The experience and information offered by @21Goose makes good sense and is largely consistent with reliable reports from multiple sources which are not distracted by LABELS.
I do NOT know to what extent professionals or CBSA or IRCC personnel might focus on the LABEL "business trip," and thus fail to clearly distinguish factual circumstances which qualify for the time working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit, versus those which do not.
It has been clear that more than a few contributing participants in this forum have been confused about this, several oft times overtly asserting here that "business trips" will not qualify for the credit, as if the reason the work abroad does not qualify is because it was pursuant to it being a "business trip."
The particular words or labels used should NOT matter. But as anyone with much experience in either business or bureaucracy is well acquainted with, certain terms or labels can trigger assumptions which divert focus from what substantively matters.
In this regard, if in this situation, I would NOT describe going abroad to engage in business on behalf of a Canadian employer as a "business trip," but rather as an "assignment" by the employer to engage in business meetings with customers (or clients) or prospective customers abroad on behalf of the employer.
"Assignment" is NOT a magic word either. What matters is the factual substance of the activity.
There is little or nothing "NEW" about this. All that is different is highlighting the distinction between what, apparently, some assume "business trip" means, and separating the substance from the label.
CAUTIONARY SIDE OF THE EQUATION:
It warrants remembering that risks attendant cutting-it-close underlie the reason why it makes a difference in this scenario --
Those trips would count toward RO compliance EXCEPT their lives are rooted in Canada and have been for long enough there is little or no question about RO compliance, so despite spending even up to half their time traveling abroad for the employer, they are NOT cutting-it-close, and most are nowhere near to cutting-it-close. Note, for example, when making the application for a PR Travel Document or for a new PR card, the applicant is NOT even asked to provide information related to credit for time abroad UNLESS their actual presence in Canada falls short of the 730 day threshold (for the relevant five years).
That is, overall, no you are NOT the only PR whose employment requires traveling abroad regularly. BUT most such PRs do not need to count that time abroad. They meet the RO without the credit. So it is an issue most often not even addressed let alone litigated.
At other times I have emphasized that the way in which IRCC has been approaching the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit has, to a significant extent, made it rather difficult to qualify for the credit by any PR who actually needs the credit.
That is a bit of an overstatement but it helps to put the situation into perspective. It warrants a concerted effort to be clear about this. A PR only needs to spend a mere 40% of the time in Canada to meet the RO without any credit for time outside Canada. So any PR who actually needs to qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit is a PR who clearly has been spending way more than half the time abroad . . . and on its face, that appears to be a PR whose life is centered ABROAD and NOT in Canada.
So that tends to elevate not just the level of scrutiny whenever there is a question about RO compliance, but it elevates the level of skepticism. And especially so if a PR in this situation (having spent MOST of his time abroad) is claiming the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit . . . all the technical criteria aside, getting set up to qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit has been one of the most commonly attempted schemes for gaming the Canadian immigration system. Many consultants (mostly but not exclusively unauthorized consultants), for example, have been found out facilitating fraud this way. Some substantial SKEPTICISM is virtually inherent in these scenarios . . . if not outright suspicions.
So yes, when a PR who has spent most of the last five years abroad is depending on the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit, yes CBSA officers and IRCC agents can tend to approach the PR with elevated skepticism.
Which is NOT intended to scare someone who has a legitimate claim to the credit and who is otherwise NOW clearly settled in Canada. BUT some real caution is nonetheless warranted for the PR who is really cutting-it-close.
MY GUESS IS THAT MANY PRs WHO ARE LEGITIMATELY TRAVELING ABROAD AS ASSIGNED BY A QUALIFIED CANADIAN EMPLOYER HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CBSA AT THE PoE.
Indeed, I have seen more than a few IAD decisions in which PRs who merely CLAIMED this credit were allowed into Canada without being reported, time and time again, BUT they were, eventually, and then typically REPEATEDLY cautioned that they needed to provide more proof the next time they leave and return to Canada . . . typically a letter from the employer which shows that the employer is a Canadian business, the PR is employed full time by the employer, and the reason for the travel abroad is to engage in employment activity related to the business of the employer in Canada . . . and if for more than a brief trip abroad, confirmation that the PR will continue to work for the employer in Canada upon his return. And when the PR in effect ignored the CBSA caution and continued to travel abroad "for work," eventually the failure to have better documentation to back up qualifying for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit resulted in a 44(1) Report and Departure Order.
Most of these cases involve PRs who were continuing to spend more time abroad than in Canada . . . such that they typically were in Canada briefly and then abroad again. And the length of the time abroad is typically longer than just a couple weeks.
It would be helpful to know if my guess, that many PRs who are legitimately traveling abroad as assigned by a qualified Canadian business employer have NO problem with CBSA at the PoE, is at all close to how things actually go. But PRs who do not encounter problems do not tend to come to sites like this . . . and even if they are here, they may not be paying any attention at all to an issue like this, since, after all, they see no problem in their experience.
This leads back to a previous observation I made: Many, many PRs have what ostensibly is a job with a Canadian employer BUT the veil is easily seen through. The crux of their work, or core or focus or whatever, is ABROAD, NOT in Canada.
Qualifying for and actually getting credit for time-working-abroad-for-a-Canadian-business can be a challenge. The PR needs to meet the TECHNICAL criteria, of course. BUT the PR may also need to overcome an unspoken skepticism, which means the PR may need to make a strong impression he qualifies and deserves to keep PR status. Preserving a strong perception of being credible and appearing to actually be well-settled in Canada are two KEY elements in making that impression.
AS FOR PROSPECTIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS FROM CBSA OFFICER AT THE BORDER:
As you apparently apprehend, there is usually much reluctance to give advisory opinions like this . . . and especially so when the issue depends on hypothetical facts AND important contingencies (such as the employer qualifying as a Canadian business for purposes of the credit). Like lawyers, CBSA personnel probably lean toward stating a conservative version of the rule itself, leaving little room for misunderstanding, little basis for claiming reliance on the opinion. (Consider the almost universal admonition lawyers repeat: always read the contract. BUT even they do not ordinarily even come close to reading the entirety of the contract.)
I do NOT know to what extent professionals or CBSA or IRCC personnel might focus on the LABEL "business trip," and thus fail to clearly distinguish factual circumstances which qualify for the time working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit, versus those which do not.
It has been clear that more than a few contributing participants in this forum have been confused about this, several oft times overtly asserting here that "business trips" will not qualify for the credit, as if the reason the work abroad does not qualify is because it was pursuant to it being a "business trip."
The particular words or labels used should NOT matter. But as anyone with much experience in either business or bureaucracy is well acquainted with, certain terms or labels can trigger assumptions which divert focus from what substantively matters.
In this regard, if in this situation, I would NOT describe going abroad to engage in business on behalf of a Canadian employer as a "business trip," but rather as an "assignment" by the employer to engage in business meetings with customers (or clients) or prospective customers abroad on behalf of the employer.
"Assignment" is NOT a magic word either. What matters is the factual substance of the activity.
There is little or nothing "NEW" about this. All that is different is highlighting the distinction between what, apparently, some assume "business trip" means, and separating the substance from the label.
CAUTIONARY SIDE OF THE EQUATION:
It warrants remembering that risks attendant cutting-it-close underlie the reason why it makes a difference in this scenario --
Sure, there are scores and scores of PRs who regularly travel outside Canada for their work. Many immigrants are employed as long-haul truckers with regular, extended routes into the U.S. Some work for airlines and are employed on international flights, resulting in regularly, virtually weekly, staying abroad for days at a time, over and over again. Sales personnel often have regions extending well into the U.S., requiring regular travel outside Canada for several days at a time.
Those trips would count toward RO compliance EXCEPT their lives are rooted in Canada and have been for long enough there is little or no question about RO compliance, so despite spending even up to half their time traveling abroad for the employer, they are NOT cutting-it-close, and most are nowhere near to cutting-it-close. Note, for example, when making the application for a PR Travel Document or for a new PR card, the applicant is NOT even asked to provide information related to credit for time abroad UNLESS their actual presence in Canada falls short of the 730 day threshold (for the relevant five years).
That is, overall, no you are NOT the only PR whose employment requires traveling abroad regularly. BUT most such PRs do not need to count that time abroad. They meet the RO without the credit. So it is an issue most often not even addressed let alone litigated.
At other times I have emphasized that the way in which IRCC has been approaching the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit has, to a significant extent, made it rather difficult to qualify for the credit by any PR who actually needs the credit.
That is a bit of an overstatement but it helps to put the situation into perspective. It warrants a concerted effort to be clear about this. A PR only needs to spend a mere 40% of the time in Canada to meet the RO without any credit for time outside Canada. So any PR who actually needs to qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit is a PR who clearly has been spending way more than half the time abroad . . . and on its face, that appears to be a PR whose life is centered ABROAD and NOT in Canada.
So that tends to elevate not just the level of scrutiny whenever there is a question about RO compliance, but it elevates the level of skepticism. And especially so if a PR in this situation (having spent MOST of his time abroad) is claiming the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit . . . all the technical criteria aside, getting set up to qualify for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit has been one of the most commonly attempted schemes for gaming the Canadian immigration system. Many consultants (mostly but not exclusively unauthorized consultants), for example, have been found out facilitating fraud this way. Some substantial SKEPTICISM is virtually inherent in these scenarios . . . if not outright suspicions.
So yes, when a PR who has spent most of the last five years abroad is depending on the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit, yes CBSA officers and IRCC agents can tend to approach the PR with elevated skepticism.
Which is NOT intended to scare someone who has a legitimate claim to the credit and who is otherwise NOW clearly settled in Canada. BUT some real caution is nonetheless warranted for the PR who is really cutting-it-close.
MY GUESS IS THAT MANY PRs WHO ARE LEGITIMATELY TRAVELING ABROAD AS ASSIGNED BY A QUALIFIED CANADIAN EMPLOYER HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CBSA AT THE PoE.
Indeed, I have seen more than a few IAD decisions in which PRs who merely CLAIMED this credit were allowed into Canada without being reported, time and time again, BUT they were, eventually, and then typically REPEATEDLY cautioned that they needed to provide more proof the next time they leave and return to Canada . . . typically a letter from the employer which shows that the employer is a Canadian business, the PR is employed full time by the employer, and the reason for the travel abroad is to engage in employment activity related to the business of the employer in Canada . . . and if for more than a brief trip abroad, confirmation that the PR will continue to work for the employer in Canada upon his return. And when the PR in effect ignored the CBSA caution and continued to travel abroad "for work," eventually the failure to have better documentation to back up qualifying for the working-abroad-for-Canadian-business credit resulted in a 44(1) Report and Departure Order.
Most of these cases involve PRs who were continuing to spend more time abroad than in Canada . . . such that they typically were in Canada briefly and then abroad again. And the length of the time abroad is typically longer than just a couple weeks.
It would be helpful to know if my guess, that many PRs who are legitimately traveling abroad as assigned by a qualified Canadian business employer have NO problem with CBSA at the PoE, is at all close to how things actually go. But PRs who do not encounter problems do not tend to come to sites like this . . . and even if they are here, they may not be paying any attention at all to an issue like this, since, after all, they see no problem in their experience.
This leads back to a previous observation I made: Many, many PRs have what ostensibly is a job with a Canadian employer BUT the veil is easily seen through. The crux of their work, or core or focus or whatever, is ABROAD, NOT in Canada.
Qualifying for and actually getting credit for time-working-abroad-for-a-Canadian-business can be a challenge. The PR needs to meet the TECHNICAL criteria, of course. BUT the PR may also need to overcome an unspoken skepticism, which means the PR may need to make a strong impression he qualifies and deserves to keep PR status. Preserving a strong perception of being credible and appearing to actually be well-settled in Canada are two KEY elements in making that impression.
AS FOR PROSPECTIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS FROM CBSA OFFICER AT THE BORDER:
As you apparently apprehend, there is usually much reluctance to give advisory opinions like this . . . and especially so when the issue depends on hypothetical facts AND important contingencies (such as the employer qualifying as a Canadian business for purposes of the credit). Like lawyers, CBSA personnel probably lean toward stating a conservative version of the rule itself, leaving little room for misunderstanding, little basis for claiming reliance on the opinion. (Consider the almost universal admonition lawyers repeat: always read the contract. BUT even they do not ordinarily even come close to reading the entirety of the contract.)