Lewzy:
The posts by
PhdStream appear to be credible, and indicate experience that the PR TD may be obtained reasonably, albeit not without some inconvenience (having to personally go to the Embassy to make the application). That appears to be the appropriate way to approach this.
As I previously noted,
things are changing. Observations and advice based on past experience, relative to PRs boarding flights using a visa-exempt passport, is inherently no longer trustworthy, no longer much of any indication about how this will go at the airport.
In this regard, it is worth remembering that the rule has long been that PRs need to show a valid PR card or PR TD to board a flight destined for Canada. The fact that, in the past, enforcement of this rule was near impossible for visa-exempt travelers, and thus the general consensus has been that there is no problem for visa-exempt PRs who cannot show a PR card or PR TD,
NO longer can be relied upon. And very soon (March 15, 2016) will be totally, conclusively inapplicable.
The online information is regularly updated, and observations like this are appreciated:
zardoz said:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/eta-start.asp
Reminder
You cannot apply for an eTA if you are:
a Canadian citizen or a dual Canadian citizen,
a Canadian permanent resident, or
a U.S. citizen. (However, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. need an eTA if travelling by air.)
(Bold type in the original)
That is much as I had guessed. An easy guess actually. Obviously the program is in large part designed to plug some of the holes in the whole visa-exempt system. As this and other forums have well documented, the abuse of the visa-exempt system by PRs has been so widespread many have long thought of it as actually consistent with the rules. It is no surprise that the eTA program would, in addition to its other purposes, attempt to close this loop hole.
Rob_TO said:
Right, but this will only really start affecting people starting March 2016. Until then PRs not in possession of their PR cards and with a visa-exempt passport should still be able to travel as visitors since no eTA will be required.
It is
NOT true that the eTA process will really start affecting people starting March 2016.
eTA is already available and widely in use. Not all visa-exempt nationalities are accommodated by the system yet. There are other bugs. And it is not as yet mandatory. But, despite not being fully implemented, the system is largely in place and active.
Leading to this:
Rob_TO said:
Is there any basis or evidence of this? In terms of screening, remember as of now the only way an airline can tell if a traveler is a PR, is if the traveler tells them. They do not have access to Canada/CIC's database of PRs (that I know of). So for a PR traveling without a PR card or an eTA but with a visa-exempt passport, the airline will only see them as a visitor to Canada. The eTA is not mandatory until March 2016, so until then the only question is if the airline will deny boarding to someone without a return ticket on hand. If so, then my initial workaround of simply buying a fully refundable return ticket on the spot should be suitable as the traveler would satisfy any conditions needed for travel, which are basically a visa-exempt passport and a return ticket (if needed). There are really no other screening measures necessary until the eTA system becomes law.
Once eTA system is mandatory in March 2016, that is when the whole situation completely changes regarding travel documents.
This was in response to a statement I made in a previous post:
"My suspicion is that even though the eTA is not yet mandatory, that some or many airlines are already distinguishing passengers who have the eTA and those who do not. Those who do not are probably being subject to further screening."
Obviously I couched this observation in language indicating I do not know to what extent airlines are already using the eTA system in screening boarding passengers, and distinguishing those without eTA, since I used terms like my "suspicion," and "probably."
But again, the eTA is already largely implemented. March 15, 2016 is the target date for which it becomes
mandatory, fully implemented, such that after that date an airline
cannot allow a passenger to board based on displaying a visa-exempt passport without eTA.
Prior to March 15, however, airlines are still charged with the duty to screen passengers for authorization to enter Canada prior to allowing the passenger to board a flight. The fact the airline
may allow boarding without eTA up to March 15 does
NOT assure travelers the airline will allow boarding if a problem is perceived. What is different now is that there are various indications that in some circumstances the airlines are indeed looking more closely to see if there is a problem . . . my sense (FWIW) is that among those
some circumstances are travelers without return tickets or travelers still without the eTA.
For emphasis: Given that the eTA system is well into the transition to being fully implemented, very little reliance should be given to experiences based on the fact that in the past the airlines made little or no effort to screen who might be a PR rather than, relative to Canada, a Foreign National who may be allowed to board a flight based on the authorization to enter Canada indicated by a visa-exempt passport.
During this implementation period, of course many if not most airlines with flights to Canada, perhaps all as of now or soon, are able to identify passengers who already have eTA.
Which means that visa-exempt travelers without eTA will also be obvious. And the closer in time it is to the fully mandatory date, the more the traveler without the eTA will stand apart from those with eTA. To what extent this might trigger an airline to be, say,
difficult about allowing a passenger to board the flight, is not at all easy to predict. Most people I know are not fond of risking being precluded from boarding a flight.
The formal requirements, however, are clear: the rules call for PRs to display either a valid PR card or a PR TD as showing the authorization to enter Canada which is required for boarding a flight to Canada. Either of these will suffice. Or there is still the alternative, for some, of flying to the U.S. and traveling by private vehicle to Canada from there.
