Wallowing into the weeds . . .
https://www.settler.ca/english/can-ircc-officers-access-to-my-travel-information/
Also, please be aware that under the IRCC–CBSA memorandum of understanding (MOU) the institutions don’t need the client’s consent in order to query traveller entry and exit information.
---
So...even if the `no' box is ticked, they still have the right to retrieve the info anyway, right? Seems like an unnecessary step, when a simple "Do you affirm that all information is true" (or similar) before the signature line. I would assume the same goes for CRA.
"Why are the consent boxes even part of a PR Card renewal?"
Without trying to interpret why you ask this question:
Why would 'why' matter? Or,
How would 'why' matter?
Among other variations of asking (humorous gibes included, even slippery ones):
does the 'why' matter? Mostly, not really.
That is, whether the inclusion of this item in the PR card application form is an unnecessary holdover from previous versions, or about some particular nuances in how IRCC navigates the applicable privacy law (recognizing that access to CBSA traveler history information by IRCC officials is NOT wide open but subject to relatively complex rules), either way (or it being for some other reason) declining to give consent quite likely affects the assessment of how complex the application is and thus potentially affecting whether the application goes into a more lengthy non-routine processing stream.
Bottom-line: even without consent, IRCC can and likely will get the information; whereas withholding consent quite likely increases the level of scrutiny and the risk of significant non-routine processing.
There is, however, another angle in play. At the risk of descending into an endless loop of
why-why queries, while again avoiding the subjective question as to why you ask this question, the overriding context is
how does IRCC use a PR's CBSA travel history?
How does IRCC use a PR's CBSA travel history?
First, a disclaimer: I personally tend to NOT trust immigration consultants. The information provided by the immigration consultant
@Ponga links here seems credible on its face, but given my biases about such consultants, to me (whether this is fair or not), it's not a reliable source of information. Especially for something like this, where the information is readily available from IRCC; see IRCC's posted "
Entry/Exit Program" information here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/service-delivery/entry-exit.html
Secondly, both sources are rife with references to open-ended rather than definitive statements, with few guidelines for distinguishing, for example, when "
can" is referring to what is merely possible versus varying degrees of probability, versus what is more or less usually expected. So, for example, it is stated:
Entry and exit data can be used to outline the periods of time spent in and outside Canada for people applying for permanent residence status determination (PR Cards and PR Travel Documents).
In this context it is probably safe to conclude that "
can be" here, in particular, does not merely mean it is possible, but rather it is likely, or even that it "
will be." But that still leaves wide open questions about how it will be used.
How CBSA traveler history is used is a tangent I have addressed quite often. There tends to be a lot of misunderstanding about this, and in particular misguided expectations that CBSA traveler history might be relied on to show presence an applicant has otherwise not documented. Without diving too deeply back into that subject, most indicators still suggest this data is used to identify problems NOT resolve them. PRs should not expect let alone rely on IRCC's access to CBSA traveler history to fix or fill in travel history dates.
As the systems for capturing, storing, organizing, and facilitating access to traveler history data are improved and enhanced, the IRCC's use of this data may expand beyond problem-identification (that is flagging when to question a PR's version or trigger enforcement action), but for now what PRs can expect IRCC to do with CBSA travel history is little more than
problem-flagging.
Meanwhile . . .
What is actually happening in practice, in real world application processing and enforcement proceedings, is riddled with typical real-life deviations. This is especially so in regards to capturing entry and exit data. It's an imperfect system. And that is probably a big understatement. And then there are the inevitable vagaries of bureaucracy, rife with cracks and snags, the rules and regulations and procedures prone to error when cases fail to fit into tidy categories, the more wrinkled situations plagued with pitfalls.
Make no mistake, what happens in practice often deviates from how things are designed and intended to work.
And not everyone is up-to-speed or on the same page. This includes IRCC personnel, representatives of the Minister, even Federal Court Justices.
Here is what a Federal Court Justice stated just days ago, in setting aside a Citizenship Judge's decision to grant citizenship and emphasizing the need for a PR to provide evidence of actual presence on Canadian soil, in a decision
dated May 1, 2024:
"Canadian authorities do not monitor exits from Canada."
I confess I am quoting this a bit out of context here (the dates in question in that case pre-date some key elements of the current Entry/Exit program), but the gist of the decision (Canada v. Liu, 2024 FC 668, which is here
https://canlii.ca/t/k4d61 ) nonetheless reflects the extent to which the burden is on the PR, if and when the PR's presence is questioned, to affirmatively prove actual presence with evidence of activity in Canada.
While there are additional aspects of the Canada v. Liu decision which warrant cautiously extrapolating much from it (Liu was not represented by a lawyer, which skewers things some), as to illustrating the importance of recognizing the burden of documenting actual presence, if and when physical presence is questioned, is on the PR, be that a PR Residency Determination or attendant a PR's application for citizenship.
Take-Away Summary: if a PR makes a mistake in reporting travel history, IRCC is likely to catch that, as a discrepancy with the CBSA travel history. Otherwise, PRs should not rely on IRCC to use the CBSA travel history in a way that would help their case.
