Equally many people stay for 3 years and apply for citizenship as they are leaving. In other cases many are supported for many years and when they finally are paying more into the system than benefiting from it they leave. The revolving door of immigration does not benefit Canada’s en other countries have increased time until citizenship. You can literally count time as a visitor towards citizenship which is insane.
Canadian PR Entry Concerns: Crossing Canada border with Family from Detroit USA without meeting Residency Obligation
- Thread starter familyman86
- Start date
Equally many people stay for 3 years and apply for citizenship as they are leaving. In other cases many are supported for many years and when they finally are paying more into the system than benefiting from it they leave. The revolving door of immigration does not benefit Canada’s en other countries have increased time until citizenship. You can literally count time as a visitor towards citizenship which is insane.
With the exception of spouses, I remain strongly skeptical that anyone is able to do actually do this. Unlike you, I've gone through this myself, and while on paper it's theoretically possible, in practice there are a lot roadblocks and obstacles. (It's not that you wouldn't get there eventually, but you'd get delayed beyond those three years. Now I got it especially rough due to how my personal timing stacked against COVID, but even without that I'm quite confident in my estimate that I'd have been looking at 6+ years.)
But you also can only carry a maximum of one year's reduction on the waiting time. (A personal sore point for me since I have so much time on a work permit.) Aside from spouses (and common-law folks) visiting their native-born Canadian citizen better halves (prior to being able to file the family class app), I'm highly skeptical that anyone has been able to take advantage of this.
For spouses specifically, I'm not caring much either way. Basically, a spouse who does this successfully has two years of living with the sponsor on a visitor record plus two years as a PR in Canada (for four total years), versus either waiting outland and then living three years with PR in Canada or five total years in Canada (the two years of living in Canada on the visitor record plus the three years of living as a PR in Canada).
The only class I feel it is fair to leverage this against is the economic class (who are invited for their ability to benefit Canada). It's obviously a clear humanitarian violation to require refugees to prove they'll benefit the Canadian economy from day one, and requiring this of spouses doesn't sit right somehow.
(For spouses, other countries like Australia and the UK are requiring stronger proofs that the sponsor is, well, rich, I guess with the idea being that having a rich spouse prevents the other spouse from needing to go on support - and in the event of a breakup they'd prefer to find a new wealthy spouse rather than going on government support.)
I'm actually not aware of this. I was aware that Germany recently allowed dual citizenship and shrank the time to three years - matching Canada's theoretical (though I would not be surprised if, like Canada itself, the red tape in Germany means that it effective takes at least a couple of years longer). Though this might also be an exception (it's the only country in recent memory I can think of that did a decrease in the time...)
I'm not doubting you here, just curious which countries have formally increased the waiting time.
I'd say that there are three main groups here to consider:
Spouses and family-class and similar: allowing a native-born Canadian citizen to reunite with family though, seems to outweigh this. It seems especially cruel to penalize a spouse who is merely following a native-born Canadian outland...
Refugee, protected persons, and similar humanitarian cases: again, I think the humanitarian concerns outweigh this. In fact there is a perverse incentive here - if conditions change back in the home country, a refugee who otherwise might have just wanted to keep the Canadian PR for a few years (in case things suddenly went south) while trying to make it work on a return home, instead must first become a citizen of Canada before being able to securely travel there. Otherwise, even in the event of things going bad after they seemingly went good, that former refugee takes the risk of being stripped of PR and deported right back into that untenable situation when trying to flee back to Canada again.
Edit: If trying to fix a "revolving door" situation I bet fixing things for refugee would effect the biggest change - I highly suspect having Canada stop uniquely stripping PR from refugees for home country visits would lead to most of even the better informed ones to just making the return on Canadian PR only, and if things really have improved for them back home, to them abandoning their PR as they realize they no longer need a way back (and it becomes too onerous to maintain the PR otherwise). Right now the perverse incentive practically requires them to become a full on Canadian citizen before they can even pop back for a quick check of the home country....
Economic class: The one class I'd agree with placing restrictions on. The US has a longstanding policy with conditional PR - you risk losing your PR if you don't fulfill the conditions. Canada's constitution and laws being what they are, I suspect that you'd have to do the implementation up north here a bit differently - instead of offering PR straight away via Express Entry, offer a renewable two year combined open work+study permit (to better match the flexibility provided by true PR), and only on proof of contributions (based on say tax filings) actually grant the PR. If the contribution proof isn't strong enough, then meeting at least a weaker and lower bar allows a grant of a one or two year renewal.
In principle I'm not so much bothered by restrictions on the economic class PRs having to stay until citizenship (as long as we have some wide and reasonable exceptions in place for various humanitarian things), but I can see a practical issue: family-class PRs, in particular spouses, need that freedom. Otherwise, their native born Canadian citizen spouses are the ones who get hurt by not being able to, e.g., seek higher pay outside of Canada (and perhaps build up a private retirement fund to reduce their burden on the government here). But we're required to treat all PRs equally - so if spousal PRs get this freedom, then it has to be given to economic PRs as well.
Last edited:
Lots of examples of economic immigrants moving as soon as they acquire citizenship as when as some family members. Refugees and protected people have to wait until they acquire citizenship. Canada has policies specifically for family member PRs who accompany their Canadian spouse abroad. They can retain their PR so aren’t being penalized. The number of refugees or protected people who lose status because they visit their home country or use their home country passport is incredibly small and it is an insignificant number. A significant number do visit and don’t get caught. There are many countries who have made securing longterm status and citizenship much more difficult as immigration. Just look at most of Europe excluding Spain. Being able to count up to 1 year towards citizenship even if you were a visitor when the requirement is 3 years is a significant number. Being able to count any time in Canada as a temporary resident when the requirement to obtain citizenship is only 3 years when you can also leave Canada right after applying is incredibly generous and I would suspect very few Canadians know how easy it is to secure citizenship and many would be shocked by the changes that have been made in the past ~10 years. Many of these policies hurt Canada and need to be reassessed especially as other countries have changed their immigration policies. Canada was already an easy passport to obtain compared to most countries but it is becoming even easier compared to other countries as they have reformed their immigration policies. Canada also has citizenship at birth and citizenship that can be passed down through generations fairly easily which is also not the case in many other countries. If SCOTUS somehow deems that US citizenship at birth is no longer legal then many will seek to have their children in Canada vs the US which is last thing Canada and our healthcard system needs.
Last edited:
*looks at my nearly ten year path and current lack of citizenship*
So yeah, I think that maxim, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here. Don't just say they exist, actually give me some actual examples of this happening. If nothing else, there should be lots of anecdotal examples from this forum itself. (I did check but couldn't find any, except some spouse ones - which I had already excluded from counting.)
*looks at my nearly ten year path and current lack of citizenship*
Well, apparently I'm one of the ones not in the know.
This is a good point - family reunification generally should be excluded, we should only count the primary economic applicant and not any family members who come later after the PA is a longstanding PR or even citizen already.
I do recall some nuance found by @dpenabill on the meaning of "accompany" - in particular there was a court case involving gay married couple who moved back to the PR's home country in Europe and that PR ended up losing PR, despite being still married and living with the Canadian citizen spouse - on the grounds that since the citizen followed the PR, it was the citizen who accompanied the PR there and not the other way around, so the PR did not benefit from the policy.
The other point, even if it is an unambiguous case of a PR who follows a citizen abroad - potentially with Canadian citizen children - well, the unfortunate happens. I ... strongly dislike the idea of a person being told that they are being stripped of PR because they waited too long to tie up affairs in the other country before trying to come back after the death of their spouse.
In fact there are many countries - China, Korea, Japan - that more strongly follow the rule of ius sanguinis and allow for unlimited generations abroad to have citizenship.
In Canada's case, I believe that happened more recently. It's literally been less than six months since C-3 passed on Dec 15, 2025. And even then there is a "substantial connections" test that must be passed going forward, presumably at some point those generations abroad will cease bothering to establish the required ties and thus the link will break. Similar to how France follows ius sanguinis but also has a désuétude rule for failing to have possession d’état de Français within the last 50 years.
Yes, I already gave the example of Germany earlier. Though I am also aware of one counter-example (Italy limiting dual citizenship to two generations abroad - unless certain residency requirements on those born abroad are met - ironically bring it more in line with the recent Canadian rules above).
Yes, and we've seen in the past that they often have very long waits.
Would be good to see the actual numbers or stats as a confirmation, though I'm inclined to agree... after all folks are working hard to spread the news so that folks in this group won't make that mistake and will wait until citizenship first.
Even if it's an insignificant number, the consequences are quite devastating - hence why they need to, absolutely must wait for citizenship first.
I disagree with these folks taking these kinds of risks - and in general I don't have an issue with more consistent enforcement of the rules that should equally apply to everyone.
The problem in this specific scenario is that, while it's meant to catch cheaters, but it's instead sweeping up folks who are genuinely taking significant risks including to life and limb. While @dpenabill can speak more at length about this, my general understanding is that there's no exception based on proof of actually having faced danger - rather, as in the case I mention below, it's enough that you sought the protection of the home country (by getting or using their passport/travel doc) and obtained it on paper (by being let into the home country on it) nevermind that you're thrown into a foreign jail for a couple of years.
Yes. This law about stripping PR status from refugees (something unique to Canada) being a case in point. I really wanna believe that these many good people would be shocked and horrified to discover that a father and mother who risked everything to rescue their son (successfully, in the end) and grandmother (failed to to her death) are now being stripped of PR as recently discussed in https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-for-citizenship.333455/page-77#post-11141892
Now, I understand that some of the changes - like allowing generations born abroad to pass citizenship on as long as they live three years in Canada before a child is born abroad that happened six months ago - were done because of human rights. So this raises an interesting pair of questions:
Would a majority of people be shocked and not want a change in the law to relieve human rights issues?
and
If they do, should the will of the majority override the human rights concerns? Can we abuse human rights just because we have a majority vote backing that?
I, for one, like to think that the answer to both questions is a solid no. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.
I kinda see your point but I also kinda feel like - we don't need to kill ourselves to rush over to deal with this. Rather, just prepare some good proposals, and if it turns out this bridge has to be crossed - which it may not, then it can be dealt with then.
Not sure I'm understanding you here. So if you don't like ius soli or ius sanguinis ... then what? A newborn in Canada with solely Canadian parents is ... stateless until they can pass their naturalization test? What exactly are you proposing here?
What I find really interesting here is that I wrote a proposal, that I thought addressed some of your concerns, and you didn't comment on it.
It's really easy to say something generically vague like "Many of these policies hurt Canada and need to be reassessed" (after all, everything has a downside). It's much harder to actually come up with a good replacement.
As mentioned in my other post above, countries do seem to be converging - Italy made a recent change - to be similar to Canada's own rule - regarding generations. (Canada used to say no, Italy used to say, yes always. Now it's limited to just one or two unless there's two or three years of living in the country for each ancestor born abroad.)
The two seem unrelated. The former seems to only be true on paper, and the latter ... it seems like a release value for folks who were prevented from making plans earlier due to delays at IRCC and such.
In fact I suspect that this is true with much of the gripes - on paper the rules are short and generous, but in practice IRCC is so backlogged and delayed that they need this "generosity" in order to paper over the timelines and prevent them from stretching to become unreasonable.
To clarify, it's two years or 730 days as a visitor max that be counted for 1 year or 365 days max as a credit to the citizenship requirement.
Significant number (or percentage) of credits? Sure.
Significant number of people using it? Not counting spouses, family members, etc - I've heard of zero people being able to take advantage of this. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
This might also be related to the point of papering over timelines above. We look more generous, but once you factor in the backlog, the timelines look the same as for a place where they're longer on paper but the processing is done on time.
Did the lawyer advice you on how long you'd have to wait before it becomes unlikely that they'd ever send you that notice? It's been no more than a couple of months if I've got my timeline right here, I don't know if there's a legal limit on time after which they are no longer allowed to bring that notice, or if you are just left waiting in limbo forever. Might be worth checking your GCMS note via ATIP just in case there's something in there mentioning it: atip-aiprp.apps.gc.ca
Edit: Thank you, btw, for keeping us informed of how it's going. Means a lot.
Last edited:
Some observations:
I generally steer wide of discussing what should be Canadian immigration policy, law, or rules. With some exceptions*** and distinguishing what practices should be employed, since what the practice should be depends on what will effect/implement the policies, laws, and rules the government has adopted, not on any debate about what the preferred social and political objectives are.
There's a critical difference in what should happen when two chemicals are mixed, versus whether someone should mix those chemicals, or even whether someone should be allowed to mix those chemicals. It's the difference between assessing what happens pursuant to existing law (including the laws of physics) versus deciding what law to adopt. AI suggests the distinction is the difference between the deontic sense of "should" versus the epistemic sense. That should cause a reasonable person to wince and say "enough with the esoteric, ersatz rationalizing."
And any discussion about what the law should be depends in large measure on first determining what the government's policy objectives are, what its policy should be. It gets complicated, damn complicated damn fast.
Frankly, notwithstanding the many reasoned and fair propositions propounded here (amid some irrational if not ludicrous ones, like comparing enforcement of tax filing laws, which mandate required action and prescribe criminal penalties, versus the Residency Obligation which does not mandate required action despite those who think it should), informal discussions of what the law should be, like those typical in this forum, tend to conflate and confuse more than they inform or illuminate. For example, given some very significant if not profound differences between the immigration policy objectives underlying Germany's approach to immigration versus Canada's, comparing details in the two country's naturalization procedures offers little if any insight into what Canada should adopt.
Overall, what the rules should be depends on what rules will effect what the law prescribes, and what the law should be (what the law should prescribe) depends on what will effect (implement) the policy objectives the government adopts. And in regards to what the country's policy objectives should be, that gets tangled and contested real fast.
It is, of course, far, far more complicated than that, not the least because there are many, many policy objectives to pursue, including more than a few which are competing and demand sensitive balancing, and given the numerous complexities of immigration, even when the policy objectives are clear, just navigating what will work can be a massively difficult enterprise.
Many find such discussions interesting. But they are a far tangent from discussing a PR's objectives and related concerns in actual circumstances. This topic/thread, in particular, is an active discussion of an ongoing situation, one that is relevant to concerns other PRs have in their personal situations, so hopefully this channel (so to speak) is kept open for @familyman86 to keep the forum apprised of future events in their case.
Reminder: It is not all that easy to keep track of what should happen pursuant to existing policies, laws, rules, and practices.
But I will address (trying to keep it brief) cessation . . .
*** Cessation Exception . . .
Pushing eight decades (my age showing?) of not being one to follow their own counsel, I breach my own admonition, that I should-not-focus on what-should-be, in regards to how cessation of refugee status is being applied to automatically strip the status of permanently settled Canadians with Permanent Resident status, with no hearing, no defenses based on having PR status, no allowances for H&C relief, no right of appeal (no right of appeal even as to cessation), when a PR who came to Canada as a refugee is deemed to have intended to embrace their home country's protection based on brief visits to the home country, even though the PR clearly has established their permanent residence in Canada and clearly intends to continue living in Canada.
Some may claim that since there is the right to a hearing attendant cessation of refugee status, that somehow suffices as a hearing for the termination of PR status. There are many reasons why this is not true, a tangent best discussed in a separate thread, but the main reason is that the cessation process does not allow a PR to raise any defenses based on the attributes of PR status, and the extent of the PR's establishment in Canada is largely if not entirely irrelevant, not taken into consideration, in the cessation process. It warrants noting that some of those whose status in Canada has been stripped pursuant to the cessation process includes individuals who had been PRs living in Canada for ten or twenty years or more. Roman Slepcsik, the plaintiff party in the case in which the Federal Court heard and dismissed Charter/Constitutional arguments recently, had been living in Canada for more than 23 years when a cessation action was initiated against him.
The FCA states in that case:
Maybe by the time Slepcsik returned to the Czech Republic 20 years after becoming a PR he should (in one sense) have known, and for sure, in terms of protecting his Canadian status, otherwise he should (in the other sense) have known. But there is no way, none at all, that he could have known that, that he could have known that when he first returned to the Czech Republic in 2001 that was putting his PR status at risk. There was no way for him to know returning to his home country would risk his PR status at any time before December 2012. That's because it was not until 2012 that Canada revised its laws to strip PRs of their status if their protected status was deemed ceased (for a reason other than the reasons for which they sought protection have ceased), let alone do so automatically.
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP and other PRs who have every intent to follow through with becoming a permanent resident of Canada in fact in addition to having Permanent Resident status. I am especially sympathetic for those who make a concerted effort to physically make the move but this or that impediment delays doing do so. And Canada still seems to largely be lenient toward many of those who fail to make the move on time to avoid breaching the RO.
But compare the PR (other than one with protected person status) who, a little over three years after landing is arriving in Canada after being outside Canada more than three years (more than 1095 days) since their landing, just in Canada fewer than hundred or so days, who has goods odds of no challenges to their status but if there are challenges, they can present H&C reasons for allowing them to keep their PR status, and if that fails they have a right of appeal in which H&C considerations can be presented anew; compare them with Slepcsik, a PR for more than two decades, settled in Canada for more than two decades, who in the 22 years following his becoming PR since 1999 had visited his home country a total of just eight times, for whom there are NO defenses based on H&C and no right of appeal.
Warrants further comment . . . but not here. This thread is about PRs who are intending to return to Canada to establish in fact residence here but have concerns because they are not in compliance with the RO.
I generally steer wide of discussing what should be Canadian immigration policy, law, or rules. With some exceptions*** and distinguishing what practices should be employed, since what the practice should be depends on what will effect/implement the policies, laws, and rules the government has adopted, not on any debate about what the preferred social and political objectives are.
There's a critical difference in what should happen when two chemicals are mixed, versus whether someone should mix those chemicals, or even whether someone should be allowed to mix those chemicals. It's the difference between assessing what happens pursuant to existing law (including the laws of physics) versus deciding what law to adopt. AI suggests the distinction is the difference between the deontic sense of "should" versus the epistemic sense. That should cause a reasonable person to wince and say "enough with the esoteric, ersatz rationalizing."
And any discussion about what the law should be depends in large measure on first determining what the government's policy objectives are, what its policy should be. It gets complicated, damn complicated damn fast.
Frankly, notwithstanding the many reasoned and fair propositions propounded here (amid some irrational if not ludicrous ones, like comparing enforcement of tax filing laws, which mandate required action and prescribe criminal penalties, versus the Residency Obligation which does not mandate required action despite those who think it should), informal discussions of what the law should be, like those typical in this forum, tend to conflate and confuse more than they inform or illuminate. For example, given some very significant if not profound differences between the immigration policy objectives underlying Germany's approach to immigration versus Canada's, comparing details in the two country's naturalization procedures offers little if any insight into what Canada should adopt.
Overall, what the rules should be depends on what rules will effect what the law prescribes, and what the law should be (what the law should prescribe) depends on what will effect (implement) the policy objectives the government adopts. And in regards to what the country's policy objectives should be, that gets tangled and contested real fast.
It is, of course, far, far more complicated than that, not the least because there are many, many policy objectives to pursue, including more than a few which are competing and demand sensitive balancing, and given the numerous complexities of immigration, even when the policy objectives are clear, just navigating what will work can be a massively difficult enterprise.
Many find such discussions interesting. But they are a far tangent from discussing a PR's objectives and related concerns in actual circumstances. This topic/thread, in particular, is an active discussion of an ongoing situation, one that is relevant to concerns other PRs have in their personal situations, so hopefully this channel (so to speak) is kept open for @familyman86 to keep the forum apprised of future events in their case.
Reminder: It is not all that easy to keep track of what should happen pursuant to existing policies, laws, rules, and practices.
But I will address (trying to keep it brief) cessation . . .
*** Cessation Exception . . .
Pushing eight decades (my age showing?) of not being one to follow their own counsel, I breach my own admonition, that I should-not-focus on what-should-be, in regards to how cessation of refugee status is being applied to automatically strip the status of permanently settled Canadians with Permanent Resident status, with no hearing, no defenses based on having PR status, no allowances for H&C relief, no right of appeal (no right of appeal even as to cessation), when a PR who came to Canada as a refugee is deemed to have intended to embrace their home country's protection based on brief visits to the home country, even though the PR clearly has established their permanent residence in Canada and clearly intends to continue living in Canada.
Some may claim that since there is the right to a hearing attendant cessation of refugee status, that somehow suffices as a hearing for the termination of PR status. There are many reasons why this is not true, a tangent best discussed in a separate thread, but the main reason is that the cessation process does not allow a PR to raise any defenses based on the attributes of PR status, and the extent of the PR's establishment in Canada is largely if not entirely irrelevant, not taken into consideration, in the cessation process. It warrants noting that some of those whose status in Canada has been stripped pursuant to the cessation process includes individuals who had been PRs living in Canada for ten or twenty years or more. Roman Slepcsik, the plaintiff party in the case in which the Federal Court heard and dismissed Charter/Constitutional arguments recently, had been living in Canada for more than 23 years when a cessation action was initiated against him.
The FCA states in that case:
[27] The Applicant did not travel to the Czech Republic until 2001, that is, after he obtained PR status in 1999, and maintains he was unaware that by returning to the Czech Republic he risked his PR status.
Maybe by the time Slepcsik returned to the Czech Republic 20 years after becoming a PR he should (in one sense) have known, and for sure, in terms of protecting his Canadian status, otherwise he should (in the other sense) have known. But there is no way, none at all, that he could have known that, that he could have known that when he first returned to the Czech Republic in 2001 that was putting his PR status at risk. There was no way for him to know returning to his home country would risk his PR status at any time before December 2012. That's because it was not until 2012 that Canada revised its laws to strip PRs of their status if their protected status was deemed ceased (for a reason other than the reasons for which they sought protection have ceased), let alone do so automatically.
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP and other PRs who have every intent to follow through with becoming a permanent resident of Canada in fact in addition to having Permanent Resident status. I am especially sympathetic for those who make a concerted effort to physically make the move but this or that impediment delays doing do so. And Canada still seems to largely be lenient toward many of those who fail to make the move on time to avoid breaching the RO.
But compare the PR (other than one with protected person status) who, a little over three years after landing is arriving in Canada after being outside Canada more than three years (more than 1095 days) since their landing, just in Canada fewer than hundred or so days, who has goods odds of no challenges to their status but if there are challenges, they can present H&C reasons for allowing them to keep their PR status, and if that fails they have a right of appeal in which H&C considerations can be presented anew; compare them with Slepcsik, a PR for more than two decades, settled in Canada for more than two decades, who in the 22 years following his becoming PR since 1999 had visited his home country a total of just eight times, for whom there are NO defenses based on H&C and no right of appeal.
Warrants further comment . . . but not here. This thread is about PRs who are intending to return to Canada to establish in fact residence here but have concerns because they are not in compliance with the RO.
Italy’s new citizenship by descent rules are much stricter than Canada’s current changes and Canada’s changes only apply going forward.
It's unusual that I see something like this - your posts are usually high quality and very well informed. But this time...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Here's how it is:
However, C-3 restores the lost citizenship of folks born by descent abroad WITHOUT that "having lived in Canada" requirement for those born before December 15, 2025. Which is less restrictive than the changes that are applying going forward.
Italy only requires two years vs Canada's three years for the citizenship-by-descent "upgrade".
Canada also says it must be your parent who is a citizen at the time of your birth (i.e. a strictly unbroken line even before December 2025), while Italy also allows it through the grandparents in some circumstances.
Finally, even for those who fall out of qualifying for citizenship by descent, Italy has some fast tracks for these "near-misses" folks to naturalize, while Canada has no special exceptions - a descendant who has a non-qualifying Canadian parent and non-Canadian parent, or two non-qualifying Canadian parents, has to get in line with everyone else.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Here's how it is:
Not true. The only part that applies going forward is that if you were born ON OR AFTER December 15, 2025 and your Canadian parent (or both parents if both Canadian) was born abroad, then your parent needs to have lived 1,095 days (three years) in Canada at some point prior to your birth for you to qualify for Canadian citizenship at birth.
However, C-3 restores the lost citizenship of folks born by descent abroad WITHOUT that "having lived in Canada" requirement for those born before December 15, 2025. Which is less restrictive than the changes that are applying going forward.
I don't see this. It's certainly true that Italy's new rules are much stricter than their old rules, but compared to Canada's new rules:
Italy only requires two years vs Canada's three years for the citizenship-by-descent "upgrade".
Canada also says it must be your parent who is a citizen at the time of your birth (i.e. a strictly unbroken line even before December 2025), while Italy also allows it through the grandparents in some circumstances.
Finally, even for those who fall out of qualifying for citizenship by descent, Italy has some fast tracks for these "near-misses" folks to naturalize, while Canada has no special exceptions - a descendant who has a non-qualifying Canadian parent and non-Canadian parent, or two non-qualifying Canadian parents, has to get in line with everyone else.
Now if you have wrote this, I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly. Of course, this goes to dpenabill's point about "very significant if not profound differences between the immigration policy objectives". Italy's changes are designed to encourage, for lack of a better term, "near-Italians" to return to Italy and live there. By contrast, Canada doesn't have a similar need and its own citizenship changes were driven by very different factors.
Not relevant. Italy's situation, and its immigration objectives, and its immigration challenges, as a nation that is a member of the European Union and unlike Canada not just in terms of climate, size, or population density (Italy having a population density around 24 times Canada's), and even more than the dramatic difference in the extent to which industries related to natural resources are factors in their respective economies, are just plain too different to rationally draw inferences from a comparison of isolated details in their citizenship and immigration schemes. It's like examining conditions for growing olives and tomatoes, and comparing that with those for growing corn, cattle, and lumber.
Totally off topic in a discussion about the situation faced by a PR who has been delayed making the settlement move to Canada, resulting in failing to meet the Residency Obligation. This subject, and the OP's situation in particular, should be of key interest for those following RO enforcement practices. I am particularly interested in finding out what follows now, considering the OP's report about their arrival here just over two months ago:
How this goes, particularly for a PR who arrived here just a bit more than three years after they did a soft landing, whose PR card was valid for nearly two more years, is clearly of key interest in this part of the forum regarding PR obligations.