eTA deadline extended six months . . . BUT

[dpenabill]

The deadline for mandatory eTA for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports has, apparently, been extended six months. (IRCC site apparently down at the moment, so could not confirm there).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-electronic-travel-authorization-1.3476225

Caution: PRs are NOT Foreign Nationals, so technically this has no direct effect on PRs. Nonetheless, practically many PRs report being able to board a flight to Canada using a visa exempt passport without displaying (as the rules require) a PR card or PR Travel Document. The extended deadline for Foreign Nationals carrying visa-exempt passports may allow PRs abroad without a PR card or PR TD to still board flights using their visa-exempt passports.

Best to NOT rely on this if feasible, if there is any practical alternative. I realize there are many here who disagree with my perspective on this, as if (out of thin air) PRs with visa-exempt passports are entitled to the same boarding procedure as other Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports (there is NO such entitlement). (It is a bit like the de facto speed limit, driving the main highways at 10k or even 20k over the limit rarely results in a speeding ticket, but 20k over is still speeding and some drivers do get stopped and ticketed for driving 15k or 20k over.)

There should be no doubt, however, that the best approach is to follow instructions, to follow the rules, and the rule is that PRs, even those with visa-exempt passports, are required to display either a valid PR card or a PR TD to board a flight headed to Canada. My sense, including based on some anecdotal reports, is that visa-exempt passengers who do not have eTA are, at the least, at risk for more scrutiny or screening when attempting to board the flight to Canada notwithstanding that eTA is not yet mandatory (and now apparently will not be for another six months). The scope of that risk is unknown. To avoid that risk, follow the instructions, follow the rules, and carry a PR card or be prepared to have a PR Travel Document.

My sense is that it probably may make a significant difference where the flight is originating from, which airlines it is, and the extent of exit controls in the respective country the flight is originating from. Flying from the U.S., for example, probably far less risk. Flying from Venezuela, perhaps the risk is significantly greater. Actual risk for particular locations, however, purely speculative.

 

[dpenabill]

Some commentary about the leniency period extension for compliance with eTA requirements:

Still have not seen any more or less official account of the change in policy itself, but in reading online accounts it appears that the government's position may be that the March 15. 2016 deadline is still the deadline but there will be some leniency in the enforcement, for a period of six months while the Liberal government attempts to better communicate the change in rules (the Conservative government was far better in communicating giving Canadians benefits than it was in informing people of changes in rules).

The problem with this, of course, is unpredictability. A lawyer spoke to CBC and apparently has emphasized that the unpredictability will especially affect Canadian PRs with visa-exempt passports.

I am not familiar with Richard Kurland. I mistrust how reporters paraphrase generally and relative to more or less technical matters especially. I am not sure, for example, that it is true that the rules for boarding a flight to Canada are not easily understood by lawyers, or by those engaged in the travel industry. They are fairly clear to my view.

That said, many, many obfuscate or confuse the rules based on how they have been applied de facto. In this forum, for example, many have all but insisted that PRs with visa-exempt passports could rely on airlines allowing them to board flights even though they do not present a PR card or PR TD. As if the rules allow this. The rules are clear. They do not allow this. The de facto practice has been precisely that and no more, a de facto practice, but NOT the rule.

In any event, CBC reports:

"Richard Kurland, an immigration lawyer and policy analyst, says foreign nationals who live in Canada as permanent residents could be sideswiped by the new entry requirement.

According to Kurland, the rules and exemptions are more complex than officials would have would-be travellers believe.

"It's a spaghetti of rules that are not easily understood by lawyers, let alone members of the public," Kurland said in a phone interview with CBC News on Friday.

Kurland said visa-exempt travellers who live in Canada as permanent residents could find themselves stranded in an overseas airport unless the rules change between now and the fall."

It warrants restating, with emphasis, the last statement:

"Kurland said visa-exempt travellers who live in Canada as permanent residents could find themselves stranded in an overseas airport unless the rules change between now and the fall."

Well, this will not happen if they are properly carrying either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document.

 

[Aquakitty]

Well, this will not happen if they are properly carrying either a valid PR card or a PR Travel Document.

The problem is new PRs who don't realise how long it takes to get their card, though it seems they have reduced the time lately. There can be a limbo period where they have landed as PR but have to travel overseas, so they might be stuck until they get a travel document or the PR card comes. I don't understand why they don't just allow PRs to get an ETA.

 

[Ponga]

I would think that having a [fully refundable] return ticket, or to continue travel beyond Canada, at the time of departure, would be a good idea.

 

[dpenabill]

The problem is new PRs who don't realise how long it takes to get their card, though it seems they have reduced the time lately. There can be a limbo period where they have landed as PR but have to travel overseas, so they might be stuck until they get a travel document or the PR card comes. I don't understand why they don't just allow PRs to get an ETA.

That is a problem. The timeline for PR cards lately has been, well, ridiculously long.

But the reason why there is no eTA for PRs is simple; PRs are not Foreign Nationals and the eTA program is specifically designed to provide another level of advanced screening for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports.

PRs who do not have a visa-exempt passport have long, long been in the situation which PRs who have a visa-exempt passport are just now having to deal with, which is the need to carry a valid PR card or obtain a PR TD in order to board a flight to Canada.

 

[kateg]

But the reason why there is no eTA for PRs is simple; PRs are not Foreign Nationals and the eTA program is specifically designed to provide another level of advanced screening for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports.

Exactly. Permanent Residents are screened already.

When planes land, there are lots of people coming in all at once. Proper security screening can take a while if there are matches (or someone is from a country where the police records are not easily available). An eTA gives them time to deal with this.

For Permanent Residents, they have security screening that's much more rigorous than for visitors. An eTA makes very little sense.

 

[steaky]

But the reason why there is no eTA for PRs is simple; PRs are not Foreign Nationals and the eTA program is specifically designed to provide another level of advanced screening for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports.

US citizens and PR are foreign nationals but they are not required to get eta. Why?

 

[Oki911]

US citizens and PR are foreign nationals but they are not required to get eta. Why?

US citizens are foreign nationals, but treated special for some reasons. Perhaps because they bring in a lot of tourist dollars, I don't know the main reasons.
But PRs are not foreign as far as I know. PRs are required to reenter Canada using a PR-Card or PR travel document. You can take you chances boarding a plane without being asked your residency status, but you still have to prove that you meet the obligations as a PR, once you arrive back in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

US citizens and PR are foreign nationals but they are not required to get eta. Why?

PRs are not eligible for eTA. Regardless of the passport they carry.

PRs are NOT Foreign Nationals. They are Canadians (Canadian Permanent Residents). Section 2 IRPA. No matter what country they are from.

U.S. citizens are specifically exempted from eTA requirements. That is just how the program is designed. It is typical for Canada and the U.S. to allow concessions to citizens in the respective countries.

U.S. citizens are not the only Foreign Nationals (recognizing, again, if the U.S. citizen is also a Canadian PR, he is not a Foreign National) with visa-exempt passports who are exempted from the eTA, but the other categories of exemptions are small, very specific groups (French citizens resident and traveling from a certain island in the Caribbean, for example, are also eTA exempt; the British Royal family is exempt, among others).

 

[Confused in Toronto]

Exactly. Permanent Residents are screened already.

When planes land, there are lots of people coming in all at once. Proper security screening can take a while if there are matches (or someone is from a country where the police records are not easily available). An eTA gives them time to deal with this.

For Permanent Residents, they have security screening that's much more rigorous than for visitors. An eTA makes very little sense.

...the irony here, of course, is that an eTA takes 2 minutes to complete online, while filling out an application for renewal of a PR card takes huge amounts of effort and months of waiting for processing. Not to mention the efforts you have to undertake to obtain a travel document, should you need to travel outside of Canada while your PR card renewal application is being processed.

I am very much in favour of the eTA. However, something needs to be done to simplify and speed up the process to renew the PR card. As you mentioned, PRs have already been screened thoroughly when they first obtained permanent residency.

 

[Rob_TO]

But PRs are not foreign as far as I know. PRs are required to reenter Canada using a PR-Card or PR travel document. You can take you chances boarding a plane without being asked your residency status, but you still have to prove that you meet the obligations as a PR, once you arrive back in Canada.

The practice of PRs traveling with no PR card on just a visa-exempt passport, is based solely on the premise that they are pretending to be a foreign national to the airline. It involves some bit of dishonesty with the airline by not proclaiming their true status. If they are asked by the airline if they're a PR, they basically need to lie and say 'no'.

The practice now until the eTA becomes mandatory, and for US citizens going forward indefinitely, is no different then it was years ago. As long as the airline has no way to determine if you are a foreign national or PR, unless you voluntarily tell them, then even PRs will be screened as a foreign nationals when trying to check into a flight and will be allowed boarding using same burden of proof.

Whether this delay in making eTA mandatory decreases the chances of a PR being able to board a flight as a foreign national compared to before, pretty much depends on if there is some way airlines can check PR status on their system. People can say there will be "extra screening" all they want, but the only screening that really matters is simply telling if any given traveler is a PR or not, and not relying on the travelers honesty. If airlines can actually do this now, I haven't heard of it yet. Perhaps there will be some system for airlines to look up this status going forward, who knows. If this happened even US PRs could no longer travel on just their passports with any level of certainty anymore.

 

[dpenabill]

The practice of PRs traveling with no PR card on just a visa-exempt passport, is based solely on the premise that they are pretending to be a foreign national to the airline. It involves some bit of dishonesty with the airline by not proclaiming their true status.

The practice now until the eTA becomes mandatory, and for US citizens going forward indefinitely, is no different then it was years ago. As long as the airline has no way to determine if you are a foreign national or PR, unless you voluntarily tell them, then even PRs will be screened as a foreign nationals when trying to check into a flight and will be allowed boarding using same burden of proof.

Whether this delay in making eTA mandatory decreases the chances of a PR being able to board a flight as a foreign national compared to before, pretty much depends on if there is some way airlines can check PR status on their system. People can say there will be "extra screening" all they want, but the only screening that really matters is simply telling if any given traveler is a PR or not, and not relying on the travelers honesty. If airlines can actually do this now, I haven't heard of it yet. Perhaps there will be some system for airlines to look up this status going forward, who knows. If this happened even US PRs could no longer travel on just their passports with any level of certainty anymore.

I do not desire to debate underlying details or reasons for this, but just to be clear: I disagree with what I think is an over-simplified characterization of the departure procedure, but more pointedly, rather apprehend there is still a substantial risk for the PR who attempts to fly to Canada without a PR card or PR TD notwithstanding an attempt to conceal having PR status (pending full enforcement of eTA requirements, after which there is no doubt the visa-exempt passport does not get a PR aboard a flight to Canada).

Which is to say I concur in the caution expressed by Richard Kurland, again as quoted by CBC:

"Kurland said visa-exempt travellers who live in Canada as permanent residents could find themselves stranded in an overseas airport unless the rules change between now and the fall."

This is not to say I can quantify the risk. I do not think anyone can.

I can say that risk is reduced to near zero by being prepared to present a PR card or PR TD.

I do not disagree that (pending the full enforcement of eTA requirements) a PR presenting a visa-exempt passport may be allowed to board a flight headed to Canada if the PR succeeds in deceiving those engaged in departure screening (remembering that this can involve exit controls by government authorities, in addition to the airline screening, depending on the country). My impression, however, is that this is not necessarily so easily done, not for sure accomplished by merely choosing to conceal one's PR status. Which is to say I believe the risk described by Kurland exists even if a PR plans to pretend to be a Foreign National visitor and attempts to conceal his or her PR status.



I have made these observation to emphasize two things:

(1) There is a risk of not being allowed to board a scheduled flight to Canada if the PR cannot present a valid PR card or PR TD, even though the PR carries a visa-exempt passport and attempts to conceal having PR status.

(2) The better approach, the prudent approach is to not rely on being able to slip past the screening, but rather to be prepared to either present a valid PR card or obtain a PR TD for the return flight.



Again, I cannot quantify the risk, not even to describe it relatively, except to characterize it as at least substantial. As I have noted before, I suspect the degree of risk is probably affected by factors like which country it is the individual is flying from. For example, I suspect the risk is probably higher if flying from a country that is not itself visa-exempt. Or from a country with more stringent exit controls.

All of which is to say there is enough of a risk that the prudent approach is to not rely on being able to board a flight to Canada without presenting a PR card or PR TD.


Regarding reducing the risk (or increasing the odds of successfully slipping through screening):

Sure, making the flight to Canada using a round-trip ticket from the foreign location abroad is something likely to reduce the risk of being, so to say, caught. Perhaps purchase and possession of a separate return ticket also reduces the risk, but I would guess not so much, particularly if the ticket the traveler is actually using was itself apparently a round-trip originating in Canada (which will telegraph that the traveler is, at the least, not a casual tourist planning to visit Canada). At what point the machinations to successfully deceive the airlines are more inconvenient than obtaining a PR Travel Document probably depends on many factors, with the country involved looming large in that equation (obtaining a PR TD is far easier in some places, rather inconvenient in others) . . . but for those inclined to attempt evading the rules, it still comes down to there being a risk of not being allowed to board the flight. (I have experienced being precluded from boarding a flight at the airport, for reasons unrelated to this discussion, but I can say that in terms of inconvenience, that is indeed rather inconvenient.) Thus the point of my observations is to make up some for what CIC and IRCC still fail to do (what CIC especially did in the previous nine years or so), which is to adequately communicate to PRs some of the pitfalls and risks they may encounter, and how to avoid them.

(In regards to the eTA in particular, CIC primarily placed its information, including its cautions for PRs, in web pages aimed at providing information to prospective visitors, which PRs typically would have no reason to look at. And it is also apparent that CIC failed to adequately advertise or communicate the implementation of eTA itself. Sure, changes of this sort are difficult to communicate broadly, and the effort to do so can be prohibitively expensive. That is something a government needs to take into account when making such changes. Governing is not cheap. That said, the government could have mandated that airlines offering flights to Canada engage in more and better advertising and communicating of the changes. But it is what it is, so, as Kurland suggested, there is a lot of spaghetti slurping to be done. Messy. Inconvenient.)

 

[Rob_TO]

Again, I cannot quantify the risk, not even to describe it relatively, except to characterize it as at least substantial. As I have noted before, I suspect the degree of risk is probably affected by factors like which country it is the individual is flying from. For example, I suspect the risk is probably higher if flying from a country that is not itself visa-exempt. Or from a country with more stringent exit controls.

There is nothing at all to base the "substantial risk" claim on.

If 2 travelers in any country attempt to check in for a flight... both present visa-exempt passports, neither has eTA as it's not mandatory yet, both say they are traveling to Canada as visitors, both can show a return or onward ticket from Canada, and both answer 'no' if asked if they are PRs of Canada. The end result is that in all cases, both travelers will be seen as foreign nationals and the burden of proof to board the flight is equal for both.

If you have any other actual data of how PRs posing as foreign nationals are screened differently from actual foreign nationals, then please provide it else what you are saying is just speculation not based on any actual data. Biggest risk I can see by far is that someone not comfortable with this situation may end up telling the airline they're a PR during routine screening.

In our case, my wife and I traveled twice while she was a PR but didn't have her PR card on her. Once from Mexico and once from the US. Both times she traveled as a foreign national and we encountered no problems since of course the airlines had no system to determine that she was actually a PR. The first time we called CIC on the topic and they insisted a PR Travel Doc was mandatory, however we ended up not even attempting this since it was a big hassle to fill out the forms, get pictures, supporting documents, pay the fees, arrange with the visa office outside Canada etc. Plus I'm not sure if even visa-exempt travelers need to send their passport to the visa office to get the PR TD put in, but if that's true it could cause problems to apply for one if it's delayed and you only have a short time before your return flight.

 

[keesio]

PRs are not eligible for eTA. Regardless of the passport they carry.

PRs are NOT Foreign Nationals. They are Canadians (Canadian Permanent Residents). Section 2 IRPA. No matter what country they are from.

U.S. citizens are specifically exempted from eTA requirements. That is just how the program is designed. It is typical for Canada and the U.S. to allow concessions to citizens in the respective countries.

U.S. citizens are not the only Foreign Nationals (recognizing, again, if the U.S. citizen is also a Canadian PR, he is not a Foreign National) with visa-exempt passports who are exempted from the eTA, but the other categories of exemptions are small, very specific groups (French citizens resident and traveling from a certain island in the Caribbean, for example, are also eTA exempt; the British Royal family is exempt, among others).

dpenabill - my wife is a PR while I am a Canadian citizen. We both also hold US citizenship. We also are NEXUS members. When we travel to the US, we use our NEXUS cards to board the flight. Hence when we travel to the US, We travel with our US passports and NEXUS cards. She leaves her PR card at home and I leave my Canadian passport at home. The reason being that we use the Global Entry kiosks at YYZ when going to the US and that requires a US passport while when coming back into Canada via YYZ, we use the NEXUS kiosks where we just need the NEXUS cards to use it. And we use our NEXUS cards to board the flights. I'm wondering if this will change with the eTA where I need to carry my Canadian passport also (and my wife must carry her PR card). Your opinion is most welcome on this. Thanks

 

[IrisSphere]

I know this may be debated here, but just to make sure i understand - does this extension essentially mean that PRs with visa-exempt passports may be able to board the planes under the old system without PR cards or PRTDs?

My husband is still waiting for his PR card after more than 100 days (thanks CIC for changing photo specs), and we are evaluating all our options for his return on Mar 24.. Of course, will lean towards the safe of applying for PRTD but honestly don't understand how he is supposed to prove "future residency obligation" if not even 6 months passed since he became PR.