An Effort to Clarify (apologies in advance for how clumsily); Comments Re Navigating IRCC Information Versus the Rules . . .
This is not easy stuff. Yes, in many respects IRCC does not make it easy. CBSA likewise. Sigh.
That said, what we know, the take-aways, are relatively straight-forward for purposes of this topic:
-- for PRs living abroad long-term, such as those accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse abroad, what they need to travel to Canada is a central consideration in their decision-making
-- most PRs outside Canada will need either a valid PR card or PR TD to board a flight to Canada
-- PRs with status to travel via the U.S. can get around the need for a PR card or PR TD, traveling to the U.S. and then by land to a PoE on the Canadian-U.S. border
-- PRs who are U.S. citizens, in addition to the capacity to travel to Canada via the U.S., can board a flight directly to Canada using their U.S. passport
Beyond that, it is into the weeds, a real jungle of weeds . . . for whoever might be interested . . .
Wouldn't it be great if IRCC could expand upon their language when stating that without a valid PR card, a PR may not be able to return to Canada via a commercial carrier. Clearly, they know how/why and could mention that a U.S. passport holder is generally one of those exceptions.
Actually there is NO rule that PRs need either a PR card or PR TD to board a flight to Canada. So it is not that there is an exception to any such rule for Canadian PRs who are a U.S. citizen. The IRCC
information that appears to state otherwise consists of generalized interpretations of the rules and how they are applied. This does not exonerate the failure of IRCC, CBSA, or Transport Canada to be more precise, let alone accurate, let alone less confusing.
There is a very specific list of documents that are accepted for the purpose of boarding a flight to Canada. These are documents which explicitly show the traveler has authorization to enter Canada. Only those documents on the list (I believe I have previously referenced and linked the list, a "schedule" as I recall, but I have not put my cursor on it lately). Given a slip-sliding memory, not certain now this is generated by CBSA; could be Transport Canada. This list is published for commercial carriers, precisely prescribing for commercial carriers which specific documents are acceptable.
HOWEVER, generally airline personnel are NOT personally judging which types of documents are acceptable, now, given the full implementation of Advance Passenger Information (API), Passenger Name Record (PNR) and the Interactive Advance Passenger Information (IAPI) Initiative, pursuant to which the decision to allow boarding is automated, the CBSA administrated system giving the airline a board/no-board message when the passenger information is entered into the system, including details regarding the passenger's travel document. (The future arrived awhile before yesterday, so to say.)
If the system is down, or manual screening is otherwise needed, for purposes of determining if the traveler has the appropriate documents meeting immigration requirements, all the airline personnel do is check to see the traveler is presenting one of the specific documents listed as acceptable. No need to know about, let alone understand, any bilateral agreements (which are between countries, not with the airlines) that underlie and are part of the regulatory scheme mandating reciprocal respect, in regards to the U.S. and Canada, for the other country's travel documents.
U.S. passports are on the list of documents which suffice for boarding a flight to Canada, meaning a traveler presenting a U.S. passport has an acceptable document showing authorization to enter Canada sufficient for the purpose of boarding a flight to Canada. Of course Canadian passports are on that list, as are PR cards and PR TDs. Visa-exempt passports
with eTA, as are passports with visas for Canada, likewise. It is a relatively short list. It is an exhaustive list in that documents not on the list will not, so to say,
fly.
The IRCC information referenced and linked by
@armoured is largely consistent with the list and CBSA guidelines, but it is oriented toward providing
information to prospective travelers, as in it does not state the rules, but rather states in generalizations IRCC's interpretation of how the rules are applied, what effect they have, stated in a manner to explain to travelers what they need. It is largely (but not entirely or even consistently) in reference to documents needed to "
enter" Canada.
. . . a clear statement that dual US/Canadian citizens can board a plane and enter on their US passport. "American-Canadians can travel with a valid Canadian or U.S. passport."
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/visit-canada/entry-requirements-country.html#canadian-citizens
This ostensibly lists "
entry requirements," but the references include descriptions of documents needed for "
travel" by certain travelers in particular circumstances. See, for example, the information for visa-exempt, eTA eligible travelers, which specifically refers to eTA as needed "
to board" flights to Canada, and distinguishes visa-exempt travelers coming to Canada by bus, train, boat, or driving (for whom their visa-exempt passport suffices, so no need for eTA).
The reference to "
American-Canadians" traveling with a valid Canadian or U.S. passport is only about Canadian citizens who are also a U.S. citizen. So it does not inform Canadian PRs who are U.S. citizens that they can "
travel," let alone board a plane flying to Canada, without a PR card or PR TD. Indeed, this particular IRCC webpage states "
Canadian permanent residents need a valid permanent resident card or permanent resident travel document," without saying just what a PR card or PR TD is needed for.
Again, this is information, generalized information, NOT a statement of the rules; it is information that states IRCC's interpretation of how the rules are applied, what effect they have, stated in a manner to explain to travelers what they need. But it is incomplete (as generalizations are). Perhaps deliberately so, giving PRs information enabling them to travel to Canada by any means. Meanwhile, nonetheless, most PRs outside of Canada will in fact need either a PR card or a PR TD in order to board a flight to Canada. But not all.
That is, there are exceptions to the statement that a PR needs a PR card or a PR TD to return to Canada. These are NOT exceptions to the rules.
Which brings up navigating IRCC information. Hard to say who phrases things more clumsily, IRCC or me. Both of us could do better. That said, in regards to saying IRCC could do better in particular, in many respects this is not at all simple given the complexity of the law, regulations, rules adopted pursuant to the law and regulations, and the extent to which so much varies subject to interacting conditions and contingencies. (Again, will link some resources few will be interested in enough to wade into.)
So, some key observations about understanding what IRCC publishes:
-- generally, a definitive statement should be interpreted to mean just what it says, and
-- it is risky to interpret a definitive statement to mean anything other than what it literally says, BUT
-- no matter how definitive a statement is, it is also risky to entirely rely on a literal interpretation of it in isolation
-- context matters, and in some contexts, context dictates
In many contexts it is imperative to read and understand particular IRCC information in conjunction with other, related information provided by IRCC. Sometimes on the same webpage, but many times it helps to compare and contrast IRCC information on other webpages.
If the precise rule (usually meaning multiple rules understood in the context of multiple statutes and regulations) is known AND correctly understood, that really helps. Reading and understanding the primary sources, however, tends to be more complicated and difficult, not to mention tedious, than figuring out what IRCC's information means. There is a reason why lawyers make the big bucks. For almost any provision of law, there is NO ONE precise rule; rather, there are all sorts of cross-referenced conditions, caveats, nuances, and exceptions, not to mention terms used with particular meaning differing from general usage, and navigating these sources can very often tend to be like being stuck in a Kafkaesque maze while blindfolded.
Meanwhile, albeit rife with flaws, IRCC makes a concerted effort to give us information which explains what we need to know about how things work, based on the rules (which in turn are based on the governing law and regulations). Rather imperfectly, unfortunately, as it goes.
Which leads this back to what PRs need in particular, including what some PRs might not need . . . to be continued . . .
