Frankly, I think my initial post was clear enough despite some complex sentence construction employing more dependent clauses than is the fashion these days. In contrast, it is not clear to me what point
Rob_TO is trying to make, or why
Rob_TO is arguing about this. I can say, however, that if
Rob_TO's point is I am wrong about the likelihood of strict enforcement, that is that after the leniency period ends there is no reason to anticipate there will be strict enforcement of the rule requiring PRs to present a PR card or PR TD when flying to Canada, I strongly disagree.
In particular, the main purpose behind my post was to remind PRs that after the leniency period for eTA ends it is
highly likely the PR rule will be strictly enforced. I do not think PRs need to wait for reports in the months following November 9 (or whatever date the eTA leniency period actually ends, allowing for the possibility of further extensions) to see if there will be strict enforcement of the rule for PRs. What is most likely is obvious, and that is there will be strict enforcement.
Thus, while I attempted to inform the forum clearly enough that the eTA leniency period, which was scheduled to end
next week, is now extended until November 9, and what the implications of this are for PRs traveling abroad, perhaps it will help if I attempt to more specifically state my observations about this, about the impact the end of the eTA leniency period has on PRs:
1. eTA leniency period is extended until November 9, 2016.
2. PRs traveling abroad should anticipate
strict enforcement of the rules for PRs
after the leniency period ends, even if they are carrying a visa-exempt passport.
3. In the meantime (prior to end of the leniency period), the
prudent approach for all PRs, notwithstanding some reports of lax enforcement of the rules for PRs with visa-exempt passports, is to travel with a valid PR card or be prepared to obtain a PR TD for a return flight to Canada.
Quick facts (from IRCC news release)
"Canadian permanent residents cannot apply for an eTA and, as usual, must show their valid permanent resident card when travelling to Canada."
(Taken from the
9-20-2016 news release regarding eTA extension (this should link), emphasis added.)
PR Rule Reminder:
The
current rule (which is what the reference in the news release is about when it refers to "as usual") requires a PR to present a valid PR card or PR Travel Document before boarding a flight to Canada. The rule applies to all PRs, including those who carry a visa-exempt passport.
There are
anecdotal reports the rule has not be enforced when a PR presents a visa-exempt passport.
Again, (contrary to what
Rob_TO seems to be asserting) it is
highly likely that after the leniency period the rules will be more or less strictly enforced, notwithstanding the extent to which there has been lax enforcement of the rule for PRs carrying a visa-exempt passport.
Reminder about screening passengers prior to boarding:
The airlines still screen passengers, and retain discretion to deny boarding to passengers (which may be based on a wide range of reasons), and indeed are required to restrict who can board a flight to Canada based on a number of applicable laws and rules. However, the
primary screening for authorization to board a flight is now done electronically, through the IAPI system, which is operated and maintained by CBSA. The system screens the prospective passenger based on the Travel Document used by the traveler. This is typically based on the traveler's name plus passport number (API).
Thus, with some exceptions, all passengers boarding a flight to Canada must be
authorized by CBSA before the airlines can even issue a boarding pass. This applies to
all prospective passengers for a flight to Canada. (What this means during the leniency period is that passengers presenting a visa-exempt passport are not denied the CBSA authorization to board due to the absence of eTA. Again, airlines nonetheless otherwise retain discretion to screen passengers and deny boarding for a wide range of other reasons.)
Rob_TO said:
dpenabill said:
on the contrary, it is highly likely that the rules for PRs will be more or less strictly enforced,
You said the same thing back in March, yet there has not been even 1 single report here of a visa-exempt PR being denied boarding due to not having PR card.
Aside from the misleading quote of a sentence fragment out-of-context (in context, what is quoted referred to after the end of the leniency period), I am not sure if you are quibbling for the purpose of quibbling or . . .
. . . or trying to confuse PRs about
the impending likelihood that after the leniency period, strict enforcement is highly likely, that is, that the rules requiring PRs to present either a valid PR card or PR TD, as I said, are indeed likely to be strictly enforced as of the day after the leniency period ends.
In any event, that is
NOT what I said in March. In March I said there was a
substantial risk (not a "high likelihood") the rules for a PR boarding a flight could be imposed, despite having a visa-exempt passport, and thus the best approach for PRs traveling abroad is to either have a valid PR card or be prepared to obtain a PR Travel Document for the flight home. That observation (in March and periodically otherwise) was based on the rules, on
the fact that the rules require PRs to present a valid PR card or a PR TD for the purpose of boarding an international flight destined for Canada, even for PRs carrying a visa-exempt passport. In particular, the sporadic reports that PRs with visa-exempt passports have been allowed to board a flight to Canada without showing a PR card should not be construed to mean the rules about showing a PR card do not apply to a PR with a visa-exempt passport, but only that there have been occasions the rule was not enforced. (Reminder: no matter how lax enforcement is, that does not guarantee non-enforcement.)
I am not sure why anyone attempts to confuse what some PRs have reported, about what they have been allowed to do, with what the rules specifically require. Whatever motivation there is to cause confusion about what the rule actually requires,
make no mistake, when the leniency period ends it will be far more likely that the PR rule will be in fact enforced, and that a PR abroad without a valid PR card will need to obtain a PR TD in order to make a return flight to Canada
even if the PR has a visa-exempt passport.
Not sure if this can be stated any more clearly. It warrants stating emphatically.
For clarity, the sentence fragment you quoted, but in context (with emphasis added, just in case overlooking this language explains the quibbling):
dpenabill said:
In any event, the absence of direct reference to PRs in the more recent news releases should not be interpreted to mean there will be continuing lax enforcement after the leniency period ends . . . on the contrary, it is highly likely that the rules for PRs will be more or less strictly enforced, and thus for sure after the leniency period ends, PRs traveling abroad should be prepared to present a valid PR card or obtain a PR TD for a flight back to Canada, to not rely on travel using a visa-exempt passport.
Rob_TO said:
Yes the best and surest approach is to have a valid PR card or PR TD, though if that is impossible in some cases I'm sure many PRs will find they can still travel on visa-exempt passport only if they must. Up to the individual if the travel is worth the risk.
Perhaps it will be, as you say,
"in some cases I'm sure many PRs will find they can still travel on visa-exempt passport," but I doubt that these "some cases" will number many, probably no more than isolated instances. In particular, again, once the leniency period ends the "risk" is very high that a PR will need a valid PR card or PR TD to board a flight to Canada, despite carrying a visa-exempt passport. And, frankly, any suggestion otherwise is troublesome, at best confusing.
Exceptions for U.S. citizens:
The rule for PRs still applies to Canadian PRs who are U.S. citizens. That is, there is nothing in the statutory provisions or regulations which exempts PRs carrying a U.S. passport. However, it appears that it is not likely the PR rule will be enforced for those who present a U.S. passport prior to boarding a flight to Canada, and especially so for flights from the U.S. to Canada. Similarly as to those with dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship.
For reference, full quote:
Rob_TO said:
dpenabill said:
however, in the meantime, a few reports have indicated that this may not be actually enforced on PRs presenting a visa-exempt passport when boarding a flight to Canada.
More than a "few", over a dozen reports at least of PRs traveling to Canada on just visa-exempt passport since the last key date for eTA back in March.
dpenabill said:
on the contrary, it is highly likely that the rules for PRs will be more or less strictly enforced,
You said the same thing back in March, yet there has not been even 1 single report here of a visa-exempt PR being denied boarding due to not having PR card.
It is not highly likely or unlikely this will continue until Nov 9. Any guess either way is pure speculation. I would guess things will continue as-is until the Nov 9 date (unless that gets extended yet again). Yes the best and surest approach is to have a valid PR card or PR TD, though if that is impossible in some cases I'm sure many PRs will find they can still travel on visa-exempt passport only if they must. Up to the individual if the travel is worth the risk. Perhaps we'll hear of an actual report over next few months of a visa-exempt PR being identified as a PR by the airline and denied boarding due to no PR card, but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't.
Note: I have made a concerted effort over the last many months to avoid further quibbling over whether there is "substantial risk" or a lesser risk of actual enforcement of the PR rule during the leniency period. Indeed, whenever an aspect of this has been discussed, I have made a concerted effort to include acknowledgement of contrary views as to the nature and extent of the risk of actual enforcement.
I think it is important to be clear what the actual rule requires. And to be clear that whether there have been three or five anecdotal reports over the course of a year, or ten or twenty reports, PRs should be aware what the actual rule is and cognizant that the rule could be enforced.
That discussion, however, does not need to be revisited. What the risk is during the leniency period is rather unimportant
because the leniency period is coming to an end SOON . . . if not in just six weeks or so, November 9, soon after that.
The important point is that once the leniency period ends, it is indeed highly likely the PR rule will be enforced, including for PRs with a visa-exempt passport.
I hope the explanation here is sufficient to deter any further efforts to distract from or cause confusion about this.
