Please help! Can I renter Canada in such situation?

[Rob_TO]

For these individuals, these PRS, there is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that following the rules will work the best in avoiding any delay in returning to Canada. There is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that the best course of action is for a PR to have a valid PR card when traveling abroad. Alternatively, the next best approach is to be prepared to obtain a PR TD.

Wrong. There is doubt. Applying for a PR TD can involve physically mailing your passport to a visa office, having the PR TD processed, and having your passport mailed back to you. There have been stories of people having PR TDs taking much longer than expected. For someone with a short timeline to work with, simply attempting to apply for a PR TD could lead to one being stuck outside Canada. Trying to board a plane as a foreign national and not mentioning your PR status, could be the less risky option in some cases.

Lying to the airline is technically a crime. Nobody has ever been punished for it as far as I've been able to find, but there is a record if CBSA ever decides to look. You can gamble, for now. It's less risky to do things right with a PRTD or PR card.

There will not be a record of lying to an airline as the airline doesn't record your entire conversation with them for delivery to CBSA. All that will show in CBSA records is that you boarded a flight as a visa-exempt foreign national. It will not state if an airline specifically asked for PR status, and what your answer was.

 

[dabas]

Hasn't the eTA had a grace period till the fall, why can't the OP board on plane on visa exempt passport as he does not need to fill eTA till fall..I may be totally wrong but this is my understanding

 

[kateg]

There will not be a record of lying to an airline as the airline doesn't record your entire conversation with them for delivery to CBSA. All that will show in CBSA records is that you boarded a flight as a visa-exempt foreign national.

At which point, you have caused them to improperly apply the IRPA, as you aren't a visa-exempt foreign national. There is no need to record the conversation, as you have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. It wasn't the airline that did it - you did.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

At which point, you have caused them to improperly apply the IRPA, as you aren't a visa-exempt foreign national. There is no need to record the conversation, as you have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. It wasn't the airline that did it - you did.

CBSA doesn't care. As I said, it was a CBSA officer who told my partner that he could return to Canada on the strength of his passport if his PR card didn't arrive in time.

 

[dpenabill]

Hasn't the eTA had a grace period till the fall, why can't the OP board on plane on visa exempt passport as he does not need to fill eTA till fall..I may be totally wrong but this is my understanding

The OP here, mikePR, is a PR. There is no eTA for PRs. PRs are not eligible for eTA even if they have a visa-exempt passport.

In particular, actually eTA has no direct impact on PRs. eTA is for Foreign Nationals only, FNs with visa-exempt passports. PRs are not FNs. Even if a PR has a visa-exempt passport, the PR is not a FN.

As for the enforcement of eTA, yes, there is a "leniency" period now. Whether that constitutes what you are referring to as a "grace period" I cannot say. I do not know what you mean by "grace period." In any event, eTA was implemented more than six months ago (a year or so later than originally planned) and became mandatory March 15, 2016. All visa-exempt travelers are now specifically advised that "as of March 15, 2016, visa-exempt foreign nationals are expected to have an eTA to fly to or transit through Canada."

See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1235&top=16 for example.

Again, however, this is subject to a "leniency period,", the duration and effect of which is somewhat indefinite, and probably deliberately not clearly stated to avoid giving the erroneous impression that the eTA requirements are not yet implemented. eTA has been implemented for more than half a year now.

IRCC's FAQs regarding the eTA leniency period are here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/results-by-topic.asp?st=16.7

Moreover, this particular page, and there are probably two or three dozen or even more pages at the IRCC and CBSA sites, all have the same exact highlighted message. This message also begins:

"As of March 15, 2016, visa-exempt foreign nationals are expected to have an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) to fly to or transit through Canada."

That highlighted message also describes the leniency period, stating:

"However, from March 15, 2016 until fall 2016, travellers who do not have an eTA can board their flight, as long as they have appropriate travel documents, such as a valid passport."

The highlighted message does not illuminate much about how the airlines will approach visa-exempt travelers, but it is clear that the airlines now recognize which travelers using visa-exempt passports have eTA versus those who do not. What effect this has for any particular traveler is not clear.

The proposition which, to my view, is clearly overly-broad at best, and almost certainly not going to work for every PR, is that during the leniency period this will have no effect on a visa-exempt PR's capacity to board a flight without a PR card or PR TD. That is, that despite the actual rule (PR card or PR TD or not allowed to board a flight to Canada), PRs can rely on using a visa-exempt passport.

The difference of opinion is simply a matter of degree. My view is that even if most visa-exempt PRs still have the capacity to board flights by presenting their passport, no PR card or PR TD, there is nonetheless some risk the rules will be enforced for some PRs and thus, as the IRCC site says, if a PR fails to have a PR card or PR TD, the PR "may face delays or be prevented from boarding."

In contrast, the other opinion here is that PRs can rely on using a visa-exempt passport to board a flight to Canada.

But here is what it explicitly says in the IRCC FAQ:

"I am a permanent resident of Canada. Do I need an eTA if I leave and want to return to Canada by air?

No, you do not need an eTA if you are a permanent resident of Canada.

However, you must travel with a valid Permanent Resident Card or a Permanent Resident Travel Document. Otherwise, you may face delays or be prevented from boarding your flight to Canada.

The same highlighted in blue message about eTA I referenced above also appears on the page for this FAQ.

The OP here, mikePR, failed to bring his PR card when he traveled. His last post posed this query: "I guess its worth a shot to try boarding the plane without PRTD?"

I did not directly answer this. Whether it is worth trying, I am certain, is an individual choice dependent on the particular situation. I steer clear of making overt recommendations for these sorts of situations. I seriously doubt the credibility of those who make definite recommendations in such situations, and particularly those who recommend a course of action contrary to following the rules, and especially so for those who have better alternatives.

My response was to remind the OP what the rule is and to highlight that it is not as if IRCC or CBSA is clearly communicating that the "leniency period" means the rule for PRs is suspended or will not be enforced.

And actually, in contrast, there are additional cautions, admonitions, and advisories scattered throughout the IRCC and CBSA pages. See this advisory for example:

"As always, if you are a permanent resident of Canada and a citizen of a visa-exempt country or a citizen of a visa-required country, you need to travel with your Canadian permanent resident (PR) card or permanent resident travel document when flying to Canada. Otherwise, you may not be able to board your flight to Canada."

this is found at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/apply-who.asp and in the section under the heading "Permanent residents of Canada"

That particular advisory goes on to say:

"To note, Canadian permanent residents who are also citizens of a visa-exempt country are not eligible to apply for an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) as eTA was set up to screen foreigners for admissibility to enter Canada."


By the way, to be clear, despite the so-called "leniency period," IRCC now considers eTA to be mandatory. Earlier this week (March 15, 2016) IRCC updated its PDIs (see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/updates/2016/2016-03-15.asp ) which states "As of March 15, 2016, visa-exempt, non-U.S. foreign nationals are expected to have an electronic travel authorization (eTA) to fly to Canada or transit through Canada by air. "

The note as to the leniency period is included here as well. But nonetheless the PDI for client services further states:

"Issues encountered at airports

Air carriers have procedures and scripts to use in various client service scenarios.

For example, if an eTA-required traveller has not applied for an eTA before checking in for their flight, the air carrier may direct them to the eTA website to apply for their eTA.

If the eTA cannot be issued in advance of the departure of the flight, the traveller will not be permitted to board."

Obviously, the leniency period allows an airline to go ahead and allow the traveler to board the flight without eTA. What we do not know is how this decision is made, that is, what is the criteria for allowing leniency. None of the advisories so much as suggest that it is anywhere near so simple as it has been in the past, that if the passenger shows his or her visa-exempt passport to the airline the traveler is then waived aboard without more.

Wrong. There is doubt. Applying for a PR TD can involve physically mailing your passport to a visa office, having the PR TD processed, and having your passport mailed back to you. There have been stories of people having PR TDs taking much longer than expected. For someone with a short timeline to work with, simply attempting to apply for a PR TD could lead to one being stuck outside Canada. Trying to board a plane as a foreign national and not mentioning your PR status, could be the less risky option in some cases.

How does the problem applying for a PR TD raise any doubt at all about what I said there is no doubt regarding; what I said:
"For [the individuals I described, not every PR], these PRS, there is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that following the rules will work the best in avoiding any delay in returning to Canada. There is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that the best course of action is for a PR to have a valid PR card when traveling abroad.

It baffles me that you quibble with this and insist there is some doubt about this. There really is no doubt. It is simply best to carry a currently valid PR card.

Beyond that, the next best alternative, is being prepared to obtain a PR TD, and that is pure prophylactic common-sense. It would be a bad, bad idea to be abroad without a PR card and not be in a position to be able to obtain a PR TD if need be. I do not recall seeing anyone here with the slightest measure of credibility recommend that a PR who, for example, has issues with PR Residency Obligation compliance, travel abroad relying a visa-exempt passport to return to Canada.

I try to be careful in my use of words. I have tried to make it clear I am not recommending any particular individual follow this or that course of action. The best course is almost always to follow the rules. The least risky course for PRs is to be sure to have their PR card when traveling abroad.

Sure, the best approach is not always the available one. That does not raise any doubt about what is the best approach, which again is so simple it baffles me you challenged it, which is to carry a currently valid PR card when traveling abroad. After all, the IRPA specifically prescribes, in Subsection 31(2)(b) of IRPA:

[unless an officer determines otherwise] a person who is outside Canada and who does not present a status document indicating permanent resident status is presumed not to have permanent resident status.

see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-8.html#h-20

It is patently unwise to be outside Canada without a PR card or at least prepared to obtain a PR TD. Even if the PR has a visa-exempt passport.

There will not be a record of lying to an airline as the airline doesn't record your entire conversation with them for delivery to CBSA. All that will show in CBSA records is that you boarded a flight as a visa-exempt foreign national. It will not state if an airline specifically asked for PR status, and what your answer was.

There's a chance the airline will ask your status. If you lie to them, they won't know, and there will almost certainly be no problems. If they do ask, and you tell them truth, there's a good chance they won't let you board. I've personally had issues in the past - my PR card took a long time to arrive.

Lying to the airline is technically a crime. Nobody has ever been punished for it as far as I've been able to find, but there is a record if CBSA ever decides to look. You can gamble, for now. It's less risky to do things right with a PRTD or PR card.

I doubt deceiving an airline about one's PR status amounts to a crime. Airline personnel are not government officers. And, after all, the PR is indeed authorized to enter Canada.

I challenge the notion, however, that the airlines will not know.

I am not sure what the airlines will or will not know. I do know this is changing.

In particular, I do not know the scope of information the airline will directly access in the CBSA’s Interactive Advance Passenger Information (IAPI) system. I know that as of now the airlines do use that system to check for whether a traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport has eTA. That happens now. Today. eTA is not indicated in the traveler's passport. It is not a document issued to the traveler. It is electronic. It is only indicated in the IAPI system. As of March 15, 2016, at the time of check-in the traveler's information is submitted, by the airline, to the IAPI system (administered by CBSA) and an automated query is conducted using the traveler's passport number and country of issuance. Before a boarding pass can be printed, the system must provide an "ok to board" message to the air carrier.

As I noted before, which was ignored, the IAPI initiative is dramatically changing the nature and scope of air passenger screening . . . and it is now done at check-in, not just at the time of boarding. It is done interactively with CBSA systems.

The IAPI is an enhancement of both the Advance Passenger Information system and the Passenger Name Record system. Again, it is interactive: the information can flow both directions, not just from the airlines to CBSA but from CBSA back to the airlines in response to the particular traveler's information and name record. And eTA.

How it will work during the leniency period is not revealed (methinks this is deliberately so). The PDI indicates that an affirmative decision to allow boarding must come from the CBSA system before boarding will be allowed. If this "OK" is only dependent on whether there is eTA or not, that would signal there are better odds of continuing to avoid enforcement of the rule to a PR (since not having eTA does not totally preclude boarding). Still NO guarantee, just better odds. But as I noted, now the airlines are not simply making an independent decision, based on looking at the traveler's passport, to allow boarding or not. As of right now, at the least there is a query made to the AIPI system for the traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport.



Frankly I have a hard time understanding why there is so much insistence that there is no chance the rules will be enforced against any PR with a visa-exempt passport, especially given the current extent of cautions and advisories posted at the CBSA and IRCC web pages. This insistence that it is for sure OK to rely on being allowed to board a flight by showing a visa-exempt passport comes across like insisting that there is no chance of getting a speeding ticket for driving 130k on the QEW. Sure, thousands do it every day (and over the years, I have done my share, even faster on more than a few occasions) and are not pulled over by OPP. Even though I do it myself, I would not argue it is OK let alone insist it is always OK, and I definitely do not recommend cavalierly passing the OPP at 130k. Clue: if a there is obviously a speed trap ahead on the highway, not a good idea to leave it on cruise at 130k.

The IAPI may be like a permanently installed speed trap. But given the "leniency period" are they actually running the radar yet? Maybe not. I would not bet on it not running before fall. My guess is that among the "scripts" the air carriers have to use in "various client service scenarios" (see quote from IRCC information about issues encountered at airports above) the software (which generates the query and the response to the query from CBSA's IAPI system) will soon identify PRs even if it is not already doing so as of today.

 

[Rob_TO]

How does the problem applying for a PR TD raise any doubt at all about what I said there is no doubt regarding; what I said:
"For [the individuals I described, not every PR], these PRS, there is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that following the rules will work the best in avoiding any delay in returning to Canada. There is NO DOUBT, none whatsoever, that the best course of action is for a PR to have a valid PR card when traveling abroad.

Ya obviously we're not talking about PRs purposefully leaving their PR cards at home when traveling. We are talking about situations where its unavoidable and you find yourself outside Canada without a PR card.
"Following the rules" means that in 100% of the time you apply for a PR TD, period. What I'm saying is that in "following the rules" by simply applying for the PR TD, it could lead to one being stranded outside Canada if the PR TD is delayed or your passport is lost/delayed in the mail.

You can write as many 2000 word essays as you like, simple fact still remains that countless PRs have successfully traveled without PR card on their visa-exempt passport alone, and this will continue to be an option as long as eTA is not yet mandatory, and an airline has no way of determining PR status until y ou tell them. As soon as either of these officially changes, of course then the option is completely off the table. So far I've yet to see a report of someone being denied boarding for not presenting a PR card and not telling the airline they're a PR, for any reason that a regular foreign national wouldn't also have been denied. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be allowed boarding as it's not guaranteed for any traveler, just that the burden of proof will be the same as a foreign national.

I'm simply showing the pros and cons of each way and the final decision on which option to use is entirely up to the traveler. I was in the exact same situation some time ago in spending 1 week in Mexico, and there is no chance at all I would have started mailing my wife's passport around the country hoping we got the PR TD back in time. If we didn't, it would have caused thousands of dollars in cancelled flights and extended hotel stays. To us, the preferable option was to not cancel a trip we had booked a long time before, and to proceed with breaking official CIC policy in trying to return to Canada on just her visa-exempt passport.

At which point, you have caused them to improperly apply the IRPA, as you aren't a visa-exempt foreign national. There is no need to record the conversation, as you have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. It wasn't the airline that did it - you did.

If you simply present your visa-exempt passport and the airline proceeds to check you in without asking for your PR card, not sure if i would call that outright lying to the airline to gain boarding. Again all that CBSA will see is that you boarded a flight on a visa-exempt passport. There is realistically no chance of trouble coming from CBSA on this, so to suggest otherwise is just fear mongering using a theoretical scenario (CBSA coming after the traveler) that has never happened nor is likely to ever happen in the future.

 

[Rob_TO]

In summary I would say the pros and cons of each way are as follows. Decision on which way is preferable is really up to any given traveler and their unique circumstances.

Applying for PR TD
PRO
- following all rules of CIC/CBSA/Airlines, should be allowed boarding on a 1-way flight to Canada no problem
CON
- cost and inconvenience of doing paperwork/picking up PR TD
- if need to mail passport, real risk of delay in getting passport back or lost entirely in the mail. This risk varies by what country you are in and where the visa office is. Shorter time you have to your flight date, the riskier it gets.
- if CIC has any questions on RO, may be further delays to prove you are actually in compliance, or cause revocation of PR status if you don't meet RO

Flying on visa-exempt passport (before eTA becomes mandatory)
PRO
- no need to apply for PR TD
CON
- need to deceive airline to pose as a foreign national, indirectly by simply not volunteering your PR status, or directly by lying to them if asked if you're a PR
- burden of proof would be same as a foreign national, so may need proof of return or onward ticket from Canada
- right now there is no way for airline to determine PR status unless you tell them, however this could change at any time so if airlines can suddenly see PR status on their computer you may be denied boarding. If/when they get this ability before eTA is mandatory, is anyone's guess

 

[dpenabill]

" . . . this will continue to be an option as long as eTA is not yet mandatory, and an airline has no way of determining PR status until you tell them."

But eTA is mandatory. What that means given the leniency period is not entirely clear. At the least, however, it means that the process of handing the airlines a visa-exempt passport and based on that the airlines allows boarding NO longer applies. The airlines now must submit the passenger's information to CBSA and receive a response from CBSA before a boarding pass can even be printed.

What appears to be overlooked is that things not only will change, but are already changing, and indeed have already changed. Recommendations based on past experience are no longer valid.

To be clear: eTA is mandatory, now! In my previous post I cite and link the PDI issued just this past week, on March 15, stating that eTA is mandatory as of that date, as of March 15, 2016.

What does this mean given the so-called leniency period?

I am certain that it does not mean screening for eTA is suspended or delayed. (Indeed, many airlines at numerous airports have been screening for eTA since last August.)

The only information CBSA or IRCC officially offer is that the leniency period means Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports will be allowed to board a flight to Canada upon presentation of proper Travel Documents. There is no clarification as to how this is facilitated, in practice, given the mandatory implementation of the eTA program.

There is no clarification regarding what impact this will have on PRs with visa-exempt passports. Except the advisories.

There are a lot of clues how PRs will be affected. The most salient and pertinent clue for PRs is the pervasive advisory that PRs, both PRs with a visa-exempt passport and those with a passport from a non-exempt country, may face delays or be denied boarding if they do not have either a PR card or PR TD. (Those who do not seriously take into account the IRCC and CBSA advisories regarding this, which are the current, as in now applicable advisories, are ignoring the changes which have already taken effect.)

What I interpret the fact that eTA is NOW mandatory to mean, at the least, is that as part of the check-in procedure, before a boarding pass can even be printed (let alone the passenger allowed to actually board a flight to Canada), the passenger's information must be submitted to CBSA, to the IAPI system. The airline can no longer independently examine a visa-exempt passport and based on that allow a passenger to board the flight, or for that matter to even print the boarding pass.

The airline must submit the API to CBSA and then needs an "OK to board" response to print the boarding pass.

What is not clear is how that process will work during the leniency period. That it is mandatory signals the procedure itself is mandatory, that is the submission of passenger information to IAPI and the need for clearance in response to the automated query, but it does not illuminate how it is that an "OK to board" clearance is given for visa-exempt passengers who do not have eTA . . . acknowledging that during the leniency period the system will somehow facilitate allowing visa-exempt FNs to board a flight despite not having eTA.

What is also not at all clear are the reasons why some believe this will have no impact at all on PRs during the leniency period, that the process will work very much as it did in prior years. The mere fact there is a "leniency period" does not, in itself, explain why they are confident that now, when a PR's passport number, country of issuance, and name is submitted to CBSA in advance (via the interactive system) before a boarding pass can even be printed, the system will clear the passenger to board without requiring the PR to present either a PR card or PR TD. Make no mistake: a PR's passport number is electronically connected to the PR's UCI in the CBSA systems. The system can immediately identify who is a PR. (Sure there are exceptions, gaps in record linking, and such, but most of the time most PR's passports will automatically identify that individual as a PR.)

I have the impression there is a failure to grasp how the eTA system works. On the surface it is quite simple. Once a traveler applies for and is given eTA, that passenger and that particular passport are, in effect, cleared as to admissibility and security requirements on at least a level sufficient to allow boarding flights to Canada. It is good for a maximum of five years or the validity date of the passport (whichever expires sooner). The individual, however, is not given any document which is to be shown to airlines regarding this. It is not affixed in the passport itself. Screening for eTA is not done by asking passengers if they have eTA. Rather the airline submits the passenger's information into the CBSA's system and the system responds to the airline.

That is, the airline ascertains whether or not a passenger has eTA via a query to CBSA and CBSA's response. And this is happening now. Mandatory now.

Thus, attendant the check-in (not the boarding process) the traveler's passport number, country of issuance, and name, are submitted to the CBSA, an automated query is conducted, and the airline waits for a response. This is what happens now. It has been happening at many airports since last August, but is now mandatory for all carriers offering passenger service to Canada.

Those who insist that nothing has changed for PRs with visa-exempt passports, and won't change until the leniency period is over, must believe that the IAPI response will indicate yes-eTA or no-eTA, and no more (or else that the leniency period means the airline is not even submitting the information which initiates the query; but I am sure this is not the case, that the process for submitting passenger information and getting a response to the automated query is now in effect).

While I am sure the airlines are submitting the information which initiates the query despite the leniency period, I am not sure what range in responses there is. It is possible the response for a traveler presenting a visa-exempt passport is limited to yes-eTA or no-eTA. My strong sense is that the system is at the least more robust than that, but how much so is not public information.

We know that during the leniency period the airlines will allow visa-exempt Foreign Nationals to board the flight even if the response from CBSA/IAPI is that the passenger does not have eTA. We know that CBSA has provided procedures and scripts for the airlines to follow when there are issues, and CBSA overseas liaison officers are also available to assist. We do not know the content of the procedures and scripts. It is easy to extrapolate the scripts call for asking passengers without eTA certain questions. We do not know what instructions the airlines are given, applicable during the leniency period, if a given passenger with a visa-exempt passport is identified as a PR. While the instructions might even explicitly call for flexibility or overt leniency, during the leniency period, the advisories at the CBSA and IRCC sites suggest otherwise.

Bottom-line, the proposition that the airlines no longer know a PR is a PR unless the PR divulges this to the airlines is now questionable. The airline will for sure know the PR does not have eTA, and this will come in response to a query made to CBSA. What additional information might be indicated in the response from CBSA is, as of this juncture, unknown; but it should be readily recognizable that the response from CBSA could easily reveal the traveler's PR status to the airlines, and that the airlines have been given explicit scripts to follow in such cases.

As for the long essays, I previously declined to go into these details precisely because they are complex and require lengthy exposition to explain, and they really do not illuminate all that much about the scope of actual risk involved, but rather simply illustrate there is, as I have said before, a significant or substantial risk the rules for PRs could be enforced, that there is no guarantee PRs can, so to say, simply lie their way onto an airplane with a visa-exempt passport.

That is, all this explanation does not change the simple fact that PRs are better off being sure to have a currently valid PR card before traveling abroad. Absent that, there are risks involved, ranging from potential inconvenience to more severe difficulties.

 

[Rob_TO]

But eTA is mandatory. What that means given the leniency period is not entirely clear. At the least, however, it means that the process of handing the airlines a visa-exempt passport and based on that the airlines allows boarding NO longer applies. The airlines now must submit the passenger's information to CBSA and receive a response from CBSA before a boarding pass can even be printed.

To be clear: eTA is mandatory, now! In my previous post I cite and link the PDI issued just this past week, on March 15, stating that eTA is mandatory as of that date, as of March 15, 2016.

"Expected to have" DOES NOT EQUAL "mandatory". Since someone can walk up to an airline with no eTA and be allowed boarding, by definition it is not yet "mandatory". This is just basic english. "Mandatory" means that every single visa-exempt traveler will be required to arrive at the airline check-in with eTA already completed and approved. There is no wording on any government site that uses the words mandatory, required, etc.

So long (very long) story short... maybe airlines will be able to see your PR status, and maybe they won't. Until we see some first hand reports of PRs trying this and stating what the results were, all we are doing is guessing. Yes it's safer to get a PR TD if one can do it, but in some circumstances there are still reasons for PRs to try without it. I'm sure some will try until the new mandatory date over this leniency period.

 

[dpenabill]

"Expected to have" DOES NOT EQUAL "mandatory". Since someone can walk up to an airline with no eTA and be allowed boarding, by definition it is not yet "mandatory". This is just basic english. "Mandatory" means that every single visa-exempt traveler will be required to arrive at the airline check-in with eTA already completed and approved. There is no wording on any government site that uses the words mandatory, required, etc.

So long (very long) story short... maybe airlines will be able to see your PR status, and maybe they won't. Until we see some first hand reports of PRs trying this and stating what the results were, all we are doing is guessing. Yes it's safer to get a PR TD if one can do it, but in some circumstances there are still reasons for PRs to try without it. I'm sure some will try until the new mandatory date over this leniency period.

I largely agree with this summary. It states what I posted as soon as the government announced the leniency period for eTA.

Well, I also think and have said that the safer approach is for PRs to have or obtain a PR card prior to traveling abroad. Obtaining a PR TD is actually a poor alternative. And otherwise at the least being prepared to obtain a PR TD, in case the need for a PR TD arises.

In any event, for emphasis, this quote from your post essentially says, in slightly different language than mine, what I have been saying all along:

".. maybe airlines will be able to see your PR status, and maybe they won't. Until we see some first hand reports of PRs trying this and stating what the results were, all we are doing is guessing. Yes it's safer to get a PR TD if one can do it, but in some circumstances there are still reasons for PRs to try without it."

The difference is what I have said is even shorter:
" . . . as I have said before, [there is] a significant or substantial risk the rules for PRs could be enforced, that there is no guarantee PRs can, so to say, simply lie their way onto an airplane with a visa-exempt passport."


You and others challenged this repeatedly. You explicitly challenged my description of a "substantial risk" a PR might encounter enforcement of the rule requiring PRs to have a PR card or PR TD.

And canuck_in_uk has repeatedly insisted: "Right now, visa-exempt PRs can board on the strength of their passport, as they've always been able to."

That may be true for some, perhaps many, perhaps even most. (But at most, only temporarily.)

But there is a risk otherwise. It has been like pulling teeth with pasta pliers to make clear this rather simple observation. I thought the risk was obvious, especially given the extent to which IRCC and CBSA have posted advisories warning PRs that they may face delays or be denied boarding unless they have a PR card or PR TD. (I realize this forum is infiltrated by many CIC & IRCC bashers who are inclined to dismiss and deride overt communications from IRCC, but really, who can genuinely doubt the efficacy of these cautions posted by CBSA and IRCC? It is not as if IRCC, so to say, is just whistling Dixie.)



Regarding what "Mandatory" means:

Differences of opinion as to what the mandatory implementation of the eTA program means is of little or no practical import. What it means from the perspective of the government is what matters.

In contrast, the Program delivery update dated March 15, 2016, which I have cited and linked before (and is linked here as well) is titled "Mandatory implementation of the electronic travel authorization program for visa-exempt foreign nationals" and it then gives a summary of what this means, from the perspective of IRCC, no opinion necessary. It also contains links to both new instructions (as of March 15, 2016) and updated instructions.

That update and the linked instructions are what they are and they describe the implementation of the program to date, including instructions regarding what the leniency period means (with links to numerous FAQs regarding the leniency period).

In addition to the PDI update explicitly referring to the mandatory implementation of the program as of March 15, 2016, numerous FAQs continue to refer to the mandatory date as March 2016.

For those who are focused on when all visa-exempt travelers (with exceptions for U.S. citizens and some others) absolutely must have eTA prior to flying, the date of that is delayed for an indefinite "leniency" period (until "fall").

In contrast, however, (even though this is not explicitly spelled out in the PDIs as such) it appears that for air carriers offering passenger service to Canada, use of the system including for visa-exempt travelers did indeed become mandatory at least as of March 15, 2016. As I described in my previous post, this has to do with using the IAPI system for all passengers prior to even printing a boarding pass. While short of being absolutely certain, I believe this means all passengers must be cleared for boarding by the IAPI system, including visa-exempt passengers. The difference the leniency period makes is that eTA is not absolutely required for visa-exempt passengers to obtain this clearance and be allowed to board the flight.



what we do not know:

What we do not know is how, during the leniency period, the system is processing travelers with visa-exempt passports but no eTA. That is: How is it that these travelers are cleared to board a flight to Canada despite not having eTA? The government is not going to divulge such details to the public, for obvious reasons.

As you say, until there are reliable anecdotal reports it is difficult to extrapolate how this specifically affects PRs with visa-exempt passports. I would caution, however, that anecdotal reports will only illustrate how it might go for some (based on how it has in fact happened for at least those reporting what happened for them), not necessarily all PRs with visa-exempt passports. (I got my citizenship barely eight months after applying; as all too many in this forum have experienced, this does not illuminate how it has gone or will go for many, many others. Short of statistically reliable sample sizes, extrapolating from anecdotal evidence tends to suffer from conflating causation with incidence.)

But I think a good guess is that the IAPI system will sometime soon (if it does not already) identify existing IRCC clients. Sooner rather than later this will (if it does not already) effect closing the visa-exempt passport loophole for PRs without a PR card or PR TD . . . even if Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports continue (for the remaining duration of the leniency period) to be allowed to board flights to Canada without eTA.

 

[Rob_TO]

I largely agree with this summary. It states what I posted as soon as the government announced the leniency period for eTA.

Well, I also think and have said that the safer approach is for PRs to have or obtain a PR card prior to traveling abroad. Obtaining a PR TD is actually a poor alternative. And otherwise at the least being prepared to obtain a PR TD, in case the need for a PR TD arises.

Well yes of course, it's obvious if you have a PR card you should bring it. The issue of flying on visa-exempt passport alone usually arises during the time shortly after arriving as a PR when you haven't received your card (this was why we needed to do this option), someone who is late applying to renew their PR card so it expires, or traveling abroad and then finding out you forgot your PR card at home or lost it.

There are some cases through where it's unavoidable for a PR to be outside Canada without a PR card, and with not enough time to wait for a PR TD. For these cases knowing if it's still a viable solution to pose as a foreign national to get home, is very relevant.

You and others challenged this repeatedly. You explicitly challenged my description of a "substantial risk" a PR might encounter enforcement of the rule requiring PRs to have a PR card or PR TD.

Nobody challenged there is some element of risk, it's the substantial part that is not proven or established. Up to now the risk is that the traveler would somehow disclose they're a PR, and be denied boarding. This is a risk many people accepted to proceed with this option.
There are still no real cases to see how any new processes are being carried out in real life. Despite any wording from CIC/CBSA, I would still not try to quantify any level of risk as it's a complete unknown.

That may be true for some, perhaps many, perhaps even most. (But at most, only temporarily.)

But there is a risk otherwise. It has been like pulling teeth with pasta pliers to make clear this rather simple observation.

Again, its you trying to quantify the risk as substantial, that is the issue. If still only a very minor risk, many people will be willing to try it.

I thought the risk was obvious, especially given the extent to which IRCC and CBSA have posted advisories warning PRs that they may face delays or be denied boarding unless they have a PR card or PR TD. (I realize this forum is infiltrated by many CIC & IRCC bashers who are inclined to dismiss and deride overt communications from IRCC, but really, who can genuinely doubt the efficacy of these cautions posted by CBSA and IRCC? It is not as if IRCC, so to say, is just whistling Dixie.)

They have stated warnings for many, many years that PRs not carrying valid PR cards are in danger of being denied boarding, but we all know this was largely false as it was incredibly easy to board without a PR card. In our case I personally called CIC twice and asked about PRs traveling with no card, and was told emphatically that a PR TD was mandatory and my wife would be stuck outside Canada without it. Of course this was all bunk, and we returned easily. So no, simply reading warnings on this topic on the websites does not make it obvious how it will be enforced in real life.

Regarding what "Mandatory" means:

.... The difference the leniency period makes is that eTA is not absolutely required for visa-exempt passengers to obtain this clearance and be allowed to board the flight.

If it's not "absolutely required", it's not "mandatory". End of story. This is the basic english definition of the word "mandatory".

But I think a good guess is that the IAPI system will sometime soon (if it does not already) identify existing IRCC clients. Sooner rather than later this will (if it does not already) effect closing the visa-exempt passport loophole for PRs without a PR card or PR TD . . . even if Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports continue (for the remaining duration of the leniency period) to be allowed to board flights to Canada without eTA.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the loop hole stays open the same way it has in the past, until eTA becomes mandatory in the fall and every traveler must apply for it in advance of arriving at the airport.
It's a simple question - can airline see your PR status in their current system, yes or no. This is the only piece of info really relevant to all of this. Until we see any anecdotal reports, we are all just guessing here. Nothing can be quantified as a small or large risk yet until we see some practical applications of the airline's process and what info they can access.

Would be great if a visa-exempt PR can "test" this next time they fly, by not mentioning their PR status to the airline and seeing how far they get in the boarding process. If airline can indeed see their status, then show them the card and carry on. You would need to be very curious about this though to attempt it!

 

[dpenabill]

The longer part of the continuing discussion below, following a brief quote from Rob_TO, goes into details regarding the eTA, IAPI, API, and the PNR programs. For the most part this is detail of little or no interest to most.

For PRs planning to travel abroad, or who are already abroad, and who have been following this discussion, my guess is they already get it, they already grasp enough about the changes taking place to make decisions appropriate to their particular circumstances.

And that part is not complicated; to recap --


A recap:

In particular, I think it is clear enough that PRs traveling abroad should, foremost, carry a currently valid PR card, and alternatively be prepared to submit information and documentation sufficient to be issued a PR TD if the need for a PR TD arises.

I also think it is clear that generally, if avoidable, PRs should not rely on being allowed to board a flight to Canada based on presenting a visa-exempt passport without also presenting either a PR card or PR TD. This is not to say it is no longer possible for visa-exempt PRs to be cleared for boarding a flight to Canada based on a visa-exempt passport, but that there is an actual risk the rule requiring a PR card or PR TD might be enforced.

There is no doubt, however, that if it is still possible for PRs to board a flight to Canada based only on a visa-exempt passport, this is SOON coming to an end.

In the meantime, I recognize that canuck_in_uk is adamant that during the "leniency period" there is no chance the rule might be enforced unless the PR is "stupid." And that Rob_TO is confident the risk the rule might be enforced is not even a substantial risk.

I disagree and caution traveling PRs that there is indeed currently a substantial risk the rule for PRs will be enforced, and that this risk could quite easily increase prior to the conclusion of the leniency period. My point is quite simple: for those PRs who cannot afford risking a delay in their return to Canada, best to carry a PR card or at least, alternatively, be prepared to obtain a PR TD for a flight to Canada.




Back to the longer, more in depth details, the reasoning:

Beyond that, the nuances and details and reasons underlying my perception that the risk is substantial and increasing have a lot to do with the implementation of the IAPI system in conjunction with using that system to screen visa-exempt passengers as well as others.

In particular:

It's a simple question - can airline see your PR status in their current system, yes or no.

That is not the question. It is not about what an airline can see "in their current system."

The biggest change which has already been implemented is that the "system" for clearing passengers to board is now the CBSA's IAPI system. And as of March 15, 2016 this includes visa-exempt passengers and this clearance is now mandatory.

The question is when will the response from CBSA identify the passenger as an existing client in a way that, in conjunction with the new procedures and scripts for the airlines, precludes giving a PR the requisite CBSA clearance to board if the PR does not present a PR card or PR TD?

To be clear, the "system" the airlines must use now, to clear passengers for boarding flights to Canada, is CBSA's IAPI system. Getting this system up and running, given all the necessary access points for numerous airlines at airports around the world, was actually the main cause of delay in the mandatory implementation of eTA (which as I recall was initially scheduled to become fully implemented by early 2014).

In contrast, the "leniency period," that is the further delay in absolutely requiring all visa-exempt passengers to have eTA, is more about the transition getting individual travelers to obtain the eTA. My understanding is that the Liberal government did not want the implementation of this program to negatively impact the coming summer tourist season, thus the "leniency period" until "fall."

It would be extremely surprising if the IAPI is not already structured to identify existing IRCC clients, including identifying the individual's current status (subject to isolated gaps in IRCC databases for linking client identification to Travel Documents from other countries), based on the API submitted (which at minimum is the passenger name plus passport number and country of issuance) in the automated query.

So the only real question is not whether, but when (if not already) the query response from CBSA informs the airline of information which results in requiring PRs to present a PR card or PR TD.

In regards to this, to be clear, the IRCC advisories effectively state that the-when was March 15, 2016. That is, the IRCC and CBSA advisories emphasize that as of March 15, 2016 that clearance for boarding without eTA will require presentation of proper Travel Documents. For PRs the only proper Travel Documents, for purposes of boarding a flight to Canada, are a PR card or PR TD. While many may casually dismiss the IRCC cautions, those who act contrary to those cautions obviously do so bearing whatever risk there is; for those who encounter the rule actually be enforced, "but everyone said it was OK" will not help much.


I do not know for sure if the CBSA IAPI system already responds in a way that distinguishes Canadians (including Canadian PRs) from Foreign Nationals.

I do know, however, that if the CBSA IAPI does not currently respond in a way that distinguishes Canadians (including Canadian PRs) from Foreign Nationals, the only question is when will it? And I know that the answer to that question is sometime relatively soon at the latest.

When the CBSA IAPI system responds to the airline's API submission, and automated query, in a way that distinguishes Canadians (including Canadian PRs) from Foreign Nationals, the question is then whether or not, during the leniency period, the airline still has discretion or flexibility to allow a PR to board without a PR card or PR TD.

These are details which are not likely to be divulged publicly.

In so far as IRCC public information goes, this is already in force, that is that the rule for PRs is in force and at the least subject to being applied. Whether that is true in practice or not remains in question. But again, the question is not whether the rule will be enforced universally but when, and that date is approaching. There is not likely to be any further formal announcement of this (since again, the IRCC information already has announced it . . . but some are confident, and at least one here is certain, it is not actually in practice as yet).


Overall:

While some may watch for anecdotal reports from PRs who attempt to board flights to Canada, based only on a visa-exempt passport, for practical purposes there is no doubt that sometime in the coming months it is highly likely (not a mere risk) that the rule for PRs will be uniformly, almost universally enforced. At the latest, this will be by the end of the indefinite leniency period.

In the meantime some PRs may elect to test the system.

My point is simply that for those who cannot afford risking a delay in their return to Canada, it is best to carry a PR card or at least, alternatively, be prepared to obtain a PR TD for a flight to Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Some contextual observations, particularly as to relative perspectives:

ould be great if a visa-exempt PR can "test" this next time they fly, by not mentioning their PR status to the airline and seeing how far they get in the boarding process. If airline can indeed see their status, then show them the card and carry on.

I have to ask why this would be great. The outcome would merely be of minimal academic interest relative to an isolated instance. It would offer virtually no practical information or insight.

The essential point would remain the same: for those PRs who cannot afford risking a delay in their return to Canada, it is best to carry a PR card or alternatively, at the least, be prepared to obtain a PR TD for a flight to Canada.

As for what one or five anecdotal reports would illuminate: We have already seen reports of PRs not being allowed to board on the strength of a visa-exempt passport alone, so we know that can happen regardless what has changed. We know that even if one or twenty PRs are allowed to board without having to display a PR card or PR TD that will not guarantee how it will go for any other PR. And in particular, will not guarantee how it will go next week.

And whatever the outcome, we know for certain that the rule for PRs is going to be more frequently if not universally enforced in the near future. Which is to say, even if a more definitive understanding about how PRs are screened during the leniency period could emerge from such an anecdotal report (regarding which, again, I doubt any more definitive understanding can be extrapolated from such reports), that will at most be for an indefinite, relatively short period of time.

Anecdotal reports are important sources of information. But they rarely if ever reveal what the rule is. They merely indicate what can happen, not what will happen. If there is a statistically reliable sample of credible reports, that can offer some insight into patterns about how known-rules are being interpreted and applied, but even this falls far shy of being definitive.

One of the most serious flaws in this and similar forums is the extent to which particular instances, usually reflected in anecdotal reports, are relied upon as definitive indications about how things work. While some participants, like me, also comb through official Federal Court and IAD decisions for actual accounts of some particular instances together with the tribunal's analysis, including their official interpretation and application of the law and rules to those particular instances, even this only offers rather limited information from which the extrapolation of generalizations, let alone definitive conclusions, is precarious.

Bottom-line is that anecdotal and actual case reports basically outline the range of possibilities, what can happen, but not what necessarily actually will happen in other particular cases; and while patterns can sometimes suggest probable generalizations, the tendency in this and other similar forums is to place far too much reliance on perceived patterns and generalizations.

Second to my most common observation (that being: if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep follow the instructions), is the observation that there are few instances for which there is any one-rule-fits-all.

And frankly that is largely what has been underlying the challenges raised against my observations as to the risk a PR might encounter enforcement of the rule requiring even a visa-exempt PR to present either a PR card or PR TD: an extrapolation from sporadic reports of the rule not being enforced to advocate the proposition the rule will not be enforced. In terms of simple reasoning, that is a mistake. Personally I think to advocate that it is certain the rules will not be enforced is inherently flawed, if not ludicrous, as at the least the best course of action is to take into account there is some possibility an actual rule will be enforced, since it is the rule . . . but obviously some are willing to make recommendations based on their certainty there is no practical chance the actual rules will be enforced.

I go into this perspective-context because there is, indeed, a fundamental difference between my approach to many of the issues discussed in this forum and that of a number of others. And indeed, my personal background and experiences, education and training, probably influence me in this regard: my approach is dominated by issue-identification and critical differentiation. Beyond identifying the actual rules and practices, as best we can (given the lack of transparency there is for immigration related policies and practices), I look for how and why the rules, the law, might have a different outcome for one individual versus another. This is about watching for pitfalls and potential problems, about recognizing what can go awry and being better prepared to deal with that if and when it happens.

Thus my observations lean long. Detailed. Nuanced. Subject to scores of variables and if-then conditionals, subject to diverse caveats. I expect most to skip my posts. The content is typically far more analytical and in-depth than is of interest for most.

If and when I dig my heels in, so to say, as I have regarding application of the rule requiring PRs to have a PR card or PR TD when boarding a flight to Canada, it is usually because I perceive the risk that some individuals will rely on an invalid declarative proposition, an assurance of that which is not necessarily true, and which could lead a PR into a perilous situation. Especially when, such as relative to this particular issue, there is usually a readily available alternative better than to rely on the rule not being enforced.

Which is to emphasize that how it might go for a PR who is carrying a PR card, but who wants to engage in the academic exercise of testing the process, is of very little interest to me. Apart from the fact that will not offer much useful information, my interest regards those who need to know what the rules are, and what potential risks there are, not academically but in reality, in their respective real-world situations. Which is why I have made a concerted effort to separate the complex details and nuances from the more important point, which I have repeated often so that it remains clear what that point is.

Again, the point is quite simple: for those PRs who cannot afford risking a delay in their return to Canada, best to carry a PR card or alternatively, at the least, be prepared to obtain a PR TD (if the need arises) for a flight to Canada.

As for the rest, as for the underlying details and who is right or wrong or more or less accurate, that is merely academic, of far less significance or interest. I make a concerted to do the homework and apply careful analysis, and thus try to be right, but it is not about being right or wrong, it is about clearly communicating best practices, about illuminating information which can help those who are affected make better decisions for themselves, depending on and relative to their personal, individual situations.

I have gone into the complexities of the underlying issues here because the basic point has been challenged, because in particular canuck_in_uk has been adamant that during the "leniency period" there is no chance the rule for PRs might be enforced unless the PR is "stupid," and because Rob_TO persistently expresses confidence there is not a substantial risk the rule might be enforced. Those propositions will not negatively affect a PR carrying a PR card but trying to board a flight without showing it. And I wonder why anyone cares how it will go for such a PR. In contrast, there are PRs for whom a delay or being denied boarding could have a real world, detrimental impact.

Thus, I hope the real point is not overlooked: that in contrast to what amounts to assurance, if not an overt recommendation, that a PR with a visa-exempt passport is in effect guaranteed to not have a problem despite not having a valid PR card or PR TD, it is nonetheless clear that the better approach is --
-- to carry a PR card or alternatively, at the least,
-- be prepared to obtain a PR TD for a flight to Canada

And this is especially so for those PRs who cannot afford risking a delay in their return to Canada.

 

[gabba50]

You can try all you can but some of them are risky!!! don't forget it? do you know that a simple misrepresentation can result in serious problems with immigration officers? even very more.
It's simple, unless it's emergency let your spouse come first and mail your PR to you, it won't last 2 weeks before you join your spouse again.

Good luck

 

[Rob_TO]

Some contextual observations, particularly as to relative perspectives:

I have to ask why this would be great. The outcome would merely be of minimal academic interest relative to an isolated instance. It would offer virtually no practical information or insight.

Because if we get 50 reports from PRs successfully boarding a flight by posing as a foreign national during this eTA leniency period, and airline was not able to see their PR status... then odds are the 51st person will also be able to do it.

Just because you don't agree with this approach, doesn't mean all others don't as well. There are situations where it's unavoidable to travel without a PR card and applying for a PR TD can be very risky due to timing. Personally I would find reports from others beneficial to if I would still attempt to try this loophole, before the time that eTA becomes mandatory and the loophole is confirmed closed.

No need for another 2000 word essay on the topic... we get your view on it. But not everyone goes strictly by what's written in the procedures, we also like seeing real life examples.