Now I am totally worried. I am usually very meticulous but I failed when I accepted bad advice and renewed my passport(even if I didn’t use it).
As others have observed, the odds are very, very good that this will NOT result in the commencement of cessation proceedings. Moreover, while having done this raises the presumption of reavailment, for the individual who has not traveled to his or her home country, and especially the person who has never used it for travel, that presumption is easily rebutted.
I am not one to proclaim 100% anything, but you should have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
I hope MP Jenny Kwan doesn't limit the advocation only for those who visit a terminally ill family member, but also include any other visiting home country for other humane reason as long as during the visit he/she doesn't try to reavail him/herself (living temporarely, secretly).
My reference to visiting a terminally ill family member is merely illustrative of just how draconian and unjust the Harper/Kenney law can be (and under Harper's government was being) employed.
Reason or duration of travel to the home country would be irrelevant under the Bill proposed by MP Kwan (NDP). Even explicit reavailment would not result in loss of PR status. Which is what the law was until December 2012.
In particular, MP Kwan's Private Member's Bill, Bill C-294, simply repeals the provision in IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) which provides that the cessation of protected person status (this is Subsection 46(1)(c.1) IRPA) terminates Permanent Resident status. This would restore the law to what it was prior to Harper's Bill, which took effect in December 2012. That is, it would restore the previous law pursuant to which once the refugee became a
Permanent Resident even an overt, explicit reavailment would NOT cause loss of PR status.
For MP Kwan's Bill C-294 see
http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8274877
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-294/first-reading
There are many strong, reasonable arguments for this, largely rooted in the nature and purpose of the law and policies underlying the grant of Canadian PR status. In terms of general fairness, for Canada to offer and grant someone PERMANENT status to settle and live in Canada, and to RENEGE on that just because the PR has visited family in his or her home country, is blatantly UNJUST.
But, to be open, some reasonable, viable arguments may be made otherwise as to certain cases, largely rooted in identifying those cases in which the Canadian refugee program might be abused or exploited as an alternative immigration stream.
Indeed, when the Harper government tabled and adopted Bill C-31 (in the 41st Parliament), the then Minister of CIC, Jason Kenney, said the legislation was aimed
ONLY at those persons "
who have done something to demonstrate essentially that they have defrauded our system," and in particular identified those who obtain status in Canada and then, "
shortly after receiving such status," they return
TO LIVE in their country of origin as an example.
Which to some extent makes sense.
Noting, however, the law already provided for stripping status from those who have "defrauded" the system . . . and those provisions can be applied even AFTER the individual becomes a citizen. Misrepresentation or fraud in any step of the process, from the very first application for protected person status, remains grounds for revoking status in Canada essentially FOREVER (except fraud in the application specifically for citizenship is only grounds for revoking citizenship; fraud in any step leading up to obtaining PR status, in contrast, is grounds for losing all status and becoming inadmissible to Canada).
Regarding such matters, it was easy to tell when either Harper or Kenney (current leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta) was lying: their lips were moving. So it should not have come as a surprise that this law, purportedly to be used
ONLY against those who demonstrated they had committed fraud in obtaining status in Canada, was almost immediately implemented to target, among others, PR-refugees applying for citizenship, individuals who had long established their life in Canada, many with children born in Canada, who had NOT returned to "live" in their country of origin but who had merely met a rather low threshold for alleging reavailment, suspended their citizenship applications, and successfully persuaded the courts that no matter how long and deeply settled in Canada these individuals had become, they were NOT EVEN ENTITLED TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF HUMANE OR COMPASSIONATE factors. Yes, it is true, hardened criminals with long and very serious criminal histories, are entitled to more procedural safeguards and ultimately more ways to stay in Canada, H&C protections included, than the PR-refugee with NO criminal record at all and a history of settling in and positively contributing to Canadian society, who can lose all status in Canada with NO consideration given to H&C factors at all. Did someone mention "injustice?"
It is worth emphasizing one particular aspect of Harper's draconian measure which was especially unjust, the implementation of what in effect really was an
ex-post facto penalty, employed to purge PRs who relied on the previous law and under it did indeed return to their home country openly,
all of which was OK under the prior law . . .
legally OK when they traveled to the home country . . . For anyone who thinks the government cannot enact laws which have a detrimental
retroactive impact, this is a stark example otherwise, IT CAN and IT HAS, and scores were in fact stripped of their PR status based on going to their home country when that was perfectly OK under the law at the time they did it. In one of the cases the grounds for cessation and terminating the individual's PR status were based on travel to the home country nearly a full decade before the law was changed.
BUT, again to be open, reasonable arguments can be made (in contrast to some arguments recently populating this topic which are unreasonable, unfounded, poorly conceived and contrary to Canadian law as well as principles of jurisprudence generally, so much so as to warrant no further attention) that would give the government better tools to discourage exploitation or abuse of Canada's refugee policies, which in most respects are rather generous (compared to Canada's situation; but also recognizing the worldwide need for more destinations of refuge is massively greater than is being met).
My impression is that the current government approaches this with considerable discretion and likely limits who is actually targeted for cessation to more or less more blatant and egregious cases. That is, my sense is that IRCC and CBSA are OK with the law as is while endeavoring to be just in its application, as a matter of internal practice and policy. Theoretically this should be OK, at least most of the time. But that is only true if in fact the officers actually do exercise their discretion ONLY to target those who appear to be abusing or exploiting the system. Anyone with much familiarity with how authorities exercise such broad discretion in practice, however, is all too familiar with how often such discretion is abused (survey minorities about their interactions with law enforcement, for example). Moreover, no matter how reasonable and JUST this government's policy is, relative to how it applies the cessation law, NEXT YEAR there may be another Conservative government which can take a very different, far more severe and perhaps unjust approach. That is, even if the current government's policy and approach is substantively fair and just, that offers virtually NO protection from unjust practices by the government elected in 2019.
Moreover, and importantly, the current status of this is largely UNKNOWN. The actual policy and practice of the Liberal government is largely UNKNOWN. We do not actually know who is being targeted. We do not have an inkling of what criteria the current government is employing. Will it shrug off a four week visit to the home country but go after someone who stayed more than 30 days? We do not know.
There are persuasive arguments to be made that secret criteria, the lack of transparency, is itself unfair and unjust. Canada's PRs should be entitled to know what the actual, practical rules are, what is acceptable and what is not.
