This post is largely to emphasize the importance of recognizing key elements in successfully prosecuting a citizenship application and doing so in a manner most likely to avoid non-routine processing as well as, of course, risking a negative outcome.
What can work (including what has worked for some) may fall well short of this. Substantial performance in providing information (rather than providing complete information) may, for example, ultimately support the citizenship application and lead to taking the oath, and probably most often will succeed in doing this so long as IRCC is persuaded the applicant is honest and forthcoming and the information is sufficiently reliable to support a finding that the requirements are met. HOWEVER, substantial performance in providing information, that is providing information that is mostly complete but falls short of being virtually complete, will significantly increase the risk of non-routine processing and delays, and also risks a potentially skeptical assessment which could result in a denied application.
The vast majority of citizenship applicants want to know how to minimize the risk of non-routine processing, and especially how to navigate the process so as to minimize the chance of getting RQ (or PPQ), let alone ending up in a full-blown
presence-case. Let alone possibly denied.
No applicant has a guaranteed way to avoid RQ or such. But the risks can be greatly reduced. Many of the factors which are important in this regard are addressed often in this forum, ranging from waiting to apply with a comfortable margin over the minimum to exercising diligence in making sure the application and presence calculation are as complete and accurate as possible (we are all prone to making mistakes, so it is important to make a concerted effort to minimize mistakes).
Thus, and there should be no mistake about this, for those prospective citizenship applicants who want to navigate the process as smoothly as possible, with as few delays as possible, there is NO DOUBT, the applicant should make his or her very best effort to give a complete and accurate account of all dates the applicant exited Canada and all dates the applicant entered Canada.
The applicant is the ONE BEST SOURCE of this information. The PR was there each and every time. No other source, no government source, can for certain have captured a record of each and every entry and exit.
Given how important this information is, there is NO doubt, NONE, about the importance of a PR keeping a complete and accurate record of his or her international travel.
The one most important thing to take away from this discussion is how important this is, for a PR to keep a complete and accurate record of all international travel.
Keeping a record of one's trips is not something people commonly do, especially those who travel regularly and frequently.
A Canadian PR needs to account for all international travel if the PR intends to apply for citizenship. This has been the case for decades. There is NO prospect this will change.
Otherwise, for the Canadian PR who is not preparing to become a Canadian citizen, the PR nonetheless needs to account for all international travel when an application for a new PR card is made, and a PR may be required to substantially provide this information any time the PR arrives at a Port-of-Entry to Canada.
There may be other related record-keeping requirements as well. U.S. citizens, for example, need to file a U.S. tax return even if they owe zero tax to the U.S., and many (most? not sure, at least many) must declare dates present in the U.S.
Thus, it is indeed
OBVIOUS that Canadian PRs should keep a record of all international travel. To acknowledge this, to remind PRs in this and similar forums that this is important, is hardly patronizing. The fact that scores of PRs fail to do this amply illustrates just how important it is to make this reminder.
This part of the forum, and the threads addressing PR obligations as well, are rife with the travails of those immigrants who have failed to keep these and other important records.
On a personal note, when I applied for PR it came as a bit of a shock to me that I was required to provide a list of all the international trips taken during the 10 years prior to my application: that involved a few nights ploughing through my emails looking for flight bookings, hotel confirmations and car rental agreements, ending up in a list of a few hundred items that I am sure left out dozens of other trips, since I had lived in a European country very close to two national borders and I was regularly going grocery shopping to a neighbor country.
My effort was considered sufficient by IRCC, the records were provided "to the best of my recollection", so here I am as a PR.
A common problem in this forum is reliance on personal anecdotal experiences erroneously assuming they are relevant let alone indicative of a general rule. (And note: anecdotal reports should NEVER be relied on as an indicator of how it will for sure go for another person, since at the very most how it has gone for one person is only an indicator, an example, of how it might go for another.)
If this anecdotal experience is accurate (the PR visa application processes I am familiar with do
NOT require a complete travel history, although they do require work history, address history, and such; see IMM 5669 for example), it is nonetheless a prime example of an anecdotal experience which is NOT relevant to a discussion about reporting travel history in a citizenship or PR card application.
In particular, the precise number of days present in a particular country is not a qualifying element in a PR visa application (time in a country may be a relevant factor for some purposes, such as whether a police certificate from a country is required, but it is NOT a qualifying element).
In contrast, the precise number of days absent from Canada (or, conversely, present in Canada) is a qualifying element in the grant citizenship application, as it is in a PR card application as well. (Side-note: Oddly enough, a Federal Court has recently stated that compliance with the PR Residency Obligation is NOT an eligibility requirement for issuance of a PR card, whereas IRCC information explicitly states that compliance with the PR RO is a requirement.)
IRCC will accommodate some estimates and some mistakes, more so perhaps for PR card applicants since falling short of the 730 days present in Canada does NOT mandate a negative outcome, whereas in contrast, if the citizenship applicant's presence in Canada calculation falls short of the presence requirement, even by one day, that does mandate a negative outcome. And on occasion applicants have not encountered serious problems despite being off by several days or even a few weeks, but this is largely dependent on a very substantial margin over the minimum in conjunction with a solid application otherwise, including a solid accounting of most if not all other travel dates. In any event, any significant indication that the applicant's accounting of travel dates is not complete or is not accurate will substantially elevate the risk of non-routine processing, delays, even a problematic assessment.
In other words, there is NO comparison between the importance of travel history in a citizenship application and travel history for a PR visa application (noting again, however, I am not familiar with PR visa applications requiring travel history).
But of course the real point, the real import of this, is the reminder that PRs should keep complete and accurate records of their travel and make a diligent effort to declare this information completely and accurately in the presence calculation. And given the extent to which so many PRs fail to do this, this is obviously a reminder worth making and making regularly. Hopefully it saves a few some headaches down the road.
