Does passport Canada call the guarantor and the references?
- Thread starter FAAMS
- Start date
Yes I got my first passport yesterday and yes they called all my references n guarator before giving me the passport. Nothing to worry if u r truthful …
What if someone is homeless or just doesn't have references/contacts? Can such person ever leave Canada or are they stuck there unless they get references?
Wow! I did not know they really call and check. For curiosity sake, what were the questions asked?
Homeless people can still know other people (whether other homeless or people working in shelters). I find quite odd that somebody homeless think about applying for a passport or traveling out of Canada though, as they are barely able to take care to their daily needs.
As shared already by others, I indeed find the requirement quite annoying, and even in my home country there is nothing like that... It should be mainly a background check and nothing more.
With all due respect, Sir or Madame, it doesn't matter at all what you or I think and what we find odd, things in life happen.
The example I brought (of a homeless man) and question I asked was hypothetical. Since I work with large number of people who get into all kinds of predicaments in life, I can assure you that there are some people (not necessarily homeless) who may or will have no so called "references", for whatever reason, and it's utterly bewildering to find out that such individual would be in essence restricted in his freedom of movement and ability to travel outside of the country, as if he was a convict on probation.
American writer J.D. Salinger would be unable to get a passport in Canada if he moved to some remote place like Cornish and decided to live in seclusion, as he did.
It's not annoying, it's unbelievable. Background checks is what they should do. Requiring references, as if applicant was applying for a job requiring a security clearance? That appear to infringe on one's right to move around freely (one doesn't have a right to get a clearance and land a job, but one does have a right to move freely, unless under arrest or investigation for crimes accused of).
Sir or Madame, if a homeless person who doesn't know anybody decides to go out of the country, that person will need to make friends and wait two years. In the meantime, they will have time to find the money to pay for the passport and to arrange for travelling abroad, in the hope that the other country will accept them as a person that can't prove to have an accommodation in the country for their stay and to be able to leave, will never be accepted.
I personally don't like the references system either, and I don't like the fact that is often (or maybe always) used to access higher education as well. But that's the way they do in Canada, and I guess they feel it's easier to guarantee on the ability of the person to travel by asking a guarantor and some references.
If you want to start a petition to abolish it, I would definitely sign up for it.
I personally don't like the references system either, and I don't like the fact that is often (or maybe always) used to access higher education as well. But that's the way they do in Canada, and I guess they feel it's easier to guarantee on the ability of the person to travel by asking a guarantor and some references.
If you want to start a petition to abolish it, I would definitely sign up for it.
But that is for the person to decide, not you and me. What if he doesn't want to make friends? What if he needs to go sooner than 2 years?
Contrary to your assumption , that doesn't take much time. Formerly skilled person can become homeless. Having skills, despite being homeless, one can get a job any moment their application for a job is met by an offer. It takes two weeks to a month to get first two paychecks. Round trip ticket to Europe can cost as low as $400.00. That's one week's pay. I am just letting you know, that in the ordinary course of countless people we don't know, there are more things that are possible and happen than you may think of.
No such hope is needed if you hold Canadian passport, the second in the world for number of the countries you can travel to without restrictions. All you need is a passport and a ticket. It's unlike having to get a visa and present proof of accommodations in advance.
Great, we are on agreement in this. Just want to note: one doesn't have a right to be accepted by a college to pursue higher education. College can set prerequisites, like a job, and decide whom to take in and whom to reject. Freedom of move, on the other hand, is a right. You are free to move and no one can restrict your movement, unless you are detained/arrested or supervised for commission of crime or while being investigate for crime.
It appears to me that denying one a passport is infringing on their right to freedom of movement. Not the same as denying a job or admission to college.
References don't necessarily need to be friends, but it would definitely be good if they were. If someone doesn't have a friend, they can pick whoever they know. If they have not known anybody in their life, it means that they can't go out of the country. If someone needs to have a passport sooner than 2 years and they really have nobody they can use their reference, that's their problem, they are not meeting the requirements.
Nowadays, especially in wealthy Western country, the society is moving towards something where everybody feels entitled to have everything and immediately. There are processes that just take time as it happens with everything in life.
Many people have been waiting 2 years to have citizenship approval. What if they needed that earlier? Well, it's their problem. Even in case of filing urgent processing, not everybody qualifies. That is unfortunate, that's life.
I'm sure that such a skilled homeless person who makes money in 2 weeks for travelling will be able to find 2 references.
If it is like that, it's because, as you observed, Canada has a high number of checks in place to select well the people who get a Canadian passport. If Canada would start giving passports to anybody without all this verification process in place, be sure that less countries will accept people on a Canadian passport and without a visa.
The first time I got into Canada (with a European passport) as a visitor, the border officer asked me very precise questions on where I was supposed to stay during may days spent in the country, and I heard he asked even to the woman before me. A failure in answering or if I had said that I would have been living in the street as a homeless for a few days, would have probably led the officer to deny my entry into the country. It may indeed happen in other countries too.
Colleges are not like a job. If they want to set prerequisites they can, but if I use the same principles you claim for passport applicants, if somebody has no references for any reason, that persons should not be denied access to the college if they have other ways to prove their skills. Everybody should be able to have access to higher education.
Not sure where you read that freedom of movement is a right. Canada provides freedom of movement in the country according to its costitution. However, if someone wants to travel out of the country, Canada - of course - doesn't have the power to gyarantee freedom of movement as going to another country depends first of all on the rules of the destination country. No matter all agreements that Canada may have with other countries, if a border officer of another country decides to deny access to a Canadian citizen, they can do so. Maybe the easiness of travels in today's world made you believe that travelling abroad is a right. It is not. If you have doubts on this statement, I suggest you to contact an attorney specialized in immigration or international law.
These are your subjective views, they could be totally unacceptable or inapplicable to someone else. You can't just pick whomever you know. First, the person must agree to be a reference (I know, I did this when I applied for jobs. I had to ask for permission to give someone's contact info and had to know they are reliable references). Second. what does "knowing somebody" have to do with freedom to move? If I don't know anybody, do I have to be put in jail or handcuffed or locked in basement? Me not knowing anyone has nothing to do with my freedom to move freely. That's te point.
You are mixing apples with oranges or you don't understand what your rights are, versus your privileges or benefits. You have a right to breath air. No one can put a rag on your mouth and restrict your breathing. Doing so would be an assault and attempted murder. Next, you are free to move on your two feet and go anywhere you want. No one can put a lock on your door, seal it or put you in jail "because you don't know anybody". It just doesn't matter who you know, your freedom to walk out your door and go wherever you want, freely, can not be restricted unless you are under arrest/detestation or supervision for commission of crime. Anyone who obstructs your movement can be charged with false arrest or even assault.
Denying you passport is denying your freedom to move. Do you realize what that means?
You still don't understand. You, as an individual, have freedom to move. You can walk and go anywhere you want, unless you are arrested and/or detained. Denying you a passport is to deny you your right to move. Its not the same as pending application for citizenship. Its very different situation. It's like putting a lock on your door and keeping you under arrest.
I already told you there are many possibilities in life, including those you never imagined. But that's beyond the point. point is: one has freedom to move. Denying passport is to deny freedom of moment. Soviet KGB did this in XX century and USSR was even sanctioned for violation of rights when some citizens wanted to leave the USSR and were denied permission to leave.
You still don't understand. If you are a Canadian CITIZEN you are entitled to freedom of movement, you are free to go anywhere you want (unless you are arrested). Denying CITIZEN a Passport is to deny him freedom of movement,
See my responses above.
The conclusion of all your writing seems that I don't understand anything and you are totally right. And unfortunately, the Canadian government doesn't understand anything either, as they are applying this requirement. I'm really sorry for you, but it sounds like you applied for citizenship in a wrong country, as all your rights are not respected here. My sympathies.
P.S. I'd still suggest you to contact an attorney, who will be able to clarify on what your right are. But I'll warn you, after you'll hear what they say, you'll probably think they don't understand either. : )
I didn't say you don't understand anything. TO invent things I didn't say and argue against invented position may be an easy feat. The problem is, I didn't say it , so you are not beating my argument , you are beating an imaginary proposition, Therefore, it's called straw man argument. It's logical fallacy.
What I said was that you don't understand what is involved in this particular subject matter that we are now discussing, where Canadian CITIZEN'S right to move freely is being restricted by virtue of denying him the instrument he needs to move out of the country. You probably don't know what freedom of movement is, whether such right exists or doesn't. Let me provide you a reference to an Article 13 , section 2 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (link: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights ), where it is said in particular that:
- "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Now, if Canada denies right to freedom of movement, it doesn't mean that it "doesn't understand what it's doing". It may have very well understanding of what it's doing, just like Soviets knew and understood what they were doing when they denied their citizens right to leave their country. What it implies, though , is that the Universal Human Right, the freedom of movement, does not exist or can be denied in Canada, and it's up to the bureaucrat in a grey suit to decide, whether you will be allowed to leave your country or not.
Last edited:
What a lot of nonsense - there's a procedure even for those who cannot find a guarantor. No, they don't make it easy - because the bar for finding a guarantor in the first place - it just has to be a warm body who knows you and a few other basic requirements like having a passport themselves.
But in the event one truly cannot find a person who knows them and is willing to write that down on paper, there is a procedure:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-passports/travel-documents-references-guarantors.html#no-guarantor
You fill out a form, and swear an oath in front of notary, justice of the peace, or commissioner of oaths.
This whose discussion of rights is off-base anyway - even if one had some specific right to a passport (let's just allow that), there's no concept in common law that exercise of a right cannot be subject to basic administrative requirements - like actually demonstrating who you are.
And no, there's zero chance a court will ever decide that this particular requirement is excessively burdensome.
But in the event one truly cannot find a person who knows them and is willing to write that down on paper, there is a procedure:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-passports/travel-documents-references-guarantors.html#no-guarantor
You fill out a form, and swear an oath in front of notary, justice of the peace, or commissioner of oaths.
This whose discussion of rights is off-base anyway - even if one had some specific right to a passport (let's just allow that), there's no concept in common law that exercise of a right cannot be subject to basic administrative requirements - like actually demonstrating who you are.
And no, there's zero chance a court will ever decide that this particular requirement is excessively burdensome.
While some of the comments posted today and yesterday are meant to, I believe, flame a somewhat anti-Canada sentiment (out of what appears to be some personal grievances), it remains the case that the guarantor/reference requirement comes from an OUTDATED system born during the colonial days when the public service sector was far less developed than it is today. It was necessary back then to require the passport applicant to prove his/her identity by securing the signature of respectable members of the community. That is to say, the government placed the onus of identity verification on the applicant.
Today, we have many government-owned organizations/offices (e.g., Service Canada, Canada Post) that can MORE THAN ADEQUATELY perform the function of identity verification. In addition, for naturalized citizens, we have already gone through a rigorous process of identity verification during the citizenship application process itself. The requirement for securing a guarantor and two references to apply for the first passport therefore is now redundant, and it is maintained to this day for what appears to be sentimental reasons that reflect the government's colonial nostalgia. It must be noted that only the 3 white-dominant former British colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, together with the UK now still have the guarantor/reference system in place for passport applications.
There is no rhyme or reason to still keep this system. It places unreasonable onus on the applicant considering the purpose it serves. Naturalized citizens in particular do not need this extra step of identity verification considering that they already went through the citizenship application process, and ironically, they are the ones facing particular challenges (compared to native-borns) when it comes to securing guarantors and references. This system therefore should be abolished.
Last edited: