My guess in contrast to the point made based on analysis:
I have avoided expressing an opinion as to how I think it is now working because I did not want to distract from or confuse the overriding and more important point that there is a risk the PR rule will be enforced for a visa-exempt passenger. As usual, I will elaborate, but the short version is that I think that the PR rule is now being enforced for both PRs with visa-exempt passports and those who do not hold a visa-exempt passport.
This is my guess. I could easily be wrong. It is, thus, FWIW. But it is genuinely what I think.
As a reminder and for emphasis, the more important point remains that any PR who cannot afford a delay in returning to Canada should be aware there is a risk the PR rule, requiring a valid PR card or PR TD, will be enforced. And that, in general, even for visa-exempt PRs the better approach when traveling abroad is --
-- carry a valid PR card, or at the least
-- be prepared to obtain a PR TD (if the need arises)
As for the rule itself, it is actually the law (not merely an administrative rule or practice), as prescribed in IRPA Regulation section 259, in subsections 259.(a) and (f),
see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-52.html#h-142
in conjunction with Subsection 148.(1)(a) in IRPA itself (IRPA is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), which prescribes that carriers (airlines and others) are prohibited from carrying "to Canada a person who . . . does not hold a prescribed document."
see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-25.html#h-79
Note: In the past there have been numerous reports (but less than fifty total in this forum over the course of the previous two or three years, perhaps even four or five, despite exaggerations claiming countless numbers) of instances in which these provisions have not been enforced against PRs carrying visa-exempt passports. However, in contrast, CIC and then IRCC has been posting numerous advisories since last August, when the eTA program was implemented, emphasizing changes and specifically cautioning that PRs need to have a valid PR card or PR TD to fly to Canada. Some of these advisories initially, and until relatively recently, also included a highlighted message about the eTA which included a reference to the leniency period, which message is still embedded in many IRCC web pages including numerous FAQs. However, pages specifically addressing PRs no longer include a message about eTA or the leniency period, but rather just state the policy for PRs; in particular (see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp and http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=064&top=10 for example), including the following:
"Permanent residents (PRs) of Canada must carry and present their valid PR card or permanent resident travel document (PRTD) when boarding a flight to Canada, or travelling to Canada on any other commercial carrier. If you do not carry your PR card or PRTD, you may not be able to board your flight, train, bus or boat to Canada."
There is no mention of any leniency period for the enforcement of this policy, which again is based not just on administrative rule but is prescribed by law, in the provisions cited and linked above.
While others disagree, generally I think it is virtually tautological there is, inherently, a risk the actual rules will be enforced even if non-enforcement is so widespread that non-enforcement appears to be the de facto norm. And some continue to disagree that even given the changes to date there is much risk, if any, the PR rule will be enforced for a PR with a visa-exempt passport.
By the way, however, notwithstanding the amount of risk, no matter how low that risk is, the key point I have been making is nonetheless valid: even for visa-exempt PRs the better approach when traveling abroad is to carry a valid PR card, or at the least, be prepared to obtain a PR TD (if the need arises).
Current law; mandatory eTA:
I do not know by what authority IRCC is allowing "leniency" for Foreign Nationals, those with visa-exempt passports but without eTA, to travel to Canada and be admitted into Canada. I assume there are some general provisions in IRPA which allow a degree of discretion in the enforcement of the law. (It is highly unlikely that IRCC is acting ultra vires, that is, without legal authority or outside the law.)
Make no mistake, however, the current law prescribes that eTA is now mandatory. In particular, the current law prescribes March 15, 2016 as the date on which eTA becomes mandatory; this is prescribed in IRPA Regulation section 7.1(1), which states:
"7.1 (1) A foreign national [who is visa-exempt] and who, on or after March 15, 2016, is seeking to enter Canada by air to remain on a temporary basis is, nevertheless, required to obtain an electronic travel authorization before entering Canada, unless they are [a member of the Royal Family, a U.S. National, or other exempted person]."
See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-2.html#docCont
This is the applicable, official regulation, which is currently the governing law, and it clearly prescribes March 15, 2016 as the date after which eTA is required.
I have also seen some references in the regulations to situations in which, to paraphrase, persons may be allowed to board flights to Canada or to enter Canada if an officer directs they may. Perhaps it is this authority which allows IRCC to, essentially, waive enforcement of the law, during a "leniency period," for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports but no eTA.
In any event, For What It is Worth:
My guess (my opinion) is that the appropriate Travel Documents rule for PRs is now being enforced.
In particular, my current impression, guess, or opinion, however one wants to characterize it, and again FWIW, is significantly stronger than merely a risk of enforcement, that the rule for PRs is indeed likely to be enforced for most (if not all) PRs, very soon (as in any day now) if not already; and actually my guess is that this is already the case, albeit perhaps the airlines are being given some flexibility in allowing PRs with visa-exempt passports to board notwithstanding not having a PR card or PR TD.
To be clear, this is significantly stronger than what I have previously observed. It is my opinion, in contrast to the more certain analytical conclusions regarding the risk of enforcement.
Obviously those who assert there is minimal or no risk disagree with this. Those views, I suggest, also fall under the category of For-What-It-Is-Worth (easy to guess what I think those views are worth).
Again, I have avoided expressing this opinion because I did not want to distract from what is the more important point, that PRs who cannot afford a delay in returning to Canada should carry a PR card or be prepared to obtain a PR TD, even if the risk of problems boarding the flight to Canada is relatively small.
Reminder; Current IRCC information for PRs:
In the meantime, to be clear as to what IRCC formally has to say on this subject, see either:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
or
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=064&top=10
Both clearly and unequivocally state that a PR needs to present either a valid PR card or a PR TD when boarding a flight to Canada. (There are, additionally, similar advisories at other pages, including some which specifically state this applies to both visa-exempt PRs and those PRs with passports which are not visa-exempt.) These particular pages were relatively recently updated to include these advisories.
At this juncture, my take is that those PRs who proceed abroad without a PR card or being prepared to obtain a PR TD, including those with a visa-exempt passport, do so at their peril (albeit there is still the travel via the U.S., taking a private vehicle to the border loophole).
I have avoided expressing an opinion as to how I think it is now working because I did not want to distract from or confuse the overriding and more important point that there is a risk the PR rule will be enforced for a visa-exempt passenger. As usual, I will elaborate, but the short version is that I think that the PR rule is now being enforced for both PRs with visa-exempt passports and those who do not hold a visa-exempt passport.
This is my guess. I could easily be wrong. It is, thus, FWIW. But it is genuinely what I think.
As a reminder and for emphasis, the more important point remains that any PR who cannot afford a delay in returning to Canada should be aware there is a risk the PR rule, requiring a valid PR card or PR TD, will be enforced. And that, in general, even for visa-exempt PRs the better approach when traveling abroad is --
-- carry a valid PR card, or at the least
-- be prepared to obtain a PR TD (if the need arises)
As for the rule itself, it is actually the law (not merely an administrative rule or practice), as prescribed in IRPA Regulation section 259, in subsections 259.(a) and (f),
see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-52.html#h-142
in conjunction with Subsection 148.(1)(a) in IRPA itself (IRPA is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), which prescribes that carriers (airlines and others) are prohibited from carrying "to Canada a person who . . . does not hold a prescribed document."
see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-25.html#h-79
----------------
Note: In the past there have been numerous reports (but less than fifty total in this forum over the course of the previous two or three years, perhaps even four or five, despite exaggerations claiming countless numbers) of instances in which these provisions have not been enforced against PRs carrying visa-exempt passports. However, in contrast, CIC and then IRCC has been posting numerous advisories since last August, when the eTA program was implemented, emphasizing changes and specifically cautioning that PRs need to have a valid PR card or PR TD to fly to Canada. Some of these advisories initially, and until relatively recently, also included a highlighted message about the eTA which included a reference to the leniency period, which message is still embedded in many IRCC web pages including numerous FAQs. However, pages specifically addressing PRs no longer include a message about eTA or the leniency period, but rather just state the policy for PRs; in particular (see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp and http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=064&top=10 for example), including the following:
"Permanent residents (PRs) of Canada must carry and present their valid PR card or permanent resident travel document (PRTD) when boarding a flight to Canada, or travelling to Canada on any other commercial carrier. If you do not carry your PR card or PRTD, you may not be able to board your flight, train, bus or boat to Canada."
There is no mention of any leniency period for the enforcement of this policy, which again is based not just on administrative rule but is prescribed by law, in the provisions cited and linked above.
While others disagree, generally I think it is virtually tautological there is, inherently, a risk the actual rules will be enforced even if non-enforcement is so widespread that non-enforcement appears to be the de facto norm. And some continue to disagree that even given the changes to date there is much risk, if any, the PR rule will be enforced for a PR with a visa-exempt passport.
By the way, however, notwithstanding the amount of risk, no matter how low that risk is, the key point I have been making is nonetheless valid: even for visa-exempt PRs the better approach when traveling abroad is to carry a valid PR card, or at the least, be prepared to obtain a PR TD (if the need arises).
----------------
Current law; mandatory eTA:
I do not know by what authority IRCC is allowing "leniency" for Foreign Nationals, those with visa-exempt passports but without eTA, to travel to Canada and be admitted into Canada. I assume there are some general provisions in IRPA which allow a degree of discretion in the enforcement of the law. (It is highly unlikely that IRCC is acting ultra vires, that is, without legal authority or outside the law.)
Make no mistake, however, the current law prescribes that eTA is now mandatory. In particular, the current law prescribes March 15, 2016 as the date on which eTA becomes mandatory; this is prescribed in IRPA Regulation section 7.1(1), which states:
"7.1 (1) A foreign national [who is visa-exempt] and who, on or after March 15, 2016, is seeking to enter Canada by air to remain on a temporary basis is, nevertheless, required to obtain an electronic travel authorization before entering Canada, unless they are [a member of the Royal Family, a U.S. National, or other exempted person]."
See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-2.html#docCont
This is the applicable, official regulation, which is currently the governing law, and it clearly prescribes March 15, 2016 as the date after which eTA is required.
I have also seen some references in the regulations to situations in which, to paraphrase, persons may be allowed to board flights to Canada or to enter Canada if an officer directs they may. Perhaps it is this authority which allows IRCC to, essentially, waive enforcement of the law, during a "leniency period," for Foreign Nationals with visa-exempt passports but no eTA.
In any event, For What It is Worth:
My guess (my opinion) is that the appropriate Travel Documents rule for PRs is now being enforced.
In particular, my current impression, guess, or opinion, however one wants to characterize it, and again FWIW, is significantly stronger than merely a risk of enforcement, that the rule for PRs is indeed likely to be enforced for most (if not all) PRs, very soon (as in any day now) if not already; and actually my guess is that this is already the case, albeit perhaps the airlines are being given some flexibility in allowing PRs with visa-exempt passports to board notwithstanding not having a PR card or PR TD.
To be clear, this is significantly stronger than what I have previously observed. It is my opinion, in contrast to the more certain analytical conclusions regarding the risk of enforcement.
Obviously those who assert there is minimal or no risk disagree with this. Those views, I suggest, also fall under the category of For-What-It-Is-Worth (easy to guess what I think those views are worth).
Again, I have avoided expressing this opinion because I did not want to distract from what is the more important point, that PRs who cannot afford a delay in returning to Canada should carry a PR card or be prepared to obtain a PR TD, even if the risk of problems boarding the flight to Canada is relatively small.
Reminder; Current IRCC information for PRs:
In the meantime, to be clear as to what IRCC formally has to say on this subject, see either:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
or
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=064&top=10
Both clearly and unequivocally state that a PR needs to present either a valid PR card or a PR TD when boarding a flight to Canada. (There are, additionally, similar advisories at other pages, including some which specifically state this applies to both visa-exempt PRs and those PRs with passports which are not visa-exempt.) These particular pages were relatively recently updated to include these advisories.
At this juncture, my take is that those PRs who proceed abroad without a PR card or being prepared to obtain a PR TD, including those with a visa-exempt passport, do so at their peril (albeit there is still the travel via the U.S., taking a private vehicle to the border loophole).