The difference between what is being proposed and what is in the bill is that what's in the bill is any time before the birth of the child. It's a child who is born beyond the first generation, as long as the parent can meet the “substantial connection” any time before the birth of the child, versus the qualifying time frame the proposed amendment is suggesting. It's suggesting that the person would have to meet 1,095 days. It could be cumulative—it's not consecutive—based on the proposed amendment, but it has to be within a consecutive five-year period. That can restrict somebody who may actually spend more time in Canada, but not within a five-year period.
