Further Observations About How IRCC Uses "May:"
Among the more misleading examples in which IRCC uses "
may," perhaps among the worst, could be in its information that a PR "
may" get credit toward RO compliance if they are working abroad for a Canadian business. There are many, many more scenarios in which a PR abroad in the employ of a Canadian business does not qualify for this exception than those in which PRs do get this credit. It's a common refrain in this forum, PRs citing the online IRCC information about this credit and being incredulous when forum members push back some and explain that there is additional criteria which is applied strictly. "
May" here means little more than there is a possibility the time abroad working for a Canadian business will count as RO credit, depending on meeting the additional requirements to get the credit.
In contrast, back when there was a residency requirement for citizenship, CIC online information cautioned that applying based on residency while short of 1095 days actual presence "
may" result in a Citizenship Judge having to decide if the applicant was qualified. At the time, actually every grant of citizenship to adults had to be decided by a CJ, but the procedure actually employed in doing that was hugely different if RQ was involved, and in the meantime the Harper government had implemented a practice of referring nearly all (if not all)
residency-based applications, which were short of 1095 days actual presence, for a full blown RQ process AND a referral for a full-blown residency determination hearing with a CJ. In that context, CIC's use of "
may" actually meant the application would
almost certainly be processed very differently, far more strictly, subject to onerous and lengthy procedural impediments.
Further Elaboration of What "Verify" Means or Entails:
The synonyms for "
verify" largely tell the tale, such as synonyms like: authenticate, test, confirm, certify, check, double-check, or corroborate. No indication that verification is a fact finding function, something done to learn or figure out or determine what the facts are. It is an authentication function, something done to establish whether proffered information, whether a set of facts as presented, is true.
So the hugely critical element here is the object of verification: just what is being verified. And oh yeah, IRCC online information, and its instructions for applications, do indeed tend to understate this. It is the PRs account of travel history, the PRs account of residency or days present in Canada. That is what is being verified. That is what is being checked.
Minor and incidental discrepancies (small mistakes) are typically no big deal, but if and when IRCC finds information tending to cast doubt on the information submitted by the PR, doubt about the travel history submitted by the PR, that is when there is a problem. How much so will depend on the nature and extent of the discrepancies in the context of other information which may indicate there is no cause for concern, or cause to further scrutinize the PR and the PR's information (such as asking the PR to submit certain documents or additional information), or cause to have serious concerns and commence more extensive investigation.
I realize I am pounding away at things many know and understand. Some might even characterize this as restating the obvious. But there is clearly widespread misunderstanding about the relationship between IRCC's consideration of CBSA travel history information and, in contrast, the extent to which documenting travel history and establishing days present in Canada is very much the PR's task, the PR's burden, both as to presenting the information and ultimately as to proving it.
As previously noted:
While things may change in the future, for now and going forward, increases and improvements in CBSA record-capturing, storage, and accessibility, mostly means that IRCC can better find out when PRs are submitting inaccurate or incomplete travel history information. This does not make it easier, or at least not by much, for PRs who apply for a new PR card or for citizenship. It makes it a lot easier for IRCC to catch omissions and inaccuracies.
Ok...what about this, then:
"Canada and the U.S. exchange entry data to create exit records. This enables both countries to more effectively manage their common border. Such data may be used to verify travel dates or residency, or for any other lawful purposes consistent with each country’s domestic laws and policies."
Shouldn't that exit data be available to the traveler if they request it? The problem is...from whom would it be requested?
What information is captured and maintained in particular PIBs (Personal Information Banks) is an incredibly big and complex subject. Canada's access to information scheme likewise, albeit the government has implemented some policies and practices to simplify things in regards to certain things. For instance, as many forum participants illustrate, by personal example, IRCC has made the procedure for an ATIP request as to a pending application fairly straight-forward and simple, allowing citizenship applicants, for example, to readily obtain copies of GCMS records for their citizenship application. Just about that easy to get entry records from CBSA.
I have barely scratched the surface in some previous posts (bulk of which are now a few years old) regarding what PIBs there are (and this is always evolving), and what information is readily accessed in those PIBs. While I somewhat addressed the key elements underlying what can be accessed, ranging from what is collected to how it is collected, by whom, and then what is stored and how it is stored, again by whom, in regards to that it cannot be said that the volumes I wrote about this, and the vastly greater volume of what I researched, even barely scratch the surface.
So, the short answer is that a fair amount of the information you are referencing is indeed "
available," but how to obtain it is not an easy proposition. How to compose an effective request for information based on ATI and Privacy law is easy for some stuff, difficult for a lot of stuff, and requires a lot of expertise and experience for a lot of other stuff. It can take years, lots of trial and error, often some litigation, for some very experienced investigative journalists to navigate the process to get what they know is there and are entitled to get.
And some of it is not available. Raw data, for example, is only partially accessible, since (among other limiting circumstances) it may contain personal information subject to restricted disclosure. Since the personal information in such data sources is not specifically identified connected to the respective individuals, not linked to the individual, it cannot be obtained by an individual through the ATIP or ATI procedure. But to the extent the data contains personal information, it will not be accessible by the public either, through the ATI process.
But that data can be probed and analyzed, and thus will sometimes be used to facilitate investigations. To dig details out of the raw data.
I am not at all sure, not even confident I am close to knowing, but my sense is that the U.S. entry records (and other indirectly derived records, like exit information derived from flight manifests) are probably not stored by CBSA catalogued by individual in a PIB. Rather, it is likely to be data stored in some sort of bulk form and which upon request (which probably requires a kind of
for-cause reason) can be examined, "
mined" some describe the process, for particular information, such as analyzing the data to find information about a specific individual's exits from Canada as documented in the data obtained from the U.S. entry records and derived from flight manifests . . . used, for example, to verify an individual's travel history.
The systems employed are probably migrating toward a more automated process, so that exit records will likely become as readily accessible as entry records are currently. Where CBSA is at in fully developing and implementing this functionality I do not know . . . but would suggest a person could learn quite a bit about if they make a carefully drafted ATI request to CBSA.
NONETHELESS . . . the SHORT But NOT-So-Sweet of it . . . for now and going forward for some time to come, travel history is the PR's burden. The importance of keeping a personal, accurate record cannot be overstated.
By the way, U.S. citizens generally (most by far) must file a U.S. tax return, and as I recall most credits and deductions related to not being a resident in the U.S. typically (usually) require the taxpayer to similarly report to IRS their travel history into the U.S. Does not have the same level of importance as an application for citizenship or a renewed PR card, but even after the U.S. citizen becomes a Canadian citizen, this is likely to continue to be part of the basic personal record-keeping that needs to be done.
