fact make that inference, that the applicant was IN Canada not just the date the applicant entered Canada, but the days following that up to the next reported date of exit. Of course IRCC does not use a crystal ball . . . rather, they compare the applicant's travel history to other sources of information, ranging from the applicant's CBSA travel history, to comparing the applicant's address and work history, mostly looking to see if anything is inconsistent or incongruous, to see if something suggests there is a reason to question or doubt the applicant's travel history.
In the past, passports were a major factor, a more important piece of evidence, CIC/IRCC used to compare with other information. So much so that even if the applicant had a totally innocent reason for not being able to present a passport, it was considered so important that its absence was enough to trigger RQ-related processing, enough to require the applicant to submit additional proof of actual presence or residency (when eligibility was based on a residency rather than a presence requirement). This was not just about entry/exit stamps, but also about visas and permits (especially so when there was a residency requirement, since a visa or permit allowing residency in another country would, on its face, raise questions about whether the applicant was actually maintaining residence in Canada during that time).
There are many reasons why the passport is no longer anywhere near as important as it was in the past. The decline in making entry/exit stamps to passports is just one of the reasons.
In any event, a failure to provide all passports is not the problem it used to be. So, unless the reason for its absence suggests the applicant might be hiding something, or unless there are other reasons raising suspicions, the qualified applicant has little need to worry. IRCC is well familiar with what countries retain and/or destroy expired or cancelled passports, so that explanation should not raise any concerns at all.
By the way: for others, and even in regards to countries which will return the expired/cancelled passport, always a good idea to make a complete copy of the passport and record the date of that before submitting it for replacement.
Yes I agree it is a bad reason, and people find alternatives to keep their passport anyway...
My home country might be just a little too much overprotective ^^
It is common. It is what it is. Like some comments made here which offer nothing in response to the query posed. No need to explain or defend your home country. Ignore the lame asides.
