spyfy said:
Despite the fact that I very much dislike most of the changes this bill brings, I don't see any practical difference for PRs now that eTA is in effect: At the moment, the airline employee at the gate wouldn't let you board the flight without a PR card or PRTD. If Canada would begin with border preclearance, it would be a border officer that wouldn't let you board the flight without a PR card or PRTD. I don't see a difference, but maybe I am missing something?
Yeah. As also noted by
zardoz, a PR with a valid PR card could be denied, if it is determined the PR is inadmissible, from entering Canada . . . that is, from "entering Canada through the preclearance area or preclearance perimeter."
zardoz said:
. . . you can be rejected for travel even if you are in possession of a valid PR card, if a CBSA officer SUSPECTS that you don't meet the Residency Obligation requirements.
Clarification: It would require more than a CBSA officer
suspecting a breach of the PR RO. If a CBSA officer is of the opinion that the PR is inadmissible, the CBSA may prepare a report to that effect (see Section 48(4) in Bill C-23). That in itself requires more than a mere suspicion. But then a delegate of the Minister (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, not the IRCC Minister) must be of the opinion the report is
well-founded in order to deny entry into Canada (see section 48(5) in the Bill).
The full impact of this is not clear. Nor is the procedure. Since for immigration purposes, the preclearance area is "outside Canada" (for custom purposes, it is considered to be
in Canada), relative to decisions based on the breach of the PR Residency Obligation this would appear to be a
residency determination made "outside Canada" which will result in the loss of PR status unless timely appealed.
The CBC article, based on what immigration lawyer Michael Greene said, says PRs will still have the option to drive to the border and be allowed entry.
But if this is applied to PRs with a valid PR card, they should also be able to go to a U.S. airport which has flights to Pearson or Vancouver from U.S. airports where such flights are not subject to preclearance, and still be able to board a flight to Canada. Preclearance will not be universal.
In any event, on its face the provisions in Bill C-23 will allow for issuing inadmissibility reports at the preclearance locations in the U.S., which would not just preclude the PR from boarding the flight but which will apparently trigger loss of PR status unless appealed. And on its face this could be applied to those PRs in possession of a valid PR card.
How it would actually be implemented in practice would depend on the rules adopted by regulation, as is prescribed in section 48(7) of Bill C-23 . . . perhaps the regulations will prescribe that PRs in possession of a valid PR card are presumed to be admissible and not subject to being denied entry based on a breach of the PR RO. But on its face, 48(1), 48(4), and 48(5) in the Bill will allow the Minister's delegate to deny a PR with a PR card entry into Canada if the PR is determined to be inadmissible.
Reminder: there are 8 categories of grounds for deeming a PR inadmissible. Breach of the PR RO is just one of these. It is the only one, however, which can result in a Removal Order without first being referred to an Inadmissibility Hearing.
Again, for text of Bill C-23 see
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8380353&Col=1
And note that this Bill is a long, long way from becoming law. Contrary to what the CBC article says, it is not so clear this is likely to be adopted as is . . . particularly given changes in the American Administration. The Bill was presented in a First Reading in June of last year and has not progressed at all since then.
By the way, there has been preclearance procedures on both sides of the border for quite a long while (I first experienced it 17 years ago, almost to the day), each respectively provided by the other country's officers located respectively abroad . . . but this is a relatively small program affecting only a limited number of flights between the countries . . . it allows for direct flights to smaller cities in the other country, to cities where the destination airport does not have regular border control facilities. This allows such direct flights without having to route the flights through major hubs in the destination country.
It will continue to be more efficient for each respective country to conduct its border control screening on its own soil for most purposes.
