.
I see nothing in this proposed legislation that will directly change enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation, and not much indication, either, of a significant indirect impact. Whether the information sharing amendments, or the Ministers' broad cancellation powers that are added, will have a practical impact on RO enforcement is a more challenging question, but so far I have not seen any indication suggesting it will have much if any impact (again,
as to PRs and RO enforcement). The proposed amendment to Section 44(2) IRPA, for example, does not substantively change the application of Section 44 to PRs, or alter the procedure in cases involving Section 44 Reports for inadmissibility based on a breach of the RO.
Note, however, that what "
I see" is not an especially well-informed perspective. I am no expert, not a Canadian lawyer, and I have not read a lot of the information available in the legislative record beyond the summary and text of the proposed legislation, and select sources such as the briefs submitted by
the Bellissimo Law Group and
the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration law Section).
I am curious about the basis for your query, why you apprehend an effect on RO enforcement; in particular the part of your query about the scope of Bill C-12, in the context of RO enforcement, and whether it is "
limited to program-level, systemic, or mass measures (e.g. fraud, administrative errors, public safety), rather than individual RO assessments under IRPA?"
In contrast to the relatively minimal impact on Canadians, including PRs, as some of the submissions to the committees that evaluated this proposed legislation address, there are key elements that will likely have a significant impact on Foreign Nationals (FNs, that is non-Canadians), especially those pursuing refugee claims, but also affecting those who have or are seeking temporary resident status, and those who are subject to an enforceable Removal Order (note that if there is an enforceable Removal Order against an individual who has been a PR, they are a FN and thus no longer a PR . . . further noting, for example, that the Removal Order issued to PRs in breach of the RO and subjected to inadmissibility proceedings attendant Port-of-Entry screening, are not initially enforceable and do not become enforceable unless and until there is no remaining right of appeal).
Caveat: Assessing the impact of numerous substantive changes in law pursuant to proposed legislation can be, and often is, complicated and difficult even for the experts (lawyers and other jurists, legislators and those engaged in the legislative process, other experts in the particular field or subject including department or agency officials as well as those in non-government positions engaged in the respective matters); moreover, forecasting the practical impact is rife with pitfalls. (Legislation all too often has unforeseen consequences.)
In particular, even though some proposed legislation can be readily read and understood without a comprehensive background in law and the legislative process, in regards to more complex and extensive legislation, particularly proposed legislation implementing copious amendments and additions to already complex law, that often demands a high level of expertise in the particular subject in any effort to understand, interpret, or analyze the application of the proposed legislation. This is especially true in regards to legislation such as this, as proposed in Bill C-12, "
An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures," which includes some broad expansion of discretionary powers defined by rather imprecise if not vague terms like "
in the public interest."
For PRs who lose their PR status, who are thus no longer a Canadian but, rather, a Foreign National, this legislation will have an impact on the removal process and potential recourse to avoid actual removal. That is not about RO enforcement even though it will affect
former PRs who lose status pursuant to RO enforcement.
Beyond that . . .
One addition to IRPA worth noting is the provision precluding an admissibility hearing if a PR is not physically present in Canada. It is difficult to discern the practical scope of this except to apprehend this probably means that leaving Canada when there is a pending inadmissibility proceeding will quite likely lead to a negative outcome (loss of PR status), which I suspect (not sure though) includes cases in which a hearing with a Minister's Delegate to review a 44(1) Report for a RO breach has been postponed and is thus still pending. Hard to map this to real case scenarios, but my sense is this increases the risk of leaving Canada after making a PR card application for any PR who is in breach of the RO.
Another change is the expansion of Ministers' powers to cancel specified documents which includes PR cards. Since PR status itself is not dependent on having a valid PR card, this does not appear to be something that will affect a PR's status. And it is not clear to me that is actually an expansion of the authority to render a PR card invalid; it may be more of a clarification of the power to invalidate a PR card. One of the briefs I have read, probably the Bar's brief, expressed strong concerns about this change, but it is difficult to discern if that is mostly about the other documents affected and minimal need for an explanation of reasons for the cancellation the change this will likely allow. One potentially troublesome aspect of this, for some PRs, could again be about PRs in RO breach and outside Canada when they have a PR card application in process, and the possibility that the PR's current and not yet expired card could be invalidated pending the outcome of processing. In this regard, the conventional wisdom in this forum strongly advises against leaving Canada if in RO breach, and especially so if the PR has any transactions with IRCC pending, such as a PR card or sponsorship application.
