Any PRs from visa exempt countries - were you asked for PR card when flying?

[spyfy]

right, and if it says "do not board", more than likely they will ask to see other proof that you're allowed to travel to canada, right? so as the other poster is saying, that means they are essentially asking to see your pr card or something else.

Yup, that seems to be the case. I had people in front of me with my country's passport and their passports were scanned and they simply boarded. I assume that in their case it said "board" since they have an eTA.
In other words, the "board"/"do not board" message can have many reasons (immigration, no-fly list, ...). But not having an eTA seems to be one of the reasons that gives a "do not board" message.

 

[methyl]

right, and if it says "do not board", more than likely they will ask to see other proof that you're allowed to travel to canada, right? so as the other poster is saying, that means they are essentially asking to see your pr card or something else.

We still do not know whether PR status is linked to passport the same way ETA confirmation is linked to passport, hence the reason for the original question.
As of yet nobody really confirmed having a PR and trying to check in with a passport only without admitting a PR status (except for spyfy)

Yup, that seems to be the case. I had people in front of me with my country's passport and their passports were scanned and they simply boarded. I assume that in their case it said "board" since they have an eTA.

Can you really exclude the possibility that some of them had PR status and got a "board" response based on that?

 

[spyfy]

We still do not know whether PR status is linked to passport the same way ETA confirmation is linked to passport, hence the reason for the original question.
As of yet nobody really confirmed having a PR and trying to check in with a passport only without admitting a PR status (except for spyfy)

ozlis above confirmed that his/her eTA has a status of revoked after he became a PR. So I think this indeed confirms that your eTA is gone after becoming a PR?

Can you really exclude the possibility that some of them had PR status and got a "board" response based on that?

No of course not. But call me prejudiced: On a flight to Canada, there are some people you can tell to be tourists from a mile away. The ones I'm talking about here fell into that category.
(That doesn't mean that every tourist looks like one, but travel guide in hand, huge backpack and stuff. I mean come on... )

 

[ozlis]

We still do not know whether PR status is linked to passport the same way ETA confirmation is linked to passport, hence the reason for the original question.
As of yet nobody really confirmed having a PR and trying to check in with a passport only without admitting a PR status (except for spyfy)

Can you really exclude the possibility that some of them had PR status and got a "board" response based on that?

Apart from every single example so far. There are cases of people not having their PR card with them and being told at check-in that they cannot board.

It is not PR status that allows you to board your flight, it is the physical card.

 

[spyfy]

Can you really exclude the possibility that some of them had PR status and got a "board" response based on that?

Also whereas for the eTA, the CIC page says over and over again that the status can be verified by the airline, there is no document I could find anywhere that would indicate that airlines can verify PR status electronically. So I don't see why we should assume they can verify PR status. I mean this is exactly why CIC insists on all that PR Card or PRTD stuff.

 

[Rob_TO]

ozlis above confirmed that his/her eTA has a status of revoked after he became a PR. So I think this indeed confirms that your eTA is gone after becoming a PR?

It only confirms that cancellation of eTA after becoming PR is a real possibility. Many others have reported that since they became PR they have checked online and their eTA is still showing as fully active.

This means that nobody really knows. For any given case a new PR's eTA may be cancelled immediately or much later, or may not be cancelled at all. There is no logical process that CIC/CBSA seems to be following here in when, how or if they will cancel someone's eTA after PR landing.

As I mentioned before, seeing a real case of an eTA being cancelled just increases the risk (significantly) of attempting to travel on it after getting PR. However if CIC/CBSA has not yet cancelled your eTA at the time you happen to be trying to fly back to Canada, there's a good chance with visa-exempt passport and active eTA an airline will simply get the "board" instruction. We still have yet to see a case of anyone trying this with eTA.

 

[jc94]

Four return trips into Canada since October. First one was my first trip into Canada with a PR card and I didn't get asked about eTA/PR card and didn't even show it until I got to immigration. It was pre Nov-9th though.

Since Nov 9th however, 3 trips and each time was asked do you have an eTA, said No, and was asked for my PR card (or something about my status in Canada). I did not offer it until this was asked.
So I would not want to try and enter without one. Tempted to say "Yes" to having an eTA and seeing what they say, but I know people who did NOT get an eTA (how one can miss it when flying AC is beyond me but anyway) and were told to get it on their cell at the aiport if they wanted to fly.

Agree that if the eTA is electronic, why cant it flag up as "valid" for those with PR? Seems stupid.

Oh, and the last time i checked in online with Air Canada? They requested my PR details, at online checkin, on my cell phone.
And still had to show it when getting my bag tagged.

I do like that I can now enter Canada as a resident with the resident machines accepting both Canadian passports AND PR cards. I didn't even take my passport out the last time I came through - and that was with an agent as the machine wouldn't read my customs form! She just took the card and didn't ask for my passport.

 

[Rob_TO]

Tempted to say "Yes" to having an eTA and seeing what they say, but I know people who did NOT get an eTA (how one can miss it when flying AC is beyond me but anyway) and were told to get it on their cell at the aiport if they wanted to fly.

It doesn't work this way. eTA must be applied for in advance, and once approved it's linked to your passport number. So when the airline scans your passport it will automatically issue a board or no-board response based on if you have an eTA or not. The airlines don't need to ask specifically for it, since even if you show them the eTA approval on your email they can't override what's on their system. They may be asking if you got an eTA or asking about PR status, if they see a no-board response and are trying to figure out why.

Foreign nationals that try to fly without getting the eTA in advance can always try to apply for one last-minute at the airport, but in many cases approval is not instant and could take hours or days to get an approval. Obviously this would not help for an immediate boarding.

Agree that if the eTA is electronic, why cant it flag up as "valid" for those with PR? Seems stupid.

Because PRs are not eligible to hold eTAs. eTAs are meant for foreign nationals only. In at least one case, eTA was cancelled after becoming a PR. We have yet to see a case of a PR attempting to travel on still-active eTA alone with no PR card.

Oh, and the last time i checked in online with Air Canada? They requested my PR details, at online checkin, on my cell phone.
And still had to show it when getting my bag tagged.

When buying your ticket or checking in, you must have included info that indicated you were a PR. AC website has no way of determining otherwise if some random traveler is a PR or not.

 

[jc94]

It doesn't work this way. eTA must be applied for in advance, and once approved it's linked to your passport number. So when the airline scans your passport it will automatically issue a board or no-board response based on if you have an eTA or not. The airlines don't need to ask specifically for it, since even if you show them the eTA approval on your email they can't override what's on their system. They may be asking if you got an eTA or asking about PR status, if they see a no-board response and are trying to figure out why.

That's as may be, but every time I go to the counter I get asked if I have an eTA after handing over my passport

Foreign nationals that try to fly without getting the eTA in advance can always try to apply for one last-minute at the airport, but in many cases approval is not instant and could take hours or days to get an approval. Obviously this would not help for an immediate boarding.

Correct, although again I've spoken to a few people on flights who did this without issues. The only people I know who had a delay were providing UCI details from visa/permits/PR applications.
Everyone I know or have spoken to, excluding these situations, got a reply almost instantly. I imagine it does depend upon where someone is entering from and on what passport though.

Because PRs are not eligible to hold eTAs. eTAs are meant for foreign nationals only. In at least one case, eTA was cancelled after becoming a PR. We have yet to see a case of a PR attempting to travel on still-active eTA alone with no PR card.

When buying your ticket or checking in, you must have included info that indicated you were a PR. AC website has no way of determining otherwise if some random traveler is a PR or not.

I'm not saying PRs should be able to apply for an eTA. I'm saying that whatever system tells airlines if one has an eTA (or not) should ALSO be able to point out if one has PR.
Especially if the system actually just says "eligible to board" - rather than "eTA held".

There is nowhere when buying a ticket to indicate you are PR. Not with any AC/UA anyway. Not even APIS stores this. And I know people who have struggled to check in online even with a PR card - and I'm talking about people who fly very frequently.

 

[Rob_TO]

That's as may be, but every time I go to the counter I get asked if I have an eTA after handing over my passport

May just be a standard question the airline staff ask upfront so they'll be prepared if they see a no-board indication.

Correct, although again I've spoken to a few people on flights who did this without issues. The only people I know who had a delay were providing UCI details from visa/permits/PR applications.
Everyone I know or have spoken to, excluding these situations, got a reply almost instantly. I imagine it does depend upon where someone is entering from and on what passport though.

Only experience I have in applying for eTA was when my wife's mom visited last year. In her case I would have thought she was lowest risk possible, yet the eTA took around 2 days to get approved. No idea why.

I'm not saying PRs should be able to apply for an eTA. I'm saying that whatever system tells airlines if one has an eTA (or not) should ALSO be able to point out if one has PR.
Especially if the system actually just says "eligible to board" - rather than "eTA held".

This would be the ideal way. And would for certain prevent anyone traveling on eTa or visas obtained prior to becoming a PR.
I agree that if eTA status can be linked to passport, then PR status should be able to easy enough as well.

There is nowhere when buying a ticket to indicate you are PR. Not with any AC/UA anyway. Not even APIS stores this. And I know people who have struggled to check in online even with a PR card - and I'm talking about people who fly very frequently.

Haven't used AC for a while, but I imagine there are questions around status or if you need eTA/visas to enter Canada. If 2 random people without a Canadian passport purchase a ticket - 1 a foreign national and 1 a PR, there is literally no way for AC to know what the status is of each unless there were some specific questions that allowed them to determine status. i.e. if someone keeps getting a field about entering the PR card, it means they previously indicated they don't require other documentation to go to Canada so by default must be a PR

 

[spyfy]

This would be the ideal way. And would for certain prevent anyone traveling on eTa or visas obtained prior to becoming a PR.
I agree that if eTA status can be linked to passport, then PR status should be able to easy enough as well.

I think this is the kind of idea that might sound great but would actually be hard to implement. Passport and PR card are pretty independent. What if I get a new passport halfway through the validity of my PR card? I would have to formally apply to CIC to link my new passport number to my PR status. That would be another hurdle where they would need to check your RO etc etc. So now we would have to prove RO even more often than every five years.

For an eTA, the passport link is no problem since we are just talking about tourists and a process that only takes minutes and works completely electronically (since no RO or similar things need to be checked). So if they later have a new passport they just reapply and done.

Simply linking the PR status to date of birth and name wouldn't work, particularly for those who have different names on different legal documents (e.g. when your last name got truncated on your PR card which apparently happens for long last names. Or when the transliteration of a non latin-character name is different in your passport and your PR card etc). And in some cases, names change. So again there would have to be an additional application process to keep this database updated.

On the other hand I really don't see why PRs shouldn't be able to apply for an eTA. What would be so bad about that? Maybe I'm missing something here? Like what is the government's argument. It can't be that "all PRs must be treated equally" since we all know that US-citizen PRs don't need an eTA or a PR card to board.

 

[methyl]

I think this is the kind of idea that might sound great but would actually be hard to implement. Passport and PR card are pretty independent. What if I get a new passport halfway through the validity of my PR card? I would have to formally apply to CIC to link my new passport number to my PR status. That would be another hurdle where they would need to check your RO etc etc. So now we would have to prove RO even more often than every five years.

Why would they need to check RO if you got a new passport? They don't do it now, so why would they need to introduce that new process?

But in general, yes, I agree, CIC would need to spend more money to maintain a parallel process to ETA, where PR status is linked to passports. While trivial with initial passport - all details are already on file as part of PR application, with a new passport you would need to go through some kind of new process to relink.

On the other hand I really don't see why PRs shouldn't be able to apply for an eTA. What would be so bad about that? Maybe I'm missing something here? Like what is the government's argument. It can't be that "all PRs must be treated equally" since we all know that US-citizen PRs don't need an eTA or a PR card to board.

That is the bigger question - what is so prohibitive about PRs with ETAs?
If a PR comes from a visa-exempt country why should the rules be more stringent for this visa-exempt PR than for anyone else from the same country? As it stands this is what happens - PRs are made to jump through more hoops by having them go through additional lost time and expense of obtaining a PRTD.

I don't see any reason why PRTD is mandatory in this case other than some kind of artificial job security at diplomatic missions.

 

[Rob_TO]

On the other hand I really don't see why PRs shouldn't be able to apply for an eTA. What would be so bad about that?

Simple. They want to catch more PRs that don't meet the RO, so allowing them to apply for eTA and board a flight would allow more PRs not meeting the RO to easily "sneak" back into Canada as a foreign national without having their RO violation detected.

 

[methyl]

Simple. They want to catch more PRs that don't meet the RO, so allowing them to apply for eTA and board a flight would allow more PRs not meeting the RO to easily "sneak" back into Canada as a foreign national without having their RO violation detected.

The reality is that vast majority of those who wanted to "sneak" back into Canada can still do this through US, since we're talking about visa-exempt countries, with exception of only a few differences in visa exemptions between US and Canada.

The option to evaluate and catch is still there at the port of entry - nobody passes by CBSA when landing at the airport, so what's the point of an additional check? If necessary they can still be referred. And if PR who decided not to make Canada home really wants to enter they still have the option of renouncing PR status right then and there and continue to enter as any tourist, so why prevent them from boarding a plane in first place?

If they really wanted to "catch" more PRs that don't meet the RO they would have a very strict policy for referrals at land entry or airports. As we know that's not the case.

 

[Rob_TO]

The reality is that vast majority of those who wanted to "sneak" back into Canada can still do this through US, since we're talking about visa-exempt countries, with exception of only a few differences in visa exemptions between US and Canada.

It's more difficult logistically to travel into Canada via USA land border, vs simply flying direct to Canada.

Also in forcing PRs not meeting RO to land borders, CBSA may be looking for PR RO violations more diligently at land borders these days vs at airports.

And if PR who decided not to make Canada home really wants to enter they still have the option of renouncing PR status right then and there and continue to enter as any tourist, so why prevent them from boarding a plane in first place?

They are not being prevented. Such a PR can easily renounce their PR status from abroad, and then simply apply for an eTA to travel as a true foreign national.