chongsuk21 said:
Hi
i just did landing this august , so i am new permenant resident here in canada
but i have to go back to my country and i have to stay there nearly for 23months
because i have to do military service, and it is an obligation for every men in Korea
then i have no choice to avoid it
anyway so what i worry about is a change of residency obligation in near future,
now as you know , residency obligation is just 2years of 5years physically presence in canada
as a law of citizenship(bill C-24) is changed this year, from 3years of 5years to 4years of 6years + must stay 6months of 1year.
i think there is a possibility that current residency obligation might be changed ( might be like , 6months of 1year )
and it also depends on a winner of federal election in october.
so what do you think guys? what if a liberal party wins? the liberal party has less possibility to change it?
thanks in advance
Short answer: no need to worry much at all about this. So long as you do not go long beyond the two year commitment and return to Canada -- technically you have up to three years to return to Canada, but practically speaking those who push this risk running into trouble, a parent falls ill for example, or a financial problem poses obstacles to coming back to Canada;
stuff happens.
Analytical answer:
There has been
NO talk of changes to the PR Residency Obligation. In contrast, some of the changes to the grant citizenship residency requirements had been proposed multiple times in previous sessions of Parliament, including formally tabled legislation (that did not get adopted before that session of Parliament ended, so in effect died), and then more sweeping changes were explicitly promised by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign, followed by repeated promises that legislation was coming from year to year. It was not until 2014 that the current version was finally set out in a formally tabled Bill (Bill C-24), and then it was well over a year after that (sixteen months plus actually) before the changes in grant citizenship residency requirements took effect.
In other words, it took many years for changes to be adopted into law and another year to implement them. This is typical in areas of law like this. The impact on already vested interests is too extensive to make radical changes short term (in ordinary times; in times of widespread war or great disaster, things can change far more dramatically, but here's hoping this does not happen again in our lifetimes).
IRPA changes (the immigration law which includes the PR RO) are not likely to take nearly so long, so sure there is always the possibility that the law could change. And PRs should generally pay attention, watching for potential changes. This is especially true for PRs abroad and counting on the current PR RO.
But nonetheless, changes would take time and would likely be fairly well broadcast, at least in terms of suggesting the changes are coming even if the precise terms of the changes are not.
Moreover, while technically the scope of Parliament's authority could possibly take effect in a way to, in effect, punish PRs who relied on the current law, there are strong arguments that would not be constitutionally valid, and moreover it is very unlikely even the more draconian approach to immigration would go so far. That is, even if changes came, they would most likely allow PRs in a position like yours a reasonable amount of time to adapt and retain status.
Even if changes were on the horizon, Canada recognizes that difficulties completing the move to Canada are common, so it would be likely there would still be a lot of flexibility for the
first five year period, even if Canada was to change the rules for PRs beyond that first five year time frame. The latter is where there is, apparently, a lot of abuse or perceived abuse, or at the least a lot of perceived taking advantage of the leniency in Canada's PR RO rules.
Which is to say, even if they significantly change the PR RO rules, they are likely to retain a substantial degree of flexibility for the first five year period, and even if not, they would (most likely) preserve the current flexibility for those who have already become a PR, are still within their first five year time period, and have commitments pursuant to which they were relying on the current law.
Still, it is worth paying attention.
As for which political party is more inclined to introduce dramatic changes tending to be more restrictive, that is neither the Liberals nor the NDP. This is an area in which the Conservatives have exceeded most expectations. One of the most draconian measures the Conservatives adopted in this last session of Parliament was the implementation of laws that will automatically terminate the PR status of those PRs who came to Canada as refugees if they travel to their home country. Numerous PRs applying for citizenship did not learn of this change in the law until CIC put their citizenship application on hold so that CBSA could pursue cessation of protected person status, which would terminate their status as a protected person and terminate their PR status, and thus make them ineligible for citizenship. At least one of these cases involved a PR who had traveled only briefly to her home country twice, for reasons the UNHCR ordinarily excuses (such as to visit a seriously ill immediate family member). This is just an example. The in-effect retroactive termination of credit for pre-landing time in Canada (those already living in Canada with temporary status, like work permits or study permits) toward the citizenship residency requirement, is another fairly dramatic restriction imposed by the Conservatives as part of Bill C-24. There are way too many examples to enumerate, but one closer to the PR RO issue is the way in which CIC has, since the Conservatives formed the government, interpreted and applied the provisions giving credit to a PR abroad working for a Canadian business, with the practical effect of all but eliminating the credit (in effect imposing factors which practically limit those eligible for the credit to PRs who would meet the PR RO without it).
