Workaround for Guarantor and references for Canadian Passport
- Thread starter cic86
- Start date
So you nobody has known you for years to give a reference. See link for guarantor options.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...s/travel-documents-references-guarantors.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...s/travel-documents-references-guarantors.html
Thanks for sharing the link. I'll surely read after my head stops spinning from reading this requirement.
It is simple. If you don't have a guarantor there are steps to take (form, notary etc.). References are people you have known for at least 2 years. They don't have to be Canadian citizens nor live in Canada.
It's a dumb requirement and people who think this archaic system is great are also dumb. The only thing you should need to get your passport after going through the whole citizenship process is your citizenship certificate, not a Mafia like system where you get some jerkoff to vouch for you in front of the government.
I'm lucky that I have a relative who's agreed to be my guarantor. I don't know how I would've been able to convince a mere friend who I've known for say 2 or 3 years to share their passport details and be ok to be called by immigration. Who would be comfortable doing that? Immigration is basically travel cops, and just like we try to avoid cops on the street, immigrants try to avoid them. Isn't it?
In this entire journey starting from PR to passport, ironically getting a passport has been the most stressful because it goes against the hallmark of the Canadian immigration system itself. Applying for a passport forces the applicant to depend on a third person (3 in this case). One of the great things about the immigration system here compared to say the US is that here you dont need a lawyer (unless you get some kindof denial or require more proofs), you can do the entire process yourself if you have the points and basic documentation.
One of my references rejected me because they say they aren't going to be in the country but something tells me they aren't comfortable so they made up an excuse. So now I have to look for another reference (the one I found is a childhood friend).
Canada and other countries in the west love to say to their immigrant population that citizenship isn't a right but a privilege. So why do you try so hard to attract immigrants then? Regardless, once you do get your citizenship, having a passport is a fundamental right. Its the most basic travel document that every country provides to its citizens with some basic documents and nominal fees and it shouldn't require a third party. It would make sense to have a guarantor incase the applicant is a criminal and needs to show extra proof. Let's say they're still stubborn about their rules, they should at least allow for a notarized document as an alternative for a guarantor and nothing more. You see its this requirement of needing a guarantor and two references that makes me feel I'll always be treated like a second class citizen because my relatives who are born n brought up here were never asked this.
Canada itself thinks its not a good requirement given that they've launched a pilot program where a guarantor isn't required so why retain it in the main program? Anyway, I may have exaggerated a bit but once you get your citizenship certificate, that should be the end of all the requirements and obstacles. Hope common sense prevails and they improve this in the future.
Last edited:
Not really. This is not the USA.
I wish they would just change the name from 'guarantor.' You need to read the actual text of what the guarantor is 'guaranteeing.' They're really only saying that they've known you for two years, and that AS FAR AS THEY ARE AWARE, you are who you say you are. That's it.
They are only 'guaranteeing' that. No more. Nothing to do with criminality, whatsoever.
It IS possible to read the text and explain it to people.
[I'm not actually saying this is the best system and that they coudln't do without it / do better, esp in some cases like those who have recently become citizens by grant (as most here).
But there's also a lot of nonsense here about how difficult this requirement is. It's really not.]
a) There is a process to do this by notarized documents, just as you say. It does cost money and a bit of time, compared to actually speaking with other people.
b) Your relatives who were born and brought up here also had to do this. They may have forgotten, but they did (you usually only have to do it for the first passport, as long as you subsequently renew them in time). It is NOT a procedure that is specific to new Canadians. [It is possible that your relatives who got their first passports when they were children were simply not aware that their parents had to do this. It's also possible they simply thought it was such a nothing requirement that they didn't even notice.]
Quite a bit, actually.
I was trying to make the argument that asking for a guarantor (shouldn't even be a requirement after you've been granted citizenship but for the sake of argument) it should only apply to edge cases where say an applicant was issued a RFE or whatever in their citizenship application. For regular cases, it adds no value because all the checks like BGC, LPP, FPs were already done during the citizenship application. If anything it frustrates the applicant that its not a done deal yet after having passed all the checks, kind of takes away the charm of becoming a citizen.
The reason why I mentioned relative and childhood friend is to emphasize the level of connection I have with them for them to be ready to vouch for me. Most immigrants that come to Canada don't have relatives or even long-term friendships that they would be comfortable sharing their personal information such as DOB (specially bothersome for female guarantors), passport etc. Plus if they're in a different state then that's a bigger hassle cause you got to get signatures. Most relationships in Canada are transactional so why would friends be ok to get on a call with immigration when it doesn't benefit them at all cause they may have the feeling that they may divulge something unintentionally that may damage their own chance of becoming a PR or citizen (if they are on work permit lets say). Nobody is comfortable talking to immigration unless its absolutely necessary and its directly about them.
If IRCC think it adds value then they should've added it as a check in the citizenship application process itself.
Regarding the notarized document, that should be an easy process of just getting a notarized document from the post office or whatever (there are paid agents who do such stuff in other countries). It shouldn't be a time consuming multi step process and again this should only apply to edge cases as I mentioned before.
Passport application should be like getting your health card, you show your documents and that's that. Again, a passport is a fundamental right of a citizen just like a health card, it's not privilege for me to ask my relatives and friends for a favour. This may sound preachy but it really is important to stress on it. It's not a job application that should require references and what not. I'd rather save my references to get potential referrals for employment.
Last edited:
You made that argument. If you refer to what I wrote, I largely agreed with that. There's no need to include unrelated claims and exaggerations.
I repeat my point, in response to those exaggerations, that the requirement is really NOT that hard to comply with - save for exceptional personal circumstances - for those that read the text carefully and take the time to explain it to those they request to be 'guarantors'. (Which I 'scare quote' only to underline that the individuals signing are only 'guaranteeing' that they are telling the truth)
That may not be the reason you mentioned that, but you made a false claim about this (that Canadians born here don't have to provide references and guarantors). They do.
I think this is a questionable claim based on nothing at all than your own ideas. The information 'shared' when the guarantor looks at it is quite limited. For those stricken with paralytic inability to deal with other people - they can go to notaries.
So they have to - gasp - use the mail? The horror.
(Okay, I grant that right now, it is rather a horror, because I can never figure out whether they're striking or not)
I think your understanding of 'friends' is really the issue here. My friends don't really ask what benefit they would get in return for signing a document and being willing to accept a call.
Exaggerated fear based on very little. They confirm no more than their own identity and that they know the person as in the call.
I don't object to this but I suspect you would. If this presents you with such problems, I strongly doubt you'd like it to be added to the citizenship grant process.
It is getting a notarized document by ... going to a notary. They are the 'paid agents' who do such stuff. This is not that complicated either.
Your fundamental rights are not at all being infringed upon. You're being asked to comply with reasonable administrative requests.
Could it be better? Sure. As I said - I don't think it should not be necessary for recent citizenship grants. But this does not make it some breach of fundamental rights.
But to repeat: this is something you'll likely only have to do ONCE. In your life. Just keep renewing your passports before they expire.
It does sound preachy and exaggerated, and it's really not that important. Want to 'save' your references for job applications? Go to the notary. That's a minor complaint, not something really important.
I want to make a slightly different point in addition to this: in my experience, people are often not only willing to help, but happy to, and honoured to be asked. When you walk along the street and someone drops something, doesn't it feel good to assist them, and to be thanked for it?
Quite a lot in life is transactional, yes - perhaps more than it should be. But anyone who thinks it's pure transaction and that people will just refuse a request to assist others - you are missing a lot in life. Try just asking.
As I've pointed out here before - this requirement used to limit 'guarantors' to certain regulated professions (legal, law enforcement, doctors, dentists, engineers, land surveyors, those in public (elected) office, religious office holders, bank officers of a certain level, teachers (I think), etc). There were a lot of complaints that people no longer know anyone in those professions or positions, so they broadened it. You can still ask those people, and I know from experience most see it as a type of public service and are literally happy to do so.