+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Reflection concerning validity period of the Canadian permanent resident card. Why not more than 5 years? Some concrete examples from other countries.

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
Arguably the most illuminating point is in an unrelated section in the act that says " Nothing in this section in any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this Act."

The point, inherent to Canadian system of government, is that the Minister has the power to determine the most efficient manner to administer the laws for which they are responsible.
The quote comes from Section 87.3 IRPA. It is MORE than unrelated. That section specifically enumerates the applications and requests for documents those provision apply to, NONE of which involve Canadians, neither Canadian PRs nor Canadian citizens (it does apply to applications FOR PR status, but of course only a Foreign National can make such an application; in contrast it explicitly excludes sponsorship applications which are made by citizens or PRs).

So it does not, and cannot, confer any broader authority than what is otherwise prescribed in the Act for any other aspect of the Minister's administration of Act.

And, it warrants noting and cautioning, that language like that generally does not expand an agency's authority much, since it is the more particular provisions that govern. No matter how efficient, the manner and means must be within the parameters of what the law prescribes.

Consider all the utterly frivolous arguments pushing for IRCC to cease requiring citizenship applicants to pass a knowledge of Canada test, since that is currently a major bottleneck likely to delay processing for many more months if not a year or more. No matter how much more efficient that would be, the Minister simply has NO authority, NONE, to generally waive the requirement to verify that applicants for citizenship have the requisite knowledge of Canada mandated by statute. While the Minister undoubtedly has broad discretion in determining the manner and means of verifying applicants meet this requirement, however the Minister proceeds it must nonetheless do what the law mandates, which is to require adult citizenship applicants demonstrate a knowledge of Canada.

None of which is to disagree with your general observation, essentially that the Minister has broad authority to determine the manner and means of administering those statutory provisions the enabling legislation (for IRPA that is Sections 4 and 5) confers on the Minister.

Generally trying to extrapolate the nature and scope of a Minister's authority from general provisions, beyond what is more or less explicitly prescribed or has already been determined in binding judicial rulings, demands a higher level of jurisprudence than most lawyers would dare attempt, let alone . . . well, me for example. This includes attempting to extrapolate much about the scope of what the Minister can do based on the prescribed objectives of the Act (Section 3(2) IRPA) and directions for how the Act is to be construed and applied (Section 3(3) IRPA). Fortunately there is a ton of official decision-making by real authority we can read which illuminates a great deal about the nature, scope, manner, and limitations thereon, governing how the Minister administers this or that part of the Act.

As I previously noted, the nature and manner of how the PR card fits into enforcement of the RO is readily displayed in IAD decisions, especially those regarding the denial of a PR Travel Document (which last I roughly counted, comprised a big majority cases involving a loss of PR status for RO non-compliance).

Which leads to recognizing why in a venue like this polemics about what-should-the-rules-be tend, well, to be less than fruitful, not much illuminating, and prone to diversion into misleading tangents. There is plenty of information (for those willing to do the homework) about what the rules are, how-things-actually-work. And generally that is what matters anyway. That is what most immigrants need to know. Meanwhile, wandering into the dense forest of how-it-should-be tends be a lot like bushwhacking one's way through the bush on the other side of a hill from where there is a road, a lot of work to get relatively nowhere while the whole time there is a path, a road that will get you at least close to where you want to go, so long as the destination is within range of reasonable places to go. Yeah, in Canada there are a lot of roads that are rough going, lots of twists and turns, ups and downs, and if you look at the map, hell, it sure looks like there should be a much more direct, convenient route. But getting off the road in search of that better route is a bad bet unless one is actually simply interested in an excuse to do some wilderness pioneering and, perhaps, a bit of fishing along the way. Or perhaps the U.S. or Australia or France are actually the preferred destination.

And sure, I have wandered down one of those tangents. Why not? There is no prospect of a serious debate regarding how long PR cards should be valid for. That is simply not a subject on the horizon, or on a horizon beyond the current horizon. Someday, maybe, with a massive, massive amount of other stuff to deal with before getting there.

Note, for example, that Canada just started issuing 10 year passports in 2013. I do not know when the U.S. started doing that, except to know it was at least three decades ago. We are an independent country. Thank every deity imaginable and all the lucky stars!
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,226
7,753
The quote comes from Section 87.3 IRPA. It is MORE than unrelated. That section specifically enumerates the applications and requests for documents those provision apply to, NONE of which involve Canadians, neither Canadian PRs nor Canadian citizens (it does apply to applications FOR PR status, but of course only a Foreign National can make such an application; in contrast it explicitly excludes sponsorship applications which are made by citizens or PRs).

So it does not, and cannot, confer any broader authority than what is otherwise prescribed in the Act for any other aspect of the Minister's administration of Act.
My point in quoting that was to underline the assumption in government that the Minister has broad authority to administer the Act, not in any way to say the authority is broader than that. Or more simply, the only part that interested me there was the "power of the Minister to ... determine the most efficient way to administer this Act." (In logical terms, the "Nothing in this section" caveat is reiterating an undergirding principle.)

But yes, in no way does it expand the authority or allow them not to follow the parts that are explicit.

I was only / primarily noting that the concept that the PR card is not described as a 'means of control' in no way precludes its use as a tool in applying other parts of the law.

And, it warrants noting and cautioning, that language like that generally does not expand an agency's authority much, since it is the more particular provisions that govern. No matter how efficient, the manner and means must be within the parameters of what the law prescribes.
Agreed.

Consider all the utterly frivolous arguments pushing for IRCC to cease requiring citizenship applicants to pass a knowledge of Canada test, since that is currently a major bottleneck likely to delay processing
I've no dog in this fight and hence reiterate: that authority within limits of law.

As I previously noted, the nature and manner of how the PR card fits into enforcement of the RO is readily displayed in IAD decisions, especially those regarding the denial of a PR Travel Document (which last I roughly counted, comprised a big majority cases involving a loss of PR status for RO non-compliance).
Issuance of PRTDs is one area where the law is actually quite specific - and hence not much flexibility.

And sure, I have wandered down one of those tangents. Why not? There is no prospect of a serious debate regarding how long PR cards should be valid for.
Agreed. My response was mostly about a rather narrow part of the arguments presented, that there's somehow an issue with using the PR card for 'control.' Which was mostly on a misapprehension of the authority (I believe), but a sideshow.

On the actual policy part of this - who would actually want or need longer-tenor PR cards - I still hold that shorter processing times would remove the vast majority of issues (at least for good faith applicants in the sense of no doubt about their compliance with RO and other obligations of PR status).
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
Issuance of PRTDs is one area where the law is actually quite specific - and hence not much flexibility.
We seem to be mostly on the same page in regards to most of this stuff.

But, in regards to Visa Office decisions regarding applications for Permanent Resident Travel Documents, there is still a good deal of flexibility, discretion, in assessing what constitutes sufficient H&C reasons to allow a PR to keep PR status DESPITE a breach of the Residency Obligation.

Overall, Canada tends to be incredibly flexible (on top of how liberal the Residency Obligation is itself) and in many regards overtly lenient toward those it has granted PR status (and especially so for new PRs, meaning those within five years of becoming a PR). So much so it seems many fail to recognize how much the deserves-to-keep-PR-status element can influence how things go.

But this dovetails into the bigger context, the distinction between individual interests and the vast array of other "interests" which influence government policies and practices, as well as decision-making in individual cases. The latter are far more likely to influence IF and WHEN, for example, Canada elects to increase how long PR status cards are valid. For now, the five year card appears to work well enough. And a lot of how things go in Canada is about whether they work well enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,226
7,753
But, in regards to Visa Office decisions regarding applications for Permanent Resident Travel Documents, there is still a good deal of flexibility, discretion, in assessing what constitutes sufficient H&C reasons to allow a PR to keep PR status DESPITE a breach of the Residency Obligation.
Yes. I was commenting here that I was surprised how much was written in the Act regarding the specifics of PRTD issuance - compared to the language about PR status documents in the Act itself, which is almost entirely lacking specificity. The H&C language is there, but of course that could be interpreted more or less strictly, and there seems to be quite a lot of actual discretion / leniency in practice.

And a lot of how things go in Canada is about whether they work well enough.
There's a bad side to everything of course. Lacks grand historical sweep or ambition, perhaps.

But there are far worse principles of government than 'works well enough.'