New language rquirements introduced

Hi

SarahBC wrote: Hi pmm, I was referring to the PR requirements that titbit posted above :) http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/838085

Really old news. IELTs became mandatory for everyone in Skilled Worker over 2 years ago. Too many applicants claimed proficiency in English previously and then had to have an interpreter at the interview.

I was commenting on the 01/11/12 requirement that persons not receiving their high schooling or University in English will require an English test for citizenship, which is the topic of this forum.

eli wrote: Good news. You will be surprise to see that most citizenship applicants do not speak English at all! some zero and some very little.  Good job! but I like to see reduced processing times too.   Also the residency requirement is lower than what other counties have in place. Canada should follow, legislating more stringent residency requirements in the Citizenship Act.

Hi

Northy wrote: Language requirement are part of the initial immigration process. If due diligence is made back then, I don't see a reason to request it later.

Except the English/French language requirements are only in CEC/FSW/PNP for the principal applicant. Spouses/dependants, don't submit language results.

There is a note on this page:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become.asp

wrote: As of November 1, 2012, adults (ages 18-54) applying for citizenship will have to send proof that they have adequate knowledge of English or French (listening and speaking). Important: Applications received on or after November 1, 2012 must have proof of language included in the application package. If your application is received after November 1, 2012 without the acceptable proof, it will be considered incomplete and will be returned to you. To avoid having your application returned to you as incomplete, it is recommended that you complete the form dated 09-2012 or the new form, available November 1, 2012, and include the necessary acceptable proof of language. Find out more.

Well, at least there is some information now about this, although whether or not the ordinary user of CIC will get that information on their way to downloading the application itself, together with the guide instructing them on how to complete the application, is largely a matter of luck.

For those who follow the CIC home page link "Application Forms and Guides" to the link for making a citizenship application, this is the page they see:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/adults.asp where there is still no hint that they will be required to submit proof of language ability. The link there, to the "instruction guide," takes you to this:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp where again there is still no hint of the language requirement.

Which actually makes things all that more problematic from my perspective: CIC is in effect posting inconsistent information -- giving notice of the new requirement but not in a way that many of those downloading the application will see it. (Particularly not those who have previously reveiwed the online information regarding applying, eligibility, and getting prepared to apply, that is, those who simply are going back to the site to download the most current form and instructions, which are those most likely to be sending off their applications this week.)

That is, it makes a difference if one uses the link "apply for citizenship" and then follows the link to determine eligibility for citizenship, or if the person accesses the application by the home page link for "application forms and guides."

One route alerts the user of the new requirement. The other route offers no hint at all.

The checklist with the form will not be updated online until November 1. (The new form is due out November 1 . . . one wonders if it will incorporate more changes than just those related to the language requirement.)

Many here tend to think of me as a defender of CIC more than a critic, but this is one of those areas in which criticism is due; the failure to coordinate these things better is disconcerting.