I can give you a good example of the kinds of cases that we typically used the subsection 5(4) provision for, before the introduction and bringing into law of Bill C-37. We had a lot of cases where individuals, so-called border babies, lived in Canada, their families lived in Canada, but for whatever reason--the closest hospital may have been in the United States, across the border--the mother travelled to the United States to give birth. She came back to Canada shortly after the child was born on the presumption that because the family were Canadian, they lived in Canada and simply used a hospital that was across the border, the child would naturally be Canadian. Years passed. The child then either applied for a passport or some legal document that caused somebody to check their legal status and determined that their birth was never actually registered when they came back to Canada. They've lived in Canada all their lives. They've presumed they were Canadian citizens all their lives. Their parents were both Canadian. It was simply the circumstances of their birth that caused them to not be Canadian.
That's an example of attachment to the country, living in the country for virtually all their life, believing they were Canadian all their life, not being a citizen of another country, so we invoke the subsection 5(4) discretionary grant to provide citizenship in those cases.
That's the best, cleanest example of this.