Unfortunately, she still won't hit 1095 days. That is basically 3 years. Unless you live there it is difficult to meet.
That would seem to be the point.
Well we can argue whether it's actually difficult, but I could agree that it's not trivial.
Three years total time in Canada over ... well, let's say your spouse is 25 years old (just for sake of some calcs), that would mean spending only a month and a half each year, or basically doing an undergraduate degree in Canada. Even that is not that much in terms of 'substantial ties.'
One side of her family all live in Canada and we visit them frequently. Her Canadian father does too, in fact he never naturalized in the US where he lives. In a sense my kid could very well decide to live there when he is all grown up. One can argue that is not good enough reason to be awarded the citizenship but the fact that there is family there whom we visit a lot, own property up there and thinking about our family member's future residency in Canada probably should account for something. Heck, he could not even get a PR status without us (his mother in particular) meeting the residency requirements in Canada. If he had a clear path to the PR status I'd be content with that.
"Probably should account for something" - well, what would account for something is the boy's mother moving to Canada and sponsoring.
But he (and you) do have a 'clear path.' You have over 20 years remaining to do so (assuming current sponsorship rules don't change, of which there's no indication they will with respect to spousal/dependent child sponsorship). That's a lot of flexibility and time to make a choice, if it's important to him or his mother. (The 'residence requirement' for the mother would involve only moving to Canada,but let's not go down that road at this point).
That's a very clear path, and unaffected by the expected changes.
Just for background: I got caught up in this as was born abroad (sort of by accident) and had no options apart from as above, despite having no foreign family ties whatsoever and residing in Canada from < one year old to age 30. (My child had no status in Canada until I sponsored her and we returned, where as a PR / minor child of a citizen she got a grant of citizenship fairly quickly).
I don't say this to say other specific cases are worthy or unworthy (esp as applies to your spouse). But I think most people would agree that IF you're going to draw the line somewhere (some object entirely to the concept), "extent of ties" is a not-crazy basis, and that wherever you draw the line, some are going to believe the line has been drawn just where it excludes them and is therefore unfair (although that doesn't logically follow).
BTW on the fairness matter: what I've mentioned here many times is that the USA has come down hard on the fairness aspect in that born-in-USA does NOT confer automatic right to pass on citizenship. The 'ties to USA' test applies to (parents of) ALL children born abroad - five years minimum for children born to one US-citizen parent, at least two of which after the age of 14.* In this context, the US does NOT discriminate between its citizens based solely on where they were born**, but only on the extent to which they have physical residency ties to USA.
If there's a basis to challenge the as-amended law (when it happens, which we still haven't seen) on the basis of fairness, it's going to be if the residency requirement ONLY applies to Canadians born abroad, because - no matter what people like to say - that actually DOES create a second class of citizenship. In other words, if they're going to apply a physical presence test for parents to pass on citizenship, there's no FAIR basis to apply it only to citizens born abroad. [Note I don't think government will do this - it will be unpopular and a pain in the arse to administer, but they do potentially leave themselves open to a challenge on basis of fairness.]
*I'm simplifying a wee bit as I don't fully understand the rules and there was one category for which less but they've changed it. Right now I think there's only one category that doesn't require five years, which is a child born of two US citizens - but they still require one of them to have had some physical presence. Also the USA considers some thigns like military service abroad as equivalent to US residence, but that doesn't surprise anyone.
**Note the US constitution still discriminates against naturalized citizens, because they can't qualify to be 'natural born citizens' (which I understand current jurisprudence considers those born abroad but who get citizenship from their parents to be). But discrimination that it's in the constitution is, by definition, constitutional.