PR's are not Canadians. They are foreign citizens with a limited right of residence. For diplomatic assistance they are still dependent upon their country of nationality so therefore if Canada is saying return to Canada and their country of citizenship is advising against travelling anywhere then surely their country of citizenship trumps it.
This is especially applicable if they're not settled in a province and therefore aren't eligible for a health program or some sort of Canadian-based health insurance system.
Canadian Permanent Residents ARE Canadians under Canadian immigration law. For example, see definitions in Section 2 IRPA which explicitly excludes PRs from the definition of a Foreign National.
The government's media announcements regarding repatriation of "Canadians," back in March, explicitly referred to BOTH citizens and PRs as Canadians, and encompassed both PRs and citizens in policies to encourage and assist Canadians returning to Canada.
As long as a PR has not engaged in actions which make the PR inadmissible under IRPA (which would mean there are grounds for terminating the PR's status as a PR),
a PR's right of residence in Canada is co-equal that of a citizen. The only distinction in "rights" between citizens and PRs in the Charter is in regards to mobility rights. The Charter does not protect a PR's right to travel internationally whereas it does citizens.
There are of course differences in how OTHER countries may deal with individuals depending on their status. However, in this regard even if an individual is a Canadian citizen, when an individual is a citizen of another country the other country may, and many will, treat the individual with no regard to their Canadian citizenship. U.S. citizens who are also Canadian citizens, for example, are treated by the U.S. government as if they are ONLY a U.S. citizen, no regard or consideration given to their Canadian citizenship. This has to do with the law of other countries which Canada has no control over.
There are certain specific differences, such as qualifying for security clearances or job preferences, but these are very limited in scope, are based on readily recognized reasons, and have NO impact on a PR's "
right of residence" compared to those of a citizen (note that there are limitations on right of residence for everyone . . . citizens can be imprisoned or subject to restrictions on probation for crimes as much as PRs, for example).
Your other observations about differences in privileges for PRs compared to citizens have to do with differences related to actual residence. Here too, PRs and citizens are legally if not entirely equal. That is, for example, a citizen's eligibility for provincial health care coverage is subject to the exact same residential requirements as a PR. No differences.
Moreover, for example, health care coverage waiting periods have been suspended for "Canadians" (meaning explicitly BOTH citizens AND PRs) returning to Canada, so that they are immediately eligible for coverage upon arrival back in Canada. But yeah, they must nonetheless meet the ongoing residency and presence requirements for coverage, and these eligibility requirements apply as much to citizens as they do to PRs.
Nonetheless, YEP, make no mistake, if and when an individual PR is INADMISSIBLE due to a failure to meet his or her PR Residency Obligation, AND that PR is "
not settled in a province,"
yeah, DUH, precisely, the Canadian government is going to be far less likely to accommodate the PR. For obvious reasons.
NOTE RE POSSIBLE RO EXTENSION:
The Residency Obligation is statutorily prescribed. IRPA defines a PR who has not complied with the RO to be "INADMISSIBLE."
It is possible that Parliament will amend IRPA section 28 regarding the PR RO. But this is highly unlikely. A statutory amendment changing the PR Residency Obligation would be a big deal and as I addressed in the other topic, the current statutory scheme already provides a mechanism for relief when there are H&C factors sufficient for a Minister's Delegate or the IAD to conclude the PR *deserves* to keep PR status DESPITE the breach of the RO.
It warrants being clear about the import of this. A failure to comply with the RO means, by definition, a PR is "INADMISSIBLE." That means the PR does NOT have valid PR status. So yeah, yeah, yeah, emphatically YES, the PR who has been outside Canada for more than 1095 days within the preceding five years is, by definition, "INADMISSIBLE," and while that does not automatically terminate PR status, it does indeed have serious consequences.
So let's be clear: even if a PR has the strongest H&C case imaginable, say the PR was kidnapped and held captive abroad for more than three years, totally outside the PR's control.
This PR is still "INADMISSIBLE" and if this PR is Reported and issued a Departure Order upon arrival at a PoE, that Report and Departure Order are VALID in LAW. Period. That Report and Departure Order cannot be set aside as invalid.
Of course that scenario is not likely. The PR with a very strong H&C case is far more likely to be allowed to keep PR status by PoE officials based on H&C reasons.
BUT if, for example, the PR failed to have sufficient evidence to document the H&C reasons, so that the PoE officials were not persuaded there were sufficient H&C reasons to allow the PR to keep status, again, the Report and Departure Order would be valid in law . . . the PR would need to appeal and present the H&C evidence to the IAD. The IAD will uphold the Report as
valid in law but, assuming the H&C reasons are strong enough, set aside the Report and Departure Order based on H&C grounds.
This was taking the long way around to focus on the fact that the Residency Obligation itself is statutorily fixed. IRCC cannot implement a policy which in effect changes the RO. A statutory amendment would be necessary for that. IRCC can implement policies regarding its assessment of H&C factors and thus effectively give officials (PoE officers, Minister's Delegates, overseas visa officers, and IAD panels) guidance in the weight to be given PRs whose return to Canada was delayed by covid-19. Even this seems unlikely since, again, the scheme already accommodates full consideration of this factor in deciding whether H&C reasons weigh in favour of allowing a PR to keep status.
Edit to add: for the OP, the point of this is to emphasize how big a difference there is in whether the OP gets to Canada BEFORE failing to comply with the RO. Relying on H&C relief is RISKY.
In the latter regard, for emphasis, so far covid-19 can only explain around FOUR months of delay in coming to Canada. Even if it "explains" not coming for the rest of this year, that only adds up to TEN months. That is way, way short of explaining why a PR was abroad for MORE than THREE years. And for those PRs who were living abroad, with no established residence in Canada, it could be rather difficult to persuade officials that their lengthy absence from Canada was due to covid-19. As previously noted, this will likely loom large for those PRs who became a PR more than five years ago, making it more difficult for them to successfully make the H&C case.
