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!
