chabha said:
While going through all the discussions, it prompted me to check the sections of the Bill C-24 which related with the prohibitions. I believe you would agree that s. 22 talks about all the prohibitions which would bar a person to take the oath for citizenship. Now going through the entire section, it doesn't say anywhere about the 183 days prohibition.
I then started wondering what is prompting everyone to relate that the new condition to submit the police certificate from the country where you are living is a "prohibition". So, I gathered that since everyone is referring to this new form CIT 0002 for adults which makes it a requirement to submit the police certificate, if the applicant has been to a country more than 180 days , cumulative, than he or she should produce the police certificate of that country. Question no. 8 (k) specifically demands you to answer if you have lived over six months, if yes, please provide with a police certificate.
Now my argument is that if it was really a "prohibition", that would have been specifically mentioned in the s.22 of the act, as all other prohibitions are mentioned, in almost same order, as mentioned on the form. So 8(k) is the only prohibition, which is missing from the section, where it should have been in the Act. This physical presence requirement is actually talked in s. 5(1)(ii) of the act where all other major eligibility "conditions" about applying for citizenship has been mentioned.
Here is my deduction, and I have evidence to support, if you remember there were talks of inconsistency in the earlier version of the citizenship application form, few questions were placed with different sections. Also, almost everyone was not clear that if the old form talked about the details about the workplace and job, but then how was it that the check-list never required the work related documents such as T4, pay stubs etc. In another way, some questions were vaguely written or at least the language was little ambiguous, so there were lot of questions in the applicants mind or confusion, while filling the earlier version of the form.
I think the same is the case with this 8(k) in this new form. To me 8(k) should have a separate question, apart from prohibitions. My logical guess, is that it has wrongly been placed with the prohibitions, it is actually a condition which if it is applicable to an applicant, than he is obliged to provide the police certificate or else just answer as “No” , if that does not apply to him. Placing it within the question 8 in prohibition section of the form, has made everyone feel as if this "requirement" is actually a "prohibition".
It is to be expected that the citizenship application form will be modified or amended from time to time, including to improve or refine the manner in which it requests the applicant to provide certain information.
That said, there is no significant incongruity in including item 8 K in item 8, which is titled "PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT," so there is no reason to expect that part to be modified anytime soon.
Item 8 in the current application form does not merely ask the applicant to disclose prohibitions per se. Some of the items ask for information which may or may not be related to prohibitions, especially information which might lead CIC to discover or affirm the presence or absence of a prohibition. What, after all, is the point of having a details box . . . if a "yes" check necessarily constituted a prohibition, there would only need to be an instruction:
do not apply for citizenship now as you are subject to a probhition.
Rather, CIC solicits
related information and provides a space for the applicant to provide details, so a determination can be made as to whether there is a prohibition precluding qualification for a grant of citizenship.
For example, in particular, item 8 A asks for information which is largely more relevant to the calculation of time present in Canada, since for example it asks whether the applicant has been on probation in the previous
SIX (6) years, recognizing that time on probation will not count toward the requisite time present in Canada. Having been on probation within the preceding six years does not, in itself, constitute a prohibition.
Items 8 D and 8 I both refer to any offence committed outside Canada. Not any offence outside Canada constitutes a prohibition. Only those offences which would be an indictable offence under Canadian law if committed in Canada constitute a prohibition. Thus, CIC is requesting information beyond the scope of the prohibition. There has been extensive discussion in this forum, for example, about whether a foreign country's charge of a criminal offence arising from a property default will constitute a prohibition . . . if the underlying facts would constitute a civil matter under Canadian law, such a charge should not be a prohibition. Nonetheless, the applicant needs to check "yes" for item 8 D if such a charge is pending, or item 8 I if convicted of it within the preceding four years . . . again, even if the applicant is certain it does not constitute a prohibition.
CIC applications typically ask for information beyond the scope of the relevant issue, so that CIC can determine whether further inquiry or investigation is warranted.
Item 8 K asks applicants to disclose if they have been in any other country for six months, cumulative, within the preceding four years, and if the answer to this is "yes," then to provide a police certificate for any such country. The obvious purpose is that CIC is requiring the applicant to prove there is no criminal record in any such country. Remember, in addition to regular GCMS checks (which include a name-record check which should show any charges or convictions in Canada, the U.S., or warrants issued by INTERPOL), CIC makes a referral to the RCMP for the more thorough criminal record check, which will clear the applicant if there are no Canadian charges or convictions. But CIC apparently is not willing to rely on the word of applicants who have spent six months or more in a given country other than Canada, and thus is demanding the police certificates as proof of no offences there constituting a prohibition. Makes sense. This no doubt imposes a significant burden on some applicants.
Whether CIC keeps this as part of Item 8, or separates this and impose this as an entirely separate item in the application, really does not matter. It is clearly putting the burden to prove no foreign charges or conviction, upfront as part of the application itself, on an applicant who has been abroad more than six months in any given country.
chabha said:
Since, some of the members in discussion have already affirmed that there is no such question about “living outside Canada for more than six months” in the form needed to sign before taking citizenship test and oath, this confirms the theory that it was placed wrongly in the new application form. The questions asked on the form relates exactly to prohibitions as mentioned in s.22 of the act. This eligibility condition would be applicable to all applicants who applied since June 11.
Not really. What emerged from the reports is that the form to be signed, before taking the oath, now is very similar to the form many of us signed last year, except that it now lists and refers to the expanded version of the prohibitions. Signing the form affirms that none of the prohibitions apply to the applicant. This is a
conclusion, an affirmation by the applicant that the applicants knows and understands the prohibitions sufficiently to affirm that none apply to him or her.
Both the previous and current application forms required, instead, detailed responses to the specific items which would either constitute a prohibition, or were information related to
possible prohibitions, or related to time which is precluded from counting toward residency (old forms) or presence (post June 11 forms).
What also emerged from the reports is that just the fact of having declared, in the residency declaration (pre-June-11-applicants), absences for more than 183 days (six months) total, even if indicating that amount of time in a particular country, are not automatically resulting in a request for a police certificate . . . even though these applicants, just like the post-June-11-applicants, are now subject to the expanded prohibitions including for offences abroad (if indictable in Canada). That noted, I would anticipate that at least
some pre-June-11-applicants whose application and residency disclosures indicate six months plus abroad will be sent a CIT 0520, or a similar type form, requesting police certificates, before their case proceeds to the oath. Not sure of this, but it seems likely . . . at the least, though, so far the reports indicate this is not automatic.
chabha said:
Also, if someone's oath is held up at the last moment than there could be so many different reasons, perhaps some security concern, or mismatch of travel dated found later etc. No one can really say with surety about that situation.
Perhaps, it is too early to say with certainty, I feel there will be some update of the application form soon.
Absolutely, there are many reasons why someone's oath might bet held up at the last moment, even some which are unrelated to the individual applicant.
Relative to some other versions of the application, this one actually seems to be as carefully composed as CIC tends to do these things. That said, as noted, changes can always be anticipated. And, indeed, the statement near the end of Item 8 "I have read and understand the prohibitions under the
Citizenship Act" kind of just hangs there . . . no box to check, no way of affirming or disaffirming the statement.
And, to be frank, it is one thing to affirm that one understands the prohibitions well enough to be sure none apply, and another to affirm that one understands them generally. A lot of applicants for citizenship probably do not have a real understanding of the difference between what constitutes an indictable offence and an offence which is not an indictable offence . . . but since they have not been charged with any offences of any sort, they can confidently and truthfully affirm that they understand there are no prohibitions applicable to them. without fully understanding the prohibitions.
While the inclusion of the request to disclose presence in another country for six or more months (183 or more days), and related request to provide a police certificate if yes, may or may not be modified in the near future, it is, anyway, a natural fit in item 8.
The expansion of the prohibitions to encompass foreign offences makes total sense . . . but it is easy to see that implementing this and enforcing it may indeed complicate things considerably for some applicants.