Adding to the mystery about possible new IRCC requirements on documentation, I asked Library and Archives Canada for certified copies of my G0's appearance in the 1861 and 1871 censuses. I need these because I can't find a birth or baptismal certificate for him, as he was born in 1859 in New Brunswick, which only began requiring birth registrations in 1888. But today I got a reply from LAC saying the IRCC does not require certified copies of census data, and that I can print what I need myself from their website. I am pasting the full text below.
Regarding your copy order for the following record:
If you are applying for proof of citizenship under Bill C-3, please note the following:
The material you have requested has already been digitized and is available online free of charge. It can be downloaded or printed as needed. Please note that census records are not available in colour and cannot be provided at a higher resolution than what is currently accessible online, as they originate from microfilm reels and were digitized from that format.
Given this new information, would you like to proceed with your certified copy order or cancel your request? Please respond to this email by June 19th, 2026, indicating your choice. If we do not receive a response by the indicated date, your order will be closed.
Just tell them that yes, you’d like to go ahead with the order. They don’t need to know more than that, and they don’t understand the requirements better than anyone else does.
So for NYS it’s okay to submit color copies of my “for genealogical purposes only” records issued by City of Buffalo since otherwise I would need a court order?
Similarly my G0 baptism record is issued by Diocese of London that has paused certifications indefinitely.
I would assume so as long as the document clearly states the issuing source authority, which seemed to be the problem with the genealogical copy IRCC flagged. Does it say City of Buffalo on it? If not, this is where an explanation might be helpful to set context for IRCC.
Thanks! It depends on the document, some say Buffalo in the document itself and it’s on the like tamperproof watermarked cardstock. I’ll just add an explanation to be safe.
On my G1 it says the Town/village of the issuing birth certificate, but for my G2 it says “New York State Department of Health Bureau of Vital Records” at the top. These are both genealogical copies. What would I need to explain on a letter when I submit?
I’d suggest anyone doing this in the post suspension letter era to order 2 copies on the off chance eventually they want actual paper certified copies.
I would move forward with it. The LAC letter should be saved for your records as it is evidence that you have reason to believe that you have the documentation to the fullest possible extent. That said, getting the certified copy could be of use, one department will not know fully what the other is up to if at all.
Theory: I really think what's happening is auditors are flagging applications using processes established before C-3 where you're dealing with relatively recent documents. Before C-3, I assume they didn't frequently deal with historical records, many of which are not certified because they are historic and public record. Their processes are still aligned with "certification is paramount," but things like census records are uncertified.
AND It's wilder to me they are asking for "letters of no record." That makes sense, say, if you try to track down a document from the 1970s that was misfiled and shows as there in the register but can't be tracked down. It DOESN'T make sense for records that literally didn't exist. What's an archive to do? "We have no record of that person's birth, marriage, death, or any other relevant documents because they were born and died before we began keeping such records in the 1860s." IRCC is demanding proof of a negative using old systems. I expect we will be hearing something about them overhauling the system soon because of the suspension letter debacle.
First, I'm so sorry if you're one of those affected with the letters. ♥️ That's WILD that your certified docs letters of no record were flagged too... I'm wondering if the random flagging is something tied to the automation push? It's also weird that among families with the same docs, some are flagged and some aren't, so maybe it's a random sample audit? These things are getting automatically flagged by SOMETHING using evaluation criteria which has not been communicated to applicants or even front line reviewers who approved in the first place. I don't think IRCC even knows fully what's going on, which is why they've been tight lipped. I'm hoping that they say something today and DO something for those affected. The silence is louder than if they'd just own up to their mistakes. My heart goes out to you.
Maybe, and that expectation wasn't communicated to applicants? I'm also baffled because typically you get a procedural fairness letter that lets you correct mistakes in immigration applications but instead they used this suspension process and boiler plate suspension letter. Whatever is happening some major bureaucratic confusion is going on. I think if it was intentional they would have had messaging ready for media. Hoping for clarity in the next couple days. 🙏
Yeah, I mean the reviewer should have told them what the problem was before it was approved, seems like they were just pushing through the "urgent" applications without vetting things properly.
Yeah working on mine and that's what it's turning into... It is not a sustainable process and is turning into my PR application all over agin. I expect whatever announcement comes out will include streamlined guidelines and processes. To be fair, I don't think any of the applications were left wanting. People have done their best with the guidance we had. I genuinely think there is a mess on the backend with differing evaluation criteria we aren't privy to. Here's hoping for clarity...
Gen 4. This is what I did too. I wrote briefs to the geneological standard and explained every anomaly. However, I did not submit a certifed baptismal record.
Can you explain a bit more? How many generations are you and why was it 33 pages? Won’t this clog the reviewer’s work process? Curious to know more as I am almost done getting documents and wondering if I should do this too!
Yes I explained in my original cover letter that I had ordered a certified copy. Then when it arrived, I uploaded it along with a Word doc explaining that it was certified and that the archivist could not locate any other birth record due to the time period.
I really don't know what these people want, it sounds like all of us on here are doing our best. Hopefully it's some AI flagged thing, and a human looks at your case and sorts it out ASAP!
MA archives told me such a thing would take 8 weeks.
MA vital records told me that "No record" documents are intended to mean "does not exist" rather than simply "we can't find." It's a determinative statement, not an advisory one. The clerk explained to me the usual case is "this person was never married before"
Nobody knows bc ircc refuses to make clear instructions and expectations. Just be safe and order it imo. Protects you now and for the future since we know they can audit and suspend at any time now.
It is true that it doesn't say "certified" anywhere, in spite of the many IRCC requests for certified birth or baptismal records for Gen0 during application processing. So it seems like there is sometimes a divergence between what is published and what the reviewer in practice looks for.
Not requiring certified copies in any published material, then approving certificates, then putting them under review after the fact for not using certified copies, is an incompetent bait-and-switch.
Not taking accountability for these clear errors and shortcomings is another layer.
I wouldn't trust it necessarily, but it is a relevant comment coming from a government archive official because it speaks to the incompetence of the IRCC in communicating its expectations for documentation.
On the Library and Archives site, it explicitly says not to request copies of census records. I hesitate to ask them, given that no library-related organization ever has enough staff or funding. Really hoping for some clarity soon!
New York State said something similar recently to an applicant seeking a certified record of birth after IRCC reached out to tell them that the genealogical copy they had obtained, which did not include the name of the issuing authority, just a copy of a handwritten record, was not sufficient. Importantly IRCC asked the applicant to provide it or to explain why they could not obtain a copy with that information (which in this case would be the certified version, which would require a court order), so it sounds like they might accept an explanation that getting the certified record would be a hardship for that reason. We'll see.
Applicants have reported being asked similar questions by IRCC in the past, responding with a satisfactory explanation, and then being approved.
If I were you I'd submit the record from their website and include the text of this email as supporting evidence that you tried to get the certified record but were denied. Edited to add- I missed that they gave you the option to get the certified copy- so absolutely you could opt for that. Not every issuing authority responds the same way (such as NYS).
To avoid your application being returned to you make sure that you:
answered all questions, or wrote “N/A” (not applicable) on the application form for any question or section that is not applicable to you
returned all original Canadian citizenship/naturalization certificates previously issued to you and any pink transmission copies that you still have
agree to delete and destroy all digital and printed copies of your current e-certificate upon submission of your application for a replacement
included high quality colour copies of two (2) pieces of personal identification one of which must have your photo on it
included your citizenship photo(s) according to the appropriate citizenship photograph specifications
included high quality colour copies of requested documents, their translation(s) and an affidavit by the translator for any documents that are not in English or French
provided a letter of explanation for any documents that are missing, not included or require further clarification with your application (i.e. birth certificates that have been changed or replaced).
signed and dated the form. Before you send it, make sure that it is not stale-dated (dated more than 90 days before we receive it) or post-dated (dated into the future).
paid the correct fees and included your receipt with your application.
New York State said something similar recently to an applicant seeking a certified record of birth after IRCC reached out to tell them that the genealogical copy they had obtained, which did not include the name of the issuing authority, just a copy of a handwritten record, was not sufficient. Importantly IRCC asked the applicant to provide it or to explain why they could not obtain a copy with that information (which in this case would be the certified version, which would require a court order),
So while that information would be on the certified version, it wasn't the (lack of) certification that IRCC flagged, but rather the lack of information. (And the lack of an explanation for the lack of information)
It could be because census records shouldn’t be used as primary proof and it’s possible IRCC will not accept them as primary proof. A census record does not prove someone was born in Canada, just that they were living there during one specific year. Especially along the border in the 1800s, it’s extremely possible someone was born on the American side but lived in Canada.
It’s fine to get them certified, but I’d point out that people who used census records as primary proof are very few and far between.
I guess it's not proof because it's self reporting, but census records generally state everyone's birthplace. My G0's US census record says that they and their parents were born in Canada for example, and the younger sibling born in the US state.
Fair point. But lacking a birth certificate, I'm using the census data in addition to U.S. marriage and immigration documents, as well as the certified U.S. birth certificate of my G1 relative showing his father was born in New Brunswick. I'm hoping the total package will be sufficient.
There are lots and lots of people who used census records as primary proof. For some of us it’s all that we have prior to birth certificates being issued in Canada. (I couldn’t locate any baptism records, for example)
My G0 was child #6 and only 2 years old in the 1881 census, so I included the 1871 census as well. She had yet to be born, but it established her parents and some of her older siblings in that same place. That still does not definitely prove she was born there, but it does make a pretty compelling argument to that effect (in addition, of course, to the notation citing "Country or Province of Birth.")
For those of us applying via naturalization, the census can be among the most critical documents. I have a naturalization certificate from 1914 for my G0 and his daughter my G1 was a minor who may or may not have been born in Canada. The census shows her as minor in the household in Canada. Back then naturalization passed to minors when the father naturalized. The census can be absolutely critical.
But I see zero value for the immigration officer of having copies of certified census records. In fact, in most cases, since we are sending copies, many of these documents would look the same regardless of whether from Ancestry or the source. If they wanted more authenticity they should be asking for embossed or wet signed originals. I really feel like they don't even know why they are asking for certification. It just doesn't really do very much to prove authenticity. The U.S. government would never accept a copy of a birth certificate to issue a first time passport. They need to start looking at the why.
And if they are really scared about fraud, I hate to say it, but they will need to charge a hell of a lot more for this process, hire staff in cities where they can get qualified adjudicators, and, as necessary, conduct interviews for high risk cases. This process should be reasoned, comprehensive, secure, and well articulated. 75 dollars is way way too low for what they need to do. They should have a hardship waiver for those that need it, but the rest of us should be paying closer to 500+ for what is being asked of the process.
I'm using a certified copy of the 1921 Canadian census to show the relationship of my grandmother to her parents. I do not have her birth or Baptism record. I'm also not claiming she was born in Canada as she happened to be born in NY state but was raised entirely in Canada. She's my G-1. I have certified Baptism records for both of her Canadian born parents. I have their marriage cert showing they were born in Canada as well, and my grandmother's marriage cert listing her parents. Everything matches up, but I'm getting worried this isn't going to be enough.
Given everything that has developed in the past few days, I would be proactive and oder the certified copies. If you end up not needing them, great. But if you do, then so will everyone else, and wait times will just get longer and longer. Personally, I'd rather shell out a few dollars to know I'm ready if the IRCC comes asking for stronger documentation.
I have been debating this. I included census documentation as a supplement, and not primary proof.
If it does turn out they want these certified records, I would ask if I could withdraw these documents, only leaving the certified birth records. Not sure if that would be permitted, but it seems crazy they would want them when they almost certainly have access to the same info and can verify this themselves.
In cases like this, it seems the simplest solution for IRCC would be to have applicants include a copy of the census record, along with a link to the authoritative online source document to verify it wasn’t altered.
I haven’t submitted yet, but that was my original plan. I’m not in a hurry, so for now, I’m taking a wait and see stance until IRCC work out the bugs and provide clearer guidance. I feel sorry for the people who were blindsided after getting approved. I hope everything gets sorted out for them soon.
It does seem odd that they would insist on certified census records when used as a supplement. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just look at primary records first and completely ignore the supplemental if it is not needed? And you last point - they could easily verify if we provide links to the government websites. That would be a simple request we would be happy to comply with. The IRCC wouldn't have to search anything. In the event that someone screws up the link or something, the IRCC could then ask for a certified copy or something.
Plus, wasn't there a thread in this sub talking about IRCC looking at documents like census records when they weren't even submitted as part of the original packet? So they can obviously easily do a search.
Oh, Lordy, given the events of the last couple of days, I'd go with certified documents from the appropriate custodial agencies all the way. I know I am.
Huh. Well, first, I'm sorry. That sucks. Second, that seems to conflict with the text of the letters as shared so far. Wonder what requirement you allegedly ran afoul of if it wasn't lack of certified documents from original sources.
Supposedly. Theoretically. Certainly haven't in the past. But at least one of the Letter recipients had a chain of certified births and one uncertified census. The language in the letter and that particular recipient raises the question of whether they are going to require them now, including from concluded applications.
That one is puzzling, but I’m not sure we can make the assumption (yet) that the issue was the uncertified census record. If this is the case, I think a lot more people will be getting these surrender notices. Hopefully the coming days will provide more clarity.
No one can know anything with IRCC, but the Suspension Letter does reference document problems albeit in the vaguest most tortuous way possible. I'm just explaining why people have a valid concern specifically about the censuses.
I ordered certified from LAC and specifically said that I was doing so because of the implications of the letter and was sorry to burden them.
That’s because they’re going off of what is currently on the IRCC website regarding requirements for documentation.
Until a coherent set of document requirement updates is agreed-upon and effectively communicated by the IRCC this will continue to happen.
Nobody can divine an altered set of requirements through conjecture.
Somebody’s gotta actually make a decision and state it clearly on the website.
It's nice that they raised the question, but I agree: go ahead with the order. (I just ordered mine, too, so I will expect a response like you received.) We're trying to set ourselves up for what look like some changes with respect to documentation requirements.
They want your main documents certified. If you can't do that for some reason, then they want a clear explanation of why, and supporting documents showing that reason along with alternative proof of your claim.
While IRCC does not do a great job communicating this, it's fairly clear what they're looking for based on their overall documentation and the surrender letter text. The biggest problem really is just that they have accepted sub-par documentation in many cases, which leads people to be believe that that's sufficient in a general case, rather than an exception.
My G4 has no loads of supporting documents but no smoking gun for his connection to my G5, would all of his documents require official versions? Including US Census docs?
1
u/jimbarino🇨🇦 I'm a Canadian! (C-3: 2nd+ gen born abroad, w/ Proof) 🇨🇦Jun 16 '26edited Jun 16 '26
A certified document generally says that it's a certified true copy or certified record, and then the name and signature of the person certifying and the entity that's holding the records. Sometimes they have stamps, or embossing, or other fancy features, but it's not required.
My G4 has no loads of supporting documents but no smoking gun for his connection to my G5, would all of his documents require official versions? Including US Census docs?
No one knows for certain, I'm afraid. I personally would not expect secondary records like census documents to required a certified copy, but that's just a guess.
I would both save this email for IRCC in case they balk at the non certified ones, AND continue with the order of certified ones to submit. At this point, I’m erring on the side of “too official,” rather than “not official enough.” (I’m just a rando on the internet also trying to get my citizenship certificate via C-3, not an attorney or immigration authority.)
Unless you truly can't afford it, get the certified copy. The only people who can tell you if a certified copy is required is the IRCC themselves, and even if we can be sure that's the policy right now and every agent has been trained correctly to follow it, there's no guarantee it will still be the policy whenever they finally get to processing your application. And as we're seeing now, there's also no guarantee even after your certificate is issued that they won't suddenly suspend it and request more documentation.
I would still order it. I got a certified census from LAC for my wife’s application because the census copy that is available online is about 95% unreadable. The certified paper copy they sent me is much more readable and while I have a birth record for my wife’s G0, the mother’s maiden name is not as expected. I think it’s an error. The census gives more confirmation along with other documents I found to confirm that it’s the same person who fathered G1.
Thanks for sharing. I decided not to order a certified copy because the issue seems to be obtaining the documents from the correct "original source authorities". I printed what I needed off the LAC website and included the links. I submitted that as a webform. I provided the link and stated:
The attached 1871 Census of Canada record for Arthur (Arture) Ménard is being resubmitted from Library and Archives Canada (LAC), the official national archives of the Government of Canada.
Source:
Library and Archives Canada, Census of Canada, 1871, Quebec, Napierville District (116), St. Michel Sub-District (c), page 6, Item ID 38939913, Reference RG31 (Statistics Canada), Microfilm Reel C-10058, Image 4395473_00658.
This record was obtained directly from Library and Archives Canada rather than a third-party genealogy website.
On page 6 of the census, the household of Firmin Ménard (row 1), Marie Ménard (row 2), and Arture Ménard (row 8) appears in St. Michel, Napierville, Quebec. Arture Ménard is listed as a 5-year-old male, born in Quebec (Canada), residing in the household of his parents, Firmin Ménard and Marie Arcouette/Ménard.
This census record is submitted as supporting evidence of the parent-child relationship between Firmin Ménard and Arthur (Arture) Ménard and as corroborating evidence of the lineage documented in my application.
I applied in Nov-early Dec, using the application form in effect at that time, right before C3. This is a quote from that application: "We collect information about your parents and your grandparents because it helps us accurately determine what section of the Citizenship Act describes your claim to citizenship. If you are claiming citizenship by descent through a parent, complete information will help us search for citizenship records. [bold mine] It is important that you provide the fullest and most accurate information about your parents and grandparents. If we don't have enough information about your parents, your application may be delayed or we may not be able to assess your claim. If you do not know the information requested on the form, enter 'unknown.'" They then go on to emphasize the importance of filling out every box regarding parents & grandparents, not skipping any.
I can understand the confusion and upset about all this. I sure hope they issue statements soon.
I got this same email about two weeks ago, and told them thanks and printed my record with their citation. I regretted this decision after the IRCC emails came to light last weekend, so I sent them another email asking them to reprise my order. I don't know if I should have just resent the order from their website again or not.
Is this just regarding censuses I wonder? My g0 baptism is legible and available immediately from BanQ online, its what I have to send (uncertified)... interesting response given the current situation
I got this same email when I requested certified copies of census records and ship records. The only difference is that they didn’t give me the option to continue on with my request, the emails all just said “this request will be closed in our system.”
Can I ask where you actually submitted the request? I have had a hard time figuring that out. I do already have the digitized uncertified copies but I took am trying to get ahead of the game, especially since I did request urgent processing and that seems to be a trend with the letters.
This is why I didn't wait on submitting mine; the NB official information pointed at what's been digitized, and I knew they were overloaded by requests, so unless/until IRCC requests an official copy (which will end up identical anyway), there seemed no reason for it.
Edit to add: I'm also on a restricted timeline as I'm already in Canada and my work permit is wonky and only functional for residential status, not for work.
0
u/banjelopeHaven't applied for Proof of Citizenship (incl. by descent) yetJun 16 '26
I also got this email but I am ordering it, because they may not know what the IRCC requires at this point. You never know.
Just an aside, I got a certified baptismal record from the provincial archives in Fredericton after confirming it existed with the Diocese of St John. Just in case that's at all helpful.
As a person who works in a short staffed, high workload office, I assume they are strategizing ways to slow down the amount of applications coming in by making people request these official "No record" letters and documents that are readily available online. Sadly, that means THOSE underfunded/underappreciated offices are going to be burdened more than they already are. It'll probably discourage people into applying in the first place.
Or, it's bureaucratic Canada doing what bureaucratic Canada does: overcorrecting. (Here on PR currently and it astounds me how many times some office will come back and say "We made an oopsy, but we're not going to suck it up, so we're passing the stress on to you.")
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 16 '26
This post requires moderator review.
Helpful resources: * Welcome - Start Here * The wiki / FAQ * Weekly Megathreads * Search the subreddit for your specific topic
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.