There needs to be legislative changes to disallow Provinces to use a travel document as proof of Permanent Residency
- Thread starter Rasha
- Start date
Agree but in your case you hadn’t actually met the RO or were extremely close to not meeting your RO so you also had other issues with your application. Normally if you are being asked to pick up your passport in person it is to look at your passport again to verify whether you were in compliance with your RO and if you remain in compliance which is more difficult online. On a positive note if you weren’t compliant the delay likely gives you a very good argument for you to retain your PR status. There should be another form of documentation that shows that you are a PR and you are compliant with your RO. Given that you constantly must meet the rolling total of 2 out of 5 years that documentation becomes tricky plus the majority of PRs apply for citizenship within the first 10 years.
Canuck78 agree with you 100% - but we have been back in Canada now for almost 4 years. Well back into “residency compliance” - and we are filing for citizenship to not have to deal with this any longer - but it still does not address what many provinces are doing. It’s sloppy bureaucratic policy- if I can be honest. I mean IF the feds are OK with Provinces using a travel document for residency proof, then maybe some changes should be made as to how this card is characterized and processed? Because then, it’s truly not just a travel document….
Case in point - (a corollary situation) a person could have a perfectly valid PR card, but not be in residency compliance…they might even slip through the cracks and never be caught, giving them access to provincial services (that people like me, who are working and paying taxes in Canada, to support those programs, but who don’t have access to them themselves because of COVID).. how exactly is that fair? And how can it be remedied? This is why there needs to be legislative changes, in my opinion, so that everything is consistent and on a level playing field for all.
Case in point - (a corollary situation) a person could have a perfectly valid PR card, but not be in residency compliance…they might even slip through the cracks and never be caught, giving them access to provincial services (that people like me, who are working and paying taxes in Canada, to support those programs, but who don’t have access to them themselves because of COVID).. how exactly is that fair? And how can it be remedied? This is why there needs to be legislative changes, in my opinion, so that everything is consistent and on a level playing field for all.
Have you talked to your MLA about this? If so and they ignored you, perhaps you should run for office so that your voice could be hear.
I mostly steer clear of addressing what the law or rules should be . . . with a few exceptions, which I make an effort to clearly distinguish from my efforts to focus on information and analysis.
I will offer some observations but it is important to clarify some key information first:
The PR card is NOT a Travel Document. The PR card is in fact a "STATUS" document.
Yes, a valid PR card is necessary for the purpose of boarding commercial transportation headed to Canada from outside Canada. That does not make the PR card a "Travel Document." And, indeed, a Canadian PR will usually (almost always) need a valid Travel Document, that is something other than a PR card, to travel internationally.
Remember, PRs do NOT need a PR card to enter Canada; PRs are (statutorily) entitled to enter Canada even if they do not have a valid status card.
There may be some countries that will process a traveler's entry into that country on the basis of a Canadian PR card, but if there are, that is about their internal laws and rules. Mostly, at the least almost always, a Canadian PR will need an actual Travel Document to enter a country other than Canada (with exceptions; for example, citizens of a country will ordinarily be allowed to enter that country even if, for example, their passport has expired).
So, you seem to be asking the Canadian government to issue a PR card instead of or in addition to issuing a PR card.
That is, actually the PR card is precisely what the Federal government provides to Canadian Permanent Residents to present to authorities, if and when required, to document the individual's status in Canada, to document the individual is a Canadian PR. It is, in a sense, very much the sort of thing you seem to be saying the government should provide.
Which, However, Does Not Address the Problem
You refer to a problem which appears to be fairly common for some PRs, in regards to some provinces. B.C. tends to be the most problematic the most often (in contrast some provinces, like Ontario, accept an expired PR card, up to a number of years past the date the PRC expired). This derives from a gap in time some PRs encounter due to PR card processing timelines, which can be severely aggravated when the PRC application is subject to non-routine processing, including (but not limited to) Secondary Review processing which can sometimes delay issuance of a new status card, that is PRC, by a year.
As I noted at the outset, I tend to steer clear addressing what the law or rules should be. I am no expert in Canadian immigration law, policy, or practice, even though I have extensive familiarity with a few, narrow issues, and I discuss those in depth. The overall regulatory scheme is incredibly complex and I simply do not have sufficient grasp of all the moving parts to venture into the realm of commenting on how to revise the law or rules (with some exceptions; I have, for example, engaged in the issue of how a 2012 change in IRPA has resulted in some PR-refugees suffering rather egregious injustice when they apply for citizenship, and the need to revise those provisions . . . but how and why I got involved in that issue is a long story specific to that particular issue; and of course IRCC's failure to adequately address the impact on processing timelines due to the pandemic is a glaring, overriding issue for which no special insight is needed to see changes should be made).
In any event, I do not know and cannot offer much in the way of suggesting changes that would at least mitigate if not eliminate this problem. I recognize that sometimes the problem is as much about choices the PR has made (such as those who fail to comply with the RO and then are stuck in a kind of limbo until they are back in RO compliance, and typically for some time beyond that while waiting for a new PRC), but as you note, this can and does affect some PRs who have complied with the RO. And for them, it is indeed not fair for them to be denied provincial services, health care especially, that they are actually qualified to receive.
I do not know, but my inclination would be to look into recourse at the provincial level. As much as I am not well enough informed to offer much in regards to what the immigration law and rules should be, I am utterly lacking in sufficient understanding to discuss what provincial law and rules should be.
There is no doubt that legal status to reside in Canada is going to remain a qualifying requirement for certain provincial services, including health care. For Canadian PRs, the documentation which shows they have legal status to reside in Canada is the statutorily prescribed "status card," known as a PR card.
My sense is that Ontario's approach is a sufficient and just way to deal with the kind of problem you describe. My guess is that for a province like B.C., there is probably some individual recourse available, such as Mandamus (mandamus is actually appropriately sought and applied far, far more often in regards to provincial government actions, or failures to act, than in the regards to immigration or citizenship matters), and otherwise perhaps some activism in provincial government is warranted. But that is wandering way beyond the scope of what I know or understand well enough to comment much about.
BY the WAY: regarding the quote that a PR card "does not confer, restore or reinstate PR status on the holder of the card" :
This quote you reference, from a post of mine, which is an exact quote from a decision by Federal Court Justice McHaffie, appears to be taken out of context; it is not relevant to this discussion. It warrants quoting it in context:
A key reminder that is also a take-away from [the McHaffie decision in the Metallo] case is that being issued a new PR card does not solve a PR's breach of the RO. That is, a PR card "does not confer, restore or reinstate PR status on the holder of the card."
[The proposition] that a PR card "does not confer, restore or reinstate PR status on the holder of the card," is consistent with the conventional wisdom, often stated here, that when it comes to determining a PR's admissibility, or inadmissibility for failing to comply with the RO, the dates on a PR card are NOT at all relevant . . . and indeed, just having a valid PR card is not relevant. Even being issued a new PR card, like Metallo was, does not necessarily mean the PR's status is valid (the PR card generally will not be issued unless PR status is valid, but the fact it is issued does not necessarily mean it is valid and does not overcome, for example, a previously issued 44(1) Report).
That is, just because somehow an individual obtains or possesses what appears to be a valid PR card on its face, that does not reverse or set aside or invalidate an adjudication the individual is inadmissible . . . being issued a PR card does not, in itself confer status. It does not restore status. It does not reinstate status.
A PRC is simply a document showing status, which a PR can in turn present to authorities as needed to show the individual has PR status. And sure, sometimes an individual can possess what appears to be a valid status card when things have happened to either limit or even terminate that status.
That is, it is correct to note that a PR can be in possession of a PR card valid on its face even if the PR is inadmissible. Ordinarily a PR will not be issued a new PRC if the PR is inadmissible (such as for being in breach of the RO), unless the matter is on appeal and IRCC issues a one-year card. So, yes, it is possible for someone to meet provincial eligibility requirements to be granted health care services when technically they really do not qualify for them. And that can have some substantial, perhaps severe legal consequences if, in effect, they are caught. That really has nothing to do with otherwise addressing the problem you describe, where individuals who have valid PR status are stuck, for a time, without a status card to document they have that status.
CONFESSION: yes, I know, I take the long, long way round to basically saying I do not know how to deal with or solve the problem you describe. Sorry. I would like to note, however, trying to iron out every possible wrinkle in how the law and rules apply tends to be a far, far more difficult endeavor than many seem to recognize. Everything is so interconnected, and real life is so vastly variable, so yeah, I do not envy the role of members of either the federal and provincial parliaments. Governing tends to be complicated.
One small note to add: as noted above, this is really a provincial issue.
And under a basic principle of Canadian federalism, it really wouldn't be possible (mostly) for the federal government to "disallow" provinces to make administrative decisions like this. These are mostly areas of provincial jurisdiction, IE what documentation the provinces require to prove eligibility for healthcare.
Now the 'mostly' there is doing too much. In practice the two levels would ideally just come to some agreement.
And under a basic principle of Canadian federalism, it really wouldn't be possible (mostly) for the federal government to "disallow" provinces to make administrative decisions like this. These are mostly areas of provincial jurisdiction, IE what documentation the provinces require to prove eligibility for healthcare.
Now the 'mostly' there is doing too much. In practice the two levels would ideally just come to some agreement.