I believe you didn't get my thought.
I only think people living less than 730 days but applying for PR Card renewal are mostly qualified for exemption. Please note, this is a PR Card application, meaning PRs are already in Canada without being reported, they won't ask any PRTD with any H/C issue. They have some reasons to get a PR card to travel, not live, in Canada. And the law doesn't limit this.
If it is not their first 5 year leaving the country, most of them live aboard much longer than in Canada. However, they are still PRs. To simply ask them to offer Canadian residency proof looks weird. They cannot offer. To verify their status aboard is much important in these cases. IRCC maybe has no ability to verify overseas documents.
At least, if I am boss of IRCC, I will ask putting more emphasis on what happen aboard for these application, not applicants' status in Canada. According to the law, you don't need any tie with Canada but only if you are physically in, the days count. Do you have to prove you are normally living in Canada to get RO compliance? NO, only days are important.
So, my point is IRCC changes the way to review every case. All PRs should be able to apply online and let CBSA data verify their applications. If more than 730 days, there is a pass. Applicants don't even offer their travel history or do the maths. If less than 730 days, people get another portal to explain or appeal. This could greatly reduce IRCC's expense for its employee and speed up the whole process.
It appears you are mostly talking about
how-things-should-work. I generally steer well clear of wrestling with that (with isolated, narrow exceptions). My observations are oriented to the way things do work.
Getting a clear understanding about how things actually do work is challenging enough. For me anyway. Government window-dressing aside, there is a lack of transparency in key aspects of processing immigration matters, and that is combined with the extent to which it can be difficult to navigate the Byzantine labyrinth of information that is publicly accessible in the in the IRCC bureaucracy. This adds up to leaving more than a few gaps, and a measure of uncertainty and confusion, in what we know.
The main reason for focusing on sorting out how things actually work, apart from discussing prospective changes, is to minimize such confusion and avoid distraction. As is illustrated by the discussion about providing proof of residency in Canada, pursuant to the way things work for now, there's enough potential confusion in just that without getting sidetracked with proposed changes.
Another reason is that the vast majority of such discussions in a forum like this, about how things could be changed, should be changed, arguably for the better, tend to be so far outside the realm of what are feasible changes, let alone practically likely or probable changes, they are, frankly, largely frivolous, a distraction, not even academically interesting, and at the least well outside what is relevant for those who are trying to figure out what they need to do. Yeah, this tends to be dismissive. Being honest.
Meanwhile . . .
"my point is IRCC changes the way to review every case. All PRs should be able to . . . "
I am not clear what it is you are proposing, but there is no indication there are any plans for major changes, or even any openness toward considering any major changes to IRCC's approach in applying the law governing the issuance of status cards to Permanent Residents. Over the years the applications have gotten longer and more detailed, and overall it is apparent the trend is continuing in the direction of more strictly screening PR's compliance with the RO, and more strict enforcement of IRCC's policies in regards to distinguishing, treating differently, PRs living in Canada versus those living outside Canada, trying to limit issuance of PR cards to the former, requiring the latter to rely on PR Travel Documents.
Which leads to . . .
PRs Outside Canada More Than In Canada:
IRCC clearly has policies which indicate a preference for limiting the issuance of PR cards to PRs settled and living IN Canada, and in contrast requiring PRs located, or even usually located outside Canada, to rely on PR Travel Documents. Whether one agrees with this, or not, this is how it is, and to the extent there have been changes in the last few years, those have been in the direction of more firmly implementing this approach. It is NOT likely there will be changes in the other direction coming from the current government. If (more like when) there is a Conservative government, any changes are far, far more likely to go even further in the direction of more strict, narrow policies and rules.
Summary: No sign IRCC will be relaxing their approach to PRs perceived to be living outside Canada.
Caution: This has a real substantive impact. PR TD applications are processed in visa offices outside Canada.
A PR outside Canada without a valid PR card is PRESUMED to NOT have valid PR status. This is a rebuttable presumption, and typically a fairly easily rebutted presumption by PRs with documentation they are in RO compliance. But nonetheless this presumption elevates the burden imposed on a PR. Obvious example: no need to include proof of residency in Canada with a PR card application (unless PR has been outside Canada more than 1095 days in the relevant five years), but this proof must be submitted with a PR TD application.
"According to the law, you don't need any tie with Canada but only if you are physically in, the days count. Do you have to prove you are normally living in Canada to get RO compliance? NO, only days are important."
You appear to be focusing on and emphasizing what the law ALLOWS. In contrast, policies and practices are generally oriented to what the law's purposes or objectives are. Those policies and practices must, of course, operate within the boundaries of what the law mandates, including the full breadth of what the law allows. IRCC cannot, for example, implement and apply policies and practices which would deny issuing a status card (PR card) to a PR, let alone take away PR status, on the grounds they are outside Canada more than in Canada. As you note, if the PR has been actually present in Canada at least 730 days within the relevant five years, they are in RO compliance, and cannot be denied a status card, and will not lose PR status, because they have spent less than 913 days in Canada (that is, fewer days in Canada than in Canada during the relevant five years).
But in terms of how IRCC approaches and handles transactions with PRs, including PR card applications, among others, you are wrong that "
only days are important." The purpose for giving individuals PR status is to enable them to settle and live in Canada, PERMANENTLY. This purpose, this objective, plays a very large role in IRCC's policies and practices in dealing with PRs.
No need to read more than small selection of anecdotal reporting to recognize that from PoE examinations to PR card and PR TD applications, IRCC and CBSA are far more likely to facilitate smooth, routine processing when it is readily apparent the PR is settled PERMANENTLY in Canada than otherwise. No crystal ball or mystical vision necessary to see this. In terms of how it goes, actually being settled and living in Canada, appearing to be permanently settled in Canada, can indeed be "
important." That is, it will not change the outcome so long as the PR remains within what the law allows. But it can significantly affect how things go, in terms of timelines and procedural requirements, and in terms of how skeptical the decision-making is.
Moreover, the 2/5 year obligation is clearly intended to facilitate PRs having the freedom to deal with compelling circumstances, including emergencies, without PRs having to worry that CBSA or IRCC will not approve of the reason for their extended time outside Canada . . . up to three years in any five year period. It is NOT intended to facilitate living outside Canada, let alone living outside Canada more than in Canada. It allows that, it allows that in order to give PRs the flexibility to decide for themselves what is important in their lives, to accommodate their priorities and needs, without having to answer to CBSA or IRCC.
So, do not anticipate, let alone expect, there to be changes in policies or practices that will facilitate PRs spending extended periods of time abroad, none beyond what the scope of how things work now accommodates. Things are not headed in that direction.
