That's a pretty substantial answer to get because, if we're creating an administrative burden for the department, especially 1,095 days that could be parsed out over many years.... For example, the older the person, and the more series of days, weeks, months or years they could be in Canada, if they travel back and forth for whatever reason, then they could make an application through the system. If it's just a declaration, the government, after the fact, would have to demonstrate...so then it's a different administrative burden to figure it out.
I think it would be much easier to say “consecutive”, “successive” or something like that. Then it would take, basically, someone living here, going to school here and working here and having established themselves for several years.
It would be an easier thing to prove to the department if you were in Canada for an extended period of continuous time and, therefore, have that substantial connection. That is easier to prove, so the department would have an easier way to understand it.
That information is actually really critical for us to understand. If that “day counting” is not being done anymore, and it's just an attestation, then the government would have to spend more time on the back end double-checking everybody's declarations when they submit them. I think that would be problematic without another subamendment to this. I know you can't move another subamendment to say something like “continuous” or “successive” so it's three continuous years. You could go to school here for three years, like high school or elementary school, or something like that.
I was just thinking out loud, Madam Chair.