Email Minister re Question 9C Ambiguity (and anything else you want to add)

[rmorgan]

Hello people,

I have sent the following email to Minister Hussen: Ahmed.Hussen@PARL.GC.CA
Anyone else in the same boat is welcome to copy and send it too. Or add anything else that bothered you about the new citizenship application.

Cheers,
rmorgan


Subject: Ambiguous Wording of Question 9C in Citizenship Application Leading to Returned Applications and Loss of Goodwill for the Liberal Party



The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen, PC, MP

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship



Dear Minister,


Thank you most sincerely for your efforts for Bill C-6 which was of great importance to many Canadians, and future Canadians, as it ended the Conservative effort to divide Canadians by having a two-tiered citizenship as well as their imposition of unnecessary hurdles to citizenship.


The provisions of Bill C-6 which came into effect on 11th October allowed me to apply using the new citizenship application form.


I would like to bring to your urgent attention that some of the questions in the new citizenship application form were not very clearly worded, particularly Question 9C which reads as follow:


9 c) During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada: Yes No

If you checked YES please complete and submit the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) with your completed application, along with the print out of your Physical Presence Calculator.



A large portion of the applicants have indeed lived outside Canada during the eligibility period (the period 5 years before their application), and so they must check YES in 9C above. However, the application then requests them to complete the Residence Outside of Canada form CIT 0177 which is ONLY applicable to Crown Servants or their family members and NOT applicable to the vast majority of the applicants.


On the discussion forums (www.canadvisa.com/forum) some applicants have advocated that this question 9C should only be answered by Crown Servants and/or their Family Members, so other applicants should simply check NO as their response. However, others fear that answering a simple YES/NO question with a NO response when one has indeed lived outside Canada during the eligibility period would leave one open to the threat of revocation of citizenship anytime in the future (say under, a future Conservative Government) for having made a false/misleading statement in their citizenship application. Accordingly, some applicants who have lived outside Canada during their eligibility period (but are NOT Crown Servants or Crown Servant family members) have checked YES to 9C, and NOT submitted Form CIT 0177.


The reaction of IRCC to the above varying answers to Question 9C has not been confirmed. However, there are anecdotal reports that some applicants who checked YES and did not submit Form CIT 0177 were issued with an AOR (Acknowledgment of Receipt of application) by ICRC, while some other unlucky ones have had their applications returned.


We fully understand that rolling out a new citizenship application format under time pressure was bound to be accompanied with a few hiccups. However, managing the hiccups smoothly will go a long way to continue to add to the reservoir of goodwill for you and the liberal party. But this goodwill may be threatened if citizenship applications are returned simply because the applicant has answered Question 9C in its current ambiguous form truthfully as a YES, even when that involved not being able to meaningfully complete/submit the additional form CIT 0177.


In view of the above, it is my earnest hope that IRCC will show flexibility for the applicants who have answered this question in its current ambiguous form as follows:

a) Applicants who answered YES to 9C but did NOT complete and submit form CIT 0177 will continue to have their applications processed, rather than returned,

b) Applicants who answered NO to 9C will NOT be considered to have made a false/misleading statement when their accompanying Physical Presence Calculator printout clearly claims that they did, in fact, live outside Canada during their eligibility period.


May I also request you to have this ambiguity in the new Citizenship form removed at the earliest and issue a new version of the form, where Question 9C can be amended (to read something similar to as follows):


c) During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada as a Crown Servant or with a Crown Servant Family Member (Spouse, Common-law partner or Parent): Yes No

If you checked YES please complete and submit the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) with your completed application, along with the print out of your Physical Presence Calculator.



Thank you for your kind attention to the above,


Yours truly

Name

Address

Email:

Cell:

 

[Seym]

For people who would like to send a similar mail, I'll honestly remove the part about the vote for/against the Liberal Party.
Question 9c needs clarification and flexibility because it's confusing prospective citizens due to bad wording, and IRCC should look into it regardless of the political inclination of both the current minister and the citizenship applicants.

 

[spyfy]

This is an important concern, but the minister is not the right addressee for this request. While it is annoying that this question is ambiguous and while it should be changed, you can't expect the minister (who is handling a whole portfolio with topics ranging from refugee management to citizenship) to handle and/or care about requests regarding a single item on a form.

 

[rmorgan]

For people who would like to send a similar mail, I'll honestly remove the part about the vote for/against the Liberal Party.
Question 9c needs clarification and flexibility because it's confusing prospective citizens due to bad wording, and IRCC should look into it regardless of the political inclination of both the current minister and the citizenship applicants.

Good idea. Removed the comment about voting.

 

[thegentleman]

This is an important concern, but the minister is not the right addressee for this request. While it is annoying that this question is ambiguous and while it should be changed, you can't expect the minister (who is handling a whole portfolio with topics ranging from refugee management to citizenship) to handle and/or care about requests regarding a single item on a form.

Regardless of whether or not this is too minuscule of a concern for the minister to address among the many other jobs in his portfolio, I think it wouldn't hurt to try. I think @rmorgan did a great job with the letter. Who else would you address this concern to @spyfy?

 

[jamie hito]

Hello people,

I have sent the following email to Minister Hussen: Ahmed.Hussen@PARL.GC.CA
Anyone else in the same boat is welcome to copy and send it too. Or add anything else that bothered you about the new citizenship application.

Cheers,
rmorgan


Subject: Ambiguous Wording of Question 9C in Citizenship Application Leading to Returned Applications and Loss of Goodwill for the Liberal Party



The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen, PC, MP

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship



Dear Minister,


Thank you most sincerely for your efforts for Bill C-6 which was of great importance to many Canadians, and future Canadians, as it ended the Conservative effort to divide Canadians by having a two-tiered citizenship as well as their imposition of unnecessary hurdles to citizenship.


The provisions of Bill C-6 which came into effect on 11th October allowed me to apply using the new citizenship application form.


I would like to bring to your urgent attention that some of the questions in the new citizenship application form were not very clearly worded, particularly Question 9C which reads as follow:


9 c) During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada: Yes No

If you checked YES please complete and submit the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) with your completed application, along with the print out of your Physical Presence Calculator.



A large portion of the applicants have indeed lived outside Canada during the eligibility period (the period 5 years before their application), and so they must check YES in 9C above. However, the application then requests them to complete the Residence Outside of Canada form CIT 0177 which is ONLY applicable to Crown Servants or their family members and NOT applicable to the vast majority of the applicants.


On the discussion forums (www.canadvisa.com/forum) some applicants have advocated that this question 9C should only be answered by Crown Servants and/or their Family Members, so other applicants should simply check NO as their response. However, others fear that answering a simple YES/NO question with a NO response when one has indeed lived outside Canada during the eligibility period would leave one open to the threat of revocation of citizenship anytime in the future (say under, a future Conservative Government) for having made a false/misleading statement in their citizenship application. Accordingly, some applicants who have lived outside Canada during their eligibility period (but are NOT Crown Servants or Crown Servant family members) have checked YES to 9C, and NOT submitted Form CIT 0177.


The reaction of IRCC to the above varying answers to Question 9C has not been confirmed. However, there are anecdotal reports that some applicants who checked YES and did not submit Form CIT 0177 were issued with an AOR (Acknowledgment of Receipt of application) by ICRC, while some other unlucky ones have had their applications returned.


We fully understand that rolling out a new citizenship application format under time pressure was bound to be accompanied with a few hiccups. However, managing the hiccups smoothly will go a long way to continue to add to the reservoir of goodwill for you and the liberal party. But this goodwill may be threatened if citizenship applications are returned simply because the applicant has answered Question 9C in its current ambiguous form truthfully as a YES, even when that involved not being able to meaningfully complete/submit the additional form CIT 0177.


In view of the above, it is my earnest hope that IRCC will show flexibility for the applicants who have answered this question in its current ambiguous form as follows:

a) Applicants who answered YES to 9C but did NOT complete and submit form CIT 0177 will continue to have their applications processed, rather than returned,

b) Applicants who answered NO to 9C will NOT be considered to have made a false/misleading statement when their accompanying Physical Presence Calculator printout clearly claims that they did, in fact, live outside Canada during their eligibility period.


May I also request you to have this ambiguity in the new Citizenship form removed at the earliest and issue a new version of the form, where Question 9C can be amended (to read something similar to as follows):


c) During your eligibility period did you live outside of Canada as a Crown Servant or with a Crown Servant Family Member (Spouse, Common-law partner or Parent): Yes No

If you checked YES please complete and submit the Residence Outside of Canada form (CIT 0177) with your completed application, along with the print out of your Physical Presence Calculator.



Thank you for your kind attention to the above,


Yours truly

Name

Address

Email:

Cell:

Holy heavens!

Newsflash Q 9c is ambiguous!

It is clear as daylight. Check YES if you are a federal or queens employee stationed abroad during your eligibility period.

You are just tapping to a hornets nest you don't know how much bee sting you'll get in return.

Actions like these are consequential to hindering everyone else.
Really great thinking for yourself friend. Good luck!

 

[NewUser2018]

I STOPED this thread when WHEN HE MENTION "GOODWILL LIBERAL PARTY".


Its unlikely they will remove and minister AHussen have no power to change wording on form because its done by burreaucts behind closed doors who design government DIRECTIVES and ministers dont interfere.

BURREAUCRTS who design forms in a manner to confuse with wierdo OLDE norman-english words to confuse the applicants to reduce apps.

forexample applying for services like ODSP or filling taxes they are worded sooo hard that even doctors & accountants have hard time filling them.


i contacted premier Kathleen wynne which i live her electoral district and minister of social services asking why ODSP forms are sooo hard to fill with total 150 pages and they told me its run by INDEPENDENT BODY BURREACRATS who write and design forms and they cant not do and the only why to get rid of it is by ontario parliament vote which is not likely.

 

[NewUser2018]

-some people tick NO even if they been abroad during last 5 years and get AOR but they will have hard time explaining to judge if Judge brings up CBSA travel record.

-some people tick YES and they return the app if has no special form with crown servant BS wordings which you are supposed to just click N/A or NOT CROWN SERVANT on every box and just sign & Date.

The CIC call centre i called they told me Write NOT CROWN SERVANT N/A on the form and dont tick any box and just sign and date.

 

[amitdi]

What? Questions 9c is resulting in loss of goodwill for Liberal Party? Now Minister Hussain is supposed to help applicants with question 9c and rebuild the goodwill?

Guys, there has been enough good information. refer spyfy's FAQ thread, that will help you answer the questions.

 

[NewUser2018]

Stay turned I WILL UPLOAD PICTURE OF HOW TO FILL CIT0177 IF NOT CROWN SERVANT AND BEEN ABROAD 183 DAYS LAST 5YRS.

-The CIC call centre i called they told me to Cross & Write CIT0177 NOT CROWN SERVANT N/A on the form and dont tick any box and just sign and date. And receieved AOR 8 NOV and InProcess as of today.

-You can also write NOT CROWN SERVANT N/A on very top of CIT077 form and LEAVE BLANK and just Sign & Date.

 

[dpenabill]

Item 9.c revisited, again:

Item 9.c is a bureaucratic wrinkle, a problem of IRCC's making, but it does NOT deserve a whole lot of attention or concern. Any applicant who responds honestly to the questions in the application and follows the instructions has nothing to worry about. For those who lived outside Canada during their eligibility period, and thus honestly check "yes" in response to item 9.c, the instructions state they need to submit CIT 0177. The instructions otherwise say to mark "NA" for any items which are not applicable. So NO problem: submit CIT 0177 with "NA" marked for any part that is not applicable to the applicant. No big deal. Not complicated. Honest answers given and all requested forms submitted.

Not checking either the [no] or [yes] box and writing on the form "NA: NO Crown Servant credit" SHOULD be OK. Checking "yes" and then on the checklist writing "NA: NO Crown Servant credit" next to the box for checking that CIT 0177 is included SHOULD be OK. BUT it is NOT certain these will be OK. Should be OK but might not be. Most prefer to not take risks.

Checking "yes" and writing "NA: NO Crown Servant credit" and submitting CIT 0177 anyway, and writing "NA" on it, is almost certain to be OK.


Checking "No" despite having lived outside Canada:

This probably is NOT a problem either. It appears IRCC approaches 9.c as if "no" is the proper response (even if literally not a factually truthful response) unless the applicant qualifies for Crown Servant credit.

Many of us, me included, cannot encourage this approach because it means encouraging giving a factually false answer. But it should not cause any problems.

Leading to this:

However, others fear that answering a simple YES/NO question with a NO response when one has indeed lived outside Canada during the eligibility period would leave one open to the threat of revocation of citizenship anytime in the future (say under, a future Conservative Government) for having made a false/misleading statement in their citizenship application.

There is no meaningful risk of being accused of misrepresentation due to checking "no" in response to item 9.c despite having lived outside Canada during the preceding five years assuming the applicant has otherwise accurately provided work and address history, and presence in Canada history in the presence calculation. Either during the processing of the citizenship application or at any time in the future. But there is especially NO risk of having citizenship revoked for this.

Misrepresentation is NOT about mistakes made in an application. And if the applicant provides truthful address and work history, for example, there is no risk at all, NONE WHATSOEVER, that a "no" check in response to item 9.c could support an accusation of misrepresentation.

This is important. Forums like this have often been infiltrated with distractions tending to trivialize real issues. Misrepresentation is serious. It is real. It happens. For various reasons. In varying degrees of severity.

Even during the peak of the Harper-era crackdown on fraud, however, fewer than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of just those who were granted citizenship in the previous decade were accused of misrepresentation, and only a slightly larger (but still minuscule) percentage of all immigrants were targeted. Among those all but perhaps a very small percentage had clearly engaged in rather overt, blatant misrepresentation. Not one of the reported cases so much as hinted the accusations were exaggerated let alone unfounded. On the contrary, the offenses were egregious.

Moreover, while less so in the last five or so years, historically a rather high percentage of the cases seen in the Federal Court, cases in which applicants were denied citizenship or CIC (going back some years) appealed contesting the CJ's approval, involved applicants whose cases were rife with all sorts of reasons to question their credibility but only rarely were accused of misrepresentation. We do not see statistics for how many applications are denied on the grounds of misrepresentation, which results in a five-year prohibition from eligibility for citizenship, but there is no indication the number is any more than quite small.

On the other hand, scores and scores of applicants enter erroneous information in applications for PR and applications for citizenship. Some of the erroneous information submitted is rather way off. More than a few applicants have made what they consider to be minor, casual mistakes, leaving out trips abroad for whole weeks or even months. And this information goes directly to qualification (meeting the presence requirement).

Checking "no" in response to item 9.c despite living abroad during the preceding five years does not assert any false fact which erroneously supports the applicant's case. It merely means the applicant is not claiming time abroad for credit toward meeting the qualifications, which is actually consistent with the facts. (This assumes, naturally, the applicant has not reported days present in Canada when the applicant actually was not present in Canada.)

Why go to such lengths addressing this? Much of the discussion about 9.c tends to put way, way, way too much attention on more or less technical elements. Overall honesty is far, far more important. Sure, credibility is critical, and accuracy is the cornerstone of credibility. But technical accuracy is NOT always honest. And many who are honest make mistakes which do NOT compromise their credibility. And most of us readily recognize what I am talking about. We recognize the silver-tongued lawyer's abuse of the truth, to convey what really is a fiction, for what it is. And we recognize the difference between the honest mistake and the self-interested all-too-convenient error or oversight.

And it is easy, really easy, to recognize mistakes derived from honest confusion, versus overt efforts to manipulate facts. Those who flirt with the latter tend to paint a picture conflated with the former. They also tend to be more obvious than they realize. It shows. Not always, but usually, and often rather saliently.

In the meantime:

No one is facing any serious consequences for how they respond to item 9.c . . . The worst case scenario is checking "yes" and having the application returned due to a failure to submit CIT 0177. And that is easy to avoid: submit CIT 0177, marked "NA" where that is the appropriate way to mark it.

Whether IRCC will recognize the problem with the form itself and fix it some time soon, that's difficult to forecast. Whether or not IRCC does should have minimal or no impact on the Liberal party's "goodwill." Sure, it needs fixing. But I have a very strong sense that quite a number of applications sent in October will be coming back to the applicant, many of whom will probably elect to not share this turn of events. And while some of the confusion leading to this may be related to 9.c, I suspect most will be rooted in a wide range of issues related to how the five year eligibility period works, or more to the point, how the five year eligibility period tends to confuse things in a variety of circumstances.